Electric guitar body TONEWOOD - Myth or Fact? Judge for yourself here!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- The type of wood of an acoustic instrument has a huge influence on tone, but what about electric guitars? This is sometimes referred to as the Tone Wood Debate. In the guitar community there is no clear consensus on this issue. In this video the exact same guitar neck, pickup and hardware are assembled to two bodies of identical dimensions and density. One is Mahogany and one is Maple.
Also a third body made of Pressure treated Fir, from Friday's clip, is included in the comparison, that one has different dimensions and density though.
Amp setup: 1977 Marshall Super Bass into 2x 1971 Marshall 1960A and 1960B 4x12 Cabs, miked by Unidyne IV 548 close mic and AKG C414 BXLII room mic.
Dimensions Maple and Mahogany bodies: 510x120x21mm, density for both 650 g/m3
Dimension Pressure treated Fir: 415x120x27, density 920 g/m3
I was suprised how much I liked the pressurized fir .
Exactly )) A guitar made of it will weight a ton though.
Me too
I guess I'll join the "me too" movement here. I wonder though if its because the plank is smaller? Which raises another comparison question. If using the same wood, how much does body size affect tone? Maybe the magic is in a smaller body?
He's just picking the strings in a different place. Probably because of the difference in weight but mostly because there' a huge variance in tone available in your fingers and picking, you really have to eliminate that. There's no such thing as tonewood. Plus he said how important getting the same setup of pickup etc is but obviously didn't have all 3 built so he could reference each of them side by side. And it's more or less impossible to use subjective human senses as a measure of 2 things. You know if I make you a cup of coffee in a yellow mug vs a red one many will say the red cup tastes stronger even if the coffee is identical from the same batch. You'd really need to do a more complicated and rigorous experiment to eliminate the things that we already know are the biggest factors in tone and measure the output with something that can compare it objectively. But, in the meantime we should have all seen by now that you can make a guitar without any wood, no neck or body, and it sounds the same as one with wood. Thus if you believed wood is contributing to the sound coming out the amp why it doesn't it disappear in the 'air guitar' ? I think the other thing the guy who set up the air guitar should have done is simply to show how easily he could have got different tones whilst playing. Just in the same way you can give the same guitar setup to 3 different people and they'll sound different through it. Jeez, about 70% of practise for anyone above beginner level should be focused on the tone of what you're playing. How hard are you picking, where are you picking, what are you picking with etc etc. If you're just following tab and holding the right fret and string and picking it roughly the right time as though playing guitar is like a more complicated version of 'guitar hero' then, sure, it's going to sound roughly like the piece of music maybe people will recognise it, but if you really want it to sound musical and good then you have to consider the quality of every note and passage. And you'll find a huge variety of tones even on the exact same settings, you're not switching pickup or volume or twiddling knobs on the amp or any pedals, you're just changing the way you play. But that nuance is difficult to control. It's why playing the guitar is difficult to master. It's specifically difficult to play something exactly the same way twice. So why anyone would think they could build 3 different guitars and see how the tone changed between them makes little sense. He could have got the same result without actually changing the wood.
Mahogany - more of a full sound
Maple - more punchy
Muhfkn pressure treated hardware store fir - surprisingly crunchy.
Honestly I'm really surprised at how good the hardware store wood sounded.
The thickest Gothenburg accent ever on UA-cam. Love it!!!
+griiseknoen hahaha! Glad to hear that! :-)
"Guitohr"
griiseknoen aha Gothenburg good to know! 👍👍👍😅
Johan, the only man that can make a 2x4 sound absolutely perfect
Actually anyone can do that for about the price of a nice pup and bolt on neck. Solid body electric guitar bodies are a structural element as demonstrated most effectively by Jim Lill; who manages to make two bleeding tables sound like a tele; ua-cam.com/video/n02tImce3AE/v-deo.html
That Mahogany plank sounds really good!
