Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Stratocaster Discussion Forum' started by Guitarman555, Mar 29, 2018.
Is it the Russians?
With less than 24 h on this forum he managed to get himself kicked out, that was the most impressive job he ever did if you ask me.
That took you long enough!
Why do you guys keep using those same argument's when ever the implications the guitar build/parts/materials have in tone are mentioned...?
Who cares what the audience notices (or anybody else for that matter) or not, about the sound of your guitar...? I only care about what I notice. I don't choose my guitar tone/sonic character for the audience, i choose it for Me. For what I like.
The concept of "Resonance" it's not the only phisical/acoustical propriety at play on a solid body electric's guitar timbre, acoustic proprieties related to amplified (via pickup) proprieties.
The way the whole assembly of the instrument responds to vibrations/frequencies will directly be directly influential on the amplified timbre and overfall sustain translated through the pickups to the amp.
And yes, a "resonant" solid body can have great tone or crap tone when electrified, but i've yet to see a dull and dead "non ressonant" guitar have a "great" tone when amplified, much less that "singing" sustain we all love....
What is translated to the pickup's is the strings vibration, and that vibration (characteristics of it) is certainly influenced by the whole assembly/materials of the guitar (as a whole).
Sarcasm buddy, chill out! If you had read the whole thread and realized how much OP was resisting about the fact that Fender didn't in fact have a policy about how many pieces of wood a guitar body should be made out of you would've understood that some of us where being sarcastic in some of our posts.
Maybe to a minuet degree by the body sine the strings are stretched over metal saddles and anchored by metal tuners. Even less on a Start where it has a bridge assembly only anchored to the actual body by 2-6 screws. The string is vibrating very much independently from the body itself and as such the body has little to no discernible affect on tone other than weight adding to sustain. As long as the string can vibrate at it's two anchor points and nothing is impeding it's vibration the pickups magnetic field will register the vibration and translate it to the amp.
It's just like what Ron Kirn said (who has been building guitars for ever and was around during Fenders 'Golden Era"), Leo Fender was looking for ways to actually deaden the vibrations on electric guitars. He was purposefully trying to remove any "resonance" of the body from the equation. Gibson was doing the same thing, hence making very heavy guitars out of mahogany. These builders recognized that body vibrations where good for acoustics but were unwanted in an electric.
The idea of wanting a very resonant electric guitar was built by the intraweb forums. Never once heard of EC or DG or any other great guitarist checking a whole pile of Strats for the one that resonated best. Hendrix famously went in to Manny's and bought 3-5 off the wall Strats, had them restrung lefty and played the hell out of them. Hank Marvin and the Beatles' had Strats shipped over (without ever being able to test play them) to Europe since they could not get them locally at first. Never heard of them saying they got a "dud". Now days we obsess over these things because the internet tells us we should. I never read a single thing about DG complaining that his tone changed to warmer when the Black Strat had a RW neck vs maple, or that one replacement maple sounded better than another.
Mate, i'm chilled. Why do you guys always assume when ever some makes a point argument or of disagreement with something you've written that the one argumenting is making some kind of "rant" or it's "un-chilled"...?
I read the whole thread BTW, i only mentioned what i've written above because i've listen to that "argument" over and over everywhere, countless times before. "oh the audience won't know the difference in tone" or "the audience can't tell the cheapest of Squires from the most expensive CS"....
We don't choose our gear or fine tune our tone to please the audience, we do it to please ourselves and to serve our music, what the audience notices or can tell apart or not is irrelevant to the argument. That was what i was trying to say on that sentence...
Not this discussion again! I'm outta here! Every man for himself
This conversation might be important when they no longer allow wood species for guitars. If a composite was found, including carbon fiber, only then this thread might make sense, if one could not get wood.
I understand what you mean, however i disagree with some of if, as i believe the wood characteristics have a degree of impact on the guitar's timbre. How much of that degree actually matter is down to personal taste and preference.
