Can You Tell The Difference??? MAPLE vs. ROSEWOOD

[johnk_10]

of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but personally, i think Cameron did nothing to 'dispel ignorance' or 'the myth of tonewood' but rather, created a few 'myths' of his own.

 

[Mulebagger]

I've got no formal musical education other than 20 or so years of playing. Personally, I admire those of us that study the discipline and those of us that study the discipline to create instruments. I'm grateful to both.

From personal experience I can say that tone woods make somewhat of a difference, but seriously, you have to consider all the physical properties of an instrument's components as they all do play a role in the quality of sound it will produce. None of the parts can be negated and to argue on either side seems foolish to me.

Most of my basses have carbon fiber necks or hybrid necks. The carbon fiber can sound warm or cold but it's mostly a result of the pickups. The hybrid neck Modulus Genesis basses I have sound warm and more organic because they have wood in combination with carbon fiber to yield a more "traditional" sound.

In the test I didn't hear much difference at all between the fretboards.
In the video I didn't hear much difference that could be attributed to wood as much as hand placement.

I was hoping to see more of a test of the different basses in the video. The MTD sounded like a typical modern sounding bass to me. Not knocking the bass or the playing, but I would never have thought... man that is an MTD.

I suspect we will never know the degree to which a fretboard changes the sonic character of a bass. It's safe to say that you should get one of each to be covered

 

[mongo2]

LOL, yes. I've also been told he has a PhD in PURE AWESOME. How can anyone compete??

LOL, and you call others "snarky"?

 

[Faderoktopus]

No,, not so much, (HERE IT COMES!!) it is not so much the wood that makes the difference, it is the pick-ups, strings, & how bass is set up. In other words, you can buy expensive pick-ups & install in your correctly set up Hondo bass & it will almost sound as good as your buddies $3K bass. They will not admit it,,,

Thats a pretty easy jump to an unnecessary conclusion, and the cheap s expensive discussion doesn't really belong in these test-threads, IMHO. Especially since the general consensus shows that fretboards DO make an audible difference, as was certainly my experience of this test. The test didn't say anything about cheap or expensive necks, just the species of wood.

Nice playing Cameron, congrats on you really sweet sounding bass. I fail to see how you've disproved anything, though, you just made some points about pickup placement and showed us how a MTD sounds on different settings. Dans test, as always, only shows what it shows. That is, these two clips with different fretboard woods sound somewhat different and a large number of the bassists on this forum were able to recognize the woods. What ignorance are you trying dispel?

I would conclude from this test that fretboards have a greater impact on the overall sound of a bass guitar than, for instance, body wood, but if anyone aren't convinced yet then feel free to disagree.

 

[mongo2]

Thats a pretty easy jump to an unnecessary conclusion, and the cheap s expensive discussion doesn't really belong in these test-threads, IMHO. Especially since the general consensus shows that fretboards DO make an audible difference, as was certainly my experience of this test. The test didn't say anything about cheap or expensive necks, just the species of wood.

Talk about jumping to a conclusion, the "consensus" you mention is way off the mark. All this so called "test" demonstrates is that two different necks can sound different on the same body.

It actually says nothing about the influence of the fingerboard material. Everyone seems to forget that the wood to which the fingerboard is attached has considerable influence on the outcome.

IME, two maple necks with maple fingerboards or two maple necks with rosewood fingerboards will sound different on the same body. In fact, I ran that drill yet again just yesterday trying different necks on one of my builds.

 

[Faderoktopus]

Mongo2, You are right about the fretboard/neck problem. I have very little input on that subject.

As I said, the test shows only what it shows and my conclusion is my own, based far more on my general experience than on any one test. The test, as I perceive it, merely confirms it. So I am not jumping to any conclusions, nor would I say that this subject has now been cleared up for good and that we should all just go home, but from my experience the fretboard (and/or neck) wood has a more audible influence on basses than body wood.

