Electric guitar body TONEWOOD - Myth or Fact? Judge for yourself here! 

I was suprised how much I liked the pressurized fir .

"Today we're gonna sheck out" is my new favorite thing

When i use the same guitar and play the same song a few times, the recordings will somehow sound different. I don't think my guitar changed, just the slight difference in the way i play or record the sound can make a perceivable difference. This slight variation makes more difference to the sound than the wood. On the same guitar i can make it sound like 3 different guitars simply by changing the position where your pick hits the strings even by a mere half cm or 1/4 inch.

Definitely, the pressure treated fir sounded best. I'm definitely going to take apart my deck and build a new bass!

Ok, I'll admit it. The clean sound does sound quite different. As a side note, this is the most civil guitar community I've ever seen.

The thickest Gothenburg accent ever on RU-vid. Love it!!!

Just when we thought that we might be getting on top of the tone wood debate Billy Corgan declares that colour affects a guitar's tone.

The difference is bigger in the way of playing.

Love your guitar design. How much for a custom build? I'd like a Mahoganycaster 24x8x2

I've always been in favour of mahogany bodies, but this was interesting! In my opinion, this is what I heard ... Maple - higher frequencies, lack of bass, more harmonics, almost twangy. Mahogany - woolly, lack of definition of high/mid range, muddier sound. Pressure treated fir - all frequencies clear, but midrange out in front, high resonance, lots of high end definition. Nice video, thanks for all your effort!

At the end of the day, the difference between different wood types is minimal. I found that the overall tone was just about the same, but things like sustain and “snappiness” varied. Once you add gain, a lot of the those differences vanish. Pick your wood types based on weight and aesthetics instead.

Timestamps for comparing! *Tapping Wood:* 1:57 - Pressure-Treated Fir 2:02 - Maple 2:08 - Mahogany *Guitar:* Acoustically: 2:15 - Mahogany 2:20 - Maple 2:25 - Pressure-Treated Fir Electrically: Riff 1: 2:32 - Mahogany 2:38 - Maple 2:51 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 2 (Strumming:) 2:57 - Mahogany 3:05 - Maple 3:14 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 3 (just played with 2 bottom strings, and High E:) 3:23 - Mahogany 3:35 - Maple 3:47 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 4 * : 4:17 - Mahogany 4:31 - Maple 3:57 - Pressure-Treated Fir (yes, they're out of order in the video.) Pressure-Treated Fir sounds more harsh to me at times, especially here. Riff 5: 4:51 - Mahogany 4:56 - Maple 4:46 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 6: 5:12 - Mahogany 5:23 - Maple 5:04 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 7 * : 5:38 - Mahogany 5:49 - Maple x:xx - Pressure Treated Fir's not played. Riff 8 * : 6:16 - Mahogany 6:02 - Maple x:xx - Pressure Treated Fir's not played. Individual Strings * : 6:55 - Mahogany 7:21 - Maple 6:31 - Pressure-Treated Fir * = This is a section where the clips weren't put in the same order as they were originally. I changed the locations of the timestamps in the list, to keep consistent. *Personal Thoughts:* For the Acoustic Parts of this video (both wood tapping and acoustic playing,) I'm not convinced that the camera angle was consistent enough. For the Electric Parts, it did convince me that that the body wood does matter for electric tone. It's present, but it's a bit more subtle than obvious differences between Strat Pups and Gibson Humbucker Pups. Another video, from new Perspectives Music, also convinced me of this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EM7wDZENKEM.html

There are subtle differences in sound. But at least with the pressure treated Fir Wood you won't have termites.

That Mahogany plank sounds really good!

O sheeet didn't expect it to actually change the tone but it really did, to me the mahogany sounded much fuller than all the other woods here

Johan, the only man that can make a 2x4 sound absolutely perfect

Clamp the maple on top of the mahogany.... makes a Les Plank..... maybe in reverse too... it all sounds good! Keep it up.... love the channel!

When will they be available to order?

Man, you're one of the coolest guitar channels on RU-vid. I always love when one of your videos pops up!

