[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 16 December 2005 at 11:47 AM.]

Lumber sawn from mature trees is just as good as it ever was unless disease affects it like it is doing with Hemlock.

Fully submersed wood will last almost indefinitely although the water does alter its chemistry somewhat giving it a unique coloration. But, once kiln dried, it isn't going to have any other quality that can't be found from the same species harvested today as long as it is coming from a mature specimen.

Slower growing wood will obviously produce a tighter grain than fast growing trees do. Trees harvested in deep valleys and Northern sides of mountains typically are straighter and tighter grained and yield a higher percentage of clear (FAS) and No 1 grade lumber.

Ash is efficient for production guitars because the drying costs are much less due to the fact that Ash is only 40% moisture content on the stump compared with say Red Oak that runs around 100%. Ash isn't as tight grained generally as a lot of woods, as it usually grows pretty fast. But it's a very good wood for building.

As for curly, birdseye maple, etc, those grains are very dense. I'm not sure how it affects the sound. It could actually hinder resonance and sustain because of its erratic grain configurations. That would be an interesting study.

The idea however that they don't grow wood like they used to simply isn't true. It's just that the percentage of good wood is considerablly less because trees are harvested at a younger age, thus the sapwood and heartwood percentages are much higher. Additionally, forest harvesting practices today are utilizing as much as 100% of the tree. Modern veneering technology produces many times the amount of veneer as older methods.

But on a yield per acre study, the 2nd and 3rd growth forests grow quicker, so it is unlikely that the volume of good wood per acre is any less than it used to be.

The big wood manufacturers utilize marketing strategies that dictate to us what kind of wood we want. They like to gear up to produce one specie at a time and if there is a large base of a particular tree coming to maturity, suddenly it will become all the rage.

A solid body instrument is a completely different animal. The magnetic pickups only receive vibrational energy from the metal strings, not from the body. Body resonance cannot add any volume to the electrical signal. Body resonance in fact drains vibrational energy from the strings and decreases sustain. Remember the inverse relationship between volume and sustain. Body vibration in a solid body instrument with magnetic pickups can reduce sustain, but the vibrational energy transferred to the body is lost as negligible acoustic sound (turn off the electricity and hear how faint it is), and is not transferred to the magnetic pickup, which can only react to vibrating metal, unless the pickup has become "microphonic," which is considered a serious flaw. But body resonance can affect the overtone pattern that reaches the pickup. Thus, it can mellow or brighten the tone. Also, a mushy soft body can simply deaden the tone and decrease sustain and volume, as can loose or complicated joints between the bridge or changer and the body, or between the neck and body of a regular guitar. So you want very dense and rigid materials for a solid body, like rock maple and ash. Highly configured grain patterns adversely affect solid body tone, because they make the body density inconsistent. So, boring uniform grain is preferred under mica or enamel finishes. Highly configured grain patterns in lacquer solid bodies are a compromise for appearance sake, but the loss is pretty subtle and easily tolerable. What we get from "tone woods" for either acoustic tops, sides and backs, or for solid bodies, is essentially an accident of nature, plus some curing and aging skills. Theoretically, synthetic composites and polymers could be intentionally designed to be superior. Whether anyone has actually accomplished that design goal is a matter of subjective opinion.

I don’t really know what I’m talking about. I’m just repeating what I’ve read.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 16 December 2005 at 09:13 PM.]

quote:

---

As for curly, birdseye maple, etc, those grains are very dense. I'm not sure how it affects the sound. It could actually hinder resonance and sustain because of its erratic grain configurations.

---

Mr. Franklin told me that exact thing one time when I was bugging him about a guitar he was going to build for me.

Carter has been building steels from the old growth woods. I'm sure John Fabian could weigh in with some actual first hand info.

Plug in any guitar and put the volume at playing level.
Put your hand on the strings so they don't vibrate(or better yet take The strings off).
Tap on the guitar or pickup with your finger tip---Hear anything

[This message was edited by Mark Vinbury on 17 December 2005 at 02:19 AM.]

The best sounding acoustic tops that I have heard of are made from spruce---OLD GROWTH ALASKAN SITKA SPRUCE. The supply is dwindling. I hope Garth is smashing "cheap" guitars!

But body resonance can have a SUBTRACTIVE effect. Body resonance will drain off overtones. Thus a very thick, hard body with little or no resonance will have a bright, even shrill, sound, with the maximum overtones present (think of a Tele or a Fender Stringmaster). A thinner body with some resonance (or a softer body with no resonance) will drain off some overtones and some fundamental sustain, and make the tone more mellow, but with less sustain (think of a hollow body jazz electric). On pedal steels, the complicated changer joints between the string and the body drain off some vibrational energy, and that is one reason pedal steels sound different from lap steels (pickup windings are the other main reason).

