From my understanding pickups detect string vibrations (from strings that are obviously metal). I have read many times that different bodies\necks have different overtones that make them sound the way they do. I understand that sound travels through wood (based on my experiments) but when it comes to amplifying these "overtones" can anyone either explain, link or give me an idea how the pickups amplify the overtones. IT is my understanding that pickups detect strings (metal strings). I don't see how they detect overtones or vibrations in wood.

its always been my assumption, that whatever components that make up the body and neck and hardware on a bass ALLOW the string to vibrate with more (or less) overtones and/or fundamental. The electronics then pick up the affected string motion. I have no idea if this is correct or not, but it makes sense to me. :hmm:

You are absolutely correct.

so the body\neck affect the way the string vibrates and therefore the pickups detect and amplify that signal?


Interesting.

In a nutshell. Otherwise, you could make basses out of a 2"x4" and it would sound identical to a $5000 bass.

you could make basses out of a 2"x4" and it would sound identical to a $5000 bass.

Which would prove my father right. He once told me that the only thing that affects the price of an electric guitar (we can assume basses would be included) is how many pickups it has.

On the other hand, he couldn't hear the difference between nylon and steel string acoustic guitars either. :hmm:

In a nutshell. Otherwise, you could make basses out of a 2"x4" and it would sound identical to a $5000 bass.

If that 2x4 is a harder wood with no imperfections and all other factors (electronics, strings, frets, fingerboard) being equal I am betting you could make a good sounding 2x4 bass. :D

After all, most necks start out as dimensional lumber ...

I wouldn't recommend a stud from home depot though ... :eek:

In a nutshell. Otherwise, you could make basses out of a 2"x4" and it would sound identical to a $5000 bass.
Dude, that's genious. A 2x4 bass! Imagine the guy up on stage, a bass neck bolted onto a plank of maple or something? That would be awesome...

Dude, that's genious. A 2x4 bass! Imagine the guy up on stage, a bass neck bolted onto a plank of maple or something? That would be awesome...

Maybe I should build one!! Sure would save a lot of time not having to put in all those body countours!! :D

Maybe I should build one!! Sure would save a lot of time not having to put in all those body countours!! :D
Wow. All the possibilities. You could make it a little longer on the bottom end to balance against the neck... then you get into details... like a nail sticking haphazardly out of it...

EDIT: I saw a band whose guitarist had built a gascan guitar... so I've been working on "alternative" instruments ever since.

My only psuedo success is my infamous duct tape guitar... sigh... but the electronics failed and I didn't build in easy access. One of these days, I'll take an exacto knife to it and see what's going on...

In a local act "Too Slim & the Tail Draggers" the guitarist (Too Slim) uses a guitar made from a log. Sounds damn good too!! :D

http://www.cascadeblues.org/NWBlues/TooSlim/tooslim2.jpg

No neck dive on that one!

In a local act "Too Slim & the Tail Draggers" the guitarist (Too Slim) uses a guitar made from a log. Sounds damn good too!! :D

http://www.cascadeblues.org/NWBlues/TooSlim/tooslim2.jpg
That's AWESOME!

I'd love to see somebody build a washtub bass, only attach a bass neck to a shallow washtub...

Les Paul built one of his first guitars out of a piece of 2x4 didn't he? To prove a point about using solid bodied guitars instead of hollow bodied guitars to Gibson I think, but I'm not sure... Can anyone confirm this?

Les Paul built one of his first guitars out of a piece of 2x4 didn't he? To prove a point about using solid bodied guitars instead of hollow bodied guitars to Gibson I think, but I'm not sure... Can anyone confirm this?
As I recall, Les showed his original design to Epiphone, but they turned him down. So he took his desgin to Gibson. Now Gibson owns Epiphone. Nuff said.

FWIW:

In my limited experience the majority of the acoustic properties of a bass are in the neck/neck construction. I ran that by the luthiers forum and that was the concensus.

Still the body has a noticeable affect and that affect may be a signficant factor along the lines of (a clip from my preamp experiment intro)....But because adding even small amounts of high-order harmonics changes the ratio of harmonics—hence the timbre of the instrument—by a relatively large amount, they will be more audible... But I've switched several necks (one being from a thudder bass to a bright bass - the bodies of which also happen to be made from the same wood) and the tone blatantly followed the neck regardless of the body, but I wouldn't say it sounded exactly the same.

