I would argue that controlling every variable except for one is exactly how you conduct an experiment. As a guitarist/bassist/producer by hobby and PhD biochemist by profession, I would argue that changing an experiment until you have controlled as many variables as possible is exactly what you’re supposed to do if you want to pass peer review. I get in theory that the wood of an electric guitar affects how the strings vibrate, but I think the point of Jim’s video was that the effect is far more negligible than people often say, and is at the bottom of the list compared to string type, scale length, pickups/electronics, and the position of the pickups. I would put the nut and bridge material up there too. I think this makes sense in theory and even if you can hear a difference in Jim’s video, it really is remarkably similar. And i think it’s a liberating thing to hear! I had been considering buying a whole new guitar for years, but after watching that I figured I could just buy cobalt strings and adjust my pickup height to see what that did, and I’m already so much happier with my tone that I don’t feel the need anymore. If anything I may buy some new pickups. I’m just saying, I think Jim’s approach was scientifically sound, coming from a scientist.
I have a completely different impression of his video, and don't think he controlled every variable except for one. I think there were far more unaccounted for variables. The fact that he neglected to fret a chord is a substantial factor. The reason I say he's reverse engineering to get a result, instead of obtaining a random result in a controlled study, is that his desktop guitar should have sounded like the first guitar he rejected. Again, watch the Warmoth video. Completely disproves his theory. Not to mention, there are peer reviewed white papers that rely on much sounder methods than Jim's video ... ANDt the two things sound different that he says sound alike!!!!
Here, actual, published, peer reviewable science, by a scientist, proving that Jim Lill is wrong, and his methodology is shoddy: journals.pan.pl/Content/121810/PDF/aoa.2021.138150.pdf?handler=pdf
@@JJBlairrecordingthe bottom line is: the tone produced by a high end guitar is indistinguishable from some scrap wood and a workbench. That's not to say that there aren't many ways in which the Anderson is better (playability being one!) But the experiment effectively displayed that all of the discernable tone comes from the pickup.
I don't think many are arguing the wood and construction don't matter, just that they don't overpower what you hear coming from the pickups and amp, you can't hear the wood on an electric guitar over the speaker of an amp and if you can, congratulations, you have the best hearing in the world, you get a gold star. You could easily hear differences in an A/B comparison between guitars but how much of that comes through in a mix with other instruments in a recording? The tone is from the pickups and the amp and it's easily changed with the volume, tone and an EQ pedal. Guitar tone in a recording isn't anything like a guitar tone on it's own and as an engineer I don't know how you don't mention that.
So you are arguing the attack, decay and sustain characteristics are overcome by the amp? Then you must only be using a high gain amp. You can hear these differences on records. This is why when we were making one record, for one song, we needed to use the Custom instead of the Burst. One was more articulate in a way that is also reflected in their acoustic sound. As an engineer, I cannot make a PRS sound like a '50s Les Paul, because they have a completely different tone, and radically different transient properties ... unless I'm using so much distortion that it obliterates the sound. But most importantly, the player feels the difference. These traits are dynamic, and their response changes the way I play, down to even my picking technique.
And, if it wasn't clear ... the elements of the guitar actually change the way the string vibrates harmonically. That's the point. A body with a lower octave overtones will make the string vibrate with that harmonic partial. The resonance actually changes the way the string vibrates. It's physics. That doesn't go away when the pickup turns that into electrical current. It's part of the waveform.
Incorrect. Potting reduces the effect, but does not eliminate it. The vibration of the coil will still create current in the magnetic gap, even when potted. It simply reduces the threshold at which a pickup will feedback and squeal, but it will still do that, given enough volume. It also reduces its ability to transduce the body vibration, but does not eliminate it.
