Agreed - for example, his reasoning on using upside down headstocks is way out in left field...
- georgestrings
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.
Bigger weight = Bigger sound?
- Thread starter Tupac
- Start date
Agreed - for example, his reasoning on using upside down headstocks is way out in left field...
- georgestrings
I've always thought that my heavier basses sounded a bit beefier. Had an '81 P Special, have an '84 P Elite II. Never weighed the Special, but the Elite is about 13 lbs. Both of those are active, but I've had lighter weight active and passive basses that just don't quite match up with either of those. The Elite is in a class by itself. Love, love, LOVE the tone I get from that bass. Sold the Special 20 years ago, still kicking myself.
Is it the wood weight? Is it the electronics? I don't know, but I like it!
Is it the wood weight? Is it the electronics? I don't know, but I like it!
It's not quite that simple. It's really more about rigidity than weight or density, but more rigid materials *tend* to be more dense. There are exceptions, and good design can use less of a more rigid material, so as to not increase the overall weight, and other aspects of the design (bridge design and mount, neck mount) also influence sustain.
And, again, sustain isn't the same thing as volume or tone quality, so it's not clear whether this is even relevant to the OP's question...
i think the lighter woods have more mids if you play them unplugged. the heavier woods have less mids so they might give the appearance of having more lows by contrast. johnny a.
Just something else to argue about. I remember in the 70's "heavier was better", then the argument switched to "dense wood doesn't vibrate" so it's not as good.
Whatever the current consensus is, just wait and it will change.
For what it's worth, I don't think it matters. I've had heavy crappy sounding basses and light great sounding basses and heavy great sounding basses and light crappy sounding basses.
Some people are always looking for the ONE thing that will make their bass sound great. There are so many variables, that usually you can't point to one single thing on the bass and say, "That makes it sound great."
Whatever the current consensus is, just wait and it will change.
For what it's worth, I don't think it matters. I've had heavy crappy sounding basses and light great sounding basses and heavy great sounding basses and light crappy sounding basses.
Some people are always looking for the ONE thing that will make their bass sound great. There are so many variables, that usually you can't point to one single thing on the bass and say, "That makes it sound great."
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
I don't think it's really out of left field. It's more likely a misconception that came about with the advent of reverse headstocks a few decades ago when they were all the rage.
everyone is right when saying:
- tone is affected by the whole instrument
- there are too many variables involved
- it is rather impossible to generalize
- a heavy bass can sound lighter than a bigger one
- the contrary of the previous
But, in a previous thread on TB that I have lost , there was a stunning post of a respected luthier talking about the reason because even with electric basses the wood density-rigidity does matter and contributes.
Damn, it would be fantastic if that person could chime in again...
for what I remember the explanation was that a rigid-dense wood does not resonate or vibrate like a lighter one, and this behaviour allows the pure tone of the strings to come trough, whereas a ligher, less dense-rigid wood does participate massively to the vibration triggered by the strings and the other parts of the bass, and the "resonance point" or something similar, of that wood affect the tone, dampening it in a certain way, and this usually, everything else being equal, does mellow the string sound allowing the tone of the wood to become more audible...if I remember correctly there were terms like "flexes", moves, attributed to the effect of vibration on woods.
I know that this unreferenced contribution will be bashed by those who have a contrary opinion, but I have no personal reason to not share this point of view.
I just want to remember the name of that guy...anyone else here red the same thread? (maybe 1-2 months ago)?
- tone is affected by the whole instrument
- there are too many variables involved
- it is rather impossible to generalize
- a heavy bass can sound lighter than a bigger one
- the contrary of the previous
But, in a previous thread on TB that I have lost , there was a stunning post of a respected luthier talking about the reason because even with electric basses the wood density-rigidity does matter and contributes.
Damn, it would be fantastic if that person could chime in again...
for what I remember the explanation was that a rigid-dense wood does not resonate or vibrate like a lighter one, and this behaviour allows the pure tone of the strings to come trough, whereas a ligher, less dense-rigid wood does participate massively to the vibration triggered by the strings and the other parts of the bass, and the "resonance point" or something similar, of that wood affect the tone, dampening it in a certain way, and this usually, everything else being equal, does mellow the string sound allowing the tone of the wood to become more audible...if I remember correctly there were terms like "flexes", moves, attributed to the effect of vibration on woods.
I know that this unreferenced contribution will be bashed by those who have a contrary opinion, but I have no personal reason to not share this point of view.
I just want to remember the name of that guy...anyone else here red the same thread? (maybe 1-2 months ago)?
DiabolusInMusic
Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism
Oh yeah let's all take advice from the spaz who jumped on stage when his band lost at the MTV music awards.