I'd heard Les Paul used a railroad tie. It was just a one string deal to experiment with magnetic pickups in my recall. Fender made a similar Plank bass (like a 2x10 with one of his necks attached) for experimenting with pickup location. Bo Diddley is known for one of the those box body guitars - still plays it to my knowledge (if he's still alive anyway). Don't know what it's made of.

It's my understanding the early Dan Electro's WERE made of 2x4s and that's why the synthetic covering was glued to the body. I think retail was like $50 with wholesale price of $25.

I love threads on body woods because in this day and age, so much emphasis (too much IMHO) on electronics is obscuring the real sound of the bass...the strings vibrating on wood.

I don't know if I totally agree with that neck/construction being the majority of the tone. I've heard so many basses of similar construction but different woods sound completely different. However, I will say I think most Fenders sound pretty close to each other no matter what kind of wood the body is, so there may be some merit to that argument.

I've also found that the shape of the bass has a tremendous amount of impact, with basses cut into more traditional rounded shapes sounding much better than pointy basses like Explorers, Rich's, and wood Steinbergers.

Re: Les Paul's "Log," it was actually a 6 string guitar built out of a railroad tie, the neck off an Epiphone hollowbody guitar, and the body halves of the Epiphone attached to the railroad tie for looks. I believe he originally wanted to demonstrate the anti-feedback properties of solid guitars more than the tone, so he just used what he had that he thought would work.

And as far as the 2x4 thing, it's been done. LaBaye Guitars were a tiny manufacturer that made guitars and basses out of 2x4's in the 70's, with Devo's lead guitarist Bob Mothersbaugh being their best known user. And Steinberger pretty much does it with their Spirit line of stick basses. And to me, they all sound like amplified 2x4's, though my Bradley Steinberger copy gets a pretty good 60's old school trash sound.

Groundloop, tell your father that the price of electronics can vary, but the main reason some guitars are more expensive than others is because of the wood used and the building methods. Some wood is cheap, and some wood is rare and extremely expensive. And some companies really go the extra mile with building methods, gluing layers of wood on top of others, special finishes, custom hardware, etc. Actually, the electronics are probably the most consistently priced parts on all basses. Sure, more pickups cost more, but those prices are somewhat fixed compared to wood and building methods.

I love threads on body woods ... but those prices are somewhat fixed compared to wood and building methods.

FWIW:

I've heard mention of pickups that "sound like the bass" but I've never ran across one that even came close to sounding like the acoustic tone of a bass yet - that's like 75 plus different pups so far. They definetly reflect the acoustic properties and there's no pup I've had that sounded the same no matter what bass I stuck them in - probably active EMG's are closest but even they definetly reflect the acoustic properties of the bass.

My initial experience with acoustic properties of a neck came from defretting what I thought was a disposable bass at the time. Loved the acoustic tone of the bass but unfortunately I didn't have a pup that would even come close to throwing that tone out.

I realized after the fact that it was the only acoustically bright bass I had and I missed playing it fretted. So I grabbed an "identical" bass that was a thudder that I really didn't play that much - to swap the fretted neck over to it. To my dismay, the thud went with the neck. Confused, I stuck the defretted neck onto the thudder body and - I had a bright fretless bass.

For some wierd reason within the same period of time I had occassion to swap necks on another identical pair of basses that were both acoustically midrange but noticeably different. Had the same experience swapping those necks.

I wish I'd had a frequency analyzer at the time. That would have quantified it. I'm amazed there's nothing posted on the net (at least when I went searching) to that effect. With all the engineers involved in music, you'd think someone would have done it.

Been too long to recall what I actually ran across on Les Paul's railroad tie thing. Can't even remember if I saw a pic. But no doubt, there was a progression in his experience.

As for price, supply and demand and profit margin, and the factors that go in with that. Something's only worth what it someone's willing to pay for it for whatever reason and what profit margin a maker is willing to work with. Volume sales obviously a major factor and computerized technology has advanced low end gear lightyears in terms of quality control. The exotic wood thing is definitely a major variable for cost there. Qaulity, availablility. Some of the wood's are protected now and not available legally. Quailty goes down as available decreases but demand remains.

