This discussion reminds me of the speaker magnet debate: ceramic or Alnico. Supposedly, alnico sounds better with humbuckers while ceramic sounds great with single coils. But then many Marshalls are shipped with ceramics and Fender has used tons of alnico speakers. and, from what I've read from people who know a great deal more than I do, there is no discernible difference to the human ear. The only difference is that alnico is a nuch more expensive material to produce than ceramic. But there are legions of players who swear they can tell the difference. I wonder.
The best sounding Strat I own is a complete muttcaster Frankenstein with a heavy, 20-year-old Japanese Squier body and a 5-year-old WD Products neck, and it weighs more than 8 1/2 pounds. But it has Van Zandt Blues pickups with the midboost mod by Dan Torres (www.torresengineering.com) and I think this has more to with its great sound than anything else. I have some guitars with nice wood in them, and part of me likes to believe they sound better, but that is probably my imagination.
I've also read that some of the original Les Pauls and Strats are duds, tonewise, even though they were made in the Golden Age. You can find the same thing today, although it seems to be getting worse. Go into a shop and play all the LPs they have, and one will probably jump out at you. And the same with Fender. They may not even be the most expensive models.
What I love about older Tokais is that most of them sound very good, and a few, outstanding, even in the cheaper models. I suspect that one could make a better sounding guitar with cheaper wood if the craftmanship were superior. I think that even though Tokais were/are made in a factory setting, these dedicated craftspeople find a way to do it right, because the Japanese have an unbelievably high work ethic, and they actually take pride in working for their company. In most manufactured products, the price of the materials used are less of a production cost than good skilled labor, and I suspect this shows up in guitar making.
A few years back, Taylor Guitars made an acoustic top out of old, scuffed up pinewood warehouse pallets and it supposedly sounded great. I've played a few Seagull acoustics made with inexpensive spruce and these sound fantastic.
I believe that wood (FWIW) is a factor in a guitar's total sound, but not a huge determinant. I also doubt any of these so-called experts could pass a blind ear test and hear a diff between Honduras and African mahogany, or Indian and Brazilian rosewood.
These claims, I think, for the most part, are just more hype to get buyers to pony up for what the seller claims is Brazilian, Honduras, etc., in order to maximize profit. I doubt that even half of the so-called Brazilian boards on eBay are actually from Brazil, just because they have a little color in them. The real good Brazilian, as seen on classic old Martins, has streaks of red and even green in it, not just a bit of tan mixed with dark brown. Granted, the authentic woods look beautiful and are lovely to work with, and the old Martins do have a gorgeous sound, but I think the fabled tone difference that many gush about is so much hooey.
Sorry for the rant, but I also believe that no matter what you play, you will sound exactly like yourself, Brazilian or Indian rosewood aside. :wink:
Sorry. I shall repair to the music room and lash myself with worn-out Slinkys (don't ask me what guage) to make amends.
