ash vs mahogany

[Gilmourisgod]

What's the theory behind fretboard affecting tone, since the strings contact the frets only unless you have Hands of Steel, or it's a fretless? Harder wood damping less string vibration through the frets? In that case fret material itself would seem more important.

 

[Gorn]

What's the theory behind fretboard affecting tone, since the strings contact the frets only unless you have Hands of Steel, or it's a fretless? Harder wood damping less string vibration through the frets? In that case fret material itself would seem more important.

It's based on the same anecdotal evidence as body wood affecting tone. Certain woods seem a certain way to people based on experience with insignificant sample sizes. Wood matters for stability and aesthetics. That's it.

 

[Turnaround]

I'll make the wildly disrespectful claim that pickup type and position has much more to do with a non-acoustic instrument's sound than the body and neck wood.

Nothing disrespectful about it, you are right. But the material of the instrument makes some difference, not the main difference.

 

[Turnaround]

Certain woods seem a certain way to people based on experience with insignificant sample sizes.

Most of the luthiers I know (perhaps all of them) and specifically those that build mostly solid-body instruments, seem to agree on the properties specific woods bring to their instruments. Given the thousands of instruments they have built, I would hardly call it a small sample size.

 

[Gorn]

Most of the luthiers I know (perhaps all of them) and specifically those that build mostly solid-body instruments, seem to agree on the properties specific woods bring to their instruments. Given the thousands of instruments they have built, I would hardly call it a small sample size.

I'd like to hear if any of them could differentiate between woods while listening to audio recordings. Maybe they could. It would be an interesting experiment.

I'll rephrase what I've been saying. Tone wood doesn't evidently matter. It might. I'm ready to be convinced.

 

[Blaargh]

I'll agree with the small difference part, but given the differences are pretty subtle and often affect a wide range of frequencies unless you have a 31 band eq and a spectrum analyzer to compare the differences its often quite hard to fix stuff like that with an eq, as its mostly about the many and varied subharmonic differences rather then just 1 type of wood provides more low end then another, but as I said before were getting down to hitting very specific tones on very high quality rigs here, (Body shape also probably plays an even smaller role then the material but a role none the less).

I agree with your first statement, but disagree slightly with the second. I believe that fret boards made of maple are definitely brighter, while rosewood are a bit darker. I also think that most of these sonic differences aren't audible in a live situation. I don't do much recording, but I can see how someone might hear a subtle difference in that setting.

It's only really going to be noticeable if you isolate your bass tracks in recordings. Even then... There are a hundred other factors that people get less snooty about that make significantly more difference. Pickups, amps, pedals, fingers- all affect your tone more than the wood your bass is made from. Tonewoods have to have the worst expense/reward ratio out of any element of your tone.

The only element that tonewoods afford over others is resonance and sustain. I remember reading an interview with the guy behind Manson's, and he talked about trying to make an oak guitar and it just sounding dead (apparently most fruit trees produce good wood). The guy that does The Creamery guitars and pickups will make a guitar out of anything that passes 'The Knock Test'. Point being, anything that's reasonably resonant should do fine in a solid bodied instrument, the rest is fairly irrelevant. With that in mind and the rising cost/impact of tonewood production, it's really not worth getting too hung up on.

Then again, I do want one of the Electrical Guitar Company's aluminium basses...

 

[jamro217]

What kind of scientific proof do you need? It is scientifically proven how vibrations are altered by coupling them to a mass, a mass with a specific resonant frequency, frequency dampers, etc. Specific weight of various wood species is well known. The effect of mass on resonant frequency is well known. The effect of two systems with different resonances interacting has been studied ad nauseum. Don't you believe that the strings resonate? Don't you know that the body resonates too? Don't you know that because one is coupled to the other, they interact.

It's no use saying that the sound only comes from the pickup sensing the string vibration. That's true but the string's vibration is being altered by the system it is coupled to. Alter the string's vibration by robbing it of overtones that are being absorbed by coupling to the body, and the pickup will not put those frequencies back. It only sees what is being delivered to it - by the strings' vibrations - that are being altered by the mass they are coupled to.

True.

 

[simotek]

It's only really going to be noticeable if you isolate your bass tracks in recordings. Even then... There are a hundred other factors that people get less snooty about that make significantly more difference. Pickups, amps, pedals, fingers- all affect your tone more than the wood your bass is made from. Tonewoods have to have the worst expense/reward ratio out of any element of your tone.