+Pingshan Luan Thanks! :-)
Others simply call a mahogany plank a Gibson SG!
@@JohanSegeborn Guitar bodies aren't made out of Maple Einstein, & run a loop, like someone actually serious about tone comparisons would do, so your inconsistent playing doesn't effect the data. Fail.
@@JeighNeither you can't run a loop if you're changing the guitar...
@@freebird61885 lol 😂
I tried with my eyes closed to hear the difference. There's a distinct audible difference when it's not going into the amp. The sound is the same when it's going into the amp.
I am blown away by this guy! Johan has tested every folklore about famous amps and guitars. I think I've watched most of them because the history of rock guitar has been preserved here in these videos. I have learned so much from your videos! Johan, I love your videos, man.
The mahogany [guitar] could be played as is. I have heard guitars that cost a lot of money sound worse lmao. Great job man.
+Wile e. Coyote Thanks, yeah the Mahogany was my favorite
Haha true!
The best fair comparision video, well done!
Thanks, I’m really glad to hear that
@@JohanSegeborn It would be better not to have the room mic and the guitar many feet away from the cab mic. You are bringing in the acoustic properties into the recording. Those properties should be taken out of the equation as no one can hear the acoustic properties in a band setting. I'd also do a blind test wood 1, wood 2 and wood 3. ask the user to take notes and choose which wood is which before the reveal at the end.
@Tod Dot lol! I’d like a double blind test so biases can be excluded. That’s how testing works!
Its amazing how much electronics can change your tone
I have built over 50 guitars using various traditional tone woods. Most of the time I can not tell any difference between them other than the pickups, strings and types of bridges. Just this week I completed a guitar using apiece of lumberyard 2X12 pine, that had been aging for a year or so, a mahogany bolt on neck, a cheap aluminum tune-o-matic bridge, a $20 mini-humbucker, and a $5 set of strings. It is by far the most resonant guitar I ever made..and the sound coming out of my amp is as good as any $1200 plus, guitar I have ever played. The tone from that single pickup is smooth enough for Jazz, twangy enough for country, and on heavy gain and a touch of overdrive pedal, it has the power to do a convincing Metalica cover. Better tone through wood selection for electric guitar is not a myth,, it's just not limited as you think.
O sheeet didn't expect it to actually change the tone but it really did, to me the mahogany sounded much fuller than all the other woods here
Hey Johan. You say the planks have the same density. How do you know that? Any reference to the Janka hardness?Which kind of mahogany/maple are we talking about?
To me, as always, it is about how much of the signal is absorbed by the wood. The harder the wood, the less is absorbed, usually in the highest frequencies and the best coupling with the other elements. No wonder the maple is bright. You probably hear less of the bottom end because the ear focusses on the highs. So, less highs in the mahogany, the more perception on the 'nice' low end. Take away some of the high frequencies from the maple and my guess is it has the same nice bottom end, just like the mahogany. If you have made recordings, Johan, you could easily do that.
Oh, btw, resonant frequencies play no role whatsoever..
Edit: ive made some eq adjustments w the maple sound files through my software and put them after the mahogany ones.
It sounds a bit more similar now.Still some differences remain. i hope Johan is ok with that. If not i'll take them down.
From my One Drive:
1drv.ms/u/s!AlizlNpeipw1jQVH1ZyJ7ij490GC?e=kKZT6E
Love that video, thanks Johan Segeborn. Surprisingly all sounds good, and may be that mahagony sounds the best.
Thanks Dan, glad to hear it!
I think this explains why I have never warmed up to fenders. The Mahogony makes a huge difference in the tone. The pickups even respond to it. And that is why gibson is gibson and fender is fender. Gibson = warm, fender = bright. Another new thing is stainless steel frets. I have come to the conclusion that I hate them. Nickel sounds much better to my ears. Balance.
I’m sold, my next guitar I creat will be mahogany, body and neck. Love the deep dark woody sound. Thanks you sir. For this very insightful video.
