• 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.

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

CAST YOUR VOTE HERE!

  • BASS 1 is brighter than BASS 2. The MIX clip is BASS 1.

    Votes: 13 6.6%

  • BASS 1 is brighter than BASS 2. The MIX clip is BASS 2.

    Votes: 37 18.7%

  • BASS 2 is brighter than BASS 1. The MIX clip is BASS 1.

    Votes: 74 37.4%

  • BASS 2 is brighter than BASS 1. The MIX clip is BASS 2.

    Votes: 43 21.7%

  • I can't hear any difference whatsoever!

    Votes: 12 6.1%

  • I can hear a difference, but I have no clue which bass is being used in the mix.

    Votes: 19 9.6%
  • Total voters
    198
  • Poll closed .
#101
Using flatwounds for a test like this is utterly pointless for about 90% of bass players who will never use flats. Also, the lack of sustain and high frequency content in flats kind of murders the ability to tell any tonal difference.

That said, I was right on which bass was brighter, but I do think no one will give a crap what your neck is made out of in a mix.
 
#106
I'm getting better at this. Third one in a row I got right. Possibly because I invested in a decent set of headphones so I can actually hear what is playing, instead of netbook speakers.

Thanks for running these, Dan. Originally you had me watching the results and thinking wood doesn't matter, but after these last couple that I've been able to have an educated vote in, I guess it does.
 
#107
Interesting....

I thought the bass 1 was the maple due to the more solid low end fundamental. I did think that bass 2 was "brighter" though.

Regardless I got the mix question right. I could hear the "fundamental" softness in the mix.

Like someone else suggested....I want to hear the necks flipped now. Also...What about the density? Can we get a weight on each body so we can know approximately what the body density is?

Sooo...To elaborate on my take...

Bass 1 sounded "better" to my ears. I want to know why. Was it the body? The neck? The density? I don't know....

Bass 2 had a more "vintage" vibe to it. I did hear it as the "brighter" bass, but the fundamental was "pillowy" instead of "authoritative." I want to know why!! This is the tone I do not want!


So Dan...There you go. I can hear a difference in the woods. My preconcieved notions about the "solidity" were off, yet I did hear the "brightness" of the maple. I was more thrown by the fundamental.

You built the basses...Why do you think there's a difference?
 
#108
rpsands said:
Using flatwounds for a test like this is utterly pointless for about 90% of bass players who will never use flats. Also, the lack of sustain and high frequency content in flats kind of murders the ability to tell any tonal difference.

That said, I was right on which bass was brighter, but I do think no one will give a crap what your neck is made out of in a mix.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to add extra highs to the test and skew the results? Flats are the original, classic bass string. Rounds came later to add additional sizzle and clack to the tone. They overpower the tone of the wood, IMO.

Should I have also replaced the 250K pots with 500K pots? Should I have removed the tone cap from the circuit? Should I have used EMG pickups?

To suggest that wood tone can only be heard by adding additional highs is absurd. :rollno:

Besides, people clearly had no trouble hearing a difference in these woods.
 
#110
Hmmm, I got the basses right, but got which one was "brighter" wrong. lmao... I think maybe "brighter" is kind of a relative thing. I was listening for the sound of a very hard and stiff exotic wood neck (rosewood). And the deeper fundamentals and crisper high end that it should have (more "attack"), even if it is a "dark" sounding wood like rosewood. And I felt like I heard that in bass 1.

As somebody else posted earlier... maple can be plenty "warm" sounding and rosewood can be very "bright".

But I'm done placing too much stock in wood species and their role in tone. Seems like no matter what bass I play these days... I sound just like me. This is gonna make buying new gear that much easier for me!

Thanks Dan!
 
#111
knucklehead G said:
Thanks for running these, Dan. Originally you had me watching the results and thinking wood doesn't matter, but after these last couple that I've been able to have an educated vote in, I guess it does.
Click to expand...

Yep, wood certainly does have an impact. Although as evidenced by this test and others I have done, it's almost impossible to hear wood tone variations in a mix. The impact is far too subtle.