Actually, what you're doing here is expressing opinions. "I have 39 years of experience, so I know." Silly! Jim Lil simply set up this simple experiment: if I take a guitar, with a wood body and neck, and compare it to a guitar without a wood body and neck, but correct for all other variables, what's the result? Simple: they sound nearly identical. You say, "I hear things you cannot hear." Maybe so. But Jim proved, the things that most affect tone in a solid body guitar are: the strings, the pickups, and the electronics. Everything else results in little or no discernible difference.
Absolutely incorrect , my friend. Jim did not prove it. He simply achieved a similar tonal balance, that was certainly not identical, by removing dissimilar factors, only trying to prove that two body types aren't the reason those guitars sounded different. And more importantly, he left out the biggest part of the question: Fretting the instrument and comparing the attack, decay sustain and release of the comparables. Those other things make a huge difference in not only the frequency response of the guitar, but the ASDR profile. What I try to do in part 2 is show you things to listen for, and point out what those differences are. I'm teaching you what I know, showing you how t9o identify differences. I've built a lot of guitars. I currently own over 40. I have swapped harnesses in guitars, trying to get one to sound like another. I spent years trying to get a properly built Burst copy to do what one of my real '50s Les Pauls was doing. Real 60 fret board. Old growth mahogany. Horse hide glue. '59 spends to the letter. You name it. Everything. Swapped the harnesses back and forth. The clone did not do what the '50s LP did. Never sounded the same. Acoustically or electrically, and the characteristics followed between the two. Why? First and foremost, the materials and construction affect the way the string vibrates, and dictates the harmonic balance. So what the string is doing to the magnetic field is different from guitar to guitar, aside from the other factors. This has been known for decades, and Jim Lill did not disprove this. Again, watch the Warmoth video to properly display what Jim failed to. Then go play a '59 Korina V next to a '59 Les Paul and hear how DRASTICALLY they sound from each other. I have the gild fortune to have access to 4 V's and dozens of Bursts, including my own. Bursts all sound different, but V's aren't even on the same planet. Ask yourself why what's different there.
I thought Jim Lills video was really good, I had a a squire P bass a while ago, it looked good and it played very well but sounded like crap! fitting with a 62 custom shop PU and changing out the pots and capacitor, and what do you know, it sounded like a genuine made in USA Fender P bass! it was all down to the electrics in the end.
Thinking the video was good does not negate the fact that he is peddling misinformation and his methodology is bad. His hypothesis has actually been disproven in controlled scientific studies where 91.7% of test subjects in a controlled study heard a difference between woods in electric guitars. Also, just because you vaned your electronics and the bass sound changed, all that proves is that you can change the sound by changing electronics. It does not disprove that different woods or construction methods have different tonal characteristics. Your result is irrelevant, in terms of a body of evidence. If you want to learn about the subject and see actual peer reviewed science on the matter, read this: journals.pan.pl/Content/121810/PDF/aoa.2021.138150.pdf?handler=pdf
I agree with that. The guitar is an electromechanical system. The vibration of the string is the result of the mechanical system “string + body + nut + neck” and the current generated by the pickups is the result of the electro magnetic system “string + pickup”. It is a complex system and each guitar has its own characteristic harmonic composition.
I even found the tone changes based on the type of Pick you use. Ever notice that people that try to discount the tone properties of the different components are almost always trying to justify their cheap guitar and/or are not very good players? If you're not a good player then you're right. Everything you play will sound like poop, and in that sense sounds the same.
Everything matters. Pick, the way you pick, the way you hold the strings etc. I've recorded Jeff Beck. His sound mostly was in his hands. He sounded different on different guitars, as you can hear on the albums, but the main culprit was his technique. I played his guitar and couldn't get that sound.
FFS it isnt that important, the differences are not so big and most guitars play better than more gitarrists out there, stop chasing tone and start writing.