I should think 75% just about qualifies as consensus when the differences in sound are what most people would probably describe as subtle. Unlike the lumber/alder test, tis time Talkbass was right, mostly.

Again, feel free to disagree.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Talk about jumping to a conclusion, the "consensus" you mention is way off the mark. All this so called "test" demonstrates is that two different necks can sound different on the same body.

It actually says nothing about the influence of the fingerboard material. Everyone seems to forget that the wood to which the fingerboard is attached has considerable influence on the outcome.

IME, two maple necks with maple fingerboards or two maple necks with rosewood fingerboards will sound different on the same body. In fact, I ran that drill yet again just yesterday trying different necks on one of my builds.

Couldn't agree more.

My goal was to test the conventional wisdom that "a maple fingerboard neck is brighter than a rosewood fingerboard neck". Just like the body wood conventional wisdom, my experience told me it was exaggerated/overblown.

By your logic, that is absolutely true.

The end result of your argument undermines your position that "wood matters". If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then wood "tone" cannot be used in any predictable way, since one piece of maple is as likely to sound like rosewood as it is to sound like another piece of maple.

So you should probably change your sig to say "Wood Matters, But Not In Any Predictable Way".

LOL, and you call others "snarky"?

I was joking about his usage of credentials in his post, not his ideas/arguments. Regarding his arguments, I posted respectful logical rebuttals to which he had no answer.

 

[the yeti]

of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but personally, i think Cameron did nothing to 'dispel ignorance' or 'the myth of tonewood' but rather, created a few 'myths' of his own.

agreed. it was a big disappointment.

 

[BogeyBass]

to really hear a difference, you need a bridge[DEL]back[/DEL] pickup involved, but, live, in a room with a bass amp, you'll hear a huge difference [DEL]unless you're a moron[/DEL]. By the time you record it digitally through WHATEVER means, with whatever mikes, and compress it down [DEL]and back up again in the recording process, then back down again for internet transfer, upload it, through millions of servers, freaking satellites or whatever transmission process, through your browser, your computer,[/DEL] and Listen with whatever [DEL]crappy little [/DEL]computer speakers you have, you probably WON'T HEAR MUCH DIFFERENCE.

Try the same test on a jazz bass with a [DEL]back[/DEL]bridge pickup...you'll hear a MUCH bigger difference.

This is kind of like doing a blind taste test for 10" 12" and 15" cabs. I would not be able to tell them apart by listening to compressed audio files on my laptops headphone jack, but that doesnt mean they don't sound different.

[DEL]The answer is that the recording isnt good enough to tell the difference. You should use a better mic and pre.
Bring your maple and rodewood necks by my little studio and we can run them diret into a Summit pre, thence to my BLA modded 828MKII.[/DEL]

then i guess that i better sell my UA 6176 and buy an Art preamp then..........................NOT!

already had an Art (among 14 other preamps) and for me, there's a HUGE differnece.

I think you all had good points, and some of you got misquoted
just because i thought you had a good point, and felt some stuff should be left out so we stay on track.....and i can make my dumb point out of all of this.

Eventually we can argue to death...this neck,or that neck...or this body and that body...or pickups ...or strings...or amps,speakers,preamps,microphones.

In the end, on a recording, in a full mix....its a Bass Track.

at any time there is hundreds of variations...but even in a compressed format on a low to hi fi speaker system.
70% of us can hear a difference. maybe a maple neck only makes a 5% difference in sound....and a pickup 15% and this string makes 2% and this Body makes 8%

We all know the listening experience is much different with the amp in the room or stage...compared to a recording.

So personally the difference means more to us really...anybody else that hears it, is going to basically hear Bass

and for the most part all these "Tone Myths" don't just come out of nowhere......The keep getting repeated because more than one person has experienced the same phenomena.

Some of that phenomena comes from real world experience....and some of it comes from the fact that someone told you that is what happens.