I mean it's the same thing it's always been, everything effects the sound it's just a question of how much. In an accoustic instrument the flexing and vibrating of the wood in the body is what actually produces the sound waves that we hear, so wood is very important. In an electric the sound is produced by the pickups based on the vibration of the strings. As such, so many different things have more effect than the wood. Taking out the obvious things, like your amp, pedals, knobs and dials on the guitar, etc... the pickups have the most effect, followed by your strings, the nut and bridge, the stiffness and frequency response of the neck, then the body material. This is not even taking into account that a lot of tone comes from how you play, seeing as your hands are the things directly interacting with the strings. Wood is basically not worth considering unless you've figured out the rest of your build (your favorite strings, pickups, bridge, bone or synthetic nut, etc...). Check all of Fender's non-artist models. From the cheapest to the most expensive they're all alder bodies and maple necks. Squire is mostly poplar bodies and maple neck. If the master luthiers at Fender don't give a shit about tone wood then it probably won't matter to you until you hit a very high level of skill. Of course, if you want to get a specific wood then go for it, it's your guitar make it the way that you want, but don't try to play it off as if it's some huge deal.

Dude, you make the craziest videos. I love them. This is great.

Interesting, I wasn't expecting to hear such a difference. The maple seemed to sound a tad brighter and snappier while the mahogany sounded deeper and throatier. Also, the fir piece sounded pretty good too. Didn't expect that at all.

Anyone else feel like they could totally rock any of these guitars on stage?? The mahogany one sounds especially great to my ears! I love everything about the shape of just a neck plus board!!

When it comes to a solid guitar body, it is very much about subtleties, the body weight determines more than tree type in my opinion. My philosophy and experience is that the neck has significantly greater influence than the body "especially in attack and sustain and to some extent resonance. The most important however, in my opinion, is the actual construction and the sum of the parts! Another extremely important aspect, of course, is the hearing of the individual, which is totally subjective and determines everything in the end. "Of course you must have pickups amplifiers and speakers that can pick up those subtleties and deliver that information to the ears"

The sound may be different or may be not, but this shows you can take any wood for a solid body electric guitar, if the pick ups are good, the guitar will sound good.

I can hear the difference. The mahogany sounds best to me.

Timestamps (some may go slightly earlier than they most ideally should, but this might be as good as I can do:) *Tapping Wood:* 1:57 - Pressure-Treated Fir 2:02 - Maple 2:08 - Mahogany *Guitar:* Acoustically: 2:15 - Mahogany 2:20 - Maple 2:25 - Pressure-Treated Fir Electrically: Riff 1: 2:32 - Mahogany 2:38 - Maple 2:51 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 2 (Strumming:) 2:57 - Mahogany 3:05 - Maple 3:14 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 3 (just played with 2 bottom strings, and High E:) 3:23 - Mahogany 3:35 - Maple 3:47 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 4 * : 4:17 - Mahogany 4:31 - Maple 3:57 - Pressure-Treated Fir Pressure-Treated Fir sounds more harsh to me at times, especially here. Riff 5: 4:51 - Mahogany 4:56 - Maple 4:46 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 6: 5:12 - Mahogany 5:23 - Maple 5:04 - Pressure-Treated Fir Riff 7 * : 5:38 - Mahogany 5:49 - Maple Pressure Treated Fir's not played. Riff 8 * : 6:16 - Mahogany 6:02 - Maple Pressure Treated Fir's not played. Individual Strings * : 6:55 - Mahogany 7:21 - Maple 6:31 - Pressure-Treated Fir * = This is a section where the clips weren't put in the same order as they were originally. I changed the locations of the timestamps in the list, to keep consistent. *Personal Thoughts:* For the Acoustic Parts of this video (both wood tapping and acoustic playing,) I'm not convinced that the camera angle was consistent enough. For the Electric Parts, it did convince me that that the body wood does matter for electric tone. It's present, but it's a bit more subtle than obvious differences between Strat Pups and Gibson Humbucker Pups. Another video, from new Perspectives Music, also convinced me of this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EM7wDZENKEM.html

Actually really surprised how much a difference there was. Riff3 seemed the most prominent. Great job as always.

