Tonewood Experiment.

[KrisWarrington]

Hello, recently I completed a project for my electroacoustic class regarding the use of tone wood in for an electric bass guitar. My experiment left me with some questions, but before I begin I'm going to explain my set-up, findings, and my reasoning behind my results.

The experiment itself was quite simple. Take three common tone woods (Maple/Alder/Bass Wood), create completely identical instruments in terms of dimensions, throw some strings and a pick up on it and do a blind test. We've all herd the argument, seen the youtube videos, watched all the masters debate it but one thing always stood out to me about previous experiments: They're using two identical specification guitars but are they REALLY identical? They're using the same make/model strings and pickups but does that make them truly identical? In my electrical engineering class we learned that different ores from different parts of the earth have slightly different properties. For instance, if you go to Mouser Electronics and buy 100 1k resistors and individually test them, chances are no two resistors are going to have the same resistance value. They will vary slightly simple because they are made from the exact same ore. Do all "Pro Steel" strings of the same gauge have exactly the same magnetic properties? Do two EMGHZ pickups have exactly the same magnetic properties? Wouldn't small variations affect the electrical signal being output from the guitar? These are just some of the questions I asked myself going into the experiment. So what I ended up doing was buying one pack of strings and using one passive stock pickup with the leads connected directly to a TRS cable into an amplifier.

For the sake of having a control in the experiment I just so happen to have two identical ESP LTD F-404FM Tribal basses which were restrung with the same make/model/gauge strings and I replaced the 9v batteries with the same brand prior to the experiment. They should sound exactly the same right? They're identical in every way after all.

For the experiment all I did was install the pickup, string, and tune to A440 for each of the guitars using the exact same strings,passive pickup, TRS cable, and amplifier. For the first round of the experiment I allowed my peers to view and hear the guitars for themselves in a non-blind test scenario. To my ears, they sounded completely identical but of course my peers were skeptical and insisted that the guitars were indeed different in tonality. I then plugged in the ESP basses and while they were pretty similar most of my peers, and myself, agreed there was a difference in tonality. Which to me is pretty odd, there had to be an explanation for two completely identical guitars sounding slightly different (which was an uncontested view of the entire class.)

Round two was the blind testing. I had one student stand near me to verify that I was indeed playing each guitar and not trying to be sneaky and just pluck one over and over. The results overall were a complete failure to identify any specific tone wood and even still I was accused of not actually changing out the guitars. Even though it obviously took me a few minutes to set up each guitar for the experiment having used the same strings and pickups.

The results amazed me. I've always been a die hard believer in tone woods. Obviously for an acoustic instrument the wood DOES contribute to the timbre of the instrument but for an electrical set-up does it REALLY matter? Why are 90% of guitars manufactured with cheap woods? (This is obviously a rhetorical question) Are there some ebony guitars out there? Sure, but pretty much any instrument you buy from a major manufacturer is going to be the same types of wood that have been used since the dawn of the electric guitar.

My only logical explanation to explain my results is this: The same make/model/gauge strings are indeed not the same in terms of metallic properties and neither are two identical pickups. Look up any tone wood video on youtube. They use two identical guitars but they aren't using the same strings/pickups/cables (aside from the A/B box out) Why is that? Could this be the reason? I believe the small variations in the properties of the electrical components are to blame for the tonality of an electrical instrument. As far as I know, there aren't any woods used in electrical guitars that have magnetic properties.

Now, I could have gone about this the wrong way. Let me state for the record: I am not a luthier with decades of experience, I do not have a doctorate in electrical engineering, and I am not a geologist. All I simply did was ask questions based on what I learned in school and test those questions in a very basic way. Perhaps they did sound different, but my ears didn't perceive it and during a blind test it wasn't completely obvious to my peers either. I'm looking to the experts that are hopefully here to answer my remaining two questions. "Why did my two identical ESP guitars sound different", and "why did my tone wood guitars sound the same to the vast majority"? It's important to note that outside of the amp, they did sound different acoustically. I'm NOT contesting tone woods in an acoustical setting, only in solid body electrical instruments. I know that I'm going to get a lot of hate over this post, but I ask that if you truly have the answer don't just say "They're different, trust me I've been building guitars for 100000+ years". I want scientific reasons that are backed up by physics, testing, math, anything that can be re-created and verified by ANYONE like my experiment. Anyone can re-create it and test it for themselves. I'm not uploading any videos for that very reason, you can't trust them. I don't want to be accused of doctoring the videos or whatever else people will try to say to just try to deny my findings. This is something you have to do and hear for yourself, in person, to truly believe it.

