Discussion:
Research how wood Contributes to your tone
(too old to reply)
§c©©t§
2004-04-18 08:52:24 UTC
Permalink
http://www.guitarasylum.com/productpages/melancon/tone_woods.htm
Bob
2004-04-18 09:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by §c©©t§
http://www.guitarasylum.com/productpages/melancon/tone_woods.htm
good post, particualrly the point they make about hands affecting tone.
John@Smith.com
2004-04-18 12:03:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:52:24 GMT, "§c©©t§"
Post by §c©©t§
http://www.guitarasylum.com/productpages/melancon/tone_woods.htm
People have been posting similar stuff for ages in the guitar subs but
Id really like to see a blind test on how wood really does contribute
to tone. Of course as usual with all such tests there would endless
arguments about how it wasnt set up right and how "your hands" play an
important role so that its impossible to duplicate condtions exactly
from example to example but people do claim a consistent difference in
sound which should to some degree be noticeable.

Same type of guitar , person playing and amp with all sorts of wood
- two types of each type of wood to see if there are huge differences
in the same wood too and maybe a plastic/resin body to see how much
difference the claim of resonance in the wood makes.
Bob
2004-04-18 13:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Smith.com
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:52:24 GMT, "§c©©t§"
Post by §c©©t§
http://www.guitarasylum.com/productpages/melancon/tone_woods.htm
People have been posting similar stuff for ages in the guitar subs but
Id really like to see a blind test on how wood really does contribute
to tone. Of course as usual with all such tests there would endless
arguments about how it wasnt set up right and how "your hands" play an
important role so that its impossible to duplicate condtions exactly
from example to example but people do claim a consistent difference in
sound which should to some degree be noticeable.
Same type of guitar , person playing and amp with all sorts of wood
- two types of each type of wood to see if there are huge differences
in the same wood too and maybe a plastic/resin body to see how much
difference the claim of resonance in the wood makes.
Yeah I guess that's why an original Stradivarius is such a cheap shit violin
played in an acoustically perfect music hall with no amplification. Just my
$0.02 worth.
John@Smith.com
2004-04-18 16:25:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:27:57 +1000, "Bob"
Post by Bob
Yeah I guess that's why an original Stradivarius is such a cheap shit violin
played in an acoustically perfect music hall with no amplification. Just my
$0.02 worth.
Its always been disputed - the degree that wood makes a difference in
the tone of solid body electric guitars. Some say very little ,
others say a fair amount. After all Fenders are made from ash ,
poplar and alder ---- and yet people have said examples from all of
them are decent. Some builders for instance make the point alder
wasnt particularly picked as the best "tone wood" but because it was
cheap and plentiful back when Fender was making strats.

Most electrics are mass produced relatively inexpensive guitars.
Obviously the wood , the craftsmanship and design make a huge
difference in acoustic instruments in which all their tone and sound
volume comes from the player and acoustic instrument. Its very
different with amplified solid bodied instruments . Obviously it plays
a role in the sound there too -- but to what degree? Very small,
moderately small - as some believe or moderately large?

As in example could most people here tell in a blind listening test
which was the ash body? The alder or basswood? Thats with trying to
adjust all other things so they are generally the same. I know thats
almost impossible but if there is THAT much of a difference one should
be able to tell anyway.

Its interesting because Ive read several tests where people who
claimed to be knowledgeable about beer , audiophile systems etc -
couldnt tell the difference , or if they could - couldnt identify
various qualities associated with various products which most claimed
they easily could.

Samething with the fretboard claims. I THINK I hear a more sharper
sound and I attribute it to the maple fretboard neck I have and ash
body which is much heavier on my strat. But I dont really know if it
is due to that or if I could even pick my strat out against a alder
bodied rosewood fretboard strat.
Tom Lenz
2004-04-19 02:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Smith.com
Its interesting because Ive read several tests where people who
claimed to be knowledgeable about beer , audiophile systems etc -
couldnt tell the difference , or if they could - couldnt identify
various qualities associated with various products which most claimed
they easily could.
Samething with the fretboard claims. I THINK I hear a more sharper
sound and I attribute it to the maple fretboard neck I have and ash
body which is much heavier on my strat. But I dont really know if it
is due to that or if I could even pick my strat out against a alder
bodied rosewood fretboard strat.
My wife does this some times in her talks to demonstrate marketing: She'll
empty different brands of bottled water and refill them with tap water. Then
she'll ask people (people who don't know she's refilled them) to sample them
and decide which ones they like the best. Some do say they all taste the
same, but most think a certain brand tastes better. The point is that good
marketing really influences people's perception.

