Does paint make difference in tone?

[ctmullins]

Originally Posted by kander

I have two Precisions: a 1975 (nitro, sunburst) and a 2008 (poly, black), both with maple fingerboards.

I hear a noticeable difference with these two unplugged. The 1975 just sounds fuller, richer, and better in every way.

And that couldn't possibly be due to the nut, bridge, strings, mass, grain density, grain orientation, ...

[JIO]

Originally Posted by Emibass

you could make a blind test with sound clips. Just record a clip with the bass in its normal state than record the second after sanding out all the paint. It could be very informative to all talkbass.

funny but it might be the only way one would ever know ~ could be something someone could test (for fun) if they were stripping a bass to refinish.

[killer]

Originally Posted by Emibass

you could make a blind test with sound clips. Just record a clip with the bass in its normal state than record the second after sanding out all the paint. It could be very informative to all talkbass.

I will.
I starting to hate my jazz sunburst even if it has a monster sound.
so I decide that i wanna repaint it in yellow or whatever u like but with nitro finish.
Nitro ah? Tiny and very different than poly.
SO THAT's WHY I STARTED THIS TREAD.
But as I can se there are so many luthiers here , so I'm in they're hands.
Which colors do you prefers?

[Hopkins]

Originally Posted by killer

I will.
I starting to hate my jazz sunburst even if it has a monster sound.
so I decide that i wanna repaint it in yellow or whatever u like but with nitro finish.
Nitro ah? Tiny and very different than poly.
SO THAT's WHY I STARTED THIS TREAD.
But as I can se there are so many luthiers here , so I'm in they're hands.
Which colors do you prefers?

The answer to your original question, combined with the fact that you are wanting to refinish your bass is, the tone may change slightly.

Not because of going from poly to nitro, its because after disassembling the bass to paint it, it is very possible that the pickup height will differ slightly, or the action will be slightly different. So it may sound slightly different but the paint will not be the reason.

As to what color you want to paint it, that's totally up to you.

[Nomadskills]

Originally Posted by baba

Yellow and black Strypes.

LOL 80's hair bands FTW

[Smilodon]

Will paint affect tone? Yes
Will you notice? Most likely not.

I like to think that the further away from the strings you get (mechanically) the less that thing affect tone. In that case the material of the pickup screws have bigger impact on tone. (The day I see people arguing that A2 stainless screws give better tone over normal 5.4 steel screws we really can conclude that the world have gone mad. )

I think strings, pickups and settings will much more affect (and compensate) for the effect different paints have.

On an acoustic instrument, however, I reckon there could be a noticeable difference. Maybe not between types of paint, but more the thickness of paint. This is because the wood actually work the same way as a speaker cone. Weight and stiffness is everything.

As for color, choose the one you like best. Ask, and you'll get a lot of responses and you will be none the wiser. But since you are asking, I would paint it black or a deep red. Or maybe a combination of the two. In fact, I have.

[Musiclogic]

Originally Posted by killer

Nitro vs poly or whatever?
And One is better than another for the body to resonance or it's just a look question?

If you want to know the origin of this, A guy in Vegas decided to open a vintage guitar store, his name was Ed Roman, he started this as a sales device to attract more people to his more expensive vintage instruments. There is no validity to this claim of better resonance or allowing the wood to "breathe" through Nitro. If there were, Ed Roman would have promoted oil finishes.

This is one of his many BS fallacies that musicians have promoted as gospel ever since, along with solid body tonewood, the sound of a fretboard, the bleed of the Oarnge drop capacitor, and vintage cloth insulated wire being necessary for vintage tone.

[low2groove]

After my 30+ years of building I would certainly say yes!

Paint covers what the wood has going for it as far as tone is concerned.

Color has zero influence on the tone but the amount of paint and or clear coat applied absolutely makes a difference.

Less is better and I would say oil finishes produce the cleanest most natural tone.

Paint and especially paint with a clear coat diminish the true tone of the wood and sort of compacts and thins the tone. It doesn't let the wood vibrate.

Look at those Fenders from the 70's with the thick sealer and heavy finish coat. I don't like the fender brand even a little bit (only the body shapes appeal to me) but that era is really poor because of what they did to the wood. No need for flames I've heard it all before thank you!

Less is more when it comes to finish. Reminds me of a saying I've heard about playing bass too! lol

[Hopkins]

Originally Posted by Musiclogic

If you want to know the origin of this, A guy in Vegas decided to open a vintage guitar store, his name was Ed Roman, he started this as a sales device to attract more people to his more expensive vintage instruments. There is no validity to this claim of better resonance or allowing the wood to "breathe" through Nitro. If there were, Ed Roman would have promoted oil finishes.

