Different tone from different wood, really?

[MtManiac]

We’ve had this disagreement before. I enjoyed that debate, but have no desire to rehash it!

Play on. Regardless of our disagreements about tonewoods, I like your contributions.

Yeah, I recall, it was fun. The way I look at it now has been influenced for sure by some of the discussions here. I’m willing to accept that grain structure of individual pieces of wood will affect string vibration and therefore the electrical signal at least (or at best) minimally, because every P Bass I’ve played sounds both like a P bass yet unique in its own way, but I’m still skeptical that it can be categorized by wood *species*. I’ve owned and played a lot of P basses, in every combination of wood that’s commonly available, and I’ve had a few ash and maple combos that definitely sounded warmer than some alder and rosewood ones. Different pickups, different amps, different rooms. But anyone who believes that they *can* differentiate species based on tonal characteristics, I’m totally willing to accept too that their ears hear differently than mine. My objection is more to the idea that “rosewood is warmer than maple” being an accepted truth or fact, because it flies in the face of *my* experience.

 

[MtManiac]

tort is best

Nitro, plastic? How many plies?

 

[Turnaround]

If someone were to build 3 identical basses in every way, strung with the same new strings, and the only difference was that the body woods were different - lets say Mahogany, Swamp Ash, and Alder. Now we paint all 3 red. I doubt anyone could tell the difference, but there might be a few lucky guesses.



Years ago there was a thread here where someone did sound samples of a J-bass, then took it apart, and screwed all the parts to a hunk of thick plywood. After several pages of guesses the results were inconclusive. A few people got it right, but said they were just guessing.

Care to speculate on why I got the results I did when I swapped parts between a MIM Precision and a MIA Precision? (way back on page 1 of this thread). I would like to find something I haven't thought of to explain it.

 

[MtManiac]

Care to speculate on why I got the results I did when I swapped parts between a MIM Precision and a MIA Precision? (way back on page 1 of this thread). I would like to find something I haven't thought of to explain it.

Sounds like Fender could save some big money by shipping cheap ceramic pickups and pots on all their Elites and Professionals. For some reason, they haven't done that.

I dunno - your experience is just that, *your* experience. What does "sounded better" mean in any way that's useful to anyone else? How would you quantify that in a measurable and repeatable way? I'm not saying definitively, but I expect some of the hearing difference is in our hands, as much as it is our ears: when an instrument feels good in our hands, we feel good about what it gives our ears. When it feels bad, same thing - what an irredeemable piece of garbage. We play them differently, our fingers attack the strings differently, more confidently or less confidently. I don't know, that's just my hypothesis.

I've had some mighty fine pieces of Mexican Fender wood in my hands, and some by contrast very mediocre pieces of American Fender wood. I prefer the Americans in general for their playability, because in my opinion they *all* sound good, once you replace the MIM ceramic pickups with pretty much anything - not all the same, but all good. All things equal, any two P basses are going to sound slightly different, one I will like over another, and I *do* (now) attribute much of that difference to individual differences in the pieces of wood, just not to wood species. I can't quantify it or measure it. Scientifically, any blind listening test I've come across has been very unscientific, usually with a sample size of just 2-3 basses/guitars, which really proves nothing except those two or three basses sound different.

 

[Scottgun]

As with most things bought, sold, and marketed, it comes down to the moolah:

 

[James Collins]

As with most things bought, sold, and marketed, it comes down to the moolah:

Might be true but this guy in your video link is a dirt bag. I would avoid having people watch his videos.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Might be true but this guy in your video link is a dirt bag. I would avoid having people watch his videos.

Why is he a dirt bag?

 

[James Collins]

Among other things:
1) Lying about purchasing something he didn't then dragging the company's name through the dirt for not delivering the never ordered item.
2) Creating fake accounts to give bad reviews to companies, often his competitors.
3) Creating fake accounts to give his guitar company good reviews.
4) Cheating to win a competition online.
5) Threatening harm to others and their families.

Plus just listen to the guy talk. I don't think you need to be an expert at reading people to know he is toxic. When you read a thread on talk bass about a bad experience with an eBay purchaser, a FedEx delivery guy, someone on Reverb, etc--Will is that guy.

