Don't forget the bridge type and material, pickup positioning , string height, the nut type and material, the playing technique...picks used.....what part of the neck you strike the strings...what angle of pick attack....or fingernails....or fingers etc etc.......ad infinitum......(or ad nauseum depending on individual point of view no doubt). However the original post did not ask about other factors (which we we all know can significantly affect guitar tone, only about "body, neck and fingerboard wood". Many luthiers will state that the different woods used in the construction of an electric guitar can have a significant affect on the overall tonal frequencies and indeed mechanical resonances which will affect tonal frequencies eventually produced by the pickups. Surely we have no particular reason to "disbelieve" their experienced opinions.?
Who knew your guitars were Welsh?
The perfect example for the tonal qualities of wood is the xylophone.
interestingly.. I have two Morgan Guitar Works V6 guitars
the necks were cut from the same blank of flamed maple, the fingerboards from the same piece of African ebony
the bodies are alder but likely not from the same tree
the hardware, specs and construction is exactly the same
the pups are the same make, model and specs
for all intents and purposes, they are about as identical as twins get..
so… do that sound the same???
the answer is… NO ! ! ! lol..
sure they both have the same fundamental characteristics..
but in detail
Silures [the purple one] is brighter and slightly more aggressive
Ordovices [the tangerine one] is slightly warmer and has a more gentle voice
The reason I posted this poll was my recent experience with two superstrat guitars. One of the guitars had a rosewood fingerboard, maple shaft and an alder body, the other had an all maple neck, mahogany body and a quilted maple top. Both had the same shape, floyd rose mechanics, the same sperzel locking tuners, the pickups were also the same (Bareknuckle VHII) and the volume pot and other electronic components were fairly equal. Pots are known to have a tolerance of about +-10%, so I measured both these pots and they had a value of 483k and 485k, no big difference. I played both these guitars with clean and overdriven amp settings, and to my surprise, they sounded the same! I was always convinced that wood did contribute to the overall sound of the guitar, but now I'm not so sure. Out of curiosity I started researching this subject matter and many confusing and even contradicting statements by many guitar makers and guitar magazines, forum posts etc. . Then I stumbled upon a scientific online book by a German electro-acoustic engineer and college professor called manfred zollner (here's his site: https://hps.hs-regensburg.de/~elektrogitarre/) and that guy is basically saying that the effects of tone woods on the amplified guitar tone are negligible.
If we were to analyze just the acoustic tone of the electric guitar, I would definitely agree that wood makes a major difference. However, once we're talking about the electrical signal that the guitar produces, I'm not so sure anymore. The tone itself is created by strings altering the magnetic field of the pickups through their undulation. The resulting electric signal is then shaped by the volume and tone pots, capacitors, resistors and wires before it finally leaves the guitar through the jack output. The wood itself is only the holding element for the mechanical hardware that ensures the appropriate string tension, it has no immediate connection to the string. The wood does start to vibrate once you hit the strings, but I don't see how this could affect the magnetic field in a significant way.
The reason I posted this poll was my recent experience with two superstrat guitars. One of the guitars had a rosewood fingerboard, maple shaft and an alder body, the other had an all maple neck, mahogany body and a quilted maple top. Both had the same shape, floyd rose mechanics, the same sperzel locking tuners, the pickups were also the same (Bareknuckle VHII) and the volume pot and other electronic components were fairly equal. Pots are known to have a tolerance of about +-10%, so I measured both these pots and they had a value of 483k and 485k, no big difference. I played both these guitars with clean and overdriven amp settings, and to my surprise, they sounded the same! I was always convinced that wood did contribute to the overall sound of the guitar, but now I'm not so sure. Out of curiosity I started researching this subject matter and many confusing and even contradicting statements by many guitar makers and guitar magazines, forum posts etc. . Then I stumbled upon a scientific online book by a German electro-acoustic engineer and college professor called manfred zollner (here's his site: https://hps.hs-regensburg.de/~elektrogitarre/) and that guy is basically saying that the effects of tone woods on the amplified guitar tone are negligible.
If we were to analyze just the acoustic tone of the electric guitar, I would definitely agree that wood makes a major difference. However, once we're talking about the electrical signal that the guitar produces, I'm not so sure anymore. The tone itself is created by strings altering the magnetic field of the pickups through their undulation. The resulting electric signal is then shaped by the volume and tone pots, capacitors, resistors and wires before it finally leaves the guitar through the jack output. The wood itself is only the holding element for the mechanical hardware that ensures the appropriate string tension, it has no immediate connection to the string. The wood does start to vibrate once you hit the strings, but I don't see how this could affect the magnetic field in a significant way.
Who knew your guitars were Welsh?
Yes, but the xylophone is an acoustic instrument. I know that wood does make a difference for acoustic guitars, violins, flutes etc. I think it's illegitimate to apply insights and conclusions that are based on an instrument family X, to a different instrument family Y.
Have you checked the electronic components? The pots are often underestimated when it comes to tone, and they're seldom exactly 500k or 250k.
Thanks for the link. I've downloaded the paper and am attempting to make sense of it. Both my engineering studies and my high-school German are decades-old and a bit rusty, so my understanding here is incomplete....I stumbled upon a scientific online book by a German electro-acoustic engineer and college professor called manfred zollner (here's his site: https://hps.hs-regensburg.de/~elektrogitarre/) and that guy is basically saying that the effects of tone woods on the amplified guitar tone are negligible.
The pickup is mounted to the wood. When the wood vibrates, so does the pickup. That means it moves relative to the strings, and that has the same effect as the strings moving relative to the pickup.The wood does start to vibrate once you hit the strings, but I don't see how this could affect the magnetic field in a significant way.
Yes, but the xylophone is an acoustic instrument. I know that wood does make a difference for acoustic guitars, violins, flutes etc. I think it's illegitimate to apply insights and conclusions that are based on an instrument family X, to a different instrument family Y.
IMO, taking the wood-to-pickup connection out of the equation isn't the best way to test whether wood makes a difference in a real-world guitar.Has someone ever conducted a test with an instrument that has the pickup mounted to a structure separate from the strings? That would be the best way to objective test the wood effect. Change out bodies on the instrument while the pickup never comes in contact with it.