Old G&Ls sound better?

short story. i've been looking at g&ls for maybe a year. i played about 10-20 newer ones in stores. none impressed me with the tone. finally i got an '87 asat (currently a special). after playing it for a month or more i can say it sounds great. great clean, great with heavy distortion.

since i got this guitar i have used it when shopping for other g&ls. all of these (about 8) were new models also. and i think this asat sounds better then them all. i feel like i'm seeing a pattern emerge.

am i nuts? today i drove for an hour to see a 2011 s500. i need something with a trem bar. it was painfully obvious the s500 sounded sterile compared to my asat. so what am i hearing? the difference in age? the difference in jumbo MDF pickups? older circuitry design? lack of a floating bridge?

if i try and describe the asat i'd say it's very balanced, articulate, and has almost an acoustic guitar warmth/woodiness.

in short, how can i get my asat's tone in something with a trem bar? or, again, am i crazy?

No you're not crazy. You just have a personal preference like everyone else.

Some old G&L's came with trem bars. You are going to have to start looking thoroughly and on a routine basis and then make a decision and act quickly. There are only so many that come up for sale and other people are constantly looking for them

You are going to have to start looking thoroughly and on a routine basis and then make a decision and act quickly. There are only so many that come up for sale and other people are constantly looking for them

If there's a cure for early G&L GAS, I haven't found it yet ...playing them helps take the edge off for a while.


...and then this pops up ( and being sold by a member) :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rarebird-Vintag ... 51b776bf24


-starts to count the couch cushion coinage-

elwood

Perhaps these posts might help (all located in our G&L Knowledgebase):

pre-BBE ASAT vs. '07 ASAT Special: Differences?.
S500s: 1984 vs. 1994 vs. 2004???.
S-500 single coil size pickups on early 80's model.
List of pickups used in G&L guitars.
Production List of G&L Instruments (USA).
List of Regular Production ASAT-style guitars (USA).
List of Special Edition & Non-Production ASAT-style guitars.
List of G&L Rarebird Instruments (USA).

This might help you with your search:
Are there any search tools for eBay and/or craigslist?.

And, don't forget to post a Want Ad in our Marketplace.

Good luck on your G&L quest.

Perhaps these posts might help

yes. thanks! i forgot about the knowledge base.

interesting what is said about the jumbo mdfs having such great tone. you'd expect them to be on more guitars.

now i'm wondering if what i'm hearing is the difference between the jumbo or soapbar MDFs and the strat style MDFs. maybe have to try and play another new asat special. madness.

btw, i wouldn't say the old stuff sounds different. i'd say it sounds better. at least in my limited trials. am i allowed to say that? : )

you are allowed to say whatever you want as soon as we are allowed to say something else...

I never tried old ones or new ones... mines are from the middle... '93...

if i try and describe the asat i'd say it's very balanced, articulate, and has almost an acoustic guitar warmth/woodiness.

in short, how can i get my asat's tone in something with a trem bar? or, again, am i crazy?

I'd try as many old G&Ls as you can get your hands on. You may be hearing a difference in the pups over time, or possibly a difference in the body woods. I love my swamp ash ASAT Classic and L-1500, but not as much as my maple and 'hog bodies from the early days. Do you know what your ASAT's body is? An '87 should be maple (most likely) or swamp ash.

I'd try to find an SC-2 (either style from the 80s), as that would give you the exact same large MFDs on a maple body. They came with hard tails or DFVs. A maple Nighthawk or Skyhawk IME gives a lot more shimmer and less crunch than an early ASAT or SC-2, but may be closer to what you're looking for than current models. Be aware that the control circuit changed slightly on Skyhawks in the mid 80s. I can't personally hear a major difference, though. You may also want to try an early S-500 (with square ends on the pups). My 'hog '82 is closer in tone to an early ASAT than to either of my 'Hawks.

Ken

Edit: Changed Superhawk to Skyhawk.

Last edited by KenC on Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Do you know what your ASAT's body is? An '87 should be maple (most likely) or swamp ash.

I'd try to find an SC-2 (either style from the 80s), as that would give you the exact same large MFDs on a maple body.

i think it's maple. but i'm one of the those people that doesn't think wood makes much difference. : ) someday i plan on running an experiment to look into that.

good idea with the 80's sc-2. or maybe there is a DF asat special? i also thought about trying to order a sc-2 or asat special and have them try and match specs as much as they could. don't know if that's possible. but i'd really like to play the thing next to my asat before buying.

I can't speak for the current SC-2 model, but the originals were pretty close (to my ears at least). The big difference is weight, as the SC-2 body has significantly less wood than an ASAT.

I know that DFVs were optional for ASAT Specials, but they aren't too common on the used market. A few ASATs were built with Kahlers in '86, but they are few and far between.