Just watched this the way any tonewood comparison video should be watched: with my ears, so without looking at the screen, plus in this case while doing something else altogether. I only heard minor differences during the plugged in part. And I certainly couldn't tell whether I was listening to a mahogany plank or premium American bayou driftwood. Factor in some overdrive/distorsion, mixing, production work, other instruments, and any difference would likely end up being totally negligible. Now I want to build my plankacaster too ;)

Umm, well I can hear a difference between the different woods, but I could not say one was better then the other. They were just different. I am sure slightly different tones could be used for different styles, but frankly a few times I thought the treated fir sounded best, so I guess what wood you should go with is determined by what you want the guitar to be best at.

Thanks Johan for all your work here. It’s been a pleasure not only watching your playing but the well thought out concepts for videos, well executed and documented. I’ve often wondered what the difference would be with electric guitars and if it would roughly follow what I’ve experienced in acoustic guitars. I heard a distinct difference between all three woods. I was actually surprised how good the cheap for board sounded in some of the clips. Here are the tone prints as I perceived them: Mahogany: Bass - 8 Low Mid - 7 High mid - 5 Treble - 5 Maple: Bass - 5 Low Mid - 6 High mid - 7 Treble - 7 Fir: Bass - 7 Low Mid - 4 High mid - 7 Treble - 8

Hey Johan! Just wondering, have you ever thought about glueing a "maple cap" to a piece of mahagony like you had in this video and than compare the mahagony only with the capped one? Would be interesting for sure!

The Mythbuster of music. Great!

Please run the same test with 3 planks of the same wood. 3 maples 3 mahog 3 fir etc. The resonance in the same species should close the gap a bit more. IMHO!

I was listening to you tap the woods, and I noted something interesting. When you tapped on the fir, it had basically one frequency to it. The other two, however, had two particularly loud frequencies to them. While the intervals aren't perfect, I heard an octave plus a major third on the maple, and an octave plus a fifth on the mahogany. I'd be interested in knowing if this quality of the sound of the woods as you tapped them could be used to help indicate the potential quality (not the final quality, of course) of the guitar that could be built from a particular piece of wood? I ask this cuz in your demos, I found the mahogany to be the most pleasant; and the interval I perceived for it was close to a fifth. A perfect fifth is often considered the most pleasant non-unison interval in music. The mahogany guitar didn't "tap" a perfect fifth, to my ears, but it was pretty close. The maple guitar had a particularly harsh quality to it, both acoustically and electrically. This was surprising to me, since I normally like maple bodies. The fir didn't sound too bad, but it did seem to lack something that the mahogany and maple had, and I'm guessing that the two "peak" tones I mentioned above might have something to do with that. Assuming that my observations are correct, that would imply that a piece of wood could be "tuned" for tone through density and dimension. This has always made sense to me, but this is the first time I've seen it demonstrated in such a compelling way. You can probably guess that I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to this subject. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I've said. In any case, thanks for the demo!

Personally I liked the Mahogany best. Then the Fir. Lastly the Maple.

End of a stupid debate. Thanks Johan.

Preferred Mahogany, fir, maple in that order. Differences are very subtle but do appear to exist in your excellent demonstration. Guitarists have been debating this forever. Thanks Johan for taking the time to do this experiment.