This is one of his many BS fallacies that musicians have promoted as gospel ever since, along with solid body tonewood, the sound of a fretboard, the bleed of the Oarnge drop capacitor, and vintage cloth insulated wire being necessary for vintage tone.

Cloth wire is a giant pet peeve of mine. Its the first thing I get rid of when its used. I will never understand how people can be so nostalgic over something that is never seen, is a pain in the rear to use, takes up more room in an already tight cavity, and has no benefit when used.

[Jazzdogg]

I've never read anything inarguably factual on this topic; lots of emotion-laden argumentation, but nothing rigorous or credible.

We might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[HaMMerHeD]

Originally Posted by musicman666

What color for Christian Metal?

Green.

Originally Posted by Jazzdogg

We might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

i

[Hopkins]

Originally Posted by low2groove

After my 30+ years of building I would certainly say yes!

Paint covers what the wood has going for it as far as tone is concerned.

Color has zero influence on the tone but the amount of paint and or clear coat applied absolutely makes a difference.

Less is better and I would say oil finishes produce the cleanest most natural tone.

Paint and especially paint with a clear coat diminish the true tone of the wood and sort of compacts and thins the tone. It doesn't let the wood vibrate.

Look at those Fenders from the 70's with the thick sealer and heavy finish coat. I don't like the fender brand even a little bit (only the body shapes appeal to me) but that era is really poor because of what they did to the wood. No need for flames I've heard it all before thank you!

Less is more when it comes to finish. Reminds me of a saying I've heard about playing bass too! lol

I'm not flaming you, but, answer a question for me.

If someone built two absolutely identical basses, cut not only from the same species, but from the same board, with the same strings, electronics, hardware ect. Then when the instruments were set up. micrometers were used to set action, pickup height, ect. The only difference between these two instruments is that one has a poly finish, the other nitro.

Then you were blindfolded and listened to these two basses one after the other played through the same amp. Could you honestly tell me you could hear a difference?

I used to use nothing but nitro, because it is easy to apply and looks good. I have since discovered that an automotive urethane clear, can be applied just as thin, is less expensive, holds up better, dries overnight as apposed to 3 or 4 weeks, and looks just as good. I see no reason to continue using nitro. The fact that Leo used it in the 50's is not a good enough reason to use it when better products are on the market.

[low2groove]

Fender basses from 1968 through 1980 were ALL Polyester finishes (Aliphatic Urethane Coatings). A Very thick 2 coat process.

The 1950's through 1967 were Nitro finishes. 50's finishes were much thinner coatings.

If you have a nitro 70's fender it was refinished somewhere besides at the fender plant.

The biggest sound change in a bass or guitar will be from fretboard wood and pickups.

[low2groove]

I also use and automotive clear coat on my custom instruments, it's way better than laquer could ever be for all the reasons you mentioned

And yes... I could tell the difference between the two. Just picking it up I would feel the difference and the challenge would be over before a note was even struck!

And yes! I'm sure I could also hear the difference as I'm sure many others also could.

[Beej]

Originally Posted by killer

Nitro vs poly or whatever?
And One is better than another for the body to resonance or it's just a look question?

I hesitate to wade into these discussions these days, but what the heck!

One of the fundamental problems with the "tonewood debate" is that there is little standardization employed with regards to what we are actually talking about.

For starters, what is meant by "tone"? Never been meaningfully operationally defined in any of the arguments or hypotheses I've seen proprositioned to date.

Regarding the OP's question, I have to clarify that there is no "better or worse" when it comes to "resonance". When we are talking about resonance in the terms of a bass guitar's resonance, then we are talking about resonance as described in physics (and other associated fields of study - don't want to offend our engineers!). Resonance is a term in physics that refers to the "tendency for a system to oscillate with greater amplitude at some frequencies than others". I'll leave that up to the reader to google for more information and a better understanding. The point is, everything has resonant frequencies and they alter as things within the system are changed (an instrument is a system). As musical instruments are purposed for the production of audible frequencies and for the most part, needs to produce a wide range, a given instrument's resonant frequency (frequency at which it oscillates at maximum amplitude) is moot and arguably meaningless. Do I want to enhance a particular frequency through my system when the point of my system is to create multiple auditory frequencies?

