Bass Woods

[jobo4]

Yes JG. I get what you are saying, but my question is is the difference in tone meaningful? In other words, is it discernable to the average human ear?

[awilkie84]

Originally Posted by uOpt

There is no question that the wood has a major impact on sound.

However, AAA figured anything doesn't mean it sounds better, and neither do the exotic woods. The fancy constructions with laminated neck-through are certainly a bit more likely to avoid dead spots and let even low Bs (on 5-strings) ring completely clear, but whether that sounds "better" is a different matter.

Whether the big manufacturers have the ability to pre-judge wood pieces and keep the good ones for the MIA instruments is a matter of debate, too. More likely they go by weight. Fender MIA standard certainly doesn't go by looks (cough).

Seeing as wood has no magnetic properties to influence the vibrations of the string, how can it influence the sound of an electric pickup? An acoustic sound? Sure...but I call foul on the electric.

[Beej]

wow, this one is a really unique thread this time! Lots of pseudo-science and a nearly mystical form of explanation of what's going on. Funny that we get two of these threads here in the same day.

James Goodall, you really need to read the thread about does paint affect tone. I'm not going to repeat everything in there, but hopefully, if you are a man of science, you can start to understand...

[JamesGoodall]

Originally Posted by jobo4

Yes JG. I get what you are saying, but my question is is the difference in tone meaningful? In other words, is it discernable to the average human ear?

That is the experiment I referenced. If I knew some woodworker near me with a CNC router and had about 2K to spare I would definitely test the theory with actual controls and such. Until then, I honestly cant say whether or not it is a big difference. Especially after an onboard preamp, your amp, and whatever else you have. I'm confident I have enough processing in my signal chain that even if wood made up 100% of a basses inherent tone, it wouldn't matter.

Originally Posted by awilkie84

Seeing as wood has no magnetic properties to influence the vibrations of the string, how can it influence the sound of an electric pickup? An acoustic sound? Sure...but I call foul on the electric.

Please reread my last post as it details just that.

Originally Posted by Beej

wow, this one is a really unique thread this time! Lots of pseudo-science and a nearly mystical form of explanation of what's going on. Funny that we get two of these threads here in the same day.

James Goodall, you really need to read the thread about does paint affect tone. I'm not going to repeat everything in there, but hopefully, if you are a man of science, you can start to understand...

Beej, I started reading it a little bit when it first came up. I really need to go through it again as see it's taken off since then, always being on the home page and what not!

[Beej]

Originally Posted by JamesGoodall

That is the experiment I referenced. If I knew some woodworker near me with a CNC router and had about 2K to spare I would definitely test the theory with actual controls and such. Until then, I honestly cant say whether or not it is a big difference. Especially after an onboard preamp, your amp, and whatever else you have. I'm confident I have enough processing in my signal chain that even if wood made up 100% of a basses inherent tone, it wouldn't matter.

The problem is you would not be able to introduce enough control to accurately and definitively account for variability in the system. My responses in the other thread explain that better. I'm also aware that we are probably on the same page, but details separate things sometimes...

[JamesGoodall]

Originally Posted by Beej

The problem is you would not be able to introduce enough control to accurately and definitively account for variability in the system. My responses in the other thread explain that better. I'm also aware that we are probably on the same page, but details separate things sometimes...

I'm on page 3 now. I enjoyed your Socrates reference
From what I can tell so far,yes we are on the same page in that yes, wood affects tone, but so does EVERYTHING and to fall down in unabashed worship of one factor as supreme variable in control of all tone is silly. It would be very hard if not impossible to test and determine all of these in a controlled way that could give empirical evidence pointing one way or another.

Also, after reading your posts on the last "tone-paint" thread, I must say, your articulation and fair and unbiased responses have earned my respect.

[pilotjones]

Originally Posted by Musiclogic

:banghead::screwy::beer:

BEER! Thank you! I just remembered I pretty much avoided carbs all day, so it's reward time!

[uOpt]

Originally Posted by Hopkins

What proof do you have that the body woods of any solid body electric instruments actually have an effect on sound.

Is this a trick question?

I have exchanged bodies (or body+neck if it's set neck) numerous times. I always test new guitars coming in with the exact same pickups (APH1b and JazzN) and the electronics are always what is in my test harness.

I can even show you frequency curves of by two Burny Les Pauls that are practically identical in construction, materials and dimensions with the black one having a lot more treble and bass than the sunburst.

I apologize that this isn't as easy to do with basses because the &&*#*&# pickups don't fit.

[uOpt]

Originally Posted by Hopkins

I don't believe that an instruments body wood has much if any effect on the over all tone of an instrument. I do believe that the neck and fingerboard do have a small influence on the overall tone.

You ask the sonic difference between a $700, $1200, $5000 and $12,000 bass, but then you ask that we disregard electronics and hardware, but the biggest difference between the sound of any solid body electric instruments are the electronics and strings.