Again, I could be completely wrong and my experiment could have just been some weird coincidence but that's why I'm here. Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this post and respond. Unlike most people, if you prove me wrong I won't be mad at all because knowing the truth is better than defending a fallacy.

EDIT: Grammatical Errors.

 

[Means2nEnd]

Wait let me get this together....you did a test of two identical instruments made with the same woods electronics with identical strings, cables, amp, blah blah and they sounded the same for the most part? You and some others couldn't hear a difference? This is a surprise? Maybe I missed your point completely or missed something in the post?

Or were they made of different woods? I guess I am missing something completely I hope someone could shed some light. Maybe it's just late and I have been doing too much paperwork.

 

[michaelwayneharwood]

@Means2nEnd - The two PRS guitars he used as a "control" were identical in the perspective of the woods, pickups, and electronics, but they were different in the sense that he did not transfer the strings, etc from one PRS to the other. In that case two identical PRS guitars sounded different which drove the theory that something about the pickups, electronics, and strings must be introducing tonal differences.

He then made three separate instruments from three different woods, and then transferred the pickup, strings, and electronics from one to the other to control the possible variance in those components. The three instruments sounded different acoustically, but identical when plugged in. My question is whether during the second test the same neck, bridge, etc. were also used to reduce the variables to only the body.

@KrisWarrington - The results are interesting, and I commend you on the effort. Welcome to the tonewood debate.

 

[BazzTard]

very good work, I agree with michael that you probably need to use the same neck as well. And the same bridge. And maybe we as bassists can hear the difference between the woods whereas someone not used to hearing a bass on it's own wouldn't notice the differences?

 

[bholder]

very good work, I agree with michael that you probably need to use the same neck as well. And the same bridge. And maybe we as bassists can hear the difference between the woods whereas someone not used to hearing a bass on it's own wouldn't notice the differences?

Or maybe we just think we can hear the difference, which of course, is what this is all about.

 

[Rôckhewer]

For the sake of having a control in the experiment I just so happen to have two identical ESP LTD F-404FM Tribal basses which were restrung with the same make/model/gauge strings and I replaced the 9v batteries with the same brand prior to the experiment. They should sound exactly the same right? They're identical in every way after all

Well...no....no they're not.
Possible metallurgical, and/or electronic variations notwithstanding.
Just because two guitar bodies are constructed of the same SPECIES of wood...does NOT mean that you can expect THE WOOD each is made from to be identical. Even two boards from the same tree can potentially have differing characteristics.
Density, hardness, grain structure (tight, open, straight, curly), grain direction, moisture content, etc...etc... Especially a wood like Poplar for example. It has a wide range of differing density. Some boards are light weight and easily take a screw, while some are noticeably much heavier and the same screw might break off before it's seated. (I'm referring to my experience using poplar for shutter frames at my work.)

Not to mention potential differences in the construction of, what should be two identical basses... One might have a sloppy joint that isn't exactly straight requiring more glue... Point is...there are a bunch of factors that can be variables in a guitar constructed from an organic material.
All these factors are going to influence how the wood reacts to, and transmits the vibration frequencies of the strings.

 

[michaelwayneharwood]

I'm not uploading any videos for that very reason, you can't trust them. I don't want to be accused of doctoring the videos or whatever else people will try to say to just try to deny my findings. This is something you have to do and hear for yourself, in person, to truly believe it.

I understand your reticence to open yourself up for undue negative criticism, but I would very much like to hear the results. This is a religious debate, and I am sure that many with find fault with your approach, your thought process, your lack of proper controls, the size of the sample set, etc. I do not believe that anything you post will necessarily change the mind of the either the faithful or the atheists.

That being said I am very glad you posted this information, and am hoping that you can be convinced to share more.

 

[Rôckhewer]

Upon reading Michael's last post here... I am reminded that It's possible at times in a forum, without the benefit of vocal inflection...to come across as being hyper-critical , or even "dickish" so if that is the case here... Please forgive me.
I am just trying to add some perspective that might not have yet been considered... so that the OP will be able to achieve utmost accuracy in his endeavor.

 

[Pilgrim]

As I read it, the OP had two ostensibly identical instruments with the same brand and model of strings and electronics, and fresh batteries.

