AUDIO TEST: Maple+Maple vs. Alder+Rosewood!

[johnk_10]

Have you truly seen someone BLINDLY and repeatedly/reliably differentiate between multiple basses differing only in wood type?
Honestly? If so, you are the 1st to have actually seen it that I have ever heard of. I have met a few who claim to, but when push came to shove, they were unable.

yes. i have done it myself, and many that i've built guitars and basses for in the last 35 years, have too.

i have also differentiated between two p basses, and two jazz basses made of the same woods (let alone different woods), pickups strings etc. blindly and repeatedly, and IMO, really, it's not that difficult at all.

in one example, when i met J.J. Cale, back in the late 70's', he did it blindly and repeatedly, on a brand new strat that i swapped between two one piece maple necks and two rosewood board necks. BTW, he chose one of the maple necks, that he thought sounded a tiny better than the other maple one. he listened to them both acoustically and thru a fender deluxe reverb amp, and he never chose wrong.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Have you truly seen someone BLINDLY and repeatedly/reliably differentiate between multiple basses differing only in wood type?
Honestly? If so, you are the 1st to have actually seen it that I have ever heard of. I have met a few who claim to, but when push came to shove, they were unable.

There is a tiny select few who can.

But far more people can easily hear differences in pickups or strings...or playing technique. Those elements have a much stronger impact on tone than wood does.

 

[cassius987]

I play basses made almost entirely of maple and I incorrectly identified the bass in the mix as Bass 1, the "warm"-tone bass (which I was able to identify in isolation as warmer with ease). To me that is a pretty good signal that, for me, (tone)wood is not the end-all be-all it is made out to be in some discussions.

I remember when a Rickenbacker employee posted on a different forum, in regard to people getting concerned that certain opaque-finish 4004s with gold hardware (called "Cheyenne IIs") did not have walnut "sandwiched" in the body wings, that walnut and maple were tonally difficult to distinguish (but the conventional wisdom was that the walnut-sandwich types were "darker"), and the walnut sandwich was just an aesthetic design for translucent finishes--hence, with an opaque finish, it didn't matter at all whether walnut was used in the body wings or not because you could never tell. As someone who has played several dozen Rics including several 4004s this employee's comment really rang true for me. The first time I went to play a 4004 with said walnut, I was struck by how similar it sounded, not different. (My wife even chimed in: "Hey, that sounds just like your other bass! Put that thing down, you're not buying it!" She was referring to a 4003 I had modded with the 4004's humbucking pickups.) The pickups--which are wound quite hot and are humbucking--are the biggest distinction to me. Compare an all-maple 4004 to a walnut-maple one and I have a hard time hearing the difference.

Maybe it's just me but even if that's the case I'm fine with that. Because if I play bass and can't hear it then it doesn't seem like my clients are going to get that picky about it either.

 

[lomo]

i have also differentiated between two p basses, and two jazz basses made of the same woods (let alone different woods)

.

I guess this is a big part of my point. I agree each bass has a unique character, but I don't see how one can assert that alder sounds like X and ash like Y. It's a crapshoot. Take 2 mahogany and 2 basswood and there will be no rhyme or reason to which sounds like what. The other half is that in the grand scheme, the other components have a much greater effect. Move a pickup an inch fore or aft and the effect is huge and obvious, just like changing flats to rounds. I'm still eager to see someone do the blind test and win. It would be great to do this at a TB GTG.......with witnesses

 

[mongo2]

It's a crapshoot.

Now you sound like me.

 

[johnk_10]

I guess this is a big part of my point. I agree each bass has a unique character, but I don't see how one can assert that alder sounds like X and ash like Y. It's a crapshoot. Take 2 mahogany and 2 basswood and there will be no rhyme or reason to which sounds like.................

IMO, it's not a crapshoot at all, and i can get a very good idea of what a guitar or bass will sound like by using an ash or alder body . after building more than 1000 of them in the last 35 years, you'll definitely notice a pattern in the different wood's tone. to some, it's neglible, and unimportant, but not to me.

 

[mongo2]

IMO, it's not a crapshoot at all, and i can get a very good idea of what a guitar or bass will sound like by using an ash or alder body . after building more than 1000 of them in the last 35 years, you'll definitely notice a pattern in the different wood's tone. to some, it's neglible, and unimportant, but not to me.

I've found that predictability to be elusive. Frequently I think I can predict how a particular set of components will sound only to find that the crapshootivity principle can take over and I get a little surprise. But I like the surprises and wouldn't trade them for anything. I see patterns in the results I have but I also see much crossover in the traditionally expected results.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

This is going nowhere.

Can we all just agree that wood matters, but takes a backseat to other factors?

Or do you guys honestly believe wood is the most critical factor for tone??

 

[mongo2]

This is going nowhere.

Can we all just agree that wood matters, but takes a backseat to other factors?

Or do you guys honestly believe wood is the mist critical factor for tone??

IME, it depends on the individual instrument. Some pieces of wood (IME necks especially) have a much stronger personality than others and can show through the effects of other components.

 

[johnk_10]

Or do you guys honestly believe wood is the mist critical factor for tone??

i honestly believe that the wood makes a big difference between the tone of a mediocre bass, and a holy grail one, so yes, it's very important to me in my builds.

 

[mongo2]

i honestly believe that the wood makes a big difference between the tone of a mediocre bass, and a holy grail one, so yes, it's very important to me in my builds.

Yes, there is that. You can use the same pickups, bridge, etc., but the basses won't sound the same and that's due to the variables introduced by the wood.

