Different tone from different wood, really?

[AboutSweetSue]

Umm you brought up paint... so that’s my good work? You take yourself waaay too seriously if you can’t let comments like that roll off, and you can’t seem to step away from the condescension. I honestly thought you were kidding when I first read your comment about paint making a tonal difference, thus my comment. Your explanation didn’t help, but somehow in your eyes that makes me stupid and dense. No, I’m not shocked, this is the internet, it’s 2019, and I’m 49.

My kid repairs Canadian Navy ships for a living. He can definitely tell you that paint is not a structural component, although it seems to have been used that way on some of our frigates.

O.K. Not trying to make you feel stupid, but you roll off as doing just that.

 

[sissy kathy]

Umm you brought up paint... so that’s my good work? You take yourself waaay too seriously if you can’t let comments like that roll off, and you can’t seem to step away from the condescension. I honestly thought you were kidding when I first read your comment about paint making a tonal difference, thus my comment. Your explanation didn’t help, but somehow in your eyes that makes me stupid and dense. No, I’m not shocked, this is the internet, it’s 2019, and I’m 49.

My kid repairs Canadian Navy ships for a living. He can definitely tell you that paint is not a structural component, although it seems to have been used that way on some of our frigates.

You son's ship work works in a similar fashion as these basses we are talking about. The paint doesn't need to be structural to add mass to the ship, which increases displacement, which increases drag, which causes increased fuel costs and reduced range which reduces the mission capability of the ship, all because of a few extra coats of paint on the ship because of a brown nosing ensign.

As in the example above, the paint doesn't have to be a structural component to add mass to the piece, adding mass affects the resonant frequency, which affects the way the body interacts with the strings, affecting what the pickups see. And all of that affects the tone. That is all physics and established science. This discussion really is about how much those different factors affect the tone. There is a basic flaw in the entire discussion before we even get into specifics though. What is the base line?

 

[MtManiac]

It doesn't have to be a structural component to add mass to the piece, adding mass affects the resonant frequency, which affects the way the body interacts with the strings, affecting what the pickups see. And all of that affects the tone. That is all physics and established science. This discussion really is about how much those different factors affect the tone. There is a basic flaw in the entire discussion before we even get into specifics though. What is the base line?

Dust adds mass. And does a darker colour retain more energy, and therefore mass, since fewer photons are reflected off the finish? Pickups don’t “see” anything.

Actually, this whole discussion has strayed *way* off the base that the OP was asking, and it’s a totally dead horse anyway, beaten to a pulp on both sides by people entrenched in their opinions with very little actual science supporting anything anybody is saying, but sure, we can talk about dust’s tonal qualities too, and colour, why not. How about how many plys a pickguard has and whether nickel pickguard screws sound less bright than chrome ones? Honestly, why would anybody come here to make a serious contribution to this discussion, when it’s just February? We still have ten more months of this to go, just in 2019. I’ve been here for 12 sad years having this same conversation. Very few people have actually changed an opinion, from what I can tell, but paint is where I draw *my* line.

 

[MtManiac]

O.K. Not trying to make you feel stupid, but you roll off as doing just that.

Lol you make me feel nothing, but especially not stupid. Quite the opposite!

You keep claiming to have insight into my emotional state. It’s so interesting!

 

[MtManiac]

Is that your science? You ever talk to a physicist? They’ll make your head spin. Best keep to what you know.

Can you measure objectively the sight of blue? No, then how can you measure, objectively what I hear? It’s an ad hominem attack.

I’m not even going to explain the paint again. But, I do know that you said “grain” matters. So, how is your entire post not contradictory?

Seems like you, in your own words, “don’t know what you’re talking about.”

And, now, this thread is open to debate about nitro v poly. Good work.

You keep editing things substantially after I’ve already replied.

Yes, actually, blue can be measured. Light, like sound, travels in waves, with peaks and distances between those peaks, and the difference between two different colours or two different tones is the difference in the frequencies or wavelengths of those peaks. Frequencies are measurable. Blue objectively exists, just like A440 objectively exists. Did your physicist friend tell you that wasn’t the case? If so, now we’ve gotta throw out standard tuning along with the entire Spring fashion lineup.

What doesn’t objectively exist are synesthetic descriptions like “warm” or “bright”. Sure, they mean something, but what? What combination of fundamental and harmonic frequencies equates to “warm”? We could spectrum analyze a bass tone and say “it’s this, this is warm” but somebody is gonna disagree, and nobody’s doing that anyway. Roger Sadowsky isn’t publishing spectrum analysis graphs of each bass’s tone. He’s just saying “rosewood is warm, and my rosewood is magically extra specially warm.” Of course he is, that’s how we sell things.