The only element that tonewoods afford over others is resonance and sustain. I remember reading an interview with the guy behind Manson's, and he talked about trying to make an oak guitar and it just sounding dead (apparently most fruit trees produce good wood). The guy that does The Creamery guitars and pickups will make a guitar out of anything that passes 'The Knock Test'. Point being, anything that's reasonably resonant should do fine in a solid bodied instrument, the rest is fairly irrelevant. With that in mind and the rising cost/impact of tonewood production, it's really not worth getting too hung up on.

Then again, I do want one of the Electrical Guitar Company's aluminium basses...

Yeah its 100% the difference in these two wordings "Is there a difference: yes", "Is there a difference you should care about unless chasing a certain tone: No"

And on the Aluminium bass thing I saw this at a local show the other week (retailing for a bit under $4000 USD)

Untitled

 

[Blaargh]

Yeah its 100% the difference in these two wordings "Is there a difference: yes", "Is there a difference you should care about unless chasing a certain tone: No"

And on the Aluminium bass thing I saw this at a local show the other week (retailing for a bit under $4000 USD)

Untitled

It's sort of hideous and sort of gorgeous, I want it!

This though, this is the dream.

 

[Turnaround]

What's the theory behind fretboard affecting tone, since the strings contact the frets only unless you have Hands of Steel, or it's a fretless? Harder wood damping less string vibration through the frets? In that case fret material itself would seem more important.

All parts of the instrument will contribute to the sound, though some of those contributions will be exceedingly minuscule. There are some builders that believe that the neck and fingerboard contribute more to the instrument's character than the body. The reasoning is that the neck actually resonates more than the body - it's less stiff and has less mass than the body, so it vibrates more. If it is vibrating more it is taking that energy from the string, thus affecting how the string is vibrating. So, the neck and fingerboard is having more impact on the sound than the body. And since the fingerboard is part of the neck, it's material will have an effect on the resonance of the neck, so it is affecting the frequency response as well.

 

[bucephylus]

I lied. I didn't go to bed, just watched an episode of Stranger Things.

Another point people often bring up is that wood is a natural material, and therefore inconsistent, which means that two otherwise identical instruments can sound different from each other. I ASSUME (because I'm not a scientist) that it's more a matter of inconsistencies detracting, rather than tone wood adding to the sound. If so, I'd ASSUME that it's a matter of dead spots in different places between instruments.

I further ASSUME that materials like aluminum, carbon fiber, and laminated cardboard, which have much more predictable properties, would have fewer variations between otherwise identical instruments.

Maybe the reason we don't have hard evidence published in a scientific journal is that no one wants to fund an experiment to build a machine to identically pluck 100 ash basses, 100 alder basses, and 100 basswood basses that are all identical aside from the wood, and find a meaningful way to record and analyze the output without relying on subjective opinions.

Even if they did, people on any side of the debate would pick apart the details of the experiment by saying things like, "you didn't account for the amp heating up over time," or, "you didn't regulate the power to the amplifier so the voltage fluctuated and invalidated your results," or, "you didn't take into account that the rubber of your mechanical plucker would wear down over the course of the experiment," or, "your mechanical plucker should have used a severed human finger instead of rubber on a stick."

Good luck designing an experiment that will satisfy every variable and not cost a fortune.

Excellent post. You do not need a formal degree, just the discipline to make yourself think a certain way. Your last paragraph was particularly accurate, because that is precisely the kind of discussion that goes on in the labs and at conferences. Yet, we do design and run the experiments, because we are basically curious.

 

[bucephylus]

I believe everything you're saying about the wood. It's measured. It's understood. That doesn't mean its effect on tone is consistent enough to say one wood makes a bass sound one way and another makes a bass sound anther way. Double blind trials would determine whether any of it is consistent or predictable. If someone says ash sounds this way and mahogany sounds this way, it's anecdotal. Yes the woods are different with specific qualities. But that doesn't mean they specifically effect tone in a consistent way.

This is consistent with my experience. Wood is a pretty complicated material, and there are pretty large variations within species. I do think you can talk about tendencies. For example, I feel ash tends to have a fairly neutral character, with really light stuff, such as swamp ash, being open, and the really heavy dense examples, like northern ash, being tighter. IME, mahogany tends to be a bit darker and thicker. Of course, these are all completely subjective impressions. It could be pretty time consuming to try to figure out whether or not one could relate them to output on a spectrum analyzer.

