Modern Neck vs. Vintage Neck (Audio Clips)

[phishaholik]

Originally Posted by cybersnyder

Wood matters very little. Want proof? Pick up your jazz bass and play with neck soloed, bridge soloed, pickups blended. Exact same wood but it sounds completely different. 90% of tone is in electronics and strings. Ignoring the player factor.

That doesn't constitute proof.

Originally Posted by -=DanAtkinson=-

He did not "disagree". He came into the thread to criticize the thread and paint it as useless, using a combative tone. You also painted it as useless. "Fun", perhaps. But useless nonetheless.

Other people did indeed disagree with my assertion that the clips sounded very close. They were not told to shut up or leave.

From now on I guess I'll stick to threads like "Who else thinks yellow basses are ugly?" or "If you could only own 5 basses what would they be?"

This is like trying to explain evolution to a creationist.

I never said it was useless, I just said it doesn't prove anything that can be generalized. I never even took a position on whether wood makes a difference. I didn't even listen to the clips to be honest. I was sticking up for a TBer that was trying to explain the scientific method and was getting attacked for it.

The whole idea behind an experiment is to hold all variables but the one being tested constant, while also testing in large numbers to account for variables that can't be controlled. Almost none of your variables in the neck were held constant and your N is as low as possible. I don't expect anyone to do this and I'm not faulting you for not doing that, it would be ridiculous.

Y'all obviously already believe that wood doesn't matter, or graphite, or whatever you want. The last thing on earth I'm trying to do is change anyone's mind. I learned back in my 20's not to argue with people that aren't listening.........nevermind.....I guess I didn't learn that lesson after all.


Michael

[uOpt]

How old is that Vintage neck?

Looks like a brand new neck to me.


ETA: can you confirm the vintage one has a simple, single, single-action truss rod? The lack of anything truss rod related on the headplate leads me to believe this is maybe one of those side-adjusted double-action truss rods?

[cybersnyder]

Originally Posted by phishaholik

That doesn't constitute proof.

I'm not trying to prove it to you. Scientific proof is too much of a hassle for talkbass. Mainly, the cost of a truly scientific proof would be prohibitive. It cost a lot less and takes less effort to be a naysayer.

[MCS4]

Originally Posted by -=DanAtkinson=-

Are you talking about where I go from fingerstyle to pick?

Yes, that sounds about right. I was just commenting that I -- and I expect others -- may have falsely picked up more of a difference between the two samples that actually exists as a result of the significant difference between the second half (pickstyle) of the first sample to the first half of the second sample (which I now know was fingerstyle). I only noticed my error because I went back and re-listened to the first sample to confirm whether there was as much of a difference as it seemed -- obviously I did not pick up on the fact that you switched playing styles, which I now see was somewhat indicated in the links to the clips.

The similarities would probably sound even more obvious if the clips were separate, so that one would listen to the two fingerstyle tracks in a row and the two pick tracks in a row.

[bigsnack]

I'm still pro Dan. Keep the boredom threads coming Dan, I've had enough of the "Red Precision with Aftermarket Knobs Club" threads anyway.

[phishaholik]

Originally Posted by cybersnyder

I'm not trying to prove it to you. Scientific proof is too much of a hassle for talkbass. Mainly, the cost of a truly scientific proof would be prohibitive. It cost a lot less and takes less effort to be a naysayer.

Then why did you call it proof? You're silly.




Michael

[cybersnyder]

Originally Posted by phishaholik

Then why did you call it proof? You're silly.




Michael

Words are used a little less formally on the 'Net than in a published paper. Guess I should have added air quotes.

[phishaholik]

Originally Posted by cybersnyder

Words are used a little less formally on the 'Net than in a published paper. Guess I should have added air quotes.

Or you could have been even more accurate and just said it was your opinion.



Michael

[cybersnyder]

Originally Posted by phishaholik

Or you could have been even more accurate and just said it was your opinion.



Michael

But it's not my opinion. It's a very easy example to show that pickups dominate the tone of an instrument. If wood dominated the tone of an instrument then each pickup selection would sound roughly the same. I'm not saying that wood makes no difference just that it plays a far lesser role than the pickups and strings.

It's why Jazz basses sounds like Jazz basses, P basses sound like P basses, and MusicMen sound like MusicMen. Pickups and their placement.

