johnk_10 said:
Even using the same ingredients will likely yield different results. No 2 pieces of alder sound the same. It's the "crapshoot" that mongo speaks of.
So not only is the wood impact subtle, it can be unpredictable.
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.
Another "Does Wood Matter" thread (with different trajectory).
- Thread starter keyofnight
- Start date
Even using the same ingredients will likely yield different results. No 2 pieces of alder sound the same. It's the "crapshoot" that mongo speaks of.
So not only is the wood impact subtle, it can be unpredictable.
Due to differences in hearing ability one man's subtle can easily be another man's obvious.
Amen. It's too simplistic to make statements such as "ash sounds like X and alder sounds like Z". It's more reasonable to say, "ash sounds within the range of N thru X, and alder sounds within the range of T thru Z".
Of course the point being made is that the tonal signature(s) of wood are trumped by other factors such as electronics. One can sometimes tell what kind of bass is being used on a recording (P, J, Ray, etc), but it's nigh impossible to tell what woods the bass is made of.
Guessing what the woods a bass is made of isn't really the issue. Even Dan admits the wood effects the tone so that's already been settled. What it boils down to is whether whether one can hear the effect of the wood.
If the wood of a bass doesn't support particular frequencies, they're gone. There's no way a pickup or electronics can create them.
Invalid Link Removed
Human hearing is extremely unreliable, and easily tricked by placebo effects.
LOL, That again?
Like I said before I proved that the placebo effect doesn't always apply when I noticed your little trick in that so-called test of yours where you used the same instrument twice when you said they were different instruments.
Let's just nip this in the bud again. Wood affects tone. Some people thinks it matters a lot, others think it's irrelevant. In the end each individual instrument will have its unique nuances and small changes in tone that could come from a variety of sources. Just try before you buy and pick which instrument sounds best. If going custom, ask for examples or clips with similar configurations in both wood, electronics, and hardware.
Jesus, people, this should not be that big a deal.
Easy to guess right when the answers were already posted.
Agreed. Not sure why I even bothered providing any input here. It's just the same people arguing in circles again. Nothing new to see here.
I'm moving on...
Solarmist said:
This is exactly what I'm thinking of. Are pickups *that* colored? Is it possible to add pickups to a solid body instrument that are transparent enough to make the differences in wood clear to the average joe?
Not when all I saw was the first page when I listened to your samples and then did a quick reply post at the bottom of that page. Not a guess, I actually stated that I couldn't hear a difference. I gave you my honest assessment of the samples and I actually thought you may have got me on that one but then I found that you were pulling shenanigans.
Can magnetic coil pickups sense physical vibration? I think not (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think only piezos pick up physical vibration. Coils sense disturbances in their magnetic fields due to the motion of metal strings. Wood won't disturb their fields, right?)
If so, any audible effect of wood would have to come from the wood's resonance affecting the waveform of the vibrating string. The wood and the string vibrate together. You can feel the wood vibrating under your hands when you pluck a string. You added energy to the string when you plucked it, and some of that energy is transferred to the wood to make it vibrate. You can think of the wood "absorbing" some of the vibrations of the string.
Long story short, if I am thinking of this right, the effect of the wood is to subtract harmonics from the string's natural vibrations. A less-dense wood tends to subtract high frequencies (much like shouting into a blanket) and a more-dense wood tends to reflect them back into the string (much like shouting at a brick wall).
Is this effect enough to be noticeable? I won't add my opinion, there are plenty already. To test it rigorously, I think we would need at a minimum:
3 identical less-dense basses, i.e. Swamp Ash, same measured weight for all 3
3 identical more-dense basses, i.e. Rock Maple, same measured weight for all 3
Electronics identical for all 6, strings identical for all 6.
Same riff played by same player three times on each bass so we have 18 samples marked and labeled.
Somebody whose only job is to label each sample anonymously and keep track of which is which, does so, then exits the test until the results phase.
Play 2 samples at random for test subjects and ask,
"Were those played on the same bass?"
