As a professional scientist, one who develops medical drugs, I can say a requirement to do science is to perform and record, typically in writing, quantitative measurements of your test data. You then analyze your data to identify quantitative correlations from which you can draw conclusions. Others must be able duplicate your experiments and verify or challenge those results and conclusions. Reproducibility is given exceptional preference.

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

Well said. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

I am a scientist (physicist) and also a guitarist. Prior to watching your videos, I had never really considered the possible sources of the differences in the "tone" of different electric guitars. I decided to analyze this question after watching the first of your previous videos touching on this subject. First of all, the vibrating string is a well developed subject going back hundreds of years and is given by a simple 2nd order partial differential equations with initial conditions (how the string is set into motion) that completely determines the harmonic content. This assumes the endpoints of the string are rigidly fixed and the displacent is small. Differences in real strings (and therefore electric guitars) depend upon deviations from these assumptions. The contribution from the wood in the body and neck would affect the rigidity of the endpoints (bridge, tailpiece and headstock). The effect would be to damp out harmonic content. It's not the wood per se. That explains how the same piece of wood could possibly sound different. Wood is not uniform throughout. The rigidity would be related to the sustain. The more rigid the assembly, the longer the sustain. Of all the places that could contribute to a lack of rigidity, I doubt the wood itself is a major contributor in an electric guitar. I found a good article that discusses string vibration in guitars and pianos if anyone wants to read about this in depth: mattdailis.github.io/simulating-strings/resources/physics_of_vibrating_strings.pdf

Point well made

I just gotta say, I’m subscribed to about 100-150 KZread channels but you’re the only one that I have set up for notifications. Rock on! 🤘

Thanks for clarifying science ... 😊

I love your fundamental take on things in life, which goes beyond guitar making. A nice ending note, too. Thanks!

Great ending!!!😂🎉

Another great one Chris. I agree with you maybe it's my technical engineering side of my brain that enjoys your videos. And if we are taking about electric guitars your right each piece of wood has diferent moisture contents. Which effect tone as well but I think with solid body guitars manufactures forgot time for wood to dry out because they want to make the guitars as fast as possible and do things like paint or stain then just laquar. I say this because my brother in law is a master guitar and, stringed instrument luthier who is also Japanese and, studied in Germany back in the 1970s and, studied classical instrument making. But they way he did it was to make the stringed instrument body like a violen or viola linseed oil the body let it dry out in the sun on a close line for 3 months then make his own japenese laquar bevause I think he understands you need to let each Instrument dry out and season before finishing them whether it was an acoustic or stringed instrument. And that's why it took a year from when someone wanted an instrument made by him to when it was ready and world famous Orchestra people would purchase and request he make stringed instruments from him including the Philadelphia Orchestra. As well as many other orchestras. And why am I bringing this up because of all this nonsense. And, so called tests done I gave seen them on you tube but I can tell they aren't accurate. And my point is maybe if we used old school principles In selecting our woods for our solid bodies and did things like linseed the bodies and necks and then let them season for a month 3 months I think their would be a big diference tone wize and Chris even if you linseed oil let sit for 3 to 5 days then apply laquar paints and colors after a month 3 months you will still here a diference in tone VS just putting primer and paint on a guitar or staining and then laquaring or urathaning it. Also Chris I think with acoustic guitars you hear so much of a diference is because of things like that. Where it seems like with electrics it's all about let's slap them together and just slap paint on them and throw electronics in them. VS creating more of a controlled enviroment. And Chris tung oil wad used too to season and condition wood as well. And remember conditioned sealed wood with stuff like tung and boiled linseed oil holds up and prevents wood warping before you do everything else. And I think they effects the sound as well because it's drying out moistire content and aging the wood the natural way.

Good man.

Another great video. I am one of those folks who watched that video. It is a very interesting video. You are quite right: He never says it is scientific. The guitar world is so full of opinions, and so lacking in facts, that if one were to take out all the opinions, there wouldn't be much left. Here's my opinion about tone in an electric guitar: Most of it comes from the person playing it.

Chris, I've been watching your videos for years. Subscriber at least since 2016? I've never commented on your great videos but today I will. Many people do just what you say, comment and express their opinions and think it's the truth. It's a subjective view. Think on all those guitar makers, big companies included, that say this guitar top is AAA grade or AAA grade? Says that individual? Or is there a governing body, society, organization that has a standard for grading tops by this, that and so on that designates such guitar top a certain classification. A classification that is a standard in guitar making. I don't think there is one. It's one's personal subjective viewpoint. This leads to a total disarray of ideas, thoughts, opinions that are taken as the truth! You said it correctly Chris. People think it's science etc...its a subject view without empirical research and methods to prove or disapprove such hypothesis.