About DG never checking a pile of guitars or run the racks to find the guitars that "resonate" or sustain/ring'd the best acoustically you're dead wrong. It's clearly documented on the Black Strat book, especially when David went out to try the vintage Reissues in the early 80's. Phil Taylor clearly states that David run'd the racks and choosen the guitars that "ringed/resonate and sustained the best acoustically". He selected and bought that day the 2 83 CAR 57RI strats, 2 vintage white 83 57RI strats, 2 83 52RI butterscotch Teles and 1 83 62RI Fiesta Red. He some years later got a 3rd 83/84 57RI CAR that belonged to Mick Ralphs.
And the Black Strat felled out of favor in the 80's because of the wood they chopped off the body and the Khaler trem installed, they say it "deaden" the sound of the guitar.
This thread isn't even worth that popcorn at this point.
Cool.... apparently a thread about "hating sunburst strats" is more worthy (like 10 page worthy...)
It's amazing how some people act when either someone disagrees with them or when they disagree with you.... And from an Admin, above all....
I'll shut up about it too, don't worry.... I only commented on some specific statements, not the main topic issue.
Next time i'll know better...
In 2011 this song was included on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's list of the "500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll". This song hasn't been played live since 1988.
I'm talking about The Black Strat. According to everything I've read David went to Manny's after his other gear got stolen and bought it. No wonderful tales of him trying dozens of them looking for 'The One". Maybe he did when he bought those reissues and if so I suspect it was looking for weight. And yes as I stated removing wood and therefore lightening the weight will reduce sustain and therefore make it seem more dead but that is weight and has not a thing to do with # of pieces and acoustic resonance that this thread is about. I've clearly stated weight makes a difference but weight being equal it doesn't make one bit of difference how many pieces make up that weight. Out of curiosity do you know how many pieces of wood The Black Strat is made of? If so do you know how many the other reissues he bought are made of? Do you think DG ever asked on any of those "how many pieces of wood make up this body"? I'm quite sure he played them and liked the way the felt and sounded (unplugged and amplified I'm sure) and moved on with his life. He did not start a thread on a forum asking if 1 or 2 or 3 or 20 piece bodies sound better.
Wood characteristics (density and type) do have an affect on sound. The number of pieces of said wood combined together do not. Again I will state as long as the weight is the same the number of pieces that make it up will not change the vibration of the string and therefore will not alter what the pickup "hears".
The reason many (including the Mod) are bored of this thread is that it's about the 123,000 one in the past few years asking about the number of pieces in a body. It's been widely stated by many knowledgeable people and high end guitar makers on here and other sites that the # of pieces of wood in a body don't affect tone in any way shape or form. If you choose not to believe that then you are free to do so. Those of us that do are just trying to stop the spread of fair tale like beliefs that perpetuate these threads and keep them from happening again and again.
See this is the problem with your response. No one is telling you to shut up about it, Lonn's comment was not directed at you at all (nor did he say he disagreed with your opinion) but yet you take everything so personally. Lonn was commenting that, like I said above, this and the other billion threads on this same subject are tired and boring.
Also as I said your comments on specific statements seemed tangent to the main topic of # of body pieces or at the very least you made no mention that you believe the # of pieces affects the acoustic resonance of an electric guitar, just that you believe that resonance affects tone.
Reptilians. Ask Icke.
It's a good thing you've realized that "after" posting your reply above this one...
I never mentioned anything about number of pieces of wood on the body or it if had impact on tone or not. My comments where about weather the type and characteristics of the wood and other materials made any difference to the timbre and sustain of the guitar. As well as the acoustic characteristics on the unplugged solid body also had an influence on the amplified timbre IMO.
And BTW, i'm not taking anything "personal", but just the same as i can't possibly know the topic on the influence nº of pieces of wood on a guitar may have in tone had been discussed to death over here making people sick of it. Only been here a month or two, haven't read all the topics on the forum yet, as you can imagine...