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.
body wood does matter
- Thread starter Killed_by_Death
- Start date
Sure, I agree. If it's so easy to prove, go ahead.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.)
Turnaround
Commercial User
I often wonder if that's a significant part of the story. I can make a bass that has poor frequency response, has limited range electronics and pump it through a low-fidelity amp. And I know that under those conditions I could change the body wood to extremes and would not be able to detect a sonic difference, especially if I am using poor quality strings that are dead, and I am routing everything through a compressor.
So is the difference that of variances in human hearing, or simply an inferior delivery system? My guess is that it's both. But of course I have no proof. I promise I won't lose sleep over it.
Your hypothesis has already been proven wrong by facts. Belief has nothing to do with it, but I'm sure you will continue to believe it does.
Seriously, you might want to consider having your hearing checked. I have mine checked every year.
Last edited:
True Story: I have a friend that bought a Sadowsky J less than a year ago. Its finely crafted, and sounds great. I own a Fender American Deluxe Jazz...its well made also and sounds good (I'd say its slightly darker than his Sadowsky), but I admit that the Sadowsky is better crafted, including wood quality....The moral of my story? Plugged in, my $500 so-n-so crafted Sire V7 blows both my Fender and his Sadowsky out of the water, in my opinion.......
I agree, and it's inconceivable that material selection is irrelevant. But reading between the lines and playing devils advocate for a bit, I don't think @Fredrik E. Nilsen is arguing that differences don't exist, just whether they matter in the real world. I am convinced by the physics that it all matters, but in my part of the real world if I don't like a given instrument I pass and try others until I do. I certainly don't have the time to sample and analyse enough individual instruments do make any statistically valid or definitive statement on what affects what and to what degree it matters.
YMMV
Sorry, my friend. You’ll have to prove your own argument. But I’ll bet you win all the schoolyard debates with “you can’t prove a negative.” That really frustrates an eleven-year-old.Sure, I agree. If it's so easy to prove, go ahead.
Last edited:
I don't know how good my ears are. I do know that Ive worked in a music store and two of the same basses that came in on the truck set-up relatively the same with the same strings made out of the same materials/wood can sound drastically different.....Even if I did have the finer ability to hear differences in wood quality between instruments, I wouldnt be able to tell if its the wood quality/type making a difference or the status quo that all instruments have unique qualities unto themselves anyway.......ymmv
Hi,
When @Killed_by_Death started this thread he based his opinion on actually handling two basses from the same manufacturer and he said he could identify distinct differences in the tonal quality between the two basses.
Here's more fuel
This isn't about pickup placement, there's definitely a difference in tone between two basses, same manufacturer, each with ebony necks and same electronics, same hardware, the only difference is body wood.
When @Killed_by_Death started this thread he based his opinion on actually handling two basses from the same manufacturer and he said he could identify distinct differences in the tonal quality between the two basses.
Here's more fuel
This isn't about pickup placement, there's definitely a difference in tone between two basses, same manufacturer, each with ebony necks and same electronics, same hardware, the only difference is body wood.
Last edited:
This is the presentation that gets into the physics end of the pool. I found it very interesting.
I also want to re-state that I'm not disagreeing with yours, or the OP's observation. I don't claim to know the truth, either. I am genuinely interested in the topic. I would like the solidbody tonewood thing to be true. But until someone can prove it beyond personal anecdote, and the more rigorous study seems to disprove it, I will follow the data.
Might be a good band name, if nothing else.
That particular video link is above.This is the presentation that gets into the physics end of the pool. I found it very interesting.
I also want to re-state that I'm not disagreeing with yours, or the OP's observation. I don't claim to know the truth, either. I am genuinely interested in the topic. I would like the solidbody tonewood thing to be true. But until someone can prove it beyond personal anecdote, and the more rigorous study seems to disprove it, I will follow the data.
Might be a good band name, if nothing else.
This guy is not the best source in your video's link. He got into some trouble a while back with trying to scam YouTube and/or another website --in short he is toxic and it would be like Darrin Huff using his expertise to turn Gibson around.
That aside this video is also about as scientifically rigorous as the Necronomicon Ex Mortis. Basically, one person starting with an opinion and then sharing some line art to say he is correct with the same sort of science flat earthers like to espouse.