It would be nice to be able to remove the imprecision of the human element from these sorts of tests in order to make them more fully subjective, but even bearing that inherent imprecision in mind, the difference remains obvious. And, why wouldn't it be? Materials matter. The overall system is more than a string with two anchor points and an electromagnetic transducer in the middle. The substrate is going to affect both the dynamic response of the signal (attack, sustain, &c) and the frequency response due to resonances within the system. And, your demo here demonstrates all of that very clearly. (Ironically, one uT00b guy did a similar test, "proving" that the wood made no difference, yet even with eyes closed, the difference in dynamic and frequency response between the different "bodies" was obvious.) I think the real issue isn't whether or not there's a difference, but whether the difference matters to most players, or even if it's discernible. If a body could be fabricated from rubber, and another from titanium, I'm sure the difference would be obvious to 100% of listeners. As body materials converge to the much more subtle differences between different woods, fewer and fewer would notice the differences. However, observational bias shift certainly doesn't "prove" there is no difference. I have a friend whose colour vision is much better than mine, and he can discern shades that I cannot. Anyone would be a fool to say that those variations don't exist (they can be measured, and we've tested it), but this is precisely what the "tone wood deniers" do at every turn. (Returning to our buddy in the first paragraph, he was convinced his four "guitars" sounded identical, and I have no reason to doubt that to HIM they did, as I cannot hear through his ears. To me, and to a couple of friends and family members who have no reason to believe one way or the other, the differences were easily discerned.) The REAL physics of this falls solidly in the "tone-wood matters" camp, just as REAL physics does not allow for the belief in a flat earth. But, science seems to be a greased water balloon that those lacking the background knowledge cannot seem to grasp, so they resort to reductionistic pseudo-science. Sometimes, I wish I could turn off my engineer brain and join them in their folly. It seems it might make life so much easier to be unaware of the actual complexity of almost everything. For me, the type of wood doesn't matter as long as the SYSTEM comes together in such a way as to produce a tone that makes me happy, but it's ridiculous to assert that the wood isn't part of that system. I built a Tele with a poplar body and rosewood capped maple neck; it's dynamic and frequency response is noticeably different from an otherwise identical guitar built from ash with a maple neck. Not better nor worse; I love them both.

I tried with my eyes closed to hear the difference. There's a distinct audible difference when it's not going into the amp. The sound is the same when it's going into the amp.

With my eyes open the mahogany sounded deeper and richer, with my eyes closed towards the end I could hear no difference. I wonder if seeing the wood allows the brain to follow it´s preconceptions. I have to say I liked all three sounds! Who needs an expensive guitar? The knocking test obviously showed different tones from the 3 samples. Love your fast hammer technique Johan, I could have used you in my Blacksmithing business before I retired. Fascinating stuff, well done.

Another FANTASTIC experiment!!! You really could hear a sleight difference starting already with the tap test. The fir has a great sound but the throaty fullness of the mahogany is my favorite!

Im completely shocked people can't hear any difference. Bad speakers? Too much loud music? Lol hey I can't blame anyone for the latter. Thanks for the vid. Fun and valuable

with a good headphone, it makes a huge differents .the mahogany is warmer. the maple is clearer with separated strings note, and the pressure treated fir ,the sound is dull and unlived. i really appreciate your videos . i hear two often ,people saying that wood does'nt affect the sound on electric guitar(of course ,if we use high gain set up it's not gonna work!).keep making your excellent videos!

Hey mate, I pulled around the hose for you and called the fire dept. You'll need them when the flames erupt;-) (loved the vid)

They both sound pretty incredible the maple has a lot more pop and snap to it the mahogany has that deep richness that we so dearly love obviously Gibson had a great idea by capping mahogany with Maple to get the best of both worlds

I think it would make a bigger difference if you had a full body construction, more wood means more tone. The difference was obvious to me, maple had a punch to it and the mahogany had a warmer tone. And thanks for the video!

I’ve been noticing more and more lately how much different the mahogany body on my Les Paul sounds and resonates compared to the alder body of my Strats. Unplugged, the acoustic properties of the mahogany really have a woody fee to them, a warm, jazzy tone compared to the alder Strat, which is much more guided by the strings themselves. Even though the two guitars have some differences in design, I.e. bolt on, my Strat is a tune-o-magic bridge with a Gibson scale length Warmoth conversion neck, so it’s designed to be very Gibson-like, there is a fundamental woodiness to the tone that the Strat doesn’t have, for better or worse.

The Mahogany sounds darker and fuller.

Only just discovering this and it's fascinating! The differences are really subtle but there's definitely something there. The mahogany and maple sound pretty similar, except that the maple definitely has a little less bottom end in the sound that's especially apparent on the lowest notes, and a bit more top end, whereas the mahogany has more lows and a bit more punch in the low mid-range, but with a little less top end than the maple. Definitely shows to me why the mahogany/maple combination in a Les Paul works so well, as to me the two tones definitely compliment each other. The fir just had a different resonance in the mid range to me that makes it sound a little scooped and just a bit odd in comparison. They're all such minor differences though, and they're only really noticeable like this when all other variables are removed, but they're still there. I honestly never understood the idea that the wood of a solidbody makes no difference. Anyone who's played a fully hollow Gibson ES and a solidbody Gibson like a Les Paul or SG knows that, even if the pickups are identical (I know they're not on current production ones but they were on the originals), they sound different. If putting air in the body of the guitar makes a difference, why wouldn't the actual type of wood used make a difference too, if only a small one?