And: they sounded different.

The experiment went no farther than that, even though at the start of the description it appeared that the OP intended to create instruments in different woods but which were otherwise identical and equipped identically. This was not done.

What has been established? Identical production line basses with the same brand and model of strings and electonics, and new batteries, may sound slightly different. Nothing else can be determined from this experiment. It (perhaps fortunately) does not address the issues of human perception, which is a can of worms in itself.

IMO this was a worthwhile experiment, because research which disproves theories is as valuable as research which tends to support theories. In this case, it tends to disprove an assumption that identical production line instruments will sound identical. This was not stated as the thesis of the experiment, but seems to be an incidental result.

Entirely subjective comment: this reinforces my pre-existing opinion is that differences in sound are due to so many variables (including human perception, which has no control) that it's not worth obsessing over a change of wood or other minute details. I am confident that the vast majority of difference in sound is due to strings and electronics, and measuring the rest is hardly a worthwhile exercise.

 

[michaelwayneharwood]

@Pilgrim - That's a good point. I may have been making assumptions of the content of the test based on the OP's original stated intent.

@KrisWarrington - Can you please provide more detail as to exactly how the tests were performed? What was changed? What woods were represented in the bodies of the blind test?

 

[sissy kathy]

As I read it, the OP had two ostensibly identical instruments with the same brand and model of strings and electronics, and fresh batteries.

And: they sounded different.

The experiment went no farther than that, even though at the start of the description it appeared that the OP intended to create instruments in different woods but which were otherwise identical and equipped identically. This was not done.

What has been established? Identical production line basses with the same brand and model of strings and electonics, and new batteries, may sound slightly different. Nothing else can be determined from this experiment. It (perhaps fortunately) does not address the issues of human perception, which is a can of worms in itself.

IMO this was a worthwhile experiment, because research which disproves theories is as valuable as research which tends to support theories. In this case, it tends to disprove an assumption that identical production line instruments will sound identical. This was not stated as the thesis of the experiment, but seems to be an incidental result.

Entirely subjective comment: this reinforces my pre-existing opinion is that differences in sound are due to so many variables (including human perception, which has no control) that it's not worth obsessing over a change of wood or other minute details. I am confident that the vast majority of difference in sound is due to strings and electronics, and measuring the rest is hardly a worthwhile exercise.

We are in complete agreement. Given how often we disagree, you might want to reassess your position.

 

[KrisWarrington]

Woke up this morning with a lot of comments to review. Thanks for the responses!

@michaelwayneharwood I did not construct the necks of the guitars. I simply took 3 different "walmart" guitars and attached those necks to the instruments. To be honest I would have to look up what the necks are actually constructed of. As for the bodies of the guitar one was Maple, one was Alder, the other was Bass wood. These guitars were NOT constructed by me, I have a friend who owns a custom wood working shop. One of the things that I forgot to mention in the OP was, in order for a pickup to pick up the transverse wave traveling through the guitar the pickup would have to be microphonic. For instance, if you take a standard soap bar pickup (and verify that there are no lose metallic parts inside the pickup), string the guitar with fishing line, and turn your amp up to 10. You won't hear the fishing line through the amp. Of course there are some instances were pick ups can be slightly microphonic but that's due to lose metallic objects (could be anything from stuff within the pickup/shielded pick guards/ wires running to pots/ ext) that vibrate and interact with the magnetic field of the pickup causing them to act microphonic when they aren't suppose to be. Now that whole section is based off a youtube video I found on the matter, but i tested it myself and the results were the same.

The reason why I didn't run wires/pots/ect was to further reinforce the fact that all those components are indeed made of different materials that will have slightly varying properties which can be contributed to altering the electrical signal. Using the same strings/pickup leads connected to a TRS i simply played a riff clean and a riff distorted. unstrung it/removed the pickup and moved to guitar B, then to guitar C. Of course there were people who claimed to still hear a slight difference, but were unable to pinpoint exactly which guitar I was playing after playing each guitar twice in random order. Something I need to do now, since my two identical guitars sounded different, is take everything out of both of them and do the same string/same pickup directly connect to a TRS in them and see if at that point they sound identical. All in all after this experiment I have to say that i've gone from a die-hard believer in tone woods (for electric instruments) to believing it's a myth. Only because I did the experiment and herd the results for myself. Again I encourage everyone reading this post to do that for themselves. It's the ONLY way that any of you will ever believe the results are accurate. A year ago, I would have been the one to completely deny the results and come up with every reason under the sun why the results should have different because I never did the experiment and just went off of what I've been told by guitar manufacturers and master luthiers for years. I even contacted Schecter/ESP/Gibson/Fender/Hanser-music with my experiment about and results about 6 months ago hoping that I could get answers from them. Only Schecter responded and they didn't provide any useful information and just gave me the same old "We've been making guitars since XYZ and trust us the wood makes a huge difference in the tone." I've yet to hear from them since.