I would argue that controlling every variable except for one is exactly how you conduct an experiment. As a guitarist/bassist/producer by hobby and PhD biochemist by profession, I would argue that changing an experiment until you have controlled as many variables as possible is exactly what you’re supposed to do if you want to pass peer review. I get in theory that the wood of an electric guitar affects how the strings vibrate, but I think the point of Jim’s video was that the effect is far more negligible than people often say, and is at the bottom of the list compared to string type, scale length, pickups/electronics, and the position of the pickups. I would put the nut and bridge material up there too. I think this makes sense in theory and even if you can hear a difference in Jim’s video, it really is remarkably similar. And i think it’s a liberating thing to hear! I had been considering buying a whole new guitar for years, but after watching that I figured I could just buy cobalt strings and adjust my pickup height to see what that did, and I’m already so much happier with my tone that I don’t feel the need anymore. If anything I may buy some new pickups. I’m just saying, I think Jim’s approach was scientifically sound, coming from a scientist.
I have a completely different impression of his video, and don't think he controlled every variable except for one. I think there were far more unaccounted for variables. The fact that he neglected to fret a chord is a substantial factor. The reason I say he's reverse engineering to get a result, instead of obtaining a random result in a controlled study, is that his desktop guitar should have sounded like the first guitar he rejected. Again, watch the Warmoth video. Completely disproves his theory. Not to mention, there are peer reviewed white papers that rely on much sounder methods than Jim's video ... ANDt the two things sound different that he says sound alike!!!!
Exactly right, Duke. 100%
Here, actual, published, peer reviewable science, by a scientist, proving that Jim Lill is wrong, and his methodology is shoddy: journals.pan.pl/Content/121810/PDF/aoa.2021.138150.pdf?handler=pdf
@@LilOlFunnyBoyread the link I just posted. The biochemist is out of his element, though well meaning.
@@JJBlairrecordingthe bottom line is: the tone produced by a high end guitar is indistinguishable from some scrap wood and a workbench.
That's not to say that there aren't many ways in which the Anderson is better (playability being one!) But the experiment effectively displayed that all of the discernable tone comes from the pickup.
I don't think many are arguing the wood and construction don't matter, just that they don't overpower what you hear coming from the pickups and amp, you can't hear the wood on an electric guitar over the speaker of an amp and if you can, congratulations, you have the best hearing in the world, you get a gold star. You could easily hear differences in an A/B comparison between guitars but how much of that comes through in a mix with other instruments in a recording? The tone is from the pickups and the amp and it's easily changed with the volume, tone and an EQ pedal. Guitar tone in a recording isn't anything like a guitar tone on it's own and as an engineer I don't know how you don't mention that.
So you are arguing the attack, decay and sustain characteristics are overcome by the amp? Then you must only be using a high gain amp. You can hear these differences on records. This is why when we were making one record, for one song, we needed to use the Custom instead of the Burst. One was more articulate in a way that is also reflected in their acoustic sound. As an engineer, I cannot make a PRS sound like a '50s Les Paul, because they have a completely different tone, and radically different transient properties ... unless I'm using so much distortion that it obliterates the sound. But most importantly, the player feels the difference. These traits are dynamic, and their response changes the way I play, down to even my picking technique.
And, if it wasn't clear ... the elements of the guitar actually change the way the string vibrates harmonically. That's the point. A body with a lower octave overtones will make the string vibrate with that harmonic partial. The resonance actually changes the way the string vibrates. It's physics. That doesn't go away when the pickup turns that into electrical current. It's part of the waveform.
Pickups are only microphonic when not wax potted.
Incorrect. Potting reduces the effect, but does not eliminate it. The vibration of the coil will still create current in the magnetic gap, even when potted. It simply reduces the threshold at which a pickup will feedback and squeal, but it will still do that, given enough volume. It also reduces its ability to transduce the body vibration, but does not eliminate it.
Actually, what you're doing here is expressing opinions. "I have 39 years of experience, so I know." Silly! Jim Lil simply set up this simple experiment: if I take a guitar, with a wood body and neck, and compare it to a guitar without a wood body and neck, but correct for all other variables, what's the result? Simple: they sound nearly identical. You say, "I hear things you cannot hear." Maybe so. But Jim proved, the things that most affect tone in a solid body guitar are: the strings, the pickups, and the electronics. Everything else results in little or no discernible difference.