Hey Johan! Great video! Did you measure the exact distance of the pickup from the strings for each test? And how did you ensure that the pickup is picking positioned at the exact same distance from the bridge? As you have mentioned in your video, these factors are extremely important. And while there are very noticeable differences in tone between the three bodys indeed, the differences are small enough to be potentially caused by the pickup placement. (Which also begs the question, if this tonal shift is so easy to achieve by pickup placement, why even bother talking about the wood type at all?) I don't want to sound nitpicky haha but if we want to find out how much of a difference there really is, we need to be very exact. Again, great video. Thanks!
Thanks Man, that's gold. I've got a really good ear, but without looking, it's practically impossible to tell imo which is which. What's certain is that pickups, amplifiers, & tone stages of each have infinitely more influence than the type of wood.
I definitely here a difference, the mahogany is way warmer........ Fantastic video as always. 💪😁👍
Thanks, glad to hear it! :-)
No
Maple have less bass response but more focused!!!!! In acoustic guitar these features stand out the most!!!! Bravo 👏
This took a HUGE amount of work. Thanks. I do hear differences.
How closely did you control pickup height/string height across the three test guitars? Small differences can have significant impacts to tone & balance.
I think that is hard to tell that there is a difference because even playing the same riff or strum the hand will attack the strings differently every time. Such tests demands a very controlled environment and to make the experience the right away it would demand a mechanical arm that would play always the very same way. Also the manner to know if the sound is different or not shouldn't be by listening to it but recording the sound and having a program able to analyze the wave form. I am sure that the wood have some influence but it's not noticeable by the human ear.
Two things.
1)There are differences, but they're subtle, probably not enough to matter live, but maybe enough to make a difference in a hi-fi recording setup.
2) There's something to be said that guitars built with "nicer" wood tend to have higher build quality. That's a perfectly good reason to buy an instrument. If the body isn't put together well or feels crappy, that will effect how you play.
I totally agree with you in the 2nd point. but regarding number 1.... bro/sis the difference is huge! maple is brighter and "crispier", the pressure treated fir had an amazing tone, bold and sharp, and the Mahogany had a huge warm tone over all... to my listening, using studio headphones and the quality of the video, the difference was nothing but subtle, I'm not saying one sounded "better" than the other, I just say that there is, in fact, a noticeable difference between the woods
A very interesting test with the 3 small boards.
Have you tried out the different mass ratios of body to neck? If you cut away a piece of a block of wood here and there or make it thinner and thinner, the resonance of this block of wood changes.
Have you ever tapped your Les Paul or Telecaster - it doesn't sound the same everywhere when you tap it. The thickness, shape and length of the piece of wood make a lot of difference.
With a xylophone, for example, the pitch is determined by cutting wooden sticks to length (often Honduras rosewood).
When the single strings are played the difference between the bodies jumps out: mahogany sings, maple stings, and the other lumber falls flat. Still, ha, the pressure treated fir doesn't sound as bad as I imagined. Call me a snob, but I'd rather not have my guitar made from that.
I could hear the difference, despite the fact that both maple and mahogany are heavy, dense tone woods. I would have liked to hear a lighter, open-pore wood like swamp ash in the comparison.
8:10 this sounds woodpeckerish
Thanks for clarifying this "mith" and let people understand that wood makes a difference. Even fretboards make a difference, but it's ever so sutttle
I'm thinking... what about isolating the PU from the guitar body? Like suspending it above the strings of the three different bodies you've built, but not touching the bodies. In this case you would only pick the vibrations of the strings while the PU would be unaffected by the vibrations of the body...
Might be a more valid test if the lumps of wood were guitar shaped instead of those tiny bits of wood. Might have more chance of hearing if any body resonance is affecting the string resonance.
I think the word is 'timbre' not tone...
A problem with mahogany that a lot of people don't realise is that there is 2 distinct main species of Mahogany, Honduras and Cuban, and heaps of other varieties grown all over the world.
