[Jon S.]

I wouldn't normally post something this rantish but what the heck, things are so slow here now how much can it hurt to use a fraction of bandwidth on this.

WARNING: The video is profanity-laden and rude! But's It's also kinda funny in its own peculiar way. Regardless, what do you make of the dude's actual argument (so to speak) that wood doesn't impact tone?

[gr8fulbluz]

I have no prob with profanity but the guy is long winded. I got maybe 4 min into it. I tried to watch his how to do a set up/intonation video couldn't watch more than 5 min. So I have no idea what his thoughts are. Dude seems a bit angry.
Now I have a guitar to set up, my swamp body ash body, flamed maple top, hard rock maple thru neck with a ebony fret board. I like those woods, I think they are pretty meh what do i know about tone. I say try them all.>.>.>. http://www.guitarplayer.com/miscellaneo ... oods/14591

[joethepainter]

Ugh...I have enough folks IRL telling me how dumb I am....so I need this angry rant from a complete stranger on the Internet to validate my 'inner unworthiness'?...thanks, man!
EDIT: *sarcasm alert* (lest someone think I'm actually in tears over this...)

[PHersh]

I watched most of his first video where he makes the case that woods used in solidbody guitars don't affect tone. He seemed angry to me in that one, so I'm not surprised to see him unhinged and insulting in the video linked above.

Because I didn't watch the entire first video (and watched only a few minutes of his second one) I won't comment on his use of science to prove his point. There were some intelligent responses to the video in a long TGP thread. That thread is here: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... nce+proves

It's hard to learn anything as complex as the math and physics of string vibration and tone generation from someone so hostile toward the community he is trying to teach. There is too much noise in his signal.

I don't know if I agree with the guy or not. Probably not, because his primary claim doesn't agree with my experience.

[Jon S.]

Wow, I didn't have the same reactions as you folks at all. The video guy's such a tool, I was laughing at him all the way through. Out loud!

[hippieguy1954]

+1 on all the above and yea the guy is comical, I was laughing too
I have not read the gear page thread, but I agree with my ears that the wood makes a difference and it also seems to me that:
Either he doesn't have the wherewithal to explain his evidence clearly and convincingly.
Or, his evidence is non existent.
Or, this is another example of how science cannot explain everything.

[gr8fulbluz]

. . . There were some intelligent responses to the video in a long TGP thread. That thread is here: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... nce+proves
. . .

WowZa, nice discussion thanks for the link. I learned quite a bit. The last post has an interesting summary.
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showpo ... tcount=467

[milobender]

Hmmm... I find him too obnoxious and angry to watch... I skipped around a bit to sample it, but it's just not worth it to me. My experience has been, that for whatever physical/scientific reason, different woods sound different. If you've played plenty of different builds through the same equipment, it's self-evident. If what he seems to be saying were true, guitars of the same scale length and hardware but of different woods would sound identical, and from experience, that just isn't the case. I build and modify a lot of guitars using the same hardware and electronics and they all sound similar, yet different.

[Rusty the Scoob]

Just because somebody uses scientific instruments and makes graphs and a long winded video, doesn't mean they are doing science that isn't garbage. Personally I trust my ears more than I trust some nutjob on youtube.

[Jon S.]

The point about confirmation bias? That much, at least, I understand to be real.

[gmchart]

I'm in the 'laughed my ass off' camp. Best part of my day so far.

[Ruderockpups]

This Will guy owns a guitar company called Gelvin Guitars. They look pretty decent.

Anyhow, he makes a kinda Strat-like guitar, 3 single coils, 25.5" scale, trem, the usual stuff. Guess what it's made from? That's right, alder body, maple neck and board. because that's how a Strat sounds like a Strat!

He also does what's supposedly a crunchy metal type guitar. Again, his choice of tonewoods is much what anybody would use. Mahogany body & neck, maple top, ebony board. That's gonna be crunchy. If he wants to gain any credibility, he needs to build a really spanky mahogany Tele and a dark sounding maple Les Paul.

Just my two cents.

[Jon S.]

I saw (and likely contributed to, if my memory holds) the TGP thread on the video. What i find hilarious over on TGP is the same guy will rave to insist how important the tonewoods are in one thread and laud a guitar like the groundbreaking Gittler (see below)in another!

[wolftigerrosebud]

I've watched these videos before. The guy seems nice but I don't really agree with him -- at all.

When I bought my strat I played about 30 or 40 G&Ls, a bunch of Fenders, a Suhr, a Protocaster, a Real... others. Settled on a Rittenhouse. But I played about 5 of those and really only liked the one.

Everything has an effect on sound, including wood. This guy makes the claim that it has no effect, which is pretty silly -- anyone with good ears can hear that between two identical guitar models constructed with different woods, there are real differences in responsiveness. Even between guitars with the same type of wood but just different actual pieces of wood, there are differences. They're miniscule differences, but they're there.

The fact of the matter is that everything in our chain affects the sound.... but not that much. My best guess at the ratio is that 80% is our fingers. 10% is the speaker. 10% is everything else.

[SpecialEars]

This guy makes the claim that it has no effect, which is pretty silly -- anyone with good ears can hear that between two identical guitar models constructed with different woods, there are real differences in responsiveness.

Except that's completely untrue. It's a belief rooted in confirmation bias, no different than all sorts of other beliefs that are rooted in 'refined perception' that are ultimately emperors new clothes. Wine 'connoisseurs' are notoriously unable to demonstrate what they believe in practical terms even though they all believe it and a whole industry exists on that mythology.

To put it another way, if you tried to 'hear electric guitar tonewood' in a blind test, you wouldn't be able to.
You may be completely surprised by this, quite sure that it was an obvious thing, what with that time you played (insert guitars here) and one was made of (insert wood here) and another of (insert wood here) and the one was much more (insert adjective here) compared to the other, ergo TONEWOOD IS TOTALLY REAL, MAN! YOU MUST BE DEAF!

Long and short of it is, no. Electric tonewood does not exist no matter how many people believe it.
Or if you believe it does, there are some very large standing wagers for people willing to put their money where their mouth is in a blind test, which usually renders most tonewood believers into a much less assertive position and "...WHO CARES ABOUT ANY OF THIS LETS JUST PLAY GUITARS MAN! "