What kinds of sounds do different woods produce?
ans what is the difference between a bright and warm tone?(sound clips plz!)

Here we go again...

This isn't really quantifiable, as even among poeces of wood from the same tree you will hear different things, and someone else will head yet *another* thing, that you don't hear...

I mean in generality, not spcifics.

In other words you will get as many opinions on the sound of wood as wood species itself, from no difference to huge difference. There are no rules, and there are also many that just go by looks.
:)
Good Luck,
Dirk

Well, I can only speak to building about 250 basses for Gibson. I'll use the "Killer B" as an example because of the 2-3 piece bodies. We used Mohogany, Bubinga, Swamp Ash, Walnut and 2-3 Maple bodied basses with Maple purple heart or Maple bubinga necks. Mostly wenge fingerboards. Among the four main body woods I could tell a big difference in the tone. The best advise I got on this matter was from a luthier who told me to hold up the piece of wood I wanted to make a guitar out of and hit it so it could vibrate and listen for the resonate frequencies. Drum makers do this with thier shells to "match" toms. It sort-of works for guitars but there are TOO many other things involved. Like the time I was speaking to Adrian Legg about his Ovation guitars and something about the "number of grains" in the board had to be within a certain varible...too strange for me. Like Dirk said," Good Luck"

since we aren't building acoustic instruments here ... build it for looks first and weight second

your pickups will generally have a larger impact than the body wood(s), your playing techniques will have a larger impact than the amp you use, and your speaker cabinets will have a larger impact than your string preference

it's all a small piece of a significantly larger picture in a world where marketing hype dominates the buzz

all the best,

R

I have the impression that the heavier the wood is the heaviver the bass sounds...true?

your speaker cabinets will have a larger impact than your string preference

This one I have to disagree with. :) I would put them about even. But there are certainly as many opinions on this subject as there are humans that play instruments.

I have the impression that the heavier the wood is the heaviver the bass sounds...true?

Define what sounds "heavy"... ;)

I have the impression that the heavier the wood is the heaviver the bass sounds...true?

But what does it mean to sound "heavy"?

edit: SDB beat me to it.

But what does it mean to sound "heavy"?

edit: SDB beat me to it.

<playing the theme from "Rocky" and jumping around>

WOOOOO! Yeah! I finally got my post in *ahead* of somebody else!

Bah!! Look at Claypool's "Rainbow" bass. It doesn't matter, I'm changing my response.:ninja:

2 words:

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/8981/midhumpth8.jpg

But what does it mean to sound "heavy"?



Deep bottom end.

but if that "deep bottom end" is clear and articulate, would it not instead be described as having a robust, well filled bottom?

having a heavy bottom instills a sense of preamp clipping and square waves due to the pickups being too close to the strings, and a biting mid-hump that requires significant tone shaping intervention at the amplifier or mixing console


"heavy" is also in opposition to being "musical" just like weighty is in opposition to lyrical


all the best,

R

i'd say the neck and fingerboard has more to do with it than the body (especially on a neck through).

i'd say the neck and fingerboard has more to do with it than the body (especially on a neck through).

curious what kind of unbiased blind taste test leads you to these conclusions ... could you explain?

I ask because loads of people have "religious" type leanings about things like this, but very few stand the test and are upheld beyond the realm of personal belief and blind faith lead hearing



but in consideration to past arguing on this topic within this forum and others, it's probably best to keep your answer as an introspection for self revelation rather than to write a reply and stoke the flames that these kind of threads usually go down in

all the best,

R

but if that "deep bottom end" is clear and articulate, would it not instead be described as having a robust, well filled bottom?

having a heavy bottom instills a sense of preamp clipping and square waves due to the pickups being too close to the strings, and a biting mid-hump that requires significant tone shaping intervention at the amplifier or mixing console


"heavy" is also in opposition to being "musical" just like weighty is in opposition to lyrical


all the best,

R

Well, heavy sounds ok to me. But I will elaborate.
I have the feeling that the more dense the wood is, the more clear, articulate and robust the bottom end will be. Does it have some true to it? I am talking about all passive basses here.

there are too many other factors involved in a solidbody instrument to say such a thing.

I can build an 2-piece Ash body with Maple/Maple bolt-on neck and Sadowsky J/J pickups ... and it won't sound exactly like a Sadowsky.

yet how can this be if I use all of the same woods, electronics, hardware, glues, finishes, construction methods, etc ...?

all the best,

R

there are too many other factors involved in a solidbody instrument to say such a thing.