So yes the tiny amount of body resonance in a solid body can alter the overtone patterns and sustain. But it is in a subtractive way, and it's very subtle. It is no where near the major factor that top vibrations are for an acoustic guitar. I don't think anyone but players can hear the small difference between various solid body shapes and materials. But anyone can hear the difference between a solid body, a hollow body electric, and an acoustic with a magnetic pickup, or an electric banjo.

I currently own 10 Korean guitars. (3 Aslin Danes, 7 Ravens.) They all work just fine. In some cases I replaced the pickups. I defy ANYBODY to tell the difference in quality between the sounds these produce and the sounds yeilded by my more valuable vintage American guitars.

[This message was edited by Mark Vinbury on 17 December 2005 at 11:39 AM.]

I am yet to see composite material that has offers me the asthetic inspiration that a nice piece of wood does.

My son says he plays drums better when he uses his hand-selected oriental carpet because the colors and patterns inspire him. I can't argue with the results. I believe that their is a lot of psychological advantage to playing an instrument that appeals to us. When listening to playback, my GFI sounds as good and in someinstances better to my ears than my ZB, but the old ZB is so nice to look at that it feels warmer and friendlier than the green GFI and I know that it inspires me more.

As Webb says, what constitutes "good" wood depends on the application. For example, very tightly-grained German or Adirondack spruce has been considered the best tonewood for steel-strung acoustic guitar tops. There's some still around, but it's getting scarcer. For the backs, Brazilian rosewood is favored for its high density, and what little exists is insanely pricey. How much of this scarcity is due to the CITES treaty and how much is due to real scarcity is not so clear, to me at least.

Donny points out that new-growth wood is lighter and less sturdy. This is not always a disadvantage. Classic 50s Tele bodies are made of ash. The weight on these varies some, but generally the ones most people seem to like, and I agree, are made of lightweight swamp or skunk ash. Fender moved to other woods like alder in the 60s, but tried to bring back the ash look in the 70s and onward, culminating in the 52 reissue in 82. One of the main complaints about especially the 70s guitars was that the ash was often extremely heavy - a lot of people consider them "boat anchors" - I've owned several like that. In solid-body guitars, lightweight is often an advantage. If the only thing one cares about is sustain, well, perhaps heavier wood is better. But to me, if it sounds good, it is good.

On the other hand I couldn't agree with you more about the endearing asthetic qualities of a wooden instrument.I love the GFI for the machine that it is but when I eventually get one I will have to cover it with some real wood.

[This message was edited by Mark Vinbury on 18 December 2005 at 12:45 PM.]

First of all the "Tap Test" isn't a very good one. You can have Isolated (in some cases such as Sierras, intentional) pickups that transmit little or no body noise, all the way to microlitic (microphonic?) pickups that pickup more than a desired amount of body noise. I've always liked Sho~Buds for the transmission of this noise. It makes them less than perfect for recording in my experience. You hear pedal noise you wouldn;t hear on a Sierra or maybe a Franklin.

I tried one time "isolating" my PUs on my PIII, and the result was a sterile sound much like other guitars with PU isolation, and I remounted them. My current Marrs Profess has extra springs under the PUs for improved sound transmission.

Now. Spruce was mentioned. Probably the overall numerical favorite of classical guitar makers for soundboards, Cedar being maybe second. Brazilian Rosewood, though I've found guitars like my old "Giannini" that had sides and backs made out of it were very clunky and toneless. I forget what my Federico Garcia's sides and back are made out of. Guess I could check. (After editing, I went up and looked to find the top of my old Giannini to be plywood, so that was probably where the "clunk" is from..)

Also I seem to remember reading that the Strads were made out of wood that had been submerged for a period so that the cell structure was somehow changed..

These "Swamp Ash" and "Agathis" woods, to me are another term for junk pulpwood like Poplar and Cottonwood. I don't know for sure, but I think it's a good guess.

The wood I'm interested in for maybe making an Ericaster™ is Cypress. Used for the front sides necks and back of flamenco guitars, I seem to remember it was light and brilliant in sound transmission.

Anybody try Cypress?

I hear a lot about it, but is there a particular tree called the "Morning" tree? Why is it so highly prized?

EJL

PS in editing. An Interesting Link for Classical Guitar Info that answered some of my questions

[This message was edited by Eric West on 18 December 2005 at 09:51 AM.]