So do both of these species sound the same?
Do people with Mahogany guitars even know which species they have?
Those questions are significant when you realise that some Gibson Les Paul aficionados claim that Gibson changed species at the end of the fifties and that's why the early ones are so revered, but no one seems to know for sure.
So, it would seem, that if you think that tonewood makes a difference, it would be almost impossible to classify due to the sheer variety of wood species even in the same family, where they are grown, how they are cut, etc., etc.
That makes the whole argument mute, because you could get 2 Mahogany guitars that are different varieties and grown in different climates and cut differently, and theoretically sound different.
This one is African Mahogany. They sound very similar but I think when people refer to the old growth Honduran mahogany, it's the old growth that's the operative word. We compared a Les Paul standard to an all Mahogany Custom the other day, you can check out the clip here
ua-cam.com/video/qaRB1XcT6EE/v-deo.html
These two differed only in fretboard and cap material. Ebony/rosewood, maple/ Mahogany. And to me they sounded differently and as expected from tapping the wood. That's by no means a proof but certainly an indication that material matters. If it's significant or negligible compared to other factors can certainly be discussed though. Cheers Johan
The point I'm making is that, although I'm open minded as to whether different woods make a difference to tone, it opens up an almost infinite degree of variability, that tone wood adherents don't seem to acknowledge.
I.e, If you say that you prefer Mahogany guitars, do you prefer young growth from New Zealand or old growth from Cuba?
It's like saying, "I prefer red wine, and all red wines taste the same, so that's what I'm sticking to"
I just hope that, that doesn't encourage more 'cork sniffing' in the guitar world, :)
Big difference according to my ears, plugged and clean. I will always be an admirer of mahogany through a Plexi, it is the raw way the low mids behave when you hit with different dynamics. Thank you for the clean tests with gear and playing that doesn't kill the original signal.
So do you prefer with your ears plugged or with them clean?
I want to convince myself that tonewoods make no difference so that I can convince myself to stop buying multiple of the same make of guitars (but made with different woods), yet most recordings (yours especially) keep convincing me that tonewoods make a big difference!
On the other hand, you've also convinced me that any wood can be made to sound good - I bet that pressurised fir would sound pretty good if used as a top or neck in a mahogany body! Also makes me wonder if basswood would sound less boomy if it was pressure-treated first!
Oh and thank you for the lovely videos, I really appreciate them!
You did the test correctly with one major exception (see below) using the same neck and all on each guitar, thus eliminating all variables other than the body wood. While I hard some slight differences in the clean sounds of these guitars on some riffs, but not on all, the differences are so minimal as not to be a serious matter.
However, you made the same mistake as so many others who have performed these tests by playing the guitars in isolation, under a stethoscope as it were. The only practical test of the sound of a guitar is in a band mix. I suspect that those minute sonic differences would disappear as soon as the band began to play.
Perhaps you could repeat the test with backing tracks and the guitars identically mixed into them.
Cheers.
This is an excellent comparison! Nicely done!
I've been a bit confused by the "tonewood debate." It gets pretty nasty in online arguments, and it's a weird thing for everyone to get so emotional about. You did an excellent job of giving a fair comparison while doing a pretty good job of controlling for differences. It's impossible to completely control all of the variables, of course, but this easily one of the most "unbiased" comparisons I've seen.
10/10
I think I can hear a difference, but I'm completely aware that it could be the placebo effect.
My completely un-scientific (anecdotal evidence based) opinion is that tonewood does matter, but it's probably among the smallest factors in the sound of an electric guitar. Having that been said, it's entirely possible that I'm imagining the difference. These things are pretty much impossible to get a 100% accurate answer on, since you'd need some guitar obsessed scientists with a good experimental design to get a definitive answer. I'd imagine this topic ranks pretty low on the list of things scientists are eager to explore, so people will probably be arguing about the wood a guitar is made of for the foreseeable future.