 

[chuck norriss]

the mix track sounds like porn disco

 

[chuck norriss]

IMO, it's not a crapshoot at all, and i can get a very good idea of what a guitar or bass will sound like by using an ash or alder body . after building more than 1000 of them in the last 35 years, you'll definitely notice a pattern in the different wood's tone. to some, it's neglible, and unimportant, but not to me.

I agree. Ever play a bunch of stingrays then pick up a squier or epiphone? come on.
likewise I can tell if a US note is counterfeit or real, by touch. & yes I am certified in counterfeit detection. btw the number one usd counterfeiters in the world are from--drumroll--s. korea. they're so good at it that they throw inconsistencies in on purpose, out of jest. I know this from 8 years work exp

 

[metron]

This is definitely going nowhere. Wood matters. Great. It gives resonant properties and affects timbre.

All i know is that when i want a bass that sounds like a jazz bass i get a bass with two single coil pickups and vvt controls. When i want a bass that sounds like a stingray i buy a bass with a ebmm style humbucker in the stingray spot. Wood never ever will make a jazz sound like a precision. Or an L2000 sound like a stingray. Similarly if i take a p bass body made out of whatever wood and install a stingray humbucker in the right spot with ray electronics, it will sound much more like a stingray than a precision bass.

Its hard to argue that any bass tone is not defined primarily by the pickups. We all buy into this because we shop for specific designs based around pickups and electronics. No one shops for an alder body and rosewood neck with a random pickup hoping it sounds like a 60s jazz bass.

Wood is all well and good for fine tuning preferences. It is widely recognized to have an effect on sound. It makes one jazz sound different from another jazz. It will never make a jazz sound like a 55-94.

Wood matters but its importance in overall tone is secondary. For some its a close second. For others its distant. How can that result in such a convoluted circular discussion?!? Its almost mind blowing!

 

[johnk_10]

This is definitely going nowhere.

well, i guess you can say that it's 'going nowhere' to you and Dan anyway.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

IME, it depends on the individual instrument. Some pieces of wood (IME necks especially) have a much stronger personality than others and can show through the effects of other components.

i honestly believe that the wood makes a big difference between the tone of a mediocre bass, and a holy grail one, so yes, it's very important to me in my builds.

These replies sound like attempts to dodge my question.

The question is not "does wood effect tone?" It's obvious that it does. The question is how much, and do other factors matter more?

I'll ask again: In general, do you believe that wood takes a backseat to things like pickups, strings, and technique? Or do you believe wood is the biggest contributor to tone?

Obviously not every instrument is the same, blah blah blah. That goes without saying. I'm talking about in general, on average, etc.

 

[metron]

well, i guess you can say that it's 'going nowhere' to you and Dan anyway.

Cool. Do you disagree with what i have said? Are we close to converging on a light bulb moment for lots of people? These wood discussions go in circles.

 

[johnk_10]

These replies sound like attempts to dodge my question.

The question is not "does wood effect tone?" It's obvious that it does. The question is how much, and do other factors matter more?

I'll ask again: In general, do you believe that wood takes a backseat to things like pickups, strings, and technique? Or do you believe wood is the biggest contributor to tone?

Obviously not every instrument is the same, blah blah blah. That goes without saying. I'm talking about in general, on average, etc.

if you're referring to me, i'm sincerely sorry if you felt that i was 'dodging' the question. my opinion is that the wood dictates the indelible voice of the instrument, or it's 'fingerprint'. the pickups and strings just give or take away different colors to it, but underneath, IMO, it's what the instrument is made of that dictates how everything else works with it.

 

[sratas]

I do not want to judge anyone's opinion, so no problem.
But I just want to underline a thing. If the fit and setting of an instrument makes no effect on tone, what's the sense of the luthiery of classic music instruments. The luthier can achieve different strokes from the same exact instrument by adjustment of the parts of it, obviously without changing parts, no bolts there. You may argue that an acoustic instrument reveals much more of a difference when differently setted, and this is absolutely true. On an electric the difference will be subtle, but IMO and IME this nuances can be appreciated clearly you have a trained ear, or you do a lot of recordings and music editing, or you check the records with top quality studio headphones (no near field monitor can guarantee a good representation of an instrument).
The proposal is: when I buy a new instrument, a cheap one (most high-end basses come in a great shape out of the box), I will record the instrument as soon as possible without working on it (except for a new set of strings) and then I will perform a second recording when I judge that the setting is proper. Then it will be funny and interesting to play in a blind thread like this about who can or cannot hear what...ciao

 

[sratas]

This is definitely going nowhere. Wood matters. Great. It gives resonant properties and affects timbre.

All i know is that when i want a bass that sounds like a jazz bass i get a bass with two single coil pickups and vvt controls. When i want a bass that sounds like a stingray i buy a bass with a ebmm style humbucker in the stingray spot. Wood never ever will make a jazz sound like a precision. Or an L2000 sound like a stingray. Similarly if i take a p bass body made out of whatever wood and install a stingray humbucker in the right spot with ray electronics, it will sound much more like a stingray than a precision bass.

Its hard to argue that any bass tone is not defined primarily by the pickups. We all buy into this because we shop for specific designs based around pickups and electronics. No one shops for an alder body and rosewood neck with a random pickup hoping it sounds like a 60s jazz bass.

Wood is all well and good for fine tuning preferences. It is widely recognized to have an effect on sound. It makes one jazz sound different from another jazz. It will never make a jazz sound like a 55-94.

Wood matters but its importance in overall tone is secondary. For some its a close second. For others its distant. How can that result in such a convoluted circular discussion?!? Its almost mind blowing!

+ 1000. Totally agree