Tonewoods: Scientifically sound or just a load of *******?

[Disastrous]

OldSkoolRS said:

That should be easy to prove; just record directly into something like Garageband and then restring and record the same track again with the same settings.

I'll be very surprised if the sound isn't brighter with the new strings as I've always noticed how much better my Strat sounds with a new set on, but try it for yourself with Garageband or whatever.

Well, that's my point. I don't think you can. It's not like you adjust your amp settings to compensate for new strings, is it?

How do you think the pickups are capturing the brightness of new strings?

[Disastrous]

Just to add, I'm genuinely curious about this. I have always thought I could hear new strings but thinking logically about how pickups work, I'm starting to think it might be in my head...

[OldSkoolRS]

I've just had a play on my guitar and while I haven't restrung it I confirmed something similar:

I used just one pickup (happened to be the neck pickup, but either will do so long as not both), pluck the string near the neck. Then pluck the string near to the bridge. Have the amp turned well up, but clean so that you won't be hearing the acoustic sound of the string (or use headphones if you like).

Tell me; does the guitar sound different when you do this or are all the notes the same tone?

I'll have to do a recording into Garageband before and after I restring one of my guitars to show the effect, but I'm confident that it isn't just the acoustic sound that is being heard since over the years I'd done quite a few home recordings using headphones and the new string tone is audible to my ears on these recordings.

[singlecoil]

OldSkoolRS said:

I used just one pickup (happened to be the neck pickup, but either will do so long as not both), pluck the string near the neck.

There will be a difference in the sound through the amp because the proportion of overtones to fundamental will be higher the close the string is plucked to the bridge.

[OldSkoolRS]

singlecoil said:

There will be a difference in the sound through the amp because the proportion of overtones to fundamental will be higher the close the string is plucked to the bridge.

I'll take your word on that, but why?

Do you think new strings sound any different through the amp or only acoustically?

[Evangelion]

New strings sound different to old ones because rust and other muck builds up over time to dampen the vibrations hence deaden the sound. Then you fit a new set and all that is gone, it's back to normal.

You can lessen this buildup by cleaning the strings every time you play. I do this even if it's only for a minute and one side effect is that I haven't broken a string in years. (Actually I broke one last month, but that was a guitar I'd just bought which had the cruddiest strings I've ever seen.)

[singlecoil]

The reason there are more overtones near the bridge (proportionally) is that the full excursion of the string is going to be limited by the closeness of the bridge. It's a little bit similar to a pendulum, the longer the rod the further the weight can move, shorten the rod the weight can't move so far but it can move a lot faster.

With a string the fundamental and the overtones are going at the same time, the variation is in the ratio of one to the other.

Strings lose their resilience after a while, new ones are always going be a bit brighter.

[Disastrous]

singlecoil said:

OldSkoolRS said:

I used just one pickup (happened to be the neck pickup, but either will do so long as not both), pluck the string near the neck.

There will be a difference in the sound through the amp because the proportion of overtones to fundamental will be higher the close the string is plucked to the bridge.

Agreed. Do we think the newness/cleanliness/material of the strings would affect overtones too?

I'm struggling to wrap my head round it as I'd never considered this before.

[OldSkoolRS]

singlecoil said:

The reason there are more overtones near the bridge (proportionally) is that the full excursion of the string is going to be limited by the closeness of the bridge. It's a little bit similar to a pendulum, the longer the rod the further the weight can move, shorten the rod the weight can't move so far but it can move a lot faster.

With a string the fundamental and the overtones are going at the same time, the variation is in the ratio of one to the other.

Strings lose their resilience after a while, new ones are always going be a bit brighter.

Thanks Singlecoil, that makes sense.

When I'm playing regularly I tend to change my strings once a month on a rolling cycle through each guitar, but I haven't bothered lately as I've had to rest my left hand due to an injury. I just bought a used Gold Top 60s Tribute that could do with a re-string soon, more so I can do a bit of a set up on it to suit me rather than the previous owner. I'll try to remember to record the before and after string change to post back on here for the interested parties.

I haven't broken a string in quite a few years now, the last time was due to a sharp edge on the saddles of my Epiphone Les Paul. In fact in 40+ years of playing I think I've only broken maybe a dozen strings after the initial learner stage.

[Mave]

Evangelion said:

New strings sound different to old ones because rust and other muck builds up over time to dampen the vibrations hence deaden the sound. Then you fit a new set and all that is gone, it's back to normal.

You can lessen this buildup by cleaning the strings every time you play. I do this even if it's only for a minute and one side effect is that I haven't broken a string in years. (Actually I broke one last month, but that was a guitar I'd just bought which had the cruddiest strings I've ever seen.)

By your own logic (which you stated earlier), pickups can only "hear" the metal of the string - so how can non magnetic dirt change what the pickups "hear"?

[Evangelion]

Already told you - it dampens the vibrations of the strings, in the same way that you can damp the strings by resting the heel of your hand on them. No one's suggesting that the pickups can hear your skin, they're just hearing the change in the string vibrations.

[Mave]

Evangelion said:

Already told you - it dampens the vibrations of the strings, in the same way that you can damp the strings by resting the heel of your hand on them. No one's suggesting that the pickups can hear your skin, they're just hearing the change in the string vibrations.

