Can You Tell The Difference??? ASH vs. ALDER

[aborgman]

Wrong.

In a drug trial, you are told that you may get the drug, or you may get the placebo. Psychological pre-conditioning is not a part of a valid placebo controlled trial.
If the OP had said, "the clips may compare ash vs alder, or they may be 2 clips of the same wood" do you think the results would be the same? I doubt it. I bet well over half would get it right, probably more like 3/4.

If the effect was actually large, as opposed to masked - it would overcome purely mental conditioning.

 

[younggun]

In all seriousness, mongo's and the others' criticisms in terms of the experiment are actually well placed so I think we're kind of forced to acknowledge them.

In fact, because of the lack of controls on the other variables (which by themselves havn't been well defined yet) I'd say that, no, we actually can't yet conclude that the premise has been shown to be false.

I.e. to argue their position for a sec: it's conceivable that the wood type interacted with one of the other variables to actually _negate_ the effect it might have otherwise exhibited had those variables actually been held constant. perhaps unlikely, but definitely within the realm of possibility.

So I agree that the test, while I think it does stand as a data point in favor of the non-contribution of the wood species to tone, doesn't yet actually _prove_ anything. It's a point in evidence, but I'm forced to agree with the others that it's still a long way from a proof.

Truth is, the experiment would have to be significantly more rigorous before it could be said to be conclusive. You'd have to control for all the other variables besides wood type in a well-defined way, you'd have to define exactly what constitutes a "different tone" (i.e. well-defined object of study) and, most importantly, the result would have to be robust. I.e. just one instance of a particular result doesn't do by itself - the result has to be repeatable and easily (or even blatantly) detectable on a repeated basis.

So I thought the experiment was a good start, but at the same time we do have to honestly acknowledge the criticisms, because I think they're generally valid.

LS

Dan continuously does not address the many valid flaws in his experiment, and instead keeps sticking to a hard and fast declaration that wood doesn't matter in tone. Its been pointed out over and over by plenty of people so far that his "test" "experiment" "poll" "survey" is limited, flawed and cannot be used to draw any reliable conclusion from. Instead of addressing it in a meaningful way, he points a finger at those with a differing view and says they are clinging to an invalid point based on nothing more than perception, belief, or unfounded evidence. Yet its pretty obvious he is doing the same thing himself. He BELIEVES wood tone doesn't matter, so designs an "experiment" (term used loosely) to back up his belief.

This argument will not be resolved with this type of testing. Go back to the drawing board Dan, design a truthful experiment with others involved, and with independently reproducible results, then you can start using it as evidence to support your view. Until then you are doing the EXACT same things you are accusing others of; simply basing your opinion/belief on your personal anecdotal experience...making your opinion just as valid/invalid as anyone else's.

 

[Russell Bergum]

I'm just listening to some lovely Astrud Gilberto tunes. Her lad was a member on here a while back. Anyway, I don't think I can really tell what species of tree the instrument that the bassist was using came from.

+1

 

[aborgman]

+1 to the previous couple of posts. Many 'laymen' confuse 'statistical significance' (i.e., the results being 'non chance) with 'effect size' (the magnitude of the effect).

If there were little or no variance in wood, and a relatively large, consistent impact of wood species on tone, the 'effect size' part of the power equation (i.e., the part of experimental design that determines how large of a sample you need to determine a given effect size 'non chance') would make the answer to the question pretty easy to determine with a relatively simple study.

...and since it isn't determinable with a relatively simple study, it holds that there ISN'T a relatively large and consistent impact of wood species on tone.

...and that IS the tonewood argument.

No one is arguing there is no effect. What were arguing is the effect is small, inconsistent across similar wood species, and generally masked by other contributors.

Think of it this way... if being a Republican versus a Democrat (in the US) meant exactly the same thing to each and every member of those groups (i.e., each member of each group felt exactly the same about every issue), then we would only need to talk to one Democrat and one Republican to represent each group (versus the 1000 or so sample size it takes to determine the feelings of each group versus the other on various issues because of all the variation in beliefs and opinions).

...and that is still assuming there IS a difference other than just labeling.