I have a rosewood neck and a maple neck....and yes they do sound different.
One thing i have always wondered is....Most maple necks are usually finished with poly or nitro clear coat. Rosewood usually is a natural wood.....so if you coated rosewood with a few heavy coats of clear.....would it sound more like a maple neck? I ask because it always seemed to me the big difference was the finish. and if the finish doesn't effect sound, i just like the way a maple neck feels.

 

[mongo2]

I was joking about his usage of credentials in his post, not his ideas/arguments. Regarding his arguments, I posted respectful logical rebuttals to which he had no answer.

I know, I was just goofing on your previous "snarky" comment, hence the LOL.

Couldn't agree more.

So you should probably change your sig to say "Wood Matters, But Not In Any Predictable Way".

I've championed the unpredictablilty of the effects of the wood in an instrument for quite a few years here and on other boards so that's very familiar territory. The timbre is still in the timber but those who claim to predict that ash will always sound this way and alder will always sound that way or maple fingerboards are always brighter than rosewood fingerboards, or whatever other false axiom they wish to espouse are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended).

The wood has it's effect but anyone trying to predict the precise outcome is on a fools errand.

To quote the great philosopher Mama Gump, "You never know what you're going to get."

 

[Bassflute]

Couldn't agree more.

My goal was to test the conventional wisdom that "a maple fingerboard neck is brighter than a rosewood fingerboard neck". Just like the body wood conventional wisdom, my experience told me it was exaggerated/overblown.

By your logic, that is absolutely true.

The end result of your argument undermines your position that "wood matters". If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then wood "tone" cannot be used in any predictable way, since one piece of maple is as likely to sound like rosewood as it is to sound like another piece of maple.

So you should probably change your sig to say "Wood Matters, But Not In Any Predictable Way".



I was joking about his usage of credentials in his post, not his ideas/arguments. Regarding his arguments, I posted respectful logical rebuttals to which he had no answer.

I'll let some of the great electric bass luthiers of our age speak to this...you should get in touch with them and tell them all about your new 'findings', then you can then tell them personally they're full of ****:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

www.kensmithbasses.com/woodpages/woodpagecontents.html

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

This is just a few of them...let me know how you make out...

Cheers,
Cameron

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

I'll let some of the great electric bass luthiers of our age speak to this...you should get in touch with them and tell them all about your new 'findings', then you can then tell them personally they're full of ****:

mtdbass.com/articles/quest_for_tone.pdf

kensmithbasses.com/woodpages/woodpagecontents.html

pedulla.com/html/the_bass-ics.html

alembic.com/info/wood_standard.html

This is just a few of them...let me know how you make out...

Cheers,
Cameron

Sigh. This thread keeps going in circles. I keep hearing the same arguments, I keep giving the same answers...

Yes, I'm very aware of what those guys have to say. I'm sure after decades of devoting your life to the luthier craft that you would develop a fine-tuned ear for tonewoods.

The question is: What about the rest of us??

That is the objective of my threads. To test how significant the tonewood factor is for people who AREN'T professional luthiers, using real-world testing scenarios.

Wood does impact tone, of course. I've said that dozens of times in these threads. But if wood tone is so subtle that only seasoned professionals (like your list above) can consistently hear the differences, then my hunch was right...the "tonewood" factor really is exaggerated by many folks.

In the end, what I've learned (an what other open-minded TB members have learned) is that wood takes a backseat to other more important factors: overall bass design & construction, pickups, preamps, strings, technique, amp, the soundman at the gig, etc.

I don't understand why that simple premise is so upsetting to some people.

 

[Bassflute]

I like maple because it pleases my eye; Tone? I can't tell a difference.

That's too bad...maybe get your hearing checked...take a few bass lessons...

what was really funny was that he called it a tonewood video and spent the whole video discussing and comparing pickup positioning.

LOL, good point.

And I'm still having trouble understanding how putting an amplifier and microphone between the bass and the listener would reveal more of the wood's true tone. Seems to me that a bass recorded direct, with no amp or mic (like my clips) would be a much better setup.