I agree with Ken - focus on Leo-era models if you dig how your '87 sounds. I wouldn't bother with new ones as sonically they don't compare - even 90's BBE models sound more stale... Folks rave bout the new ones and fair enough but I think most that do haven't heard/played a Leo-era model. The pu's specs changed not long after BBE took ownership along with heaps of other cost saving tactics...
80's SC models esp 1's and 2's with the large MFD sound heavenly. Robert Poss of Band of Susans built his band sound around his SC-1. Page Hamiltion of Helmet owns a few as he had a short stint in BOS. Bob M. of Devo is a SC-2 fan... even the Boss owns a few. You don't see them playing the new ones. Just sayin'.

I agree with Ken - focus on Leo-era models if you dig how your '87 sounds. I wouldn't bother with new ones as sonically they don't compare - even 90's BBE models sound more stale... Folks rave bout the new ones and fair enough but I think most that do haven't heard/played a Leo-era model. The pu's specs changed not long after BBE took ownership along with heaps of other cost saving tactics...
80's SC models esp 1's and 2's with the large MFD sound heavenly. Robert Poss of Band of Susans built his band sound around his SC-1. Page Hamiltion of Helmet owns a few as he had a short stint in BOS. Bob M. of Devo is a SC-2 fan... even the Boss owns a few. You don't see them playing the new ones. Just sayin'.

that's what i'm talkin' about. i liked helmet a lot. and i know people don't equate heavy with my asat but i've played it with tons of distortion and it sounds great that way too. i'm of the opinion that a good sounding guitar sounds good from clean to super saturated. if it had a DF and larger frets i wouldn't be looking for a guitar at all. still i feel lucky to have it.

well, the search continues. i may try and play a new asat special just to get a jumbo to jumbo comparison on pickups. but lord, playing g&ls requires some work... like driving an hour to a shop that has them.

I would think it's two factors contributing. First the generic factor, dried up and mechanically settled wood sounds better, more open (less damped) than fresh wood even when de-humified with great care and attention and of comparable inital quality.
In terms of vividness those three guitars of mine which are more than 25 years old sound/vibrate better than the ones I bought just recently. My ASAT Super for example is quite excellent already but I feel a lack of finesse in the way the notes decay. In my opinion the wood/construction shapes vividness while pickups etc shape the tone in a more general way. In a sterile sounding guitar (think of a stainless steel body and neck but with some damping applied) no magical pickup would help, no?
The second factor is more specific, something hard to identify, a result of better skills and knowledge of the people who built them. I would think this is quite likely, I've seen this in other fields of craftsmanship, too.

And yes, another Helmet fan here, these guys really blew me away and inspired my playing right from their first album...

I would think it's two factors contributing. First the generic factor, dried up and mechanically settled wood sounds better, more open (less damped) than fresh wood even when de-humified with great care and attention and of comparable inital quality.

i'm surprised there aren't more builders using reclaimed wood. i still am doubtful of the wood and tone thing. i can dampen the ba-jesus out of my asat with pillows and it still records the same. try with with an acoustic and it's night and day. but if you are right it's shame because none of the new wood is going to sound good. wah!

is it possible we are just hearing the different electronics? pickups?

i want to run another test where i clamp the asat to a large mass. both neck and body. this will change the resonance dramatically i reckon. and will it change the recorded sound? me thinks not.

i've also heard acoustics only sound better with age IF they are played. has anyone tried exposing their guitar to vibrations for a long long time. like ask your friend who owns a club to set it in front of the subs for a month or 2. : )

Does wood understand the difference between the vibration of a melody and the vibration of a factory machine? Could strategically placed storage next to an airport, train track or a highway have advantages? What about broadcasting music to a stack of lumber?

Does wood understand the difference between the vibration of a melody and the vibration of a factory machine? Could strategically placed storage next to an airport, train track or a highway have advantages? What about broadcasting music to a stack of lumber?

Your questions reminded me of some gadgets on the market, especially the ToneRite gizmo. I guess that what is important is that the frequencies have to be 'commensurate' with what the instrument is built for and as such lower frequency rumblings of e.g. a train track might not be as suitable.

- Jos

You would have to consider whether it is just a kind of settling or actually something more or less molded/shaped/formed that facilitates the playing of harmonious tones, the method of playing, style of music and the mass of wood solid vs. hollow body. A traditional violin is played by passing a bow across strings while an electric guitar with a solid body is twanging a fine wire on a thick block with the sound amplified by electronics that alter the signal to varying degrees. With a solid body electric guitar it just doesn't seem like the wood could be that important.

The whole "tone woods" debate regarding solid body electrics can get pretty heated.