[phishaholik]

Originally Posted by cybersnyder

But it's not my opinion. It's a very easy example to show that pickups dominate the tone of an instrument. If wood dominated the tone of an instrument then each pickup selection would sound roughly the same. I'm not saying that wood makes no difference just that it plays a far lesser role than the pickups and strings.

It's why Jazz basses sounds like Jazz basses, P basses sound like P basses, and MusicMen sound like MusicMen. Pickups and their placement.

I agree with that statement 100%. I think that the type and location of pickups make a much larger difference than the type of wood used. That's just a much different statement than "wood doesn't matter" or "it only accounts for almost 0% of the tone." There's a large leap between wood makes a difference and wood dominates the tone of an instrument and vise versa.

It's the definitive generalizations based on anecdotal evidence that make these threads kind of absurd.




Michael

[cybersnyder]

I just don't get hung up on minutiae on the Internet. I leave that for work.

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Originally Posted by phishaholik

This is like trying to explain evolution to a creationist.

I never said it was useless, I just said it doesn't prove anything that can be generalized. I never even took a position on whether wood makes a difference. I didn't even listen to the clips to be honest. I was sticking up for a TBer that was trying to explain the scientific method and was getting attacked for it.

The whole idea behind an experiment is to hold all variables but the one being tested constant, while also testing in large numbers to account for variables that can't be controlled. Almost none of your variables in the neck were held constant and your N is as low as possible. I don't expect anyone to do this and I'm not faulting you for not doing that, it would be ridiculous.

You mention evolution and creation, which is funny, because I've repeatedly pointed out that some people around here get just as emotional and worked up about bass guitars as they do about religion or politics. Pointing fingers, beating their chest, doing the Internet Ego Megashow Spectacular.

Dude, I never said this was a "scientific experiment". I don't work at NASA. I wanted people to hear a neck with graphite and one without graphite. End of story. People can take from that what they want. True, the only way we could possibly arrive at conclusive proof of anything on this subject is to take 100 necks without graphite rods, record each one, then have a luthier install graphite rods in each neck and record them again. (Of course this process would need to be observed and monitored to insure precise duplication of bass playing and recording methods between each take.)

Then we'd need to gather a group of 100 studio engineers to evaluate the clips in a studio with pro equipment. Of course they could not listen as a group at the same time, they would need to each sit in the same chair in the exact same spot in the room during the listening exercise. Each engineer would listen to the clips (200 total) and record his impressions, and then a panel of statisticians would compile the results.

And even then, after all that, I'm absolutely confident there would be TB members foaming at the mouth to find holes and deem the entire experiment flawed.

[phishaholik]

Originally Posted by Templar

Exactly, which would bring me to point out that in addition to the very different neck woods, there are still only two necks being sampled here, the absolute minimum sample size possible.

A large sample size of same-wood necks would be needed for a meaningful comparison test, just to overcome the variation within same-species woods that you just refered to.

Hopefully readers will recognise this thread as a fun listening adventure, and not as any sort "evidence", one way or the other.

That said, if there actually were to be a proper comrarison test between identical necks with graphite rods, and necks without them, I'd be interested to know the results.

Anyway, if graphite rods help eliminate dead spots or wolf notes then I'm all for them.

This is what Templar posted. He is absolutely correct and not being nasty or snarky at all and you and your faithful jumped all over him. He said since you did your comparison very unscientifically, that this should be treated as a listening adventure instead of proof of anything. All I did was say that he was absolutely correct and y'all jumped all over me too.

Originally Posted by -=DanAtkinson=-

You mention evolution and creation, which is funny, because I've repeatedly pointed out that some people around here get just as emotional and worked up about bass guitars as they do about religion or politics. Pointing fingers, beating their chest, doing the Internet Ego Megashow Spectacular.

Dude, I never said this was a "scientific experiment". I don't work at NASA. I wanted people to hear a neck with graphite and one without graphite. End of story. People can take from that what they want. True, the only way we could possibly arrive at conclusive proof of anything on this subject is to take 100 necks without graphite rods, record each one, then have a luthier install graphite rods in each neck and record them again. (Of course this process would need to be observed and monitored to insure precise duplication of bass playing and recording methods between each take.)

Then we'd need to gather a group of 100 studio engineers to evaluate the clips in a studio with pro equipment. Of course they could not listen as a group at the same time, they would need to each sit in the same chair in the exact same spot in the room during the listening exercise. Each engineer would listen to the clips (200 total) and record his impressions, and then a panel of statisticians would compile the results.

And even then, after all that, I'm absolutely confident there would be TB members foaming at the mouth to find holes and deem the entire experiment flawed.

