To my ears... Ash: medium with a snappy highs Mahogany: darker and warm highs Poplar: bright with twangy highs. I have a Jackson that is made of Poplar it resonates and sustains longer than my mahogany Epiphone. Poplar gets a bad rap, but I personally think it is a very nice and balanced tone wood. Fender actually used Poplar for a lot of their MIM strats and the 90s and even used Poplar for some American models including American Telecasters. Little known fact about Poplar is that it actually gets harder as it gets older.
I agree I feel like poplar is definitely underrated and seen as “the poor man’s alder”. Funny enough, I’ve seen more than one Jackson made of poplar, that alder guitars can’t hold a candle to.
@@scotbutler2539 it definitely is... people get snobby about tone Woods... but the high end Japanese Charvels that people love from the 80s and 90s were made from Poplar and they were great!!
Danelectros used Poplar for their necks in the 60s. Also in the 60s was Kay (who were cheap by that point.) They also used it for their Kay Vanguard bodies with Maple Caps. Poplar seems pretty perfect for a bit more of a twangy "transistor radio" sound, though it's a soft wood.
Man I stripped down a 2001 made in Taiwan Squier just now.. and it's made of poplar and this thing is HARD way more solid than others ive stripped down made of Alder for example... could it be the age of the wood??
I used AKG K271 headphones which are mid end monitor cans, and I've got to say I really noticed the difference. The ash was louder, the mahogany was warmer, and the poplar was tinny.
Even though the poplar sounds thinner and quieter, it seems to have more present overtones, which i think is whats making it sound so bright. It has a very surf rock, psychedelic tone that I really like. I notice the same effect when switching from my in phase humbucker to out of phase humbucker, its quieter and deader sounding at first but if you turn it up and listen carefully you get a really sweet polyphonic, harmonics, overtone thing going on. Great job all around, I would like to see basswood tested as well, I heard it has a good mix of the warmer mahogany like tones and brighter maple tone. And while you're at it, why not try carbon fiber too! Sound is like a painting, different colors are like different tones. You can take blue and add white or black or any color to get just the right shade of blue, just like how different sound frequency responses can be chosen to get just the right tone for the mix.
Same! I tried being as unbiased as possible.. but I did recently order my first custom guitar with a swamp ash body. Feels nice to confirm my wishes haha
YEah, in THIS video, of THESE 3, the ash sounds the best. Usually I prefer Mahogany as it tends to be warmer but it sounds thin in this test. Would have been nice to include Alder to the batch, especially for Poplar vs Alder.
Great video. Been playing Charvel model 6's for over 30 years and have become very attached to the tones of a poplar guitar body. This video proved it to me again.
@@meadish Hi, Sorry for the delayed reply. I like the mids and high mids of poplar. I find that I can always eq highs out of my mix on the guitar or amp if they are too much. But when the highs are not there to add them does not sound as natural as when they are in the wood of the guitar to begin with.
they did sound different. mahogany was warm and round, poplar was bright and sharp, ash was in the middle. what wood to use would depend on what sound and attack you were looking for in a specific song, but mahogany seemed the most ... pleasurable. but anyway, thanks so much for doing this great test, super fun and interesting. and what imagination AND skill to create the neck-thru guitars with modular snap-on bodies!
With headphone (Audio Technica ATH-50x) the differences where very obvious if you are paying attention, the Swam Ash sounded Full spectrum, a broader range of Lows and Highs, the mohagony sounded more defined and focused on the middle range of the frequency range a tighter sound overall, poplar sounded thin, tinny, like cheap headphones muted in a way.
A simple but very effective demonstration. Thanks for doing that! I can definitely hear some lest paul / gibson character in the mahogany. Really helps that the wood was unfinished too. The poplar might be OK for certain things, but the swamp ash came across as more balanced for sure. Great test.
The diffrences are there, but extremely subtle. Of course, this is a mostly clean tone as well. I wonder how much more apparent those differences would be in a high gain situation. Should invite a blues and metal player to come give things a whirl :)
Brilliant comparison - thanks! I definitely heard marked differences between them. Poplar was most delicate with a jangly sound, mahogany had deeper bass and mids and swamp ash was probably the most balanced with upper mids and bass. I own a poplar tele and felt it sounded too thin so put in humbuckers and even with those tend to leave the bass high on my amp. This video explains why! Now I have to get out of this rabbit hole...
This is awesome, you can definitely tell there's a difference but agree it's not massive enough to sway my choice of guitar but I'm currently building one so it's great to hear.
Just come from the other video on the making and initial testing, a great follow up video. I still don't believe "tonewood" in the sense that a particular species affects tone with specific characteristics, but all of these are physically different pieces of wood so its definitely the wood itself that makes a difference, not necessarily the species. The basic sound of all them is the same with a slight variation of EQ.
Even with tinnitus and measured hearing loss above 14kHz, I notice a difference. Using headphones and my eyes closed so as not to allow my personal bias to influence my listening. Each has its own flavor depending on your personal preference and playing style. Thank you and well done.
For me, the mahogany body gives a mellower tone. Swamp ash is a little brighter than the mahogany, both with good resonance. Poplar tome seems thiner and more lifeless than the other two. Both mahogany and swamp ash are appealing to me, I play mahogany guitars because I like this sweet, round, mellow quality, but I like swamp ash as well (as I hear in this video). Great experiment!!
Poplar is definitely the more brighter, chimier wood obviously. Fender's best guitars are made with poplar and are known to be the brightest, especially the Strat. Their anps have that same rep, too. "Lifeless".. smh
Much bigger difference plugged into an amp as different amps will enhance harmonic structure differences when compared to a bench test. You really do good work, man...
Someone made an interesting comment about different genres - I think the mahogany would suit Jazz and Blues - I can see (hear) the other woods suiting different types of music. Congratulations on your enjoyable and informative videos - really well done.
Thanks for posting this. Closing my eyes and listening in headphones, I hear clear differences. I really like the poplar, while not quite as loud and punchy as the swamp ash, you can hear the minute details of the picking and fingers on the strings with the lower mid tones being the main difference in all of them. Probably has to do with the resonant frequency of the body according to density. Most people will tell you the louder sound sounds better. Common knowledge for producers. Will be building a poplar body soon! Alway good to have a unique tone ;)
I could hear a bit of difference but it wasn't much and could be just the human element or it could be the wood. The difference is so small that I don't think it matters. Get the guitar that most makes you want to play.
interesting enough < i came here as I'm thinking of making a guitar with a Poplar top and maybe cherry back, mainly because of the colour, but I wondered about the tone, So yes not a shattering difference, I think Poplar is probably the softest tone, and Ash the most trebly. but nice that you did my experiment for me and I just sit back and watch youtube ,,,
That sustain on the poplar though :D You proved that tonewood does matter! I liked all woods and I think every wood has it's own place depending on the type of music. Swamp ash and poplar were my favorite ones.
something I noticed is that on the swamp ash the highs seemed to ring out more, this could be due to human error though. I really like mahogany, poplar sounded paper thin, no bass, but could be cool for treble stuff like funk rhythm and similar accompaniment.
Great 2nd test! Was hard to hear much difference in the 1st video with a single strum on each, but here the differences are much more apparent, even with the strings not being mounted directly to the different tonewoods. Different pickups do make a bigger difference overall, but they can be chosen to accentuate the desirable characteristics of each tonewood - it's a cumulative process. Same then goes for amp choice, pedals, and the way you dial in a tone. Great concept to compare tonewoods- well done!
the poplar sounded a lot thinner, it is very apparent when the switch from poplar to swamp ash happens. The swamp ash sounded fuller and mahogany was balanced very well between the two. The difference is apparent if you close your eyes. Logically speaking it makes no sense they would all sound the same. Deducing it down to its components we know an acoustic guitar can sound different depending upon material (think Bobro vs Acoustic guitar) so the combination of the materials/instrument and the player results in a signal that remains consistent through the transference of converted energy through the amp preserving the acoustic properties of the wood, if you can hear a difference unplugged or better yet wood sounds different when knocking on it due to density and depending upon species then remains individual to the wood, player, design of instrument and method of delivery. As the signal gets converted it is being electrically manipulated but the energy stays constant and results in the density of the wood transferring with it via the conservation law of physics. To think they sound the same creates a paradox in physics that changing a parameter of the test of that magnitude as a completely different specie of wood has no effect when no other parameter has changed, this presents a problem that a physical difference means nothing, basically its saying physics is wrong when a physical attribute of the test has drastically changed. It is impossible for the wood to sound the same since there is more than 1 tree specie in the world and they are not exactly the same density, strength and contain the same cellular properties. Since we know this is true then we know it is impossible for it to sound exactly the same when the signal is being converted and manipulated through the amp. A sound wave is exerted energy and regardless of manipulation or conversion there is a sonic change in the energy output since it is a huge change at the source of the sound wave and there for the wave is acting differently. Changing the wood changes far to many unseen parameters for a change not to happen. The way the wave acts is in part due to the density of the wood, and because of wave particle duality a change in the behavior of the wave on a quantum/sub atomic level happens. The short answer here is yes the wood has tonal properties that change specie to specie.