Wood doesn't add anything to the tone. It takes something away. If both ends of the string were connected by a material that was infinitely rigid and infinitely dense, you'd just hear a vibrating string through the pickup. But the very fact that the wood can move, means some of the energy of the string is lost to the guitar, rather than just the air and the guitarist. But the wood doesn't just evenly reduce volume across all frequencies. It depends on it's mass and stiffness. The wood resonates better at certain frequencies, and the better the wood resonates at a frequency, the more that frequency is bled from the sound of the strings. I'd guess the construction of the neck has a bigger impact than the body, though. I guess the initial attack sounds more similar across different materials, before certain frequencies are attenuated by the guitar. So, for one thing: playing a riff with no held notes, is not going to show the difference as much. Also, there's the reverse to consider in the case of an amplified instrument. That big body provides a lot of space for sound from the amp to get the whole guitar vibrating and feed energy back into the strings. Maybe a better test would be to gently tap a note at high volume, and see the difference in how quickly the note starts to die and feedback starts to creep in, and how that feedback sounds. But anyone who says the wood makes no difference, is just blindly repeating garbage that's just false as the statement that expensive "tonewood" sounds "better" or "worse" than a cheap slab of ash or alder. There's just so much else going on and affecting the sound, that it's pointless worrying about it. Besides, most recordings that people hear and admire, were made on cheap, mass produced guitars and sound nothing like that guitar through that amp, did in that recording room at that time, since the signal has been through a mic, a desk, a bunch of effects, EQ, compression...etc. So I just wouldn't worry about it. Great songs make great tone, not the other way around. If the song is great, the tone BECOMES great. That's just how it works

Yup. It’s true. The bridge is attached to the wood whose density and character in turn affect the “shape” of the wave.

One thing people forget about 'Tone', is that 'Human Error' will also effect how things sound. The same person can play the same things 10 times over, and it will sound a little different each time tone wise. Also, Sustain effects the tone far more than people realize. Acoustically, there is definitely a major difference due to wood species, but those differences become far more subtle when a pickup (that listens to only the strings) comes into play. Most of those differences disappear when Effects are added, or when the instrument is tossed into a mix of other instruments.

My brother and I both play guitar. I played the audio starting at the actual playing of the riffs. Afterward I asked him what the difference was with each riff. Without a moments hesitation he said, "Different guitars."

I am blown away by this guy! Johan has tested every folklore about famous amps and guitars. I think I've watched most of them because the history of rock guitar has been preserved here in these videos. I have learned so much from your videos! Johan, I love your videos, man.

simply, the best video, the video that destroys myths, the video that goes into all theories of building music instruments, a video that is very fun

This is actually the first time I hear a noticeable effect, which speaks volumes to the way you went about this experiment. Well done! I have always been on the side of wood affects tone, but mostly for reasons I have not often heard discussed. This reason is how waves work, you know, the ones that travel from the strings to the body. While those waves might not be picked up by the pickups so much, they definitely have a cancellation effect back to the strings. Any waves that are offset from each other will have a cancelling effect on each other, which is why types of wood will each have a distinctive effect on the way the final guitar will ultimately sound. This is very much how phase works in music recording, where if microphones aren't placed correctly, the input of one will take out the energy of the other, which is why you would flip the phase of a bottom snare mic for instance.

How closely did you control pickup height/string height across the three test guitars? Small differences can have significant impacts to tone & balance.

How thick is the wood plank? I’d love to build one of these

I am pretty sure this is how Les Paul started figuring out which wood combinations would give him the tone he was looking for, you don't really need to build a complete guitar to sense the main differences in tone coming from the wood acoustically, but alas then you get a pickup involved and an amp and things get really complicated! Loved the video I have an unused guitar neck that I will put to good use as a travel guitar copying our friend here, thanks for the video!

Differences are subtle unless you are listening for them but to me Mahogany sounded the the warmest, fir was a little tighter, and maple was had the brightest and tightest sound.