Lesson learned: Focus elsewhere for good tone. Pick wood that looks great and don't worry about it beyond that. Unless you're doing a solo bass CD. ;)
 
#113
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
Yep, wood certainly does have an impact. Although as evidenced by this test and others I have done, it's almost impossible to hear wood tone variations in a mix. The impact is far too subtle.

Lesson learned: Focus elsewhere for good tone. Pick wood that looks great and don't worry about it beyond that. Unless you're doing a solo bass CD. ;)
Click to expand...

+1000, although no matter how much evidence you muster, there will be some claiming you are wrong without comparable evidence to support them.
 
#114
mongo2 said:
Using a wider bandwidth signal provided by rounds would be a more complete demonstration of the impact the wood has on the tone. By limiting that bandwidth you diminish the relevance of your test.
Click to expand...

If I put nickel rounds on, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't use steel.

If I replaced the nickel rounds with steel rounds, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't use 500K pots.

If I replaced the 250K pots with 500K pots, you'd say the test was flawed because a tone cap was in the circuit.

If I removed the tone cap, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't wire the pickups directly to the jack.

If I wired the pickups directly to the jack, you'd say the test was flawed because I used Alnico magnet pickups.

If I swapped the Alnicos with Ceramics, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't conduct the test with a goat in the studio.

Etc, etc, etc.
 
#115
I got the comparison "right", but couldn't identify the bass in the mix. Which I figured might be the case. I might have been able to identify the bass in the mix if it was also a comparison, who knows. Interesting test Dan, thanks for taking the time to do it.
 
#116
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
If I put nickel rounds on, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't use steel.

If I replaced the nickel rounds with steel rounds, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't use 500K pots.

If I replaced the 250K pots with 500K pots, you'd say the test was flawed because a tone cap was in the circuit.

If I removed the tone cap, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't wire the pickups directly to the jack.

If I wired the pickups directly to the jack, you'd say the test was flawed because I used Alnico magnet pickups.

If I swapped the Alnicos with Ceramics, you'd say the test was flawed because I didn't conduct the test with a goat in the studio.

Etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Not at all, but ignoring the upper partials of the signal generated by the class of strings used by the vast majority of players, especially when timbre lives in the upper partials, skews the results.
 
#117
mongo2 said:
Using a wider bandwidth signal provided by rounds would be a more complete demonstration of the impact the wood has on the tone. By limiting that bandwidth you diminish the relevance of your test.
Click to expand...

Here's the other side of things. I get a little frustrated with all too often only being able to find sound clips that are mostly slapping with stainless steel rounds since I never play that way. I play fingerstyle most of the time, and use fairly tame nickel wounds or flats. I'm betting that there are a LOT of us who play in this style, not some tiny minority.

Also, the test seemed relevant enough to me. There was a clear difference in tone. The only thing I'd say is that I guess I would have liked to hear both basses in the mix on this test to see if I could hear a difference then.
 
#118
Corey Y said:
I got the comparison "right", but couldn't identify the bass in the mix. Which I figured might be the case. I might have been able to identify the bass in the mix if it was also a compariso, who knows. Interesting test Dan, thanks for taking the time to do it.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I had the same experience. I could easily hear Bass 2 was brighter. But in the mix, I had no clue.

Still can't fathom how some folks could hear Bass 1 as being brighter. :eek:

That's another lesson learned. Most of us can hear a difference, but exactly what that difference is.... that is VERY dependent on the individual and his perception. This further diminishes the merit of tonewood descriptions.
 
#119
WoodyG3 said:
Also, the test seemed relevant enough to me. There was a clear difference in tone. The only thing I'd say is that I guess I would have liked to hear both basses in the mix on this test to see if I could hear a difference then.
Click to expand...

I would have liked to heard it with flats, tapes, and rounds as well as swapping the necks and doing it again, but I don't think that's going to happen.
 
#120
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
That's another lesson learned. Most of us can hear a difference, but exactly what that difference is.... that is VERY dependent on the individual and his perception. This further diminishes the merit of tonewood descriptions.
Click to expand...

THAT I wholeheatedly agree with. I've been saying that for over 40 years.

When someone would ask me how an insrument sounded I would reply, "Depends on who's listening."

The Crapshootivity Principle pretty much puts the tonewood descriptions on hold until the bass is completed.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back