Great job of demonstrating how tone woods compare on conductivity. I would like to see a neck/bridge jig that puts the string tension on the body. Not that different than your neck thru body, just cut out the wood between the neck and bridge. Several guitar sites suggest that the neck also makes a difference in tone.
There's definitely a difference, but based on a lot of debates I've had, the biggest difference is in people's ability to perceive it. I don't know if it's hearing loss/sensitivity or just lack of ear training, but I've had arguments with people who insisted I was full of nonsense until I ran the clips through a spectrum analyzer and overlaid their normalized eq curves on top of each other. FWIW, I have a pair of solidbody electrics that are 100% mahogany, the exact same model of guitar from the same year. Both are bone stock. One is noticeably lighter than the other, and acoustically they sound significantly different. The lighter one is brighter sounding, with less bass. When you plug them in and record them, this acoustic difference carries through and can be heard through the pickups too.
I knew there are differences in sound characters between various tone woods since I own several eguitars! But this experiment scientifically proved it! Regarding comments on the 'processing' of the eguitar sound through stomp boxes, cables, PUs, EQs, vacuum tubes and amps, that's why some seasoned players use minimal effects as possible to avoid coloring the sound character of their favorite guitar so that the true beauty of their tone will come forth and be more distinct! At the end of the day, we will choose and play what we want. It"s a preference issue! Because of this video production, I appreciate more the tones of my swamp ash body, mahogany body and alder body e-guitars. Yes, we can already conclude that various tone woods for NECKs will make a difference. Thanks a million!!!
Tim, your test is really revealing what I always thought and measured. The differences are very minor, and even when I listen to two sections where the same wood is used I can hear minor differences. That might have to do that the acoustic for the microphone changes a bit while you are moving slightly with your body. I'm working at a university in Hamburg, and researching audio. I have build a string pluck machine for guitar testing, which would clearly show the differences in spectra in matlab. I would guess the differences are below 1 db which is the limit of hearing any differences.
It goes without saying that such a test could only be done properly in germany. Jokes aside, it's beautiful that this is how you're going about it. This video is amazing but I cant wait to hear the results of your thing.
They do have subtle differences. Its weird in the other blind test, I liked mahogany the least, but here I like it the best. The differences were nothing that could/would get wiped out by a twist or two on the amp's knobs. Or a tone knob. BTW love your designs, been drooling over the belarusian basses especially.
yea, and I wonder how much of it is in our heads? When I was a cook, the chef used to tell me people "eat with their eyes first" and I wonder how much hearing we do that way (hence the other video with the blind listen).
Tim Sway ___ Enjoyed Your comparisons on 'Tone-Woods. Your opinion of which sounded better, or not, does not take into consideration that we all have different reactive 'Ear preferences, and may, or may not, have hearing loss damage, or, DNA difference's. However I appreciate the effort you subjected yourself to educate us all. Myself, I am distracted by 'High Volume / 'High pitch tones, preferring the 'Un-Hooked, Acoustics, of slow, sonorous, 'Gypsy Jazz Guitar and, 1950's Classic Jazz, with flat wound strings, and no 'Pick. lol... Wish you, and yours, much success in your endeavors.
Swamp ash had a bit of tele ring to it, Mahogany (probably Padauk?) was a little warmer, Poplar sounded thin, brittle. However... I think the biggest downside to this setup is that the strings aren't directly anchored into the body...it's all sympathetic vibration rather than direct. One reason a Strat sounds different from a Les Paul--bolt on vs. fixed neck. While both are anchored to the body for resonance, the coupling of the neck/guitar makes a difference. Of course, there's always that SC v Humbucker thing too.
I think a bit too much is made of the through neck vs bolt on differences. Fender neck slots are usually so tight you couldn't poke a razor blade down the back/side if you tried. That's going to resonate plenty across the entire instrument. Boasting through neck construction seems yet another reason Gibson charge rip-off prices for their products (as nice as they may be).
I agree that the neck and pickup and bridge on the same piece of wood affects the sound. That’s basically a neck-through design and the other wood it’s mounted on catches a little vibration from it. I think that’s why there’s little difference in the sound between each wood type. Mount the bridge, pickup, and neck separately. The CNC can cut a neck joint that is tight enough especially if you use something like Taylor uses to lock the neck into place. I’d also add a piezo pickup on a consistent place on the body wood to look for transmitted vibration.
Sky Studios Fender neck joints these days are that tight because of CNC. When they made the necks and bodies by hand there was a lot of variation. Gibson used glue as filler in addition to hold the neck in place. Fender tightened the bolts and often techs put sandpaper or window screen between the neck and body to tighten the contact between them. Those things made differences in the way they sounded.
Ash wood really sounds good. The sound really flow and floating. The poplar wood I think is good for bass. It has this kind of compress sound effect without effects yet. And its kind of distorted in sound.
This is super cool. I can hear differences...it would be neat though to see this for bass...I know “the concept is pretty much the same” however in other tonewood comparisons, I’ve noticed the difference is often accentuated when playing slap style on bass...even if it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
If you are primarily an acoustic player, you'll likely be happiest with poplar. I'll generally choose mahogany because of it's density and durability, but I ultimately don't care all that deeply. I have countless electrics and with basswood being about the cheapest and lowest quality tone woods around, it's still one of my favorites. Hollow, plunky, bright and chiming like a bell. It's such a soft, light and loose grain wood it allows it to give deep resonation whereas other tone woods' density keeps more of the vibration in the string. Being so flimsy, light weight and cheap results in an instrument that everything on it can be complete crap, but if the neck and pickups are good quality or beyond, you can shred on them and you don't generate noise off the hardware, plastics, wires or pickups themselves. Because it's like a soft landing pad, it dampens all that crap rather than being hard and reflecting it right back into the strings and pickups. *Poplar is more or less a much higher quality wood that delivers similar properties, but ratty ass, cheap AF basswood still does it better lol.* Mahogany and basswood are my favorites and couldn't be more different.
Thanks Tim for an amazingly well done test.I have heard some subtle difference's in your previous test.Most notably the mdf,it sounded like a Danelectro.i.e. "punchy".On this test the poplar sounded "airy".Because I am on the endless "tone quest"as a guitarist I would like to see you compare a plastic body and (probably cost prohibitive) aluminum.Thanks again love the show!
poplar sounded weak, almost frail, but I did notice they all sounded different. You also were sitting differently and into a slightly different mode on each one, letting it rip on the swamp ash, being very technical and warm on the mahogany but the poplar that was ripping last time, was frail here.
Sounds great, can hear small but noticable differences between them when I'm wearing headphones. My order of preference is Swamp Ash, Mahogany, then Poplar. Nicely done!
I preferred the sound of the swamp ash body. There’s something about the tone of swamp ash Fender style guitars that I really like, they just seem to sound a bit brighter without sounding thin. Swamp ash Telecasters always sound particularly nice to me.
Tim what if you made the tester the other way around? Instead of attaching the tone wood to the back of the tester, it attaches on the front? And made the testing rig out of a harder material but shave it thinner so that we can maximize the amount of "tone wood" per test and minimize the effects of the test rig? Although you already essentially proved the point, the different woods do impact the tone. More testing required though to know if that's only due to being attached to more mass on the denser woods, if each test wood weighed the same would the results hold?