 

[aborgman]

He BELIEVES wood tone doesn't matter, so designs an "experiment" (term used loosely) to back up his belief.

Nope.

In fact in the first post he specifically says that he DOES believe wood type effects tone.

He just believes (as I do) that the effects are small, often masked, and there is so much overlap and variability among "tonewoods" that the sound contribution of the tonewood is masked.

I mean - Say I mix in a signal 100dB below the main signal. I can pick it out on a spectrum analyzer. It's easily measurable as to whether it is there or not.

...but you won't be able to hear a difference whether it's there or not, regardless of measurability. It's well below your ears threshold of being able to sense the difference.

You can't tell the difference between .01% THD and .1% THD either, and that is an order of magnitude.

 

[KJung]

...and since it isn't determinable with a relatively simple study, it holds that there ISN'T a relatively large and consistent impact of wood species on tone.

...and that IS the tonewood argument.

No one is arguing there is no effect. What were arguing is the effect is small, inconsistent across similar wood species, and generally masked by other contributors.



...and that is still assuming there IS a difference other than just labeling.

+1 I tend to agree with you. Just trying to do a little tutorial on the experimental method in case anyone is interested.

+1 Experiments need to be more complex the more subtle the effect is.

 

[aborgman]

+1 Experiments need to be more complex the more subtle the effect is.

Well, yes and no.

To disprove the ability to hear an effect, yes.

To disprove that the magnitude of the effect is large and consistent, no.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Dan continuously does not address the many valid flaws in his experiment, and instead keeps sticking to a hard and fast declaration that wood doesn't matter in tone. Its been pointed out over and over by plenty of people so far that his "test" "experiment" "poll" "survey" is limited, flawed and cannot be used to draw any reliable conclusion from. Instead of addressing it in a meaningful way, he points a finger at those with a differing view and says they are clinging to an invalid point based on nothing more than perception, belief, or unfounded evidence. Yet its pretty obvious he is doing the same thing himself. He BELIEVES wood tone doesn't matter, so designs an "experiment" (term used loosely) to back up his belief.

This argument will not be resolved with this type of testing. Go back to the drawing board Dan, design a truthful experiment with others involved, and with independently reproducible results, then you can start using it as evidence to support your view. Until then you are doing the EXACT same things you are accusing others of; simply basing your opinion/belief on your personal anecdotal experience...making your opinion just as valid/invalid as anyone else's.

Lol. The conventional wisdom is that Ash bodies are snappy and Alder is more warm. So I recorded some tracks with bodies made from each. I played the same parts on each bass. Then I posted the clips and provided a poll with several answers available, including the correct one. Only 14% chose the correct answer.

My point all along has been that wood does impact tone, but it's impact is greatly exaggerated by many folks. Other factors are more significant, such as strings, pickups, the player, neck construction, etc.

The test results bear this out to be accurate.

So where exactly is this "flawed"? And would you accuse it of being "flawed" if the results had gone the other way?

 

[unclejane]

He BELIEVES wood tone doesn't matter, so designs an "experiment" (term used loosely) to back up his belief.

This argument will not be resolved with this type of testing. Go back to the drawing board Dan, design a truthful experiment with others involved, and with independently reproducible results, then you can start using it as evidence to support your view. Until then you are doing the EXACT same things you are accusing others of; simply basing your opinion/belief on your personal anecdotal experience...making your opinion just as valid/invalid as anyone else's.

Now wait a minute.. Before you guys start congratulating yourselves...

One thing we havn't talked about yet is the issue of the burden of proof. Now, I agree Dan went a little bit down the garden path with a claim of his own (namely, tonewoods _don't_ make a difference), but we have to remember what the original claim is and who made it: That claim is "tonewoods _do_ make a difference" and the pool of persons making it are the tonewood advocates.

Ultimately, the responsibility is really on the tonewood advocates to demonstrate _their_ claim first. It's not the responsibility of skeptics (like myself) to disprove their claim - their claim hasn't yet been substantiated in the first place. we're simply saying "evidence, please?".

So it's actually you guys who bear the burden of proof. Therefore you're the ones tasked with presenting a well-defined object of study and a properly designed and executed experiment. It's actually in your court, not Dan's (modulo the explicit claim he did make) to support the original claim.