I'm not trying to confuse and obfuscate, I'm just pointing out that we often use these terms in a quasi-meaningful manner but in reality, they have specific scientific operational definitions that must be utilized accurately if there are any hypotheses to be tested and results to be meaningful.

So now that we know that speaking about resonance is arguably meaningless (moot), we are left with "tone". What is it?

[Beej]

My next point is then related to understanding "difference". As it's written, difference can mean; any difference, measurable difference, noticable difference, predictable difference, significant difference (which means something really specific in statistics), etc. In stats we speak of "difference" as "variance" and we are actually very good at measuring and calculating statistically significant impacts of variables on variance in the social sciences. I'm going there because inevitably, tone refers to a perception of a tone, and therefore a psychological phenomenon.

In most of these kinds of threads, people see the word "difference", assume it refers to one of the "differences" I listed above and then act on it in their posts using their own personally defined meaning of "difference". I'm a social scientist, so when I see the word "difference" in the context of comparative analysis, I immediately think of "statistically significant difference" the same way a physicist sees resonance defined when they see it written.

Noone's probably reading my blathering, but there's more to come after my daughter's bath...

[Rockin Mike]

Originally Posted by Beej

So now that we know that speaking about resonance is arguably meaningless (moot), we are left with "tone". What is it?

anagram for "note"

[ctmullins]

Go Beej! Thanks for taking the time to spell it out for us. I'm right behind you, brother!

[HaMMerHeD]

I would say that reducing the resonance of a bass guitar--meaning, to increase the resonant frequency of the system to a very high frequency, unused in the normal operation of the thing, or lower it to the same effect--is a desirable thing to do.

An object exhibiting resonance begins to oscillate at a greater than normal rate, and that's a bad thing. The kinetic energy to make that happen doesn't just come from nowhere. It comes from the kinetically active part of the system, which is the strings. When the bass (here meaning the rest of the instrument) begins to resonate, it transfers energy from the string(s) to the bass. What happens when you remove energy from a vibrating string? It loses amplitude, which decreases volume and sustain.

A ghost note is an example of resonance. It's a bad thing.

[Beej]

Thanks ct, I'm just getting started...

I agree Hammerhed, but other kinetically active components also exist in the system as it is intended (ie, when being played). Variables that impact resonance in the system are introduced when the instrument is picked up and played, namely, increased mass now that your hands/finger/body is holding it, small changes in structure due to the heat coming off your body (affects neck, strings and other components of the system), fretting the string in effect changes the speaking length (creating four speaking lengths when there were previously three - strings behind nut, strings between nut and bridge, strings behind bridge), and also the pressure applied to the neck by your hand behind the neck and fingers on the fretboard all introduce variance into the system, plus, increased tension by pressing on the string and stretching it a little so it reaches down to the fret itself. These are not inclusive, there are other factors we could go on about of course.

I realize clearly that these items may all seem negligible, but the bottom line is, unless we understand the interplay between all factors/variables effecting a system, it is nothing more than speculation (albeit educated) to state definitively that one variable in the system affects the resonance with greater magnitude than another variable.

This may really seem like a bunch of wild intellectual rhetoric, but it's no wilder than any of the dozens of unsubstantiated claims that circulate regarding "tonewoods" on a nearly daily basis. I also realize this thread was started to address "tonepaints" but as my son says, "same ****, different pile".

So this all above was just a sidetrack to clarify the resonance issue raised by HammerHed (whom I have great respect for I might add). I'm not entirely convinced that resonance=bad, I'm a little more in the camp of resonance=a defined concept, but it's neither here nor there. Back to the rant.


When we are exploring "differences" as in "will wood make a difference in tone?" or "will paint make a difference in tone?", the assumption is often yes. And that answer is 100% correct if we are asking "any difference at all?". We already know that any difference introduced into a system impacts what the system produces, so therefore it is an easy extrapolation to say "yes, it will make a difference", the lack of definition of "tone" at this point notwithstanding.

*sidebar* I'm starting to feel like Socrates and I really hope I don't have to drink a cupful of poison hemlock for both corrupting the youth of talkbass and impiety...

So the next thing then is to determine, what is it we are even asking? Well, I'll go out on a limb and guess that what most people want to know is, "will the wood used in a bass make a discernible/predictable difference in what tone the bass produces?" If other disagree with this fundamental question, well, its what I've come to after reading dozens of tonewood debates over the years here and elsewhere.

If we are talking about a discernible difference due to the wood used in an instrument, this is where things get interesting and I finish this post and start another...