Well luknfur, you're convincing me of the neck playing a bigger role in tone than I had originally thought. I never really thought about it before, but probably because I never changed necks like you did.

Well luknfur, you're convincing me of the neck playing a bigger role in tone than I had originally thought. I never really thought about it before, but probably because I never changed necks like you did.

That's just been my experience and until I run across a different one that's all I've got to go on first hand. Somebody elses experience may be different. I keep an eye on TB for such posts but guys apparently rarely swap necks, or post about it if they do.

Even my experience came about from a wierd series of events and nothing I would normally have done by choice or probably even extended myself for curiosities sake for that matter. If the two necks hadn't been so different combined with my anticipation they'd sound the same, it's possible I may not have noticed or been able to attribute so much to the neck. But this was like pup bridge position versus the same pup neck position. It wasn't subtle.

But I definitely look at something like buying a used neck (or body for that matter), bolt-on versus neckthrough/set neck, or having a custom bass built differently now. A bass that is up and running and complete that can be listened to before any cash commitment to me has a major edge - or one that can be returned without taking a hit of consequence.

I think the neck has a HUGE affect on the sound. Not only the neck construction, but also the neck's adjustment has an affect. I've had basses that sounded a bit "weak" (in "weak" I mean lacking character and overtones, i.e. "thin") and after a proper setup including a proper trussrod adjustment, the basses definitely become more "lively" and "richer" sounding. Depending on the instrument, the result may not be dramatic, but it is always there.

To me, different pickups generally affect the "EQ" of a bass more than anything, and they do affect the "attack" and "decay" (envelope) of the instrument as well.

Harmonic content is generally affected by the string choice, followed by pickup placement, fingering and the neck.

I'm a firm believer that many inexpensive basses can be made to sound and play quite good by paying attention to these factors. This is not to say that these can eclipse the big dogs in tone, but I definitely enjoy the challenge.

I think the neck has a HUGE affect on the sound. Not only the neck construction, but also the neck's adjustment has an affect. I've had basses that sounded a bit "weak" (in "weak" I mean lacking character and overtones, i.e. "thin") and after a proper setup including a proper trussrod adjustment, the basses definitely become more "lively" and "richer" sounding. Depending on the instrument, the result may not be dramatic, but it is always there.

To me, different pickups generally affect the "EQ" of a bass more than anything, and they do affect the "attack" and "decay" (envelope) of the instrument as well.

Harmonic content is generally affected by the string choice, followed by pickup placement, fingering and the neck.

I'm a firm believer that many inexpensive basses can be made to sound and play quite good by paying attention to these factors. This is not to say that these can eclipse the big dogs in tone, but I definitely enjoy the challenge.

Funny that you say that because I am really starting to question all of the answers I have gotten off of the forums regarding wood's relations to tone. Your amp can only amplify what the pickups can receive.

I believe it's based on whatever the magnetic pickup detects, string vibrations. Whatever affects string vibrations affect tone, depending on how sensitive the pickups are. The pickups are basically magnets. Magnets only react to metals. I don't see how they would pickup wood vibrations and even if they did, would it be STRONG enough to compete with the string vibrations in quest to be recognized by the pickups? it would then have to be such a power vibration that it makes the travel to the amp with little decay. When one string is plucked the other strings rattle if they aren't muted. You probably won't hear them when your are playing because their signals cannot compete with the signal of the note that is being picked. Maybe my theory is wrong but I'll see. Anyway I think Different types and brands of:

Pickups\electronics,
strings,
the right finger\pick attack,
and maybe even the bridge,
and the nut (for open strings)

are the main factors affecting tone.


I'm not sure about this theory but I am going to evaluate it further

...I'm not sure about this theory but I am going to evaluate it further

FWIW:

....But because adding even small amounts of high-order harmonics changes the ratio of harmonics—hence the timbre of the instrument—by a relatively large amount, they will be more audible...

In response to the PM and in my experience, this bares repeating. Little things can make a big difference.