I can build an 2-piece Ash body with Maple/Maple bolt-on neck and Sadowsky J/J pickups ... and it won't sound exactly like a Sadowsky.

yet how can this be if I use all of the same woods, electronics, hardware, glues, finishes, construction methods, etc ...?

all the best,

R

I see. So what is basically the thing that affects more the low end?

the single biggest and definable thing that impacts the low end is -


* on an active bass - the bass boost on your pre-amp

* on a passive and/or active bass - the bass boost on your amplifier's tone controls (if it is equipped with boosting capability)


outside of these two things, there is no solidly foundational rule that can be guaranteed. everything beyond active tone shaping eq is subjective


all the best,

R

Bah!! Look at Claypool's "Rainbow" bass. It doesn't matter, I'm changing my response.:ninja:

Yeah totally agree, I just don't believe that there is a recipe for sound. Many times, people have tried to copy instruments down to the last detail, and they sound nothing alike. Just pick the wood that you want to use and use it. If you know of an instrument that sounds good to you, you can start with that type of wood.

I think you could go crazy trying to predict what an instrument is going to sound like just by the species of wood used. There are just SO many other things that affect it in unpredictable ways.

Then, there's the whole thing about trying to describe the sound.

there are too many other factors involved in a solidbody instrument to say such a thing.

I can build an 2-piece Ash body with Maple/Maple bolt-on neck and Sadowsky J/J pickups ... and it won't sound exactly like a Sadowsky.

yet how can this be if I use all of the same woods, electronics, hardware, glues, finishes, construction methods, etc ...?

all the best,

R

Did u tryed that and have proof of that?

I believe that most everything on an instrument has, at least, a small part in tone shaping on an instrument. Although I do conceide that PU's and electronics play the largest roll in tone shaping, I still believe that the wood plays a very large part.

the single biggest and definable thing that impacts the low end is -


* on an active bass - the bass boost on your pre-amp

* on a passive and/or active bass - the bass boost on your amplifier's tone controls (if it is equipped with boosting capability)


outside of these two things, there is no solidly foundational rule that can be guaranteed. everything beyond active tone shaping eq is subjective


all the best,

R

OK, I get it...experiments are needed, no guarantees.

Did u tryed that and have proof of that?

I actually did build one, and it didn't sound like a Sadowsky.

On the other hand, I have also built a 3-piece Alder body with Spalt Maple top and a Maple/Pau Ferro bolt-on neck, Aero pickups, 18v OBP-1 preamp with passive tone and it is near impossible to discern (so I am told by the studio artist who has been using it in sessions) on tape (solo and/or in the mix) from a Ash Maple/Maple Sadowsky NYC



two "near identical" sound significantly different, yet two very different basses sound almost identical. if the wood selection is the pinnacle in predictable tonality - how can this be?

all the best,

R

p.s. here's my Sadowsky clone - totally easy to guess just by reviewing the materials list and looks ... not

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b253/Rodent65/Basses/VRBstyleModels/VRB06405JJ/VRB06404JJ_Front.jpghttp://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b253/Rodent65/Basses/VRBstyleModels/VRB06405JJ/VRB06404JJ_Back.jpg

curious what kind of unbiased blind taste test leads you to these conclusions ... could you explain?

I ask because loads of people have "religious" type leanings about things like this, but very few stand the test and are upheld beyond the realm of personal belief and blind faith lead hearing



but in consideration to past arguing on this topic within this forum and others, it's probably best to keep your answer as an introspection for self revelation rather than to write a reply and stoke the flames that these kind of threads usually go down in

all the best,

R

It makes sense to me that the neck would have more of an effect than the body, since it's going to absorb more of the string energy due to the fact that its stiffness is the force counteracting the string tension.

The body is secondary, and will only absorb and resonate to stray vibrations.

I would estimate, in general, that as long as you stay to materials of similar hardness and density, that the sound will be vaguely similar, but with a large degree of error due to differences between boards.

If you go with vastly different materials, you might expect a more significant change, especially in the neck.

But, most of the neck materials stable enough that you'd want to use them are going to be fairly similar. (If you made a pine neck it would probably sound a lot different, but it probably wouldn't keep its shape well either).

I'll admit though, these are just my predictions based on what I understand of the physics. I certainly haven't done any scientific testing.

I say just pick a wood that looks pretty, and meets the desired physical criteria for strength, hardness, and weight. A tiny tweak of your eq, or a change of pickups will make a difference which dwarfs any influence of the wood.

-Nick

I sat down with 2 MTD's, Both were ash and flame maple tops. The only difference was the fretboards, one was Maple and the other was RW. I used to say the same things until I played those 2 basses. (heck I had never even heard of MTD until I played those.) While it wasn't an AMAZING difference, it was discernible. But what do I know? I am no scientist.

So I guess it's just a "religious" thing... LOL.

Thinking that the color of that bass or the type of inlays change the tone of an instrument would be a laughable idea, and would compel me to burden someone with proof, as for the idea of woods making a difference... Not so much.