Turnaround
Commercial User
The problem with the explanation in the video is that it doesn't account for how the mounting point (say the bridge) will behave differently at different frequencies. And it's "absorption" and "reflection" is frequency dependent. A vibrating string is vibrating at one fundamental frequency as well as a number of partials all at once. It is the partials that give the vibrating string its sonic character. As the video says, a pure sine wave (one without any partials) sounds quite boring. It is the particular mix of partials that give it character. Different strings will produce different partials in different quantities and intensities dependent upon the material of the string. Thus strings of different materials make a sonic difference - just like putting classical guitar strings on you steel-string guitar. And those partials will also be affected by whatever system the string is coupled to.
If a string with a fundamental at 250 Hz and strong partial at say 1000Hz is anchored to something that absorbs vibration at 1000Hz, that string will sound differently when connected to something that absorbs energy at 1800Hz. One of the partials that defines the character of the sound of the string has been absorbed in each case, but different partials. And since the mix of partials is responsible for the character of sound, the damping of different partials will be evident in different sonic quality. Wouldn't it be nice if you could see the actual vibrations at 1000 an 1800Hz? Well you can. Kinda.
The way you can see it is with a spectrum analyzer. It doesn't allow you to see the string, but it does allow you to see the waves produced by the string. If you go back in this thread you will see that someone has actually posted spectral analyses and you can clearly see the difference in waveforms produced when a given string at a given pitch is attached to different species of identically-sized wood. The overtones are affected differently by the different woods.
Physics tells us energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. So if the energy of the partial at 1000Hz is being transferred to the body of the instrument, it no longer resides in the string.
A magnetic pickup generates an electrical signal based on the disturbances it sees in it's magnetic field. THat's how it works. And if there is a reduced disturbance at 1000Hz, then there is a reduction in the output at that frequency. In other words, the pickup will only produce a signal that's electrically analogous to the frequencies and intensities of the string that's causing the disturbance. And the frequencies and intensities of the vibration of the string is dependent on the frequencies and intensities of the system it is connected to. Most of us have experienced basses with "dead spots" - those notes that seem to die quickly or sound somewhat muffled. There's a loss of energy at that particular point. And that loss is largely at the fundamental frequency of the note being produced. Where did that energy go? THere's not a lot of choice - it went into the air or it went into the rest of the bass. Assuming for the moment that it didn't just disappear into the air, it then must have gone into the rest of the instrument. In other words, the rest of the instrument is affecting the way the string is vibrating (or failing to vibrate). The pickup is telling us that in the electrical pulses it is producing - the energy just isn't there in the string. Bu maybe the pickup is at fault? Sure it's possible, but then a simple cure for a dead note on a bass would be to change the pickup. It's been tried and it doesn't work. What does work is to add mass to the system the string is attached to. The mass changes the resonant frequency of the system so that it no longer absorbs vibrations at that particular frequency. And as so many players have found out, it tends to move the absorption to a different frequency. You could do the same thing by swapping out the body of the instrument for one with a different mass (all else being equal).
It all points in the same direction. The string behaviour is affected by the rest of the system it is coupled to. How much the string is affected and at which frequencies are dependent upon the physical characteristics of that system. Do different woods vibrate differently? For centuries instrument makers have used the tap test to identify those differences. Even if you don't have first-hand experience of the sonic qualities of different woods you probably recognize that those differences are there. The question comes down to a matter of degree.
Experienced instrument makers speak of the differences in wood and it's affect on the instrument's character in terms like "tends to enhance the initial attack of the note" or "can add a bit of brightness" or "helps to produce a stronger fundamental". None are saying that the difference is night-and-day. All are talking of the subtleties that help define the overall character of the instrument in the same way that the mix of partials in a vibrating string affect the character of the sound it makes.
I am tiring of this discussion. I have no more to add. Everyone reading this will form his/her own conclusion. By all means discard what's anecdotal. Question some observations. But don't call into question centuries of scientific endeavour unless you have scientific evidence to the contrary. And give some credence to the makers who have decades of experience and who believe that wood makes a difference. Among them are:
Roger Sadowsky
Ken Smith
Ken Lawrence
Ron Allen
Mike Pedulla
Keith Roscoe
Rob Elrick
and not the least, one of TB's own members, Bruce Johnson.