The Maple and Mahogany sounded more warm and round tonally, but sounded pretty much the same to me through my speakers/headphones. The Fir sounded a bit more brittle and thin, but it could probably be EQ'd out in a mix. And the tonewood debate rages on! ;-) Happy Monday Johan!

The best fair comparision video, well done!

To my untrained ear the maple had a slightly brighter sound than the mahogany. The treated pine was somewhere in between the two. I’m not musically inclined but I am a furniture maker and use common and exotic woods all the time. Doesn’t make me an expert though, just my opinion. Good and interesting experiment.👍🏻

Its amazing how much electronics can change your tone

The mahogany [guitar] could be played as is. I have heard guitars that cost a lot of money sound worse lmao. Great job man.

Watching your picking hand, this biggest differences in tone seem to correlate with the biggest shifts in hand position (in some cases being right over the pickup with one guitar, and halfway between the pickup and neck on another). The ones where your hand is in the closest position between guitars are the ones that sound nearly identical. One thing I wish tests like this also showed is a clip of every test with a single guitar back to back, so the viewer can hear how much variation there is from clip to clip with a single instrument. There may seem to be consistency when watching the tests run in order, but the palette of the ear is being cleansed by the other guitars. Listening to the fir and muting the other two, the difference was more noticeable than the other two were from each other.

Johan: you have the world's best job, playing all these different bases and guitars. This was a great idea! Everybody talks about the differences between tonewoods but you've actually cooked up a good comparison test. Even my old ears could clearly hear the difference, with the Mahogany being warmer and more evenly balanced and the Maple having more high harmonic content. It does confirm what many of us have suspected all along. I think that much of the difference we are hearing is in the decay characteristics of the different woods. Thanks for your efforts.

The mahogany to me seemed like the high end was rolled off slightly compared to the other two. But I think they all sounded pretty good. Probably because they were in the right hands going into the right amp.

I wish all these folks doing tonewood tests on solid body electric guitars would not only compare different bodies by replacing them and keeping everything else the same, and then TRY to play exactly the same, but ALSO record several takes using the exact same guitar and body and reveal sound differences between THESE takes that occur just by having a human playing. And be fair, have lunch or go for a walk between the takes, because setting up a different body takes time inbetween aswell, and will lead to you playing with a different feel. Then I want to see if sound differences between THESE takes are minor to the ones that occur when using different bodies or not! So, if you are a luthier coming up with the next "electric tonewood" experiment, please: compare DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TAKES PLAYED ON SAME BODY vs. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TAKES PLAYED ON DIFFERENT BODIES. do not just compare take vs take. When I record 3 takes on the same guitar and setup, there is alway going to be one with more bottom, one sharper sounding, one open and big, because the sound is in my fingers. The question is: is there an additional influence of tonewood to the sound when using electromagnetic pickups? By the way, the unplugged comparison that Johan made in this video is basically using an electric guitar as an acoustic, recorded directly with a microphone, no amp. It is an acoustic instrument now. But Pickups are not microphones, what they "hear" is not resonance. So the unplugged test is a completely different story... tonewood IS relevant for acoustic instruments, we know that. But in this debate, we are talking solid body electric guitars. It's about what the pickups hear, not what microphones hear.

Best video so far about the wood tone debate on electric guitar. What was your favorite of those three? I go for maple.

Yes. Small differences can be heard immediately between wood species. What I think is more important is that over an extended time of playing those notes /series of notes that have different attack/decay because of body resonances will become satisfying/irritating. The attack and decay are quite strongly affected by body / neck structure. Having an instrument that responds evenly to subtle playing or digging in across the entire fingerboard is very important. My observation - long time luthier.

The mahogany deffinatly has a warmer tone. Always picked mahogany for my basses.

It's a great idea for an video - love it. Now you should start a Segeborn brand and sell those "stump" models. Simplest design ever! ;)

I have been making guitars as a hobby some 10 years ago, and this was what I expected. Mahogany slightly darker, maple a bit harsh, Fir in the middle, more difference in response then in tone color. Difference is more pronounced with different neck material then body. Would be nice to see same test with different necks then bodies. If You add gain differences start to disappear. For higher gain stuff (hard rock and punk to heavy metal) wood doesn`t matter, for jazzy blues I like to play, it does.