Since when did Tim C become a bass/tech guru? All the sudden re-winding your own pickups makes you a genius, even though I am pretty sure he just un-wrapped and re-wrapped them.
I am also not a fan of players who deceive people so they don't know what they are playing/using, that is such a d-bag guitarist move. Good bass players share their knowledge openly, look at Jaco and Victor Wooten, two of the greatest players are also two of the most open.
I think I'll start marketing lead weights that clamp on to the body of the bass and claim they increase resonance and fatten the tone....only 10 bucks per pound, sold in 5 lb packages......I sense early retirement......and to think I've been trying to earn my money all these years..... 
Huh??? - he's been quoted as saying that it created more tension on his E string - which is absolute BS... Or, how about his "tube prep" routine???
Like I said, great player - but out in left field regarding gear info...
- georgestrings
I know you're joking, but in fact Yamaha has a patent on the brass "sustain plate" that they insert into the body of their SG2000 series high-end electric guitars to anchor the bridge and tailpiece more rigidly and couple them to the body. It works - or at least, I can say from personal experience that those guitars have more natural sustain than any other I've ever played.I think I'll start marketing lead weights that clamp on to the body of the bass and claim they increase resonance and fatten the tone....only 10 bucks per pound, sold in 5 lb packages......I sense early retirement......and to think I've been trying to earn my money all these years.....
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
Well said, I concur. I also think your life will go so much better if you sell me your black Sadowsky. Just saying, and I think everyone here agrees. They told me. 
I found something else to be true, and more repeatable...and you can hear the difference completely unamplified.
I owned an Epi Ripper that was way brighter and had more sustain than my Warmoth PJ. They both weighed almost 13lbs, and were built from rock maple bodies with rock maple necks/fretboards.
You could plainly hear the Epi Ripper was more resonant and brighter, with piano-like sustain and attack. My Ric is the same way and they sound closer in tone than the PJ, despite a huge disparity in weight - the Ric is 9.5lbs.
My conclusion was that the bodies on the Ric and Ripper were thinner, making them more resonant. And yes, the Warmoth sounds very compressed - to the point it sounds dead next to my Ric.
But it's pretty(and not bad sounding...just not the P/Ric tone I imagined when I put it together)
Great post on all fronts. I'd really like to read that guy's thoughts on this. I suppose it does make some sense and could line up with my thoughts on the matter. If the whole thing is vibrating, I can see that sort of diluting the vibration of the strings and softening it into a boomy thud. With a heavier bass, it would be a clearly defined punch, like a kick drum, which is exactly what I was trying got describe in the OP. Feel free to rip me apart, just a hypothesis.
I agree.
A thin poplar body is not going to be the same as a thin rock maple one. It will probably sound a bit muffled, but warm.
But sometimes there can be a point of diminishing returns with body thickness - that's why I think Peavey t20's and T40's may actually sound a bit livelier than my PJ - they are made from hard ash, which is bright but lighter than maple. They seem to help the thicker bodies resonate well.
I've noticed my EBMM Stingray 5 vibrates more as opposed to my Ibanez BTB445. Both heavy basses, but the Stingray's probably heavier by about 2 pounds or so.
The EBMM is heavier, feels a little harder to the touch (the BTB doesn't seem to have a lacquer finish) and the parts are stuck in the body better. It also has a much larger single piece bridge (as opposed to an individual bridge piece per string) and generally feels more solid.
I would attribute the weight to one piece in the puzzle regarding its vibration. I can hit a note (the best is an E string or downtuned to a D) and hold it by the upper horn and feel it moving in my hands.
I attribute the tone mostly to the pickups and pre amp, but it is possible that the resonance gives it more sustain and maybe even changes the tone.
I view this the same as the tonewood argument. Yes, it probably does make a difference, but the difference is going to be different in each instrument, and I doubt if the change would be repeatable. It's just part of what makes each instrument slightly different.
Two basses of the exact same build and quality with different body weights will probably have different tones.
The EBMM is heavier, feels a little harder to the touch (the BTB doesn't seem to have a lacquer finish) and the parts are stuck in the body better. It also has a much larger single piece bridge (as opposed to an individual bridge piece per string) and generally feels more solid.
I would attribute the weight to one piece in the puzzle regarding its vibration. I can hit a note (the best is an E string or downtuned to a D) and hold it by the upper horn and feel it moving in my hands.
I attribute the tone mostly to the pickups and pre amp, but it is possible that the resonance gives it more sustain and maybe even changes the tone.
I view this the same as the tonewood argument. Yes, it probably does make a difference, but the difference is going to be different in each instrument, and I doubt if the change would be repeatable. It's just part of what makes each instrument slightly different.
Two basses of the exact same build and quality with different body weights will probably have different tones.