A good double blind test on tone woods would indeed be interesting.
John@Smith.com
2004-04-19 03:57:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:55:02 -0600, "Tom Lenz"
Post by Tom Lenz
Post by ***@Smith.com
Its interesting because Ive read several tests where people who
claimed to be knowledgeable about beer , audiophile systems etc -
couldnt tell the difference , or if they could - couldnt identify
various qualities associated with various products which most claimed
they easily could.
Samething with the fretboard claims. I THINK I hear a more sharper
sound and I attribute it to the maple fretboard neck I have and ash
body which is much heavier on my strat. But I dont really know if it
is due to that or if I could even pick my strat out against a alder
bodied rosewood fretboard strat.
My wife does this some times in her talks to demonstrate marketing: She'll
empty different brands of bottled water and refill them with tap water. Then
she'll ask people (people who don't know she's refilled them) to sample them
and decide which ones they like the best. Some do say they all taste the
same, but most think a certain brand tastes better. The point is that good
marketing really influences people's perception.
A good double blind test on tone woods would indeed be interesting.
Yeah thats the point. We all repeat the cliche now about Galbrathian
claims of corporate advertising in this media drenched era ,
brainwashing consumers , but we all pick other areas in which we claim
expertise - beer, cars , audiophile stuff, etc ---- where we swear
theres a HUGE difference. A lot of it is either totally imagined or
very very small differences that are magnified by visual and other
cues that help us differentiate a product which we perceive as
"better" from advertising hype. It would be argued about endlessly
though. Just like in audiophile circles when they do such tests with
mega-buck power amps and other devices.

Personally , I swear by Arrowhead and Crystal Geyser. Ive also
developed a taste for Perrier but hate many other brands of bottled
water like Evian. And I cant stand tap water. Thats what I think. But
Id feel real shakey putting it to a blind test. If you chill water -
most of the subtle taste - the minerals, residue in it tends to get
buried so its probably hard to tell the dfifference between any of
them.

There was a funny article on beer by the jounalist and editor James
Fallows. He took a bunch of people he knew who considered themselves
experts, knowledgeable beer drinkers and they had a hard time picking
the premium beers and cheapo beers. Obviously if all the premium beers
are dark beers and the cheapos are lite beers thats a dead giveaway
but if they are similar types , it seems awfully hard to tell for most
people.

Im still amazed at how "they" created this whole thing about diamonds.
Why are they valuable? How did they come to be a symbol of love as
gifts ? There was a whole thing about how De Beers controls the market
on PBS a long time ago. And now there are very close synthetic
diamonds that are getting closer and closer all the time.
Tom Lenz
2004-04-19 14:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Smith.com
Personally , I swear by Arrowhead and Crystal Geyser. Ive also
developed a taste for Perrier but hate many other brands of bottled
water like Evian. And I cant stand tap water. Thats what I think. But
Id feel real shakey putting it to a blind test.
I was able to easily distinguish between Pepsi and Coke in a blindfolded
test.

Having owned a Travis Bean (aluminum neck), a Steinberger (graphite neck)
and a Strat (maple-rosewood), I'm convinced that the neck material makes a
big difference in sound.
John@Smith.com
2004-04-20 08:02:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:00:19 -0600, "Tom Lenz"
Post by Tom Lenz
Post by ***@Smith.com
Personally , I swear by Arrowhead and Crystal Geyser. Ive also
developed a taste for Perrier but hate many other brands of bottled
water like Evian. And I cant stand tap water. Thats what I think. But
Id feel real shakey putting it to a blind test.
I was able to easily distinguish between Pepsi and Coke in a blindfolded
test.
Yeah Coke seems to have a sharper flavor - maybe more aggressive
carbonation. Pepsi seems mellower. I kind of go back and forth. All
joking aside - they are different fomulas.

