body wood does matter

[Deleted member 165050]

Yes, you are making things up. Yes, you are quoting out of context.


This is something you're just making up. It's actually the total opposite of what I argued. I know, it's probably not easy to grasp.

Gosh, you had the last word. Oh wait...

 

[flashgod]

to answer the question, if wood matters or not, you first have to answer the question, to which party do you belong?
You basically can devide the TB community into 2 groups: believers and non believers

A non believer gives a sh... about wood options and their tonal differences.
A true beliver will spend the rest of his livetime to find the one and only bass with the optimal wood combination.

Personaly, I am into the 2nd group and my best sounding bass is an Aerodyne made of Basswood.
Far better than my expensive Stingray or Thunderbird.

 

[Whippet]

Surely it makes a difference.

It just doesn't matter to some people.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Can I stay in the “agnostic” Tonewood party? Lots of interesting arguments on both sides. I lean towards the “it matters” side this week, next week all bets are off. In the current overall Tribal world mindset, where even the most thoroughly vetted and peer-reviewed science is ignored for entrenched political or cultural belief, I doubt even a carefully designed Tone-wood experiment would really change many minds, but it’s fun to jaw about, ain’t it?

 

[flashgod]

to answer the question, if wood matters or not, you first have to answer the question, to which party do you belong?
You basically can devide the TB community into 2 groups: believers and non believers

A non believer gives a sh... about wood options and their tonal differences.
A true beliver will spend the rest of his livetime to find the one and only bass with the optimal wood combination.

Personaly, I am into the 2nd group and my best sounding bass is an Aerodyne made of Basswood.
Far better than my expensive Stingray or Thunderbird.

Best sounding basses for me

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Interesting contrast, one basswood and one rock maple, both sound great, both known for being pretty “bright” basses. Basswood really soft and flexible , maple really hard and rigid. Thank god nobody has brought the whole bolt-on vs neck through factor in yet. That might be good for a few pages of rancor in itself!

 

[flashgod]

Interesting contrast, one basswood and one rock maple, both sound great, both known for being pretty “bright” basses. Basswood really soft and flexible , maple really hard and rigid. Thank god nobody has brought the whole bolt-on vs neck through factor in yet. That might be good for a few pages of rancor in itself!

It is a deep space universe with its own laws of nature.
The deeper we dig in, the more curiosity we have.

BTW I jugde a bass when it sounds good unplugged. The Aerodyne has a fantastic woody sound, while the Rick gives you that super nasal sound only available at a Rick.

 

[40Hz]

In the current overall Tribal world mindset, where even the most thoroughly vetted and peer-reviewed science is ignored for entrenched political or cultural belief, I doubt even a carefully designed Tone-wood experiment would really change many minds

Ain’t that the truth!

 

[Muddslide]

Just back to once again remind everyone of the fact that while wood, like any other variable, surely has some effect on the sound of an electrified instrument and blahblahblah...

...and sure, you can devote all kinds of time and money and effort to investigation of this and chasing that magical wood formula...

...you COULD just play and realize that really cheap, simple things like changing strings, adjusting your technique and hand placement, or taking a few seconds to twiddle a couple knobs has a far greater impact and any one of these things is going to override and make irrelevant all arguments about which wood is "better" and yadda yadda...

 

[Stevorebob]

I’m often amused that folks demanding scientific proof through rigorous testing generally don’t, themselves, believe the science and offer no scientific proof and conduct no testing for their side of the argument.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

From what little I remember of my high school science about experimental methodology, it’s pretty hard to set up a true blind test. Even if somebody went through all the effort, you still can’t control for how the interested audience hears the examples, via what kind and quality of internet connection, through what speakers or headphones, into ears with what age or genetic limitations, etc. Would anybody be convinced by a chart of comparitive wave forms to eliminate all the listening variables? I really doubt it. I thinks it’s nearly insoluable , which leaves me biased towards trusting the judgement of experienced builders over all the armchair geniuses (like me!).

