squier telecaster ummm makes me think

[GermanCdn]

Yeah, I don't think it's actually MDF, I'm going to guess it it would be basswood if anything.  Basswood has hardly any grain to it and could easily be mistaken for MDF on a ding or a cutaway.  Though 10 lbs is way too heavy to be a basswood guitar, max it would be 7  -  7.5.  Granted, the early Korean squiers (like the Squier II series) were all over the place with building materials, cut specs, hardware, etc, so it's not completely out of the range of possibilities.  Nato and agathis are also possibilities, as mentioned.

Your Japanese squier is likely alder, I can't ever remember Fender using maple on guitar bodies, only solid body (maples pretty popular in semi hollows) production guitar I can think of with a maple body would be the ESP George Lynch stuff.  A maple body tele would be really bright on the bridge pickup.

As far as mahogany goes, if you can get it for $3 a square, I'm guessing you live in South America.  It's a lot more expensive once it crosses the border. 

[copachino]

Yeah, I don't think it's actually MDF, I'm going to guess it it would be basswood if anything.  Basswood has hardly any grain to it and could easily be mistaken for MDF on a ding or a cutaway.  Though 10 lbs is way too heavy to be a basswood guitar, max it would be 7  -  7.5.  Granted, the early Korean squiers (like the Squier II series) were all over the place with building materials, cut specs, hardware, etc, so it's not completely out of the range of possibilities.  Nato and agathis are also possibilities, as mentioned.

Your Japanese squier is likely alder, I can't ever remember Fender using maple on guitar bodies, only solid body (maples pretty popular in semi hollows) production guitar I can think of with a maple body would be the ESP George Lynch stuff.  A maple body tele would be really bright on the bridge pickup.

As far as mahogany goes, if you can get it for $3 a square, I'm guessing you live in South America.  It's a lot more expensive once it crosses the border.

central america in fact, Honduras mahogany its the one, really cool  and i planning my tele on that wood



that my timber, so at least i want it to sound like my palmer, since its my first build

[Frag Magnet]

The wood is irreverent to the tone of an electric guitar.  I'd say the most likely culprit for a difference in tone between the two guitars is the pickups.

That's actually not true. Wood matters, and construction techniques matter a lot in both acoustic and electric guitars.

An 'electric' guitar is still considered an acoustic instrument, because the reaction is the string resonating with the instrument itself. There's a reason why some guitars are made with Mahogany, and some with Alder.

I used to be of that opinion until I saw the results of some empirical tests (ie: ones not influenced by the human ear).

Placebo effect/confirmation bias can be a very powerful thing.

Play an Alder Tele and a Swamp Ash Tele with the same hardware, pickups, and neck (I have done so) and you can hear a difference (I have).

Again, human perception of sound is incredibly subject to outside influence but what do you think the tolerances on those pickups are?  How consistent are the setups?  Did they have the same kind/gauge strings with the same amount of wear?

With electric guitars pickups matter, strings matter, scale length matters, bridge hardware matters; most everything else... not so much.

Now if you've got something more concrete than some guy saying "X definitely sounds different from Y because tone woods" I'd love to see it.  I definitely appreciate a guitar made of fancy wood much more than I do one made of plywood and I'd like there to be something more to it than my perception of the instrument.

What I will definitely say is that if I'm playing a bass or guitar and I can feel it resonating against me that absolutely influences the way that I respond to the instrument and how I play it.  It's the only way I got through having the terrible stock pickups in my Peavey Grind NTB for like seven or eight years.

I'm of the same opinion as Jacob.  In fact, you can have two guitars made out of the exact same materials with the exact same electronics, and they can sound different.  I have two SC250s which had (I've changed the pups now) the exact same configuration and they did not sound the same.  Now, they didn't sounds worlds different, but you could tell the difference between the two.

I've experienced the exact same thing but again; human perception, factory tolerances in the electronics, and minor differences in the setup/pickup adjustments can more than account for that.

A JB in the bridge of a Les Paul sounds different than a JB in the bridge of a RG or strat or tele.

Short scale vs. long scale, Tune-O-Matic vs. Floyd Rose vs. Strat-style vibrato vs. Fender-style hardtail.  There's a lot more going on there than what those guitars are made out of.

[jkokura]

I used to be of that opinion until I saw the results of some empirical tests (ie: ones not influenced by the human ear).

Placebo effect/confirmation bias can be a very powerful thing.

Play an Alder Tele and a Swamp Ash Tele with the same hardware, pickups, and neck (I have done so) and you can hear a difference (I have).

Again, human perception of sound is incredibly subject to outside influence but what do you think the tolerances on those pickups are?  How consistent are the setups?  Did they have the same kind/gauge strings with the same amount of wear?

