Tone wood

[-Asdfgh-]

I'm going to try a serious answer, even though this is a subject that causes much eye rolling, usually justified.

As has been pointed out, the woods in a solid-body instrument don't affect tone nearly as much as other factors. However, the most-pointed attack and greatest sustain result from materials which do NOT resonate with the strings. You would want materials which do not absorb vibrations. Furthermore, "tone" can be affected by which frequencies the neck and body absorb.
Because necks are subject to much more flexing than bodies, a stiff neck is your first consideration. After that, any stiff-wooded body should be fine.

Thank you for posting this.

Also, sound is not going to bounce around the guitar and constructively interfere with the strings and make some tones louder - it's purely subtractive for all reasonable considerations. 'Resonant' bodies are ones that vibrate enough for you to hear them but in general resonance is another way of saying you have nothing left to lose, I mean another way to say you are heating the guitar up slightly.

In theory you can apply a notch filter to get the characteristics of a resonant body IF you have a full signal to send, and indeed it's what some effects units do. For most solid body guitars, as evidenced by innumerable tests, it's pretty much undetectable, though, and I'd worry much more about pickups.

Just the effect of a humbucker with single coil options shows the power of pickup changes, along with amp settings and other factors. A friend with an Aria Les Paul guitar would complain that as soon as I picked it up I'd select just the bridge pickup, select just one coil, slap some spring reverb on the amp and make it sound almost like my Telecaster. It suited me, though.

 

[Oobly]

...
Also, sound is not going to bounce around the guitar and constructively interfere with the strings and make some tones louder - it's purely subtractive for all reasonable considerations. ...

Hmm.. I agree, mostly. Some frequencies are absorbed by the wood, but some are transfered efficiently. "sounds" that "bounce around in the guitar and constructively interfere with the strings" produce note "bloom" in instruments that are well made, from well chosen materials and have low mass bridges, fret wire, etc. If you have never experienced this, then... you haven't, but please take my word for it that it happens. It doesn't result in more energy being created, but it does alter the decay characteristics of those frequencies. If all the frequencies transfered were absorbed, the instrument would sound pretty "dead". This does happen, usually when poor choices are made or an individual piece of wood doesn't suit and the materials and components are not complimentary.

If you added tuners, frets and a bridge to a huge piece of granite, you'd have very large amounts of reflection and very little transfer or absorption. Wouldn't that be ideal? Nope... Sterile and characterless, with way too many overtones preserved. "Traditional" materials produce pleasing tones. It's the spectrum of frequencies transfered vs those absorbed that give a piece of wood it's tonal characteristics. It's the spectrum transfered, absorbed and reflected by each component and at each interface that give the instrument it's character as a whole, and it's affected by everything to varying degrees (yes, Machiavelli, even the paint / finish ).

As far as individual pieces of wood go, yes, there is a lot of variance, but when we're talking about a custom build by a good luthier, they generally select appropriate pieces for their build which exhibit the characteristics they are after.

And please remember that this thread is not about buying a mass-manufactured instrument. In that case, try all you can find, buy the one that suits you most, but even then, it still makes sense to first try those that are made with components and materials that have a higher chance of being suited to your tonal requirements. It's not a total crapshoot.

I understand why someone would get upset over "snake oil", but it's really not hard to get that the parts of an instrument create the tone of the said instrument. I'm not trying to sell anything here. All I'm trying to say, really is that you can shape the tone of your instrument by your choices of construction method and components, when you have the option of removing the randomness, as you do when having a custom instrument made by a decent luthier.

 

[Oobly]

Fenders aren’t hermetically sealed - under the pickups, in the control cavity, and under the neck there are areas with less or no paint. Also, plastic breathes more than most folks think it does - in my line of work, moisture absorption of plastics (they absorb moisture and pass it through because the material is porous) is a concern; if you consult a plastics manufacturer, they have data on this for their plastics, because it isn’t zero.

This is why I love Shellac as a finishing material, seals against moisture very effectively, even with an extremely thin layer. It has a very low surface tension when applied, so also very effectively covers the surface, including going into pores without "bubbling".

I find my instruments require a lot of adjustment during Spring and Autumn as the air gets more or less humid. The change can be quite extreme here in Finland. I don't yet have one completely finished in Shellac, but soon... soon...

 

[chadds]

No one seems to think that 1/8" paint on a body has any affect on the vibration or resonance.

Who is no one? But the color on the other hand......!

1/8” is a lot!

Bill Wickershim mentions in BP stripping a finish and the character of the bass changed.

Yet the plastidipped ‘70s Fenders were indeed dead sounding. Of course there’s always an exception. We were playing Fenders that were at the most six years old that sounded completely different from the new ‘70s basses. The finish was thick like you were looking at wood inside a plexiglass block. They just say there.