@VI-rt7sh

12 күн бұрын

I agree. In my experience, there is a lot of vague speculation and cork sniffing which leads to poor theory when it comes to the guitar industry. Wood is not consistent, it is not at all uniform in character. There are an infinite number of variables at play right from that tree being a sapling to ultimately becoming used in luthiery. When it comes to acoustic guitars, the variables become even more pronounced. The wood selection, construction and the design and execution of the guitar are critical. The understanding of each part of the process is far more complex than cutting out a solid body guitar and screwing a neck and hardware to it. Even in the world of solid bodied electrics, consistency is only vaguely approximate. I've played Les Pauls which blew me away, and others which sound utterly dead. I've played Telecasters which sound more like the desirable Les Paul tonality, and others with the desirable snappy tonality beloved by country players. Inconsistency is part of the magic. Absolutes in scientific terms are impossible. Vague tendencies regarding inherent properties of woods, construction and designs are vague guide posts. In short, there is a lot of pseudo science and utter hogwash in the guitar industry. Highline is a channel I really like, but there are a lot of other channels which are utter chaff which purport to bust myths and give definitive answers.

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

Your statement "When it comes to acoustic guitars, the variables become even more pronounced" is correct and it plays well into my point which is that the variables in an acoustic guitar can be manipulated (shaving braces and thinning the top) to dial in a specific tone. That doesn't happen on an electric guitar. If it did, not two Stratocasters or Les Pauls would have the same shape.

You make correct points about why there will never be a huge body of scientific guitar research. Research funding bodies don't fund it as a rule, because it's rightly not deemed as important as medical research for example. So there is very little incentive for physicists, engineers or other scientists to make a careeer of it. US guitar manufacturers do not do guitar science research - you don't need it to build great guitars (but it helps). But guitar science research has actually been slowly accumulating over a long time. To the point that there is now thirty years of published research on real solid-body electric guitars. A lot of it published in scientific journals or as research monographs. See in particular the work of Helmut Fleischer, Manfred Zollner, and Arthur Pate. In that work for example there are multiple studies showing the sonic role of the (long, thin, flexible, composite) neck. As a composite structure, identifying which part(s) of the neck is the most sonically influential is a further question. But there is solid published evidence linking some of that sonic role to the fretboard wood in real guitars. You also make some important points about what are essentially known in science as levels of evidence. Even within formal science there are different such levels. For example in medical science, a randomized/placebo-controlled/double-blind trial is a higher level of evidence than an observational study. Jim Lill's experiment was an example of "citizen science". That's a relatively low level of evidence, that doesn't really make it onto any formal scale of evidence levels. But within its limitations that you outlined, it can still be useful. Lill's experiment does meets some criteria for good science. His methods are described in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce them - a key element of science. That has not been done yet as far as I know, but replication strengthens the veracity of results. He has also tested key elements of his method to establish their validity - for example his thorough (other) experiment on whether youtube's modern-day audio quality limits the ability to hear sonic differences. He also has a qualification that is to some extent scientific - a degree in audio engineering. But he is not trained in research science. But as a professional scientist, I can see that he has a "knack" for science. Particularly in identifying all the possible influential factors, listing them, and then attempting to control them ... or manipulate a single one while showing how he kept others constant. If I wanted to get high-school students interested in the scientific research process, the first 9 minutes of his video would be great for that. Lill's experiment was not *just* a hypothesis as you suggest. A hypothesis is the starting point for scientific experiments. He proposes his main hypothesis at the 6-minute point in the 12-minute video, after preliminary experiments. Then he proceeds to test it, with well-described methods, and present the results. That's a decent citizen science experiment right there. But one problem that is common to guitar comparison tests on youtube is that he only uses one sample of each 'condition' in his body tests - the three "guitars". With so many things known (from the guitar science literature) to be capable of exerting a sonic effect in real guitars, it's hard to control them all. Lill used a very simple guitar model - a tele - which reduces the possibility of inadvertent, uncontrolled differences. But testing multiple samples makes it more likely that that true, "typical" effects of each category might emerge. But also importantly, his "guitars" sounded rather similar. It's more of an issue when youtubers test single samples (eg of body wood speciees) and they DO sound different ... for them to then argue that the heard difference could *only* be due to the body wood. When they showed little evidence of controlling all other possible influences (just swapping necks and pickups and hardware between guitars does not ensure that). Below that level of citizen science - not at the level of science at all - we have anecdotes and testimonials. Which is what some people have based their beliefs about wood in guitars on. Their belief may be based on their heard experience - guitars they heard that sounded different, or sounded similar; or changes made to one of the guitars' components that either changed the sound or didn't. They may also be influenced by what famous players or manufacturers have said. This also goes to the nature of guitar science expertise. Should we expect a famous player or a gultar manufacturer to fully understand guitar physics ? So that when they express an opinion on guitar physics, is that credible ? If nothing else, Lill's experiment has forced those who argue for the sonic effect of solid *body* wood to realize that their opinions alone don't mean much. Many people will place greater value on Lill's experiment's result than on what some famous player or manufacturer says. So how do Lill's results reconcile with the published guitar science ? As I said, there is published evidence for the sonic role of the neck. Lill's three guitars did not have the same neck - his Anderson tele, his 2x4 tele (had a maple neck too, but from a Fender Thinline tele) and the two-massive-benches "tele" (that anchored the headstock to one of the benches rather than having a real neck). And they all sounded rather alike. Is that a contradiction ? Not really, because the research shows that the neck's influence varies, from not much, to sometimes quite a bit. Had Lill tested several Anderson teles, several 2x4 teles, and several two-bench teles, greater heard differences *might* have arisen. His results are also consistent with a lack of published evidence for a sonic role of the solid body. Hopefully more experiments in the future will refine our knowledge in that regard. Maybe someone will attempt to replicate the Lill experiment with tele- or strat-style guitars and find the same or different results. More published work will likely appear too. But until that happens, we go with the conclusions that the overall weight of the current evidence supports (published evidence and citizen science).