In fact, as a player, it is perhaps neither possible nor important to discriminate between feel and tone as separate feed back aspects. We more or less experience both as a whole. For example, it is completely consistent that two basses can sound different while playing them, but sound very similar in a recording. And, that is where many of the opposing viewpoints are coming from. Different woods have very different damping characteristics; so the acoustic resonance and response the player gets can have considerable variation. Yet, as other posters have stated, the strings, pickup, and preamp can have an overwhelming influence on the signal that goes into the board. How much of that wood resonance is contained in that signal is a good question; but both views are part of the whole picture and not inconsistent with each other.

IMO

 

[JustForSport]

Ibanez basses don't have enough wood in them to make much of a difference. IMO

Definite difference between Ibanez maple, basswood and mahogany bodies- try 'em.

Re: "Body wood makes a difference, but it's a very small one and you could EQ the differences easily. "

You cannot EQ frequencies into the signal that are not avail to begin with.

 

[Brad Johnson]

What kind of scientific proof do you need? It is scientifically proven how vibrations are altered by coupling them to a mass, a mass with a specific resonant frequency, frequency dampers, etc. Specific weight of various wood species is well known. The effect of mass on resonant frequency is well known. The effect of two systems with different resonances interacting has been studied ad nauseum. Don't you believe that the strings resonate? Don't you know that the body resonates too? Don't you know that because one is coupled to the other, they interact.

It's no use saying that the sound only comes from the pickup sensing the string vibration. That's true but the string's vibration is being altered by the system it is coupled to. Alter the string's vibration by robbing it of overtones that are being absorbed by coupling to the body, and the pickup will not put those frequencies back. It only sees what is being delivered to it - by the strings' vibrations - that are being altered by the mass they are coupled to.

This made way too much sense and highlights why people who say it doesn't matter period vs. it doesn't matter for them aren't exactly on solid footing.

There are ways to minimize the effect of wood on the output, first and foremost how you play. Different techniques can bring out sonic differences that fingerstyle may not. Using compression or effects can mask it. Playing at low volume or in a dense mix can have an effect.

I've never understood the need to proclaim that the materials that go into an instrument, electric or acoustic, don't matter. But people do and no doubt will continue to do so. That kind of certainty speaks to a need to oversimplify things. No offense.

That's why I'd never claim that wood WILL matter. It's just as problematic. It does with most of the instruments I own but I know there are exceptions. The wood doesn't matter mindset doesn't allow for exceptions. Big problem.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I want double blind trials with sample sizes of at least dozens. More would be better. A sizable control group is also required. Anything less is anecdotal. Ash vs mahogany. Rosewood vs maple. I withhold belief in any difference without scientific evidence. I am an a-tonewoodist.

Cool. The day I need a consensus to confirm my experiences will be a sad one. Or to change a hard belief of mine... because I don't have any hard beliefs that I can't easily demonstrate.

 

[Bob_Ross]

What kind of scientific proof do you need? It is scientifically proven how vibrations are altered by coupling them to a mass, a mass with a specific resonant frequency, frequency dampers, etc. Specific weight of various wood species is well known. The effect of mass on resonant frequency is well known. The effect of two systems with different resonances interacting has been studied ad nauseum. Don't you believe that the strings resonate? Don't you know that the body resonates too? Don't you know that because one is coupled to the other, they interact.

It's no use saying that the sound only comes from the pickup sensing the string vibration. That's true but the string's vibration is being altered by the system it is coupled to. Alter the string's vibration by robbing it of overtones that are being absorbed by coupling to the body, and the pickup will not put those frequencies back. It only sees what is being delivered to it - by the strings' vibrations - that are being altered by the mass they are coupled to.

I want double blind trials with sample sizes of at least dozens. More would be better. A sizable control group is also required. Anything less is anecdotal. Ash vs mahogany. Rosewood vs maple. I withhold belief in any difference without scientific evidence. I am an a-tonewoodist.

What you are asking is pointless. You don't need double blind tests to understand the science I was talking about. It has been proven. Correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation, but what you seem to be saying is that you don't believe it. OK but the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

I think Gorn and Turnaround are arguing two different sides of the question:

There shouldn't be any question whether different species of wood affect the vibration of a string afixed to an object composed of that wood differently, for the reasons Turnaround cited. Physics is your friend. We know that the medium impacts the speed of vibration transmissions, that those medium-affected speeds are frequency-dependent, and that skewing the spectral component of a complex vibration -- which is what happens when you alter the density and resonant frequency of that vibration's medium -- is by definition how we shape timbre. So different species of wood, because they have different densities and resonant frequencies, should impact a string's vibration differently.

