body wood does matter

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

There are two types of people in this world. Ones who have an idea and are willing to prove it through their own work; and ones who hold onto their prior beliefs regardless of evidence.

Empiric evidence is still evidence.

That's a false representation of what I (and others) are saying. We are not dogmatic about the issue, we are open for evidence, we will accept documentation. Your experience is not evidence or documentation. (No, there is no a court or scientific jury, but if people are going to spend a lot of time and money, it should be based on things that matters in the real world).

 

[James Collins]

That's a false representation of what I (and others) are saying. We are not dogmatic about the issue, we are open for evidence, we will accept documentation. Your experience is not evidence or documentation. (No, there is no a court or scientific jury, but if people are going to spend a lot of time and money, it should be based on things that matters in the real world).

Where is your evidence that it doesn't matter?

Lack of evidence is also not evidence.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

My proof is in my ears & if my tone-deaf ears can tell the difference, you'd better believe there's a huge difference.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Where is your evidence that it doesn't matter?

Lack of evidence is also not evidence.

Again, a false representation of what we are saying. We don't claim to have evidence that it doesn't matter. We can't prove there are no black swans. We can't prove a negative. For now, we will assume that it has very little (if any) noticable effect in a real world situation, but we are willing to change if there is solid documentation.

 

[Turnaround]

(No, your experience and observations are not documentation).

We're not talking about my observations here. We are talking about the observations and documentation of some engineers, instrument builders and scientists. That includes people with real-world experience as well as theorists.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

We're not talking about my observations here. We are talking about the observations and documentation of some engineers, instrument builders and scientists. That includes people with real-world experience as well as theorists.

A lot have other observations, that's why we have this discussion again and again and again. What matters is how it sounds (and feels) for the player and the audience, not what an engineer can put on a piece of paper.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

So when given evidence you dismiss it. Class!

You've been droning on & on about evidence, & there it is, but you won't look.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I’m still an agnostic on the subject, but I was struck by the fact that a Ric 4001 clone build I did out of the requisite hard rock maple through neck design sounds..... exactly like every other Ric I’ve played unplugged, which is to say a very bright, hard tone with a distinct “thrum” in the body. It’s hard to argue the pups have anything to do with it unplugged, And that inherent tone just sounds louder plugged in. A bass is a system, everything matters, how much can be attributed to body wood is indeterminate, and May always be, since each piece of wood is unique. I do think it’s inherent on anybody making definitive claims to provide some evidence beyond there own personal experience, that’s a reasonable request. I’m convinced it has some effect based on repeated personal experience, but don’t expect that to convince anybody else.

 

[Turnaround]

What matters is how it sounds (and feels) for the player and the audience, not what an engineer can put on a piece of paper.

That's exactly what the builders I am referring to are doing. It's recognized and respected by the players who buy their instruments.

Let's take a minute to review. The question is "Does body wood matter?" Some say it makes no difference. Some say that there is a significant difference, and some say that the difference is inconsequential.

What evidence do we have? We have anecdotal evidence from a number of folks supporting all three views. We have scientific theory that explains how the vibration of a string is affected by the system it is coupled to. We have mathematic models that support the scientific theory. We have spectral analyses that visually show the effects of different woods on the waves produced by the vibrating string. We have at least one engineer who has spend a great deal of time in testing and development who is convinced that the wood makes a difference. And we have a number of instrument builders who insist that the wood makes a difference and have staked their professional reputations on the use of those differences to optimize the functionality of their instruments.

If we take the anecdotal evidence out of our discussion, and we remove plain observation, we are still left with a lot of evidence that indicates that the wood makes a difference. If we remove the theoretical evidence, we still have audio spectrum analyses.

 

[mongo2]

That's exactly what the builders I am referring to are doing. It's recognized and respected by the players who buy their instruments.

Let's take a minute to review. The question is "Does body wood matter?" Some say it makes no difference. Some say that there is a significant difference, and some say that the difference is inconsequential.

What evidence do we have? We have anecdotal evidence from a number of folks supporting all three views. We have scientific theory that explains how the vibration of a string is affected by the system it is coupled to. We have mathematic models that support the scientific theory. We have spectral analyses that visually show the effects of different woods on the waves produced by the vibrating string. We have at least one engineer who has spend a great deal of time in testing and development who is convinced that the wood makes a difference. And we have a number of instrument builders who insist that the wood makes a difference and have staked their professional reputations on the use of those differences to optimize the functionality of their instruments.

If we take the anecdotal evidence out of our discussion, and we remove plain observation, we are still left with a lot of evidence that indicates that the wood makes a difference. If we remove the theoretical evidence, we still have audio spectrum analyses.

The bottom line is the differences exist and variations in human hearing capability exist so some can discern those differences and some can't.

 

[GrapeBass]

As I have said...

What I've learned here is that nothing affects the tone of an instrument unless you have empirical evidence proven by specific documentation that has been pear reviewed and published in Helsinki by monks. Without the affidavits of at least 20 bass players your experience and own judgment is moot.

Nothing matters. All basses, regardless of what they're built with, sound the same. They sound like a bass.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

The bottom line is the differences exist and variations in human hearing capability exist so some can discern those differences and some can't.

The bottom line is that this is what you belive to be the truth. Others are more agnostic on the issue.

 

[mongo2]

The bottom line is that this is what you belive to be the truth. Others are more agnostic on the issue.

Fact: Spectrum analysis proves the differences exist.
Fact: Human hearing varies with the individual.

You can deny all you want but those facts still exist whether you like it or not.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Fact: Spectrum analysis proves the differences exist.
Fact: Human hearing varies with the individual.

You can deny all you want but those facts still exist whether you like it or not.

Yes, spectrum analysis may prove that there are differences. No, that doesn't mean there are audible differences in a real life situation. Yes, human hearing varies with the induvidual. No, that doesn't mean there are audible differences in a real life situation, just because you claim it.

 

[Rib 13]

this thread has reached epic turd proportions

 

[mongo2]

Yes, spectrum analysis may prove that there are differences. No, that doesn't mean there are audible differences in a real life situation. Yes, human hearing varies with the induvidual. No, that doesn't mean there are audible differences in a real life situation, just because you claim it.

You just proved my point about human hearing. You obviously can't hear it in real life situations. Others can.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

You just proved my point about human hearing. You obviously can't hear it in real life situations. Others can.

You are free to belive that.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

spectrum analysis may prove that there are differences

game over, that's the clincher right there

 

[Stevorebob]

Again, a false representation of what we are saying. We don't claim to have evidence that it doesn't matter. We can't prove there are no black swans. We can't prove a negative. For now, we will assume that it has very little (if any) noticable effect in a real world situation, but we are willing to change if there is solid documentation.

Yes, yes, it cannot be proven that something does not exist. That’s your proving a negative. It cannot be proven that a Sasquatch tree does not exist, only that there is no scientific evidence that it does exist.

However, we’re proving a difference here, not a negative. It can be proven that something that exists has an effect or does not have an effect on something. If we have Sasquatch-tree wood, we can prove that it sounds different or the same as swamp ash in an electric stringed instrument. It is the same test to prove wood has an effect on tone or has no effect on tone: One measures the tone of instruments with different woods, and they are either different or the same. This not proving a negative.

(I made up the Sasquatch tree, so you can’t prove It does not exist. But some of you figured that out. )

 

[mongo2]

game over, that's the clincher right there

Yep.

The naysayers can deny all they want but they can never change that fact.