bapu
This fred is shaping up nicely.
 
No matter what the shape of my (bass) guitar they all come out sounding like this one.

 Except that fecker is probably in tune

 
Surely, if all you wanted was to transfer as close to 100% of the string vibration into the pick-up then the 'best' electric guitars would be made of materials that resonate as little as possible. Like stone, or concrete. Or whatever sort of stuff doesn't tend to vibrate sympathetically with the strings attached to it.
 
 

SteveStrummerUK
 
Surely, if all you wanted was to transfer as close to 100% of the string vibration into the pick-up then the 'best' electric guitars would be made of materials that resonate as little as possible. Like stone, or concrete. Or whatever sort of stuff doesn't tend to vibrate sympathetically with the strings attached to it.

 
So, suitable for hard rock then? 
 

SteveStrummerUK
 
Surely, if all you wanted was to transfer as close to 100% of the string vibration into the pick-up then the 'best' electric guitars would be made of materials that resonate as little as possible. Like stone, or concrete. Or whatever sort of stuff doesn't tend to vibrate sympathetically with the strings attached to it.
 
 

Actually you insulate the strings from the body by choosing materials. Materials have an acoustic impedance and the amount of transmitted vs. reflected energy is dependent on the differing acoustic impedances of the materials.
 
For this reason, some of the energy from the bridge is reflected back and some of the energy coming back from the body is also reflected back to the body. For maximum energy transfer you want the acoustic impedances to be similar. Here's an illustration:
 

 
Theoretically if you can use a bridge material to create a greater difference, you will lose less vibration to the body.
 
You can also get better transmission by putting a material with intermediate AI between two dissimilar materials, so I'm thinking it might be possible to do the opposite and put something between the bridge and the body which would reflect more energy back to the bridge.

drewfx1

SteveStrummerUK
 
Surely, if all you wanted was to transfer as close to 100% of the string vibration into the pick-up then the 'best' electric guitars would be made of materials that resonate as little as possible. Like stone, or concrete. Or whatever sort of stuff doesn't tend to vibrate sympathetically with the strings attached to it.
 
 

Actually you insulate the strings from the body by choosing materials. Materials have an acoustic impedance and the amount of transmitted vs. reflected energy is dependent on the differing acoustic impedances of the materials.
 
For this reason, some of the energy from the bridge is reflected back and some of the energy coming back from the body is also reflected back to the body. For maximum energy transfer you want the acoustic impedances to be similar. Here's an illustration:
 

 
Theoretically if you can use a bridge material to create a greater difference, you will lose less vibration to the body.
 
You can also get better transmission by putting a material with intermediate AI between two dissimilar materials, so I'm thinking it might be possible to do the opposite and put something between the bridge and the body which would reflect more energy back to the bridge.

Beepster
 I also have an Ibanez Les Paul clone that despite the absolute arse quality of it and the extremely underpowered (non-chrome) humbuckers can be coaxed into doing the job of a Les Paul.
 

Temporary derail. Beepster, you might like this:

The Ibanez Deluxe 59'er on the left was one of the last LP bodies they made. She was fitted with hardware intended for the Artist series.  Super 80 pups and the artist tailpiece. Bolt-on neck but she has wonderful sustain and drive. The neck is relatively thin and she is a joy to play.
As to Steve's original question, perhaps distribution of mass may have some effect on tone. However, I'm inclined to believe the pups and general construction have more to do with it.
 

I don't have this thing anymore , it was pretty much all metal  
( the only thing wood on it was the neck and the part of the bridge the strings rested on ….the nut was probably plastic .)  
I remember that it sure weighed a lot .
imho , it sounded pretty good ..

 
Kenny
 
 

RobertB

Beepster
 I also have an Ibanez Les Paul clone that despite the absolute arse quality of it and the extremely underpowered (non-chrome) humbuckers can be coaxed into doing the job of a Les Paul.
 

Temporary derail. Beepster, you might like this:

The Ibanez Deluxe 59'er on the left was one of the last LP bodies they made. She was fitted with hardware intended for the Artist series.  Super 80 pups and the artist tailpiece. Bolt-on neck but she has wonderful sustain and drive. The neck is relatively thin and she is a joy to play.
As to Steve's original question, perhaps distribution of mass may have some effect on tone. However, I'm inclined to believe the pups and general construction have more to do with it.
 