The whole "tone woods" debate regarding solid body electrics can get pretty heated.

please don't. : ) i know people are on both sides. what did it for me is trying an experiment and not hearing anything. most people have an opinion on this but i've seen very few well done experiments to confirm it. my theory is you should be able to change the resonance of the wood by coupling it to mass. this works with all vibrating objects i think... right? basic physics. if you change the resonance then you should be able to hear it in a recording.

there are so many variables in guitar tone i think it's impossible to try and compare two different instruments. just try and alter the resonance of one. like i said, i hope to do this experiment at some point.

but then there is the stiffness of the wood... so it doesn't effect the tone like an acoustic would...it's more about the stiffness of the platform the strings vibrate on. and the neck pocket could contribute to this i bet.

fun stuff to endlessly ponder. or just waste time time on. i'm not sure.

I think there is plenty of evidence supporting that a well crafted acoustic instrument built with carefully selected materials, including wood considerations, is not a wasted effort.

The wood of a solid body electric guitar loses to many strong factors competing with it and just where it is officially out of the race who knows?

I suspect that the main force drawing people to the old original G&L's is everything as a whole package (i.e. electronics, Leo's fingerprints, "original" "old is better new is compromised" mentality, lack of availability, etc.)

In my opinion the wood/construction shapes vividness while pickups etc shape the tone in a more general way.

I like this description! I've mentioned this in other threads, but I'll say it again here. When I compare my G&L basses (I know we're talking guitars here, but please bear with me), I can hear differences between body woods both acoustically and amplified. When I A/B a 'hog '82 L-2KE against an ash ASAT Bass, or a 'hog '80 L-1K against an ash '82 L-1K, the 'hogs have a whole lot less going on at the high end. I'd have to run the ash basses through a lowpass filter to get close to the same tone, even though the strings and pups are similar. IMO the loss of highs is a very good thing on bass, as it makes the bottom sound much fuller. To use George's phrase, I'd call the ash versions more "vivid" than the 'hogs. The same thing happens to a lesser degree when I A/B my ash El Toro against the maple Interceptor Bass. The electronics are identical and the strings are similar, but the Interceptor seems more "vivid" to me. It's similar to what I hear with my maple G&Ls compared to the others.

Ken

I had a tele made from Black Cherry, walnut neck with rosewood fretboard.

The pups screeched so bad, it squeaked and hurt my ears, sounded like crap. I did some research about tone woods and without going too far, I ordered an alder body from Warmoth and swapped everything onto that body...

The pups now sound amazing..........they are Bill Lawrence Keystones.

So, not sure if you would notice much difference between various hardwoods, but from a softer wood to a hard wood, huge difference.

Oh, this again...

Wood in acoustics makes a big difference. It has been shown empirically and beyond a reasonable doubt that tone of acoustic guitars is dependent on the 'sound box.' The construction techniques, wood selection and methods used to process woods affects the sound. Not only has it been done before, but active research in acoustic stringed instruments continues.

But there is zero, none, nada scientific evidence to support the tone-wood argument in solid-body electric guitars. It has been sixty-odd years since these were widely available. Why there no data yet?

If there is so much value in these different woods why doesn't a guitar manufacturer actually do some research and prove it? It could only help their bottom line, right? Is it because the research is so difficult and costly? No. I think it is very unlikely that no big manufacturer has ever looked into it. This makes me wonder why the data isn't published.

I think it is because "tone wood" is a paper tiger. It is about marketing and being able to upcharge people. Some people, in all marketplaces, practically beg to be upcharged; gives one the ability to "put on airs." A lot of this 'premium tone wood' argument is used to justify the costs of many higher end guitars.

Seriously, there is more research done and published on developing new running shoe outsoles than guitar makers have published on the 'premium' woods used in their $4k custom shop electrics.

Old G&L's do sound better than new ones. Just like old Fenders sound better than new ones. Same with Gibsons, Martins etc.

But I believe it has more to do with how much the old guitar has been played over the years. All the billions of vibrations going thru the body and neck over the years have an effect on the wood and sound.

And this may sound kinda Zen-ish, but I also believe the vibes of the former owners inhabit older guitars and have some sort of effect on the sound too.

Haven't you ever picked up a used guitar and immediately started playing differently on it? Same thing.

My 2¢
Will

I only have one Leo era guitar right now but it's not my favorite sounding G&L , although I do like the sound ..... I will be able to do a side by side in a couple months when my Broadcaster comes in , 2013 SC 2 against the Broadcaster , if Will is right I only have a couple months to put more mojo in my SC 2 before the comparison begins

I think it is very unlikely that no big manufacturer has ever looked into it. This makes me wonder why the data isn't published.

What incentive would they have to publish? Research takes time and money, so why share results with competitors? We're talking about profit-oriented businesses here. They will consider the results of their research investments to be proprietary (unless they can slap a patent or trademark on something, and then market the #$%% out of it).