Mahogany had the usual bass warmth. Ash was bright and snappy. Poplar just sounded flat almost lifeless. I wonder what red cherry or lignum viate would sound like
@@matteusmaximofelisberto4385 Yeah no I hate poplar it's cheap and cheerful wood. Not as good as other types of wood and as such they should reduce their price. It's a "stable" wood but isn't brilliant for tonal quality
@@matteusmaximofelisberto4385 I was referring to the series... Go look up the model e.g. The Gibson mephis. See here: legacy.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2019/Memphis/ES-275-Thinline-2019.aspx
Definitely a discernable difference. I personally liked the overall sound of the ash, then mahogany then poplar. Now, adding tone control, eq, or effects may make for a different preference,. Wood finish may as well, if you put a thick coat of paint on the poplar, but only a thin stain or varnish on the "nicer" woods.
right. I wanted to get to the core of it, before the finish, capacitors, etc which I believe have WAY more to do with the guitar's mojo than the wood. IMO the differences are so minute and subtle I would put my energy and money in to other components.
You did it! Finally, someone did it peoperly. Thank you, much appreciated! :* And no, they do not sound the same at all - not even using earphones, but a bluetooth speaker. xD (doing that soon) I am starting to believe that not all ears are the same...
Different people's brains processes sound differently. I'm autistic with sever hearing based sensery problems (my ears are too sensitive) and from what people have said to me about my comments on music my hearing seems to detect subtle differences in tone and other things better compared to other people. For instance I can tell the difference between a £100 acoustic piano and a £1000000 acoustic piano.
@@ollie1704 whats a £100 acoustic piano? I don't know of any acoustic piano that can be bought new for £100. If you're refering to a used one it's original price would have been a lot higher and the difference in sound would not be possible to be calssified through the price (neither the used buying price nor the original, since money had a different value at that time). Would you mind clarifying what kind of pianos you are refering to when addressing them by price?
poplar stands out the most. It's the brightest of the three, but from a finishing standpoint isn't consider a beautiful wood from blonde, butterscotch etc type finishes, but as for solid color your good all day. A great cheaper alternative to some of the more expensive wood types. $4 a board foot a great material for a hobbyist or practicing luthier. Swamp is the most even toned one, but it's a subtle differences from it and mahogany, but with finishing its great for blondes, butterscotch etc. Mahogany is also great for finishes. Fender had their materials and Gibson had theirs and I think they wanted to set themselves apart and I believe those woods just become the industry standards which is why we general don't see other woods creep into the the mid to higher end of range guitars, but I have heard of a few guitarist having signature models made of Basswood, and that could be several reason, but it could be tone. All and All IT DOES NOT MATTER if you like it wear out it! if it inspires you. WEAR IT OUT! it doesn't matter the name or wood or finish. WEAR IT OUT! If ever you wanna see a shitty guitar. look at the EVH's Frakenstrat. neck pocket is too big, useless controls for decoration etc etc, but EVH wears it out on a shitty guitar.
In watching and listening your area of picking changed for each body. That makes a huge difference... I think they'd all sound the same if you picked in the same places or at least close enough to not matter But yah. Licking position was all over the place body to body. That matters. A lot.
@@jerryhatrick5860 Yes, it varied a lot even within each guitar, but there were characteristics that remained relatively constant for each body. It's all about damping. Mahog sounded the most even. SA had a mid-dip, and Poplar had the least bass without a mid-dip. Tighter-grained woods tend to have less mid dip, and where in the spectrum a dip is depends on the density & rigidity per thickness.
I love ash, especially northern ash; I’m a brown sound fiend. However, poplar, though it’s used in low end guitars, was used for Eddie Van Halen’s 5150 Kramer. It sounds not bad. The Swamp Ash is definitely brighter with high highs, mahogany is warm and rich, and the poplar is a bit dead but evenly dead if that makes sense?
Thanks for the test and posted results! "Wood" you mind carving a few more varieties and weights? I'd be interested to hear alder, basswood, and anything else that we're making kits out of these days. ...and maybe simplify and shorten the clips. I think the tests might be more uniform if you just play one chord for 8 quarter notes at a moderate tempo, and switching to the next clip after a shorter interval may highlight more subtle differences. Just my 43 cents or whatever it is. Cheers
I will do more of these if there is enough interest, but honestly, based on how far I've gone so far I don;t see the point cutting more bodies. it would be nice to try some different necks
Actually very interesting. More differences than I would believe. I have 2 guitars at home both with ash bodies because I always got the impressions they sounded how I wanted it the most. mahogany are know for being a bit darker so that came out here as well. The poplar sample lacked bottom as I hear it.
the ash sounded a little hotter, but it could be a result of playing a little louder the mahogany was warmer but a little heavy on the low end the poplar sounded bright and a little thin
I loved the video, it would be very interesting to see the same test for bass guitars as more harmonics are audible in the midrange, it might make a difference. Cute smart kid you got there!
It's all personal preference. Guitars made out of poplar seem to sell for a lot less but that wood is not endangered, which is a factor. Tone is personal preference. I prefer American Swamp Ash and Poplar to Mahogany. That's what my three tele style guitars are constructed of.
Hard to tell from the camera angle, but it appears he is picking higher up toward the neck when he plays the poplar body than any of the others. That probably explains why it sounds warmer and more trebly to some. At 2:30, he's playing the Swamp Ash closer to the neck than some of the others, but his legs are crossed and the guitar is parallel to his chest. By comparison, he played the poplar body at an angle and picked even higher up toward the neck than the Swamp Ash (and all the others). So, new variables to consider: position of the guitar and playing stance (legs crossed, guitar parallel to chest or at an angle, guitar end hanging less or farther off his thighs, etc.).
They sound different enough to make me have a mental map of how the woods sound like. The swamp ash has a nasal open character. The mahogany is more vocal and the poplar is plain with a hint od nasality. Thanks for the vid.
I think what would be interesting is how they sounded to you acoustically and if you noticed a difference in the vibrations on your leg and body. I notice my Les Paul sounds/feels deeper then my strat.
Excellent question and of course I am privy to a lot more of the experiment than you are on the other side of the internet. Honestly? As I was making the video, I noticed absolutely no differences in sound (only in comfort as the chipboard edge is scratchy) and was concerned my test was a total flop and the maple was giving me all the sound. It was only listening back to the recordings that I heard VERY SUBTLE differences. Granted I wasn't playing through a screaming loud amp.
I think the only one I really noticed was the swamp ash definitely it was snappier and brighter, but I did not notice when you transition between the poplar and mahogany
Swamp Ash had a full balanced sound, the mids were kind of muted on the Mahogany and Poplar had almost no bass tones. I wasn't expecting that. That being said, a slight adjustment to a tone knob on your amp would make a much bigger difference. Wood tone is overrated IMO.
Agreed. Wood makes very little difference to me. Anything will sound good through the right effects and the right amp. I don't think anybody at any of my gigs is wondering, "Is his guitar body basswood or swamp ash?"
I wasn't expecting the results to be this extreme on what is essentially a through body neck design. Thanks for going through the trouble of creating/ demonstrating this.
None are better than the others and the small difference might as well be due to a slightly different positioning of the fingers and picking spots. More testing is needed.
If three bodies were made of the same wood, wood there still be minute differences? To me its not significant, but the experiment doesn't consider how the wooden structure of the bass affects tone, and by that I mean the structure that holds the tension of the strings. Its a great experiment and i would love to see some more relating to structural materials...
I definitely heard a difference, i was wondering if chambering brings the difference forward. Have you considered trying a version of this with chambering?
The mahogany deeper and richer vibe, Swamp Ash middle somewhat on the brighter side of the other two and Poplar softer less vibe. Finally different but not much, however, I wonder if playing in different acoustical settings would make a difference?