To the point if it’s subtractive it is less resonant. Less going back to support the string’s vibration which of course the electronics pick up. What makes that subtractive effect could be the type and thickness of the finish, or the wood density, the amount of moisture in the wood, the mass of the bridge and of course the color.

 

[AGCurry]

Devil's Advocate hat on:

Materials which do not resonate with the strings are not the same thing as materials which do not absorb vibrations. Arguably -- or at least semantically -- materials which do resonate with the strings are by definition not absorbing vibrations, they're reinforcing vibrations.

You are semantically correct in that absorb and resonate are not synonyms. But whichever verb you choose, energy is being transferred from the string's vibration to the material to which it is connected. In an acoustic instrument, we like this transfer, because we want the wood to vibrate. In an electric solid-body instrument, the transfer subtracts from the energy our finger has imparted to the string.

The vibration of a string cannot be reinforced by the vibration of wood to which it has given up energy. See the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[pappabass]

Who is no one? But the color on the other hand......!

1/8” is a lot!

Bill Wickershim mentions in BP stripping a finish and the character of the bass changed.

Yet the plastidipped ‘70s Fenders were indeed dead sounding. Of course there’s always an exception. We were playing Fenders that were at the most six years old that sounded completely different from the new ‘70s basses. The finish was thick like you were looking at wood inside a plexiglass block. They just say there.

To the point if it’s subtractive it is less resonant. Less going back to support the string’s vibration which of course the electronics pick up. What makes that subtractive effect could be the type and thickness of the finish, or the wood density, the amount of moisture in the wood, the mass of the bridge and of course the color.

Yeah, my black on black fender sounds better than any other color!

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Hmm.. I agree, mostly. Some frequencies are absorbed by the wood, but some are transfered efficiently. "sounds" that "bounce around in the guitar and constructively interfere with the strings" produce note "bloom" in instruments that are well made

Sorry, from the perspective of physics in this universe this is nonsense.

 

[Turnaround]

Just checked up on it seems like I remembered wrong, you are right, it is indeed the other way around.

Ah, but harder does not necessarily mean stiffer. And stiffer in the arena of stability is a really good thing. But that does not necessarily translate into a nice sound, or more particularly the sound you are looking for. Resonant frequency is the key here. And that depends on how a particular piece of wood reacts to different frequencies of vibration.

To sum up ... there's no clear answer. It all depends. Your best best is to consult with the maker and get his perspective.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Hmm.. I agree, mostly. Some frequencies are absorbed by the wood, but some are transfered efficiently. "sounds" that "bounce around in the guitar and constructively interfere with the strings" produce note "bloom" in instruments that are well made, from well chosen materials and have low mass bridges, fret wire, etc. If you have never experienced this, then... you haven't, but please take my word for it that it happens. It doesn't result in more energy being created, but it does alter the decay characteristics of those frequencies. If all the frequencies transfered were absorbed, the instrument would sound pretty "dead". This does happen, usually when poor choices are made or an individual piece of wood doesn't suit and the materials and components are not complimentary.

If you added tuners, frets and a bridge to a huge piece of granite, you'd have very large amounts of reflection and very little transfer or absorption. Wouldn't that be ideal? Nope... Sterile and characterless, with way too many overtones preserved. "Traditional" materials produce pleasing tones. It's the spectrum of frequencies transfered vs those absorbed that give a piece of wood it's tonal characteristics. It's the spectrum transfered, absorbed and reflected by each component and at each interface that give the instrument it's character as a whole, and it's affected by everything to varying degrees (yes, Machiavelli, even the paint / finish ).

As far as individual pieces of wood go, yes, there is a lot of variance, but when we're talking about a custom build by a good luthier, they generally select appropriate pieces for their build which exhibit the characteristics they are after.

And please remember that this thread is not about buying a mass-manufactured instrument. In that case, try all you can find, buy the one that suits you most, but even then, it still makes sense to first try those that are made with components and materials that have a higher chance of being suited to your tonal requirements. It's not a total crapshoot.

I understand why someone would get upset over "snake oil", but it's really not hard to get that the parts of an instrument create the tone of the said instrument. I'm not trying to sell anything here. All I'm trying to say, really is that you can shape the tone of your instrument by your choices of construction method and components, when you have the option of removing the randomness, as you do when having a custom instrument made by a decent luthier.

all the frequencies transfered were absorbed, the instrument would sound pretty "dead

Everything that is transferred that is not audible as sound from the body (which is next to nothing on a solid body instrument) ends up as heat. I'll see if I can find any youtube videos showing this or think of a way to demonstrate it myself.