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

You stated that, "Lill's experiment was not just a hypothesis..." Okay. Then what was it? It's either hypothesis or theory. There is nothing in between those two terms. Since it's not possible to repeat Jim's experiments (they weren't conducted in a controlled environment) the results can't be confirmed as scientific theory. I therefore contend that his results are still just hypothesis and will remain so until a scientist (acoustician) can perform experiments to test the hypothesis and qualified peers can replicate the experiments to confirm the results.

@vw9659

11 күн бұрын

@@HighlineGuitars The last paragraph in the Introduction section of a scientific paper (they have stereotypical sections) generally sets the scene for the experiment to be described (the Methods section follows it). The previous work has already been reviewed, earlier in the Introduction. That last para can be in the form of a formal "null" hypothesis, or just identifying the question that the paper addresses. Lill effectively identifies the question/hypothesis at around 5:45: "This was a turning point for me. There were a lot of things different between these two guitars [the previous work with the Anderson tele and the Partscaster tele] and not a lot that was the same. At this point in testing, here's a list of all the things that these two guitars had in common [the list is wrongly titled as the 2x4 guitar, but the list itself clearly references the correct two, actual earlier guitars]. I became more interested in testing the things that were on this list. And a big one was the guitar body. What if I took a radically different approach ? Could it sound the same as my Anderson ?" The "radically different approach" was the 2x4 guitar (maple neck, with same pickup, plus tele electronics). That last question was a "citizen science" version of the last para of a paper's Introduction section. He effectively proposes the question/hypothesis to be investigated. Sure it's not a formal null hypothesis, but "could it sound the same as my Anderson ?" is basically same thing. Then at 9 minutes he extends the experiment by adding the bench guitar, making for three comparison guitars: the Anderson tele, the 2x4, and the bench guitar. And as to the results of that experiment, the three "guitars" sounded rather similar (BTW he tested youtube's audio accuracy in another experiment). There is enough information in the video for anyone to replicate the key elements of the experiment. About the only thing he doesn't mention is the measured pickup height. But he does mention that it was controlled by feeler gauge measurements - a much tighter control of that frequency-influencing factor than any other guitar comparisons I've seen on youtube. Those either don't mention pickup height, or just measure it with a simple ruler. Since we don't know how much pickup height has to change before a sonic difference can be heard by most people, the more precisely pickup height can be equated the better. If you look at this video and his others, Lill has a knack for understanding and achieving control of variables that others lack.

@HighlineGuitars

11 күн бұрын

@@vw9659 What Jim hasn't done is record the environmental conditions where and when his experiments were performed. Therefore, no one can replicate his experiments in an effort to confirm his hypothesis. Any effort to do so will be rejected by the scientific community because the environmental variables were not accounted for.

@Mossy5150

7 күн бұрын

​@@HighlineGuitars it feels like you're gatekeeping Jim's experiment a bit here because he didn't publish or receive peer review, but in my humble Opinion, that doesn't inherently mean it's unscientific, just incomplete. I don't think his ambition was to validate a theory, but his documentation of experimental results should qualify at least for the vernacular meaning of, "scientific."

