Several months ago on another guitar forum far away, full of squabbles and the usual forum antics
that make me leave after a short time (thank goodness for 12bar.de 
), someone posted an article to start a thread that talked about experiments with bombarding guitars with certain types of vibrations to try to make them sound better. The post was met with huge ridicule, and even more anger and dismissive put-downs. Lots of accusations of "crackpot ideas" and "they're only in it for the money" and "it doesn't matter what sort of wood guitars are made of", etc. Everything got to such a hysterical pitch that I have only posted there once since and have no bookmarked links to the site any more. 
Well, I see Yamaha are now officially using some sort of similar technique as per the above link.
I found the idea quite intriguing as my (very limited) understanding of more recent thoughts on the way the universe works is very much to do with the vibration of matter. At a gut level it sort of made sense to me that a material that relies so much on vibration to perform well would also be affected over time by those vibrations and could meld its structure slowly to consistent stimulation.
I know there's a strong engineering and technical knowledge among the members of this site, and I'm interested to know what you all think of this one.
This was the original post on that other forum:-
"This is an interview by Dave Berrluck from Guitarist magazine with John Suhr. Very interesting stuff,
G: You’re applying for your first patent, a way to induce resonance by vibrating the body, yes? Tell us about that.
JS: The patent is, I think, mainly to make sure nobody else can stop us from doing it more than something I think is going to be the next big thing. It’s really so I have the space to explore and someone can’t come along and say, “that’s my idea!” The idea itself is nothing new —it’s been done in the acoustic guitar world and in the violin world and I’m sure in the electric guitar world but the fun part for me is the analysis of the vibration of the wood. So, no ifs or buts.
For example, if I take Mike Landau’s favourite Strat and remove everything off the body and I analyse that body’s vibrations and I compare it to one I’ve cut and painted as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter how you got there, if they have the same response they have the same response. I don’t see any fault with analysing the vibrations of the wood because to me that’s it. Anything you do to that body is going to change it but with this process we can see what’s changed and by how much.
G: Will this process also allow you to vibrate the wood to change its response?
JS: Yes, but that’s not what my patent is because many people have proven that it is a reality. My patent is on how I’m doing it which is totally non-destructive; it doesn’t require any permanent mounting or anything to the guitar. And I am able to vibrate it with extreme amounts of energy.
G: Would this be something you could offer as a retro service, to alter and improve the response of an instrument?
JS: Yes, a customer will be able to ship the Suhr guitar back to us and have it treated. And also it kind of throws a bit of a wrench into the works. I’m not going to say that this is it, it works wonderful because I honestly don’t know yet. I just need to have the patent to allow me to explore it further but I know now that I can analyse the vibrations and to me that is the most important thing. So I can say this neck doesn’t belong on this body because they’re too close to this interval or whatever the problem is, they’re causing a dead spot or they’re causing a spot on the guitar that’s too loud, or certain frequencies are not being produced. I can even compare the output of the pickups to the resonance of the body and see what happens at different frequencies and why.
I’m convinced we’re gonna learn some things that we never knew about. I don’t know of anyone who has gone into it in this depth. People have done a lot with acoustics, looking at patterns and how dust settles on the top. Archtop makers like Bob Benedetto will sit there and tap on a guitar but I asked him once, when he taps on an archtop top what is he looking for? He said, “I’m looking to make some sense out of it before the day I die.” About the only thing he can really tell when he taps on a guitar is how thick the top is. That’s primarily what he’s looking for, the thickness of the top — is it strong enough, can he get away with removing some more wood? But as far as is this going to be a great sounding top, he’s like… someday I’ll find out.
It might be a situation that we’ll say to an artist — who has a wonderful guitar —bring in that guitar and we’ll plot it out and we’ll figure out how to make a body that vibrates the same. But I’m not going to blow smoke up anyone’s ****. If I don’t know, I’ll tell you I don’t know. However, if you think about measuring repeatable measurements compared to people just trying to listen in different environments with different pickups and bridges, there’s just no comparison. We’re talking about getting down to the root level of how this piece of wood is vibrating. It doesn’t matter if it was cut down 20 years ago or 400 years ago. If those two pieces of wood vibrate the same then they’re going to sound the same.
My hunch is that we are going to be able to selectively bombard it with frequencies to make certain frequencies come out. For example, if I find a dip at a certain frequency where its not resonating or sustaining I am pretty convinced that I can bombard it with that frequency and make it have a better response, if not correct it. It kinda throws a funny offset into it because if this is true and it really works this way then you’re basically saying that if someone has been playing the guitar badly, or one way, for twenty years, would this influence the way that piece of wood vibrates and there’s a good chance it might. If there’s molecular reasons why, in a cellular level of the wood, this might be the case it really just has to do with it loosening up at certain frequencies. It’s kind of like breaking in a speaker. We all know that you break in a speaker and it will sound very different.
There’s still a lot more to it [the electric guitar] than most people think. I’ve seen guitars, not necessarily my own, that customers would want to put pickups into and they don’t like the way something sounds and I can try everything in the world but if that guitar just doesn’t ring properly its never going to sound good."
I find it very difficult to know how much to read into these sort of things as to are they innovation and proper research or how much is just marketing BS. For example, I found it fascinating that we are told that having chambered "solid"guitar bodies is suddenly great for improving tone at exactly the time that wood of the right quality and lower density stopped becoming easily available - or is it just to reduce weight to reasonable levels? 
I also have heard that Gibson have reverted to the longer neck "tenon" on Les Pauls and are extolling the benefits of this after a good few years of assuring us all that the shorter ones they were using then were fine.
) After sawing i have to sand it from 8mm down to 7mm. I use a band sander-machine upside down mounted on a construction. I pull the comb under a press-roll. And when the wood hit the high speed running band it give a sound just like twisted your finger over a whet crystal wineglass. I tried maple an a couple of other pieces of wood at the same pressure. They all sound different heights. ( shaped it all the same of course) I have learned to recognize what kind of wood make a fine sound as instrument. The wooden cover plates all so make a different sound Much warmer Not as bright as metal ones. I like to know more of that phenomenon So i search on the net and i found the information of Chladni patterns .