I think it is because "tone wood" is a paper tiger. It is about marketing and being able to upcharge people. Some people, in all marketplaces, practically beg to be upcharged; gives one the ability to "put on airs." A lot of this 'premium tone wood' argument is used to justify the costs of many higher end guitars.

When it comes to marketing hype, I agree completely. The "ultimate tone wood" of the month will be whatever a big manufacturer got a good price on. I wouldn't carry that to the point of saying wood has no effect on tone, though. If you ever get the chance, A/B an early G&L (F-100, L-1K or L-2K) in ash against the same model in mahogany. I promise you'll hear a difference, as long as the amp is clean. If you're ever in the DC area, just let me know and we'll take mine for a test drive. If you don't hear the difference, I'll buy you a beer. If you do hear the difference, I'll buy you a beer anyway...

George Fullerton wrote that he and Leo picked old growth pine as the ideal body wood when they were developing the original Broadcaster. Ash was their second choice, when they couldn't get a durable finish on the pine prototypes. Both woods were readily available for production. Why would they have put a lot of time, money and effort into making pine work, if it was no different than ash in terms of the finished product?

In a similar vein, IIRC Fred Finisher wrote in a post about Leo deciding that mahogany bodies did not have the sound he wanted in G&Ls, and having all of the unused 'hog bodies in the factory destroyed in the mid-80s. It seems that he had a definite idea that wood had an effect on tone (Fred, please correct me if I'm wrong!).

in short, how can i get my asat's tone in something with a trem bar?

Back to the original question, I still think it is worthwhile to consider all of the possible variables when the OP tries to match the tone of his '87 ASAT. All of the dimensions have remained the same since then, and so has the hardware. The differences were in the pickup manufacturing process, and the selection on body woods.

Ken

Actually, not really, there are quite a few changes... neck construction being probably the biggest including larger fret wire. Different wood (probably higher quality) as well as the potentiometers, specs of the saddle lock bridge and saddles. I may be splitting hairs to some but you did say its worthwhile to consider all the possible variables....

Leo-era G&L's def sound and feel different...

One thing that I believe Mr Ray alluded too before Craig cut short the discussion was that Leo had deep pockets... and he was of the old world mentality that you built a superior product and not let cost dictate everything like what happens today.... not slamming BBE but from the get go they implemented cost saving tactics and heaps of them. From silk screen headstock logos as on Legacys, no more powered aluminum p/gs, satin neck finish ers and switch to alder for body wood for all opaque finishes. That all within the first year of ownership - Oh and slab style fingerboard and SKB plastic cases... Pickup modification followed not long after.

Actually, not really, there are quite a few changes... neck construction being probably the biggest including larger fret wire. Different wood (probably higher quality) as well as the potentiometers, specs of the saddle lock bridge and saddles. I may be splitting hairs to some but you did say its worthwhile to consider all the possible variables....

Good points! As far as the BBE-era goes, I've owned one guitar and three basses (out of a total of more than 30 G&Ls). I guess I hadn't realized how many of the details had changed. It's rare for a post-1991 instrument to set off my GAS alarm. My '99 L-1500 is one of my favorite basses, but the '98 ASAT Bass and '00 L-2000 don't get any playing time now and will be trade fodder whenever the right deal comes up. I've been close to trading my '98 ASAT Classic a couple of times too, but have backed out at the last minute. It has one of the nicest necks I've ever played.

Ken

Actually, not really, there are quite a few changes... neck construction being probably the biggest including larger fret wire. Different wood (probably higher quality) as well as the potentiometers, specs of the saddle lock bridge and saddles. I may be splitting hairs to some but you did say its worthwhile to consider all the possible variables....

Good points! As far as the BBE-era goes, I've owned one guitar and three basses (out of a total of more than 30 G&Ls). I guess I hadn't realized how many of the details had changed. It's rare for a post-1991 instrument to set off my GAS alarm. My '99 L-1500 is one of my favorite basses, but the '98 ASAT Bass and '00 L-2000 don't get any playing time now and will be trade fodder whenever the right deal comes up. I've been close to trading my '98 ASAT Classic a couple of times too, but have backed out at the last minute. It has one of the nicest necks I've ever played.

Ken

Some previous posts to see: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2038, viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2037, viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2040

Oh, and also, see this post: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1405

I think it is very unlikely that no big manufacturer has ever looked into it. This makes me wonder why the data isn't published.

What incentive would they have to publish? Research takes time and money, so why share results with competitors? We're talking about profit-oriented businesses here. They will consider the results of their research investments to be proprietary (unless they can slap a patent or trademark on something, and then market the #$%% out of it).

researchers publish because without peer review it isn't considered reliable. Companies publish research because it adds credibility and increases sales.