@HighlineGuitars

7 күн бұрын

@@Mossy5150 Everything you just stated is your personal opinion, which is fine, but that is all it is.

That reminds me one youtuber with a lot of subscribers, which did this kind of "tests", according to which wood does not matter (though, during the video he moved goalpost from "wood does not affect tone" to "nobody can accurately identify which guitar is which in a mix, therefore wood does no affect tone"). Then he did the same with pickups and came to same conclusion. He even tried 2 different players and came to conclusion that all players must sound the same. I don't know if he ever tested different hardware, strings and guitar construction, but I suspect the "result" will be that it does not affect the tone. If so, it must be that all guitars should sound the same according to that "science" 😏 One thing you didn't mention (probably intentionally, to not cause controversy) is that there is also a factor of corruption in science, when "research" is designed to produce certain result for political/financial/other reasons

Science and luthiery are at extreme odds with so many celebrity luthiers

Jim Lil did his experiment and released his findings. Where are all the others that did this experiment and are showing their findings??? Like Neil Peart had said, in his lyrics, "Show me, don't tell me!"

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

I could repeat Jim's experiments, but the results would be meaningless since they wouldn't have been done in a controlled environment.

@jpmosher6508

12 күн бұрын

@@HighlineGuitars His guitar and "2x4" body guitar were both done in the same environment: His studio. The guitar and bodyless/neckless were done in his workshop, hence the same enviroment. This would make the enviroment fairly controlled, for both test.

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

@@jpmosher6508 NO! A controlled environment (i.e. a laboratory) has to be precisely replicated by others in order to accurately evaluate the hypothesis. Jim's shop is not a controlled environment and doesn't meet these requirements.

@jpmosher6508

11 күн бұрын

@@HighlineGuitars What variables would change if was procedure was performed in the lab?

@HighlineGuitars

11 күн бұрын

@@jpmosher6508 Professional labs have an environment which can be precisely controlled. That means experiments can be duplicated in any professional lab anywhere in the world. The effects of environment are therefore eliminated as a variable.

Nice video and discussion. But I have to call out one thing with no disrespect. You mentioned the R&D costs for pharma to develop one drug costing billions. While true this is a large apples to orange comparison. To develop a new chemical at a molecular level, lab study and finally to study it's impact across a large sample size for several years monitoring the impact across all organs in a human is so much more complex than any study for guitar. Plus the regulatory, ethical and liability obstacles are exponentially different and drastically impact the studies cost. Heck, SpaceX went from concept to a craft in space for under $5 billion, and that includes R&D, development and production. Creating a baseline study of 15 identically spec'd guitars made of different woods, and a even a few made of the same wood with different weights, would not be difficult to simply gather enough data just to show that there are measurable differences. But what's the point. No matter the results, most people will still believe what they want since MOJO is unmeasurable. After 40years of unscientific playing and building experience, I believe that while wood has some impact, it's minimal compared to the pickups. If a particular board yields a little more high end frequencies, it's all for moot if the pickups dynamic and frequency range does not capture it. I select woods for looks, weight and durability for bodies, and focus on stiffness (high modulus of elasticity) for necks. For tone, I look at pickups. But that's just me.

@HighlineGuitars

11 күн бұрын

I’m not comparing pharmaceutical R&D with scientific research on how guitars work, I’m using it as an example of how expensive research is. I hope that explains this for you.

@sunn_bass

11 күн бұрын

@@HighlineGuitars I got that. I love your videos because you do present great info. And I am a huge fan of yours and you do a great service for the guitar community. My main point was like I said at the end of my comment. No matter if a study was actually done on guitars, most would not pay attention because of preconceived beliefs, tradition and the claim of "MOJO". My personal thoughts are that we focus way too much on the whole "tonewood" debate in regards to solid body guitars. Pickups, electronics, signal chain, amp and speakers play more influence in tone in my experience. Now how we like playing certain woods is a factor, be it weight, feel (especially raw wood) and even looks. If we don't like the feel or looks, we probably won't play to our best ability. My favorite comment came from a friend years back that only liked lacquered maple necks. He always said that he hated the feel of unfinished rosewood and ebony, and that changed the way he played. I think he was correct. With all of the variables out there, we should focus on playability, looks and tangible factors.