All in all though, does it really matter? I mean, if someone choses to believe the wood is 90% of their tone and they've believed that their entire musical career than there's no way that I could ever change their mind even with evidence. In a day of digital processing and EQs out the ass you can make pretty much any instrument sound like how you want it to anyway. The die hards will find out-of-the-box reasons to hold on to their beliefs. As you stated it would be like trying to tell an Athiest God is real, or a Christian that God is not (assuming you actually found any evidence to support either of those statements). After my experiment, I'm not longer one of those die-hards but I'm still searching for definitive counter evidence against my claims.

 

[KrisWarrington]

As I read it, the OP had two ostensibly identical instruments with the same brand and model of strings and electronics, and fresh batteries.

And: they sounded different.

The experiment went no farther than that, even though at the start of the description it appeared that the OP intended to create instruments in different woods but which were otherwise identical and equipped identically. This was not done.

The experiment indeed did test the three identical spec guitars (with different tone woods). This was the whole purpose of the experiment and these were the guitars that were blind tested.

 

[michaelwayneharwood]

So to summarize the experiment:

1. Three different instruments with different necks. The bodies were crafted from maple, alder, and basswood
2. The pickups and electronics were transferred from one instrument to the next, and connected via TRS
3. The bridges were similar in make and model, but not moved from one instrument to the other

Correct?

 

[Pilgrim]

The experiment indeed did test the three identical spec guitars (with different tone woods). This was the whole purpose of the experiment and these were the guitars that were blind tested.

I struggled with that, and perhaps there is a gap in your description of the experiment. I can't find any mention of a third instrument in the actual test, only two instruments...the relevant segments of the original post are quoted:

"I just so happen to have two identical ESP LTD F-404FM Tribal basses which were restrung with the same make/model/gauge strings and I replaced the 9v batteries with the same brand prior to the experiment. They should sound exactly the same right? They're identical in every way after all.

For the experiment all I did was install the pickup, string, and tune to A440 for each of the guitars using the exact same strings,passive pickup, TRS cable, and amplifier."

Two is the number given, and "each" is the modifier used later. At no point is the number "three" specified as part of the actual test as conducted.

Note that my earlier post begins with "As I read it."

I'm not saying you didn't do a nice piece of work, and I appreciate your sharing it. I'm just pointing out that describing the conduct and outcome of an experiment requires precise language. Perhaps my PhD is showing, but others seem to share my understanding based on the way I read it.

 

[David Jayne]

Alice, meet rabbit hole.

 

[static0verdrive]

Alice, meet rabbit hole.

Yeah no kidding. I personally think you can only really make a true A/B comparison if you swap out everything from one body to the next so that you eliminate all the potential differences you mention, because even if only a little, surely they differ and those differences will start to add up. Assuming you take the strings and pickup off one and install them on the next for the comparison, at that point you'd ideally be hearing only a difference in the wood. As it was explained to me, the difference in the wood is measurable to a degree, by using (a spectrograph I think?) to see what frequencies make it into the wood via the nut / bridge and reflected back into the strings to be picked up, versus presumably being absorbed / nullified by the wood and so less present in the resulting signal. /shrug maybe that means the nut and bridge needs to come along for the ride too along with strings / pups...

 

[DwaynieAD]

i just play what i think looks good. or is cheap. whichever.

 

[Matthew_84]

I simply took 3 different "walmart" guitars and attached those necks to the instruments.

So, these three necks are made of identical woods, frets, etc (on paper anyway)?

 

[friendlybass]

Love the experiment. I would've loved to see a control group of 3 with string/electronic/hardware transfer for symmetry's sake, but looks like your method was pretty solid excepting the aforementioned neck/hardware variables. I dig the experiment and Id love to see you do a neck wood comparison with a similar method.