Same pickups, same setup, same strings, same everything in fact - except the body. Made by the same company with the same template with the same finish techniques, identical in everything as possible except the wood used. Literally, the only difference was the body, and the two guitars sounded very different. I didn't believe it myself until it was shown me, which would make it not confirmation bias, but rather persuasive evidence. I believed as you did, that alder and swamp ash wouldn't sound much different, but they did.

With electric guitars pickups matter, strings matter, scale length matters, bridge hardware matters; most everything else... not so much.

Now if you've got something more concrete than some guy saying "X definitely sounds different from Y because tone woods" I'd love to see it.  I definitely appreciate a guitar made of fancy wood much more than I do one made of plywood and I'd like there to be something more to it than my perception of the instrument.

I think the onus is more on you to show your empirical data than it is on me to prove what I've heard with my own ears. Without the science to back up what you're saying, its just you saying things contrary to what the general consensus for at least a hundred years has said. Not that I don't believe that you have it, but rather that I can't show you what you're asking for, as you're asking for something that's generally believed and practiced by the great majority of the guitar builders of the past century, whereas the evidence for what you're saying is generally not backed up with practical experience. Emperical evidence can only occasionally prove something like this, and may not fully represent the proper measurements needed.

What I will definitely say is that if I'm playing a bass or guitar and I can feel it resonating against me that absolutely influences the way that I respond to the instrument and how I play it.  It's the only way I got through having the terrible stock pickups in my Peavey Grind NTB for like seven or eight years.

I'm of the same opinion as Jacob.  In fact, you can have two guitars made out of the exact same materials with the exact same electronics, and they can sound different.  I have two SC250s which had (I've changed the pups now) the exact same configuration and they did not sound the same.  Now, they didn't sounds worlds different, but you could tell the difference between the two.

I've experienced the exact same thing but again; human perception, factory tolerances in the electronics, and minor differences in the setup/pickup adjustments can more than account for that.

With respect, I'd caution you when contradicting a guy who has literally had hundreds (perhaps 1000+?) of guitars go through his door. Curtis is one of the most experienced guys I know in terms of playing and knowing electric instruments. I would again say that the onus is on you to say that the difference in wood does not contribute to two different electric instruments sounding different rather than pickup and electronic tolerances alone.

Two pieces of the same tone wood can be different both in terms of resonance, weight, and density, which contributes to them sounding different in identical guitars. Different species of wood will naturally have different resonance, weight and density, so it follows that they will also affect an identical instrument. To suggest that electronics and the path of the string are the only elements that matter isn't a foregone conclusion.

Jacob

[alanp]

If nothing else, the body affects the sustain. Soft wood will absorb more vibration through the bridge end of the strings.

[GermanCdn]

With respect, I'd caution you when contradicting a guy who has literally had hundreds (perhaps 1000+?) of guitars go through his door. Curtis is one of the most experienced guys I know in terms of playing and knowing electric instruments.

You know, when you say it like that, I just sound crazy.  It's nowhere near 1,000, if I had to guess, it's kissing the bottom end of 700.

[sturgeo]

I had a rather lengthy debate (argument) with an old bandmate about the body having an effect on tone. His argument was its all in the pickups, bridge, blah blah and not the body, i mentioned the Dan Armstrong acrylic guitars..... needless to say the argument was over.

[playpunk]

With respect, I'd caution you when contradicting a guy who has literally had hundreds (perhaps 1000+?) of guitars go through his door. Curtis is one of the most experienced guys I know in terms of playing and knowing electric instruments.

You know, when you say it like that, I just sound crazy.  It's nowhere near 1,000, if I had to guess, it's kissing the bottom end of 700.

I think your explanation actually sounds worse than Jacob's.

[pickdropper]

This is turning into a really interesting discussion.

Do I believe that body wood makes a difference?  Yeah, actually I do.  Maybe a bit less with certain pickups (like really hot actives) that appear to minimize any differences that appear in the body.  Playing guitar over the last 25 years, I've come to the believe that it does make a difference.  I don't, however, have any scientific evidence to back that up.

But the more interesting portion is the discussion of scientific method that has come up.

- Burden of proof: If one claims that there IS a difference, then I would really consider the onus to be on them.  Human ears are notoriously unreliable for most people.  Saying "I can hear the difference" is really all the justification one needs to buy guitars and enjoy them, but that is a far cry from any scientific relevance.  I've dealt with a lot of situations where people have heard differences that weren't there and vice verse.

- Control of variables: It is really important to control the variables when making direct comparisons.  Two identical guitars with identical hardware can vary for a variety of reasons, not just the wood.  Known variables are: wood species, weight of the wood, pickup winding, how the nut is cut, how the guitar is setup, mounting position of the bridge, etc.  I totally agree that the same model of guitar with identical hardware can vary greatly, but there is more to it than just the wood.

