I always laugh when people say one myth is true for acoustics but not solid bodies. In reality acoustic experts can't hear this stuff in blind tests either.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
1962 Jazz $20K on the bay
- Thread starter themacinator
- Start date
Judging from the article, I'd say wolf tones are probably pretty exclusive to hollow instruments without pickups. The pickups on solid body instruments pick up electromagnetic vibrations, not the acoustics of the wood. Any wood vibrations would be negligible to nil, IMO. I'm no expert but just makes sense to me.
I had a couple basses that would let out a very amplified tone when hitting any D note. The common denominator? The cabinet. Perhaps it's not even your bass at all.
Hell, most tb'ers can't even hear the difference between a P and a J solo'ed. There were a many tests done on this forum I've read in regards to that. To think very many of us have an ear to hear sonic differences in body woods (or even more laughably, neck woods) is silly business.
That's why the modern Squier CV's and VM's sound so good. Because all they did was start dropping good pickups in and making a neck/bridge that could intonate. That's probably 95% of the tone, IMO.
michael_atw said:
I'd say you are wrong in removing the wood's (or whatever material the bass is made from) vibration from the equation this way. It is this vibration that causes dead spots AND wolf tones.
I think you misunderstand how pickups work. They convert the mechanical vibration of the string by sensing the movement of the metal in the string with a magnet, or in a Piezo by picking up the vibration of the bridge or wood, etc. but it's the way the string vibrates that determines what the pickup does indeed pick up. the way the string vibrates is determined by all the materials the vibrations pass through and the way they are connected.
Taken to an extreme, your logic dictates that all instruments should sound identical if they have the same PUPs and strings. Doesn't it make more 'sense' to argue the degree of the effects of various things like design and materials rather than to negate them entirely?
It's the absolutism and religious fervor of both sides of the argument that makes finding the truth out so difficult, and I don't get where it comes from whichever side it is defending.
Be careful going too far in debunking the effects of the different elements that contribute to the sound of an instrument- they all have a lesser or greater effect in a given one and it is the combination of all of them that contribute to the final result.
Once you throw amplification into the chain, you can hear things like wolf tones that might be barely noticeable unamplified.
IME dead spots are more commonly audible than wolf tones on basses but to argue against them based on a hunch doesn't make sense to me.
michael_atw said:
What's more interesting to me is how many alchemy truths lead to the birth of and carried over into modern science.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!
No, it really isn't. It's in theory supposed to do that with solid body instruments, but this can easily be debunked in various tests - for example the "I can make a guitar out of plywood and nails" test and the sound comparison test. As I stated before, most people, bassists, can't even tell the difference between a P and a J in a static solo'ed environment.
As I also stated, the bridge and the neck play a part as well. Proper intonation is important. The nut, to a very very small extent, plays a part as well. All other components are grossly exaggerated. And yes, I believe if 5 basses are set up correctly - one is Ash new, one Alder new, one 40 years old and Alder, one 30 years old and Ash, and one Basswood - with all other aspects identical as control, they will most definitely sound exactly the same if they have the same pickups. I not only believe it so, I challenge anyone to a test to reveal otherwise. No one will be able to discern a difference.
Suit yourself.
All basses sound the same, have the same attack and decay characteristics, measure the same on a frequency plot, have the same amount of identical overtones, etc, etc. I simply don't buy it and I doubt many others do, either, or would dare argue such an extreme position.
Why do some basses sound the same up and down the neck, from string to string, and others get woolier and less defined up the neck? Why are some basses thin sounding and others sound very thick or bassy? Why are some brighter than others? Is it all down to the PUPs and the intonation?
Personally, I've never really heard a bass change very much tonally from intonating it- all I hear is a better intonated bass.
A pickup can only pick up what is being transmitted to it. Most people with experience swapping PUPs on a given bass will tell you the fundamental voice of the instrument comes through no matter what PUP is on it, just as putting various different microphones in front of a singer will give different results, but only within limits determined by the voice itself.
Again, it's all a matter of degree. To argue nothing else matters as an absolute seems way too simplistic and plain wrong to me, and isn't a conclusion I can draw from my own experiences, and the research I've done.
Also, as far as I've read, dead notes is not a wood issue. Construction of the instrument makes for dead spots. Apparently they are notorious on bolt-on's, someone correct me if I'm wrong. And they are not exclusive to certain woods; it's a matter of intonation/setup, construction, and environment.
I have an Aerodyne P that one day some time ago (over the summer) magically showed up to practice with a dead spot. 5th fret G-string. I was not happy about it and put it away. Pulled it out recently for the first time in a while and poof! Dead spot gone. And nope, the wood didn't manifest any new characteristics while stowed away
Likely the 85 degrees and high humidity shook 'er for a short time.
Also, as far as I've read, dead notes is not a wood issue. Construction of the instrument makes for dead spots. Apparently they are notorious on bolt-on's, someone correct me if I'm wrong. And they are not exclusive to certain woods; it's a matter of intonation/setup, construction, and environment.
I have an Aerodyne P that one day some time ago (over the summer) magically showed up to practice with a dead spot. 5th fret G-string. I was not happy about it and put it away. Pulled it out recently for the first time in a while and poof! Dead spot gone. And nope, the wood didn't manifest any new characteristics while stowed away
Yes, but if you had read my posts you would understand I am talking about the materials AND the mechanical connections being related and important in varying degrees.
If you would consider more carefully for a moment your own argument, you might find you are agreeing with me somewhat. What did the humidity do to change the way your bass sounded? Did it change the way the pickup works, or did it change the way the bass is vibrating by changing the humidity levels in the materials of the bass itself? Or did it simply change the action (an argument that supports your side more)?