I think that's where it needs to go next.

LS

 

[bassgod76]

Why is everyone getting their panties in a twist? I thought it was a cool experiment. I think Dan did a lot of work to post a interesting topic on this website. Some of you are acting like Dan raped your daughter and turned your dog into a living pinata. It's just a posting. Sheesh!

 

[pasco jacorius]

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's exactly the test I'll be posting tomorrow night. Rosewood vs. Maple. Why? Because Maple/Rosewood and Maple/Maple account for about 80% of the necks on the market, I would guess.

And by the way, to my ears the fretboard wood has MUCH more impact on the tone than the body wood. But we'll see what the consensus is.

I also think that the neck/fingerboard as more impact on the character of the instrument . But we will see tonight !

 

[mongo2]

It does say something about the "degree" of the variable being measured though.

If body wood had a large, unmasked effect on tone - it would be EASILY identifiable by a large majority. The fact that it isn't, bounds the degree of its effect.

The problem is in creating an axiom from only one case.

Wider variances have been both experienced and reported here.

Edit:

There's also the concept of personal perception in play which adds another level of variables to the mix. Some will be able to differentiate between bodies and others will not, and the ability to differentiate will vary across a range.

On top of that is the variance in everyone's listening enviroment. Not all audio systems attached to computers may be able to reproduce the samples as accurately as required or may color them to yield differing results to be filtered by the perception of each listener.

The two issues above, perception and listening environment, are uncontrollable variables which would invalidate the test.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Change to:

"I lied about this....I recorded a couple of tracks with one, then took it apart and swapped out the body.

And I lied about this: I DON'T play 2 different bass parts on each bass.

So, I'm totally slanting the playing field to trip you up right off the bat. Good luck.

Still, 64% picked out the Ash sample?

And this proves WHAT? Why didn't you just play every sample with a Basswood SX and THEN start proclaiming a 90+ percent "gotcha" rate backs up your own views? You took a tone question, twisted it to a psychology experiment in perception, then went back to saying it proves something in regards to tone? I don't think so.

I tell you what I see: MOST people were able to identify the Ash sample, and it might just be more proving that the same neck on two different bodies will sound darn near the same.

One thing for sure, I'll not be buying a bass from Atkinson, as he has no problem lying to all of us and then telling us what HE wants us to think. I guess he's not one of those like Jimmy Coppola who will actually research the woods he selects for construction, because his customers are too stupid and have preconceived notions to tell the difference.

 

[pasco jacorius]

We could also start a debate on neck trough vs bolt on , just to start a warfare. But I think , that wood selection means a lot of thing in lutherie, and it has a purpose. As one of my friend (a luthier) said , an electric bass is an acoustic instrument with a solid body. (luthiers conspiracy ?!)

 

[younggun]

Lol. The conventional wisdom is that Ash bodies are snappy and Alder is more warm. So I recorded some tracks with bodies made from each. I played the same parts on each bass. Then I posted the clips and provided a poll with several answers available, including the correct one. Only 14% chose the correct answer.

My point all along has been that wood does impact tone, but it's impact is greatly exaggerated by many folks. Other factors are more significant, such as strings, pickups, the player, neck construction, etc.

The test results bear this out to be accurate.

So where exactly is this "flawed"? And would you accuse it of being "flawed" if the results had gone the other way?

If you noticed, I didn't take a position one way or the other on the tonewoods argument. My position is that your experiment is not valid. Your test is not statistically accurate, the results have not been independently verified or reproduced, the sample size is as limited as it gets, the test subjects (the folks polled) have no controllable or verifiable factors, etc, etc. I'm not going to type ad-nauseum the flaws in your "experiment". That was the point of my post...they've been pointed out many times over the last few pages, go back and read them. You simply choose to keep ignoring the folks who have pointed out the statistical and procedural problems with your "test", and instead keep responding with the results. As if saying 2+2=5 enough times will make it true. 'nuff said on my part, its not going to change your belief in your "test" or your assumptions.

 

[aborgman]

Wider variances have been both experienced and reported here.