- Value of experience/expertise: With all respect to Curtis, I wouldn't take somebody's viewpoint at their word simply because they have purchased 700-1000 guitars.  That person may or may not have extensive knowledge of the instruments, but that cannot be assumed.  And it's not a good argument within the context of a scientific debate.  There are plenty of Blues Lawyers that own piles of guitars and know nothing about them.  Curtis isn't one of them, but the point holds.  On the other hand, there are people that are clearly established experts that have become so because they have handled so many instruments over the years.  George Gruhn is a good example.  He's a known expert because he's taken the time to study the minute differences between instruments and knows exactly how things were built.  I've also met other dealers that push a ton of guitars through their stores, but don't really study the instruments; it's just a commodity to them.

So basically, while I do believe I've perceived a difference in body woods, I think the scientific debate thus far has been largely devoid of actual science.  "It's there because I heard it" is not any more relevant to scientific proof than "ghosts are real because I've seen them."  It may be true, but it's not proof.

I'm also prepared to concede that maybe I gravitate to certain woods because I like the way they look and they still sound good.  :-)

[pickdropper]

If nothing else, the body affects the sustain. Soft wood will absorb more vibration through the bridge end of the strings.

This seems very reasonable and should be easily quantifiable.

[Morgan]

But the more interesting portion is the discussion of scientific method that has come up.

- Burden of proof: If one claims that there IS a difference, then I would really consider the onus to be on them.  Human ears are notoriously unreliable for most people.  Saying "I can hear the difference" is really all the justification one needs to buy guitars and enjoy them, but that is a far cry from any scientific relevance.  I've dealt with a lot of situations where people have heard differences that weren't there and vice verse.

- Control of variables: It is really important to control the variables when making direct comparisons.  Two identical guitars with identical hardware can vary for a variety of reasons, not just the wood.  Known variables are: wood species, weight of the wood, pickup winding, how the nut is cut, how the guitar is setup, mounting position of the bridge, etc.  I totally agree that the same model of guitar with identical hardware can vary greatly, but there is more to it than just the wood.

- Value of experience/expertise: With all respect to Curtis, I wouldn't take somebody's viewpoint at their word simply because they have purchased 700-1000 guitars.  That person may or may not have extensive knowledge of the instruments, but that cannot be assumed.  And it's not a good argument within the context of a scientific debate.  There are plenty of Blues Lawyers that own piles of guitars and know nothing about them.  Curtis isn't one of them, but the point holds.  On the other hand, there are people that are clearly established experts that have become so because they have handled so many instruments over the years.  George Gruhn is a good example.  He's a known expert because he's taken the time to study the minute differences between instruments and knows exactly how things were built.  I've also met other dealers that push a ton of guitars through their stores, but don't really study the instruments; it's just a commodity to them.

I'd add that you actually need a statistically relevant data set. You can't just post audio and graph frequency response of two identical guitars, one with alder and one with ash, and expect an experiment to hold weight. You have to replicate it many time in order to weed out the inconsistencies. And by then, the magic is all gone!

[pickdropper]

But the more interesting portion is the discussion of scientific method that has come up.

- Burden of proof: If one claims that there IS a difference, then I would really consider the onus to be on them.  Human ears are notoriously unreliable for most people.  Saying "I can hear the difference" is really all the justification one needs to buy guitars and enjoy them, but that is a far cry from any scientific relevance.  I've dealt with a lot of situations where people have heard differences that weren't there and vice verse.

- Control of variables: It is really important to control the variables when making direct comparisons.  Two identical guitars with identical hardware can vary for a variety of reasons, not just the wood.  Known variables are: wood species, weight of the wood, pickup winding, how the nut is cut, how the guitar is setup, mounting position of the bridge, etc.  I totally agree that the same model of guitar with identical hardware can vary greatly, but there is more to it than just the wood.

- Value of experience/expertise: With all respect to Curtis, I wouldn't take somebody's viewpoint at their word simply because they have purchased 700-1000 guitars.  That person may or may not have extensive knowledge of the instruments, but that cannot be assumed.  And it's not a good argument within the context of a scientific debate.  There are plenty of Blues Lawyers that own piles of guitars and know nothing about them.  Curtis isn't one of them, but the point holds.  On the other hand, there are people that are clearly established experts that have become so because they have handled so many instruments over the years.  George Gruhn is a good example.  He's a known expert because he's taken the time to study the minute differences between instruments and knows exactly how things were built.  I've also met other dealers that push a ton of guitars through their stores, but don't really study the instruments; it's just a commodity to them.

I'd add that you actually need a statistically relevant data set. You can't just post audio and graph frequency response of two identical guitars, one with alder and one with ash, and expect an experiment to hold weight. You have to replicate it many time in order to weed out the inconsistencies. And by then, the magic is all gone!

