Body wood weight: Does it apply to all woods?

[mashastrat]

The general consensus I have assumed and then associated with improvement in tone is the guitars body weight.

This issue seems particularly relevant and desirable and decisive for Alder / Ash / Mahogany bodies.

Fender selection of woods for the custom shop models is usually lighter with its quality grade.

The wood that usually comes from the top of the tree if my information is correct?

Anyway, does this also apply to already lightweight wood like Basswood?

I have MIJ Mustang that’s ridiculously lightweight under 6.2lbs…. It is pretty resonate despite being a cheap range guitar.

I seen Basswood used on premium guitars like the ‘Suhr Standard Plus’ a $4000k guitar.

Despite the comfort element….

Is lighter weight Basswood better too?

[mashastrat]

Agathis I had Squire Tele… one of those entry level, makes you hate guitars guitar.

This thing defied the laws of physics… tone dead dense.

It’s was boat anchor, anvil, break your foot if dropped… anomaly of a guitar.

It was so heavy way over 10 pounds.

I don’t know if weight and tone does matter… but appreciate the stores that are listing there stocks weight… and lightest always goes first?

[timtam]

The general consensus I have assumed and then associated with improvement in tone is the guitars body weight.

I would say if there is a 'modern' consensus is it's the opposite - that weight in a solid body electric is sonically irrelevant. The notion that you need a heavy guitar for sustain etc was a common notion around the 1980s.

The scientific evidence leaves little scope for any sonic effect of the solid body/weight. Bridge admittance is too low, such that little string vibration energy reaches the body (what we might think we 'feel' is biased by the high sensitivity/narrow bandwidth of our skin mechanoreceptors) ... which is backed up by low direct body vibration measurements, direct string vibration measurements, measurements of string sustain etc (ie sustain would be poor if significant string vibration energy was lost to vibrate the body - the Conservation of Energy law). The long, thin, flexible, composite neck is another matter - it vibrates much more, and is typically the cause of string vibration losses at particular frequencies (the neck's resonant modal frequencies). The bridge is another common sources of string vibration losses (to vibrate its internal components). See the work of Fleischer, Zollner, Pate and others (independent scientists; guitar companies do not measure their products' physics, with the exception of one large Japanese one).

Same-model guitars sound different for many reasons - many not well known to players, and far more reasons than was once thought. The old notion that "if it's not the pickups it must be the wood" is from the pre-scientific age of guitars.
Zollner, M. (2010). The Physics of E-Guitars: Vibration – Voltage – Sound wave—Timbre. 26th Tonmeistertagung – VDT International Convention, Leipzig, Germany. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/s ... 1.348.6822

Guitar companys' marketing about the supposed 'sound' of different wood species is mostly a product of the vivid imaginations in the science-free 'echo chamber' of such companies, famous players, and guitar journalists - none known for their knowledge of the measured physics of real guitars.

The only real relevance of guitar weight is whether you can hold it for the length of a gig.

(for guitars of the same shape, density = weight)

[mashastrat]

The general consensus I have assumed and then associated with improvement in tone is the guitars body weight.

I would say if there is a 'modern' consensus is it's the opposite - that weight in a solid body electric is sonically irrelevant. The notion that you need a heavy guitar for sustain etc was a common notion around the 1980s.

The scientific evidence leaves little scope for any sonic effect of the solid body/weight - bridge admittance is too low, such that little string vibration energy reaches the body (what we might think we 'feel' is biased by the high sensitivity/narrow bandwidth of our skin mechanoreceptors) ... which is backed up by low direct body vibration measurements, measurements of string sustain etc (ie sustain would be poor if significant string vibration energy was lost to vibrate the body - the Conservation of Energy law). The long, thin, flexible, composite neck is another matter - it vibrates much more, and is typically the cause of string vibration losses at particular frequencies (the neck's resonant modal frequencies). The bridge is another common sources of string vibration losses (to vibrate its internal components). See the work of Fleischer, Zollner, Pate and others (independent scientists; guitar companies do not measure their products' physics, with the exception of one large Japanese one).

Same-model guitars sound different for many reasons - many not well known to players, and far more reasons than was once thought. The old notion that "if it's not the pickups it must be the wood" is from the pre-scientific age of guitars.
Zollner, M. (2010). The Physics of E-Guitars: Vibration – Voltage – Sound wave—Timbre. 26th Tonmeistertagung – VDT International Convention, Leipzig, Germany. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/s ... 1.348.6822

Guitar companys' marketing about the supposed 'sound' of different wood species is mostly a product of the vivid imaginations in the science-free 'echo chamber' of such companies, famous players, and guitar journalists - none known for their knowledge of the measured physics of real guitars.

The only real relevance of guitar weight is whether you can hold it for the length of a gig.

(for guitars of the same shape, density = weight)

Thank you for your in depth response… I think I can understand just… not knowing enough of the science.

It makes sense like you say, again it’s a specification that the manufacturers can use as way to manipulate customers.

I have heard those from well experienced famous musicians, preferring their lighter Strat or whatever… Noel Gallagher recently discussed his famous 335, and how he found the following serial number model. And it couldn’t have been more of a different guitar in tone and weight. Making out it was rubbish in comparison.

John Lennon convinced that having the paint stripped from his Epiphone…

Yes i get lost thinking about it and does it really matter or exist…. It’s just when you’re buying acquiring a new guitar, I’m now led to believe I should be looking for lightest preferably.

I don’t know… just falling into the confused consumer trap.

[mashastrat]

Fender say the better wood comes from the top of the trees… the lower grade denser more hydrated bottom is lower grade… is there any truth in that?

[andy_tchp]

Yes - confirmation bias works most of the time (in spite of the science).