"If not, were the basses made of the same wood?"
See how accurate bass players are at identifying correctly.
See how accurate general public is at identifying correctly.
If so, any audible effect of wood would have to come from the wood's resonance affecting the waveform of the vibrating string. The wood and the string vibrate together. You can feel the wood vibrating under your hands when you pluck a string. You added energy to the string when you plucked it, and some of that energy is transferred to the wood to make it vibrate. You can think of the wood "absorbing" some of the vibrations of the string.
Long story short, if I am thinking of this right, the effect of the wood is to subtract harmonics from the string's natural vibrations. A less-dense wood tends to subtract high frequencies (much like shouting into a blanket) and a more-dense wood tends to reflect them back into the string (much like shouting at a brick wall).
Is this effect enough to be noticeable? I won't add my opinion, there are plenty already. To test it rigorously, I think we would need at a minimum:
3 identical less-dense basses, i.e. Swamp Ash, same measured weight for all 3
3 identical more-dense basses, i.e. Rock Maple, same measured weight for all 3
Electronics identical for all 6, strings identical for all 6.
Same riff played by same player three times on each bass so we have 18 samples marked and labeled.
Somebody whose only job is to label each sample anonymously and keep track of which is which, does so, then exits the test until the results phase.
Play 2 samples at random for test subjects and ask,
"Were those played on the same bass?"
"If not, were the basses made of the same wood?"
See how accurate bass players are at identifying correctly.
See how accurate general public is at identifying correctly.
I have two Schecter basses built in the same year. The scale lengths, fretboards, EQs, EQ crossover points, pickups (yes - those EMGs that supposedly make all basses sound the same), and strings (TI Jazz Flats) are the same on the two instruments. The body, neck, and headstock shapes are even the same. However, the neck and body woods are different. And one is stained while the other is painted. The fretboard inlays are also different. I can easily hear differences in their sounds. I wouldn't say one sounds better than the other. They just sound different. I don't know if it's the paint, fret markers, or woods that are responsible for the differences. Chances are, every little variable contributes to an instrument's overall sound. I also think that, in a band setting, those tone differences would probably go completely unnoticed.
That's valuable anecdotal evidence, but to be scientific about it, the listener would have to compare samples not knowing whether they were from the same bass or not, and also would have to mix in samples from separate-but-identical basses made of the same wood.
If the wood-makes-a-difference theory is correct, we have to test same-wood basses to show that they have sameness of sound. Otherwise any differences we hear could be due to randomness or unknown factors.
Rockin Mike said:
Been there, did that, got 4 out of 4 correct ( 4 clips , 4 basses, same materials, not guessing ). I was the only one out of a dozen or so that did. Am I special? or cursed? I'm not sure. There are others that hear what I do, so I know that I am not alone, but it appears many do not.
The real question isn't if it does or dosent matter. It is are YOU willing to pay for the difference that you personally do (or don't) hear? Or is there a "close enough" for you?
For me personally, yes I hear the difference. To get the tone in my head that I chased and tried to duplicate for about 15 years but couldn't? yes, I am willing to pay for that. Am I 100% happy and satisfied with the way my instrument sounds when I play it? For the first time in 20+ years of playing , I can say, yes, I am fully satisfied in every way with the tone, playability, and look of My Bass. That is priceless.
Can anyone else hear the difference? I could care less. lol
Play what you like and what makes you happy. If the wood dosent matter to you , Congrats ! There are millions of basses you will love.
Don't forget that those actually doing the listening tests need to be vetted to make sure they are able to differentiate the nuances of the instruments and their hearing hasn't been damaged by repeated exposure to loud sounds or other causes.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,633
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
after 1000's of builds, when i do use the same ingredients, i have found the results to sound more similar than different.
if i change the wood types, they sound completely different, so for me, the diffence in woods used has not been not subtle, and can vary from one bass being very bright and having lots of sustain, to another one darker with less sustain, but with more punch.