Agree 100%.

My boss says one of the most common mistakes scientists make is that they stop as soon as they see the results they are expecting.

As Richard Feyman said: "The first rule of science is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool."

[culturejam]

The biggest difference I've noticed between body/neck wood types on an electric guitar is when it is unplugged. Some guitars just have a lot of volume and sustain unplugged.

[GermanCdn]

I've been mentioned in the same paragraph as George Gruhn.

In no way do I claim to be an expert in the matter.  I am not a blues lawyer, as previously mentioned, I am clearly a hair metal engineer.  I don't have tan pants, I have designer spandex (bet you can't get that image out of your mind).

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and personally, in regards to this subject, it's essentially inconsequential in the grand scheme of first world issues.

My point behind my comment about two SC250s sounding different was to point out that a guitar is in fact a sum of its components.  Perhaps a better comparison would be so say run the rack of any major guitar store for every MIM strat.  They will sound different, because they are the sum of their parts, which include the pickups, the bridge, the nut, the body, the neck, etc, etc.  It's actually easier to control the specs on the pickups then on the bodies and necks, because a CNC winder can put exactly the same number of winds on a pickup and the wire is produced in mass batches.  Clearly their can be some differentiation between the magnets.  Bobbins, spacers, covers, etc, are all manufactured in the same fashion and are likely not to deviate greatly.  Same thing applies for bridges, and tuners, it's easier to get the metallurgy right because you have to physically create it.  It's more difficult to manage the body and neck properties, as you can be dealing with a range of densities, wood anamolies, multiple laminations, etc, etc.

If we were to accept that the materials of construction have no affect on guitar tone (and, again, I don't really care either way), then we must accept the fact that the quantity of material in the build, once it meets the basic structural requirements of the guitar, also doesn't matter.  If that were the case, then a production Gibson Les Paul and a production Gibson SG should sound identical.  For comparable models, they have the same scale, the same tuners, the same nut material, same fret material, same bridge, same tail piece, same pickups, same pot values.  I've done the test, I have had a bunch of each over the years and I still have two of each.  They don't sound the same.  This test could also be extended to Flying Vs, Explorers, and 335s (because if the wood is solely a structural element, it should not matter if the body is solid, semi hollow, or hollow).

And I've taken it a step further.  My first guitar was an Ibanez X-Series.  It was the best guitar that I could afford at the time.  It looked hideous.  When my collection reached the point where I didn't need it any more (four guitars, I was king of the world), I didn't really want to sell it, but I couldn't stand to look at it any more.  So I threw it on the table saw and cut the wings off.  Yup, sounded different, and worse.  So, I was past the point of no return, so I tried to make it a home made Steinberger by cutting more wood off.  Even more of a sonic disaster.  Bought an RG body for it and scavenged all the components to built a partshredder.  Wayyyy more treble than my dog could handle.  Eventually it made for some very bad smelling firewood.

So from this experiment, I derived that the quantity of material used to construct a guitar body did in fact have an effect on the tone of the guitar.  And, since the X-series was a basswood body and the RG was a plywood body, I concluded that materials of manufacture also had an effect on tone.

Another experiment I tried was taking loaded Texas Special pickguard (a notoriously bright pickup) from an alder body/rosewood board strat (typically a darker sounding strat in the combination) into a Lite Ash strat with a maple board (the typical brighter sounding strat combination).  "Take me down to Ice Pick city, where my ears are bleeding and my tone is shitty" was the result.

I have three nearly identical G&L ASAT blackguards, all swamp ash bodies, same pickups, same bridges, same tuners, same nuts, same neck shaft material, same body material.  They have different neck profiles, one of them is a swamp ash with a modern c neck and a maple board, one of them's a heavy swamp ash body with a heavy V neck and maple board, and one of them's a thinline (no f-hole) swamp ash body with a modern c neck rosewood board.  They also don't sound the same.  The heavy swamp ash one is the brightest, followed by the medium c solid, followed by the rosewood.

Anyway, those are just a few of the things I've tried, and the basis for my opinion.  Like I said, to each his own.

[madbean]

I've had alder, swamp ash, mahogany, basswood, pine and korina bodies but they have all been on different styles of guitars and I don't have a strong preference. I also had an acrylic body for a while but it was way too heavy for me.

I'm not sure where I fall on where the burden of proof lies, though. Common sense tells me different material types would cause some measurable difference in outcomes so it seems that one would want to prove that this is not the case.

I guess the problem I see with providing a baseline to test is that I don't know if you can make the same body out of different woods come out to the same exact weight. I think that would be crucial to analyzing the results. You also have to account for the moisture content in each wood type, I think.