P 90 Pickup in Walnut SG ?

[Electricdaveyboy]

Merry Christmas Pickupmakers,
one of my customers wants to put P-90s in his walnut SG .
Will that work for Rock or should he go for mahgony.
Tx
David

[David Schwab]

Walnut sounds nice. It's similar to mahogany.

[LtKojak]

Walnut sounds nice. It's similar to mahogany.

Yes, I agree with you to a certain degree... it sounds a bit brighter and less "alive" for my ears... I don't know why this wood's not used more often to make strat-like set-neck and/or neckthrough instruments... I REALLY like the fundamental sound that produces. Too expensive or not easily available..?

[David Schwab]

It makes very nice sounding basses. The early Spectors had walnut body wings.

There are a lot of nice sounding woods you don't see used as much as they should be, probably just because of tradition. I started using cherry for my basses back in 1994, just because I found a nice looking board that I originally thought was mahogany! I never saw anyone use cherry for solid bodies, so I figured why not?

My building parter made an amazing sounding LP Junior using korina for the body with a curly oak top, and poplar neck with EI Rosewood FB.

[LtKojak]

It makes very nice sounding basses. The early Spectors had walnut body wings.

There are a lot of nice sounding woods you don't see used as much as they should be, probably just because of tradition. I started using cherry for my basses back in 1994, just because I found a nice looking board that I originally thought was mahogany! I never saw anyone use cherry for solid bodies, so I figured why not?

My building parter made an amazing sounding LP Junior using korina for the body with a curly oak top, and poplar neck with EI Rosewood FB.

Wow! That's a REALLY good looking guitar, David. Congrats to your partner for an excellent job done here.

[Vihar]

If you guys can really tell the sonic differences between different solid wood genus guitar bodies, then you must also be able to tell when a polar bear farts on the north pole, with a detailed frequency spectrum of his fart included.

Check this out: New Body Material Build w Sound Clip - Telecaster Guitar Forum

[David Schwab]

If you guys can really tell the sonic differences between different solid wood genus guitar bodies...

Build a few guitars and then get back to us. And I don't mean buy some parts.

[LtKojak]

If you guys can really tell the sonic differences between different solid wood genus guitar bodies, then you must also be able to tell when a polar bear farts on the north pole, with a detailed frequency spectrum of his fart included.

Your very comment makes you come across more tone-deaf-like than smart-ass-like. Which one do you think is closer to your truly you?

[Mike Sulzer]

If you guys can really tell the sonic differences between different solid wood genus guitar bodies, then you must also be able to tell when a polar bear farts on the north pole, with a detailed frequency spectrum of his fart included.

Check this out: New Body Material Build w Sound Clip - Telecaster Guitar Forum

Wood does make a difference. I made a guitar that looks like a normal solid body, but it is hollow with a removable 1/4" back. A block of wood 3/4" thick can be placed inside touching only four mounting brackets that attach near the sides. These sides are about 1" wide Indian rosewood so that they make a very stiff struture that takes up most of the static force of the strings along with a top of Thuya burl (for appearance) backed by 1/8" spruce (for stiffness). The bridge does not touch the top of the guitar but goes through it and rests on the slab of wood. Therefore the vibration of the strings is passed to the wood, which in turn affects the strings.

Most hardwoods have distinctive sounds. One of my favorites is Hondouran mahog, although I have never gotten around to trying limba (korina) in this format. One of my least favorites is the hard maple used for guitar necks; it is unpleasantly shrill. Soft woods that are not stiff sound damped and uninteresting. Yes, I made a composite piece by gluing together several thin pieces of that brown particle board stuff often used to pack hardwood tops. It does not sound good.

I keep the guitar set up with a tapered structure built up from pieces of 1/8" spruce intended for acoustic guitar tops. The resonance and damping give a most pleasant sound for jazz.

If you really want to know what things sound like, you have to do careful AB tests. It is really very hard to say what someone's recording sounds like without a reference.

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

I've heard the whole "wood makes no difference" thing before, it really is just a passing fad from people thinking too much about the theory and not listening enough. Similarly, I often hear that the guitar itself makes no difference since magnetic pickups are only capable of sensing strings and nothing else. If you use your ears, both statements are false. Myself and lot of other folks I know can even make educated guesses as to the mineral content in the mahogany of a les paul by listening to the tone. It is a different quality, and Gibson has often changed its mind on what is better.

I will say that guitars with excessive amounts of hardware, especially when heavy alloys are used, display the nuance of different hardware much less than guitars with less hardware. The metal mass is very blunt and even and tends to mask all the details coming from the wood, both good and bad. So, put a Badass II bridge on your jazz bass, and it will matter much less whether it is ash or alder. Keep a flimsy vintage one on there and it is a bit more glaring of a difference. Since the contemporary trend in guitar design has erred on the "more mass" side of the spectrum (really has since the 70s "I want a brass nut" era), I can see how it is often hard to detect. That's just my experience, though.

[Mike Sulzer]

I've heard the whole "wood makes no difference" thing before, it really is just a passing fad from people thinking too much about the theory and not listening enough.

There is nothing in physics (theory) that says the wood should not influence the vibration of the string. I expect it to. If you are going to apply "theory", you should do it correctly.

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

There is nothing in physics (theory) that says the wood should not influence the vibration of the string. I expect it to. If you are going to apply "theory", you should do it correctly.

No argument from me - using theory without data does lead to erroneous conclusions, kinda like the "how do we know she is a witch?" scene from Monty Python. I never said it was good theory.... perhaps tonal experiments a priori would be a better way to say what I am getting at.

[David Schwab]

The metal mass is very blunt and even and tends to mask all the details coming from the wood, both good and bad. So, put a Badass II bridge on your jazz bass, and it will matter much less whether it is ash or alder. Keep a flimsy vintage one on there and it is a bit more glaring of a difference.

Actually I find the bridge alloy has its own tone which is added to the mix. It's not just the mass. I've used the cast zinc bridges, like Badass and Schaller, as well as machined brass bridges. I dislike the tone of brass, it dulls the high end. The zinc bridges sound good, but now I use aluminum bridges. Alembic installs a heavy brass "inertia block" under the bridge to try and isolate the strings from the body. Probably if you put strings on something stiff and heavy like a steel I beam, you would hear mostly the strings, and the pickups.

To give an example, I used to play Rickenbacker basses. On my main bass I replaced the bridge with a Badass II, and then later a Schaller 3D bridge. I even replaced the pickups, and installed large fretwire. Surprisingly it still sounded like a Rick, but with an altered tonality. So after all the hardware was replaced, you still heard the tone of the bass itself.

[belwar]

I never understood by more of these parts arent made from good old steel. Steel just seems like such a better option!