Absolutely incorrect , my friend. Jim did not prove it. He simply achieved a similar tonal balance, that was certainly not identical, by removing dissimilar factors, only trying to prove that two body types aren't the reason those guitars sounded different. And more importantly, he left out the biggest part of the question: Fretting the instrument and comparing the attack, decay sustain and release of the comparables. Those other things make a huge difference in not only the frequency response of the guitar, but the ASDR profile. What I try to do in part 2 is show you things to listen for, and point out what those differences are. I'm teaching you what I know, showing you how t9o identify differences. I've built a lot of guitars. I currently own over 40. I have swapped harnesses in guitars, trying to get one to sound like another. I spent years trying to get a properly built Burst copy to do what one of my real '50s Les Pauls was doing. Real 60 fret board. Old growth mahogany. Horse hide glue. '59 spends to the letter. You name it. Everything. Swapped the harnesses back and forth. The clone did not do what the '50s LP did. Never sounded the same. Acoustically or electrically, and the characteristics followed between the two. Why? First and foremost, the materials and construction affect the way the string vibrates, and dictates the harmonic balance. So what the string is doing to the magnetic field is different from guitar to guitar, aside from the other factors. This has been known for decades, and Jim Lill did not disprove this. Again, watch the Warmoth video to properly display what Jim failed to. Then go play a '59 Korina V next to a '59 Les Paul and hear how DRASTICALLY they sound from each other. I have the gild fortune to have access to 4 V's and dozens of Bursts, including my own. Bursts all sound different, but V's aren't even on the same planet. Ask yourself why what's different there.
I thought Jim Lills video was really good, I had a a squire P bass a while ago, it looked good and it played very well but sounded like crap! fitting with a 62 custom shop PU and changing out the pots and capacitor, and what do you know, it sounded like a genuine made in USA Fender P bass! it was all down to the electrics in the end.
Thinking the video was good does not negate the fact that he is peddling misinformation and his methodology is bad. His hypothesis has actually been disproven in controlled scientific studies where 91.7% of test subjects in a controlled study heard a difference between woods in electric guitars. Also, just because you vaned your electronics and the bass sound changed, all that proves is that you can change the sound by changing electronics. It does not disprove that different woods or construction methods have different tonal characteristics. Your result is irrelevant, in terms of a body of evidence. If you want to learn about the subject and see actual peer reviewed science on the matter, read this: journals.pan.pl/Content/121810/PDF/aoa.2021.138150.pdf?handler=pdf
My thoughts to this are under the second video. It's a lengthy comment, if anyone is interested, it's there.
I agree with that. The guitar is an electromechanical system. The vibration of the string is the result of the mechanical system “string + body + nut + neck” and the current generated by the pickups is the result of the electro magnetic system “string + pickup”. It is a complex system and each guitar has its own characteristic harmonic composition.
Someone do a wellness check on Glenn Fricker 😅 #ToneWood 🎸
Prodbably nkt aveyr smrat guy ahha
"Prodbably nkt aveyr smrat guy ahha". That one goes in the hall of fame.
I even found the tone changes based on the type of Pick you use. Ever notice that people that try to discount the tone properties of the different components are almost always trying to justify their cheap guitar and/or are not very good players? If you're not a good player then you're right. Everything you play will sound like poop, and in that sense sounds the same.
Everything matters. Pick, the way you pick, the way you hold the strings etc. I've recorded Jeff Beck. His sound mostly was in his hands. He sounded different on different guitars, as you can hear on the albums, but the main culprit was his technique. I played his guitar and couldn't get that sound.
FFS it isnt that important, the differences are not so big and most guitars play better than more gitarrists out there, stop chasing tone and start writing.