Another nail in the Tonewood Coffin?

[BassicJazzy]

Tone-glue you say?

As Homer Simpson would say while sniffing the still drying tone glue, while drooling as he played bass in "Cover Kraft," his band in one episode: "Ah.........Tone Glue........ah....."

 

[Swamp_Ronin]

I say argue tonewood all ya want. I'd even say the more "press" it gets the higher the prices are going to go on basses with fancy woods.
Even if someone was able to prove without doubt tomorrow that alder, ash, mahogany, wenge, and purpleheart all sound identical in a solid body, people would still pay for the wood that makes them feel something.
They’re not buying physics — they’re buying meaning.

Look at what's happened in the effects pedal markets - the super-cheap knock-off clones haven't driven DOWN the prices of "the real thing", they've actually driven them up. Cheap plywood basses, were they ever to become a thing, would only cause the prices of all non-plywood basses to go higher, not lower.

Logic has nothing to do with how basses are priced. They're art. They're an identity signal. They're a bolster for self-image. It's marketing, pure and simple. There's a practical upper limit to the actual value of an electric bass. Beyond that limit folks are payin' for whatever holds additional subjective value for them (and I say more power to 'em): the name on the headstock, the wood, the mystique, the mythology. It's about one thing - what they believe, full stop. Someone who's willing to pay 5-figures for someone else's take on a Fender Jazz isn't buying it because it's actually 5 times better - they're not buying it because they need a 5-figure Jazz, they're buying it because they want a 5-figure Jazz.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

This absolutely, definitely, and ultimately what is happening. Spot on. Well said.

 

[Dincrest]

I say the tone's in the bloodwood! Not the tonewood, not the plywood, but the bloodwood! (Yes, I'm being silly because bloodwood is a fun name)

(And I'm in the camp that believes tonewood plays a part in the equation of bass engineering).

 

[Water buffalo]

At the end of the day, your ears like what your ears like.

Who cares?

 

[Kubicki Fan]

As Homer Simpson would say while sniffing the still drying tone glue, while drooling as he played bass in "Cover Kraft," his band in one episode: "Ah.........Tone Glue........ah....."

I like the way you are thinking, though, I had dr. Zoidberg of Futurama in mind.

 

[Bruce Johnson]

I say argue tonewood all ya want. I'd even say the more "press" it gets the higher the prices are going to go on basses with fancy woods.
Even if someone was able to prove without doubt tomorrow that alder, ash, mahogany, wenge, and purpleheart all sound identical in a solid body, people would still pay for the wood that makes them feel something.
They’re not buying physics — they’re buying meaning.

Look at what's happened in the effects pedal markets - the super-cheap knock-off clones haven't driven DOWN the prices of "the real thing", they've actually driven them up. Cheap plywood basses, were they ever to become a thing, would only cause the prices of all non-plywood basses to go higher, not lower.

Logic has nothing to do with how basses are priced. They're art. They're an identity signal. They're a bolster for self-image. It's marketing, pure and simple. There's a practical upper limit to the actual value of an electric bass. Beyond that limit folks are payin' for whatever holds additional subjective value for them (and I say more power to 'em): the name on the headstock, the wood, the mystique, the mythology. It's about one thing - what they believe, full stop. Someone who's willing to pay 5-figures for someone else's take on a Fender Jazz isn't buying it because it's actually 5 times better - they're not buying it because they need a 5-figure Jazz, they're buying it because they want a 5-figure Jazz.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Dune:

I agree with you partway. The big reason why bass players buy a mid- or high-priced bass is perceived value. It's worth it to them. They are proud to own it because they enjoy the whole experience of holding it, playing it, and showing it off to their friends. And if it has a particular feature or sound in their hands, that adds to the value. It's better than a cheap bass, in some way, and worth the extra money. To them. No argument about that.

But...In my experience, most bassists who have been around for a while, are very sensitive to the fine differences in tone between the different basses that they play. And they are curious about why this bass sounds "better" than that bass, in their hands. They may choose to ignore or override the subtle differences in sound, if they aren't important to their playing style. But they do feel and hear the differences.

The dreaded Tonewood!!! debates are all about somebody claiming that using a particular species of wood causes a particular sound. And others stomping their feet and insisting that wood species, and the wood frame overall, have nothing to do with the sound. The two sides are stubbornly entrenched. And the real answer is more complicated than either side will accept. We Luthiers have been trying to explain it for a long time.

 

[blastoff]

if my coffin were made of tonewood i probably wouldn't use nails

 

[Swamp_Ronin]

the bass in this video sounds....not very great?

 

[Guitalia]

We're genetically programmed to make decisions that increase the likelihood of our survival and propagation.

Those same instincts get applied to utterly non-crucial decisions, such as which electric guitar or bass sounds better.