Plenty of profit-driven companies publish research. Often on their own bleeding edge technologies, or to support their current market offerings to earn more business. Companies like (the old) Bell Labs, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google etc know this and they publish research. I know something of this first hand because my company authors and publishes a variety of research expressly for the purpose of supporting sales.

The biggest gain for these companies would be in direct sales, but maybe they don't need that because sheeple are happy to keep forking over money in order to be part of the 'tone wood' club.

I think it is because "tone wood" is a paper tiger. It is about marketing and being able to upcharge people. Some people, in all marketplaces, practically beg to be upcharged; gives one the ability to "put on airs." A lot of this 'premium tone wood' argument is used to justify the costs of many higher end guitars.

When it comes to marketing hype, I agree completely. The "ultimate tone wood" of the month will be whatever a big manufacturer got a good price on. I wouldn't carry that to the point of saying wood has no effect on tone, though. If you ever get the chance, A/B an early G&L (F-100, L-1K or L-2K) in ash against the same model in mahogany. I promise you'll hear a difference, as long as the amp is clean. If you're ever in the DC area, just let me know and we'll take mine for a test drive. If you don't hear the difference, I'll buy you a beer. If you do hear the difference, I'll buy you a beer anyway...

A/B of two different guitars is a really poor substitute for a scientific evaluation. It is just the sort of storefront sales tactic that guitarmakers, vendors and retailers have relied on for decades. But the method isn't remotely objective. There are fundamental problems with evaluating like this:

1. The configuration of the guitars is different
2. It is not a blind experiment
3. Tolerances in electrical components
4. Inconsistent playing
5. No quantitative measurement

(this list is not comprehensive)

Maybe the first and third problems could be circumvented by either very careful component selection or swapping hardware.

#2 has actually been tested before and no evidence has ever shown people could accurately determine wood types. Clean amp or not.

However, it shouldn't matter if the amp is clean or not, because if the wood affects the signal then it will be propogated through the signal chain. As an aside, rarely do people play solidbody electric guitars through pristine clean amps. So if there is value in one wood over another it should be apparent regardless of the downstream processing.

It doesn't make it impossible to configure an experiment to evaluate them but just A/B'ing guitars (even through a good amp) isn't sufficient evidence.

George Fullerton wrote that he and Leo picked old growth pine as the ideal body wood when they were developing the original Broadcaster. Ash was their second choice, when they couldn't get a durable finish on the pine prototypes. Both woods were readily available for production. Why would they have put a lot of time, money and effort into making pine work, if it was no different than ash in terms of the finished product?

In a similar vein, IIRC Fred Finisher wrote in a post about Leo deciding that mahogany bodies did not have the sound he wanted in G&Ls, and having all of the unused 'hog bodies in the factory destroyed in the mid-80s. It seems that he had a definite idea that wood had an effect on tone (Fred, please correct me if I'm wrong!).

This is sentimentality not substance.

Leo made a lot of guitars and technologies and we can't laud him enough for his contributions. But plenty of his ideas were not good ones; that is usually the way of it for engineers. Unless Leo actually performed some experiments and has publicized peer-reviewable data his opinions or sentiments are speculative.

Lacking research, I think it is most necessary to formulate an opinion based on sound reasoning and principles.

What effect does 'tone wood' have on the generation of electrical signals?
1. Electric guitars work because a moving wire in a magnetic field generates current
2. Non-magnetic materials do not affect magnetic fields
3. Wood, air and plastic are non-magnetic
4. Vibrations of the wood can not be measured as electrical current by the pickups

What effect then does the 'tone wood' have on strings?
1. Strings are anchored at the fret (either nut or any higher fret) and bridge
2. A plectrum, finger, or fingernail introduces energy into the string, causing vibration
3. The string does not receive energy from _any_ other source
4. The only effect the wood could have is subtractive to the string vibration
5. Since the string is fixed at two points (see #1) the wood could only have this effect at the end points
6. There are two qualities of the wood which are generally cited as having tonal consequences: (1) mass (weight of the guitar) (2) resonance, or the susceptibility to frequency dependent oscillations

From point 6.1 - It easily demonstrated that the mass of an electric guitar has no effect on sound. If it did then guitars would sound different when held close to the body or free hanging. Anchoring a $5k PRS or a Squire affinity to a massive chunk of choice, kiln dried wood will have no effect on either. Acoustic guitars, however, do sound different. Add a eigth-inch to the thickness of a spruce top and the effect will be dramatic. Remove the maple cap from a LP and there is no perceptible difference.

From point 6.2 - The susceptibility to oscillation can only have an effect then if, as a function of wood type, it significantly removes energy from the strings. Here again, by coupling to another resonator the effect should be changed. There is no audible difference in electrical guitar sound as a function of adjacent resonators (or dampening) though. But here again, the acoustic guitar is affected.