Thank you for this video, man. Great stuff. Considering how many amp companies cater to the high gain market, could you do a test with some gain on the tone? I can only imagine these "subtle differences" are going to amplify. My thoughts: Your results were absolutely no surprise to me. I've owned many guitars in the last 16-17 years, and those "subtle differences" are exactly what I've been hearing since I bought my first Les Paul (mahogany) and compared it to my Ibanez RG470 (poplar) and Ibanez S470 (mahogany) back in 2004. I was completely blown away how similar the S470 and Gibson LP Classic sound alike. The LP Classic was a little warmer than the S470. They all had the same bridge pickup, a Seymour Duncan JB. Both LP's were very heavy, but so was the S470 (for a S470). During that time I owned three S470's (at the same time) and the heaviest one was my favorite. It sounded "meaner" (high gain tones) when plugged-in, but was also the quietest of the 3 when strummed acoustically. I've found, the denser the mahogany, the warmer "overall". Less dense Les Paul's, tend to be more resonant with more chime. Even with those two characteristics, Ash bodies, and Walnut bodies, still sound different to mahogany. I've been able to compare a mid-2000's LP Ash body (ebony fretboard with no markers) against an early-model 00's LP Studio Gothic (w/ ebony fretb0ard) and a Les Paul Firebrand (I think it was an ebony fretboard and was either a 1979 or 1980 model), all three had EMG's in the bridge, and they still sounded different. The Firebrand had a very stiff tone even tone where the other two had more detail in the bottom end and top end. Those differences were amplified and easier to hear when using high gain, to the point that I felt it was obvious enough to have to change "tone" settings on the guitar amp itself. I've always been so confused by this "tone-wood" debate, and I still remember when it became a thing. With all these claims of, "my friend who happens to be an engineering god, went to school at MIT says there's no difference", are these people bad at "hearing"? Sure the science says one thing, but have you used your ears? My opinion has always been, if you can't hear the difference, something's wrong with your hearing (or mines better than average), that or you, person deciding to buy a guitar, doesn't know what to listen for and "wood-spices" shouldn't be a determining factor when buying a guitar. I've also been in the frame of mind, "they are subtle", but since I was on a tone hunt, those "subtle differences" coupled with a bunch of other "subtle differences" (speaker, cab, guitar cables, pick, humbuckers, pick attack and angle, strings and strum location) add up. I would say that I've never bought into the idea of "tone wood" but have always been of the school of thought that, absolutely, YES there's a difference in sound from the wood-spices I've heard and they were VERY audible (to me). Just like guitar cables, picks, strings, or humbuckers make a difference in tone, so does different woods. Shit, I believe the body style also makes a difference. Have you ever played a Gibson Explorer? Bottom end for days... Every Explorer I've ever owned has been warm/bottom heavy sounding. New debate: "Tone-Shape"??? TL;DR: IMO the term "tone-wood" has always been a gimmick to my ears, and is a word/term to sell people something that's already there.
Thing is, it’s not worth the chase just for the guitars own tone. The difference between speaker units itself are not subtle at all, especially in the mix when mic’d up and recorded, probably the most important factor. The wood and propper working pickups themselves do not have enough impact to drown out a lead vocal nor make the guitar cut more through the mix, any EQ even in drives and amp will have a great impact on that, the speaker dictates the overall frequency response and can also contribute to harshness at certain frequencies like specific batches of V30’s. I know it can be interesting and inspiring, hence why I watch these videos, but lately I question myself every time GAS hits me, do I really need it when what I have sounds and feels good. I mean, it doesn’t even really matter to me which of my guitars with high output humbucker I use soundwise. Not saying that there is no difference, it’s just not enough, might also be influenced by that there isn’t a huge gap between the pups, apart from one guitar which has i the bucker further away from the bridge, less heights more lows, will try with higher value volume pot on that one, easier than changing EQ between guitars.
The differences to my ears are very subtle...news today is that Fender will stop using swamp ash except for Custom Shop guitars...according to Warmoth Poplar and Alder are very similar in tone and weight and Fender has used Alder more than anything else.
Sometimes we hear what we want to hear...I cannot tell a significant difference and certainly not one that can't be tweaked out with a guitar, amp or effects pedal tone knob...significant price difference...amazing that the poplar is heavier than the ash, but only half as hard.
Cool test. There was definitely a difference. I could here it on my iPhone speakers! If there is a difference in sound , I would think it affects feel as well. I had a guitar made of poplar. I changed like 5 different pickups but never sounded good. Your video makes me realize I probably didn’t like the inherit sound or feel of poplar. Great video! Thanks.
if your cleans sound pinchy just lower the volume of the guitar a bit its really that simple electric guitars are very versatile to worry about the wood type
I would add a limited perception (listening with headphones) to these other excellent observations below: Sounded like the Mahogany and Ash Bodies had more individual strings separation compared to the Poplar.
I am not a believer in tone wood. The difference in body and neck wood can be interesting for stability. I am a gigging artist and I have noticed differences in my guitars getting out of tune when I bring instruments from the trunk of my car (cold outside ) to a gig. Some guitars hold tone very well (the cheaper ones! because of the thick coating or paint layers I guess) and some guitars are very affected by the change in temperature. It can be also a difference in bridge types (fixed/floyd rose) I am curious what wood is best for tuning stability and if the body has a big influence on that. Or maybe its all about the neck? Is this an idea to explore? Thanks.
Swamp ash sounds the best. I never would have guessed. I was checking out popular cause I just ordered a Jackson soloist that's popular with a ash too. Trying to determine which pickups to use. Thanks man
My favorite tonewoods are Swamp Ash, Alder, Poplar, basswood, and mahogany on thin guitars. I can't play anything like a Les Paul because it will just destroy my back. I favor lighter instruments. My main guitar right now is a Schecter C6 Deluxe with DiMarzios. It's basswood, plays like a dream, and practically floats. I love it.
There is definitely a difference but to me it's not a 1000$ difference, i seem to like ash the most out of those three but wouldn't pay 100$ more just to get the desired wood. Really great video, i appreciate the effort and very good job mate.
mahogany dark, swamp ash medium sound more pop, and poplar bright
To my ears...
Ash: medium with a snappy highs
Mahogany: darker and warm highs
Poplar: bright with twangy highs.
I have a Jackson that is made of Poplar it resonates and sustains longer than my mahogany Epiphone. Poplar gets a bad rap, but I personally think it is a very nice and balanced tone wood. Fender actually used Poplar for a lot of their MIM strats and the 90s and even used Poplar for some American models including American Telecasters. Little known fact about Poplar is that it actually gets harder as it gets older.
I agree I feel like poplar is definitely underrated and seen as “the poor man’s alder”. Funny enough, I’ve seen more than one Jackson made of poplar, that alder guitars can’t hold a candle to.
@@scotbutler2539 it definitely is... people get snobby about tone Woods... but the high end Japanese Charvels that people love from the 80s and 90s were made from Poplar and they were great!!
Danelectros used Poplar for their necks in the 60s. Also in the 60s was Kay (who were cheap by that point.) They also used it for their Kay Vanguard bodies with Maple Caps. Poplar seems pretty perfect for a bit more of a twangy "transistor radio" sound, though it's a soft wood.
@@101Volts Charvel also used Poplar for many of their now revered japanese-made production models
Man I stripped down a 2001 made in Taiwan Squier just now.. and it's made of poplar and this thing is HARD way more solid than others ive stripped down made of Alder for example... could it be the age of the wood??
I used AKG K271 headphones which are mid end monitor cans, and I've got to say I really noticed the difference. The ash was louder, the mahogany was warmer, and the poplar was tinny.
Yep
Even though the poplar sounds thinner and quieter, it seems to have more present overtones, which i think is whats making it sound so bright. It has a very surf rock, psychedelic tone that I really like. I notice the same effect when switching from my in phase humbucker to out of phase humbucker, its quieter and deader sounding at first but if you turn it up and listen carefully you get a really sweet polyphonic, harmonics, overtone thing going on. Great job all around, I would like to see basswood tested as well, I heard it has a good mix of the warmer mahogany like tones and brighter maple tone. And while you're at it, why not try carbon fiber too!
Sound is like a painting, different colors are like different tones. You can take blue and add white or black or any color to get just the right shade of blue, just like how different sound frequency responses can be chosen to get just the right tone for the mix.