But heres the one that may be a powerful example of a kind of illusion
regarding Coke. I could SWEAR that coke in the those little original
type old fashioned bottles - you know the kind they charge some
outrageous amount for , to give you a nostalgic kick ----- tastes
better ! I keep thinking maybe they change the formula a bit in those
retro bottles - a bit more caffeine and sugar like JOLT cola to give
you more of a kick? I dont know. If they slyly did that - then that
explains it but others have said its the same formula. If thats the
case - its a really mind bending example for me of what visual cues
and mental associations do to you. I could swear it tastes way better
than the usual coke.
Tom Lenz
2004-04-20 11:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Smith.com
But heres the one that may be a powerful example of a kind of illusion
regarding Coke. I could SWEAR that coke in the those little original
type old fashioned bottles - you know the kind they charge some
outrageous amount for , to give you a nostalgic kick ----- tastes
better !
I agree. And you're right, they changed the formula. I'm getting my
information from a book called, if I remember rightly, The Informant. It's
500 pages of facts and pictures about a guy who the FBI used to nail a
scarily powerful company called ADM concerning world-wide price fixing.
Anyway, one thing ADM sells is corn syrup. I forget exactly what they did,
but the upshot is that a lot of companies, including Coca-Cola, went from
sugar to corn syrup.
John@Smith.com
2004-04-21 02:42:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 05:44:33 -0600, "Tom Lenz"
Post by Tom Lenz
Post by ***@Smith.com
But heres the one that may be a powerful example of a kind of illusion
regarding Coke. I could SWEAR that coke in the those little original
type old fashioned bottles - you know the kind they charge some
outrageous amount for , to give you a nostalgic kick ----- tastes
better !
I agree. And you're right, they changed the formula. I'm getting my
information from a book called, if I remember rightly, The Informant. It's
500 pages of facts and pictures about a guy who the FBI used to nail a
scarily powerful company called ADM concerning world-wide price fixing.
Anyway, one thing ADM sells is corn syrup. I forget exactly what they did,
but the upshot is that a lot of companies, including Coca-Cola, went from
sugar to corn syrup.
Ive read an article on that. I forget the details but ADM was caught
in a sting for price fixing. Actually its common place in many foreign
countries , you know things like bribes , price fixing and cartels
arent necessairily illegal overseas everywhere. The obvious example is
OPEC.

A lower level exec I think was caught for something I think the story
went or had some other problems or something. Anyway he decides to
inform on ADM for the FBI and it resulted in one of the largest price
fixing cases.
Bob
2004-04-19 08:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Smith.com
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:27:57 +1000, "Bob"
Post by Bob
Yeah I guess that's why an original Stradivarius is such a cheap shit violin
played in an acoustically perfect music hall with no amplification. Just my
$0.02 worth.
Its always been disputed - the degree that wood makes a difference in
the tone of solid body electric guitars. Some say very little ,
others say a fair amount. After all Fenders are made from ash ,
poplar and alder ---- and yet people have said examples from all of
them are decent. Some builders for instance make the point alder
wasnt particularly picked as the best "tone wood" but because it was
cheap and plentiful back when Fender was making strats.
Most electrics are mass produced relatively inexpensive guitars.
Obviously the wood , the craftsmanship and design make a huge
difference in acoustic instruments in which all their tone and sound
volume comes from the player and acoustic instrument. Its very
different with amplified solid bodied instruments . Obviously it plays
a role in the sound there too -- but to what degree? Very small,
moderately small - as some believe or moderately large?
As in example could most people here tell in a blind listening test
which was the ash body? The alder or basswood? Thats with trying to
adjust all other things so they are generally the same. I know thats
almost impossible but if there is THAT much of a difference one should
be able to tell anyway.
Its interesting because Ive read several tests where people who
claimed to be knowledgeable about beer , audiophile systems etc -
couldnt tell the difference , or if they could - couldnt identify
various qualities associated with various products which most claimed
they easily could.
Samething with the fretboard claims. I THINK I hear a more sharper
sound and I attribute it to the maple fretboard neck I have and ash
body which is much heavier on my strat. But I dont really know if it
is due to that or if I could even pick my strat out against a alder
bodied rosewood fretboard strat.
well from my understanding of acoustic instruments wood selection IS
important and tone DOES improve with age due to the drying and hardness
properties of certain timbers, that's why mahogony is such a good choice,
spruce too.
Cyberserf
2004-04-19 11:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Bob <***@hotmail.com> wrote the following:

<snip background stuff>
Post by Bob
well from my understanding of acoustic instruments wood selection IS
important and tone DOES improve with age due to the drying and
hardness properties of certain timbers, that's why mahogony is such a
good choice, spruce too.
Here's something I posted to another group, you all may be interested.

