Yes, the effect is not 75% or nearly that. It may only be 15-20%, but that's still substantial. I doubt it's lower than 10% unless one overpowers it with lots of electronics (builtin preamps and equalizers). And yes, you are correct that the hardware to which the strings attach and rigidity definitely play a role. Rigid systems tend to sustain vibrations better (which is why, for example, rock-solid houses tend to crumble in earthquakes while intentionally-flexible skyscrapers just wave). The tremolo is still attached to two points (the swivel mounts) and by springs to the body. Springs are superb transmitters of wave energy (both longitudinally and tranversely). And, yes, bolt on necks (and even solid through, I'd imagine) don't play much of a role in this; the solid body does. That's the point. Hollow bodies and acoustics vibrate a soundboard which vibrates a chamber of air, etc, etc. Most of the sound from an acoustic is coming from the vibrating soundboard (and the air amplified by the soundboard and interior cavity, some emitted from the soundhole). Air is a poor conductor of sound vibration as compared to a solid object, especially a dense, non-porous one. The reason acoustic shaping of sound in Stradivarius violins and acoustic guitars is so complex is because it is dependent on mechanical amplification only, between the wood, its thickness and density, chamber shape, soundholes, and so on. Two different things. One is the amplification of air within a chamber. The other is sustain and frequency modification due to sympathetic vibration and systemic feedback (coupled with metals vibrating in magnetic fields). I've got a couple textbooks on acoustic theory, a couple on physics, and several on electro-mechanical systems design. Ah, the pickups don't pick up the body vibration. But who's to say that the vibrating body doesn't vibrate the pickups (attached to the body), which, in essence, vibrates the magnetic field source of the pickups (just contemplation of that simple system). The strings pick up the body vibration! And not just through direct contact at the bridge, but also through the air (albeit minimal) - string vibrates air, air vibrates body, body vibrates air, air vibrates strings (feedback). Even just the reflection of sound waves off of the body and pickups modifies the sound shape slightly by reflection damping and superposition (wave theory 101). Thus the string's vibration is modified by everything attached to the strings (directly and indirectly) and picked up by the pickups. Here, some info for guitars: MusicVox Strataspear: Strung through body for added sustain and resonance. Peavey Limited Series: Acoustically designed tone chambers. Why? If the body has nothing to do with it, why all the fuss about body material and rigidity and mass? From Gibson: ********** Although the sound of an electric guitar would seem to come entirely from the pickup, the type of wood has an important influence on tone and sustain. "Tone woods" woods that have high strength and stability are the best for electric guitars as well as acoustic. For guitar bodies, mahogany and maple are the most common, although ash, alder, korina and various exotic woods ... Solidbody guitars minimize the vibration of the top/body in order to maximize sustain and reduce feedback. The strength and density of the wood still makes a subtle difference in tone. Mahogany is generally considered to produce a warmer tone than maple, which is stronger and denser and produces a brighter tone. *********** From http://www.schmittmusic.com/GuitarsDrums/electricG.htm: Electric Guitar Construction Manufacturers experimented with different types of woods to create better sounding electric guitars - some used one or two pieces of hardwood like ash, alder, or poplar, while others used a combination of woods like maple and mahogany to produce a specific tone. It is the density of the different types of wood that has the primary effect on the way the guitar resonates. Also try: http://www.playmusicfree.com/musical_instruments/html/electric_body.htm I think that the information below sums it up rather nicely. Although the weight of the wood isn't telling, the density is. But most dense woods are heavy. So it depends on the choice of wood. But to say that the body material has no effect goes against all luthiery and manufacturer information: ...Others will tell you that the final sound of a guitar can be estimated before it is built just by careful choice of wood--and that the finish of the guitar will have an effect on its sound. The truth lies somewhere between the two. If one goes back to the guitar magazines that were published in the early 1970s, the general consensus was that a heavy-bodied guitar, for example one made entirely of maple, would sustain longer than one that was made of a lighter wood. This is certainly not the case. A friend of mine once owned a pair of 1962 Fender Stratocasters. One had an alder body, the other had ash. In all other respects, such as hardware, neck and even strings, they were the same. They certainly sounded different and the tighter alder-bodied guitar sustained longer than the heavier ash guitar. To further emphasise this, during the late 1980s, the luthier Roger Giffin made several guitars with bodies made of jelutong. This is a very lightweight but sturdy wood that is often used for patternmaking. It is easy to work and takes a finish well. It is pretty boring to look at but this does not matter if it is painted. The end results were very impressive. The guitars had a lot of natural sustain and sounded very bright. They also did not wear you out if you had to have one on a strap for a two-hour concert! Some oriental manufacturers use basswood which is also known as American lime, and the English company Shergold made obeche-bodied guitars in the early 1970s. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that different woods absorb different frequencies in differing amounts but since there has been little, if any, scientific research done on this the only way of choosing is by trial and error. It should also be noted that woods can vary enormously in quality, weight and density depending on where they were grown and names used in one country might signify a markedly different wood when used in another country. Ash is a fine example of this; the ash grown in Europe is heavier than some grown in the United States. There has been much talk of the use of so-called 'swamp' ash. This is said to be much lighter in weight and grows in the swamps of the Mississippi delta in the southern states of America. The wood that grows in the very wettest areas is certainly lighter in weight and makes a good wood for building guitar bodies but trees from only a few hundred feet away may have completely different characteristics having grown in a drier area. The problem is that all of this wood is expensive, regardless of what it actually weighs. It is wise to choose carefully. ======================================================== I'm not talking out my ass or from ignorance or misinformation. 20 years of playing and learning about guitars; years of learning physics and musical acoustics; years of doing electro-mechanical design and testing. 99.9999% of electric guitars have wood bodies in an age of cheap synthetic plastics, metal alloys, and composite materials. That makes no sense. Wood is very resonant and can be very dense. Most of the other materials are good dampers or have horrid acoustic properties. That wouldn't make a damn of a difference if it were all electronics.