He was banned from YouTube for awhile because of his bad behavior. I never click links to his video. It is supporting a bad guy.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Sounds like Fender could save some big money by shipping cheap ceramic pickups and pots on all their Elites and Professionals. For some reason, they haven't done that.

I dunno - your experience is just that, *your* experience. What does "sounded better" mean in any way that's useful to anyone else? How would you quantify that in a measurable and repeatable way? I'm not saying definitively, but I expect some of the hearing difference is in our hands, as much as it is our ears: when an instrument feels good in our hands, we feel good about what it gives our ears. When it feels bad, same thing - what an irredeemable piece of garbage. We play them differently, our fingers attack the strings differently, more confidently or less confidently. I don't know, that's just my hypothesis.

I've had some mighty fine pieces of Mexican Fender wood in my hands, and some by contrast very mediocre pieces of American Fender wood. I prefer the Americans in general for their playability, because in my opinion they *all* sound good, once you replace the MIM ceramic pickups with pretty much anything - not all the same, but all good. All things equal, any two P basses are going to sound slightly different, one I will like over another, and I *do* (now) attribute much of that difference to individual differences in the pieces of wood, just not to wood species. I can't quantify it or measure it. Scientifically, any blind listening test I've come across has been very unscientific, usually with a sample size of just 2-3 basses/guitars, which really proves nothing except those two or three basses sound different.

In the overall scheme of things putting in a couple of $8 pots and a $0.50 capacitor as compared to a couple of $1 pots and a $0.10 capacitor isn't a big cost difference. Pickups I am not so sure on the cost difference as I can only really compare Fender's retail for the nicer pickups against bulk OEM ceramics, not the wholesale prices as I haven't seen the ceramics retail.

 

[James Collins]

In the overall scheme of things putting in a couple of $8 pots and a $0.50 capacitor as compared to a couple of $1 pots and a $0.10 capacitor isn't a big cost difference. Pickups I am not so sure on the cost difference as I can only really compare Fender's retail for the nicer pickups against bulk OEM ceramics, not the wholesale prices as I haven't seen the ceramics retail.

Is it funny that I believe in tone wood but think the type of magnet makes no difference if the magnets are the same strength?

 

[tfer]

Might be true but this guy in your video link is a dirt bag. I would avoid having people watch his videos.

Hmmm.

Trust a random guy with a $50 whiteboard, or Michael Tobias and Roger Sadowsky who stake their reputations and livelihoods on their word.

For those who say that they just want to sell more expensive woods, check out their websites - the difference in cost between comparable instruments is negligible.

 

[James Collins]

Hmmm.

Trust a random guy with a $50 whiteboard, or Michael Tobias and Roger Sadowsky who stake their reputations and livelihoods on their word.

For those who say that they just want to sell more expensive woods, check out their websites - the difference in cost between comparable instruments is negligible.

I didn't mean to say it was or wasn't true. My meaning was more in line with your post. That said highly figured wood is much more expensive, but tone isn't the reason it is more expensive.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Hmmm.

Trust a random guy with a $50 whiteboard, or Michael Tobias and Roger Sadowsky who stake their reputations and livelihoods on their word.

For those who say that they just want to sell more expensive woods, check out their websites - the difference in cost between comparable instruments is negligible.

I thought the thrust of his video (which I've seen before) is not that 'they' want to sell you expensive woods, but rather convince you cheap wood is worth a lot.

I would suggest that Gibson went with the more traditional wood for guitars, and it was Fender that used the cheap stuff. So either Leo had determined that ash was the superior tone wood, reckoned it would work for what he was building, or had determined it didn't matter

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Hmmm.

Trust a random guy with a $50 whiteboard, or Michael Tobias and Roger Sadowsky who stake their reputations and livelihoods on their word.

That would be an appeal to authority. That Tobias and Sadowsky (or guy with whiteboard) say anything doesn't matter one way or another. What matters is objectively gathered evidence. Any of the three men I just mentioned might be right. They might all be wrong and the important thing might be the midichlorian density of the wood.

