Found this on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDyz...raftedWorkshop
Printable View
Found this on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDyz...raftedWorkshop
20lbs! Sheesh!
Melvyn Hiscock makes reference in his Guitar building tome to a guitar that was submitted to Gibson for evaluation. It was made from granite. Both that and this concrete effort solely intended for hard rock one assumes.
Quote:
A lot of you are probably asking how a guitar made of concrete sounds versus a guitar made of wood?
and honestly...I don't think it sounds any different.
Time to insert a discussion about layers of varnish deadening the resonance here.
cheers, Mark.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by king casey
You win the internet for today.
:p
I reckon this guitar made from concrete basically renders all those arguments about tone woods null and void, just listen to how nice it sounds.
Would be perfect for playing "Hard as a rock" by AC/DC......sorry, couldn't resist....lol.
Basic physics and the lack of a resonant cavity did that. Unfortunately not enough people study physics.
There is probably a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder
However not enough that the average player would notice, and certainly no audience member.
There's also a number of bells, whistles and baubles for sale to hang off your saxophone to 'enhance' the sound.
The same result.
Snake oil gadgets to lure in the fools with more money than sense.
cheers, Mark.
"Tone Wood" is 99% marketing mythology in a solid body electric. Acoustics are a very different story and I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes from.
99% mythology seems a bit strong. There's no doubt that the whole body and neck of an electric guitar vibrates, you only have to press it against your ear. And the various parts of the instrument do have resonances. And because physics the vibration of the body affects the vibration of the strings, and so there must be a particular pattern of harmonics, overtones and so on that are attributable to the body and body material and the way it vibrates. But then the magnetism of the pickups also must affect how the strings behave, so there's a world of complication even before you get to everything involving electrical signals.
How much, well that's another question. I am, for instance, unconvinced that every piece of wood used in Fender's US factory is superior to every piece used in their Mexican and Japanese factories is superior to that used in Chinese factories. The very fact that the super keen collectors pay so much attention to provenance makes me doubt whether they can distinguish tone. The properties of individual pieces of wood must make a difference, and if that is the case it seems unlikely that an instrument which happens to get two of the best bits of wood in a Chinese factory is inferior to that which happens to get two of the worst bits of wood in an American one. Whether those differences are enough for the majority of listeners to distinguish is another matter.
I would be interested to see a blind test of say a dozen Stratocasters from various sources with identical electrics where people had to see if they could consistently distinguish one from another and rank them best to worst. Its certain some folk would have much better ability to distinguish tone than others. Blind tests I see on YouTube and the like seem inadequate to really pin this stuff down.
& this example, 50% of the tonewood eliminated https://youtu.be/T7_O_8_ZeS8
The sound from a solid body electric is generated in the pickups and managed via the electronics. End of story. The bridge and nut do affect to how well the strings can vibrate so they are also contributing factors. All of the other vibrations/resonances may be noticable if you are the one playing the guitar as you can feel it in your hand and hear some of them depending on the situation but absolutely none of that translates to the signal being outputted by the electronics in a meaningful way, and if it does at all, the effect is negligible.
I understand this is an unpopular opinion, mostly due to the amount of utter garbage floating around guitar circles regarding this, but I won't be swayed from it.
I am not sure there is much difference between body materials all other things being equal. I am certain, however, that suggesting that their might or might not be is a good way to start an argument.
That said, I hope we can all agree that a concrete guitar is a terrible idea. Except maybe for the blues. When I think of a 20 lb guitar I can almost feel the pain it would cause my back, or when I stub my toe on it in a dark room. Or when it falls on something I care about. That's pain and pain is the root of the blues. So maybe for blues.
More like 99% mental.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC
I was just watching an interesting youtube video featuring 'Louie Shelton'
Some interesting anecdotes about playing styles and artists he worked with interrupted by the host banging on about the gear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDLAoyREw6U
cheers, Mark.
When you mention it, King, it really stands out. We all love guitars, but the gear is definitely less interesting than the musician.
