body wood does matter

[Bruce Johnson]

If you're saying that internal differences in design (that we can't see) might be making the diffetence, then that just supports my assertion that species of wood doesn't matter to tone..

You are misunderstanding me; I guess I wasn't clear.

I'm saying that the two G & L basses that the original poster used to start this discussion are identical in design, to each other. That is, their bodies are machined to the same dimensions, thickness, configuration, etc. The only difference is the species of wood used in the bodies; one swamp ash and the other alder.

I'm saying that in the design of those two G & L basses, the bodies are fairly soft and flexible. On both of them. As compared to other brands and model basses. Leo & Co. did that intentionally. Those basses are designed to have bodies that flex and work. That's why you can hear the difference when different species of wood are used for the body. And that's one of the reasons why G & L basses are highly regarded (and expensive). They are designed to use the wood frame to help shape the tone. The proof is in the fact that you can hear a difference in the sound from the body woods.

In comparison, your basses are designed to be much stiffer. The bodies are thicker and stronger and don't flex as much. By their design. Whether you did it intentionally or not. That's why you are barely hearing any difference when you build the same design, using different woods. You made them that way. And I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. But you chose not to use one of the big variables available to you when designing your basses.

Do you understand what I'm saying? You aren't wrong with your observations of your basses. By their design, the wood isn't mattering.

But Killed For Death also isn't wrong in his observations about the two G & L's. By their design, the body wood does matter, and he can hear a difference between the wood species.

What's wrong is to generalize and say that, because this one group of basses all sound the same with different body woods, therefore it must be true of all basses, and that the wood species has nothing to do with the sound in any electric bass. That's what's wrong.

It's the design of the bass that determines whether the wood species used in the body matters. That's the big variable that's missing from all these arguments. And that's why people are getting into arguments over conflicting results.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

This is a link to some vibration analysis carried out on solid body electric bass guitars. The research was specifically concerned with dead spots, but does address how the structure of the guitar affects string vibration (the section on damping). It's a rather dry read, but it does prove that string vibration i.e. sustain is affected by the supporting structure. It also refers to attenuation of specific frequencies which of course would influence tone. So this is proper research proving that the body material affects sustain and tone.

Invalid Link Removed

Yes, I've read it earlier, but this is really a strawman argument. Noone here argues that it doesn't matter if it's a piece of plastic or some exotic wood. We argue that if there is any significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation, it would be easy to prove.

(If you drink one liter of water from your tap, it can contain up to 10 μg arsenic, 50 μg cyanide, 10 μg lead, 1 μg mercury etc. It may sound dangerous, but it has no real effect on your body).

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

I already have. Many, many times.

How about this: Here's thread here on TalkBass, written by another Luthier, MPU in Finland, who I've never met. He was curious about all the things I've written about here on TB, about bass structures and how to modify them to improve the sound. Someone came up with the cute name of calling these modifications Brucification. So, he designed and built a bass with my guidance. He documents the whole process, and describes the results. Again, I've never met him. I only talked him through the technical details here online. He's making his own observations and judgements.

Headless four string ”Brucefied”

And, there are others.

Anecdotes are still not evidence.

 

[Bruce Johnson]

Anecdotes are still not evidence.

So, an independent "peer" Luthier replicates my work and reports on the results. And that's not good enough for you? Do we need to be wearing a lab coats and holding clip boards?

And we, who are experienced in listening to basses, listen to the basses and describe how they sound. Isn't that "real world" testing?

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Yes, I've read it earlier, but this is really a strawman argument. Noone here argues that it doesn't matter if it's a piece of plastic or some exotic wood. We argue that if there is any significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation, it would be easy to prove.

If you can't accept scientific evidence from formal documented testing and analysis that density of body structure affects vibration and resonance, then I guess vibration analysis isn't really something you are able to appreciate. No problem, it is a dry subject and not easy to grasp.

I don't care what wood types are btw, it is density that is the factor.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

So, an independent "peer" Luthier replicates my work and reports on the results. And that's not good enough for you? Do we need to be wearing a lab coats and holding clip boards?

Apparently that's not good enough either

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

If you can't accept scientific evidence from formal documented testing and analysis that density of body structure affects vibration and resonance, then I guess vibration analysis isn't really something you are able to appreciate. No problem, it is a dry subject and not easy to grasp.

I don't care what wood types are btw, it is density that is the factor.