Good video. But I think you got what scientific is a little wrong. You don't have to publish it or have other people test it to be considered scientific. If it is made on a controlled, reproduciblel way, such as anyone can follow your methods and get the same results, it can be considered scientific. Others will try it to see and validate your findings, and if you did something wrong, it will be invalidated. But it was still made in a scientific way. So it doesn't matter where you post your tests and methodology, what metter is if they are correct, controlled and reproduciblel.

@farloux

13 күн бұрын

You are correct that Jim used a well conducted process and it does seem like he did a good job. However, as is with the scientific community, when you have peers review the work and reproduce it, it adds weight to the scientific finding and becomes theory. Theory only is valid when it has a body of reviewed and validated evidence. We don't have it yet. So the only thing it could be is anecdotally tested hypothesis. Technically Jim could've somehow fooled us and faked everything, and we won't know until someone reproduces it.

@HighlineGuitars

13 күн бұрын

@@farloux The problem with Jim's tests is that they weren't conducted in a controlled environment. His tests can't be reproduced as he conducted them. They would have to be redone in a controlled environment that his peers could reliably reproduce.

@HMFotos

13 күн бұрын

@@farloux Yes. You should not take Jim's results as the absolute truth. He may have done something wrong in the process, so time will tell. But he still did it on a scientific way.

@farloux

13 күн бұрын

@@HighlineGuitars You are correct, it wasn't the most controlled environment. But you are acting as though he produced zero value. I think his experiment still provided A LOT of food for thought. Experimented hypothesis aren't worthless.

@HighlineGuitars

13 күн бұрын

@@farloux I said his video offers us a hypothesis. That's nowhere near zero value.

I would say it's fair to say that none of the guitar experiments on KZread are science. But there's also an old Chinese proverb that says, "Most science is pseudo science." If I may suggest, I think it would be good to put a link to Jim's video, in the description.

Every guitar pickup has its place in the universe. 10 people listening blind to a guitar will have mixed opinions whether they liked it or not. There is your answer.

@sunn_bass

11 күн бұрын

Yup. I'll further add that if you take 10 good guitarist, they can probably pick out the sound of a strat single coil vs humbucker vs P90 as long as the sound is clean to mildly distorted. But I doubt 10 guitarist in a blind test could say what wood the guitar is made of without seeing it. I'm not talking an a/b comparison in perfect conditions, but a real life performance situation.

Opinions are the new facts. That's my opinion anyway!

She blinded me with science. Science!

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

I love that song. Takes me back to high school!

7:16 "The electric guitar is not a critical component in the advancement of the human species." I vehemently disagree! (lol) The electric guitar is the pinnacle of human achievement. It is so greatly misunderstood because it has been relegated to the status of a playschool toy by big business, such that everyone has a stratocaster in their closet or under their bed. A terrible fate for something that in reality is no less a musical instrument than classical guitar or grand piano. As for the cruxt of the video, I see guitar building as being similar to multi track recording. The builder is like the recording engineer. He hears subtle differences in a not so significant track that others would dismiss as unimportant. I've spent hours in my laboratory doing experiments, I make no claims, I make nothing public, but I'm absolutely certain of my findings.

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

The difference between a guitar builder and a recording engineer is the latter can erase and rerecord their work. A guitar builder won't know for sure what an instrument they made is going to sound like until it is finished and by that point, their options for dialing the sound are limited.

This video was kind of peak doi

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

???

@pipelineaudio

12 күн бұрын

@@HighlineGuitars This felt so much like one of those semantic pedantic dodges from young earth creationists like darth dawkins or mr batman, not even william lane craig level. I'm subscribed to you and have learned a ton about guitar repair from making sure my notification bell is on for your every video, but damn man, this one felt like I was watching kent hovind telling me that elephants don;t come from bananas

@HighlineGuitars

12 күн бұрын

@@pipelineaudio WTF?!?

its almost as if this has political inuendos...

@HighlineGuitars

10 күн бұрын

People who are obsessed with politics think everything has political innuendos.

Even if someone was making some kind of hypothesis about one species of wood versus another, what would their control specimen be? Every piece of timber is unique, and the variables which affect the growth and seasoning are infinitely variable. Other than people talking in broad generalities, opinion pieces are of limited use when it comes to inherent qualities. With such vague concepts as 'tonality', each user has subjective desires and standards. Even with the most stringent production, absolute consistency is impossible. I know that you are aware of these things, please excuse my stating the obvious. To me, videos such as Jim Lill's are of little interest as he seems to use titles which offer definitive conclusions which they cannot possibly deliver. Talking about what makes a good guitar is like talking about what makes a good painting. Scientific branches such as acoustics are interesting, but what makes me click with a particular guitar is intangible. It is arbitrary.