So in facy there was zero need to progress past Gibson's "log"? GO CAPITALISM!
to me the mahogany had more of a thicker midrange tone, the maple had a thinner high top end tone and the Treated sounded a bit squishy and less defined. you cannot convince me the wood does not effect tone. It might be subtle but it is there
Man, you sure can hammer fast! lol - I scrolled down and was reading the comments while listening to it the first time and made notes, then the second time I listened while watching - yes, there were distinctive differences in the different wood. The Maple sounds much brighter than the mahogany and the fir has a slightly more muddy sound to it, not to where it sounds bad but a difference to be sure. I know it would require more effort but I think to be sure to make this a more accurate test, the necks should have been in the wood, not sitting on top. But its a great video that proves the wood does make a difference.
This was the most amazing AB comparison I've ever seen about this subject. There is absolutely nothing to complain about, you've successfully eliminated every possible variable that could affect the sound. Hands down amazing, great work.
1:57 We can clearly hear a ground note and a major third one octave above. Is the low note the actual note of the wood, and the high one is the sound made by knocking?
I did a blind test. I read comments saying that the mahogny was fatter.
At least in riff 3 and 4 this was audible, and also the pressure treated fur stood out as more tinny
The biggest factor when it comes to the sound of a guitar are the hands playing it.
For the true comparison you have to strike your strings with the same attack (what is nearly impossible) plus you have to play guitar exactly the same at the same spot in the same pose every time.
Well done!
Mahogany has more low mids than the maple and seems "smoother".
Maple has less low mids than the mahogany, more upper mids "bite" and seems more "focused".
The mahogany sounds “richer” for lack of a better term, the maple is snappier, the pressure treated is the least dynamic and seems to be treble heavy. The mahogany has some more mid range harmonics too. Just my thoughts.
That is some serious analysis from a compressed youtube video :D But I agree they sound just a bit different. For me, the pressure treated one sounded the best. Could be the variations in his playing technique as well.
The Maple one sounded brighter to me, the mahogany one was more "midrangy". The pressure treated one was interesting, not as even in tone across the frequency range, seemed to have less sustain.
@@DiegoSilvadosSantos1 this seemsto validate the construction of Les Pauls to me, a maple top for sustain and higher frequencies laminated on a mahogany body which comprises the bulk of the body. I still say the neck construction and whether it is bolted, glued or a through body construction has a lot to do with tone on a solid body but here he used the same neck on order to eliminate the any of differences due to that.
@@knawl well that's fine, but remember no one in the history of the guitar has done a real scientific test on tone wood.
I don't think anyone really wants to know.
@@valueofnothing2487 yeah, but a lot of things aren't investigated by "science" then discounted as superstition or mythology, some later proven right , though not originally expressed in "scientific terms. I also say what people call science is largely faith based because it never more than a working knowledge based on ever evolving data that is often later proven to be pretty flawed or tainted, collected using pretty biased methods and attitudes. Anyway, I still say the neck has a lot more influence than the body especially concerning things like sustain, staying in tune etc, both with the wood used and construction method. The body obviously has some effect but not near as much, though obviously using pine or some thing soft has more, in a bad way of course. As others pointed out things like electronics blurr any effect the body wood has to the point that, as long as a good hardwood is used, the body wood becomes a mute point in solid body electrics. That doesn't mean it has none but little enough that it might be practically ignored up to a point. Of course acoustics are an entirely different matter. Its still interesting.
The mahogany and maple sound better than the fir, that sounds a little harsh to my ear. Thanks very much for doing this!
This comparison makes sense only if the pickup height is 100% the same in the 2 instruments.
Some slight variations, but not enough to prove one type of wood sounds a certain way or is "superior" over another.
You can easily dial out any of the variations with your amp settings.
The mahogany sound more 'Gibsony' and the maple sounds more 'Fendery' to my ears
Turns out when you get a good amplifier, overdrive it a bit and use good pickups mounted to the plank of wood, it does make a difference.