These are some of the reasons I doubt the 'tone wood' arguments around electrical guitars. I am a scientist/engineer and I carry out original research, so maybe I'm more skeptical than average.

That said, I am still inquisitive and objective. I'm not so deluded as to hold my assumptions beyond reproach. If sound evidence or even an opposed, but plausible, theory surfaces I will be all ears.

interesting post bloodied fingers...

as weird as it may sound, it leads me to what I always think about guitars : relationships between a guitar player and his instrument is out of rationality !... the first time you try a guitar, there are in one side what the guitar really is, objectively, and on the other side, your expectations... between those two sides a lot of things are possible...

I agree with you on many points. But, if wood matters for acoustic instruments, why is it not the case for electric ?
One thing you don't speak about is transient, I think most of the differences between two guitars come from the attack, decay and envelope of the note, isn't it related to wood ? (frequency dampening, density...etc)

the difference with acoustics is pretty obvious... the sound you hear from an acoustic comes from the sound box... the vibration of the strings goes to the table to the body, etc... everything comes from how the sound box amplify the vibration and move air...

yes, so why the vibrations of the strings on an electric don't go to the body and then through the pickups (far less than on an acoustic obviously) ?
To me, if there's no evidence of the action of wood on the vibration of the strings on an electric, there's no evidence for an acoustic too. Nothing proves me the action or non-action of wood type.
In the end, I don't really care, every guitar sounds different from the others.

no effect on tone? Then why do they only use ash, alder, mahogany....

why not birch, elm, etc

why semi hollow?????? just for weight relief????

Because these guys know that different woods have different tones..

Some of the luthiers hand pick TONE woods. They are craftsmen and know the difference by feel and sound.

let me quote BF :

What effect does 'tone wood' have on the generation of electrical signals?
1. Electric guitars work because a moving wire in a magnetic field generates current
2. Non-magnetic materials do not affect magnetic fields
3. Wood, air and plastic are non-magnetic
4. Vibrations of the wood can not be measured as electrical current by the pickups

pups capt (is that correct English ?) directly the string vibration... finally the way you hit strings have a more significant influence on the sound... the way the strings are fixed as well, the bridge for example...

you would think if tone wood didn't make any difference aluminum guitars would be a lot more popular

well, the popularity of a kind or another kind of guitar is more related to the expectations or the will of the guitar player than the objective thing named "guitar". ^^

this is a good point to raise the existence of aluminum guitars, in my experiences (which mean nothing, personal experience means nothing in such debate but it can be a start of thinking) the difference between an aluminum guitar and a wood made one is not bigger than between 2 different wood ones... BUT the difference between a metal made acoustic guitar and a wood made one is a lot more drastic...

This has been an interesting discussion and BF, being an engineer, has covered some very good points. Many things have been discussed but I think the mystery that has not been covered well it the dampening effect of the wood used and there is not doubt in my mind that the dampening is a difference. The creation of the energy has been well discussed but the dampening effect of the wood will affect the bloom, decay, and sustain of a note. I have no scientific proof, another opinion in the mix. I was laying in the weeds on this but I am risking my reputation on this which, by the way, can't be much of a loss! It's Friday -- Darwin

I think the mystery that has not been covered well it the dampening effect of the wood used and there is not doubt in my mind that the dampening is a difference. The creation of the energy has been well discussed but the dampening effect of the wood will affect the bloom, decay, and sustain of a note.

I agree. I think BF alluded to this same thing as well:

The only effect the wood could have is subtractive to the string vibration

That is exactly what I was referring to when I compared an ash L-1K to a 'hog L-1K. I wouldn't claim that the ash body contributes high-order harmonics; I suspect the mahogany body attenuates them.

Ken

If you took a bow and arrow and changed the bow to a different material the... string? would vibrate differently. maybe that's the way to look at an electric. of coarse it would be a lot more subtle. so the wood is the "platform" or infrastructure for string vibration.

and, i still don't know for sure.

seems like you could do a pretty easy experiment by just changing the vibrations of a guitar's wood. couple it with a few clamps to something massive like a beam. record it before and after. see if that changes the sound.

for me i don't care either way. i'm just trying to make my tone search more manageable. for example, if 50 year old wood is a big factor for tone then i can significantly narrow my search. if not... then i have lots of newer options. something is making this old g&l sound very nice. : )

Some of this conversation is getting muddied. First, I only am considering solid body electrics. With regard to those, I think there are three (at least) levels of consideration, maybe we (I) should clear up some semantics. Can we agree to some terms:

1. construction material - This would refer to the fact a guitar is made out of rubber, aluminum, wood, styrofoam etc...

2. woods - This would intend to differentiate an instrument is constructed from 'bulk' woods (e.g. import guitars) or somewhat carefully selected and treated woods e.g. run of the mill G&L, FMIC or even Gibson LP.