Yes - and that variance is an argument AGAINST tonewoods.

If there is so much variability within species that there is major overlap - it's obviously not the species of wood itself, but some property of the wood (density, etc.) that determines sound.

Edit: There's also the concept of personal perception in play which adds another level of variables to the mix. Some will be able to differentiate between bodies and others will not, and the ability to differentiate will vary across a range.

Yep.... and without a double blind procedure we can't differentiate between those that hear a difference, and those that just claim to hear a difference but don't actually HEAR any difference.

 

[Batmensch]

Now wait a minute.. Before you guys start congratulating yourselves...

One thing we havn't talked about yet is the issue of the burden of proof. Now, I agree Dan went a little bit down the garden path with a claim of his own (namely, tonewoods _don't_ make a difference), but we have to remember what the original claim is and who made it: That claim is "tonewoods _do_ make a difference" and the pool of persons making it are the tonewood advocates.

Ultimately, the responsibility is really on the tonewood advocates to demonstrate _their_ claim first. It's not the responsibility of skeptics (like myself) to disprove their claim - their claim hasn't yet been substantiated in the first place. we're simply saying "evidence, please?".

So it's actually you guys who bear the burden of proof. Therefore you're the ones tasked with presenting a well-defined object of study and a properly designed and executed experiment. It's actually in your court, not Dan's (modulo the explicit claim he did make) to support the original claim.

I think that's where it needs to go next.

LS

As has been stated, that's not his claim. He said, right up front, that he believes wood DOES make a difference, just not to the degree that the tonewood advocates claim.

 

[DylanB]

If you noticed, I didn't take a position one way or the other on the tonewoods argument. My position is that your experiment is not valid. Your test is not statistically accurate, the results have not been independently verified or reproduced, the sample size is as limited as it gets, the test subjects (the folks polled) have no controllable or verifiable factors, etc, etc.

Yet he did it, he posted it, and the world still turns. No-one's treating it as 100% proof that type of body wood doesn't matter - it's been mentioned that the burden of proof is not on the tonewood skeptics.

What it DOES prove without a doubt, is that people who are drinking that particular brand of kool aid get ANGRY when someone says something that disputes their views.

 

[aborgman]

And this proves WHAT? Why didn't you just play every sample with a Basswood SX and THEN start proclaiming a 90+ percent "gotcha" rate backs up your own views? You took a tone question, twisted it to a psychology experiment in perception, then went back to saying it proves something in regards to tone? I don't think so.

Sure it does - it say the tone difference aren't large enough to overcome the pre-conceived perception.

If I told you I was going to show you a black ball and a green ball and I wanted you to identify them, and then I showed you a black ball and a red ball - would your directed perception cause that red ball to look green?

Or would you go: "Hey, there isn't a green ball"

See - sound questions are ALWAYS psychology experiments in perception, because we can't divorce our mechanical hearing of sound from our brains interpretation of that sound...

Much like optical illusions - just because you believe you see something doesn't mean you actually see something.

 

[dvh]

Change to:

"I lied about this....I recorded a couple of tracks with one, then took it apart and swapped out the body.

And I lied about this: I DON'T play 2 different bass parts on each bass.

So, I'm totally slanting the playing field to trip you up right off the bat. Good luck.

Still, 64% picked out the Ash sample?

And this proves WHAT? Why didn't you just play every sample with a Basswood SX and THEN start proclaiming a 90+ percent "gotcha" rate backs up your own views? You took a tone question, twisted it to a psychology experiment in perception, then went back to saying it proves something in regards to tone? I don't think so.

I tell you what I see: MOST people were able to identify the Ash sample, and it might just be more proving that the same neck on two different bodies will sound darn near the same.

One thing for sure, I'll not be buying a bass from Atkinson, as he has no problem lying to all of us and then telling us what HE wants us to think. I guess he's not one of those like Jimmy Coppola who will actually research the woods he selects for construction, because his customers are too stupid and have preconceived notions to tell the difference.

Jeez, relax. All he did was a straightforward exercise to demonstrate that beliefs about the predictable tone of a wood type are suspect. Maybe not scientifically rigorous but, nitpicking about that only underscores the point he is trying to make.