The way you determine whether there is even a correlation is by a sufficiently large double-blind trial. Whilst it saves time on the number of presentations you have to do if you control for all variables apart from one, even that is not strictly required, provided that you don't, say, have all your mahogany bodied instruments with humbuckers, and all the single-coil guitars are made of ash.

 

[sissy kathy]

In order, the factors that affect the tone of the bass (excluding amp and mixing):
1) player technique and ability
2) pickups
3) playing environment
4) quality of construction the bass, e.g. bolt on vs neck through vs hollow vs semi hollow
5) neck wood and fretboard
6) body wood
7) connections to amp/sound board
8) audience

Somewhere between 0 and 8 you need some different strings.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Among other things:
1) Lying about purchasing something he didn't then dragging the company's name through the dirt for not delivering the never ordered item.
2) Creating fake accounts to give bad reviews to companies, often his competitors.
3) Creating fake accounts to give his guitar company good reviews.
4) Cheating to win a competition online.
5) Threatening harm to others and their families.

Plus just listen to the guy talk. I don't think you need to be an expert at reading people to know he is toxic. When you read a thread on talk bass about a bad experience with an eBay purchaser, a FedEx delivery guy, someone on Reverb, etc--Will is that guy.

He was banned from YouTube for awhile because of his bad behavior. I never click links to his video. It is supporting a bad guy.

Listening to the guy talk I am not impressed by the swearing (I don't like it) but it's not that bad. 1-5 I take your point, though.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Somewhere between 0 and 8 you need some different strings.

Personally I like to believe the most important factors are $$ spent on strings and $$ spent on instrument, then I can absolve myself of any tonal issues caused by technique by just blaming myself for not having spent enough on strings or the bass.

 

[tfer]

That would be an appeal to authority. That Tobias and Sadowsky (or guy with whiteboard) say anything doesn't matter one way or another. What matters is objectively gathered evidence. Any of the three men I just mentioned might be right. They might all be wrong and the important thing might be the midichlorian density of the wood.

The way you determine whether there is even a correlation is by a sufficiently large double-blind trial. Whilst it saves time on the number of presentations you have to do if you control for all variables apart from one, even that is not strictly required, provided that you don't, say, have all your mahogany bodied instruments with humbuckers, and all the single-coil guitars are made of ash.

It's not an appeal to authority - it's relying on the experience of very respected builders who have spent their lives creating instruments that are seen as some of the best in the industry. People purchase their instruments precisely because of their knowledge; knowledge and experience that is criticized as witchcraft by people who don't believe in the existence of tonewoods.

However, even those people seem to agree that tonewoods matter on acoustic instruments. But all stringed instruments are acoustic - the only difference is how they are amplified. But John Lennon's acoustic guitar with a magnetic soundhole pickup, STILL sounds like an acoustic guitar, not a Telecaster...

 

[tfer]

I thought the thrust of his video (which I've seen before) is not that 'they' want to sell you expensive woods, but rather convince you cheap wood is worth a lot.

I would suggest that Gibson went with the more traditional wood for guitars, and it was Fender that used the cheap stuff. So either Leo had determined that ash was the superior tone wood, reckoned it would work for what he was building, or had determined it didn't matter

I was pointing out that many anti-tonewood people believe that tonewoods are pushed precisely that they are more expensive. I posted earlier, that if you enjoy the sonic properties of plywood (or MDF...), perfect! ALL materials have sonic properties; it's simply a matter of how they are used.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I was pointing out that many anti-tonewood people believe that tonewoods are pushed precisely that they are more expensive. I posted earlier, that if you enjoy the sonic properties of plywood (or MDF...), perfect! ALL materials have sonic properties; it's simply a matter of how they are used.

I had a plywood Strat copy. I modified the pickups and it sounded really great. I didn't realise it was plywood so when I tried to refinish it then it went badly. So I have a solid wood replacement which hasn't quite got enough layers of tung oil yet. It was cheap and is 'maple' but of the little known basswood maple family. It looks fine with the 'blackburst' that with the yellowing effect of the tung oil is more a black/teak burst.