3. premium tone woods - These would be the woods some pay a significant premium for, either because of the type or processing. I;m looking at PRS, GIbson and FMIC custom shops.

As for #1 there is a very broad range of materials that could be cited in examples but I think they break down into two basic categories; flexible and rigid. We should consider anything that has significantly _less_ stiffness than traditional materials as flexible and anything that doesn't as being rigid. I seriously doubt that any two rigid materials will sound sufficiently different that in a blind study we could differentiate their sounds. But it would be interesting to explore that.

Issue #2 seems the most demonstrably false. Almost every manufacturer has a low budget import line. And all over the place we see and hear about how swapping in new pickups, hardware and doing a proper setup makes these guitars play and sound every bit as well as the higher priced versions. If the difference between the bulk and select woods was actual, then you could never get an import made of cheap ill-treated woods to sound as good. It should be impossible.

Now most of my points are to specifically address the demarcation between #2 and #3. This is because (a) I like my guitars made from wood and (b) the steepest price gouging and mysticism dwells here. People talk about how 'dry' the wood is and what pieces resonate more than others. Frankly, if the point about #2 is even debatable then it makes zero sense that these even smaller differences are somehow, magically, affecting woods.

I think the mystery that has not been covered well it the dampening effect of the wood used and there is not doubt in my mind that the dampening is a difference. The creation of the energy has been well discussed but the dampening effect of the wood will affect the bloom, decay, and sustain of a note.

I agree. I think BF alluded to this same thing as well:

The only effect the wood could have is subtractive to the string vibration

That is exactly what I was referring to when I compared an ash L-1K to a 'hog L-1K. I wouldn't claim that the ash body contributes high-order harmonics; I suspect the mahogany body attenuates them.

Ken

Yes, I was alluding to the effect on sustain. I don't think wood can affect bloom of the note, because it can only be subtractive. If I understand bloom correctly its the development of the sound. Any presumed effect here is a real leap of faith. Given the relatively narrow range of physical differences between woods, the subtractive effect can diminish any audible frequencies during the initial formation of the note.

As for sustain consider that the Gibson Les Paul is historically considered the absolute king of sustain. It is oft-cited that the sustain is due to those big heavy mahogany bodies. However, have you ever considered that among modern guitars it has the weakest connection between it's bridge and body? I think the reason for the consistently good sustain is not the wood, or the paltry bridge design, but that it's bridge is fixed. There is also, more anecdotal, evidence of blocking bridges or switching to the bigger mass blocks increasing sustain in floating tremolo systems too.

What is the #1 method for improved sustain in electric guitars over the past 50 years? Magnet design

Think Lace and the ilk... Very weak magnets sap less of the vibrating energy from the strings == more sustain. Move your pickups further away from the string == more sustain. Drill holes in a Gibson Les Paul == not really much changing. To prove the latter point I would suggest a blind test to distinguish between chambered vs non-chambered LP.

Just to summarize; in general if the woods, type and treatment of the woods mattered SO much for solid body electrics then no import guitar could ever really sound as great as the 'premium' graded woods made on the US models. The difference between that $400 Tribute and a $2k custom order would be audibly discernable, repeatable and no amount of modifications (hardware, electronics) should every make up the difference.

Let's think of a hypothetical test.

1. Take 25 Tribute legacys, 25 USA Legacys
2. Swap Legacy hardware for USA versions.
3. Give all the guitars locking tuners.
4. Set them up the same.
5. Sand off the headstock.
6. Use a spider capo and play open chords, a couple barre chords
7. Using the same player play some scale at 3rd, 9th and 15th frets
8. Measure sustain of a note using a sound meter and stopwatch

Given the audio from this test how many do you think you could correctly identify by ear? I doubt giving this audio to many tone-o-philes would yield favorable results for point #2.

Here is another approach, flawed a bit, but still better than nothing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mH5hwLkxCI

Very good explanation of things BF.

I don't think wood can affect bloom of the note, because it can only be subtractive.

That was my point. The effect the wood could have is to detract from the bloom. -- Darwin

After hearing for so many years how much difference the wood makes to tone, I just had a brain frizzle with all of your info BF. Interesting discussion. I am going to make a mojito and ponder on your ruminations....

I just recieved a 2014 ASAT Deluxe , 10 lbs of mahogany body , maple cap , dual humbuckers and a Bigsby ....and it sustains better than any G&L currently in my stable , it's not even a close comparision.... I even PM'd Darwin asking about the Bigsby and sustain.... so it could be the SD humbucker pick ups , or mahogany body or the Bigsby ?? ... it's way better than my guitars with the DF

i have a parker fly. carbon exoskeleton. the necks are supposed to be super strong and stiff. this thing sustains for days. never heard anything else like it. is it the neck/body material? the hardware? the pickups? how the pickups are mounted? more questions.

