OK
I proved, or rather the guy in the Warmouth video, proved that type of wood affects tone. I am not mad never was.
It is relevant that was my point all along. Do you always have this much trouble making sense? Again you have been blathering away that type of wood does not matter, until you contradict yourself and then subsequently re-contradict your contradiction with inane questions.
Yes indeed just like they did in the video.
I could after watching the video but apparently you can't.
It was.
Here is an objective question for you:
Could you hear the difference between the woods in the video?
If your answer is yes then wood affects tone. QED
If your answer is no then either you aren't being truthful or your ears don't work too good. Also QED
Rex Rox, I'll try to explain what I think as clear as possible and in a nice way, ok?
First, I never said that wood doesn't affect the tone. But ok, maybe my questions for you weren't a good way to communicate my ideas.
Ok, first, what I think is the type of wood doesn't affect the tone in
significant way, compared to pickups, the players play, speakers, bad fret work, to name a few. And by
significant I mean: to justify paying a lot of attention and money to it as if it would mean a 50% in tone.
I think wood is responsible for making an electric guitar lasts a lifetime, is responsible to make them beautiful and, to me, those are a few of the most relevant functions of the wood.
What we've been told through history of electric guitars is that: "maple is bright, mahogany is warm, swamp ash is balanced an so on, as if it was a big part of a electrical guitar's tone."
Maybe it passed from one generation to another and nobody really put that into a real scientific test, because nobody cared about it. Even the manufacturers didn't care about. I think Leo Fender was looking for an abundant type of wood and low costs when he started to make guitars.
(The 5 monkeys experience maybe would be a good point to understand where that come from)
Now, about the Warmoth video, for example, I couldn't considerate as proof. Here a few reasons why:
1 - If you check the video description there's this:
"Not a scientific test, you say? Use a spectrum analyzer, you say? What do you think I'm trying to do here...put a space shuttle into orbit? 
This isn't a test for facts...it's a test for your perception. Because when it comes to evaluating sound, what's true for you may not be true for me, regardless of what a spectrum analyzer might say. Different people will perceive the same sound source slightly differently, either because their ears are different (older/younger, more/less sensitive, more/less trained), or because they listened at a different volume (the whole Fletcher-Munson thing). Some will hear a difference and others won't."
2 - The variables of the test are not controlled enough to be considered scientific. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's a practical test. But because it's not scientific, we can't know for sure if the tiny differences in frequencies from one guitar body to another, are coming from the wood properties (density, humidity, thermal and acoustic properties) or if those differences are coming from the players hands (notes pressing, hand strumming place, strumming strenght, picking, pickups height, etc.)
3 - The headphones and speakers we all are using are problably different. Which influences the perception. (Just to make it clear: the alder and swamp ash sounded pretty much the same in my perception. The mahogany sounded a lil different than the other two).
So, at the end of the day, I think the guitar pickups may capture a few frequencies from the general vibration of the guitar. But, not to the point of making a huge difference in tone, that would justify paying hundreds of dollars for it or justify thinking that a Squire can't sound the same as a Fender if the only difference between them are the types of woods.
That's it man. Thanks for this conversation.