The true difference in the price point between any instruments are the, craftsmanship, hardware, electronics and wood selection, which is mostly aesthetic. But we all know aesthetics are probably the biggest selling point.

Your mistake is still thinking that the more expensive bass has better sounding wood. It probably (not necessarily) has more expensive wood but that doesn't make it better sounding wood.

You also lost me on "electronics and strings". You can't seriously say that strings make nearly as much difference as making radical changes to the pickups (e.g. go from a awg42 PAF to a awg44 JB).

[jobo4]

Originally Posted by uOpt

Is this a trick question?

I have exchanged bodies (or body+neck if it's set neck) numerous times. I always test new guitars coming in with the exact same pickups (APH1b and JazzN) and the electronics are always what is in my test harness.

I can even show you frequency curves of by two Burny Les Pauls that are practically identical in construction, materials and dimensions with the black on having a lot more treble and bass than the sunburst.

I apologize that this isn't as easy to do with basses because the &&*#*&# pickups don't fit.

I've been reading these threads too long. I can honestly not tell if the quoted text is sarcasm or not. Time for bed.

[Musiclogic]

Originally Posted by pilotjones

BEER! Thank you! I just remembered I pretty much avoided carbs all day, so it's reward time!

1 Kirn'r Pils for the young man from New York!!!:beer:

[Rockin Mike]

Sorry to repeat, but this probably belongs here more so than the paint thread.

If, and I mean if, wood, or paint, or bridge material, or any other non-electric component has an influence on tone it's because of the part of the vibration that is removed from the string and goes elsewhere in the instrument. When you pluck it, you can feel slight vibration in the neck and body. That energy came from the string so it didn't affect the magnetic field.
Or, the vibration of the body causes the pickup and therefore the magnetic field to vibrate under the string.

Those effects may be so small they're negligible, or maybe not. All I'm saying is there is a reasonable basis to think there might be some effect.

Two basses of the same design made of the same wood, electronics and strings can still sound different because no two pieces of wood are alike, and no human player can strike the strings exactly the same way twice. The only scientific way to measure the effect of non-electronic components is to have a number of basses of each type, played by a machine, and listened to by a large number of musicians and non-musicians in a double-blind study with controls, then to have the same experiment repeated by another researcher and seeing the same results.

I would love to see that done, but you know, I just don't have the time or money on a Saturday afternoon.

[uOpt]

Awww come on.

All you have to do is buy a used Squier Bullet or similar body for whatever your current Fender style bass and have a nice evening moving screws and pickups. Then you'll know. You should record it but any computer or phone will do.

I think this thread has a bunch of people pulling our legs.

[Rockin Mike]

Originally Posted by uOpt

Awww come on.

All you have to do is buy a used Squier Bullet or similar body for whatever your current Fender style bass and have a nice evening moving screws and pickups. Then you'll know. You should record it but any computer or phone will do.

I think this thread has a bunch of people pulling our legs.

That might suggest that two basses sound different.
You also need to show that two basses of identical construction sound the same.

[uOpt]

Originally Posted by Rockin Mike

You also need to show that two basses of identical construction sound the same.

Look, pal, I don't need to do anything.

Not that I even understand what you are trying to say here. The whole point is that they might sound close enough so that you cannot tell but often they do not.

[rintintin]

Originally Posted by JamesGoodall

I was hoping someone else would chime in. I wasn't feeling all the typing, but I have coffee now, so here we go!

Think about acoustics. The was sound waves vibrate and the things that affect those vibrations. Such as density. You tap your knuckle on a high density object and you get more of a resonant tapping sound, whereas when you do it on a low-density object you get a deep resonant thump. Then there are all the thousands of shades in between.

When you pluck a string, It obviously vibrates. Where and how you pluck that string affect the timbre of that note as it resonates between the bridge and the nut. But that isn't the only thing vibrating, is it? You feel the body against yours vibrating, dissipating that energy of the vibrating string. Some into your body where it is absorbed, and some back onto that plucked string and the surrounding strings. This is where the body woods come into play.

The lighter, lower density woods resonate with lower frequencies (fundamental/harmonics), reinforcing those back onto the vibrating string instead of the higher frequencies. The opposite with Maple or Ebony, who do as such with the higher frequencies, giving those woods their fabled "brighter" sound. It has a similar effect as where you pluck the string in the harmonics that are pronounced. Near the bridge you are reinforcing the higher harmonics made up of shorter divisions of the string, thus your first and second harmonics are not as present and your note has an overall "brighter" sound. Then, If you were to pluck over the 19-22nd fret (a sound I love) you reinforce the harmonics made up of longer divisions of the string. Predominantly the second harmonic, as frets 19-22 are around 1/4 of the way between the bridge and the nut, at the center of the peak of the wave of the string at the second harmonic.

The woods you choose affect which harmonics resonate more powerfully in the same way that the space on the string at which you pluck does, but where we pluck is much more controllable, the same with pickup placement.