Exactly. The poplar has a much cleaner high end response with more overtones than the other two.
Poplar sounded nice and clear and had awesome sustain. Should be a great match for clean jangly tones.
Mahogany is warm and and smooth - love it - quite a difference from the other two which sounded thinner and more chaotic (cluttered)
For my ears mahogany sounds muddy and muffled, while others are very open and clear.
They sounded different for sure, they all sounded good though!
This video was requested by POPLAR demand
Pro trick : you can watch series on Kaldrostream. Been using it for watching loads of movies during the lockdown.
@Mekhi Wesson yup, have been watching on kaldrostream for years myself :D
I'm down voting this comment for no reason
Swamp ash is the winner for me.
Same! I tried being as unbiased as possible.. but I did recently order my first custom guitar with a swamp ash body. Feels nice to confirm my wishes haha
YEah, in THIS video, of THESE 3, the ash sounds the best. Usually I prefer Mahogany as it tends to be warmer but it sounds thin in this test. Would have been nice to include Alder to the batch, especially for Poplar vs Alder.
I agree swamp ash is the best
Tele made out of popular would is what I'm thinking
Same it’s got the best all around mix of lows and hog ends
Great video. Been playing Charvel model 6's for over 30 years and have become very attached to the tones of a poplar guitar body. This video proved it to me again.
Chris, I concur. I am in the midst of researching and sourcing for a build. This video was very helpful. I am glad he put this out!
Can you describe specifically what it is you like about the poplar? I'm curious to try it in a build too.
@@meadish Hi, Sorry for the delayed reply. I like the mids and high mids of poplar. I find that I can always eq highs out of my mix on the guitar or amp if they are too much. But when the highs are not there to add them does not sound as natural as when they are in the wood of the guitar to begin with.
they did sound different. mahogany was warm and round, poplar was bright and sharp, ash was in the middle. what wood to use would depend on what sound and attack you were looking for in a specific song, but mahogany seemed the most ... pleasurable. but anyway, thanks so much for doing this great test, super fun and interesting. and what imagination AND skill to create the neck-thru guitars with modular snap-on bodies!
With headphone (Audio Technica ATH-50x) the differences where very obvious if you are paying attention, the Swam Ash sounded Full spectrum, a broader range of Lows and Highs, the mohagony sounded more defined and focused on the middle range of the frequency range a tighter sound overall, poplar sounded thin, tinny, like cheap headphones muted in a way.
Great job!!! Hands down the best wood comparison on TH-cam. Keep up the great work!
A simple but very effective demonstration. Thanks for doing that! I can definitely hear some lest paul / gibson character in the mahogany. Really helps that the wood was unfinished too. The poplar might be OK for certain things, but the swamp ash came across as more balanced for sure. Great test.
I am partial to Swamp Ash, although they all had a pleasing tone to me . It's just a personal preference.
The diffrences are there, but extremely subtle. Of course, this is a mostly clean tone as well.
I wonder how much more apparent those differences would be in a high gain situation. Should invite a blues and metal player to come give things a whirl :)
Brilliant comparison - thanks! I definitely heard marked differences between them. Poplar was most delicate with a jangly sound, mahogany had deeper bass and mids and swamp ash was probably the most balanced with upper mids and bass. I own a poplar tele and felt it sounded too thin so put in humbuckers and even with those tend to leave the bass high on my amp. This video explains why! Now I have to get out of this rabbit hole...
This is awesome, you can definitely tell there's a difference but agree it's not massive enough to sway my choice of guitar but I'm currently building one so it's great to hear.
Just come from the other video on the making and initial testing, a great follow up video. I still don't believe "tonewood" in the sense that a particular species affects tone with specific characteristics, but all of these are physically different pieces of wood so its definitely the wood itself that makes a difference, not necessarily the species. The basic sound of all them is the same with a slight variation of EQ.
Even with tinnitus and measured hearing loss above 14kHz, I notice a difference. Using headphones and my eyes closed so as not to allow my personal bias to influence my listening. Each has its own flavor depending on your personal preference and playing style. Thank you and well done.
For me, the mahogany body gives a mellower tone. Swamp ash is a little brighter than the mahogany, both with good resonance. Poplar tome seems thiner and more lifeless than the other two. Both mahogany and swamp ash are appealing to me, I play mahogany guitars because I like this sweet, round, mellow quality, but I like swamp ash as well (as I hear in this video). Great experiment!!
Poplar is definitely the more brighter, chimier wood obviously. Fender's best guitars are made with poplar and are known to be the brightest, especially the Strat. Their anps have that same rep, too. "Lifeless".. smh
swamp ash > poplar > mahogany for me. This was great, and thanks!
Much bigger difference plugged into an amp as different amps will enhance harmonic structure differences when compared to a bench test. You really do good work, man...
Someone made an interesting comment about different genres - I think the mahogany would suit Jazz and Blues - I can see (hear) the other woods suiting different types of music. Congratulations on your enjoyable and informative videos - really well done.
Thanks for posting this. Closing my eyes and listening in headphones, I hear clear differences. I really like the poplar, while not quite as loud and punchy as the swamp ash, you can hear the minute details of the picking and fingers on the strings with the lower mid tones being the main difference in all of them. Probably has to do with the resonant frequency of the body according to density. Most people will tell you the louder sound sounds better. Common knowledge for producers. Will be building a poplar body soon! Alway good to have a unique tone ;)
I could hear a bit of difference but it wasn't much and could be just the human element or it could be the wood. The difference is so small that I don't think it matters. Get the guitar that most makes you want to play.
yes. great avatar btw, Icebear (my son and I love to watch that show together).
interesting enough < i came here as I'm thinking of making a guitar with a Poplar top and maybe cherry back, mainly because of the colour, but I wondered about the tone,
So yes not a shattering difference, I think Poplar is probably the softest tone, and Ash the most trebly.
but nice that you did my experiment for me and I just sit back and watch youtube ,,,
That sustain on the poplar though :D You proved that tonewood does matter! I liked all woods and I think every wood has it's own place depending on the type of music. Swamp ash and poplar were my favorite ones.
Very cool, thank you for taking the time and resources to do this... subtle differences, Swamp Ash gets my vote
Mahagony has more mid and lows,
Ash is sweet - less lows, nice mids and hights and
poplar has nice hights and lows, less mids.
something I noticed is that on the swamp ash the highs seemed to ring out more, this could be due to human error though. I really like mahogany, poplar sounded paper thin, no bass, but could be cool for treble stuff like funk rhythm and similar accompaniment.
Great demo! I’m here because I have no idea how poplar sounds, and I guess swamp ash is the better choice for my tele project. Thanks man! 👏👍
Great 2nd test! Was hard to hear much difference in the 1st video with a single strum on each, but here the differences are much more apparent, even with the strings not being mounted directly to the different tonewoods.
Different pickups do make a bigger difference overall, but they can be chosen to accentuate the desirable characteristics of each tonewood - it's a cumulative process. Same then goes for amp choice, pedals, and the way you dial in a tone.
Great concept to compare tonewoods- well done!
the poplar sounded a lot thinner, it is very apparent when the switch from poplar to swamp ash happens. The swamp ash sounded fuller and mahogany was balanced very well between the two. The difference is apparent if you close your eyes.
Logically speaking it makes no sense they would all sound the same. Deducing it down to its components we know an acoustic guitar can sound different depending upon material (think Bobro vs Acoustic guitar) so the combination of the materials/instrument and the player results in a signal that remains consistent through the transference of converted energy through the amp preserving the acoustic properties of the wood, if you can hear a difference unplugged or better yet wood sounds different when knocking on it due to density and depending upon species then remains individual to the wood, player, design of instrument and method of delivery. As the signal gets converted it is being electrically manipulated but the energy stays constant and results in the density of the wood transferring with it via the conservation law of physics.
