Fussy... That's something I do understand somehow... ?

Construction being equal, it's down to the woods and alder (EJ's choice) is tonally fairly balanced and consistent from example to example, as is quartersawn maple. That's one reason the EJs are so consistent. Still, there is a little wiggle room for the weight, centred around the 4lbs "ideal". Generally the lighter weight the body the warmer and "fatter" it will be, while the heavier examples will be brighter and have more focus. Any good luthier will be able to choose a suitable blank based on tap tones. Otherwise a one-piece body or a well matched two-piece helps ensure that you don't get two pieces with different weights "fighting" each other. ?

If you move from the traditional construction (especially neck joints), you move from the "Strat sound". Don't do it unless you know that's exactly what you want. I quite like through-neck hardtail "Strats", but they aren't really Strats in anything but shape.

as big as possible, yet also as smooth and untwangy as possible

or wood combinations used in the neck for brightness and sustain?

So, do you want big, fat, smooth and untwangy, or bright with lots of sustain? ?

Generally I steer people to the Fender Fat 50s when they are looking for the fat early 50's tone. Obviously there are dozens of others from different pickup makers though...

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: So, do you want big, fat, smooth and untwangy, or bright with lots of sustain? ?

well... both actually.

I don't know if you take the word "bright" to mean twangy, but to me it just means enhanced highs? les pauls can be piercingly bright, yet no one ever accused them of being twangy (bar perhaps the peter green out-of-phase mod. even that, not so much...)

in that same interview, Johnson made the very valid point that one usually listens to an electric guitar within the context of a band. Even a three-piece will cover most of the e.q spectrum. eg, bass and kick drum dominating the lows, snare and vocals mids, guitar upper mids and cymbals and other percussion or ambience effects taking up the highs. Now for me, i've always wanted a guitar that sounds MASSIVE!!! think SRV, Johnson lead tone, Woman Tone, Malcolm Young, Joe Bonamassa "Sloe Gin" tone etc etc. so following this impulse, I had a full mahogany guitar with rosewood fretboard and round-sounding alnico 2's made. By itself, this guitar is indeed, MASSIVE sounding. But place it in the context of a band situation, and it doesn't really have it's comfortable 'spot' to sit in the mix. Not to mention, because of its e.q range, it hits overdrive pre-amps and pedals in a very unusual way. I am not taking anything away from the guitar, I TRULLY love it and the fact it is it's own tonal character...


ANYWAY!!! continuing on with Johnson, he said that rosewood boards tended to round out the sound and soften the distinction between where the guitar sat, and didn't sit, in the mix. For this reason, he prefers maple necks and boards for their more-defined e.q perimeter, and therefore the fact the guitar will sound "larger" in a mix.

I don't see the unvalidity of my point, Alan

I'm with you. You're describing upper mids rather than highs. Don't worry about sustain, most electric guitars have more than enough, especially at volume.

As a matter of interest, how do you feel about the Johnson Strat? It would be useful to take that as a starting point and say what you would like to change about the tone.

It's all in the mids AFAIC. Human ears are keyed to the midrange to enhance speech intelligibility, so stuff in the midrange stands out clearly. An all mahogany guitar such as the one you describe will stand out brilliantly for solos and playing alone (and probably like the hammer of the gods through a Marshall), but in a band situation where you're playing rhythm 90% of the time, there will likely be a clash between the guitar and the vocals. One of the reasons Strats are so popular is because they have a naturally scooped lower midrange that lets them fit nicely around vocals (and why mid heavy pedals like Tube Screamers are popular for lead boost, and why Clapton likes his mid-boost circuit for solos). Even a Les Paul has the maple cap to enhance the high end and tighten up the lows and the original PAF pickups had a fairly scooped midrange too. The Marshall emphasis on upper mid "presence" also helps explain why they are so popular with Gibson-guitars.

So definitely an alder body for your next guitar. Swamp ash has more lows, more of a low mid scoop and more upper mids, but it's often a bit extreme for most folk. Maple neck is a given, but the board has more to do with the attack tone than anything else - rosewood is rounder and smoother sounding while maple adds a bit of snap to the attack, making it more percussive - and yes, the attack has a lot to do with how easily a guitar cuts through a mix. Johnson uses quartersawn maple necks, which brighten up the tone already (and enhance sustain), and a rosewood board helps soften the edges off that a little. There's a reason rosewood/alder is one of the classic Strat combos (the other being maple/ash, but that's a bit too bright and percussive for most people).

BTW - I'd probably go for an ebony or preferably a pao ferro fingerboard (looks like rosewood, sounds like maple) on an all mahogany guitar to add some highs and definitely lower powered Alnico 5 PAF-like pups.