You can see that other people act that way, but maybe you should reread what you post. The only ego I see here is yours. You started this thread with "some people still think graphite rods make a difference" and then posted your completely unscientific comparison. When it's pointed out that your comparison is invalid you get extremely upset and tell us to leave your thread.

I already stated that nobody expects you to actually make a scientifically valid experiment using hundreds of basses and that I certainly wasn't expecting that of you, so did Templar. No one expects you to be NASA.

I'm not upset and I have no dog in this fight. I don't care that you don't think wood makes a difference. I'm not buying basses for you and you aren't making my purchases for me. I've never actually even stated what my opinion on how much of a difference I think wood makes.

If you want your comparisons to be proof of something, then make them more scientific. If it's just because you are bored, then don't get upset when people state that it doesn't prove much. You can't really have it both ways.


Michael

[metron]

Ah internet forums. The great communication breakdown-er!

[Double E]

Originally Posted by phishaholik

If you want your comparisons to be proof of something, then make them more scientific. If it's just because you are bored, then don't get upset when people state that it doesn't prove much. You can't really have it both ways.


Michael

This is the problem...why does a casual comparison have to meet the burden of proof? Furthermore why does anyone have to get indignant, and yes, your's and Templar's tone is very indignant when you come crashing into the thread crying out for proof and higher scientific standards for such comparisons, then get butt-hurt when other folks simply say they they don't care what you think?

[phishaholik]

Originally Posted by Double E

This is the problem...why does a casual comparison have to meet the burden of proof? Furthermore why does anyone have to get indignant, and yes, your's and Templar's tone is very indignant when you come crashing into the thread crying out for proof and higher scientific standards for such comparisons, then get butt-hurt when other folks simply say they they don't care what you think?

See that's the thing, I'm not butt hurt and I haven't demanded anything. I'm far from indignant, I have nothing to be indignant about. All I did was stick up for another TBer that was being attacked and then replied to people that were talking to me. Nobody said they don't care what I think and I never got butt hurt over it.

The fact that I'm accused of crashing a thread by pointing out a limitation of the comparison just shows the group think that comes with Dan's threads. There's one thing in common with all of these threads. TBers are always attacked by the group, whether they disagree or bought one of Dans basses and weren't pleased.


Michael

[Scott in Dallas]

Without listening to the samples, I know my brain will convince me that the block-inlay neck sounds better.

[Double E]

Originally Posted by phishaholik

See that's the thing, I'm not butt hurt and I haven't demanded anything. I'm far from indignant, I have nothing to be indignant about. All I did was stick up for another TBer that was being attacked and then replied to people that were talking to me. Nobody said they don't care what I think and I never got butt hurt over it.

The fact that I'm accused of crashing a thread by pointing out a limitation of the comparison just shows the group think that comes with Dan's threads. There's one thing in common with all of these threads. TBers are always attacked by the group, whether they disagree or bought one of Dans basses and weren't pleased.


Michael

But it is indignant to insist that this casual comparison is meaningless just because it does not meet your lofty expectations of exacting criteria. That is what Templar was raving about and what you are standing behind. You are feeling butt-hurt as evidenced by your insistence that it is you that is being attacked.

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Originally Posted by phishaholik

You can see that other people act that way, but maybe you should reread what you post. The only ego I see here is yours. You started this thread with "some people still think graphite rods make a difference" and then posted your completely unscientific comparison. When it's pointed out that your comparison is invalid you get extremely upset and tell us to leave your thread.

I already stated that nobody expects you to actually make a scientifically valid experiment using hundreds of basses and that I certainly wasn't expecting that of you, so did Templar. No one expects you to be NASA.

I'm not upset and I have no dog in this fight. I don't care that you don't think wood makes a difference. I'm not buying basses for you and you aren't making my purchases for me. I've never actually even stated what my opinion on how much of a difference I think wood makes.

If you want your comparisons to be proof of something, then make them more scientific. If it's just because you are bored, then don't get upset when people state that it doesn't prove much. You can't really have it both ways.

Why do you keep bringing up wood? And when did I say "wood doesn't make a difference"?

And I never told you to "leave my thread". I asked you why you don't do what I do when I see a thread that I think is pointless, which is roll my eyes and move along.

Dude, we get it. Not scientific. Doesn't prove anything. Etc. Thank you.

[smperry]

Wow.

I'll say it - If you're not interested in this thread, don't post in it.