Hi, Robert. You seem to have one of the good ones before Gibson started suing the pizzle out of everyone. Unfortunately mine is one of the newer ones they started building in recent years and they are... well pretty cheap. Someone actually bought it for me at an auction thinking it was more valuable than it is. When they first gave it to me (nice present, eh? It wasn't even my barfday... lol) I was looking all over the place to find something out about it and stumbled across the older Ibby LP models which are apparently really nice and sought after (like the one you have) but mine did not quite match up to it. After spending a bunch more time hunting around I realized it was from the more recent runs and I think specifically it is an ART series. They go for about $300 new (whereas yours tend to fetch $700-800+). It's still a pretty nice guitar but the hardware is cheap and it doesn't have the chrome pickups which I think I'd prefer on it. The main problem with it? The damned tuners are garbage. It refuses to stay in tune even if I'm barely touching the thing. I've got some old Grovers I raided off a smashed acoustic guitar I found in the garbage years ago that will work but they aren't an EXACT match to how the current tuners are fitted. Basically both sets of tuners have those little posts/nubbies on them that fit into a tiny pre drilled hole in the head stock locking the tuner in place as it gets screwed down. The posts on the Grovers are in a different spot than the originals but will fit I think. It's just the tuner keys will be angled down toward the body of the guitar. If they don't interfere with each other I think it will make it look kind of cool. lol If not I guess I'll have to pull out my drafting ruler and try to drill some new pilot holes for the Grovers... which I really don't want to do because I don't have the best tools for that sort of thing and I'll probably do a hack job of it.
 
It's tone isn't as nice as my hot strat Pacifica but it's more bottomy with a bit of that crisp LP high end. I think if I can get it to stay in tune it'll be a great guitar for doubling my rhythms. It also has a pretty slick clean tone for jazzy stuff and some bluesy tones.
 
Honestly though I would MUCH prefer to get my hands on something like the Epi semi-hollowbody you've got there. She's a beaut!

SteveStrummerUK
 
Great stuff guys, some really interesting thoughts.
 
What made me think of asking was that I was perusing the latest Gibson catalogue earlier and wondering:

1. If there were reasons for why the vast majority of electric guitars are shaped like acoustic guitars, if they don't need to be for any specific 'tonal' reason?
2. If the 'traditional' shape is used so often because it's comfy/ergonomic, was the reason for the introduction of Flying V and Explorer style guitars simply aesthetic, with no design consideration given to tonal properties of the shape?
3. Was the transition from the earliest 'frying pan' electrics to more traditional styles aesthetic, or merely to get more mass into the construction to improve tone?

Very good questions Steve ,  certainly a lot of food for thought . I will give some of it a shot 
 
a lot of people nowadays forget how truly innovative and ahead of the loop Gibson was as a company when it came to designing and producing world class highly innovative top shelf quality guitars 
 
A lot of the traditional Gibson guitar designs that people want and still cherish today were in place and designed by 1960 
 
A vast majority of the Golden Age of Guitar building and design was bound by a totally different set of values and ethics then what we have  in place today . It was a very fertile period back then in many ways .
…also there was no such thing as wood shortages 
 
Back in the day the market was very different , people wanted to have  good playing guitars made out of nice wood that would serve them a lifetime . 
People and guitar companies took great pride in the work that they did …regardless of the style of manufacture and market process ..(that is also true about some of todays independent's )
 
Leo Fender was using more of an auto factory assembly line vs Gibson doing more of a handmade at station assembly ..
both companies that I have used as an example have maintained the highest ideals regarding their designs and desire to produce guitars and instruments that would serve and last a player a lifetime ...
they just went about it in different ways .
 
Gibson has had a long history of producing electric guitars out of the finest woods available and this is what people wanted back then . Gibson even used really good wood on the laminates (ES 335, ES 175. ect,…)
 
Vintage Gibson Archtop guitars are truly a work of art , I know this first hand , I have played many different top of the line Vintage Gibson Archtops , they are very bit as good as guitars as Strads are to violins
 
thats, just a couple of quick thoughts / opinions on some of the topic 
 
Kenny

? What was the question?
 
 
 
not that I don't think the answer was known when it was asked