Study suggests wood type has little effect on guitars' sound

[Deleted member 165050]

Speaking as a research scientist, this is incorrect. For the hypothesis, the method was relatively sound with few holes in the variance analysis and it was conducted in an efficiently controlled manner. Vibration analysis won't tell you anything about how a person perceives sound or quality of same. I recommend reading the original research article posted by @Frederiek in post #7.

Assessment of subjective opinions isn't really a substitute for accurate measurement and analysis, but then if it's only perception that's wanted... I guess the 10dB for twice as loud figure was arrived at in much the same way...

In my opinion this test proved that the specific construction was more important than the materials.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

The study is much more scientific than anyone else has provided in this thread, and much more reliable than hundreds of anecdotes and vibration analysis.

More reliable than vibration analysis? That's hilarious.

 

[rollie 55]

Assessment of subjective opinions isn't really a substitute for accurate measurement and analysis, but then if it's only perception that's wanted... I guess the 10dB for twice as loud figure was arrived at in much the same way...

In my opinion this test proved that the specie construction was more important than the materials.

this can be researched this as much

More reliable than vibration analysis? That's hilarious.

whatever its made of music comes from the sole wood and plastic etc cant play by itself. i could get a jazz bass and be jaco jaco is jaco. rolly 55 is rolly 55 our own soles our own tone fact.

 

[TN WOODMAN]

Little effect is a relative term. My wife had her stereo speakers placed upside down for several years before I met her and no one noticed they didn't sound right. When I turned them over it became obvious, even to my wife.

Little effect is a relative term. My wife had her stereo speakers placed upside down for several years before I met her and no one noticed they didn't sound right. When I turned them over it became obvious, even to my wife.

I've used JBL 4311 studio monitors for my home stereo system since the '70s. They are basically the studio version of the JBL L100 home model with higher power handling. Major difference? Woofer is on top, tweeter and midrange below. If the grills were off most wouldn't have a clue. But they were designed that way. Go figure.

 

[TN WOODMAN]

At 58 I was of the heavier is better school regarding instruments-give the the heaviest Les Paul or p or j-they just sound better. At my age now I'm just the opposite. The lighter the better. Actually I've played and heard light and heavy great sounding instruments. In fact my current favorite guitar is a super light aluminum bodied Telecaster.

 

[darwin-bass]

A thought: Personal philosophy regarding truth has everything to do with the conclusion.

If you believe that all truth, or at least the strongest, most reliable truth, comes from science and scientific evidence, you might conclude the case for tonewood is disproved via the experiments already performed. We can explain the many reports of tonewood making a difference as just anecdotal, carrying no scientific weight. Blind faith, not real science.

If your philosophy is that some truth is not readily determined by science then you might conclude the tonewood effect is poorly-suited to science and that personal experience by many through time is a reliable indicator that wood predictably affects the tone of even an electric instrument.

Perhaps?

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

More reliable than vibration analysis? That's hilarious.

A vibration analysis doesn't tell you much about what your ears will perceive.

 

[Tom Bomb]

since i build acoustics i just gotta retort:

Compliments on the post. Nicely put. The lads who wrote this li'l gem — Invalid Link Removed — wouldn't disagree. Such a challenge to make sense of all this stuff but critically important if you want to find your feet in this game and consistently produce the goods.

To support my faith in your perspective, from the link above, about the book,

A beautiful data driven approach to guitarmaking. Gore and Gilet apply physics, the science of hearing, advanced materials and building techniques on their quest to build "the perfect guitar". Each point is backed by mathematical modeling, testable results, and experimentation. Gore and Gilet discuss in great detail how every element and part of the guitar impacts its overall sound and performance. By carefully evaluating each of these elements scientifically, they devise what they consider to be the optimum way to design, shape, and install every facet of the instrument. …

From the authors: "The book covers the theory of sound and the guitar covering the science of acoustics, human perception of sound and hearing, vibration and resonance properties of materials, acoustic radiation, its application to the guitar, the process of building a guitar based from rough sawn wood up to finishing and set-up …

At the forefront's one of those 'older builders' you describe. He can knock 'em out

 

[pcake]

i don't believe it.

i used to play multiple acoustic guitars to people in guitar stores who didn't look, and they could always tell the difference between woods - they were sometimes beginners who couldn't define what they heard, but they could tell as i moved from guitar to guitar every single time. it's VERY easy to hear the difference between solid maple back and sides and say brazilian rosewood or another rosewood.

i first discovered this at grayson's tune town. there are two guild guitars they used to carry there that are made exactly the same except for back and side woods - same top wood (sitka), same bracing, same neck woods, same scale. one is very dark and one is bright and dry. i've played multiples of each, so it's not sample variance.

and i've had my husband and other people blind test me - acoustic guitars have a big difference using different woods unless a luthier works hard to compensate, and i can't imagine why one would bother to do that.