However, how the pickup, or anything else is attached to the soundboard or body could alter how the body resonates I guess. That could have a big effect on an acoustic top. It's hard to imagine much effect on a solid body instrument, unless the body was substantially altered in the process. Pedal steel pickups are usually mounted on springs, so the height can be adjusted. There is essentially no resonance passing between the body and the pickup (there is essentially no resonance anyway in a solid body).

But if you solidly attached the pickup to the body, how much difference could that make? Well, the strings are vibrating, and that generates most of the signal. If vibrations pass from the strings through the changer and nut into the body, and the pickup is attached solidly to the body, then the pickup could vibrate ever so slightly, while the strings are vibrating orders of magnitude more above the pickup. I suppose the faint pickup vibrations could interact with the string vibrations and somehow affect the signal. I mean, you can get a signal by either moving the strings, or moving the pickup in relation to the strings. But in a solid body instrument, those minute body and pickup vibrations have got to be many orders of magnitude less than the string vibrations. So I can't imagine what is going on that would make the mounting method of the pickup affect tone. But I'll take your word that something is going on.

Do a thought experiment. Attach a magnetic pickup to a solid block of wood. Without strings or other metal moving over the pickup, how are you going to get any signal out of it. Unless it has gone microphonic with loose wires inside that can move within the magnetic field, you should be able to bang on that piece of wood with hammer, or attach it to any kind of nonmetal vibrating device, and there will never be any signal from that pickup. If it were an acoustic pickup, that would be different. But it is a magnetic pickup.

quote:

---

The magnetic pickups only receive vibrational energy from the metal strings, not from the body.

---

As I see it doubling up the springs or hard fastening the pickup to the body changes the tone because more body vibration is transfered to the pickup.

Jon- Thanks for the pointer. I had a feeling this was discussed a while ago.

David- Here is another one .Turn up an amplified solid body guitar to stage level volume.Damp the strings with your hand.Strum the short strings above the nut.Hear anything?
No magnetic pickup up there.
I do this on my TrueTone equipped lap steel and the plinking is loud and clear.Granted not stage volume but definitely amplified.
The pickup is screwed firmly to the body(no foam or springs).

[This message was edited by Mark Vinbury on 18 December 2005 at 11:53 AM.]

I'll tell you, the biggest laugh I've had in years was a recent ad for Venitian blinds made out of "Wood Alloy"...

Maple is indeed great, and I have noticed that my standard figured maple The Professional" seems to have as bright a tone as my metal neck PIII, being birdseye. Same pickups.

I am very interested in either Spanish Cedar ( which I have it is not 'cypress') or Cypress to make my Ericaster™ with a repop slightly wider neck.

David Doggett.

That's one of the most surprising observations I've heard of besides the "flatting the thirds" thing.. (ducks..)

Still looking for that "Morning Tree" people are always talking about..

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 18 December 2005 at 12:20 PM.]

On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of players can't really hear the minute differences that they think they can. I'd like to see a huge "pluck off" where hundreds of experts listen too and play instruments blindfolded, and I'll bet the results would be like those blindfolded taste tests of beer and cola--random. (You can tell near-beer from Heineken, but you can't tell Schlitz from Blatz.) And any sound differences could be cancelled out live and in the studio by using sound processing.

------------------
"Drinking up the future, and living down the past"--unknown singer in Phoenix

[This message was edited by Darryl Hattenhauer on 18 December 2005 at 07:21 PM.]

However, if I tapped with my finger picks directly onto the plastic top of my new Truetone pickup, I heared a faint tapping through the speaker. I guess no pickup is totally free of microphonics. But even this sound was many times quieter than when I picked the strings. If that pickup tapping was done while I was playing, it would be completely drowned out and contribute nothing to the sound.

So I still remain very skeptical about pickup mounting affecting playing tone. I would have to see an AB blindfold test to believe it.

I took a look at the experiments on solidbody guitar body vibrations. As they said, the movie illustrations were greatly exagerated, because the actual vibrations are too small to see, even though they were tapping with a hammer. I'm still thinking these vibrations, although they can be measured with instruments, are too faint to contribute to tone, compared to the vibrations of the strings themselves and the direct pickup signal.

Here's a good test. If you press down with your hand on the top of an acoustic guitar while playing, the tone is affected. You can hear your hand damping the vibrations in the guitar top. But if you press or hold the top of a solidbody electric, there is no change in tone. Whatever minute body resonance might exist is too faint to make any difference in the pickup signal.