Besides the wood, there are other factors that govern the subtle differences between electric instruments as well. The bridge (tailpiece, individual saddle mass) and its mass, how it is installed into the body, the strings (composition, age and linear density), the wood of the neck, the windings of the pickup (number of windings, scatterwound or precisely wound, narrow or wide profile of windings), the configuration of the pickups (single coil, humbucker, piezo), the location of the pickups along the strings, the number of pickups (more pickups = more magnetic pull on the strings to reduce sustain), the bevel profile of the polepieces (this will affect the shape of the magnetic field that the string cuts through), the pickup magnets (alnico type, neodymium), the geometry of the pickups (big pole pieces vs. small ones, laminate core in pickup to "squeeze" the tone as in the case of Hagstron BiSonic bass pickups), the tone knob setup (potentiometer value, linear or nonlinear taper, low-pass or Stellartone circuit), active or passive circuitry (active has additional EQ parameters), type of pick (thickness, material, texture profile, etc.), and wood sealant of finish (nitrocellulose, varnish, polyurethane...). Any change to any of these parameters will alter the sound. It's all physics, but the choices we make in a guitar of all of these factors to decide its final sound is art. And on top of all that, there is the player's nuances and idiosyncracies as well as the guitar instrument cable (longer ones will tend to have impedance issues where bass frequencies and treble frequencies will go out of phase, bass leading the treble--making the sound muddy), guitar amp, proximity of guitar to amp (feedback), room geometry, signal processors (stomp boxes), and neck profile (affects HOW the guitarist plays the guitar--fat neck vs thin neck makes a huge difference). And non-guitarists wonder WHY guitarists can't be happy with just one guitar. It's an ongoing quest for the "right one" and keeping the good ones along the way (the ones that help us explore different ways to approach playing and making sounds). Some are happy with just one guitar, but the restless and pioneers among us are constantly seeking out one with a different voice that appeals to our tastes. Same goes for any other instrument. I'm a drummer--always seeking out new textures for my kit. But I also play bass and guitar. And I'm a physics professor, so this stuff fascinates me to no end. Thanks for the test!

The "wood makes no difference" crowd will say the difference is in the strings. Or in the different air pressure where they're listening to the demo. But never in the woods.

I listened to this on my JVC stereo, and I think I like the mahogany better, it was a little warmer Great post Johan as always.

I closed my eyes and listened. Every time I thought the guitar wood was different, I opened my eyes. I was right every time. I could tell the mahogany right away. But all I could hear was brighter or darker. Mahogany was darker. Maple and fir I may not be able to tell which is which in a blind test. They seem to be more subtle.

I prefer the. Maple. I would also point out that the tone, attack, and acoustic volume will change over time from vibration. I have recordings of my Alder body Music Man Silhouette from 2002 when it was brand new. It is has a much more rounded tone now that it has been played for a couple hours almost every day for the last 16 years. String vibration definitely changes the stiffness of wood. My favorite combination for a solid body guitar is Swamp Ash with a highly figured rock maple top. I built one using a Carvin maple neck/curly maple fingerboard. I am building another with a Primavera/curly maple top same neck. I choose wood by tapping the way that you demonstrated. I am building an acoustic with a quarter sawn Douglas Fir top. I expect it to be very loud due to the stiffness of the fir.

So glad I found your channel Johan. Great content brother. Thank you

I definitely here a difference, the mahogany is way warmer........ Fantastic video as always. 💪😁👍

I think the way you pick the strings and the position in which you hold the guitar affect the sound way more than the wood. Not saying there is no sound difference between the woods, but I just think it's so slight you're never going to notice.

I’m sold, my next guitar I creat will be mahogany, body and neck. Love the deep dark woody sound. Thanks you sir. For this very insightful video.

Thanks for your efforts Johan. I want to say your videos confirmed what I had in mind for a long time. That the different between the tonewood is not huge but subtle. That I prefer humbucker PAF type on Mahogany and single coils on Maples. And more importantly, not to fuss too much about 'tone' and get better at playing instead. Cheers!