 

[Turnaround]

In an acoustic instrument, we like this transfer, because we want the wood to vibrate. In an electric solid-body instrument, the transfer subtracts from the energy our finger has imparted to the string.

Are you suggesting that the "subtration" of energy from the string is not a good thing?

You've come hard up against the inherent compromise one makes with an electric instrument. If you are wanting sustain you want to prevent the body from "subtracting" energy from the strings. The more energy that remains in the string, the longer it will vibrate.

However, if you are looking for the tonal quality the wood can bring, you welcome the absorption of some of the strings energies at various frequencies, thus adding character to the sound.

And before anyone starts ranting that the body makes no difference on an instrument with magnetic pickups, consider this. One of my band mates plays banjo. He installed a magnetic pickup he took out of one of his solid-body electric guitars and mounted it in his banjo. The result is a loud sounding banjo. There's no mistaking it for a guitar. So think about why his guitar pickup sounds so different when installed in his banjo?

 

[AGCurry]

Are you suggesting that the "subtration" of energy from the string is not a good thing?

I'm not suggesting that the subtraction of energy is bad in general, but the OP seems to be looking for materials which might result in more attack and sustain; in that case, yes, resistance to energy transfer (minimal subtraction) would be a good thing.

 

[Oobly]

I'm not suggesting that the subtraction of energy is bad in general, but the OP seems to be looking for materials which might result in more attack and sustain; in that case, yes, resistance to energy transfer (minimal subtraction) would be a good thing.

I believe the tonal goals are "punchy and aggressive". If all you want are attack and sustain, go for the densest, stiffest materials you can find that will still be light enough to be playable. But that will be a very sterile and lifeless sound. We want some frequencies absorbed, some reflected and some transfered, that's what gives tonal character. Woods that preserve more mids will tend to sound "punchy" (such as alder and wenge), woods that initially reflect the highs more than the lows will tend to sound "aggressive" (such as ebony and maple).

Everything that is transferred that is not audible as sound from the body (which is next to nothing on a solid body instrument) ends up as heat. I'll see if I can find any youtube videos showing this or think of a way to demonstrate it myself.

I agree.. sort of. All absorbed frequencies will be turned into heat. Frequencies that are transfered, however, will "feed back" to the string. When you say "audible" surely you mean "present"? A solid body doesn't transfer those frequencies to the air as readily as a soundboard, but they are present. In fact the more they are transfered to the air and become "audible", the less they are present to continue being transfered and feeding back. It's the balance of absorbed vs transfered frequencies that give a piece of wood its tonal characteristics. I feel like I am starting to just repeat myself now.

Ultimately this is all just common sense and careful application of simple physics (along with the experiences of many luthiers of particular wood types and their general characteristics).

 

[Oobly]

...

The vibration of a string cannot be reinforced by the vibration of wood to which it has given up energy. See the First Law of Thermodynamics.

I'm sorry, I just can't let this one slide...

Energy transfered from one body to another most certainly can and does get transfered back again. Over time the combination of bodies will act as a single system once equilibrium is reached and both will be vibrating with ONLY the frequencies transfered and not absorbed. This is again simple physics of vibrating bodies.

[Edit] I think I get where you're coming from, though. Eventually, once the note has died away, all the vibrational energy will have either been absorbed by the system (string, bass and player) or have been transfered to the air. But the transfer, absorbance and reflection begin immediately and continue to operate throughout the ringing of the note. This is what we're dealing with, the overall sound of the instrument during this time. The transfer and feedback takes time to balance, for the system to reach equilibrium. [/Edit]

 

[JohnArnson]

Are you suggesting that the "subtration" of energy from the string is not a good thing?

You've come hard up against the inherent compromise one makes with an electric instrument. If you are wanting sustain you want to prevent the body from "subtracting" energy from the strings. The more energy that remains in the string, the longer it will vibrate.

However, if you are looking for the tonal quality the wood can bring, you welcome the absorption of some of the strings energies at various frequencies, thus adding character to the sound.

And before anyone starts ranting that the body makes no difference on an instrument with magnetic pickups, consider this. One of my band mates plays banjo. He installed a magnetic pickup he took out of one of his solid-body electric guitars and mounted it in his banjo. The result is a loud sounding banjo. There's no mistaking it for a guitar. So think about why his guitar pickup sounds so different when installed in his banjo?

I'm sorry, I just can't let this one slide...

Energy transfered from one body to another most certainly can and does get transfered back again. Over time the combination of bodies will act as a single system once equilibrium is reached and both will be vibrating with ONLY the frequencies transfered and not absorbed. This is again simple physics of vibrating bodies.

