Guitar made from concrete.

[king casey]

99% mythology seems a bit strong.

More like 99% mental.

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.

[fender3x]

When you mention it, King, it really stands out. We all love guitars, but the gear is definitely less interesting than the musician.

[guitalias]

& this example, 50% of the tonewood eliminated https://youtu.be/T7_O_8_ZeS8

[Sonic Mountain]

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.

[JimC]

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.

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.

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.

[king casey]

Plus when people don't like the results they usually try and discredit the research rather than change their preconceptions.

Just like the tin hat brigade with their denial regarding Covid 19.
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.

[fender3x]

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.

[Sonic Mountain]

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.

[JimC]

principles of electromagnetic induction are pretty simple. The vibrating steel strings in the magnetic field of the pickups induce a current in the windings..

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.
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.

[Rabbitz]

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?".