Based on all this, we can infer (know) that woods do in fact affect the tone of an instrument based on the density of said wood. The only issue with this is we cannot control the density of the wood we pick and use, but only make broad generalizations that are true to a certain degree, such as I stated before: Mahogany=warm & Maple=bright.

I have an experiment to test all this, but it is costly, and I don't have the supplies to do it I hope this helped you to understand my reasoning and point of view though

Carry on!

So the density of the wood then determines how the said frequencies resonate back onto the vibrating string. However this does not explain the initial question - premium woods be it exotic or otherwise, would sound better than a bass made with lesser grade wood.

If for argument sake it is accepted that all woods resonate ? frequencies back onto the vibrating string, would it be correct to say that some woods resonate said frequencies far better than others. Do some woods resonate said frequencies longer, do they resonate much cleaner than others. Do some woods resonate better when the strings are vibrating throughout the entire length of a song.

Are woods such as Alder, Maple, Mahogany, Rosewood excellent choice woods, and would an exotic or highly sought after wood add that much more to overall sound. Obviously hardware selection also plays a huge part, but if looking a woods alone and nothing else, is the extra dollars in exotic, rare, highly sought or premium, worth the extra dollars at the end of the day.

Do note: I do not consider Alder, Maple, Mahogany and Rosewood lesser grade woods.


cheers

[awilkie84]

Originally Posted by JamesGoodall

I was hoping someone else would chime in. I wasn't feeling all the typing, but I have coffee now, so here we go!

Think about acoustics. The was sound waves vibrate and the things that affect those vibrations. Such as density. You tap your knuckle on a high density object and you get more of a resonant tapping sound, whereas when you do it on a low-density object you get a deep resonant thump. Then there are all the thousands of shades in between.

When you pluck a string, It obviously vibrates. Where and how you pluck that string affect the timbre of that note as it resonates between the bridge and the nut. But that isn't the only thing vibrating, is it? You feel the body against yours vibrating, dissipating that energy of the vibrating string. Some into your body where it is absorbed, and some back onto that plucked string and the surrounding strings. This is where the body woods come into play.

The lighter, lower density woods resonate with lower frequencies (fundamental/harmonics), reinforcing those back onto the vibrating string instead of the higher frequencies. The opposite with Maple or Ebony, who do as such with the higher frequencies, giving those woods their fabled "brighter" sound. It has a similar effect as where you pluck the string in the harmonics that are pronounced. Near the bridge you are reinforcing the higher harmonics made up of shorter divisions of the string, thus your first and second harmonics are not as present and your note has an overall "brighter" sound. Then, If you were to pluck over the 19-22nd fret (a sound I love) you reinforce the harmonics made up of longer divisions of the string. Predominantly the second harmonic, as frets 19-22 are around 1/4 of the way between the bridge and the nut, at the center of the peak of the wave of the string at the second harmonic.

The woods you choose affect which harmonics resonate more powerfully in the same way that the space on the string at which you pluck does, but where we pluck is much more controllable, the same with pickup placement.

Based on all this, we can infer (know) that woods do in fact affect the tone of an instrument based on the density of said wood. The only issue with this is we cannot control the density of the wood we pick and use, but only make broad generalizations that are true to a certain degree, such as I stated before: Mahogany=warm & Maple=bright.

I have an experiment to test all this, but it is costly, and I don't have the supplies to do it I hope this helped you to understand my reasoning and point of view though

Carry on!

This is great for acoustics...but it doesn't affect magnetic coil pickups, as they don't care what kind of wood you have. Proof in point, my EMG-HZ passive pickups sound the same in my Alder bodied Spector ReBop 5DXL and my Maple bodied Spector NS-2000/5.

[JimiLL]

this is so beat to death it makes me wanna puke

[Rockin Mike]

Originally Posted by uOpt

Look, pal, I don't need to do anything.

Not that I even understand what you are trying to say here. The whole point is that they might sound close enough so that you cannot tell but often they do not.

Don't be offended. I'm just saying you need more than two basses to have any useful data, logically.

[Rockin Mike]

Originally Posted by rintintin

So the density of the wood then determines how the said frequencies resonate back onto the vibrating string. However this does not explain the initial question - premium woods be it exotic or otherwise, would sound better than a bass made with lesser grade wood.

If for argument sake it is accepted that all woods resonate ? frequencies back onto the vibrating string, would it be correct to say that some woods resonate said frequencies far better than others. Do some woods resonate said frequencies longer, do they resonate much cleaner than others. Do some woods resonate better when the strings are vibrating throughout the entire length of a song.

Are woods such as Alder, Maple, Mahogany, Rosewood excellent choice woods, and would an exotic or highly sought after wood add that much more to overall sound. Obviously hardware selection also plays a huge part, but if looking a woods alone and nothing else, is the extra dollars in exotic, rare, highly sought or premium, worth the extra dollars at the end of the day.

Do note: I do not consider Alder, Maple, Mahogany and Rosewood lesser grade woods.


cheers

I think most people choose premium woods for their appearance, prestige and resale value. At least, those are important factors other than sound.