'61 SG with vs. without baked maple fretboard - does it matter?

[srmd22]

Thing is, the pros (you and me included, I play professionally as well, though I ain't famous) do care about details and can be anal about it, but you'll agree that they do it with details that matter TO THEM. If the guitar serves its purposes, that's what matters...

And I never said the discussion wasn't valid, I was saying that many people regard the baked maple boarded SGs as "lesser" SGs, but they are not. They are just SGs made in a particular time when Gibson used that wood and they do sound great.

Cheers!

Yup, can't argue with that (not that it'll stop me from trying). I agree, the baked maple should not be considered lesser (although it took me awhile to get there - same with the two-ply's from 2012 - it was a creative way for Gibson to get around import restrictions that was, I believe, unfairly - but not unsurprisingly - regarded as a decrease in quality).

 

[Gibbo SG]

The maple fretboards lend a sort of Telecaster chime. Certainly not a bad thing in an SG, which was introduced as an old-world alternative to a Fender. I dig a Telecaster's tone, but require full access fretboards and three-per-side tuning on a guitar. We must honor our non-negotiables.

 

[flognoth]

Personally, I am not a fan of the maple. I don't' like the feel. Even my Tele is rosewood.

What matters most is if a person looking at buying a guitar with a maple fretboard likes it. Feel, playability, sound etc...

 

[deMelo]

The maple fretboards lend a sort of Telecaster chime. Certainly not a bad thing in an SG, which was introduced as an old-world alternative to a Fender. I dig a Telecaster's tone, but require full access fretboards and three-per-side tuning on a guitar. We must honor our non-negotiables.

Though I understand the logic in theory, I've never noticed anything chimy in maple boarded SGs. They bark and bite just like any other SG, to my own ears.

Me, I don't believe the fretboard adds anything to the tone. It's like Strats with maple and rosewood fretboard. People always fight about the RW fretboard making a strat sound darker, but IMHO it doesn't.

It's all about physics. No matter how hard we want the wood to matter to an electric guitar's sound, it doesn't matter so much. It's all about the density of the wood, after all the strings vibrate less or more according to the wood they're attached to: body and neck, and they're attached directly into the neck wood, not the fretboard.

Many guys disagree, and I am not saying I'm with the truth and everyone else is wrong, but this is what I believe and have heard from many engineers who actually play guitar.

 

[Col Mustard]

+1 on that. I love tone woods simply because I love wood. I have a Telecaster with a maple neck and a pair of hum buckers.
This guitar has plenty of Fender brightness, but it also growls and screams as it should, given this combination. Because the
instrument is unique, I can't tell you if the maple neck or the alder body makes any difference to the tone picked up by the
Fender "Wide Range" hum buckers. All I can say is that Fender named those pickups rightly... they really pick up a wide range
of tones. The maple neck is simply a lovely thing. It's covered in Polyurethane, and I don't think the neck affects the tone very
much. I don't think the fact that it's bolted on does either, nor the '70s style three-screw plate with the "micro-tilt"
adjustment gizmo. This guitar has plenty of sustain, plenty of presence and is just a killer instrument. MIM 2006...
It does NOT sound like a regular Tele, but has a voice all its own. Why? You tell me...

Likewise, the Gibson SG special '70s tribute has its own unique tone and feel. That's what I liked about it when I first saw
it, and why I wanted to buy it. It doesn't sound like any other guitar I own. I love that. The baked maple fretboard,
maple neck, mahogany body and Corian nut are all beautiful to me, and the tone picked up by the mini hum buckers has
lots of deep growly lows, firm and present midrange, and clear jangly highs with no trace of an icepick. What more
can you ask of a fine guitar. The cleans on this guitar sound great through my Vox VT-30 on the Fender Deluxe model.
And the mini hums seem to be able to push my Orange Micro Terror into a sweet breakup with pick attack.
Hard to beat. This SG is not for sale. And I don't think the wood affects the tone much, but with this unique
combination, how could anybody tell? I like the way it all sounds, that's all I can say.

