ASH vs. ALDER - PART II

[Daede]

I swear to the gods, I'm fighting back, tooth and nail, the urge to cast a mold and make myself a clear acrylic bass body just so I can put it side by side with 3 or 4 different woods. I have Alder (the Geddy), [laminated] Ash (the Squier), and whatever wood my Gretsch is made of (I think laminated Maple)...

 

[One Drop]

Certainly some people have trained ears and perhaps can hear such differences, I'll grant you that, but how can you possibly know which is the person with that superior skill and experience, the one who does, or the one who doesn't hear a difference?
It's either - the one who hears a difference is only hearing what he expects, and what he hears is not real,
or - the one who doesn't hear a difference has either bad hearing or lacks experience. Can you tell me which of those is true with absolute certainty?

Neither is, of course, and you can't know.

No matter who you are or what you know or how vast your experience, you are susceptible to suggestion and pre-conditioning. This is a very well known phenomenon, it is universal, and this is why double blind tests were conceived to remove that element from the test.

That is also why large numbers of subjects are needed to give any kind of universal validity to the results.

That is the crux of the problem with the first test, it introduced a huge suggestive element to the second clips and caused the subjects to find a difference that was stated to exist (i.e. two different basses were used...).

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

That is the crux of the problem with the first test, it introduced a huge suggestive element to the second clips and caused the subjects to find a difference that was stated to exist (i.e. two different basses were used...).

I don't understand what the "problem" is with the first test. It was an intentional experiment to determine how much of the "tone" thing is in our heads. The results imply (not prove) that people will hear what they want to hear, which voids about 95% of the "tonewood" claims.

 

[One Drop]

How do you have time to play bass with all your arguing on the internet?

You know what, Dan?

I'm really disappointed in you. At first I thought you really wanted to enter into these experiments with an open mind an a attitude of discovery.

Each one of your successive comments, and your refusal to engage a single one of my and others' arguments leads me to believe it is you who have formed a strong opinion that is resistant to discussion, debate, and to the spirit of discovery.

How come Mongo's comments are 'arguing on the internet' and yours aren't?

How come 'we' are 'the naysayers', and you are, well, what? We don't have a name yet for those that disagree with your opinions, because no one else on this thread thought it would be useful to lump you all together and hang a name on you.

You've consistently tried to undermine any opinions opposite to yours by pre-empting them with comments that are meant to ridicule what you assume will be our arguments. It's a nasty and low debating technique and it's won you some thread camp followers but it's contributed nothing to this thread but rancour.

I also don't see you so quick to crow about the results of this second test, either. Why not. Hint: maybe because it doesn't prove your point?

 

[Daede]

I don't understand what the "problem" is with the first test. It was an intentional experiment to determine how much of the "tone" thing is in our heads. The results imply (not prove) that people will hear what they want to hear, which voids about 95% of the "tonewood" claims.

I think the "problem" most people have with it is they still see it as trickery. I don't. I pretty much figured out it was a social experiment (or might be) when I examined the answers that I had to choose from and noticed two of them indicated there may in fact be a set with the same bass played twice.

People don't like to be tricked, especially when tricking them proves something about them they never wanted to admit to anyone, let alone themselves.

Doesn't mean you were wrong to do it, and it doesn't invalidate the results you got, either.

One Drop, the first test was not about whether or not you can tell Ash from Alder. It was about whether or not a preconceived notion would affect what you heard. To that end, it was a magnificent success.

 

[prd004]

I don't understand what the "problem" is with the first test. It was an intentional experiment to determine how much of the "tone" thing is in our heads. The results imply (not prove) that people will hear what they want to hear, which voids about 95% of the "tonewood" claims.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit funny that these tests are being executed on MIM basses? Is it really tone wood if three to five pieces of wood scrap are glued together? That's not really tone wood. I wonder what percent of us could pick the difference between your MIM ash Jazz and my Mike Lull Ash Jazz???!!!!!!!!!! What's next a Squier shootout?!

Just sayin............................

 

[Daede]

I also don't see you so quick to crow about the results of this second test, either. Why not. Hint: maybe because it doesn't prove your point?

If anything, it does.

In the first test, the results were fairly skewed towards option 2 due to the fact that most people listening were expecting a different wood used in each sample.

In the second test, the results were fairly distributed across the options, with a VERY SMALL MARGIN getting the answer right over those who got it wrong. This happened mainly BECAUSE OF the first experiment. in THIS experiment, people had already been misled once before even participating, so they walked into this one with a different set of criteria for determining what is what.

The conclusion of these tests is obvious. Preconception molds perception, and can skew the results of an experiment in any direction the person crafting the test wishes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dan, but wasn't that the objective of these experiments?