In all the pups I've played (Lane Poor, Alembic, whatever), I haven't found what I'd call a killer tone in any of them and, like the Holy Grail, the existence is questionable. Instead of some pup that is a plateau above the rest what I've found is pups breaking down generally into like a spectrum of A B C D and F categories with a fine line seperating the categories. The "killer pup" is made up of subtle variations and edges that make a big difference and not some blatant in your face domination thing.

Any variable you throw into the mix besides pups (and there are tons of them) can alter not only the amplified tone but the order of a pups position in the hierarchy of quality pups - possibly even to extremes. In other words other variables all affect the pup tone. I have frequently experienced a pup going from choice to ordinary simply in switching one variable -a bass with different acoustic properties (the basses being virtually the same otherwise - woods, strings, etc.). Haven't had a great to sucks experience really but I could easily see it happening.

The Pup is the source of the signal so that's critical. Obvioulsy electronics can be major depending - especially passive like cap and wiring variations. The active stuff I've had (the Alembic filter excluded) all sounds basically the same to me but there's lot of stuff I haven't tried. How controls are set is probably more significant than the control available. Obvioulsy tenchnique is major. Haven't had enough experience with various strings to know but I've heard enough comments like didn't get the tone till I got the strings. With guys like John Pual Jones mixing flats and rounds I guess says something. The few nut and bridge swaps I've done have had no distinguishable impact on tone. But I only use TI JF334's, and with different strings/variables it may make a difference.

Although I've never had a pup that sounded like the bass does acoustically only louder, I've never had a pup that didn't reflect the acoustic properties of the bass. Crudely put, a given pup in a dark bass is going to sound darker and the same pup in a bright bass will sound brighter. Bartolini pup selection page addresses as much. As far as the bass itself goes, the major focus on tone for me is matching the right pups to the right bass. That may be in a complimentary, enhancing, or even contradictory mix depending.

Once you leave the bass you run into the same things with amps, cabs, effects, eq'ing, tubes maybe, etc.

Once you leave the entire rig you've got music style, other instruments, acoustics, etc.

All of which affect what the bass sounds like and whether those pups are worth a flip for given situation.

Thanks luknfur for a response that was based on experiece and trial\error. I do however have some questions based on the response you gave.

Based on your observations regarding the acoustic properties of a bass are there any absolutes?

Example:

Can I count on an Ash body, maple neck and fretboard to maintain some sort of tonal consistency given the construction is satisfactory? I see everyone say things such as "alder = neutral, mahoghany = wam, xxx = abc, xvf =plm, and so on... Even warmoth has tone associations for wood. I'm not saying that these associations are incorrect but I have also heard people mention that no 2 pieces of wood off the same tree are the same. Are they similar? Perhaps.... What about two trees of the same species that are 2 different sizes? Are both trees going to yield woods that are acoustically similar enough to categorize with same title, "warm", "bright", etc... I'm not asking you to answer this question because I'm sure you haven't done research that extensive\intensive but 9 times out of 10 or even 7 times out of 10, can I count on X-Wood to yield X-Tone?

(If so the argument is over. My only thing is that I know there are many more repeaters than bassists with actual experience who possess the knowledge and wisdom to accurately anaylze something as subjective as tone. )

Can I count on a certain set of pickups to consistently respond similarly in an acoustically bright bass, Warm bass, dark bass, etc...

If nothing is consistent, then the tone a bass yields is a complete mystery until it is completed.... I refuse to believe this. I refuse to believe that the resulting tone of an instrument that took weeks and maybe even months to construct is a complete mystery. That leads me to believe that given the materials and quality of construction, every bass built possesses or has the potential to possess a certain appeal if you are able to mate it with the right electronics. The only problem with this.... I know that 9 out of 10 luthiers, whether they are "boutique" or not, do not wind individual pickups and pickup sets to one particular bass.

Thanks for your time. I'm sure I had more to say but its getting late and I' m way too sleepy

.... I refuse to believe this.

FWIW:

I'm not a luthier and can't say first hand on the woods. I've read the same stuff everyone else has. What I do know is I've got 5 basses that are essentially identical in terms of woods, construction, design, etc. - and they range from a thumper to a bright bass and none of them sound exactly alike. The one bass I've got that's different clearly sounds more like some of the 5 than they do each other.