I believe that Gibson designers did some work to come up with this "70s Tribute" model... Gibson bashers might scoff,
but I don't normally pay any attention to Gibson bashers. I actually believe that some talented designers, engineers and
musicians combined their expertise and intelligence AND creativity to come up with a unique design with a unique neck
shape and a tone that's distinct from any other guitar Gibson was selling in 2012. I'm sure they were disappointed by all
the negativity that erupted then, about the substitution of "cheaper" fake wood in a time honored design. I was
intrigued by the idea, and was inclined to buy one just to support building guitars out of non-tropical tone woods, and
then Gibson started marking them down. *grins, rubs hands together...

What's the future hold for us, hah? Has Gibson developed a dependable supply of tropical tone wood? Or will there be
new developments in the synthetic market, as I believe. Even Martin is using Richlite on their low end models. if you
want to talk tone wood, talk to an acoustic guitar player (like me). That's where tone wood becomes crucial.
Because I am an acoustic player, I read the statements made by electric guitarists on the subject of tone wood with
some amusement. I usually don't argue beyond saying that wood is not magnetic. But I am a student of tone wood and
its various effects on the tone of acoustic instruments. And I know that it is an important factor to consider, when you
are going to buy an acoustic guitar.

 

[srmd22]

Well, I don't really know the truth, but it is pretty easy to argue either way - either wood matters not at all or it matters somewhat or a lot. In the "it matters" corner is this: the wave form of the steel string is directly effected by the wood, as well as everything else that contacts it -bridge assembly, nut, frets, tuners, neck woods and fingerboard - to a greater or lesser degree. But if you are pushing the string onto a piece of material, and that material gives it more snap, or resonates more or less, that will effect the shape of the wave, and it is the shape of the wave, not just the frequency and amplitude, that gets transmitted through the pickup. This is why when you mic a guitar it sounds different then when you mic a piano, or different acoustics sound very different mic'd - even with the same gauge strings and neck scale. Two electrics have the same physical factors in play, maybe less pronounced but still there.

Does the same HB in a strat neck position sound the same as in a tele? What about an LP with the different scale length? I don't know, because most of my guitars have different pick up configurations anyway. For the longest time I did not realize Zep II was mostly a tele.

 

[rotorhead]

I think it's a combination of factors put together that totals up the best sounding instruments. There's a reason for mahogany, ebony, rosewood, etc which are chosen for the higher end products, just as there's a reason for better quality electronics and hardware. To what degree each plays becomes the issue. If there was no difference, cheaper guitars made with cheaper materials would sound just as good as the high end ones. So, there is a difference. It's why Epiphones and Squires don't sound quite as nice as high end Gibsons and Fenders.

I can't give an absolute answer as to exactly what percentage of each piece adds to the totality of the whole sound, but when you start subtracting quality parts and replacing the with cheaper materials, eventually something has to give in terms of tone.

If that wasn't the case and the sound of electric guitars was based solely on the magnetic properties of the pups, you could slap '57 Classics into any old run of the mill low end guitar and come out sounding like a rose.

I'm not saying that only fretboards made of ebony or rosewood create *that* sound, but when you chip away at the things that make up a quality product, something has to suffer.

 

[rotorhead]

PS- if companies are using less costly prodcuts on their guitars, please don't charge me the regular prices :)

 

[Gahr]

Ah, the ever present "tone is in the fingers" philosophy :) So, then, when you play a nylon string classical acoustic it sounds the same as and Ibanez shredder guitar through cranked 5150? That is really cool! I guess my fingers are not yet that developed - let me go back and do another 40k hours of practice. (sorry the ironic tones there are coming off worse in print then I intend, I am joking - but making a point).

Lucky are the ones born with tone flesh fingertips!

But I guess Biddlin's point is simply that to sound good you need to play well. And I'm still clinging to the hope that practice makes (even a limited player like myself) perfect...