I really think your channel is one of the very best guitar related channels here at youtube. Love your shootouts and your sometimes unconventional approach ;-)

I think there is a good argument to be made as to how people pick a guitar differently when holding a guitar that weighs differently. A light guitar you might hold up more with your non-picking hand, even if you're trying very hard to be consistent. If someone built a strumming machine to pair with a wood test and did repeated experiments, it would solve the issue a lot more conclusively.

I have built over 50 guitars using various traditional tone woods. Most of the time I can not tell any difference between them other than the pickups, strings and types of bridges. Just this week I completed a guitar using apiece of lumberyard 2X12 pine, that had been aging for a year or so, a mahogany bolt on neck, a cheap aluminum tune-o-matic bridge, a $20 mini-humbucker, and a $5 set of strings. It is by far the most resonant guitar I ever made..and the sound coming out of my amp is as good as any $1200 plus, guitar I have ever played. The tone from that single pickup is smooth enough for Jazz, twangy enough for country, and on heavy gain and a touch of overdrive pedal, it has the power to do a convincing Metalica cover. Better tone through wood selection for electric guitar is not a myth,, it's just not limited as you think.

I can hear the difference too, particularly between mahogany and the other two. It's hard to me to understand how many others can't.

Wow! Great experiment! I liked the mahogany then the maple! Mahogany had a better dynamic in tone and warmth where the Maple had a bit more treble and bite!

When you hit it, and play it acoustically it has a very noticable difference. When it goes through the amp, I suppose there is a difference, it is not big enough to matter, and it can't be chalked down to the wood alone. This is one of the best videos that I have seen on this subject, and it made me chance my thoughts signifigantly. I used to think there was no difference whatsoever. Now I can hear a huge difference acoustically, and a very insignificant difference through the rig.

Ok, good comparisons. A few questions: What about adding paint? Multiple layers? Binding? Brass flecks in paint to simulate gold? Oh, and I saw a knot in one board, a couple in another. What’s its effect or what’s not a knot or knots effects? I can imagine one boasting, “I had a ‘58 2-knot ...”

I feel that this would be much more representative if the riffs had been played the same way on each. But the fact is that each version has variations in tempo and embellishment.

As soon as you said "let's go" I scrolled down so I couldn't see the video. The first few riffs I had the same thoughts, first wood was best, second wood was good, third wood was dead. Then half way through my impression changed, I got mixed up, and the first wood was no longer the best sounding to my ears. When I went back to watch it, I found that you changed the order of the wood samples. So I could definitely hear the difference. Great videos. Keep 'em coming!

Two things. 1)There are differences, but they're subtle, probably not enough to matter live, but maybe enough to make a difference in a hi-fi recording setup. 2) There's something to be said that guitars built with "nicer" wood tend to have higher build quality. That's a perfectly good reason to buy an instrument. If the body isn't put together well or feels crappy, that will effect how you play.

It depends most on your own starting point and what you have expected. I personally am surprised that you could hear a difference, so good, not least in this medium. Thank you for this effort!

I laugh when you do tapping test of those wood. It looks like you do some ritual to call the tone wood spirit to bring his best sound to you. To the test itself. I listen to your riff with close eye. So, I don't know which riff played with what wood. Some riff sounds brighter (more treble) while others sound warmer. But, some riff sound the same. Basically, I'm 50:50 about tone wood theory.

Mahogany didn't have some of the upper register overtones the fir had. Maple was right in the middle by my ear. Clearly a difference.

I'm not an expert on wood nor vibrations but I'm currently taking a class on machine vibrations (if that means anything to the world). I'd imagine the wood's mass, spring coefficient, and dampening properties will most definitely have an effect on what frequencies the guitar will 'ring' at. You can think of it as manufacturing tuning forks from different materials. A steel tuning for will sound much different from a brass. But also note that the shape of the guitar will also make a big difference!

Mahogany sounds a bit warmer and deeper comparable to les paul type of sound, while the others sound a little clangy and tighter in the lows more like fender guitars, that's the simplest way I can explain this. Awesome video, I have always wondered what was the difference, learned that there is, but... If I was blind and someone swapped wood in my guitar over the night, I'm almost sure I wouldn't notice anything.