To think they sound the same creates a paradox in physics that changing a parameter of the test of that magnitude as a completely different specie of wood has no effect when no other parameter has changed, this presents a problem that a physical difference means nothing, basically its saying physics is wrong when a physical attribute of the test has drastically changed. It is impossible for the wood to sound the same since there is more than 1 tree specie in the world and they are not exactly the same density, strength and contain the same cellular properties. Since we know this is true then we know it is impossible for it to sound exactly the same when the signal is being converted and manipulated through the amp. A sound wave is exerted energy and regardless of manipulation or conversion there is a sonic change in the energy output since it is a huge change at the source of the sound wave and there for the wave is acting differently. Changing the wood changes far to many unseen parameters for a change not to happen. The way the wave acts is in part due to the density of the wood, and because of wave particle duality a change in the behavior of the wave on a quantum/sub atomic level happens.
The short answer here is yes the wood has tonal properties that change specie to specie.
Great job of demonstrating how tone woods compare on conductivity. I would like to see a neck/bridge jig that puts the string tension on the body. Not that different than your neck thru body, just cut out the wood between the neck and bridge. Several guitar sites suggest that the neck also makes a difference in tone.
Tim, Thank you for putting this video out. I am in the middle of research for a build. Because you helped me I am subscribing.
There's definitely a difference, but based on a lot of debates I've had, the biggest difference is in people's ability to perceive it. I don't know if it's hearing loss/sensitivity or just lack of ear training, but I've had arguments with people who insisted I was full of nonsense until I ran the clips through a spectrum analyzer and overlaid their normalized eq curves on top of each other.
FWIW, I have a pair of solidbody electrics that are 100% mahogany, the exact same model of guitar from the same year. Both are bone stock. One is noticeably lighter than the other, and acoustically they sound significantly different. The lighter one is brighter sounding, with less bass. When you plug them in and record them, this acoustic difference carries through and can be heard through the pickups too.
good job, sound really is very different, each is good for own purpose
I knew there are differences in sound characters between various tone woods since I own several eguitars! But this experiment scientifically proved it! Regarding comments on the 'processing' of the eguitar sound through stomp boxes, cables, PUs, EQs, vacuum tubes and amps, that's why some seasoned players use minimal effects as possible to avoid coloring the sound character of their favorite guitar so that the true beauty of their tone will come forth and be more distinct! At the end of the day, we will choose and play what we want. It"s a preference issue! Because of this video production, I appreciate more the tones of my swamp ash body, mahogany body and alder body e-guitars. Yes, we can already conclude that various tone woods for NECKs will make a difference. Thanks a million!!!
Tim, your test is really revealing what I always thought and measured. The differences are very minor, and even when I listen to two sections where the same wood is used I can hear minor differences. That might have to do that the acoustic for the microphone changes a bit while you are moving slightly with your body. I'm working at a university in Hamburg, and researching audio. I have build a string pluck machine for guitar testing, which would clearly show the differences in spectra in matlab. I would guess the differences are below 1 db which is the limit of hearing any differences.
It goes without saying that such a test could only be done properly in germany. Jokes aside, it's beautiful that this is how you're going about it. This video is amazing but I cant wait to hear the results of your thing.
They do have subtle differences. Its weird in the other blind test, I liked mahogany the least, but here I like it the best. The differences were nothing that could/would get wiped out by a twist or two on the amp's knobs. Or a tone knob.
BTW love your designs, been drooling over the belarusian basses especially.
yea, and I wonder how much of it is in our heads? When I was a cook, the chef used to tell me people "eat with their eyes first" and I wonder how much hearing we do that way (hence the other video with the blind listen).
Tim Sway ___ Enjoyed Your comparisons on 'Tone-Woods. Your opinion of which sounded better, or not, does not take into consideration that we all have different reactive 'Ear preferences, and may, or may not, have hearing loss damage, or, DNA difference's. However I appreciate the effort you subjected yourself to educate us all. Myself, I am distracted by 'High Volume / 'High pitch tones, preferring the 'Un-Hooked, Acoustics, of slow, sonorous, 'Gypsy Jazz Guitar and, 1950's Classic Jazz, with flat wound strings, and no 'Pick. lol... Wish you, and yours, much success in your endeavors.
Damn, I wish I had read this before commenting. haha Wow. Worded with such elegance.
Swamp ash had a bit of tele ring to it, Mahogany (probably Padauk?) was a little warmer, Poplar sounded thin, brittle. However...
I think the biggest downside to this setup is that the strings aren't directly anchored into the body...it's all sympathetic vibration rather than direct. One reason a Strat sounds different from a Les Paul--bolt on vs. fixed neck. While both are anchored to the body for resonance, the coupling of the neck/guitar makes a difference. Of course, there's always that SC v Humbucker thing too.
I think a bit too much is made of the through neck vs bolt on differences. Fender neck slots are usually so tight you couldn't poke a razor blade down the back/side if you tried. That's going to resonate plenty across the entire instrument. Boasting through neck construction seems yet another reason Gibson charge rip-off prices for their products (as nice as they may be).
I agree that the neck and pickup and bridge on the same piece of wood affects the sound. That’s basically a neck-through design and the other wood it’s mounted on catches a little vibration from it. I think that’s why there’s little difference in the sound between each wood type.
Mount the bridge, pickup, and neck separately. The CNC can cut a neck joint that is tight enough especially if you use something like Taylor uses to lock the neck into place.
I’d also add a piezo pickup on a consistent place on the body wood to look for transmitted vibration.
Sky Studios Fender neck joints these days are that tight because of CNC. When they made the necks and bodies by hand there was a lot of variation. Gibson used glue as filler in addition to hold the neck in place. Fender tightened the bolts and often techs put sandpaper or window screen between the neck and body to tighten the contact between them. Those things made differences in the way they sounded.
Ash wood really sounds good. The sound really flow and floating. The poplar wood I think is good for bass. It has this kind of compress sound effect without effects yet. And its kind of distorted in sound.
Great. Did not expect such difference. But had my natural sounding earphones that really show difference... thx
This is super cool. I can hear differences...it would be neat though to see this for bass...I know “the concept is pretty much the same” however in other tonewood comparisons, I’ve noticed the difference is often accentuated when playing slap style on bass...even if it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
If you are primarily an acoustic player, you'll likely be happiest with poplar. I'll generally choose mahogany because of it's density and durability, but I ultimately don't care all that deeply. I have countless electrics and with basswood being about the cheapest and lowest quality tone woods around, it's still one of my favorites. Hollow, plunky, bright and chiming like a bell. It's such a soft, light and loose grain wood it allows it to give deep resonation whereas other tone woods' density keeps more of the vibration in the string.
Being so flimsy, light weight and cheap results in an instrument that everything on it can be complete crap, but if the neck and pickups are good quality or beyond, you can shred on them and you don't generate noise off the hardware, plastics, wires or pickups themselves. Because it's like a soft landing pad, it dampens all that crap rather than being hard and reflecting it right back into the strings and pickups.
*Poplar is more or less a much higher quality wood that delivers similar properties, but ratty ass, cheap AF basswood still does it better lol.* Mahogany and basswood are my favorites and couldn't be more different.
Brilliant approach. Thank you for finally answering this question.
Thanks Tim for an amazingly well done test.I have heard some subtle difference's in your previous test.Most notably the mdf,it sounded like a Danelectro.i.e. "punchy".On this test the poplar sounded "airy".Because I am on the endless "tone quest"as a guitarist I would like to see you compare a plastic body and (probably cost prohibitive) aluminum.Thanks again love the show!
poplar sounded weak, almost frail, but I did notice they all sounded different. You also were sitting differently and into a slightly different mode on each one, letting it rip on the swamp ash, being very technical and warm on the mahogany but the poplar that was ripping last time, was frail here.
Sounds great, can hear small but noticable differences between them when I'm wearing headphones. My order of preference is Swamp Ash, Mahogany, then Poplar. Nicely done!
I preferred the sound of the swamp ash body. There’s something about the tone of swamp ash Fender style guitars that I really like, they just seem to sound a bit brighter without sounding thin. Swamp ash Telecasters always sound particularly nice to me.
Tim what if you made the tester the other way around? Instead of attaching the tone wood to the back of the tester, it attaches on the front? And made the testing rig out of a harder material but shave it thinner so that we can maximize the amount of "tone wood" per test and minimize the effects of the test rig? Although you already essentially proved the point, the different woods do impact the tone. More testing required though to know if that's only due to being attached to more mass on the denser woods, if each test wood weighed the same would the results hold?