There are plenty more makers who believe that the wood makes a difference. The ones above are just the ones I have personally talked to about this.
See you in another thread.
I'll buy that different woods can affect amplified output, there's enough science to establish that at least, the part I'm still sceptical about is the boutique "tuning recipes" that companies like Alembic and others espouse, the idea that specific cork-sniffer tone goals can be achieved by adding this or that tonewood, like seasoning in a stew. That's demonstrably true on acoustic instruments, not so sure on electronic amplified ones. It seems like since each piece of wood is essentially unique, the number of variables would quickly multiply beyond anything but generalized prediction. The classic "hippie sandwich" is an aesthetic goal in it's own right, all the rest sounds like marketing hype to me. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Alembics, beautifully built, great sounding instruments, but a little hyperbole goes a long way. On that note, I'm out.... until the next Tonewood Debate, which will be a long shortly .
.
That's about the clearest and most convincing argument I've read on TB regarding the Great ToneWood Debate. Thanks for posting it!
Since this thread may be winding down (anyone tired of the topic yet?), I’ll just offer a couple of $0.019 observations.
First, posts misrepresenting the Scientific Method on TB continue unfortunately to be too prolific. Too many posts confusing a Mathematical proof (QED) with Scientific Method. Proof of the so called “Tonewood Debate” ain’t never gonna happen. So, get over it. The Scientific Method doesn’t work that way. Scientific Method never proves anything. It merely disproves ideas using controlled trials.
BTW, it is NOT possible to disprove the hypothesis that the materials of construction in a bass guitar affect the sound. Why? Because you would have to test every single bass guitar out there before you came to a conclusion. Perhaps, such a flawed approach is partly responsible for the never ending threads on the topic. If that is your mission, then good luck.
You can seek to disprove the negative of that above hypothesis, because you only have to find one example to disprove it. That is why I posted the clip of the Phaedrus Dominator earlier. Which was an extreme case. You are of course left to wonder how much the materials of construction matter; but that is for each of us to consider on our own when we evaluate a potential instrument purchase.
Also, there are at least two different arguments going on, like two ships passing in the night. One revolves around how the bass sounds to tape, the other is related to how the player perceives the feedback from the instrument while playing. Two different topics.
Finally, we should all NOT get worked up over this topic. While it is interesting, it is a fact that the player’s skill and knowledge so vastly out weigh the aspects of the instrument being played that we should all be comfortable with the fact that a skilled player with a Squire will play circles around a novice with an Alembic.
And, not to pick on Alembic. They are wonderful and we are lucky to have them. Same for the other “boutique” builders in the Bass world.
Carry on.
First, posts misrepresenting the Scientific Method on TB continue unfortunately to be too prolific. Too many posts confusing a Mathematical proof (QED) with Scientific Method. Proof of the so called “Tonewood Debate” ain’t never gonna happen. So, get over it. The Scientific Method doesn’t work that way. Scientific Method never proves anything. It merely disproves ideas using controlled trials.
BTW, it is NOT possible to disprove the hypothesis that the materials of construction in a bass guitar affect the sound. Why? Because you would have to test every single bass guitar out there before you came to a conclusion. Perhaps, such a flawed approach is partly responsible for the never ending threads on the topic. If that is your mission, then good luck.
You can seek to disprove the negative of that above hypothesis, because you only have to find one example to disprove it. That is why I posted the clip of the Phaedrus Dominator earlier. Which was an extreme case. You are of course left to wonder how much the materials of construction matter; but that is for each of us to consider on our own when we evaluate a potential instrument purchase.
Also, there are at least two different arguments going on, like two ships passing in the night. One revolves around how the bass sounds to tape, the other is related to how the player perceives the feedback from the instrument while playing. Two different topics.
Finally, we should all NOT get worked up over this topic. While it is interesting, it is a fact that the player’s skill and knowledge so vastly out weigh the aspects of the instrument being played that we should all be comfortable with the fact that a skilled player with a Squire will play circles around a novice with an Alembic.
And, not to pick on Alembic. They are wonderful and we are lucky to have them. Same for the other “boutique” builders in the Bass world.
Carry on.