Do you know of any research or science that demonstrates that? I would be interested to see it. I used to be a paid up member of the "its all in the pickups" club, but I've changed my mind in recent years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Mountain
The trouble with this sort of thing is that doing real science to demonstrate what is really going on is hard, and takes lots of money and even more time and commitment, so its rarely done. Especially if people are afraid they might not like the results. Plus when people don't like the results they usually try and discredit the research rather than change their preconceptions. It would interest me to see an experimental instrument built and carefully recorded, with, say, wood chopped off body neck and headstock until finally nothing left. Make a little machine to pick the strings in exactly the same place and pressure each time, and then the waveforms compared. Would they be exactly the same or would there be differences? Would the differences be sufficient to be audible to the average member of public/average musician/musician with particularily precise hearing? I have no idea, but, here's the issue, I am not so very interested as to be planning to actually do the science.
Just like the tin hat brigade with their denial regarding Covid 19.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC
Championed by global visionaries like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison.
Based upon pure selfishness and greed...and of course some folk simply like to argue for the sake of it.
Denial of the years of 'science' research into modern production of guitars and amplifiers.
The same folk that claim to hear differences in vintage instruments and new ones also tend to claim
valve amps are superior to solid state ones.
cheers, Mark.
I’m on holidays and not going to try and dig up articles on my phone, however the principles of electromagnetic induction are pretty simple. The vibrating steel strings in the magnetic field of the pickups induce a current in the windings. This is the signal that is sent to the amp and boosted. The same principle then takes place in the speaker where the signal is converted back into vibrations, which push the cone creating sound. The wood simply has no effect in this process. The string vibrates between the points it contacts on the bridge and nut. Those materials may affect the vibration and sustain of said vibrations. The wood these things are mounted on does not, even if the body does vibrate, these vibrations cannot the be picked up electromagnetic induction process. Any vibration of the body feeding into the string vibration would be so tiny as to be imperceptible in a solid body electric. A hollow body or electric acoustic may develop some microphonics, due to the large internal cavity, however such additional signals are generally considered undesirable and do not make for nice ‘tone’ rather hum and feedback. That’s my take on it anyway.
I think that both camps have some of it right. It comes down to nuance and perception.
Forgive me if this goes a bit off-piste for a bit:
About eleventy million years ago, when I first realised that if I offered to carry heavy things then I could get into gigs for free (and they'd even pay me to do it) I started hanging around the sound and foldback desks to try and learn. Try as I might I'd watch the the sound guys adjust things, I knew what they were changing, but for the life of me I couldn't hear what they were changing. As time went on I found I could hear when things weren't right, then later I could hear when they got fixed (or not as the case may be).
Years later I'd go and see mates play and couldn't help but fiddle to fix the mix, I could hear it, why couldn't anyone else?
Even more years later (like now) that ability is fading as I no longer go to many gigs and certainly haven't stood at a desk for a very long time.
The point being I could hear the difference, as I bet many of you can, just like the guitarist, fiddle player, trombonist or drummer reckon they can hear the difference between different finishes, or different polish (?) or different drum sticks.
The thing is 99.999999999999999% of punters can't and even other muso's can't because they're not attuned to the nuances.
To be honest, the real world goes a bit more like "near enough for rock'n'roll" rather than "can you hear that change?".
Well there's another bone of contention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbitz
'Sound men are the bane of my life' - Wilbur Wilde.
As a saxophone player I can certainly empathise there.
A lot of people tend to listen with their eyes. They see a saxophone, assume it's going to be loud and then turn it way down.
After wasting my time going to many 'sound checks' getting all the levels right and then hearing it go out the window when the guitarist turns up his amp...provoking the drummer to start belting the crap out of those skins...
So glad that I am a solo performer now (or when the restrictions are eased off).
cheers, Mark.
Of course none of that is wrong... When I learned, however, from amplifier designers that the design of the speaker cabinet has an effect on the behaviour of the output stage of the amplifier I started to realise that music amplification was an awful lot more complicated than I thought. The question boils down to whether the vibration patterns of the body have an audible effect on the vibrations of the strings, and how great that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Mountain
The apparent existence of the phenomenon of bass guitar neck dead spots, for example, suggests there is some audible effect in some circumstances, but I haven't come across anything to actually put numbers on.