 

[SG standard]

There's a reason for mahogany, ebony, rosewood, etc which are chosen for the higher end products, just as there's a reason for better quality electronics and hardware.

Actually, I think there are lots of reasons, and the 'tonewood' reason may only be one element (even if it's a big one). I'm no expert, but off the top of my head, a particular wood might be chosen for a particular purpose because:
it's available locally
it's more economical than alternatives
it's consistent in quality, so little is wasted
it's lighter in weight
it has attractive grain
it's easier to work with
it's stable over time
...and all the different 'tonewood' related reasons, such as resonant properties, etc.

Pretty soon, that wood becomes 'traditional' for instrument makers. Musicians love tradition - they want a new instrument to feel and sound like the last one, so they don't have to relearn their technique to get the sound in their head to come out of the instrument.

Next, some of the previous factors change, such as local availability or consistency of supply, but the market wants 'that' traditional wood, so it becomes the expensive option - and we all think that's simply because of it's unique tonal properties. Consequently, we start to hear the difference, because much of our perception is from within, rather than external.

Again, I'm no expert - I'm sure the 'tonewood'-type factors are highly significant in the choice of woods, but I don't think it's the whole story.

If there was no difference, cheaper guitars made with cheaper materials would sound just as good as the high end ones. So, there is a difference. It's why Epiphones and Squires don't sound quite as nice as high end Gibsons and Fenders.

The thing is, sometimes cheaper guitars do sound really good, especially after a pickup upgrade. And when we do notice a difference, how can we determine how much (if any) is down to the type of wood used in a specific part, body, neck or fingerboard?

I seem to remember a maple v. rosewood tone thread here a couple of years ago that turned nasty when the idea of scientific method was introduced, so I'll tread carefully... :) Our perception is so influenced by all of our senses, and memories, beliefs, etc., that the only reliable way to test for tonal difference is in blind testing. And that's challenging too, as we all know that two guitars off the same production run with identical specs can sound different.

Personally, I tend to think that tonal differences from fretboard materials are hard to discern, but the difference in look and feel can be large - and that's how we come to perceive a tonal difference too. I've had fingerboards of rosewood, maple, ebony, aluminium, blackwood tec and Hagstrom's resinator; sometimes I've thought I heard a difference, but I suspect I've only ever felt it. :)

These days my preference is for dark and smooth (visual and feel), though I also like light maple on my Fenders!

 

[deMelo]

According to my own point of view (as I wrote above): the wood does matter, but not as much as people say.

You play a mahogany les paul and an alder/maple strat with the same humbucker and they sound different. The density of the wood is different and that probably matters, yes.

But there is a whole plethora of other factors: shape, bolt on/glued neck, scale lenght, string height/space, wiring, hell even the headstock shape matters...because these are the factors that are influencing the string vibration or the signal.

Other things add so little to the final result that they can't really be accounted, like the fretboard material...

It's how I see it.

 

[srmd22]

@deMelo @Gahr @rotorhead Those are all well phrased and logical points - I find myself in agreement - in the end, it is true, you can get a cheapo with good pickups that sounds great, even better then a super expensive custom guitar. Although I think the overall fit and finish are usually not the same. Yet, that doesn't mean all those little components don't factor into the tone for any given example. I am continually amazed that when I play a strat or an SG with identical build, year, materials as a second one, they can still sound quite different, and I might dramatically prefer one over another. Conversely, I have been in music stores and played 2 or 3 examples of the same, and could not tell any difference at all. This has happened to me with american standard strats, firebirds, SG's, and, believe it or not, LP standards - where a bunch of them just played, felt and sounded identical to me (in a good way).

 

[flognoth]

The reason why Gibson went the Maple necks in 2011 and 2012 wasn't due to them looking to do things a bit different. It was because the US government confiscated Gibson's supply of rosewood and they went with torrefied maple to retain a similar aesthetic and still be able to put out guitars.