Sounds better than a modern Gibson though!!!
Hahaha! Thanks ;-)
Sounds better than any Gibson lol
People will hear what they want or/and expect to hear, because that is how subjective human hearing works.
So, as most will expect a higher-quality wood body to sound "better", that is exactly what the brain ensure the individual hearing hears.
The same is true of the never-ending "analog versus digital" debate in SynthLand, and the "vintage synth versus modern synth" debate - people expect that a 40 year old Jupiter-8 will "sound better" than a 2020ish PCM-based synth, so that is exactly what they hear.
I go down and read comments. Then I scroll up to peek when I think it sounds particularly good. Every time it's mahogany wood being played on.
They are all definitely different! What you prefer will come down to a matter of taste. The maple and fir sound cool to me. The maple for its brightness, the fir for it’s more unique “chunkiness“-not sure how else to describe it.
Thanks!
I’m shocked at the differences. These are all set up same pickup height and scale length?
A blind test with these "guitars" would be nice. It would be very important (and very hard) to play the riffs as consistently as necessary for such a test to work. It's probably even better to play only single notes instead of complete riffs and it's probably best to use a pick only. It only takes a slight change of volume or the position of the right hand to change the tone completely. Any difference caused by the change of the material could be easily masked by a small change in playing style.
Interesting thoughtful try but 1) not a large enough sample to be conclusive of anything really. 2) the human element plays a factor. If you pick slightly closer to the bridge (as in maple riff 2) it will be brighter.
What's more important than "type" of wood, i.e. mahogany, maple or whatever, is the density. A very dense timber will give you loads more sustain, but very poor bass-response - it's all treble; and a very low-density timber will rapidly absorb all the energy of the string and give you very little sustain - you just get an unsatisfying plunk. I've done these experiments myself by making complete electric guitars years ago. If you use a conventional tone wood and avoid extremes in density it'll sound fine. Note: electric guitarists are among the most superstitious people there are and often persist in irrational beliefs about their instruments. But there's little point in calling them out: music is a subjective experience.
The only factor making a slightly different sound is the human factor.
Look how he picks in different positions and with different force. If he would strike with exact the same force and in exact the same position there would be no difference at all.
Pickups thransfer the vibration of the strings with it's magnetic field. No way wood could be a tone factor anymore
My guitar is a neck thru solid black walnut. People don’t even know what they’re missing out on. Alder and basswood make for nice guitars but for the $ you might as well get heavier wood.
I hate that the following argument is put down so often... but unless you had a machine that picked the guitar EXACTLY the same with the different woods, and the instrument setup and placed EXACTLY the same in reference to the amp and the mic without being effed over by UA-cam compression etc. (maybe a live test?), and the pick hitting the exact same spot with the exact same power, i think it's valid to say that those minor differences ultimately add to the difference in tone, and therefore it becomes impossible to really say for sure what the difference is based on wood. And also, are the differences significant enough that they actually matter?
When testing something you need a control then what ever your testing in this case tone wood the great debate of electric guitar players. Your control must be tested in this case there are so many things that you have to know about your control it would take a team to do a good test. You can't just hit a piece of wood and say they have the same density there are a lot of factors that must be known. You must know density how much moisture and other factors that must be known. Once all that is done all the wood must be put in a room that can be controlled same temp, humidity, and a lot of other factors. Then the wood has to be built with the highest tolerance, same amp, same strings, and the same pickup should be tested on each piece of wood. Also a bigger factor in tone is your finger and your playing. That must be eliminated from the test and some kind of machine must strike each string the same way and with the same pressure. I do believe that wood makes a huge factor in tone on a acoustic guitar. You can take five of the same guitars of the same model and you can tell if you got a good ear the difference in tone. On electric guitar the more dense the wood the longer it sustains and it is not even in the top 3 factors in tone. Now for all the people that say with all the same elements pickups, pots, strings, and set up that they can hear the difference in tone. Take the top 3 most expensive woods blind folded would you bet your life that you can hear the difference. I did not think so now if you say you can feel the difference maybe . I think you did a great job on this video but the test has so many variables wrong the test is not complete.