But I think what Gorn is asking is simply, how identifiable are those differences? Or perhaps more to the point, how audible are those differences? (There's a famous quote from luthier John Amaral; when asked which components affect a guitar's sound, he said "Everything makes a difference. The question is whether you can hear those differences.")

I am supremely confident that there are measurable and demonstrable differences in the density and resonant frequency of otherwise identical slabs of mahogany and ash. I am also supremely confident that those differences will impact the behavior of a vibrating string mounted on those pieces of wood in a measurable way.

I am far less confident that those differences will be audible to a bass playing musician, especially in the context of a full band performance.

But my certainty rises back to the almost arrogant level of supremely confident that a bass playing musician would not be able to reliably and consistently (i.e., better than chance) identify which was mahogany and which was ash when listening to otherwise identical instruments, even if [edit: especially if] the auditioning took place in laboratory conditions under true double-blind ABX test protocol.

 

[Brad Johnson]

This is spot-on. The effect of wood is VERY minor. But it is real. It is mostly noticed by the player rather than the audience. Ash is a bit brighter than mahogany but I love them both. Woods I don't like are the lighter ones like basswood that tends to have a "foofy"" sound to me. But all life is a trade-off. Ash basses are usually rather heavy. Basswood basses are very light. And looks matter too. If the bass is a natural finish, Ash has the most killer grain (assuming the tree was killer to begin with). Mahogany is OK, grainless woods like basswood have zero personality. If the bass is finished where the wood is painted or covered up some way, then looks don't matter though woods like basswood are softer and dent easier than hard woods like ash.

Best advice on picking wood is just go play the basses and see which one speaks to you. I've got two Ibbies (GSR 206 and SR506) They are black paint and even today I have no idea what the wood in each is. But I bought each one based on how it felt in my hands and it's unquestioned ability to rock the house.

Agreed in general. It's not very minor if you prefer the tonal characteristics of one over another.
My experience with Black Limba. Not saying it's a bad wood, just too middle of the road and lacking in aggression for my tastes. OTOH I've come across several Mahogany bodied basses that I've kept despite my previous experience with that as a body wood because it worked better with those designs. None of them sound like Ash, Maple or Alder. And I embrace them for what they do sound like. The idea that I could morph one into the other via EQ is a flight of fancy.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I think Gorn and Turnaround are arguing two different sides of the question:

There shouldn't be any question whether different species of wood affect the vibration of a string afixed to an object composed of that wood differently, for the reasons Turnaround cited. Physics is your friend. We know that the medium impacts the speed of vibration transmissions, that those medium-affected speeds are frequency-dependent, and that skewing the spectral component of a complex vibration -- which is what happens when you alter the density and resonant frequency of that vibration's medium -- is by definition how we shape timbre. So different species of wood, because they have different densities and resonant frequencies, should impact a string's vibration differently.

But I think what Gorn is asking is simply, how identifiable are those differences? Or perhaps more to the point, how audible are those differences? (There's a famous quote from luthier John Amaral; when asked which components affect a guitar's sound, he said "Everything makes a difference. The question is whether you can hear those differences.")

I am supremely confident that there are measurable and demonstrable differences in the density and resonant frequency of otherwise identical slabs of mahogany and ash. I am also supremely confident that those differences will impact the behavior of a vibrating string mounted on those pieces of wood in a measurable way.

I am far less confident that those differences will be audible to a bass playing musician, especially in the context of a full band performance.

But my certainty rises back to the almost arrogant level of supremely confident that a bass playing musician would not be able to reliably and consistently (i.e., better than chance) identify which was mahogany and which was ash when listening to otherwise identical instruments, unless the auditioning took place in laboratory conditions under true double-blind ABX test protocol.

Whether or not a bassist can hear or feel the difference lies largely with individual. The problem being the idea that if I don't notice, nobody can. I think that some people underestimate what others can do.

 

[Bob_Ross]

The problem being the idea that if I don't notice, nobody can. I think that some people underestimate what others can do.

Agreed. But by the same token, I think some people overestimate what they're capable of reliably discriminating...or, to put it another way, they underestimate the impact of confirmation bias.

 

[Brad Johnson]

What's the theory behind fretboard affecting tone, since the strings contact the frets only unless you have Hands of Steel, or it's a fretless? Harder wood damping less string vibration through the frets? In that case fret material itself would seem more important.

The fret material AND the material they're mounted in can both be factors for the same reasons turnaround stated