Current pups are very controlled in construction and, although there may be distinguishable differences between the same model pup, it's pretty close at worse if you can tell any difference at all, except maybe scatterwound. Basses are more like different models of pups. You can take identical models of a bass with the same strings and aside from brightness, comparatively, acoustically some will have more sustain, some will have a melodic quality to tone, some will sound dull, some may be very close and it's splitting hairs. None of my basses sound alike and a given pup will sound more to my liking in one than another, including 3 midrange basses I play regularly. The bright and thumper are blatantly different and they really take different pups than the midrange basses. In part why I have 5 of the same basses. They only look alike.

My guess would be a skilled luthier should be able to produce an instrument that would fall within a broad range of predictability - like dark, bright, midrange. Seems luthiers thump a wood slab like a melon and if you've thumped enough wood and built enough instruments, you probably have some idea using tricks of the trade. But if there's a luthier on the planet that you can take a bass into, tell him to build you a bass that sounds like that one acoustically, and he can do it so you can't tell the difference, I haven't heard of him.

There are luthiers that wind their own pups. Jim Cairnes in England has and Davidravenmoon here on talkbass in the luthiers forum does. I assume most don't for the same reason Eminence makes Aggie, Berg, and Epi speakers. To me it seems electronics, pups, strings, etc. are in essence a way of compensating for control lacking in bass construction. Bass is too bright increase the cap value, too dark put a bright pup in, whatever. In short, a luthier that knows what he's doing (or has people working with/for him who do) can probably get you where you want to go one way or another.

Mass produced instruments don't recieve that kind of attention so it stands to reason results tonewise should vary significantly more.

----------------------
I'd be careful about refusing to believe anything one way or another though. The old lady may really be ............

FWIW:

recurring threads have their downside but on the other hand periodically thoughts about the thread linger indicating continued processing. Sometimes it's a matter of just refreshing the memory while other times it's continued thought on unresolved issues. So some continued thoughts on this one.

My Alembic stuff happens to be in the thumper bass at the moment. Just soloing the bass the tone is clearly unique - at least through portions of the tone filter spectrum. I'll never have the opportunity to check it out so have no way of knowing but I'd lay money that if someone swapped the pups and guts from an Alembic into an MIM Fender (whatever) and visa versa; blind-folded a group of Alembic players; played both basses for them; that the Alembic players would choose the Fender as being the Alembic and visa versa. I chose Alembic here cause it's a clearly distinctive tone in my experience and it's what I've been dinking with lately.

I pulled up the Alembic site for whatever reason and ran across their weight approximations on their basses and recalled calling Carvin for an estimate on a bass weight and recieving the info that it depended on the slab of mahogany used for the body - could vary at least a pound (don't recall the exact quote). If there's any association between tone and weight in wood that tells you something.

To be honest, I was giving competent luthiers the benefit of the doubt in previous speculation. I'm not a luthier and don't know their craft. Fact is at this point, my experience is the acoustic tone is overwhelmingly in the neck and I really don't see any way of controlling that with any accuracy of significance. So to me having a bass built would be a crapshoot to the degree acoustic tone is of consequence in amplified tone, at least till I run across a different experience.

So far I've stuck my Alembic pup/pre in 3 different basses and they all sounded different but distinctly Alembic-like tonewise. Unfortunately the tone sucked in the one bass I planned on them residing in. Had a harsh treble tone that was unacceptable through a major portion of the Alembic control. I played that bass for a year with Bart PJ's and a Bart TCT 3 band preamp and it was toastie. But Barts typically have a muted top end while the Alembic control accentuates the top end.

Clearly Alembic has some basses that upon completion are tonal standouts above others, and some at the other end of the spectrum as well. But you get what you paid for - having an Alembic bass built. Either way it will sound like an Alembic.

An interesting clip off the Alembic site:

...32 years ago, we had this great idea: sell folks a big bunch of wood, parts and instructions to make their own guitar. We thought the idea was so great, we made 30 kits. Only 3 of them ever sold and we only know of one person that ever made their Kit (it was a bass). Ever since then, we've been moving that pile of wood around from shop to shop. Some of the bodies were used for fixtures and prototypes, and for a while, we forgot about those old kit guitars.

Last year, we found 9 of these Koa bodies in a dusty corner and decided to finish building the kits ourselves...

Some interesting stuff here.