The caption read 'the first of five videos'...I will be bringing in two identical MTD's with different 'tonewoods' for you guys to not be able to hear the difference of...

And I guess since preamps don't make any difference either...

This is kind of like doing a blind taste test for 10" 12" and 15" cabs. I would not be able to tell them apart by listening to compressed audio files on my laptops headphone jack, but that doesnt mean they don't sound different.

The answer is that the recording isnt good enough to tell the difference. You should use a better mic and pre.
Bring your maple and rodewood necks by my little studio and we can run them diret into a Summit pre, thence to my BLA modded 828MKII.

He doesn't believe in good preamps, either...see more unabashed ignorance and evidence of his hearing loss below...

320K compression isn't going to make enough difference to erase tonal differences. Sorry. 99% of us could never hear the difference between 320K MP3 and WAV in a blind test. Especially on a bass track.

Where did you get the idea I used a mic? The bass was recorded direct for purest/cleanest signal.

And don't even try arguing "you should have used an expensive pre". I already put that myth to rest here:
Invalid Link Removed

People chose the $30 preamp over the $2275 preamp by a 3 to 1 margin.

Unbelievable...so now you know better than all the recording studios that have bought this stuff, all the engineers that use it, the producers who demand certain pre's for their sound...better drop Rupert Neve an email, tell him he's wrong...

then i guess that i better sell my UA 6176 and buy an Art preamp then..........................NOT!

already had an Art (among 14 other preamps) and for me, there's a HUGE differnece.

no kidding...

Yeah, there is a HUGE difference. The price tag.



Seriously though, not really the best comparison since the 6176 is a Preamp + EQ + Compressor (and a very good compressor at that, although not nearly as good as a real 1176).

Maybe I should do a new blind test with the ART Pro Channel vs. my drummer's API 7600 and Drawmer 1969.

please do...let me guess, your $39.00 Art sounds better...



Truly astonishing...

Cameron

 

[Mulebagger]

Dan,
I have to agree that pickups, strings, playing technique, preamp, etc have more tonal effect than wood does. Undoubtedly, wood species plays a role in tone. Some will have more pronounced frequency responses, however I think the species plays a smaller role than some may think.

Cameron,
Nice playing and I'm glad you are teaching bass and introducing the art to new students every day. You mentioned that your MTD was chambered... that as you know will have a huge effect on tone as well.

Getting back to wood selection:
Two of my basses at one time were a Modulus Genesis 5 and an Elrick Hybrid platinum 5 both with Bartolini single coils and 3 band preamp, same tuners, same bridge, same scale length, same strings, same amp.
The tone of the two basses were extremely different. Could be from the neck joint bolt vs set neck, could be from the carbon fiber spline on the Modulus, or it could be the very different wood choices for the basses.
Either way, the Elrick although beautifully crafted and designed had nothing sonically that I liked and the Modulus had everything.

So... wood makes a difference- of course. But I feel construction technique and all the other variables give a bass it's sonic foot print. My gut feeling is that some wood is chosen for it's beauty and not necessarily it's tonal qualities.

My last thoughts:
Cameron, could you post more videos using different MTD basses to hear their unique sounds? ( maybe record them direct as well? ) Thanks

Dan, your Pbasses sound FREAKING AWESOME and I'm not even a Pbass fan!
Makes me think I need one in the future. Still debating on the fretboard

And, my Genesis was designed with Modulus by Michael Tobias, and I LOVE it, but I'm not so much a fan of the MTD basses sound. Go figure.

 

[Mulebagger]

Not to step into hot water with the preamps battle royal... but

I've recorded numerous ads, tracks, etc., just using my basses directly into a board. They may get doctored down the line somewhere, but the last time I was in the studio we chose my bass's direct sound over the Avalon Preamp sound.

