A different take on the tone wood debate.

[Oobly]

This one was pretty good, too:

The differences were more subtle than I was expecting. Still there, though

 

[Vinny_G]

[URL="https://www.talkbass.com/threads/how-does-tone-wood-translate-to-what-comes-out-of-the-pickup.1361307/"]How does tone wood translate to what comes out of the pickup?[/URL]

 

[TonyP-]

I just want to say that I'm glad everyone is having a decent discussion, and how the thread is moving in a slightly different direction.

I did not have any questions, other then asking for people to share their thoughts.
At this point, I have had my on conclusions for quite some time...

Yes, I agree everything matters in the sound so to speak and how an instrument vibrates, ect.
I just wanted to bring up one specific observation...That is all...Conuntine

 

[40Hz]

All we know is if someone says they can't hear it they just said they can't hear it. They have no special powers to tell anyone what they hear.

How is that any different from saying if someone says they can hear, then all that says is this individual maintains they can hear it? No special powers to be found there either.

There's no objective way to verify the veracity of an individual's impression of something. It's purely subjective - which is perfectly fine. Subjective interpretation and impression are central to a thing called 'art.' But that's not the same thing as science.

 

[chadds]

How is that any different from saying if someone says they can hear, then all that says is this individual maintains they can hear it? No special powers to be found there either.

There's no objective way to verify the veracity of an individual's impression of something. It's purely subjective - which is perfectly fine. Subjective interpretation and impression are central to a thing called 'art.' But that's not the same thing as science.

I can say I hear something. That is in fact why I chose this bass. It's been proven that some of us hear things that exist that others don't. It's not subjective because the spectrum of sound exists.

Ultimately this isn't to prove science correct. Science has its own practitioners who choose to study the universe. I don't need a lab coat team to tell me which bass gets out of my way and allows all the music I haven't thought of playing yet to come through. The 10,000 hours of Malcolm Gladwell have given those who've learned from those hours the ability to hear one dragging brake pad on a car as it passes 50 yards away. Some people can't hear that. Others it's just some of the info they pickup while walking around with a love of cars.

To your point. If subjective can mean it's not available for instant verification by everyone, who cares? If it means that a seasoned musician knows which bass he wants to associate with than why would he care what anyone else thinks? Phenomena exist whether science has explained them or not.

You can't say someone can't smell a spice in a sauce when an experienced chef can. You can only say you can't. That chef may say that there is too much or not enough of that spice in there. The science would say the recipe requires an eighth of a teaspoon. The chef uses less today because the sweetness of the onions he picked out today negate a full measure of that spice. We pay him and get reservations to his restaurant to be held in his "subjectiveness."

 

[40Hz]

It's been proven that some of us hear things that exist that others don't

It's been established that some people can hear measurable frequencies and dynamic ranges others can't, and can better differentiate between them. But that's about as far as it goes.

Ultimately this isn't to prove science correct. Science has its own practitioners who choose to study the universe. I don't need a lab coat team to tell me which bass gets out of my way and allows all the music I haven't thought of playing yet to come through.

I agree. So why constantly revisit the topic? Most of these threads aren't about establishing an objective or even a subjective rationale for the "tonewood" thing. They're about people seeking validation.

To your point. If subjective can mean it's not available for instant verification by everyone, who cares? If it means that a seasoned musician knows which bass he wants to associate with than why would he care what anyone else thinks?

"Instant verification" (where did you get "instant" btw?) isn't a factor in the equation. Whether or not something is even verifiable to begin with is an entirely different thing.

But either way, It'll agree again. Who cares? And if so, why threads like these? Why should anyone care indeed? (Although the OP did characterize it as the "tonewood debate" didn't he?)

Again it's seeking to validate a personal opinion that doesn't require any validation per se. Unless you're trying to palm it off as an established fact as in: "all maple fretboards sound brighter." It's really just personal preference. And opinion. So just play and recommend what you like, and let it go at that. That's what I do.

However, if you want to advance arguments like you're making, then it all becomes moot. Because all you're really saying is that: different things sound differently to different people.

Which is basically not saying anything at all when you get right to down to it.

 

[mongo2]

It's been proven that some of us hear things that exist that others don't.

Very true that people hear differently. There is also the possibility of hearing damage from years of exposure to high volume music. Fortunately for me I've been plugging my ears at high volume rehearsals, gigs, and concerts since the late '60s so I'm lucky to have very decent hearing.

 

[Keith Guitars]

I would say yes to the extent that there are resonances that can absorb frequencies and cause the string to dampen but the type of wood used is minimal especially on the body compared to say the neck. There would be so much substantial inertia compared to the string - ie the energy taken from the string to cause the wood to vibrate.

