For those criticizing the methodology: please show us an experiment with equal or better methodolgy showing that someone CAN reliably differentiate. I have seen this tried a few times, and have tried it myself. I have never seen anyone succeed in reliably and repeatedly differentiating basses based on wood type and am not aware of anyone showing it can be done in anything remotely resembling a proper blinded setting. I am open to being shown.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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!
- Thread starter -=DanAtkinson=-
- Start date
I disagree with those that said rounds should have been used for this test.
If he had used fresh round wounds, the tone we'd be hearing would be mostly strings, not wood/electronics.
Now, if he had used some well worn rounds that had lost their initial brightness, I could agree with using those for this kind of test, but newer flats are pretty much the same.
Worn-in flats on the other hand completely smother the tone, IMO. They just make basses sound dull and dead. Bad choice for any audio test.
If he had used fresh round wounds, the tone we'd be hearing would be mostly strings, not wood/electronics.
Now, if he had used some well worn rounds that had lost their initial brightness, I could agree with using those for this kind of test, but newer flats are pretty much the same.
Worn-in flats on the other hand completely smother the tone, IMO. They just make basses sound dull and dead. Bad choice for any audio test.
There have been lots of questions on methodology in this and prior threads dan has done. I think some are legit points for sure. However i cant imagine the results are going to change dramatically if the test is done in a way that makes everyone 100% happy. Like if there were rounds we would all suddenly know which one is maple.
I noticed that many comments on tonal variation can generally be broken down into two adjective groups. Brighter or snappier and darker or warmer. Not all but many. I think its interesting that the interpretations tend to be smplistic rather than very specific and complex like some of the more creative "tonewood" descriptions that can be found on the net.
I noticed that many comments on tonal variation can generally be broken down into two adjective groups. Brighter or snappier and darker or warmer. Not all but many. I think its interesting that the interpretations tend to be smplistic rather than very specific and complex like some of the more creative "tonewood" descriptions that can be found on the net.
The whole point is that the wood effects the harmonics of the vibrating strings. Dead rounds or flats have fewer harmonics to effect.
TI Jazz.
TIs are super bright as flats go. I don't think you needed any more treble, hearing the difference in isolation was a piece of cake anyways.
Yeah but the harmonics of fresh rounds almost feed back on each other, I could see it obscuring the important parts of the tone--i.e. the stuff below 2 kHz. Flats easily cover up to 2 kHz, I have tested this with my basses equipped with flats.
How is one part of the tone "more important" than another? It's all just tone.
I correctly chose BASS 2 is brighter than BASS 1. But chose bass 1 in the mix which was wrong. Also I heard the difference most in the neck pickup only clips.
Seeing as this thread is getting a ton of views I want to ask a question to all you more experienced players. Sanity check if you will.
As a former double bass player I know wood type and quality makes a difference in the tone for acoustic instruments. But for electric basses it's different.
On an electric bass the pickup(s) emit a magnetic field, the string vibrates within the magnetic field, the string vibration is pickup up by the pickup and fed to the amp. The sound you're hearing from the amp is the string vibration, not the actual body of the instrument.
So the effect of electric bass body/neck materials on tonal output comes from the body's influence on the way the string vibrates over the pickups.
Examples of this idea:
* A soft bodied instrument will absorb more vibration from the strings at either end, dampening vibrations and frequency response over the pickup from the strings. Resulting in a muted tone.
* A rock hard bodied instrument will absorb less vibration from the strings at either end, allowing more vibrations and frequency response over the pickup from the strings. Resulting in a brighter tone.
I know it's not black and white like that given all the different wood and build options, but is that the basic idea?
Seeing as this thread is getting a ton of views I want to ask a question to all you more experienced players. Sanity check if you will.
As a former double bass player I know wood type and quality makes a difference in the tone for acoustic instruments. But for electric basses it's different.
On an electric bass the pickup(s) emit a magnetic field, the string vibrates within the magnetic field, the string vibration is pickup up by the pickup and fed to the amp. The sound you're hearing from the amp is the string vibration, not the actual body of the instrument.
So the effect of electric bass body/neck materials on tonal output comes from the body's influence on the way the string vibrates over the pickups.
Examples of this idea:
* A soft bodied instrument will absorb more vibration from the strings at either end, dampening vibrations and frequency response over the pickup from the strings. Resulting in a muted tone.
* A rock hard bodied instrument will absorb less vibration from the strings at either end, allowing more vibrations and frequency response over the pickup from the strings. Resulting in a brighter tone.
I know it's not black and white like that given all the different wood and build options, but is that the basic idea?
I play DB too, as do both of my sons.
What the strings are attached to effects how the string vibrates including on soldibody electrics. The easiest to notice example is the fact of deadspots and hotspots.
How the string vibrates is what the pickups transduce.
Dan, Thanks for conducting a very interesting and informative test. You've helped confirm my recent wood selections for the bass I am building.
I appreciate all the effort that went into this!
I appreciate all the effort that went into this!
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.
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.
Hello Dan,
Thanks for this very interesting thread.
I just wanted to ask you if it would be possible to post the "Mix" again with Bass 1 instead of Bass 2. I voted that Bass 1 was in the mix because of the warmer sound, now I would like to hear the difference between Maple and Alder in the Mix.
If you have time and desire of course.
Thanks again.
Regards!
- Jun 24, 2006
- 2,560
- 91
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: MTD basses and strings; Bergantino Amps & Cabs
no wonder it was SO hard to hear the difference, and why the front pickup suddenly became more obvious....I HATE those things. Grew up with them, when that was the ONLY sound you could get out of a bass..and I COMPLETELY disagree that roundwounds cause you to compete with guitars and pianos...that's the players fault, not the strings. You can GET a flatwound sound out of roundwounds - you definitely CAN'T do the opposite, or any of the HUGE range of tones available with rounds.
Here's what I think of flatwounds:
"Do you like your strings wound flat?
I do not like my strings wound flat.
I do not like them and that is that.
Would you like them on a P?
I would not like them on a P.
I would not like them slapped by Flea.
I do not like my strings wound flat.
I do not like them and THAT IS THAT!!!
Would you like them with a pic?
Would you like them on a Ric?
I do not like them with a pic.
I do not like them on a Ric.
I do not like them on a P.
I do not like them slapped by Flea.
I do not like my strings wound flat.
I do not like them and that is that.
Would you play them on a show?
Or perhaps at home and turned down low?
Not on a show. Not turned down low.
Not on a P. Not slapped by Flea.
I would not like them with a pick,
I would not like them on a Ric.
I do not like my strings wound flat.
I do not like them and that is that...
The End..."
Brilliant, just ****** brilliant, written by Charles Arms
But thanks for doing this thread (I was right in spite of the flats, btw).
Cheers,
Cameron
Dan, I think you need to invent a machine that magically changes one wood into another. Then you can play the EXACT SAME BASS with different woods. Aside from that there is nothing you can do that people won't be critical of.
I still argue that the amount of harmonic overtones from the strings themselves would cover up many of the subtleties of the tone of the wood/electronics.
Just like Dan's tests of various pickups. They all sounded the same? Why? Because he used new roundwound strings. They covered up any variations between the pickups.
It's the wood that is responsible for what harmonic overtones are in the vibrating string due to the wood acting similar to a comb filter.