Great, I agree with that. So the tone can be changed by the dirt. The pickups don't see the dirt, but they do see the change in vibration caused by the dirt. Why is this so different from what happens when you change the wood? The pickups don't see the wood directly, just like they don't see the dirt directly. but they do see the change in vibration caused by the wood. Which bit of this do you disagree with? And remember, you wanted a scientific debate so let's keep it to scientific principals - not based on whether or not you can tell the difference in a live setting in front of a drummer ;-)

Edited by Mave on Wednesday 28th September 07:46

[AdeTuono]

Well, I must have superhuman hearing. Not only can I hear the difference between new and old strings, I can tell if they are flat or round wound.

And all my guitars sound different to each other. Despite all being made of tree wood.

[WindyCommon]

Interesting thread.

Playing at volume might be part of this. We've all felt (I hope!) how a guitar comes alive when it's body vibrates (resonates?) with amplified output. Particularly when feedback/harmonics etc are a big part of whatever you're doing. Sustain for example is noticeably enhanced when the volume is up and you stand in the right place. Different types of wood - and construction, think hollow-bodies - will likely react to this in different ways. I can see how this might affect how the strings are vibrating, and hence the sound.

Maybe the effects of materials and construction are lessened when playing solo through a practice amp at home, but quite different when in a band situation..?

[Evangelion]

I've already said I've no problem with different types of construction affecting the sound; factors like number and position of pickups, values of electronic components, scale length, bolt-on/glued-in/through necks etc. I can even accept that wood might have a bearing on the sound. What I don't buy into is that changing to another type of wood can have any effect, and that some woods are somehow 'better' than others (which is basically what the tonewoods fanbois are saying).

Explain to me, scientifically, what causes this mysterious 'difference' between woods. And why the more expensive woods are invariably claimed to be better. Strange coincidence, that.

[singlecoil]

Nanook said:

Evangelion said:

I've already said I've no problem with different types of construction affecting the sound; factors like number and position of pickups, values of electronic components, scale length, bolt-on/glued-in/through necks etc. I can even accept that wood might have a bearing on the sound. What I don't buy into is that changing to another type of wood can have any effect, and that some woods are somehow 'better' than others (which is basically what the tonewoods fanbois are saying).

Explain to me, scientifically, what causes this mysterious 'difference' between woods. And why the more expensive woods are invariably claimed to be better. Strange coincidence, that.

It's not mysterious, read the thread, the differences between different woods have been explained to you several times. You're just choosing not to believe it.

And do you really think it's that the expensive ones are better? Or that the better ones are expensive?

The impact of material choice when constructing an electric guitar is similar in theory, although less pronounced, than when building an acoustic guitar. Or a drum. Or a xylophone.

I don't understand what part of that you don't understand.

I understand everything you said, but agree with very little of it.

[singlecoil]

Nanook said:

singlecoil said:

I understand everything you said, but agree with very little of it.

Then there's not a lot anyone can say.

The physics is, what the physics is. Disagreeing with it doesn't really come into it.

I agree that different woods will have different effects on the sound produced, but those differences, unless there is a gross difference in the densities, will not amount to anything that can be distinguished by ear. In other words, it's a theoretical difference, not a practical one.

[Mave]

Evangelion said:

I've already said I've no problem with different types of construction affecting the sound; factors like number and position of pickups, values of electronic components, scale length, bolt-on/glued-in/through necks etc. I can even accept that wood might have a bearing on the sound. What I don't buy into is that changing to another type of wood can have any effect, and that some woods are somehow 'better' than others (which is basically what the tonewoods fanbois are saying).

Explain to me, scientifically, what causes this mysterious 'difference' between woods. And why the more expensive woods are invariably claimed to be better. Strange coincidence, that.

If you want a scientific explanation, you need to be clear about what you want explained.

You're saying things like "I can accept that wood might have a bearing on the sound" at the same time as saying "I don't buy into changing the type of wood can have any effect".

What exactly is the thing you want scientifically explained- or, if it has already been explained, that you disagree with?

[singlecoil]

Nanook said:

singlecoil said:

I agree that different woods will have different effects on the sound produced, but those differences, unless there is a gross difference in the densities, will not amount to anything that can be distinguished by ear. In other words, it's a theoretical difference, not a practical one.

Welcome to 3 pages ago.

I'm not arguing that I can hear the difference. I'm stating that it exists. It's not theoretical though, it's practical. It can be measured. People have done so.

As I said a couple of pages ago, whether or not the difference can be heard by the 'naked' ear is debatable. Whether or not the difference exists is not.

Anyone debating on the side of 'it is possible to hear it with the naked ear' is on to a loser.

A more useful discussion would be about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Disastrous]

I can't be arsed setting this up but I think what really needs measuring is the output from the guitar under different conditions.

I'm still unconvinced that anything added by hardware would make it down a pickup and cable to the amp. I think measuring the vibration on the guitar or string is measuring in the wrong place. If the waveform is noticeably different under various conditions (wood A, wood B, old strings, new strings etc) then I guess it would prove that they make a difference.