• 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

#321
michael_atw said:
Every expert says there's a very discern-able difference between bolt-on sound and neck through sound?

Interesting.


But anyways, when someone has proof against my position, I would change it immediately and accordingly. I've searched, can't find any but opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm refering to the ongoing debate over the tonal contributions of various types of neck and body woods, and to what extent they may be percieved.

Personally I have no opinion either way re the bolt-on/neck-thru debate. I haven't owned a large enough sample of neck-thru bases to have an informed opinion.

Now, back to the wood controversy. I really don't need or want to prove anything to the so-called "disbelievers" about the effects of various tone woods on solid body guitars.

The science is done, the facts are in. Go ahead and contact some of the better known builders for their viewpoints on the subject.
 
#324
michael_atw said:
Feel free to post some. :)
Click to expand...

I suggest you do some research on your own time. You have the internet at your disposal, same as everyone else.

You could start right here. Look up TB member Roger Sadowsky, peruse thru his posts on the subject.

Then revisit this thread, and tell the world why you think his opinions are invalid.
 
#325
Templar said:
I suggest you do some research on your own time. You have the internet at your disposal, same as everyone else.

You could start right here. Look up TB member Roger Sadowsky, peruse thru his posts on the subject.

Then revisit this thread, and tell the world why you think his opinions are invalid.
Click to expand...

hahaha...I guess, judging by your posts, zealotry goes both ways :)

I'm not looking for opinion. I'm looking for "science", as you called it. Generally, when someone posts an idea - and gets rebutted by someone else, the person who rebuts will bring forth evidence. So feel free to do so. This idea that "you're wrong, go look up the reason you're wrong yourself" is frankly, laughable. I had ironed my own wrinkle in this discussion dead and gone. So if you continue to have vested interest, then you can can do the footwork.
 
#327
michael_atw said:
hahaha...I guess, judging by your posts, zealotry goes both ways :)

I'm not looking for opinion. I'm looking for "science", as you called it. Generally, when someone posts an idea - and gets rebutted by someone else, the person who rebuts will bring forth evidence. So feel free to do so. This idea that "you're wrong, go look up the reason you're wrong yourself" is frankly, laughable. I had ironed my own wrinkle in this discussion dead and gone. So if you continue to have vested interest, then you can can do the footwork.
Click to expand...

I haven't said that you are wrong, because I've no clue as to what your opinion is in the "wood matters" debate. I haven't been following your posts, to be honest.

I simply replied to the member ( I quoted him in my initial post) who wondered how these arguments get started.

As to your demanding that I provide you with evidence....remember, it's not *me* you're rebutting, but the entire guitar manufacturing industry.

So then, your thoughts on Sadowsky's viewpoint? I'm not trying to prove anything to you, but I'd be interested hear your "rebuttal" to one of the top authorities in the industry.

And please....don't ask me to substantiate his credibility to you, no matter how irresistible the urge may be. ;)
 
#329
Templar said:
I haven't said that you are wrong, because I've no clue as to what your opinion is in the "wood matters" debate. I haven't been following your posts, to be honest.
Click to expand...

You've responding to them multiple times. Odd.

Templar said:
it's not *me* you're rebutting, but the entire guitar manufacturing industry.
Click to expand...

If you don't know my position, then how do you know where I am relative to the entire guitar industry?

I repeat once again, only looking for proof here. Feel free to leave the roll-eyes emoticons, subjectivity, and condescension somewhere else. :)


I think that is a fair conclusion to my interjections.
 
#331
Some people want to learn and keep an open mind, some just want to argue forever.

To those who are upset about the highjack, the topic fizzled out a long while back.

I made a few relevant comments but how much can anyone say about this bass?

But a controversial subject that basically is impossible to 'solve' has legs, obviously.
 
#336
slick_tu said:
Not so fast! ;) We can start on his Cleanest 1960 Precision Bass On Planet Earth. :eek:
Click to expand...

Ive figured it out- this guy has a time machine and he goes to the early 60s and buys these brand new for $250.00. I can see it now..."im a brilliant mad scientist but Cal Tech stopped my funding. MUST KEEP TIME MACHINE FUNDED! Igor, set a course for 1960, we will pawn old jewelry for the gold value to acquire paper money from that era..."
 
As an eBay Associate, TalkBass may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.
#338
Templar said:
The science is done, the facts are in.
Click to expand...

Templar said:
Look up TB member Roger Sadowsky, peruse thru his posts on the subject.

Then revisit this thread, and tell the world why you think his opinions are invalid.
Click to expand...

Science isn't opinion, and if it's science - it won't require any experts like Mr. Sadowsky... because the experiment would be repeatable by anyone with the requisite level of experimental skill.

So, show us the science (the construction of the experiment, the hypothesis/theory, the data collected, etc.) you claim is settled and I'll look it over.
 
#340
aborgman said:
My rebuttal:

Not one of those "top authorities in the industry" nor anyone else has ever shown in controlled double blind listening tests any evidence of being able to identify tonewoods at rates above those of chance.
Click to expand...

Have any of them even done any controlled double blind listening tests?

We are talking science but there is very little out there. But it doesn't matter because it's religion to you, apparently.

The discussion was originally about all components and the connections between them, and how much each can or does contribute to an end result. Most reasonable people agree everything has se effect, but how much and discernible to whom becomes the real practical question.

But some just want to replay the tone woods war ad infinitum, from deep in their trench.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back