Maybe I should make an instrument with interchangeable bodies and try doing some tests.
Well sure, the amps construction is very important for getting the best out of the speaker, but they are constructed out of ply/craftwood/particle board etc. There (AFAIK) isn't a whole lot of discussion regarding the use of 'tonewood' in Amp construction, given the larger amount of vibrations you'd think perhaps it'd be more important there?
I completely agree it's a complicated discussion and there are a lot of variables. But you are right, excluding all other things, the fundamental question is - "Does the vibration of the body generate any kind of signal or contribute to or affect the way the signal is generated by the pickups?" and the follow up is "Are some woods/materials better than others?"
I will allow that there maybe some very, very small permutations in vibration caused by the body vibrating the nut/bridge and in turn the strings. But it is my very strong feeling that any effect would be extremely negligible weighed up with all other contributing factors. Certainly no where near what is claimed by 'tone wood' proponents.
It's clear from all of the various guitars build out of weird materials (such as the one that kicked off this discussion) that you can build them out of just about anything and they can still sound amazing. Especially when well played, with high quality electrics and amplification.
Nice wood is nice to hold and look at, and there is no doubt that the 'feel' of the guitar in your hands can be greatly affected by what it's made from and how it's finished. I think a lot of that, as well as the definite qualities wood imparts on acoustic guitars, combined with a lot of marketing and traditionalism, is why this argument endures in guitar circles.
It would be very interesting to do some controlled tests with everything being equal and bodies swapped, but also quite the undertaking and the methodology would have to be very tight as people will point to any discrepancies as flaws in the over all experiment.
Until I see some rigorous research to conclusively refutes my stance, I'm sticking to my view that it's mostly marketing and mythology, based on what I understand of physics and electronics.
It isn't just guitars. I see the same nonsense getting regularly played out in woodwind forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Mountain
Various 'blind' tests have been carried out comparing (e.g.) cheap Taiwanese instruments against expensive French ones.
It just sticks in the craw when you've spent thousands on that collector's item and it can't be clearly identified in a blind test.
At the end of the day, the only defining factor is that decal that's pasted on the headstock.
cheers, Mark.
If you want to boggle your mind, think seriously about what happens when you hit a string. Does it stretch and un stretch on each cycle? Does the bridge move up and down or back and forth? Does the neck fractionally bend and straighten? We are taught this simplistic model that the string moves with static nodes, and the bridge and nut are obviously end nodes so cannot be moving. So how does the vibration get in the body?
I think my mind is plenty boggled already. And then I realized something. Jimmy Vaughn has Fender Coronado II that is almost the same as mine but sounds way better. I realized that deep down I know that the difference between the way his and mine sound is more related to Jimmy Vaughn than is to differences in the hardware.
I don't think there will be much research done on this other than what people have already done A-B'ing various setups with a scope on YouTube. That has not seemed to convince many people.
There are some differences not related to pickups, cap and pot values or setup that are real and measureable. The real question is whether anything else has a meaningful effect on the sound. If you can't hear the difference--or even if you are just not sure whether you hear the difference--or if you ARE sure, but the difference is very slight-- what difference does it really make?
Whatever the difference it cannot be worth what that concrete guitar is going to do to someone's back.
You would also have to consider different people's hearing capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by fender3x
Different bone structure (density) and issues due to aging (i.e. Tinnitus etc).
So many variables out of your control.
My suggestion....just put the can-opener away.
cheers, Mark.
You left out neurology. You hear with your ears, but you listen with your brain. Part of what makes A-B testing so tricky is that what you hear is affected by what you are listening for.Quote:
Originally Posted by king casey
Yes however it could be included in 'variables' such as various degrees of dementia etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by fender3x
cheers, Mark.
I just had this mental picture of an old guy listening to "B" and saying "OK, I'm ready for the other one."Quote:
Originally Posted by king casey