If you mount a magnetic pickup on an acoustic guitar, the top vibrations affect the string vibrations, which changes the signal in the pickup, and changes tone. Same with a hollowbody electric, only less so. But in a solidbody electric - nah. Maybe we could hear a difference between a softwood body and a hardwood body. But the difference between two similar hardwoods, or the difference between finishes? I'd have to see a blindfold test to believe anyone could tell. I just remain skeptical of the audible influence of minor differences on solidbody electric guitar tone. Eliminating such tone inconsistencies was sort of the whole point in inventing the solidbody electric guitar.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 18 December 2005 at 11:09 PM.]

There's an entire industry built up now based on manufacturing "boutique" fuzzboxes, all based on tiny variations of the old Tube Screamer circuits, using this Germanium chip and that film cap and so on. A really good candidate for a blindfold test article would be comparing the $150, $200, $250 Fulltone and Jacques and Zvex (etc) fuzztones to a $15 Ebay Ibanez Soundtank. Like that's really going to happen....

[This message was edited by David Mason on 19 December 2005 at 01:54 AM.]

Take a Guild Emperor and thump it while it's plugged in. You'll hear a definite "drone note" like a drum, though maybe less pronounced. Same with an Gretsch CG, 335, or any hollowbody. A "Drone note". Magnetic pickup or not. Probably Bb. I'll check to see if there was ever any consideration of that in the "early days".

IMHO the Fender Telecaster provided the best "non droning" solid body electric instrument. There is no other type of electric guitar that I can listen to without noticing a "drone note". Mine is microphonic as hell. They're best thataway.( Tap on the body and it comes through the amp just like my Sho~Bud.)

Funny how he was trying reportedly to get a sound like a "steel guitar"..

I think he had a great idea.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 19 December 2005 at 10:13 PM.]

Of course if you tromp down all the way on the volume pedal, you can make those sympathetic vibrations moderately loud - but if you pick the strings of the neck turned on at that volume, it will blow your windows out. So the sympathetic vibrations that travel through the body are still many times fainter than picking the strings. Turn both necks on at the same time. If you play one, can you hear anything from the other? How would you even know? The strings you are playing are many times louder than the sympathetic vibrations. So I maintain that string vibrations going into the solid body, causing it to resonate, and then going back into the strings, are so faint they have no appreciable effect on the playing tone or sustain.

Now what about sound being transferred not from string to body to string, but from strings, through the body, to a pickup? To hear that, do the same experiment as above, but damp the strings on the neck that has the pickup turned on. Hear anything from the amp? At any reasonable playing volume, you wont hear anything at all. If you turn the volume up loud enough on a powerful amp, you will hear something. But it's 10 times fainter than even the sympathetic vibrations we heard above. So that is the volume that pickup mounting variations have to play around with. I don't see how that could have any effect at all on normal playing tone.

So, yeah, you can knock on your guitar, play on the other neck, yell at the pickup, whatever, and tromp on your volume pedal and hear it. But hold that volume and strum the strings with normal pick pressure. It will blow your head off. The playing volume is many times louder than any of these effects.

Flamenco guitarists tap on their acoustic guitar top like a drum while playing. And you can hear it like a drum, right alongside the string strumming. Try that with a solidbody electric guitar. You got no taps. The resonance of a solidbody guitar contributes nothing compared to the volume coming from the strings and pickups.

The bottom line to me is that solidbody resonance is not a complete myth, it's just too faint to have an effect on anything. Practically speaking it's a myth. Of course if you use soft or mushy wood, and have sloppy connections between nut or bridge and body, or at the body neck joint of a six-string, that can deaden string vibrations and darken tone and kill sustain. But if you have a tight fitting, hardwood solidbody, minor variations in type of wood or finish are just not going to make audible differences in tone and sustain - nothing like minor variations in top wood or fan bracing in an acoustic guitar. But all these electric pickers, and all the manufacturers, go on about solidbody tone variations as if they were talking about Stradivarius violins or fine old Martins. I think it's a joke. They get all their tone from strings, pickups and amps. But I got no illusions about ever convincing the faithful.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 19 December 2005 at 11:29 PM.]

Here is 2 of my favorite guitars in action. They are G&L's and both are swamp ash. Swamp ash is light in weight and sounds great. They are great to gig with. I remember back in the '70's, trying to hold up a Les Paul for a 4 set gig.....forget about it!

------------------
Zum U-12 w/True Tone pickup thru a Nashville 112

Strats thru a VHT Super 30

Band Pics
http://community.webshots.com/album/176544894AuXSmi

jonchristopherdavis.com

www.lonestarattitude.net