The fact that there is no resonant chamber would put its natural resonance at a fairly high frequency also further lessening the effect.

in the case of the neck and dead spots etc. it's less a resonance thing but more that the tension is directly affected as the string vibrates.

end if the day - this may affect tone but the type of wood is likely less important than the type of construction- ie laminated vs not laminated. Carbon fiber reinforced vs not. Quarter sawn vs not will likely bring bigger tonal influence than rock maple vs curly maple vs wenge for instance.

On the last point, I must disagree based on pretty much all my experience. I have found, over and over, that QS vs flatsawn maple makes very little impact tonally in my opinion. Not none, but very little. By contrast, a wenge neck vs. maple is a huge tonal difference - and, to OP's point, one that is hard to mask even behind the most colorful pickups.

The "type of wood" vs. "type of construction" point above confuses me. All the examples given point to the impact of the material, but then somehow the "type" of material is dismissed as less important. How does the act of laminating a neck override the materials being laminated? It's just an attempt to combine the characteristics of multiple species, and/or gain some stability by varying grain direction and homogenizing/distributing natural inconsistencies.

Inertia and damping in the body are one factor, but there are others. Velocity of sound transmission through material is another, and is accepted as a datum in the violinmaking world (for bows as well as body materials). The presence or absence of an air chamber doesn't change this property. Remember also that the neck's vibrational modes interact with the body, and that introduces phase relationships. Solidbodies do vibrate - this has been demonstrated with interferometry.

Once more - it's always good to revisit what we mean, or think we mean, when we discuss "resonance" in these conversations.
It's a word that is widely deployed, but often without a clear definition. It has generally positive connotations, but at the same time,
many undesirable behaviors (dead spots, for example) relate to resonant peaks in the material.

Finally - as to the other poster's point regarding tracking etc.: look, sure - we can always find a scenario where these things won't be noticeable.
In a mix with a 10-piece brass band, a diligent engineer will probably only allow the bass a narrow bit of sonic space, and in that context the difference between an ash body and an alder one is small. But that's the context ONLY.

Cheers,
Martin

 

[Loring]

On the last point, I must disagree based on pretty much all my experience. I have found, over and over, that QS vs flatsawn maple makes very little impact tonally in my opinion. Not none, but very little. By contrast, a wenge neck vs. maple is a huge tonal difference - and, to OP's point, one that is hard to mask even behind the most colorful pickups.

The "type of wood" vs. "type of construction" point above confuses me. All the examples given point to the impact of the material, but then somehow the "type" of material is dismissed as less important. How does the act of laminating a neck override the materials being laminated? It's just an attempt to combine the characteristics of multiple species, and/or gain some stability by varying grain direction and homogenizing/distributing natural inconsistencies.

Inertia and damping in the body are one factor, but there are others. Velocity of sound transmission through material is another, and is accepted as a datum in the violinmaking world (for bows as well as body materials). The presence or absence of an air chamber doesn't change this property. Remember also that the neck's vibrational modes interact with the body, and that introduces phase relationships. Solidbodies do vibrate - this has been demonstrated with interferometry.

Once more - it's always good to revisit what we mean, or think we mean, when we discuss "resonance" in these conversations.
It's a word that is widely deployed, but often without a clear definition. It has generally positive connotations, but at the same time,
many undesirable behaviors (dead spots, for example) relate to resonant peaks in the material.

Finally - as to the other poster's point regarding tracking etc.: look, sure - we can always find a scenario where these things won't be noticeable.
In a mix with a 10-piece brass band, a diligent engineer will probably only allow the bass a narrow bit of sonic space, and in that context the difference between an ash body and an alder one is small. But that's the context ONLY.

Cheers,
Martin

For the point on lamination - I think we need to realize that most of the neck effect is not so much resonance as dampening. A stiffer neck is less likely to dampen and therefore a maple laminated neck is likely to yield a different result than a non laminated neck.

 

[Vinny_G]

I can say I hear something. That is in fact why I chose this bass. It's been proven that some of us hear things that exist that others don't. It's not subjective because the spectrum of sound exists.

Ultimately this isn't to prove science correct. Science has its own practitioners who choose to study the universe. I don't need a lab coat team to tell me which bass gets out of my way and allows all the music I haven't thought of playing yet to come through. The 10,000 hours of Malcolm Gladwell have given those who've learned from those hours the ability to hear one dragging brake pad on a car as it passes 50 yards away. Some people can't hear that. Others it's just some of the info they pickup while walking around with a love of cars.

To your point. If subjective can mean it's not available for instant verification by everyone, who cares? If it means that a seasoned musician knows which bass he wants to associate with than why would he care what anyone else thinks? Phenomena exist whether science has explained them or not.

You can't say someone can't smell a spice in a sauce when an experienced chef can. You can only say you can't. That chef may say that there is too much or not enough of that spice in there. The science would say the recipe requires an eighth of a teaspoon. The chef uses less today because the sweetness of the onions he picked out today negate a full measure of that spice. We pay him and get reservations to his restaurant to be held in his "subjectiveness."