 

[unclejane]

One Drop, the first test was not about whether or not you can tell Ash from Alder. It was about whether or not a preconceived notion would affect what you heard. To that end, it was a magnificent success.

Can't agree. If anything, it was a test to determine if the listener could distinguish fantasy and reality.

Again, if the difference were a) real and b) of a magnitude that exceeds the "noise" of other factors - central aspects of the TW claim, if I understand the claim correctly - there would be no need to appeal to personal interpretation/preconcieved notions and the like. The difference would be audible and (objectively) clear to any listener.

Drop and others make good points about experimental methodology, but I still think Dan's experiment stands as an arraignment that justifies further experimentation on the TW effect. No, it doesn't prove anything, but it is, IMO, a good point in evidence that tends away from the truth of the TW claim.

The fact that opponents need to joust about whether there's a real difference, or whether it's audible or not, indicates an appeal to subjective experience rather than a result actually obtained from objective observation. That means there probably _isn't_ an objectively verifiable difference.

I think the experimentation should continue until some kind of objective, verifiable measures appear.

LS

 

[Daede]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit funny that these tests are being executed on MIM basses? Is it really tone wood if three to five pieces of wood scrap are glued together? That's not really tone wood. I wonder what percent of us could pick the difference between your MIM ash Jazz and my Mike Lull Ash Jazz???!!!!!!!!!! What's next a Squier shootout?!

Just sayin............................

This post is elitist, antagonistic, derogatory, and contributes absolutely nothing to the thread other than giving the poster the opportunity to say "Oooo, I has a better bass than any of your crappy basses. Tell me if you can has hear teh difference".

Fail troll is fail.

 

[One Drop]

I think the "problem" most people have with it is they still see it as trickery. I don't. I pretty much figured out it was a social experiment (or might be) when I examined the answers that I had to choose from and noticed two of them indicated there may in fact be a set with the same bass played twice.

People don't like to be tricked, especially when tricking them proves something about them they never wanted to admit to anyone, let alone themselves.

Doesn't mean you were wrong to do it, and it doesn't invalidate the results you got, either.

One Drop, the first test was not about whether or not you can tell Ash from Alder. It was about whether or not a preconceived notion would affect what you heard. To that end, it was a magnificent success.

If so, then I agree it was a success. This is a phenomenon that is well known, heavily studied, and statistically measurable and predictable. Maybe a lot of here needed to see this example to understand it, so be it.

But this effect does not negate the possibility that many people can actually discern the differences discussed here, which is why it is necessary to account for it when framing an experiment so you can negate its effect.

The real problem is that Dan believes his 'study' is about the discernibility of tonal differences in body woods, and that it somehow validates his opinion, and he is not shy to vilify and ridicule those who disagree or who have not been converted by this nonsense.

The lovely clip that Dan linked made a very good point: only rigorous scientific method and MEASUREMENT of results can reveal any useful and repeatable phenomenon. Yet he ridiculed me for suggesting the first two clips be put on a scope, he framed a skewed and useless comparison 'experiment', and continues to defend his theory with the results. If anyone here can learn from that clip it is Dan, not 'The naysayers' he has done every single thing he has preemptorily and falsely accused his opponents of doing, yet he is blind (deaf?) to this fact, or at least seems to be, seeing how he has failed to address a single point or argument made that was not in his favour.

 

[prd004]

This post is elitist, antagonistic, derogatory, and contributes absolutely nothing to the thread other than giving the poster the opportunity to say "Oooo, I has a better bass than any of your crappy basses. Tell me if you can has hear teh difference".

Fail troll is fail.

NO, YOU MISSED THE POINT. MIM basses have three to five pieces of wood laminated together. And it is fact that these are the scrap pieces left over after the custom shop instruments pick their pieces wood, then the MIA instruments pick theirs. I merely pointed out an obvius overlooked point that we are doing tonewood tests without real tonewood.

I absolutely brought up a valid point. (Very valid in my opinion). Call it elitist if you will, doesn't bother me bit. Call it antagonistic if you will, I lose no sleep. Say it brings no valid points to the argument, and I say you are an ignoramous!

 

[Daede]

I've stated a couple times in these two threads that I came into this thinking wood makes a tremendous difference in the way a bass sounds, so much so that it should be the *deciding factor* in buying a new bass.

These experiments and their subsequent discussions have taught me a tremendous amount about how different woods affect the overall sound and tone of your guitar in a very subtle but important way.

The general consensus I've gotten from the people here is this:

WOOD MATTERS *A LOT* - Wood is organic, and when you play a wooden bass, you get a certain response from wood that other materials do not yield.