1st off, Most musical instruments (guitars included) are not built out of
wet
wood...it is all seasoned and, so long as you maintain about ~45%Rh, it will
neither get dryer nor wetter as it ages. Hence the popularity of humidifiers
for guitars.

Keep in mind, solid topped axes are built out of quarter sawn stock...the
single most expensive cut you can get ('cause the yield is so low)...they
age this stuff long and hard before it is sold and most shops have their
own aging rooms...they want it well seasoned before they put all the effort
of turning it into a guitar.

Does the wood have an impact on tone...on solid topped (non laminated)
steel string guitars, different woods do indeed sound different (all else
being equal)...this is easily verifiable, just play 'em. Spruce is different
from cedar which is different from Koa, which is different from Mahog,
etc...it's the old Indian versus Brazillian Rosewood argument or Sitka
versus Engelmann Spruce...even similar tonewoods have different
properties Obviously, as soon as you amplify them, you loose
some of that distinction and the biggest factors affecting the tone
will be the PU's/mic and amplifier...and that's not mentioning effects.
So solidbody electrics, may get some sustain from the wood density,
but the majority of the tone comes from the sound reinforcement
technology.

On the other hand, solid topped acoustic instruments may exhibit other
characteristics. The wood cells, after constant vibration over time,
get a little elastic (or perhaps broken) and, many people report that
sustained movement does cause an effect called "opening up".

Presumably, the vibrations should be equal or sympathetic to the top
resonance (tap tone) to get the full effect...obviously depending on the
bracing (thickness and finger distribution) and wood used, but generally
speaking, solid tops that have cells and grain running in the same
direction (not laminated, not flat sawn), have this facility. The vibration
is centered on the bridge, so if you want to artificially stimulate it,
you'll
need to work that into the equation.

There are many who have done (and are doing) research in this area.

Do a google on Left Brain Lutherie or drop by
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
and ask lots of questions.

Cheers, CS


--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me, are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
Gear Page at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/cybrserf/Gear/Gear.htm
Wämp
2004-04-19 21:40:52 UTC
Permalink
All to true. I find ebony the brightest. Not even mentiond in the 'research'.
Chris
Post by ***@Smith.com
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:27:57 +1000, "Bob"
Post by Bob
Yeah I guess that's why an original Stradivarius is such a cheap shit violin
played in an acoustically perfect music hall with no amplification. Just my
$0.02 worth.
Its always been disputed - the degree that wood makes a difference in
the tone of solid body electric guitars. Some say very little ,
others say a fair amount. After all Fenders are made from ash ,
poplar and alder ---- and yet people have said examples from all of
them are decent. Some builders for instance make the point alder
wasnt particularly picked as the best "tone wood" but because it was
cheap and plentiful back when Fender was making strats.
Most electrics are mass produced relatively inexpensive guitars.
Obviously the wood , the craftsmanship and design make a huge
difference in acoustic instruments in which all their tone and sound
volume comes from the player and acoustic instrument. Its very
different with amplified solid bodied instruments . Obviously it plays
a role in the sound there too -- but to what degree? Very small,
moderately small - as some believe or moderately large?
As in example could most people here tell in a blind listening test
which was the ash body? The alder or basswood? Thats with trying to
adjust all other things so they are generally the same. I know thats
almost impossible but if there is THAT much of a difference one should
be able to tell anyway.
Its interesting because Ive read several tests where people who
claimed to be knowledgeable about beer , audiophile systems etc -
couldnt tell the difference , or if they could - couldnt identify
various qualities associated with various products which most claimed
they easily could.
Samething with the fretboard claims. I THINK I hear a more sharper
sound and I attribute it to the maple fretboard neck I have and ash
body which is much heavier on my strat. But I dont really know if it
is due to that or if I could even pick my strat out against a alder
bodied rosewood fretboard strat.
drwow
2004-04-21 03:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Smith.com
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:52:24 GMT, "§c©©t§"
Post by §c©©t§
http://www.guitarasylum.com/productpages/melancon/tone_woods.htm
People have been posting similar stuff for ages in the guitar subs but
Id really like to see a blind test on how wood really does contribute
to tone. Of course as usual with all such tests there would endless
arguments about how it wasnt set up right and how "your hands" play an
important role so that its impossible to duplicate condtions exactly
from example to example but people do claim a consistent difference in
sound which should to some degree be noticeable.
Same type of guitar , person playing and amp with all sorts of wood
- two types of each type of wood to see if there are huge differences
in the same wood too and maybe a plastic/resin body to see how much
difference the claim of resonance in the wood makes.
The problem with such a blind test is the inconsistant density and grain
pattern variance inherent in wood, even from the same species, ...even
the same tree, hell! Even the same piece of wood. Different cuts of the
same log/species etc, will vary perceptibly different sounds when
tapped. Some body blanks are going to have deadspots that will NEVER go
away, another cut from the same log may be the cat's pjs.

