Provided the wood does not respond like the proverbial “piece of wet cardboard”, most luthiers can create a respectable instrument from available timber.
And tbh with enough EQ and compression before the amp I probably can get metal out of a piece of wet cardboard.
From the conclusion of the paper:
Specific woods types have specific attributes that make them best suited for making particular guitar components.
…
However, the street lore attributing specific types of sound to specific species of a genus is seldom justified.
…
Guitars designed to acoustical criteria (rather than dimensional criteria) where the effects of different stiffnesses and densities of species are minimised, sound very similar.
…
The residual differences that can be heard may be attributable to the sound spectral absorption and radiation of the particular piece of wood used, a property that is not easily measured and is poorly substituted by the occasional measurement of the damping characteristics of the wood. Once the density and Young’s modulus of particular species is accounted for by careful acoustical design the residual differences are very subtle, yet can be important enough to ensure that some luthiers continue the romantic search for that “holy grail” of woods.
I believe that some of this discussion should apply to electric guitar. However, unless you are playing basically perfectly clean electric guitar, the wood your guitar is made of is a lot less important than… everything else in the signal chain. However, since wood does affect the guitar’s sensitivity, I could see it affecting how it responds to classic amps with low (relative to modern amps) distortion generated by few gain stages and less filtering, i.e. the playstyle employed by those guitar forum people. However, a much larger factor in your guitar’s sound is…big surprise…all the other choices the luthier made when designing and fabricating your guitar, as well as your pickups and the signal chain you use after the signal leaves the guitar.
Also since we’re metal players and we’re absolutely destroying the original signal, the type of wood only makes a difference for structural reasons (i.e., not going out of tune, exploding under the pressure, etc.), which can similarly be accounted for by a competent luthier. For example, all of my guitars are uber-cheap, and their necks can be very easily pulled out of tune, because they were not built by competent luthiers. Consequently, the few times I did play live shows, I had to be very careful on stage to not “do stuff my guitar doesn’t like” so it didn’t go out of tune by the end of the song. Good times…
Creambacks
So I found a video where Creambacks get compared to a V30. IMO based on that video and forum posts, I would consider a Creamback H-75 over the H-65 or the Neo. H-65 sounded too dark to stand out in a mix, and the Neo sounded like bees and basically nothing like the other two. (If my guitar sounds like bees, I want it to be an effect I can turn off.) However, take it with a grain of salt since mic positions were not the same for each speaker. But also, it depends on your primary use case (recording, bedroom play, playing shows).
Although honestly, I think 99% of guitar players would get a lot farther investing in a PC with a decent CPU + a decent USB audio interface than buying actual physical amplifiers unless they need to amplify an actual venue [1]. You’d get better sound, more controllable sounds [2], easier recording, and more possibilities by going digital. Also, if you can send guitar into your computer (or run the Effects Send to your interface to test it with your real amp), it would be cheaper to pick up an impulse response of the speaker before committing to buying one. (An impulse response captures the “character” of a speaker + cabinet + power amp assuming it is a linear system. It is a very good approximation, nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. For example, I recorded several IRs of my Vintage 30 and a couple other speakers in my cabinet.)
[1] Technically you need plugins and DAW software too, but you can 100% use a combination of stock plugins and freeware and get excellent results with practice. The Ardour DAW is free and open-source (but they do charge for pre-compiled Linux binaries, but Linux package managers typically have a version ready-to-go for free), although REAPER is better IMO (not simple, but extremely customizable and stable) and has an infinite, unlimited free trial (and runs on Linux).
[2] For example, the “clean” channel on the 6505 absolutely sucks, except (ironically) as a rhythm metal channel. If I needed to use both clean and distorted sounds, I would have to use a second amp and an A-B switch. In software, it is absolutely trivial to automate the switch between two (or more) amps (or effects, or whole signal chains). ReaGate, a freeware noise gate plugin that comes with REAPER but anyone can get, includes an adjustable pre-filter so that it only responds to the frequency ranges you expect your guitar to “live in”. It also has a side chain input, meaning you can gate the output signal based on the signal that goes in before the amplifier, like the “four-wire” noise gate setup in an amplifier’s FX loop. This setup means that the amplifiers won’t distort the signal as the gate transitions from on to off, and it also can take care of noise due solely to the distortion stages.