Different tone from different wood, really?

[basslicks]

Since this has been an ongoing debate for decades and there’s no clearcut answer, I err on the side that it makes very little difference, especially in the context of a band. I have both a maple and rosewood Ps, I use Rotos on both and I honestly cannot tell any difference.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Oh my....strap in.

I'm trying not to bite...

 

[MtManiac]

If paint matters, density matters. If density matters, woods matter. We are in agreement.

Much science!

 

[AboutSweetSue]

I have an opinion on the matter.

Much science!

You figured it out. Good. It’s such a simple concept, didn’t figure it needed to be spelled out.

 

[MtManiac]

I have an opinion on the matter.

You figured it out. Good. It’s such a simple concept, didn’t figure it needed to be spelled out.

Lol ok, that’s pretty condescending. Or would be, if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[Jack Butler]

This!

I wonder how much the quality of the bolt-on (or, technically, screw-on) joint affects the coupling of string to pickup. Little crappy screws v. bigger ones with aggressive threads? How many screws? Are the pilot holes too small or big? Are they aligned so, upon tightening, there isn't any new tension introduced into the neck heel? Heel plate or individual ferrules? How much torque to tighten? How about threaded inserts with big stainess machine bolts (to actually have a bolt-on neck)?

If you're going to stick to your guns and insist on wood stiffness and density affecting string vibration and thus tone, wouldn't the quality of the joint be a critical (or more critical) factor? Wood species are, overall, relatively close in characteristics. We're not comparing cement with packing peanuts, or balsa wood with stainless steel.

I'd love to see more discussion and info (research?) on the neck joint.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

This!

Look online, there is research on the type of joint. Doesn't make much difference to tone, it seems.

 

[StatesideRambler]

Just so we’re clear about this, I have gathered from this thread that the range of opinions is:
- “My buddy can tell you whether the maple grew in Michigan or Virginia and was milled in Nashville.”
- “No one can distinguish the sounds of solid body basses even when one is koa with flats and the other is acrylic with rounds.”
- We’re all experts except the guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

You can stop now. I’m all out of popcorn.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

The hardness of the wood translates into how the strings vibrate.
Imagine if you put the strings on a body of Styrofoam. The vibrations would be muted due to the softness of the supporting material.

Now imagine if you mounted the strings to a Titanium one-piece body, surely they would resonate brightly.
The woods are just every variation in between.

The typical woods used are pretty close in terms of properties with a wide gulf between that and Styrofoam

 

[AboutSweetSue]

Lol ok, that’s pretty condescending. Or would be, if you knew what you were talking about.

I’m sorry, but you just seem like a troll to me. It’s difficult to grant a meaningful comment when you reply as you do.

Maybe next time offer something genuine rather than fish for a confrontation. There’s more to life than arguing online with a guy such as yourself.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

The typical woods used are pretty close

Not at all, I already posted earlier that Maple is 50% harder than Mahogany.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

As an example of the sonic differences that can occur with different woods, I compared three MTD 535-24 basses that were in stock at the Bass Exchange in LA when I was there recently, all of which had different neck/fingerboard/body combinations (plugging all into the same amp with no change in settings). Electronics were the same on all three and the strings were in similar condition.

In short, it was shocking how much difference there was. The overall tone of all three basses was similar, but there was quite a bit of variation in the amount of sustain and the way the instruments responded to different types of attack (pick, slapping, etc.). More surprising to me, the character of the treble, midrange and bass on all three varied noticeably in different ways.

The first bass had a maple neck/fingerboard and a swamp ash body. It had almost brittle highs, scooped mids and tight bottom end, not a great amount of sustain but a lot of punch. Probably good for modern slap-style playing. The second bass had a myrtle top, makore body, maple neck and rosewood fingerboard, and it was more sustaining, more piano-like and complex tonally with a broader and warmer bottom end. I felt like that bass was the one for me, and that I could get everything out of it that I would need to. The third bass, with a poplar body/maple neck/grenadillo fingerboard combo, was somewhere in between, with a bit more midrange and less sustain than the second one.

Having said all that, I was mostly window shopping at that point, but it was a very educational experience.

The electronics might be nominally the same but there is variation in the components as often tolerances aren't that tight, so if things aren't wide open so caps and pots aren't really involved there can still be variation in sound.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Not at all, I already posted earlier that Maple is 50% harder than Mahogany.

Yes, that's pretty close if you compare it to Styrofoam where you are talking orders of magnitude. You're talking (hypothetical numbers) 1 for Styrofoam and 2000 and 3000 for two woods, and the difference in tone might be a log function of that value, so 50% difference in hardness might make little difference to tone. An example might be sound - twice the energy is 3dB and barely noticeable. And if tone is related to hardness it is not hard to imagine a log relationship and dB are involved, in which case 50% harder would be inaudible.

 

[AboutSweetSue]

We’re all experts except the guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Well, I’m no scientist. My ears work though......

 

[Killed_by_Death]

50% harder would be inaudible

Yet it is very audible to very many people.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Not at all, I already posted earlier that Maple is 50% harder than Mahogany.

I took a look, and it seems that some mahoganies are 50% harder than hard maple (which is not the hardest maple)

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Yet it is very audible to very many people.

And yet in blind tests it isn't.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

Which blind tests?
Have a link?

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Janka hardness for mahogany varies from 1100 to 2400, depending on subspecies maple from around 1250 to 1500 depending on type and listing. Sapele (which I've been using), often listed as mahogany, although technically it isn't, is at the harder end if maple. So it's entirely possible to buy and instrument labelled as mahogany that is sapele and made of wood almost identical I hardness to maple. So if you heard a difference and ascribed it to hardness between maple and mahogany it might be illusory.

 

[tfer]

Janka hardness for mahogany varies from 1100 to 2400, depending on subspecies maple from around 1250 to 1500 depending on type and listing. Sapele (which I've been using), often listed as mahogany, although technically it isn't, is at the harder end if maple. So it's entirely possible to buy and instrument labelled as mahogany that is sapele and made of wood almost identical I hardness to maple. So if you heard a difference and ascribed it to hardness between maple and mahogany it might be illusory.

Hardness isn't the only variable. I find that grain structure has as much (or more) influence on tone - especially finger/fretboard woods.

An open grain (like rosewood) seems to soak up higher frequencies better than closed grain (maple and ebony), lending a warmer sound.