Mahogany had the usual bass warmth.
Ash was bright and snappy.
Poplar just sounded flat almost lifeless.
I wonder what red cherry or lignum viate would sound like
I wonder why gibson have chosen to use poplar in their new hollow body memphis guitars...
What a shame :/
@@m4d_mark_xtr3me79 WTF dude????
@@matteusmaximofelisberto4385 Yeah no I hate poplar it's cheap and cheerful wood.
Not as good as other types of wood and as such they should reduce their price.
It's a "stable" wood but isn't brilliant for tonal quality
Yeah, but I mean.... Gibson doesn't make guitars for Memphis, they're a chinese budget guitar maker, Tagima Makes guitar With then
@@matteusmaximofelisberto4385 I was referring to the series...
Go look up the model e.g.
The Gibson mephis.
See here:
legacy.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2019/Memphis/ES-275-Thinline-2019.aspx
Definitely a discernable difference. I personally liked the overall sound of the ash, then mahogany then poplar. Now, adding tone control, eq, or effects may make for a different preference,. Wood finish may as well, if you put a thick coat of paint on the poplar, but only a thin stain or varnish on the "nicer" woods.
right. I wanted to get to the core of it, before the finish, capacitors, etc which I believe have WAY more to do with the guitar's mojo than the wood. IMO the differences are so minute and subtle I would put my energy and money in to other components.
You did it! Finally, someone did it peoperly. Thank you, much appreciated! :*
And no, they do not sound the same at all - not even using earphones, but a bluetooth speaker. xD (doing that soon) I am starting to believe that not all ears are the same...
Different people's brains processes sound differently. I'm autistic with sever hearing based sensery problems (my ears are too sensitive) and from what people have said to me about my comments on music my hearing seems to detect subtle differences in tone and other things better compared to other people. For instance I can tell the difference between a £100 acoustic piano and a £1000000 acoustic piano.
@@ollie1704 whats a £100 acoustic piano? I don't know of any acoustic piano that can be bought new for £100. If you're refering to a used one it's original price would have been a lot higher and the difference in sound would not be possible to be calssified through the price (neither the used buying price nor the original, since money had a different value at that time).
Would you mind clarifying what kind of pianos you are refering to when addressing them by price?
poplar stands out the most. It's the brightest of the three, but from a finishing standpoint isn't consider a beautiful wood from blonde, butterscotch etc type finishes, but as for solid color your good all day. A great cheaper alternative to some of the more expensive wood types. $4 a board foot a great material for a hobbyist or practicing luthier.
Swamp is the most even toned one, but it's a subtle differences from it and mahogany, but with finishing its great for blondes, butterscotch etc.
Mahogany is also great for finishes.
Fender had their materials and Gibson had theirs and I think they wanted to set themselves apart and I believe those woods just become the industry standards which is why we general don't see other woods creep into the the mid to higher end of range guitars, but I have heard of a few guitarist having signature models made of Basswood, and that could be several reason, but it could be tone.
All and All IT DOES NOT MATTER if you like it wear out it!
if it inspires you. WEAR IT OUT!
it doesn't matter the name or wood or finish. WEAR IT OUT!
If ever you wanna see a shitty guitar. look at the EVH's Frakenstrat. neck pocket is too big, useless controls for decoration etc etc, but EVH wears it out on a shitty guitar.
I noticed something interesting... even the shape of the body change the "place" where you are picking, so, that also change the sound....
Timestamps:
1:18 - Swamp Ash
1:36 - Mahogany
1:44 - Poplar
1:53 - Swamp Ash
2:02 - Mahogany
2:14 - Poplar
2:26 - Swamp Ash
2:42 - Mahogany
2:51 - Poplar
In watching and listening your area of picking changed for each body.
That makes a huge difference...
I think they'd all sound the same if you picked in the same places or at least close enough to not matter
But yah. Licking position was all over the place body to body. That matters. A lot.
@@jerryhatrick5860 Yes, it varied a lot even within each guitar, but there were characteristics that remained relatively constant for each body. It's all about damping. Mahog sounded the most even. SA had a mid-dip, and Poplar had the least bass without a mid-dip. Tighter-grained woods tend to have less mid dip, and where in the spectrum a dip is depends on the density & rigidity per thickness.
I personally need to hear it with overdrive! Popular is mid scooped, mahogany tighter bottom, more compressed, swamp ash, added brightness, flatter
I love ash, especially northern ash; I’m a brown sound fiend. However, poplar, though it’s used in low end guitars, was used for Eddie Van Halen’s 5150 Kramer. It sounds not bad. The Swamp Ash is definitely brighter with high highs, mahogany is warm and rich, and the poplar is a bit dead but evenly dead if that makes sense?
Great! They do sund a bit different. Swamp ash is my favourite. 2:37 Love te attempt of neck-bending, then “oh...no...” 😁
Thanks for the test and posted results!
"Wood" you mind carving a few more varieties and weights? I'd be interested to hear alder, basswood, and anything else that we're making kits out of these days.
...and maybe simplify and shorten the clips. I think the tests might be more uniform if you just play one chord for 8 quarter notes at a moderate tempo, and switching to the next clip after a shorter interval may highlight more subtle differences. Just my 43 cents or whatever it is. Cheers
I will do more of these if there is enough interest, but honestly, based on how far I've gone so far I don;t see the point cutting more bodies. it would be nice to try some different necks
Actually very interesting. More differences than I would believe. I have 2 guitars at home both with ash bodies because I always got the impressions they sounded how I wanted it the most. mahogany are know for being a bit darker so that came out here as well. The poplar sample lacked bottom as I hear it.
Swamp Ash has the brightest sound . Mahogany seems to have more mids and Poplar sounds very thin , but high harmonics
the ash sounded a little hotter, but it could be a result of playing a little louder
the mahogany was warmer but a little heavy on the low end
the poplar sounded bright and a little thin
I loved the video, it would be very interesting to see the same test for bass guitars as more harmonics are audible in the midrange, it might make a difference. Cute smart kid you got there!
It's all personal preference. Guitars made out of poplar seem to sell for a lot less but that wood is not endangered, which is a factor. Tone is personal preference. I prefer American Swamp Ash and Poplar to Mahogany. That's what my three tele style guitars are constructed of.
Hard to tell from the camera angle, but it appears he is picking higher up toward the neck when he plays the poplar body than any of the others. That probably explains why it sounds warmer and more trebly to some. At 2:30, he's playing the Swamp Ash closer to the neck than some of the others, but his legs are crossed and the guitar is parallel to his chest. By comparison, he played the poplar body at an angle and picked even higher up toward the neck than the Swamp Ash (and all the others). So, new variables to consider: position of the guitar and playing stance (legs crossed, guitar parallel to chest or at an angle, guitar end hanging less or farther off his thighs, etc.).
100% awesome man. A big help indeed for us(me) beginners learning how to do this stuff..thanks!
cheers! check out my other channel th-cam.com/users/timsway. that's where I build them.
They sound different enough to make me have a mental map of how the woods sound like. The swamp ash has a nasal open character. The mahogany is more vocal and the poplar is plain with a hint od nasality.
Thanks for the vid.
I think what would be interesting is how they sounded to you acoustically and if you noticed a difference in the vibrations on your leg and body. I notice my Les Paul sounds/feels deeper then my strat.
Excellent question and of course I am privy to a lot more of the experiment than you are on the other side of the internet. Honestly? As I was making the video, I noticed absolutely no differences in sound (only in comfort as the chipboard edge is scratchy) and was concerned my test was a total flop and the maple was giving me all the sound. It was only listening back to the recordings that I heard VERY SUBTLE differences. Granted I wasn't playing through a screaming loud amp.
I think the only one I really noticed was the swamp ash definitely it was snappier and brighter, but I did not notice when you transition between the poplar and mahogany
Thank you! I agree and had came to the same conclusion that you did.