Once the issue was resolved with the government they went back to rosewood. I agree, the days of traditional woods being used for contemporary mass produced guitar manufacturing are probably coming to a close.

 

[deMelo]

The reason why Gibson went the Maple necks in 2011 and 2012 wasn't due to them looking to do things a bit different. It was because the US government confiscated Gibson's supply of rosewood and they went with torrefied maple to retain a similar aesthetic and still be able to put out guitars.

Yeap, and to my own perception, in a couple of decades these couldl be regarded as a particular vintage.

 

[rotorhead]

I love talking about subjective things like tonewood, etc. I don't claim any expertise and only offer my opinions, but I do learn a lot from the discussions, too :)

 

[lcw]

Wasn't clear from Gibson's FAQ, but is the baked/torrefied maple still a solid piece of wood, or is it a composite like a type of particle board?

 

[Raiyn]

The thing is, sometimes cheaper guitars do sound really good, especially after a pickup upgrade. And when we do notice a difference, how can we determine how much (if any) is down to the type of wood used in a specific part, body, neck or fingerboard?

I can certainly attest to pickup swaps in an affordable guitars making a world of difference. They can really come alive when you find the right set.

Personally, I tend to think that tonal differences from fretboard materials are hard to discern, but the difference in look and feel can be large - and that's how we come to perceive a tonal difference too. I've had fingerboards of rosewood, maple, ebony, aluminium, blackwood tec and Hagstrom's resinator; sometimes I've thought I heard a difference, but I suspect I've only ever felt it. :)

These days my preference is for dark and smooth (visual and feel), though I also like light maple on my Fenders!

I'm not super picky. If it feels right, it is right. It doesn't matter if it's processed scrub pine (oversimplification of Blackwood Tek) wood pulp and resin (oversimplification of Richlite), baked maple or whatever, if the guitar gives me the right vibe I'm in.

After all, the industry got over tortoiseshell and ivory, didn't they?

Not to muddy the waters or anything, but celluloid rot?
Yikes!

 

[Dave]

I have a 2012 Les Paul Special with a baked maple fretboard. I absolutely love it. Feels like ebony.
Sounds great. I actually prefer it over rosewood.

 

[Col Mustard]

The reason why Gibson went the Maple necks in 2011 and 2012 wasn't due to them looking to do things a bit different. It was because the US government confiscated Gibson's supply of rosewood and they went with torrefied maple to retain a similar aesthetic and still be able to put out guitars.

Once the issue was resolved with the government they went back to rosewood. I agree, the days of traditional woods being used for contemporary mass produced guitar manufacturing are probably coming to a close.

This is very true. And I believe that Gibson's designers had already chosen baked maple as one of a number of alternatives they could make ready in a hurry, simply because of the flakey political situations in many third world countries... Because they made a very smooth (seeming) transition to the baked maple equipped guitars. I don't know what they went through at the factory after the raid. But they kept their workers employed and kept up production of guitars by switching to baked maple.

And yes, I believe it's really wood. Gibson says they can't make it dark like ebony without turning it into charcoal. *grins

But fret doctor darkens the board just fine.

Gibson likely has plan B in place to switch to "Richlite" as Martin has done
if traditional tone woods become too expensive or even disappear. I remember
making jokes in 2012, saying Gibson should go about buying up all the old dead
bowling alleys across the country, and using the hard rock maple of the lanes to make guitar fretboards. Can't you see the "Les Paul Brunswick" model, or
the SG AMF... How about the Les Paul "Strike Mark" special? Limited numbers of those...
Black Triangle at fret Xll is $1000 extra...

I believe these tone woods ought to make incredible Bass necks...
Call it the "Rolling Thunder" Bass. I'd be tempted to buy one of those.

 

[deMelo]

Wasn't clear from Gibson's FAQ, but is the baked/torrefied maple still a solid piece of wood, or is it a composite like a type of particle board?

It's solid wood, you can see the grain.