..... but mostly,

Tone is in the head, hands and heart, what ever is contributed by the
wood in a solid body guitar is mostly just luck, good or bad.


dw
John@Smith.com
2004-04-21 07:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by drwow
The problem with such a blind test is the inconsistant density and grain
pattern variance inherent in wood, even from the same species, ...even
the same tree, hell! Even the same piece of wood. Different cuts of the
same log/species etc, will vary perceptibly different sounds when
tapped. Some body blanks are going to have deadspots that will NEVER go
away, another cut from the same log may be the cat's pjs.
..... but mostly,
Tone is in the head, hands and heart, what ever is contributed by the
wood in a solid body guitar is mostly just luck, good or bad.
See thats one of the main points. In other blind tests where people
cant tell -- the methodology is always attacked (as it should be if it
is wrong) and the expertise of the people who took the test. However
its like the water test. Lets say I argue that there are good bottles
of Evian and bad and the same for all other makes. How can I then tell
if there is a consistent quality associated with Evian vs. Arrowhead?

That in itself is interesting.

A) The first question - does wood in solid body guitars , especially
mass produced stuff like strats , Les Pauls etc make that huge of a
difference in tone?

B) Are there huge variations in tone from the SAME type of wood used
in the same guitar ? The second of course would only be a big problem
if the first were true since it wouldnt matter that much if wood didnt
make much difference in tone.

Id like to know both answers. Its always been claimed that there are
magical guitars. Many claim the early strats are such magical guitars
and people like Holdsworth, Clapton and Eric Johnson have claimed
they missed a specific model , year - example of a make they had at
one time which they claimed was awesome. How much did the wood add to
the magical tonal qualities if they were magical. I mean they could
have been magical but maybe it was mostly the PUs or something.

Are boutique guitars really that much better ? And how much does wood
contribute to that? Can a blind test show that they are "better"?

If there was THAT much variation in tone due to variations in wood of
the same type of bodies then it begs the question how can you tell
that any particular type of wood has any particular quality? Its not
impossible of course provided there were huge differences , obvious
tonal differences and the people who claim such differences could
identify them. You know huge variations in the same type of wood and
make AND huge differences between types of wood AND the people making
such claims had the expertise to sort all of this out.
Tom Lenz
2004-04-21 12:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by drwow
The problem with such a blind test is the inconsistant density and grain
pattern variance inherent in wood, even from the same species, ...even
the same tree, hell! Even the same piece of wood. Different cuts of the
same log/species etc, will vary perceptibly different sounds when
tapped. Some body blanks are going to have deadspots that will NEVER go
away, another cut from the same log may be the cat's pjs.
I read where Hendrix would take a bunch of Strats home and from those pick a
few favorites.
Wouldn't the wood be the most likely thing to vary the most from one Strat
to the next?
drwow
2004-04-21 13:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Lenz
Post by drwow
The problem with such a blind test is the inconsistant density and grain
pattern variance inherent in wood, even from the same species, ...even
the same tree, hell! Even the same piece of wood. Different cuts of the
same log/species etc, will vary perceptibly different sounds when
tapped. Some body blanks are going to have deadspots that will NEVER go
away, another cut from the same log may be the cat's pjs.
I read where Hendrix would take a bunch of Strats home and from those pick a
few favorites.
Wouldn't the wood be the most likely thing to vary the most from one Strat
to the next?
I think so, I have played hundreds of guitars over the years, some
guitars are gems most aren't, off the rack or set up, I can tell whether
I like one or not, even if they are otherwise identical.