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

From what little I remember of my high school science about experimental methodology, it’s pretty hard to set up a true blind test.

Still, several people here claim it's easy to test and prove. Yet, they never actually do it.

 

[Stevorebob]

Still, several people here claim it's easy to test and prove. Yet, they never actually do it.

I thought this was rather interesting:

I found that link:


You can visually tell that each tonewood gives a different spectrum.

Here's the explanation:

guitarworks.thestrandbergs.com/2014/12/28/the-impact-of-wood-choice-in-an-electric-guitar/

I find it curious that those saying there is no difference between tonewoods offer no tests.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

I find it curious that those saying there is no difference between tonewoods offer no tests.

You still can’t prove a negative.

 

[Muddslide]

...you still can’t control for how the interested audience hears the examples...

Too true. Not only that, far more important is how they might judge their preferences.

Even if the majority of listeners could discern the differences in wood (and of course wood would not be the only thing having an impact on sound--not by a mile), the differences are going to strike each listener in different ways with regards to what they each feel sounds "better."

Because THAT is 100% subjective and there is no "right or wrong" to it at all, whatsoever.

One listener may think a bubinga bass might sound "better." One may prefer mahogany, or ash, or alder, or even a cheap laminated mass produced bass.

And they'd all be correct.

 

[Stevorebob]

You still can’t prove a negative.

Yes, a negative cannot be proven. However, the notion that tonewoods sound alike is not a negative, and it can be tested and proven, if desired.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Yes, a negative cannot be proven. However, the notion that tonewoods sound alike is not a negative, and it can be tested and proven, if desired.

"There are no black sheep".

 

[InternetAlias]

You still can’t prove a negative.

You aren't claiming a [non]existence of deity in an infinitely hard to explore universe, you're positively claiming that "bass guitar materials do not SIGNIFICANTLY (what does this even mean, by whom standards?) alter the tone of the instrument in a real life scenario (which is what?)."

Also, yes, you absolutely can prove a negative under certain conditions. For example, if the entirety of the system is known with all the parameters. If it's a closed system with few parameters, proving a negative is a breeze!

For example, rolling three die and claiming "there's no 2 rolled among them", since you know which three numbers came up, you would be able to claim this with 100% certainty.

 

[40Hz]

I’m often amused that folks demanding scientific proof through rigorous testing generally don’t, themselves, believe the science and offer no scientific proof and conduct no testing for their side of the argument.

There’s no sides or argument. It’s purely a matter if establishing concrete fact versus opinions or sharing anecdotal examples based on non-scientific expertise and “years of experience.”

The burden of establishing the verifiable proof of a scientific theory - and having it vetted by a qualified peer review - is on the party making the claim when it comes to science. This isn’t a court of law where there’s a presumption of innocence - or being factually correct in this case. Science presumes nothing. It’s not a matter if proving yourself right and someone else wrong. It’s a matter of getting to the bottom of what actually is the real verifiable truth.

I personally find it amusing how, when speaking of science and scientific research, so few people seem to understand or simply refuse to understand that.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

You aren't claiming a [non]existence of deity in an infinitely hard to explore universe, you're positively claiming that "bass guitar materials do not SIGNIFICANTLY (what does this even mean, by whom standards?) alter the tone of the instrument in a real life scenario (which is what?)."

A difference through an amp that is noticeable by listeners (musicians, if you prefer. I'm not claiming there is no difference. I'm asking for the tests that are so easy to make, according to several people here, and the evidence.

Also, yes, you absolutely can prove a negative under certain conditions. For example, if the entirety of the system is known with all the parameters. If it's a closed system with few parameters, proving a negative is a breeze!

For example, rolling three die and claiming "there's no 2 rolled among them", since you know which three numbers came up, you would be able to claim this with 100% certainty.

There will always be one more piece of wood that hasn't been tested.