 

[James Collins]

i don't believe it.

i used to play multiple acoustic guitars to people in guitar stores who didn't look, and they could always tell the difference between woods - they were sometimes beginners who couldn't define what they heard, but they could tell as i moved from guitar to guitar every single time. it's VERY easy to hear the difference between solid maple back and sides and say brazilian rosewood or another rosewood.

i first discovered this at grayson's tune town. there are two guild guitars they used to carry there that are made exactly the same except for back and side woods - same top wood (sitka), same bracing, same neck woods, same scale. one is very dark and one is bright and dry. i've played multiples of each, so it's not sample variance.

and i've had my husband and other people blind test me - acoustic guitars have a big difference using different woods unless a luthier works hard to compensate, and i can't imagine why one would bother to do that.

The study wasn't designed like your blind test. It would be like your husband played something and asked you to rate it 1-5 on a good or bad scale. They may sound different but you might rate them as 4 out of 5 overall.

My wife and I do a lot of blind taste tests. It is just fun to try out. People confuse that higher price should equal better. I think of this like drinking whiskey. I can tell a distinct difference between bourbon, rye, Irish, Scotch, etc. I may still rate all of them as very good overall. So you can make reasonable whiskey from all sorts of grains. Even if it is easier to come by corn and better for the world to make all whiskey bourbon, and despite still producing very good whiskey, xxxxx whiskey will still have certain characteristics absent from bourbon.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Are you implying that the dB was developed by asking people, "How much loude is this?" I'm fairly certain that it was determined by math. The decibel was developed independent of acoustics and later applied to acoustics because it approximates ear peeceptio

The study wasn't designed like your blind test. It would be like your husband played something and asked you to rate it 1-5 on a good or bad scale. They may sound different but you might rate them as 4 out of 5 overall.

My wife and I do a lot of blind taste tests. It is just fun to try out. People confuse that higher price should equal better. I think of this like drinking whiskey. I can tell a distinct difference between bourbon, rye, Irish, Scotch, etc. I may still rate all of them as very good overall. So you can make reasonable whiskey from all sorts of grains. Even if it is easier to come by corn and better for the world to make all whiskey bourbon, and despite still producing very good whiskey, xxxxx whiskey will still have certain characteristics absent from bourbon.

It is equating "twice as loud" to a figure of 10dB that was done by sampling listeners' perceptions.

 

[D-Smith]

Questioning the methods and results of a study is not "anti-science". In fact it's exactly the opposite, it is the bedrock of scientific study. Squashing discussion is anti-science. When the results of a study seemingly contradict hundreds of years of experience, trying to poke holes in a study and the author's conclusions is exactly what should happen.

Imagine there was a study of bass cabs along the same line as the wood study:
A well respected cabinet designer/builder is contracted to build six cabinets using very similar, but slightly different high quality speakers. His goal is to build all the cabs to give the "most transparent" sound, or "flat response" as possible.

All six cabinets are similar except he uses his experience/knowledge, speaker specifications, and some modeling software to vary internal volume and port diameter/length. (in the same way the guitar builder was allowed to change dimensions of some woods)

For the study, subjects are placed in a room and seated behind or next to the speaker, (same place an acoustic guitar player is with respect to the guitar). They are given a bass, hooked up to an amp and asked to play solo for a few minutes through each cab. Subjects are then asked to rate the cabinets based on "sound quality" and playability.

Given similar results to the guitar study, that subjects cannot perceive a difference between speakers, what conclusions are you confident in drawing about the speakers (not the whole cabinet) based on this study?

-All speakers sound the same?
-There was no difference in high frequency response between speakers?
-All speakers will sound the same in a band situation?
-Since there is no difference in people's ability to perceive differences in speakers, we just use the cheapest most easily available speaker there is?

 

[James Collins]

It is equating "twice as loud" to a figure of 10dB that was done by sampling listeners' perceptions.

Yeah that was my mistake. I had started to post it to reply and researched it and saw I was wrong, but it got saved and posted when I was replying to the other.

 

[Beej]

Assessment of subjective opinions isn't really a substitute for accurate measurement and analysis, but then if it's only perception that's wanted... I guess the 10dB for twice as loud figure was arrived at in much the same way...

In my opinion this test proved that the specific construction was more important than the materials.

Reading my post back, it was a lot more blunt than I intended. If you perceived any disrespect, I apologize.

I think you're right if the question is "does wood make any difference?" In that case, some kind of mechanical or engineered analysis would be important to rule out the "human influence" in the outcomes. I think this study isn't really looking at the "any difference" hypothesis though - and I also think most of us who regularly play and build instruments are pretty convinced there is "some difference", but we get quickly split on the question of "what is the difference?" or "can you use the differences to build a predictable and replicable outcome?"

When it comes to human perception, we use a variety of controls to research it, and analyses can address controls in a simplistic manner, but that does not mean the research is not valid if the method is sound.

I completely agree with @Christopher DBG in that science and research needs to be challenged, it's the only way to confirm/deny the results and clarify human understanding of things. That process, and in particular the use of double-blind randomized controlled trials, is the only approach to knowledge that has ever produced reliable results. Scientifically derived results can certainly be challenged, but one has to do it from within, following the same rules, in order to be certain of the challenging results. One can't just say "I deny this because it does not align with my personal experience", or "I deny this because I can do my own unscientific test and get different results". The point of the research is to control for those very things.

 

[Mvilmany]

No way!! But a tort pickguard makes any bass sound better!

Absolutely.