To go a step further, I think we perceive what we are focusing on.

 

[nostatic]

the cable capacitance

Have you heard tCC's new album? It's shockingly good...

 

[Vinny_G]

In the end, we can all recognize a Precision or a Jazz bass when we hear one, whether it has an alder or ash body, and whether it has a maple or rosewood fingerboard. It must mean something about the true importance of tonewood as a whole. The same could be said about the true importance of amps and cabs in the final result. A P-bass will always sound like a P-bass, and it's not difficult to understand why.

 

[Clark W]

I'm a big believer in "pups" can just about cure anything when it comes to sound. I bought a 1985 Epiphone for $65. It sounded like crap, but to be fair, the electronics where shot. The volume was either 0 or 10, there was no inbetween, and the tone pot didn't work at all. But I had a fix for this before I ever laid hands on this bass, EMG GZR Split P, pup set.

And what a world of difference that set of "pups" and working controls, made in that bass. I've had several local "pros" tell me it's one of the best sounding basses they have heard in awhile. And running it through GK amplification probably doesn't hurt either. Which brings up a whole other subject when it comes to tone that, to be honest, with all the amps and preamps available today, the possibilities are so limitless that we could spend months talking about what is best and never come up with an answer other than "whatever sounds best to you".

Then there's this guy...
Anytime someone wants to talk about tonal properties of a guitar/bass body, I always think back to this video

 

[chadds]

It's been established that some people can hear measurable frequencies and dynamic ranges others can't, and can better differentiate between them. But that's about as far as it goes.



I agree. So why constantly revisit the topic? Most of these threads aren't about establishing an objective or even a subjective rationale for the "tonewood" thing. They're about people seeking validation.



"Instant verification" (where did you get "instant" btw?) isn't a factor in the equation. Whether or not something is even verifiable to begin with is an entirely different thing.

But either way, It'll agree again. Who cares? And if so, why threads like these? Why should anyone care indeed? (Although the OP did characterize it as the "tonewood debate" didn't he?)

Again it's seeking to validate a personal opinion that doesn't require any validation per se. Unless you're trying to palm it off as an established fact as in: "all maple fretboards sound brighter." It's really just personal preference. And opinion. So just play and recommend what you like, and let it go at that. That's what I do.

However, if you want to advance arguments like you're making, then it all becomes moot. Because all you're really saying is that: different things sound differently to different people.

Which is basically not saying anything at all when you get right to down to it.

Yep I wasted some server space.
There's a debate but not to any end.
As the way earlier post shared, the experts have spoken through their designs and builds.

 

[40Hz]

Yep I wasted some server space.
There's a debate but not to any end.
As the way earlier post shared, the experts have spoken through their designs and builds.

There ya go then!

As was said earlier, if you like the sound of what you're playing, then who really cares?

 

[MrLenny1]

I have 2 identical basses, one solid maple the other 3 layer bubinga, wenge ,alder.
and IMHO there is a notable difference.

 

[Ryan L.]

I'm a firm believer that wood impacts the tone of an instrument.

I've owned many Roscoe basses over the years. At one point I had 3 SKB Custom 6's. All 3 had the same electronics, but completely different wood combinations. Each one had its own tonal differences, and with all other things being the same, that's gotta be due to the woods used, in my opinion.

More recently, I owned both a Warwick SSI 6 string, and a Warwick SSII 6 string. I swapped in identical Nordstrand pickups and preamps into both. The all-maple/wenge fretboard on SSI definitely still sounded very different from the afzelia/wenge SSII. Again, that's gotta boil down to the different woods, right?

And then there's ash/maple and alder/rosewood and alder/ebony Fenders I've owned/own.

I've never really thought about the point that Tony brings up, but it's definitely something to think about as well.

All I can do is comment on my personal experiences on the matter, and no one is going to change my mind on that.

 

[Keith Guitars]

For the point on lamination - I think we need to realize that most of the neck effect is not so much resonance as dampening. A stiffer neck is less likely to dampen and therefore a maple laminated neck is likely to yield a different result than a non laminated neck.

Generally, yes - stiffness is better. But a laminated neck is not necessarily stiffer than a single-piece neck.
If you cut up a slab of maple and then glue it back together, it does not get meaningfully stiffer.
Adding laminates such as purpleheart, wenge, etc. is a different story.

 

[zontar]

In one sense most, if not all, of what is in between you & the listener affects tone--or can.
Some is overrated & some underrated.

However over & above the tone debate, even if wood doesn't affect tone much or at all in a solid body electric bass or guitar, the wood makes a difference.
If you have a softer wood screw holes can strip more easily--and if you do mods that affects you.
If you go touring that can affect you.
And other reasons like that.
Some wood is more durable.