After hearing for so many years how much difference the wood makes to tone, I just had a brain frizzle with all of your info BF. Interesting discussion. I am going to make a mojito and ponder on your ruminations....

haha, I've had the day off today and so I'm gonna have a beer now too. May I extend a virtual cheers to you!

Honestly I think the #1 reason some guitars outperform others is flat out down to design and craftsmanship. Why do USA G&Ls play and sound better than imports? The craftsmen who make 'em!

Same reason I think so many of the boutique/elitist guitar builder's produce such amazing sounding guitars. Engineer better designs (e.g. PRS headstock, Floyd Rose or G&L DF trem) and then manufacture to higher standards. The extra attention and adherence to tighter tolerances will improve the feel and play-ability, which imho goes a long way into how we 'hear' the guitars we're playing.

but hey, I'm just rambling anyway, I could be totally wrong.. it's beer-thirty!

it's beer-thirty!

Yep, Friday night!-- Darwin

Bloodied Fingers,

You have been doing an eloquent job of speaking my mind.

2. woods - This would intend to differentiate an instrument is constructed from 'bulk' woods (e.g. import guitars) or somewhat carefully selected and treated woods e.g. run of the mill G&L, FMIC or even Gibson LP.

<snip>

Issue #2 seems the most demonstrably false. Almost every manufacturer has a low budget import line. And all over the place we see and hear about how swapping in new pickups, hardware and doing a proper setup makes these guitars play and sound every bit as well as the higher priced versions. If the difference between the bulk and select woods was actual, then you could never get an import made of cheap ill-treated woods to sound as good. It should be impossible.

Is it a safe assumption that the woods are different between every imported line and its U.S. counterpart? G&L lists "swamp ash" in its specifications for many Tribute instruments. Swamp ash (more properly called "green ash") grows in the eastern half of North America. I hope G&L is shipping that lumber to Indonesia for the Tributes, and not misrepresenting some local wood with a similar grain pattern. Many species of ash and alder are native to Asia, so there could be somewhat locally sourced woods with similar properties. Even if some manufacturers source local lumber for their imports, that wouldn't make it inherently inferior to lumber sourced in North America (or Europe, or where ever). It depends on the species, the conditions it grew under, and how it was handled after harvesting. I'll go out on a limb and guess that it costs no more (and very likely less) to ship African mahogany to Indonesia than to California.

That said, there is definitely low-grade lumber used in some import lines. My local Guitar Center has a Chinese Fender that arrived with a huge area of missing finish, and it's obvious that the "tone wood" is some sort of soft pine. On the other hand, if we cast a wide net to include all import lines we are including things like MIM Fenders (built a couple of hours' drive from the U.S. factory, and using many of the same woods as their U.S. counterparts), and instruments built in Japanese factories that are very highly regarded. I doubt there would be any way to make that damaged Fender at the Guitar Center sound remotely close to decent, but I wouldn't rule out getting good results by swapping out a couple of cheap components on an MIM Fender. Well, at least you could make it sound as good as a U.S. Fender...

I'm going to click "submit" before the dreaded time-out happens. More to follow...

Ken

Yes, I was alluding to the effect on sustain. I don't think wood can affect bloom of the note, because it can only be subtractive. If I understand bloom correctly its the development of the sound. Any presumed effect here is a real leap of faith. Given the relatively narrow range of physical differences between woods, the subtractive effect can diminish any audible frequencies during the initial formation of the note.

BF,

What you're describing here is the same concept that's at the heart of an old-school, subtractive analog synthesizer. You hit a key (or flip a switch, or push a button) and an oscillator turns on. When you release the trigger, the oscillator stops. It's instantaneous, and without further processing it all sounds pretty bad. The solution is running the signal through an ADSR (attack/decay/sustain/release) module, which lets you "swell" into the note and gradually fade it out. Dialing in an extreme value for the attack can make it sound like a "reverse tape" effect on guitar, but at very subtle levels it makes a huge difference in how pleasing the note sounds.

I don't think I could make a graphic representation here, so I'll try to describe what I'm thinking of. It's not that one particular wood could increase the "bloom" of a note or chord. Assume there is some theoretically "wide open" material that gives immediate attack - the instant the string begins to vibrate, the signal out of the guitar or bass is at maximum amplitude. Real woods aren't going to reach that maximum instantaneously. I picture it on a graph as the "wide open" material having a vertical line for the attack, while the real wood has a sloped (increasing) line. The question to me is whether all woods would have the same slope on that graph, and whether the slopes would be identical if they were plotted for different overtones in the note or chord.

I guess another way of putting it would be to say that I think the same thing happens between a guitar or bass and a subtractive synth - just that the synth's attack is shaped by circuitry while the guitar's or bass's is shaped by dampening from the materials.

Just my two cents' worth...

Ken