Actually there is a zero-level question: is there a detectible difference at all? To answers this you don't need to worry about humidity and stuff. It would be good to include MDF, particle board and even scrap materials in the tests.
No amp! You compare just guitar outputs. No additional obfuscations.
Two identical pickups, same model same manufacture, can sound different.
I find the maple has a cleaner, more pleasing sound, but I would recommend boosting the midrange around 1 kHz a bit.
'The Plonk' ....Ironically, the pickup reads the Maple unit (which had an apparently higher pitch with 'tap tone', and assuming it is from the same piece of timber) has a broader sounding range than the Mahogany unit. Shape, and surface area likely effect this greatly. Beyond that, I like the design- a board with a thin nominal thickness goes a long way! Bo Diddly on a diet Lol...A great design to actually show off the timber's tonality with the hardware.
How about a nice expensive board of ebony wood? Like it would make a difference. Good upload!
Mahogany does have a pronounced low and softer at highs. Sounds a bit "thicker" relatively.
Thanks for sharing. Mahogany stands out for me. It has a warmer or darker sound. Unlike the other three sounds brighter. I appreciate for creating this video.
Did you drill those holes with carbide or steel drill bits? It affects the tone.
The maple sounded very thin by comparison of the mahogany, the pressure board sounded snappier than the others.
Thanks for this video! I wonder why so many bass guitars are made of maple and not mahogany, given that mahogany producer warmer pitches? Or maybe maple is intentionally used to brighten up the tone for more balance?
To me the mahogany had more warmth and richness of tone and a slightly longer sustain than the other two. To me the difference between the fir and the maple wasn't as noticeable. Cool video.
Damn...I really thought this was a myth, but the sound of the Mahogany is actually a part of why I love the Gibson sound, I always thought it was just their pickups. Thank you so much for the video!
It is a myth. He does everything wrong.
Brilliant video. Well done sir - you've nailed it. There's no denying that they sound different. (I like the mahogany best :) )
+Paul Applewhite Thanks, glad to hear it!
Wow they all sound really good and they really all do have their subtle differences. Although one must ask, within a mix of drums bass and other guitars would any tonal difference be noticed, and is one really"better" than another?
Great video! This puts it to rest once and for all!
Playing the riff very differently makes the test inaccurate. The more consistently you play, the more objective the results.
Bare feet and power tools - what could go wrong? Coolest videos on UA-cam, without a doubt.
Very different tap tones. I hear the differences but tbh I just don't think it matters much if you have EQ controls on your amp 🤷♂️
wow...didn't expect to hear that much of a difference. To me, all riffs sounded best on mahogany. And there I was, thinking it wouldn't matter, since I really dig the sound of my plywood tele (with a
Seymour Duncan bridge pickup ;-) )
Thanks Stefan!
the thing is if you switches guitars mid recording a song, I won't notice it at all.
I heard a definite difference, much like most of the others. Mahogany had a darker sound. Of course, there are probably a few people in YT land that would try to convince me I didn't hear what I heard. Could the difference in what I heard be overcome by EQ, amp settings, etc.? Undoubtedly. But the core sound I'm hearing here on this vid is different between woods. Thanks for posting the vid.
Without pickups, they sound different. With pickups, nothing. If there is any difference, an EQ pedal will iron that out.
Definite differences . The Fir was thin and not very resonant . The Maple and Mahogany were close .