Come on, stop the strawman argumentation. You are arguing against something I never wrote. Read what I wrote, and argue against that, not against things you are just making up to make you look clever.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

So, an independent "peer" Luthier replicates my work and reports on the results. And that's not good enough for you? Do we need to be wearing a lab coats and holding clip boards?

And we, who are experienced in listening to basses, listen to the basses and describe how they sound. Isn't that "real world" testing?

Sure, it's "real world", but it doesn't make it "testing". It makes it an anecdote. If it's so easy to prove, why don't you do it?

 

[InternetAlias]

Sure, it's "real world", but it doesn't make it "testing". It makes it an anecdote. If it's so easy to prove, why don't you do it?

Why wouldn't they leave it up to you to design a study that will conform to your standards? After all, if you remain unconvinced that physics indeed do work (which you pretend you aren't arguing against), do define exactly how to conduct testing and what the criteria would be.

You are asking other people to provide evidence that'll suit your own standards which aren't specifically or necessarily needed by the people who actually work in the industry.

By the way, in science, "real world scenario" and "testing" don't exactly go together that often. There's a damn good reason most testing is conducted in controlled environments.

It's probably much easier to determine that particular material properties will cause the output to be shaped differently (which was tested scientifically) then whatever you're proposing (which you don't even know how you'd test).

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Why wouldn't they leave it up to you to design a study that will conform to your standards? After all, if you remain unconvinced that physics indeed do work (which you pretend you aren't arguing against), do define exactly how to conduct testing and what the criteria would be.

You are asking other people to provide evidence that'll suit your own standards which aren't specifically or necessarily needed by the people who actually work in the industry.

Another strawman. I don't argue that physics doesn't work, as you very well know. There are several posters here that claims this is easy to test and prove. If it's that easy, test it and prove it. And, again: we're talking about significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation.

 

[InternetAlias]

Another strawman. I don't argue that physics doesn't work, as you very well know.

If I say that you can't lift 3lbs I am not arguing that your muscles don't work, just that they can't lift something relatively light. You aren't claiming that physics don't work, but that they are insignificant, which is quite close to claiming that they indeed don't work in this scenario. I have yet to see a "woods don't change much of anything" person explain dead spots, because they happen on ELECTRIC instruments and are indeed a result of antiresonance.

There are several posters here that claims this is easy to test and prove. If it's that easy, test it and prove it. And, again: we're talking about significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation.

And, again, who is this deity who decides what "significant" means? What is a real world situation? Can you define that? Because you're the one who's asking for it, so you need to define it and conduct it yourself.

You are literally asking other people to conduct research in a way that you want, except you don't know how to define any criteria, and you aren't taking what's already there, and that's actual research that measures how things happen in controlled environments (which is the only sensible and bias-free thing to test).

You're asking for scientific rigor and evidence while providing no semblance of such approach yourself.

 

[hbarcat]

You are misunderstanding me; I guess I wasn't clear.

I'm saying that the two G & L basses that the original poster used to start this discussion are identical in design, to each other. That is, their bodies are machined to the same dimensions, thickness, configuration, etc. The only difference is the species of wood used in the bodies; one swamp ash and the other alder.

I'm saying that in the design of those two G & L basses, the bodies are fairly soft and flexible. On both of them. As compared to other brands and model basses. Leo & Co. did that intentionally. Those basses are designed to have bodies that flex and work. That's why you can hear the difference when different species of wood are used for the body. And that's one of the reasons why G & L basses are highly regarded (and expensive). They are designed to use the wood frame to help shape the tone. The proof is in the fact that you can hear a difference in the sound from the body woods. In short, I assumed the "solid slab principle" was a given with any mass produced electric guitar or bass.

In comparison, your basses are designed to be much stiffer. The bodies are thicker and stronger and don't flex as much. By their design. Whether you did it intentionally or not. That's why you are barely hearing any difference when you build the same design, using different woods. You made them that way. And I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. But you chose not to use one of the big variables available to you when designing your basses.

Do you understand what I'm saying? You aren't wrong with your observations of your basses. By their design, the wood isn't mattering.

But Killed For Death also isn't wrong in his observations about the two G & L's. By their design, the body wood does matter, and he can hear a difference between the wood species.

What's wrong is to generalize and say that, because this one group of basses all sound the same with different body woods, therefore it must be true of all basses, and that the wood species has nothing to do with the sound in any electric bass. That's what's wrong.

It's the design of the bass that determines whether the wood species used in the body matters. That's the big variable that's missing from all these arguments. And that's why people are getting into arguments over conflicting results.