Not that killer preamps don't do what they are supposed to... I just think when you have a good sounding bass and good hands, you can create a very useful tone without needing to color it with an outboard preamp.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Dan,
I have to agree that pickups, strings, playing technique, preamp, etc have more tonal effect than wood does. Undoubtedly, wood species plays a role in tone. Some will have more pronounced frequency responses, however I think the species plays a smaller role than some may think.

Cameron,
Nice playing and I'm glad you are teaching bass and introducing the art to new students every day. You mentioned that your MTD was chambered... that as you know will have a huge effect on tone as well.

Getting back to wood selection:
Two of my basses at one time were a Modulus Genesis 5 and an Elrick Hybrid platinum 5 both with Bartolini single coils and 3 band preamp, same tuners, same bridge, same scale length, same strings, same amp.
The tone of the two basses were extremely different. Could be from the neck joint bolt vs set neck, could be from the carbon fiber spline on the Modulus, or it could be the very different wood choices for the basses.
Either way, the Elrick although beautifully crafted and designed had nothing sonically that I liked and the Modulus had everything.

So... wood makes a difference- of course. But I feel construction technique and all the other variables give a bass it's sonic foot print. My gut feeling is that some wood is chosen for it's beauty and not necessarily it's tonal qualities.

My last thoughts:
Cameron, could you post more videos using different MTD basses to hear their unique sounds? ( maybe record them direct as well? ) Thanks

Dan, your Pbasses sound FREAKING AWESOME and I'm not even a Pbass fan!
Makes me think I need one in the future. Still debating on the fretboard

And, my Genesis was designed with Modulus by Michael Tobias, and I LOVE it, but I'm not so much a fan of the MTD basses sound. Go figure.

These are the type of posts I made this thread for. Respectful exchange of ideas, experiences, questions, etc. Zero emotional attachment to the discussion. It's not like we're discussing religion or politics here.

I applaud you, sir.

 

[Mulebagger]

Thank you Dan. We are a large community here and I think we need to respectfully and intelligently express ideas to better ourselves as builders, players, and professionals.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

320K compression isn't going to make enough difference to erase tonal differences. Sorry. 99% of us could never hear the difference between 320K MP3 and WAV in a blind test. Especially on a bass track.

Where did you get the idea I used a mic? The bass was recorded direct for purest/cleanest signal.

And don't even try arguing "you should have used an expensive pre". I already put that myth to rest here:
Invalid Link Removed

People chose the $30 preamp over the $2275 preamp by a 3 to 1 margin.

Well your art pre, if that is what you are using to go direct, is sounding pretty muddy. I can hear all kinds of crud in the low mids. Not sure if that is the pre, your bass itself or something else. Tahts what led me to assume it was recorded through an amp and speaker.
Just because I can't tell the difference between the two in a blind "taste test" does not make them equivalent.
I used to blow off high dollar mic pres until I started recording with them. The differences that aren't as apparent on a single track really stack up when you record everything with them. I would much rather use a Great River (or Summit) than an Art. Though I do own a an Art MPA II. Funny though, I end up plugged into my Summit 90% of the time.

 

[matt11]

B rosewood

 

[metron]

I've championed the unpredictablilty of the effects of the wood in an instrument for quite a few years here and on other boards so that's very familiar territory. The timbre is still in the timber but those who claim to predict that ash will always sound this way and alder will always sound that way or maple fingerboards are always brighter than rosewood fingerboards, or whatever other false axiom they wish to espouse are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended).

The wood has it's effect but anyone trying to predict the precise outcome is on a fools errand.

I think this is pretty wise. There seems to be a middle ground that is probably closest to reality. The effect of wood is real. Tonewood proponents like to say a lot of things about what species will do but I think in the real world there is no such highly predictable tonal effect. Trends sure but I have seen tonewood descriptions so specific regarding frequency ranges and ADSR adjectives that its bordering on absurd.

I think in some ways what you are saying here jives with Dans original premise. Wood matters but how and by how much is often overstated.