According to this, the guitar body's wood is irrelevant...

[Schaf]

The devil is in the details. He said he tested the guitars plucking one string. The different harmonic content of different wood types would come from one type of wood accentuating certain resonating frequencies in a group of notes, versus another type wood potentially dampening those same frequencies. To me it's a very narrow, flawed experiment.

Not to mention only 7 guitars used, pretty small sample size and we have no idea what they were or what pickups are in them.

Anyone who has played guitar for a while will recognize that there is variation in tone just from the same model of guitar in a given year. And also I hear plenty of differences just between my MIM strat made of poplar compared to my 2 Alder MIA strats.

I hope the person doing the study isn't going to try to ban the use of wood in guitars after his flawed research study....

Being a furniture maker, I would certainly think you would. Poplar seems like a terrible wood for a guitar. It's very soft and porous compared to hardwoods like maple, mahogany... Shit, all of them. It's also very prone to warpage.

I've owned two poplar guitars. Both were among the best sounding guitars I've owned.

 

[apophis]

i'll leave this here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEAjPaxp ... r_embedded

I wonder if this wanker is a member here?

 

[Anonymous]

Well I did have a $400 Ibanez that sounded better than a $2400 Suhr.

You must be tone deaf.

i believe this, without question...in some cases, it's just very true...it happens.

even what are viewed as the "best guitar makers" are limited to the resources they can pull from. you dont think suhr or anderson ever got a bad batch of wood and didnt realize it til later? come on now.