[timtam]

Fender say the better wood comes from the top of the trees… the lower grade denser more hydrated bottom is lower grade… is there any truth in that?

Maybe for acoustics ? But only one company is making any real effort to research such things - Pacific Rim Tonewoods. They supply some of the major US acoustic manufacturers. They also now sell 'sonically graded' top plates (to anyone who wants them), which is based on solid science (mostly from Europe and Australia). The important acoustic parameters can and should be measured - that's way more exact than what part of the tree the wood comes from. A small number of luthiers work that way. But since that science requires that you cut top plates to different thicknesses to achieve a consistent stiffness/sonic result, that's impractical for large scale acoustic guitar manufacture ... where time efficiency requires that all top plates have to be cut to the same thickness.
https://pacificrimtonewoods.com/pages/sonic-grading

I haven't heard Fender say such things about what part of the tree the wood comes from (and I'd be rather surprised if they knew that about the slabs of guitar-sized wood that comes through the delivery door from their suppliers); but it's not dissimilar to the unsupported nonsense about wood they use in their marketing. Insiders have reported something rather different about what they know internally about such things ...
http://www.guitarattack.com/opinion/mythbusters.htm

Like most big guitar companies, Fender have no qualified scientists on staff experienced in measuring electric guitar physics. They have flirted with real scientific advice a few times, eg for one short time in the 1990s having an FEA engineer on staff to research some key wood-related problems - see ref below. But there's little evidence that Fender have a comprehensive understanding of guitar physics - you don't need that to build good guitars. That understanding has come from independent scientists measuring real Fender, Gibson, and other guitars, mostly in Germany and France.
Carlson, M. (1996). Applications of finite element analysis for an improved musical instrument design. 1996 MSC World Users’ Conference Proceedings. Newport Beach, California, USA. Vol. I, Paper No. 8. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... .1.201.277

[mashastrat]

Fender say the better wood comes from the top of the trees… the lower grade denser more hydrated bottom is lower grade… is there any truth in that?

Maybe for acoustics ? But only one company is making any real effort to research such things - Pacific Rim Tonewoods. They supply some of the major US acoustic manufacturers. They also now sell 'sonically graded' top plates (to anyone who wants them), which is based on solid science (mostly from Europe and Australia). The important acoustic parameters can and should be measured - that's way more exact than what part of the tree the wood comes from. A small number of luthiers work that way. But since that science requires that you cut top plates to different thicknesses to achieve a consistent stiffness/sonic result, that's impractical for large scale acoustic guitar manufacture ... where time efficiency requires that all top plates have to be cut to the same thickness.
https://pacificrimtonewoods.com/pages/sonic-grading

I haven't heard Fender say such things about what part of the tree the wood comes from (and I'd be rather surprised if they knew that about the slabs of guitar-sized wood that comes through the delivery door from their suppliers); but it's not dissimilar to the unsupported nonsense about wood they use in their marketing. Insiders have reported something rather different about what they know internally about such things ...
http://www.guitarattack.com/opinion/mythbusters.htm

Like most big guitar companies, Fender have no qualified scientists on staff experienced in measuring electric guitar physics. They have flirted with real scientific advice a few times, eg for one short time in the 1990s having an FEA engineer on staff to research some key wood-related problems - see ref below. But there's little evidence that Fender have a comprehensive understanding of guitar physics - you don't need that to build good guitars. That understanding has come from independent scientists measuring real Fender, Gibson, and other guitars, mostly in Germany and France.
Carlson, M. (1996). Applications of finite element analysis for an improved musical instrument design. 1996 MSC World Users’ Conference Proceedings. Newport Beach, California, USA. Vol. I, Paper No. 8. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... .1.201.277

Thanks

I was wrong to say that was a Fender statement.

It was actually Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins who on a YouTube gear discussion stated he’d gotten that information from one of the Fender custom shop builders who was working on Stratocaster he was discussing.

[timtam]

I was wrong to say that was a Fender statement.

It was actually Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins who on a YouTube gear discussion stated he’d gotten that information from one of the Fender custom shop builders who was working on Stratocaster he was discussing.

FCS builders are master craftsmen. Appreciate them for that. But they're not scientists. Even if formally trained at a luthiery trade school (which is actually rarely their career path), guitar physics is not part of such formal training. So they are subject to the same science-challenged echo chamber that has defined the 'conventional wisdom' about how guitars work for a long time. Problem is it's often physics nonsense.

As for Billy Corgan, who can forget ...
https://www.guitarworld.com/news/billy- ... f-a-guitar

[Fiddy]

In 1993, I would have never guessed that Billy Corgan was going to to turn into such a laughable character in the future.

[andy_tchp]

I think I always would have predicted that.

[alexpigment]

With that being said, he’s a criminally underrated guitarist. I can think of very few guitarists in his league. Just my two cents.

[DrippyReverbTremolo]

I have a 5 Kg Les Paul Custom (maple / mahogany body) and a 2.8 Kg Jazzmaster (Paulownia body). Both have maple necks. The JM rings louder and has more sustain. For what it's worth.

[Fiddy]

My jag sustains for days, i hit a note yesterday and it's still ringing. That or my tinnitus is back...

[Jaguar018]

In 1993, I would have never guessed that Billy Corgan was going to to turn into such a laughable character in the future.

I think I always would have predicted that.

That guy was always a tool. I feel bad for my old bandmate who got a tattoo of the Smashing Pumpkins "SP" logo on her back. I don't think it was a tramp stamp, and it wasn't too big, but still. That thing aged like milk.

I strongly support science, but when it comes to guitars I am a firm believer in the very non-scientific "gut reaction" approach. So much of guitar playing has nothing to do with scientific stuff. I find extremely subjective things like "good tone," "look," and "feel" to be the main factors.