I might like how one guitar sounds better than another, but I recognize that there's no such thing as a sound that's objectively better than another sound. In fact, I get an extra kick out of enjoying playing my cheapest guitars, knowing how arbitrary better/worse preferences are in the world of guitar tone.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I don’t have any doubt that wood selection has some influence on tone, I just think it massively pales in comparison to pickups, strings, and electronics. Given that every piece of wood is effectively unique, I’m sceptical that you can draw any “A +B = Tone C” conclusions. If anything, it seems like plywood would result in more consistent effect on tone, bass to bass, however minimal, than solid wood. Whether or not that tone is “better” than solid wood is legitimately debatable. All that said, I have made (1) body out of plywood as a mockup for a solid mahogany one, and I personally couldn’t hear any tone difference, YMMV.

 

[EdwardofHuncote]

Aww, hell no. Every time I watch one of those idiot things my YouTube channel gets flooded with videos of every bozo on the planet making guitars outta' pallet wood.

 

[Guitalia]

Aww, hell no. Every time I watch one of those idiot things my YouTube channel gets flooded with videos of every bozo on the planet making guitars outta' pallet wood.

Ironically, Leo Fender made his prototype Telecasters (or whatever he called them at the time) out of pine, a.k.a. pallet wood. He switched to ash and alder because pine dented too easily.

 

[scuzzy]

wood grain purdy, plywood ugly.

 

[bucephylus]

Two points:

While I strongly agree that the audience / recording generally cannot differentiate materials of construction of an electric bass guitar vs electronics / setup, I can quite definitely “feel” differences between different materials of construction in same model instruments. Those differences can and do quite definitely affect my performance choices / concentration.

Second, if materials of construction 100% do not matter in an electric bass guitar, why does this instrument sound distinctly different from a similarly constructed wood version fretless bass?



IMHO, this is a silly discussion. Materials of construction do matter to the player. Audiences, however, can not and do not generally discriminate. Both can be true at the same time; which, I suppose, is why this topic remains a popular 7th grade level “argument.” Carry on.

 

[bucephylus]

Dune:

I agree with you partway. The big reason why bass players buy a mid- or high-priced bass is perceived value. It's worth it to them. They are proud to own it because they enjoy the whole experience of holding it, playing it, and showing it off to their friends. And if it has a particular feature or sound in their hands, that adds to the value. It's better than a cheap bass, in some way, and worth the extra money. To them. No argument about that.

But...In my experience, most bassists who have been around for a while, are very sensitive to the fine differences in tone between the different basses that they play. And they are curious about why this bass sounds "better" than that bass, in their hands. They may choose to ignore or override the subtle differences in sound, if they aren't important to their playing style. But they do feel and hear the differences.

The dreaded Tonewood!!! debates are all about somebody claiming that using a particular species of wood causes a particular sound. And others stomping their feet and insisting that wood species, and the wood frame overall, have nothing to do with the sound. The two sides are stubbornly entrenched. And the real answer is more complicated than either side will accept. We Luthiers have been trying to explain it for a long time.

+1

 

[waveman]

To say wood does not effect the tone would be false. To say one is better than the other and that other stuff is a personal choice.

I have heard plywood 70's Japanese LP copy ring out more (have more sustain) than a $3500 one. I think there is something to having layers of wood glued together that helps with tone and stability.

 

[dune]

Given that every piece of wood is effectively unique, I’m sceptical that you can draw any “A +B = Tone C” conclusions.

Excellent perspective. Even if one side or the other could be conclusively proven to be true - the tonewood debate is basically another application of the mojo concept, and mojo exists beyond the realm of the provable. Or, to paraphrase Tina Turner: "What's truth got to do with it?"

 

[Jogobass]

I've heard basses made of the most expensive woods sound not that expensive, and I've heard basses that are pretty cheap sounding amazing. It's a combination of all things and a matter of personal taste. There's a bottom end though, where the quality just drops dramatically. But that won't matter if you're just starting out.

 

[dune]

Dune:

I agree with you partway. The big reason why bass players buy a mid- or high-priced bass is perceived value. It's worth it to them. They are proud to own it because they enjoy the whole experience of holding it, playing it, and showing it off to their friends. And if it has a particular feature or sound in their hands, that adds to the value. It's better than a cheap bass, in some way, and worth the extra money. To them. No argument about that.

But...In my experience, most bassists who have been around for a while, are very sensitive to the fine differences in tone between the different basses that they play. And they are curious about why this bass sounds "better" than that bass, in their hands. They may choose to ignore or override the subtle differences in sound, if they aren't important to their playing style. But they do feel and hear the differences.

The dreaded Tonewood!!! debates are all about somebody claiming that using a particular species of wood causes a particular sound. And others stomping their feet and insisting that wood species, and the wood frame overall, have nothing to do with the sound. The two sides are stubbornly entrenched. And the real answer is more complicated than either side will accept. We Luthiers have been trying to explain it for a long time.

Bruce, I understand fully what the tonewood debates are about - we just differ on their importance.

 

[Turnaround]

"Plywood has no business sounding this good"

I listened. Good?