I sat down with 2 MTD's, Both were ash and flame maple tops. The only difference was the fretboards, one was Maple and the other was RW. I used to say the same things until I played those 2 basses. (heck I had never even heard of MTD until I played those.) While it wasn't an AMAZING difference, it was discernible. But what do I know? I am no scientist.

So I guess it's just a "religious" thing... LOL.

Thinking that the color of that bass or the type of inlays change the tone of an instrument would be a laughable idea, and would compel me to burden someone with proof, as for the idea of woods making a difference... Not so much.

Yeah, I would expect fretboard to make a small difference, though you might get as much difference if one of them had a slightly harder piece of maple for a neck or whatever. There's too many variables to know for sure, unless you have a huge sample of identical instruments of a few different wood configurations. 5 ash body maple neck, 5 ash body wenge neck, 5 mahogony body maple neck, etc. You really need at least a few just for a control to know that the difference you're hearing is due to the change in wood (on the fretboard in your example), and not just due to a difference in individual pieces of the same wood (like the neck wood), or even something else unrelated (different strength magnets, or number of windings on the pickups, a difference in the wrap density of the strings, etc).

I've never seen anyone try this with enough identical instruments to be able to make any specific conclusions.

-Nick

curious what kind of unbiased blind taste test leads you to these conclusions ... could you explain?

I ask because loads of people have "religious" type leanings about things like this, but very few stand the test and are upheld beyond the realm of personal belief and blind faith lead hearing



but in consideration to past arguing on this topic within this forum and others, it's probably best to keep your answer as an introspection for self revelation rather than to write a reply and stoke the flames that these kind of threads usually go down in

all the best,

R

i agree that it is not something worth worrying about much. i look for a timber that is the right stiffness/weight/look when choosing timbers.
i do think that neck timber have much more of an effect than the body because the way the timber effects the tone is how efficient it is at vibrating at different frequencies. seems to me that the tone is from ineficiencies at certain frequencies. a neck isnt going to be as stiff as a body, and it also extends along more of the scale length, so i'd suggest that there are more inefficiencies (frequencies that are dampened). how the neck is attached to the body also effects this a bit as well as how the bridge is attached and the tuners. my hypothesis is that the strings vibration starts the instrument itself vibrating (you can feel it). this energy going into making the instrument vibrate is not in the strings vibrating anymore.

having said that, the instrument itself has alot less to do with the sound that people let on. kind of like special capacitors that are meant to sound better in amps. yes there is probably a difference, but the difference will be so small, and there are many other ways to get such a small difference.

there are also differences within the species.

there was a sounds sample someone did on a guitar making website where he had people guess the body wood on a tele he had made (no photos). he took a regular tele neck and bolted it to this material. everyone was telling him it had some great tele twang to it, no bad comments. the material was mdf. 2 layers, one with a neck pocket cut out, the thing wasnt even glued, just some screws holding the 2 layers together. looked ugly as sin, but sounded as it should.

Yeah, I would expect fretboard to make a small difference, though you might get as much difference if one of them had a slightly harder piece of maple for a neck or whatever. There's too many variables to know for sure, unless you have a huge sample of identical instruments of a few different wood configurations. 5 ash body maple neck, 5 ash body wenge neck, 5 mahogony body maple neck, etc. You really need at least a few just for a control to know that the difference you're hearing is due to the change in wood (on the fretboard in your example), and not just due to a difference in individual pieces of the same wood (like the neck wood), or even something else unrelated (different strength magnets, or number of windings on the pickups, a difference in the wrap density of the strings, etc).

I've never seen anyone try this with enough identical instruments to be able to make any specific conclusions.

-Nick


I heard the same traits in a 535 that I bought shortly after with the same wood specs. I wanted to buy the maple FB one becuase it had the tone I was looking for, when I got my bass (I had to wait for it to be made) it had the same inherent tone that I was looking for based on the maple one I played.

On a side note: I wish I never sold that bass.

Here are MY thoughts on the sounds of different woods:

- thonk
- tap
- bonk
- clank
- snap
- crack (not that kind, crack is whack!)
- and the occasional boing-boing

- and the occasional boing-boing

now that I would like to hear

- and the occasional boing-boing

thats more to do with string tension :smug:

thats more to do with string tension :smug:

no, that's me hitting you over the head with a fingerboard blank to make you realize that all this non-sense is NOT what's important in your bass.

:hiding:

no, that's me hitting you over the head with a fingerboard blank to make you realize that all this non-sense is NOT what's important in your bass.

:hiding:

dont worry, i got your meaning - hence the :smug:

i probably should have used a ;)

(would hit you back but im waiting for my fingerboard to be delivered... this will have to do: :spit:)