Quite different! Thanks for the comparison
Swamp Ash had a full balanced sound, the mids were kind of muted on the Mahogany and Poplar had almost no bass tones. I wasn't expecting that. That being said, a slight adjustment to a tone knob on your amp would make a much bigger difference. Wood tone is overrated IMO.
Agreed. Wood makes very little difference to me. Anything will sound good through the right effects and the right amp. I don't think anybody at any of my gigs is wondering, "Is his guitar body basswood or swamp ash?"
I wasn't expecting the results to be this extreme on what is essentially a through body neck design. Thanks for going through the trouble of creating/ demonstrating this.
None are better than the others and the small difference might as well be due to a slightly different positioning of the fingers and picking spots. More testing is needed.
If three bodies were made of the same wood, wood there still be minute differences? To me its not significant, but the experiment doesn't consider how the wooden structure of the bass affects tone, and by that I mean the structure that holds the tension of the strings. Its a great experiment and i would love to see some more relating to structural materials...
I definitely heard a difference, i was wondering if chambering brings the difference forward. Have you considered trying a version of this with chambering?
The mahogany deeper and richer vibe, Swamp Ash middle somewhat on the brighter side of the other two and Poplar softer less vibe. Finally different but not much, however, I wonder if playing in different acoustical settings would make a difference?
Thank you for this video, man. Great stuff. Considering how many amp companies cater to the high gain market, could you do a test with some gain on the tone?
I can only imagine these "subtle differences" are going to amplify.
My thoughts:
Your results were absolutely no surprise to me. I've owned many guitars in the last 16-17 years, and those "subtle differences" are exactly what I've been hearing since I bought my first Les Paul (mahogany) and compared it to my Ibanez RG470 (poplar) and Ibanez S470 (mahogany) back in 2004. I was completely blown away how similar the S470 and Gibson LP Classic sound alike. The LP Classic was a little warmer than the S470. They all had the same bridge pickup, a Seymour Duncan JB. Both LP's were very heavy, but so was the S470 (for a S470). During that time I owned three S470's (at the same time) and the heaviest one was my favorite. It sounded "meaner" (high gain tones) when plugged-in, but was also the quietest of the 3 when strummed acoustically.
I've found, the denser the mahogany, the warmer "overall". Less dense Les Paul's, tend to be more resonant with more chime. Even with those two characteristics, Ash bodies, and Walnut bodies, still sound different to mahogany. I've been able to compare a mid-2000's LP Ash body (ebony fretboard with no markers) against an early-model 00's LP Studio Gothic (w/ ebony fretb0ard) and a Les Paul Firebrand (I think it was an ebony fretboard and was either a 1979 or 1980 model), all three had EMG's in the bridge, and they still sounded different. The Firebrand had a very stiff tone even tone where the other two had more detail in the bottom end and top end. Those differences were amplified and easier to hear when using high gain, to the point that I felt it was obvious enough to have to change "tone" settings on the guitar amp itself.
I've always been so confused by this "tone-wood" debate, and I still remember when it became a thing. With all these claims of, "my friend who happens to be an engineering god, went to school at MIT says there's no difference", are these people bad at "hearing"? Sure the science says one thing, but have you used your ears? My opinion has always been, if you can't hear the difference, something's wrong with your hearing (or mines better than average), that or you, person deciding to buy a guitar, doesn't know what to listen for and "wood-spices" shouldn't be a determining factor when buying a guitar. I've also been in the frame of mind, "they are subtle", but since I was on a tone hunt, those "subtle differences" coupled with a bunch of other "subtle differences" (speaker, cab, guitar cables, pick, humbuckers, pick attack and angle, strings and strum location) add up. I would say that I've never bought into the idea of "tone wood" but have always been of the school of thought that, absolutely, YES there's a difference in sound from the wood-spices I've heard and they were VERY audible (to me). Just like guitar cables, picks, strings, or humbuckers make a difference in tone, so does different woods. Shit, I believe the body style also makes a difference. Have you ever played a Gibson Explorer? Bottom end for days... Every Explorer I've ever owned has been warm/bottom heavy sounding. New debate: "Tone-Shape"???
TL;DR: IMO the term "tone-wood" has always been a gimmick to my ears, and is a word/term to sell people something that's already there.
Thing is, it’s not worth the chase just for the guitars own tone.
The difference between speaker units itself are not subtle at all, especially in the mix when mic’d up and recorded, probably the most important factor.
The wood and propper working pickups themselves do not have enough impact to drown out a lead vocal nor make the guitar cut more through the mix, any EQ even in drives and amp will have a great impact on that, the speaker dictates the overall frequency response and can also contribute to harshness at certain frequencies like specific batches of V30’s.
I know it can be interesting and inspiring, hence why I watch these videos, but lately I question myself every time GAS hits me, do I really need it when what I have sounds and feels good.
I mean, it doesn’t even really matter to me which of my guitars with high output humbucker I use soundwise.
Not saying that there is no difference, it’s just not enough, might also be influenced by that there isn’t a huge gap between the pups, apart from one guitar which has i
the bucker further away from the bridge, less heights more lows, will try with higher value volume pot on that one, easier than changing EQ between guitars.
It's a good test however is very important the neck and fretsboard to achieve the guitar tone.
The differences to my ears are very subtle...news today is that Fender will stop using swamp ash except for Custom Shop guitars...according to Warmoth Poplar and Alder are very similar in tone and weight and Fender has used Alder more than anything else.
Sometimes we hear what we want to hear...I cannot tell a significant difference and certainly not one that can't
be tweaked out with a guitar, amp or effects pedal tone knob...significant price difference...amazing that the poplar is heavier than the ash, but only half as hard.
Cool test. There was definitely a difference. I could here it on my iPhone speakers! If there is a difference in sound , I would think it affects feel as well. I had a guitar made of poplar. I changed like 5 different pickups but never sounded good. Your video makes me realize I probably didn’t like the inherit sound or feel of poplar. Great video! Thanks.
The poplar was brighter and thinner sounding where both the swamp ash and mahogany had more mids and more of a full tone
all have unique characters, I think I’m gonna grab them all
awasome. easy compared, easy to know, and very understanding that differents. cool
Once you know what topwood and pups to add the whole game changes drastically Homie!
if your cleans sound pinchy just lower the volume of the guitar a bit its really that simple electric guitars are very versatile to worry about the wood type
I would add a limited perception (listening with headphones) to these other excellent observations below: Sounded like the Mahogany and Ash Bodies had more individual strings separation compared to the Poplar.
I am not a believer in tone wood. The difference in body and neck wood can be interesting for stability. I am a gigging artist and I have noticed differences in my guitars getting out of tune when I bring instruments from the trunk of my car (cold outside ) to a gig. Some guitars hold tone very well (the cheaper ones! because of the thick coating or paint layers I guess) and some guitars are very affected by the change in temperature. It can be also a difference in bridge types (fixed/floyd rose) I am curious what wood is best for tuning stability and if the body has a big influence on that. Or maybe its all about the neck? Is this an idea to explore? Thanks.
Swamp ash sounds the best. I never would have guessed. I was checking out popular cause I just ordered a Jackson soloist that's popular with a ash too. Trying to determine which pickups to use. Thanks man
My favorite tonewoods are Swamp Ash, Alder, Poplar, basswood, and mahogany on thin guitars. I can't play anything like a Les Paul because it will just destroy my back. I favor lighter instruments. My main guitar right now is a Schecter C6 Deluxe with DiMarzios. It's basswood, plays like a dream, and practically floats. I love it.
i dig that poplar. can you try to do some walnut?? i have an weird old awesome lawsuit sg from walnut i'm trying to wrap my head around. great video!
walnut is a great wood to make anything out of.
There is definitely a difference but to me it's not a 1000$ difference, i seem to like ash the most out of those three but wouldn't pay 100$ more just to get the desired wood.
Really great video, i appreciate the effort and very good job mate.
Poplar was the most muted guitar of all, a bit muffled, swamp ash was the most open - bright. The rest was super even.
Mahogany sounded the best to my ears. They are all completely different.
Me too.
Definitely the mahogany is tight and warm the other 2 very tele but despite the swap ash being more solid than the poplar...nice work