Overall I preferred the Maple . Not much in it though , and I have shitty Audio realistically .
to EVERYONE who thinks this topic is still worth arguing over:
i still buy STRATOCASTERS and TELECASTERS and amps with EL84 or 6v6 power section(who cares what tubes in the pre as long as they dont breakup early!)......... i can hear the difference, and i dont have to justify what i hear to ANYONE.....
i dont care what ANY of You, or Eric Johnson think about tone..... yalls opinions are as worthless as mine.....
and to all the concrete and acrylic guitarists, more power to ya...... i have wood.
do what Frank Zappa suggested, THINK FOR YOURSELVES..... let the dummies waste time grinding their dull axes.....
now, go play your guitars !
good work on this video, Johan !!!!
Bit late to this but looks like he plays every riff different each time, often playing closer to the bridge for some some. Often plays different notes or otherwise improvises.
The tonal difference I hear is basically the amount of difference I hear when I strum my guitar on a different bit of the string tbh
I also like the mohg. body. Great video!
Is there any difference in Tone between a Celestion Seventy 80 vs. a Celestion 25W Greenback?
... then there is also a difference in Tone between Wood species.
Cheers Edy!
Did the pickups have the same exact height?
Maple seems to fit in between the other two
Mahogany seems more mellow
The pressure treated fir had the most brittle sound, mahogany was just like a perfect blend then maple was kinda soft sounding
Great vid! Mahogany def sounded best to my ears, it just sounded much fuller.
Thanks! I prefer it too
Lot of work. Mahogany most rich, maple most bright, Fir was overall good like a balance between Mo & Ma.
Damn!I want that guitar!
P.S. what makes the dound is the string cutting through the magnetic feild. Woods don't matter.
Thanks Vince, it’s available at any lumber yard ;-)
Very nice video. Maple is brighter that mahagony, that's for sure. And that preasured thing is brighter then both mahagony and maple. For me, mahagony has the best sound :).
+Dejan Babic Thanks Dejan!
It is different, but can't decide which is better 😅
I bumped into that inreresting vdo...think the Mahagoni has this warmth in it...means a Gibson w/ o maple cap could work that way?!
+RV EUROPE ON TOUR yeah the all mahogany 57 Custom Reissue is darker sounding the than the standard. Simon and I compare those two in this clip
ua-cam.com/video/qaRB1XcT6EE/v-deo.html
Have you tried the same thing of composites? I'm thinking of building a guitar soon ans want to get all the info I can before going for it oh and the type of pick ups i want with switch choices. I also want it to be acoustic sounding as well as switching back to an electric sound if you understand me. In other words a go to guitar for gigs i can make 3 of, all the same but in different woods now thanks to this. i use drop tuning on 5ths to get the sound i like. Great VT man thanks.
Thanks, no not yet, but it would be interesting. The Mahogany/maple combo of the LP works great though. Cheers
I've been giving this a lot of thought and came up with the notion of having a composite of 3 woods in ovals so as to get the best of each and their composition; Mahogany at the pick up level surrounded by a Bird's Eye Maple and then the rest made of Basswood - compressed together. The composites should get the best resonance of all three and a wonderful colour to the finish and design. I favour a more oval shape loosely based on the old Vox Teardrop guitars of the 60's. All electronics would allow a piezo at the bridge for an acoustic sound then a 9 way switch to allow for any combination of pick up, wet & dry; I have to design it on 3D graphics yet. If I get it done anytime soon i will send you a picture, happy playing sir.
would have love to hear how alder sounds
The secret to the fir's sound is that tone-knot. ;)
Holly molly, the difference is huge actually. Mahogany is darker, warmer and lower, whereas maple is bright and high. Fir is kinda hollow, but also high frequency type. Love the video man, as always ;3
Thanks, great to hear that!
When you start talking one species of ebony vs. another, or 1950s maple vs 1990s maple, or differences on that level of detail, then I think its just fantasy. Its assumed that a Stradivarius violin has a tone that cannot be duplicated, but in a blind listening test recently professional musicians were unable to identify the Strad vs a good quality modern instrument. A plain maple top on a Les Paul sounds exactly the same as a 5A flametop.