What I am getting at is that all these things matter, some of the elements more so on a particular design than others, and it is extremely difficult to pinpoint which elements affect what in such a complicated system. It is for this reason there is so much controversy, and why it is a mistake to generalize too much from specific examples.
The varying degree being slim to none. This is verifiable with objective data, not subjective reasoning. Theories sit but the exaggerate the effect.
The action was 98%-100% of the problem. It did not change the pickup, and the wood's effect (as would correlate with the effect an hourly change in humidity has on a finished body) was nominal, if at all. By the time the body had enough time to be altered, day and night would pass and the humidity could be long gone by then. The neck experiences the short-term weather changes just about exclusively. Long term is another story. If an instrument sits in a certain environment for an extended period then alterations to the wood would begin to occur. However, insofar as that would have an effect on sound is debatable, and this would take decades. I would venture a guess, like I did with my challenge earlier, that even a bass that has dried to a crisp over the course of 4-5 decades would at most, experience a nominal change in sound that would probably not even be noticeable in most instances. By crisp I mean extreme abuse, desert-like conditions or swamp-like conditions.
Yep, they do. Specifically, wood type and age matters slim to none. The vast majority of an electric solid body instrument derives the sound from the pickups; then the bridge and neck (not the wood type, the construction) work to continue the sound, then the strings, then the nut and the body wood.
Luthier work is an art; and to be an artist you have to be good at making everything out to more than it really is.
I'm glad for you you are so sure of yourself; I am not and I wouldn't ever argue so strongly for certain percentages having a certain effect on a given design or instrument.
To my ears strings trump just about every other change you can make on a bass for changing the tone you can actually hear in a mix, but it's something very few people take into consideration for some reason.
I get your idea about luthiery- it supports exactly what I am trying to express, namely that everything has some effect, and a luthier can use the combination of these small effects (and the way their importance is increased or attenuated by the other factors) to end up with an instrument that has a tonal profile that is discernible in real life situations from other instruments, even if the the PUPs and intonation are identical. Any single component or design change might have a very small effect, but in combination with other parameter changes that effect can be increased or nullified.
BTWI have no idea what you are trying to say in the first phrase of this post I quoted.
For every opinion, there is an equal and opposite opinion.
Well, when I get some time, I'm going to do some experiments. The theory being that if I do have a wolf tone (which generally is rare in non-hollow instruments), if I change the mass of the body, it can change the spot where the natural resonating frequency of the body produces a sustaining sympathetic artificial overtone that amplifies and expands the frequencies of the original note. If I change the mass and it goes away or appears elsewhere, it a wolf tone. If it doesn't, it's something else.
I was somewhat amused when I found a product on amazon called "Wolf-Be-Gone".
Well, when I get some time, I'm going to do some experiments. The theory being that if I do have a wolf tone (which generally is rare in non-hollow instruments), if I change the mass of the body, it can change the spot where the natural resonating frequency of the body produces a sustaining sympathetic artificial overtone that amplifies and expands the frequencies of the original note. If I change the mass and it goes away or appears elsewhere, it a wolf tone. If it doesn't, it's something else.
I was somewhat amused when I found a product on amazon called "Wolf-Be-Gone".
You can try changing the mass of the H/S by putting a little clamp on it first. pretty easy to do.
Yeah, I'll try that. Thanks. I also read that you can try putting the headstock against a wooden wall, which I do have here in my bachelor pad, which should [do something related to physics]. But right now, I have to get off talkbass and actually practice.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
i don't want to get into specifics, but all i want to say is that i completely disagree with everything michael_atw has stated in his last several posts.
Nope, not really "so sure of myself". Just have listened to the counter-arguments and they are quite powerful. In light of them, I have no problem standing behind my belief as being able to be authenticated. Which is why I issued that challenge earlier in the thread. That's not sure of "myself", but IMO sure of the fact. It has nothing to do with me, I am not emotionally invested in either theory or opinion. Only in what is true and discern-able.
Strings do not trump the change you can make to the pickups. The strings are nothing but metal cords without the pickups. The pickups are the epicenter and essentially the engine that drives a solid-body instrument. They're majorly independent of all else. That's why you can take Lindy Fralins or Custom Shop pickups and put them in an old Squier and get an immensely improved sound. However, it may not still intonate well if the quality is poor so that will have an effect - which is why I described neck and bridge working together as the second biggest contribution to the sound.
Never said the wood had absolute zero effect - merely said the effect of the wood is grossly exaggerated (especially the neck wood, I laugh at that theory) and is a very nominal change if even audible or discernable to a good ear.
That's fine. Don't expect many people to agree with me.
But then, of course, feel free to accept the challenge that I stated earlier in the thread.
As a luthier, much of your business revolves around people believing that every inch of their bass contributes an equal portion to the sound. Which is patently false and able to be proven in tests where people can't hear a speck of difference between maple and rosewood, ash and alder, 40 years old and 1 month old wood.
Which is why people these days are saying "Man, my Squier CV 60's Jazz sounds so good!" All one has to do is look at the improved construction and pickups. The wood has not changed I'm sure; not plywood anymore but they've been making them out of Agathis for something like a decade now. And even then some of the 80's- early 90's Korean Squiers and Squier II's could give mid-level Fenders of the same time period a run for their money - with plywood bodies.
As we all prove almost daily, sound is subjective. Luthiers rely on subjective beliefs often, rather than fact. Just like everyone else. They also transfer theories and data about acoustic instruments and attempt to apply it to solid bodies, which is largely no good. One guy says it's too middy, one says it's not middy enough. One guy says the bright is improved, one guy says no difference.
That never ever happens
Actually, it is derived from, IIR, the idea that old wood sounds better. So it's indirectly related to the title.