How often have you played through a rack of identical ( build materials)
strats, say a dozen, and not found ONE that felt good? ...... More often
than not, in my experience.

Most guitars I try have problems with balance, deadspots, consistency of
timbre, etc., and maybe one out of twenty will be "sweet". I can usually
spot a "sweet" one even if it's badly set up, I just don't see too many.

I don't think the "sweet" to "dead" ratio has changed much over the
years either.

I would NEVER buy a guitar without trying it.

YMMV

dw
John@Smith.com
2004-04-23 03:11:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:32:00 -0600, "Tom Lenz"
Post by Tom Lenz
Post by drwow
The problem with such a blind test is the inconsistant density and grain
pattern variance inherent in wood, even from the same species, ...even
the same tree, hell! Even the same piece of wood. Different cuts of the
same log/species etc, will vary perceptibly different sounds when
tapped. Some body blanks are going to have deadspots that will NEVER go
away, another cut from the same log may be the cat's pjs.
I read where Hendrix would take a bunch of Strats home and from those pick a
few favorites.
Wouldn't the wood be the most likely thing to vary the most from one Strat
to the next?
Yeah that depends , because you hear two claims - that certain years ,
era of guitar are great kind of like fine wine. You know pre-CBS ,
etc. Then you hear the claim a specific guitar is great even from the
same production.

It could be the wood since it would seem much harder to insure every
single bit of wood is identical in tone if wood did contribute that
much to tone vs. man made PUs that a re manufactured. However Ive read
claims , speculation that the older guitars were this and that because
the production techniques were really loosey goosey and some PUs were
would a bit different so this one person reasoned it had just that bit
of more bite or output giving it a different character etc. I have no
idea if thats true or not though. So it makes seem like dumb luck ,
produced a magical guitar once in a while.
Warren Z.
2004-04-24 15:14:34 UTC
Permalink
All good points. Here's another one to consider. I can play a particular
guitar through a particular amp and think it sounds great and has "the
tone". I'll tell all my friends that this particular model year guitar is
the one to get. I can put the guitar down and someone else can pick it up,
play it and think that it has crappy tone, too bright, not enough mids, etc.

The exact same guitar, amp, cord, date, time.

He'll tell his friends to avoid that year make and model like the plague
because it has poor tone, possible bad wood, weak electronics, etc.

Who is right? Both of us are.
I have no idea if thats true or not though. So it makes seem like dumb
luck ,
produced a magical guitar once in a while.
Christopher Bell
2004-04-25 16:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Z.
All good points. Here's another one to consider. I can play a
particular guitar through a particular amp and think it sounds great
and has "the tone". I'll tell all my friends that this particular
model year guitar is the one to get. I can put the guitar down and
someone else can pick it up, play it and think that it has crappy
tone, too bright, not enough mids, etc.
The exact same guitar, amp, cord, date, time.
He'll tell his friends to avoid that year make and model like the
plague because it has poor tone, possible bad wood, weak electronics,
etc.
Who is right? Both of us are.
I have no idea if thats true or not though. So it makes seem like dumb
luck ,
produced a magical guitar once in a while.
To further your point... I'll do gigs from night to night, and on a
Friday my rig will sound amazing, only to sound not that great
Saturday... I'll scratch my head all week, and then next Saturday, it
will sound good again. There are a lot of factors - especially if you're
not playing in a vaccum - meaning with other players....

Years ago, I read an interview with Randy Jackson from Zebra (not the
American Idol guy) I think he played newer (at the time) BC Rich guitars.
An interviewer asked him why he used new guitars, and his answer was,
"Vintage Guitars are bunk - there have been many improvents"... At the
time, I thought it was an arrogant response from a 'newcomer'. But, 20
years later, I remember the comment, and think of it when I hear guys
getting good sound from Steinbergers and Plexiglass Dan Armstrongs....

There are just so many factors. I'm personally under the impression that
with solid-body electrics, the wood has a very litte part in it - unlike
acoustics - whose whole projection is determined by their construction.
I've played some bad guitars (quality) and some good guitars. These days,
solid hardware and good craftmanship mean more to me.... Who knows -
maybe I'll change my mind again in 10 years..... :)

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...