THE TYPE OF WOOD MATTERS *but not so much* - While you may not get that organic sound from Acrylic, fiberglass, or even Aluminum (for that matter), you will get it from wood. That organic sound and feel varies from type of wood to type of wood, sometimes greatly, sometimes not a noticeable amount. Apparently, the same thing that gives wood its qualities gives it it's variations as well; it's organic.

 

[Batmensch]

Can you hear the difference?

Nope. Sound on my laptop doesn't work. Can't hear anyhtng.

 

[unclejane]

The lovely clip that Dan linked made a very good point: only rigorous scientific method and MEASUREMENT of results can reveal any useful and repeatable phenomenon.

Listening with the ears _is_ a measurement. It's true that it's not the only type of measurement available, but it's not the case that no measurements have been taken on the clips.

LS

 

[Daede]

NO, YOU MISSED THE POINT. MIM basses have three to five pieces of wood laminated together. And it is fact that these are the scrap pieces left over after the custom shop instruments pick their pieces wood, then the MIA instruments pick theirs.

If this is truly the case, I feel sorry as hell for any schmuck who paid more for their MIM Fender than I paid for my Squier, and it really helps me understand why my Squier not only holds it's own against most MIM Fenders I've A/B'd it with, it flat-out outperforms about half of them..

I absolutely brought up a valid point. (Very valid in my opinion). Call it elitist if you will, doesn't bother me bit. Call it antagonistic if you will, I lose no sleep. Say it brings no valid points to the argument, and I say you are an ignoramous!

Ok. While your point is valid (from a "wood matters" vs "wood doesn't matter" point of view), the manner in which you presented it felt very antagonistic and derogatory.

I fully retract my statement that your post does not add to the thread, and I apologize for calling you a troll.

 

[unclejane]

The general consensus I've gotten from the people here is this:

WOOD MATTERS *A LOT* - Wood is organic, and when you play a wooden bass, you get a certain response from wood that other materials do not yield.

THE TYPE OF WOOD MATTERS *but not so much* - While you may not get that organic sound from Acrylic, fiberglass, or even Aluminum (for that matter), you will get it from wood. That organic sound and feel varies from type of wood to type of wood, sometimes greatly, sometimes not a noticeable amount. Apparently, the same thing that gives wood its qualities gives it it's variations as well; it's organic.

Again, these are, at this point, still unsubstantiated claims. The criticisms regarding methodology and production of empirical evidence also hold for the pro-TW-effect camp.

Before you can conclude these statements are true, you have to provide your own evidence in favor of them (and eventually a proof).

LS

 

[Daede]

Again, these are, at this point, still unsubstantiated claims. The criticisms regarding methodology and production of empirical evidence also hold for the pro-TW-effect camp.

Before you can conclude these statements are true, you have to provide your own evidence in favor of them (and eventually a proof).

LS

Yeah, that's why I made it a point to say "The general consensus I've gotten from the people here is this:"

I'm fairly new to music and the bass compared to most of the people here, so I accept a lot of what I'm told by those more experienced than me as Gospel. I will halt this practice, straight away

 

[unclejane]

Yeah, that's why I made it a point to say "The general consensus I've gotten from the people here is this:"

I'm fairly new to music and the bass compared to most of the people here, so I accept a lot of what I'm told by those more experienced than me as Gospel. I will halt this practice, straight away

That's a very good practice. Personal experience can provide good guidelines and rules of thumb, but "because I said so" or the popularity of a particular truth value are never proper justifications for any empirical claim.

The burden of proof still rests on the TW-effect advocates. So far all I've seen from them are (in many cases valid) criticisms of Dan's experimental efforts, but nothing by way of any kind of evidence that _supports_ the TW claim. So I remain skeptical.

LS

 

[pklima]

Here's a massively expensive fantasy of an experiment: give random 100 bassists alder basses with a black finish, 100 bassists ash basses with a black finish, and just for fun 100 bassists alder basses with a sunburst. 100 control group bassists get nothing. See which group gets more gigs and makes more money over a ten-year period, and see if the differences are statistically significant. Money and gigs - that would be a REAL difference.

And as long as this is not realistic anyway, let's also see which gets the most groupies. That would be a REAL REAL difference.

 

[Daede]

Here's a massively expensive fantasy of an experiment: give random 100 bassists alder basses with a black finish, 100 bassists ash basses with a black finish, and just for fun 100 bassists alder basses with a sunburst. 100 control group bassists get nothing. See which group gets more gigs and makes more money over a ten-year period, and see if the differences are statistically significant. Money and gigs - that would be a REAL difference.

And as long as this is not realistic anyway, let's also see which gets the most groupies. That would be a REAL REAL difference.

+2112