[Edit] I think I get where you're coming from, though. Eventually, once the note has died away, all the vibrational energy will have either been absorbed by the system (string, bass and player) or have been transfered to the air. But the transfer, absorbance and reflection begin immediately and continue to operate throughout the ringing of the note. This is what we're dealing with, the overall sound of the instrument during this time. The transfer and feedback takes time to balance, for the system to reach equilibrium. [/Edit]

Exactly!

 

[Iristone]

Under 1mm of paint? Do you really believe that? Unless you talk about that wood

The fretboard isn't finished. I have neck problem on a bass because of that.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I believe the tonal goals are "punchy and aggressive". If all you want are attack and sustain, go for the densest, stiffest materials you can find that will still be light enough to be playable. But that will be a very sterile and lifeless sound. We want some frequencies absorbed, some reflected and some transfered, that's what gives tonal character. Woods that preserve more mids will tend to sound "punchy" (such as alder and wenge), woods that initially reflect the highs more than the lows will tend to sound "aggressive" (such as ebony and maple).



I agree.. sort of. All absorbed frequencies will be turned into heat. Frequencies that are transfered, however, will "feed back" to the string. When you say "audible" surely you mean "present"? A solid body doesn't transfer those frequencies to the air as readily as a soundboard, but they are present. In fact the more they are transfered to the air and become "audible", the less they are present to continue being transfered and feeding back. It's the balance of absorbed vs transfered frequencies that give a piece of wood its tonal characteristics. I feel like I am starting to just repeat myself now.

Ultimately this is all just common sense and careful application of simple physics (along with the experiences of many luthiers of particular wood types and their general characteristics).

Transferred where?

As noted, I'll try to find some demonstrations but I've also ordered some items to help me demonstrate it, although ideally I need to do some calculations to work out some energies using math (differential equations) I have barely touched in twenty five years, hence hoping to find some examples.

I'm about to move house, etc, so I might fail to do the analysis.

 

[Oobly]

Transferred where?

As noted, I'll try to find some demonstrations but I've also ordered some items to help me demonstrate it, although ideally I need to do some calculations to work out some energies using math (differential equations) I have barely touched in twenty five years, hence hoping to find some examples.

I'm about to move house, etc, so I might fail to do the analysis.

Transfered from the vibrating string to the non-vibrating body (using "body" to represent the whole instrument) where some frequencies are absorbed and others are not (technically, all frequencies will be absorbed to lesser and greater degrees, with some particular ones being absorbed very little and thus transfered relatively efficiently, and others being absorbed more strongly, this is what gives a piece of wood its tonal spectrum). The frequencies that are not absorbed (again, this is a generalisation, technically all frequencies are both absorbed and transfered, but to lesser or greater degrees) cause the body to vibrate in concert with the string, until the system reaches equilibrium (which in reality is more of a harmonic cycle than true equilibrium, as vibrations in one entity cause sympathetic vibrations in the other and vice versa), after which absorption by the various interfaces and components (including the fingers and body of the player), air friction and the transfer of vibrations to the air eventually cause the the vibrations to be significantly weakened. Again, this is simple common sense and physics.

What is it exactly that you will try to demonstrate?

 

[Bob_Ross]

You are semantically correct in that absorb and resonate are not synonyms. But whichever verb you choose, energy is being transferred from the string's vibration to the material to which it is connected. In an acoustic instrument, we like this transfer, because we want the wood to vibrate. In an electric solid-body instrument, the transfer subtracts from the energy our finger has imparted to the string.

Still playing Devil's Advocate: Why don't we want the wood to vibrate in a solid-body instrument?
Arguably, in an acoustic instrument, the vibrating wood serves two purposes: 1) It energized the air space contained inside the hollow body, which becomes the amplifier...and 2) it serves as a spectral filter; certain frequencies will resonate more than others, the vibrations will not be uniform, and so it is shaping the timbre of the string's vibrations and thus contributing to the overall tone of the instrument.

If I'm not mistaken, the entire "tone wood" argument is based on the premise that the wood in a solid-body instrument serves this same spectral filtering function.

 

[gigetto]

On tone depends a lot from touch on the string, the Pick Ups, wood is less relevant, only nuances

 

[micguy]

I find my instruments require a lot of adjustment during Spring and Autumn as the air gets more or less humid. The change can be quite extreme here in Finland. I don't yet have one completely finished in Shellac, but soon... soon...

If you look here (someone did the science for us), you'l find that shellac and polyurethane both let moisture through - in a month they both approach equilibrium when put in a humid environment:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bab4/0086457939ac609cbfc48cc11fe5e8763c81.pdf

I'll heartily recommend you consider a torrified (aka roasted) neck if humidity swings are causing you issues. I have a few roasted necks, and they are more stable than standard ones. I do apply poly finishes them, but that's mostly to keep the dirt from crawling into the grain.