Should we talk about tone woods?

Tone woods.... it's a pointless discussion, really. You see it on internet forums and Youtube videos and probably a dozen other places. The amount of "expertise" that people pull out of the air is both impressive and aggravating. And that's not just from internet keyboard warriors, it's perpetuated by industry cats like Paul Reed Smith. I've gotten to the point that I ignore the discussions and debates, it's just a dog-pile of opinions from people trying to out-smart each other. I'll never understand why so many people need to be right about something. Humility is lost on most people, I suppose.

I'll tell you my thoughts, and it's very simple... every piece of wood, regardless of species, has unique tonal qualities. No need for debate, no need for advanced scientific analysis, no need for chest-pounding, and especially no need to degrade other people about it.

There are these tone profiles for each wood that are widely published and repeated over and over like old folklore. You know, how maple is a bright and snappy wood, while mahogany is a low-mid focused wood, and swamp ash has a scooped tone. I suppose that many of the necks and bodies that are made of these woods have tonal properties that can be described this way. But these truths aren't universal, and they rely on everything else that affects the tone of the guitar to be equal. Things like fret material/size, nut material, bridge saddle material, and so on. But we know that these aren't equal from guitar to guitar. We also know that not every piece of wood sounds the same. In fact, it's been my experience that these variations in individual wood tones happens a lot more than people want to admit, which ultimately takes these tone profiles and chucks them out the window.

I'll give an example - I have 5 maple necks sitting in the shop right now and they all sound different. One is the brightest maple neck I've ever heard, one is a really dark sounding neck, and the others are somewhere in between. All made by the same company, with the exact same specs (same fret wire, same nut material, same radius, same neck shape, etc.)

I'll give another example - I have 2 PRS Custom 22 guitars. Both have mahogany bodies and necks, flamed maple tops, and rosewood fingerboards. Yet they couldn't sound any more different. One is very mid-focused with less pronounced lows and highs (like a bell curve), while the other has huge lows and highs with scooped mids... like someone took that bell curve and turned it 180 degrees. If I believed the internet, they would sound pretty much the same.

I think some of this discussion is based in peoples' perceptions of the specs of a particular guitar they heard in a recording. I've lost track of how many times I've heard someone say they want that big mahogany Les Paul tone they heard on some famous album. Yes, the guitar will get you part of the way, but let's not focus so much on the guitar and instead look at the entire signal chain - amps, effects, mics, and studio processing. There are so many variables involved that making minor changes to any of them could completely change the sound you're hearing.

My advice is to choose necks and bodies based on appearance and weight first. The tonal aspects of the woods isn't realized until the guitar is assembled - and most tonal anomalies can be compensated for without needing to replace the neck or body. For example, if the finished guitar has an overly bright top end, you can replace the saddles with brass or use a set of pickups that have less treble output. It's important to note that it's easier to reduce frequencies than to add frequencies that weren't there to begin with. Sometimes the combination of particular woods will result in an unfavorable tone that just can't be adjusted with other components. In that case, try a different neck or body and go from there. That's the main reason I love bolt-on guitars - there's so many options to make it exactly the way you want it.

An EQ pedal is also a cheap remedy. Just sayin'...