Okay, NOW I understand exactly what you're saying. And thanks for taking the time to write out that long explanation because I can see that there's no way to adequately convey that concept in a brief manner.

I have to admit that I never considered the possibility that a non-boutique company like G&L (as fine as they are) would (or could) design and manufacture instuments that are literally engineered to use different wood species to interact with and alter the vibration characteristics of the strings. I was under the impression that unless you start introducing hollow chambers or other radical internal structures to the body, then they necessarily always act like solid slabs. In short, I assumed the "solid slab principle" was a given for any mass produced, solidbody electric guitar or bass.

Frankly, as a beginning bass builder, I'd really like to learn more about this.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

If I say that you can't lift 3lbs I am not arguing that your muscles don't work, just that they can't lift something relatively light.



And, again, who is this deity who decides what "significant" means? What is a real world situation? Can you define that? Because you're the one who's asking for it, so you need to define it and conduct it yourself.

You are literally asking other people to conduct research in a way that you want, except you don't know how to define any criteria, and you aren't taking what's already there, and that's actual research that measures how things happen in controlled environments (which is the only sensible and bias-free thing to test).

You're asking for scientific rigor and evidence while providing no semblance of such approach yourself.

I'm not the one making the claims here. I'm asking for the tests and proof that so many of you claim is easy to provide. If it's that easy, do it.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Come on, stop the strawman argumentation. You are arguing against something I never wrote. Read what I wrote, and argue against that, not against things you are just making up to make you look clever.

Making up? I really didn't make that research up. It was genuine, carried out by someone else, and if you can't see how it applies to your "significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation" context then I guess I'm wasting my time

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Making up? I really didn't make that research up. It was genuine, carried out by someone else, and if you can't see how it applies to your "significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation" context then I guess I'm wasting my time

You are making up things that I never wrote, and you argue against that. Yes, that's a waste of time. Argue against the things I actually write instead, not against things you're making up. It's so much easier to have a discussion then.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

You are making up things that I never wrote, and you argue against that. Yes, that's a waste of time. Argue against the things I actually write instead, not against things you're making up. It's so much easier to have a discussion then.

I actually just quoted your own words... here they are again: "significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation"

These are your words, and those are the words I am responding to.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

I actually just quoted your own words... here they are again: "significant difference between (solid, standard) woodtypes in a real world situation"

These are your words, and those are the words I am responding to.

We're both wasting our time. You're quoting out of context, making things up. That's not how you have a discussion.

 

[HaphAsSard]

@Bruce Johnson: I see you're already involved in a debate about your core contribution to the general topic. I have no intention to chime in on that myself, since I've got zero expertise in luthiery, very limited experience as a musician and instrument owner and no set of golden ears. For what little it's worth, I've always found your take very convincing but, again, which I'm leaning toward instinctively is not interesting to anyone and, more importantly, is not the subject of my post.

According to your view, within the conditions in which wood matters (low stiffness of the structure) it does, in the sense that it influences the vibration of the string (which is consequently picked up by the transducer) by inhibiting certain frequencies. The magnitude of the phenomenon is too not something I'm interested into right now.
My question instead is: in your experience how consistent are individual slabs of wood of the same species in exhibiting the tonal properties commonly associated to it? Fairly so? With some species you get what you came for more than others? Not really?
Also: what role does your wood selection play? Do you think that your experience with choosing suitable slabs only rules out duds but doesn't significantly alter the statistics (of single slabs of wood X by and large yielding the expected tone results)? Or, instead, do you know and accept that your eye and hand goes for whichever piece of wood is more representative of textbook ash or alder, in order for you and the customer to get what you were going for in the first place?

Final disclaimers:
- I'm completely open to any answer to the above, don't have a preconceived one, that I'm going to reply "I knew it" on "no, I don't believe you, here's why, I gotcha there";
- I'm aware the question was already raised upthread. It's inevitably a recurring point in tonewood discussions, but one that gets buried amidst others, I feel.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

We're both wasting our time. You're quoting out of context, making things up. That's not how you have a discussion.

Since I'm responding in context to your own words and not making anything up at all, I can see that this is indeed a waste of time. Adios.

 

[Fredrik E. Nilsen]

Since I'm responding in context to your own words and not making anything up at all, I can see that this is indeed a waste of time. Adios.

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

If you can't accept scientific evidence from formal documented testing and analysis that density of body structure affects vibration and resonance, then I guess vibration analysis isn't really something you are able to appreciate. No problem, it is a dry subject and not easy to grasp.

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.