The Johnson strat I played a month ago is the best strat I've ever played. PERIOD. Gold finish with rosewood board and maple binding (bit unusual I thought...?), compound 9.5 - 12 radius, tone re-wired for bridge pickup etc... We know the mod's. I compared it to a custom shop Gilmour-replica (one of those stupid things with "cigarette burns" on them) and a US standard in the same sit-down session, and even though the Gilmour and standard were both freshly re-strung and the Johnson was supporting illegal telephone cables (which cut my poor fingers and made them brown ? ) I STILL preferred the sound of the Johnson!!! If anything though, I'd consider having that miserable-excuse-for-a-pickup-alnico-3 neck pickup blown apart and replaced with a nice, fat, juicy, smooth, BRIGHT ? , hot alnico 5 something or other... Texas Specials? Golden Age? Kinman? Fat 50's? or even... Dimarzio?!?

I love tube overdrive and all things vintage, but I'm interested in players who give vintage sounds modern edges... e.g. Slash, Johnson (although his tone might well just be... timeless rather than modern ? ) and a more extreme example, (the extremist) Joe Satriani (A self-proclaimed vintage lover. e.g. Marshall plexi's, vox wah's, tube screamers, etc...) the more modern approach of "FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUZZZZZZ" or "GHGHGHGHGHGHRRRRRRRRRHGHGHG" isn't quite my thing....

although I don't really know what "style I play" yet (I'm Still 18 and have a lot to hear) I study jazz and can do fairly reasonable impersonations of SRV (minus the 13's. sorry its 11's for me ? ), Gary Moore, Eric Johnson (on a good day hahahaha) Slash, Joe Bonamassa and Hendrix, but still try blend them to make something a little different... So I've got the 'bucker guitar and now want something else ? (preferably with a floating bridge system so I can add some Beck/Vai type inflections into my playing, and a nice blues tone without the entire audience leaning back after twenty seconds and saying "SRV clone..."

That said, some people are very quick to throw the "SRV clone" label at blues guitarists. Bonamassa "fondly" recalls the time he played Bolero on a strat, and was greeted with SRV accusations after the show. that incident was what sparked off his revolution into the Gibson market

WORST NIGHTMARE MATERIAL, that label is ?

So, Alan, you recommend the Fat 50's for me?

Yeah, the Johnsons are IMO the best production-line Strat Fender are doing (I hurt the feelings of someone at Fender SA by saying it's basically what a Standard US Strat should be). The binding on the rosewood board model is not to my liking looks-wise. but it doesn't hurt playability.

Yeah, the Fat 50s are warmer than your typical vintage pickup and a little smoother, without the icepick or harsh edge with a bit of drive. Still very much a Strat tone and the quacks are in place on position 2 and four. Closest things Fender does to my beloved Kinman Blues (although my application is different). For a little extra kick in the bridge position, installing a steel baseplate works well too. If you want to go hotter and even smoother/warmer, the Fralin Blues are recommended, but they are a bit too smooth on the neck and middle for me, lacking a bit too much "snap", particularly in the neck position.

I know that when Eric Johnson sat with Fender to discuss his signature model, one of the stipulations was that it must no weigh more that a certain weight.

I recently picked up a Strat in the States that weighs 2.9 kilos.

The body alone weighs 1.42 kilos, and is Swamp Ash with a grain to die for.

The sound of this thing is HUGE and has good highs without sounding brash or twangy.

Pickups are Fender SCN.

For what it's worth I think you should be looking at a body that is as light as possible with a Rosewood neck.

You all have it wrong about Eric Johnson ?

According to Eric Johnson... The Secret to his tone is......

I will post it here for all to see... ?

The Secret to his tone...


And he takes it further by telling us all how to do it properly...

The Formula for EJ TONE!!!!



If you dont believe me... Check out his website ?

http://www.ericjohnson.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=8

Wait...

Did you think I was talking about GUITARS?? ?

Hahaha he probably uses Steve Vai's bee honey and scores himself some free Carvins....
Or a sense of humour :O

Shame no only joking ?

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Generally the lighter weight the body the warmer and "fatter" it will be, while the heavier examples will be brighter and have more focus.

Hi Alan just to restart this thread again...

I'm about to start construction (I means Shawn ? ? ) and could you elaborate on why LESS wood gives you a bigger sound??? logically, i'm totally stumped....

thanks a tonne

seb

Not less wood, lower density wood. Lower density = lower resonant frequency. It usually also means that the wood is softer and will absorb more high frequencies.