Look, you can go ahead with your little passive aggressive jibes implying that I’m stupid all you want. I’m afraid though that it doesn’t make you any smarter. It just makes you unpleasant - but I’ll happily reply to your posts on tonewood all day long.

 

[MtManiac]

You son's ship work works in a similar fashion as these basses we are talking about. The paint doesn't need to be structural to add mass to the ship, which increases displacement, which increases drag, which causes increased fuel costs and reduced range which reduces the mission capability of the ship, all because of a few extra coats of paint on the ship because of a brown nosing ensign.

As in the example above, the paint doesn't have to be a structural component to add mass to the piece, adding mass affects the resonant frequency, which affects the way the body interacts with the strings, affecting what the pickups see. And all of that affects the tone. That is all physics and established science. This discussion really is about how much those different factors affect the tone. There is a basic flaw in the entire discussion before we even get into specifics though. What is the base line?

If what you are telling me about paint on a bass is physics, I’ll happily await your data.

The ship paint I was referring to was the paint that covers the rust spots which would otherwise be holes in the hull. Of course paint has benefits besides holding rust together, but that does *not* make it a structural component, nor does the added mass of each repaint make a difference to the original design specs of the ship. And it doesn’t prove jack about what kind of difference it makes to tone. Nice hypothesis; I’ll wait for the supporting data though, thanks.

EDIT: whoops, the ship paint is actually a key part of the design spec, specifically because it *decreases* drag. What I meant was that the added mass of each repaint (they need to be repainted to keep the paint up to spec) is not part of the design spec of the ship. They definitely need paint refreshes for all the reasons you cited: efficiency, range, etc. and in some cases to hold the hull together.

 

[sissy kathy]

If what you are telling me about paint on a bass is physics, I’ll happily await your data.

The ship paint I was referring to was the paint that covers the rust spots which would otherwise be holes in the hull. Of course paint has benefits besides holding rust together, but that does *not* make it a structural component, nor does the added mass of each repaint make a difference to the original design specs of the ship. And it doesn’t prove jack about what kind of difference it makes to tone. Nice hypothesis; I’ll wait for the supporting data though, thanks.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to provide any of the data you are so anxiously awaiting. You blew my entire theory out of the water when you informed me that pickups 'don't "see" anything' in post #323.

 

[MtManiac]

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to provide any of the data you are so anxiously awaiting. You blew my entire theory out of the water when you informed me that pickups 'don't "see" anything' in post #323.

That’s too bad. I was really hoping such a strong opinion might be supportable by something other than brandishing the word “physics”.

 

[MtManiac]

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to provide any of the data you are so anxiously awaiting. You blew my entire theory out of the water when you informed me that pickups 'don't "see" anything' in post #323.

...because, as you would know, “established science” does require data, not just hypotheses.

 

[AboutSweetSue]

You keep editing things substantially after I’ve already replied.

Yes, actually, blue can be measured. Light, like sound, travels in waves, with peaks and distances between those peaks, and the difference between two different colours or two different tones is the difference in the frequencies or wavelengths of those peaks. Frequencies are measurable. Blue objectively exists, just like A440 objectively exists. Did your physicist friend tell you that wasn’t the case? If so, now we’ve gotta throw out standard tuning along with the entire Spring fashion lineup.

What doesn’t objectively exist are synesthetic descriptions like “warm” or “bright”. Sure, they mean something, but what? What combination of fundamental and harmonic frequencies equates to “warm”? We could spectrum analyze a bass tone and say “it’s this, this is warm” but somebody is gonna disagree, and nobody’s doing that anyway. Roger Sadowsky isn’t publishing spectrum analysis graphs of each bass’s tone. He’s just saying “rosewood is warm, and my rosewood is magically extra specially warm.” Of course he is, that’s how we sell things.

Look, you can go ahead with your little passive aggressive jibes implying that I’m stupid all you want. I’m afraid though that it doesn’t make you any smarter. It just makes you unpleasant - but I’ll happily reply to your posts on tonewood all day long.

You have made some edits yourself. What’s your point?

 

[AboutSweetSue]

You keep editing things substantially after I’ve already replied.

Yes, actually, blue can be measured. Light, like sound, travels in waves, with peaks and distances between those peaks, and the difference between two different colours or two different tones is the difference in the frequencies or wavelengths of those peaks. Frequencies are measurable. Blue objectively exists, just like A440 objectively exists. Did your physicist friend tell you that wasn’t the case? If so, now we’ve gotta throw out standard tuning along with the entire Spring fashion lineup.

What doesn’t objectively exist are synesthetic descriptions like “warm” or “bright”. Sure, they mean something, but what? What combination of fundamental and harmonic frequencies equates to “warm”? We could spectrum analyze a bass tone and say “it’s this, this is warm” but somebody is gonna disagree, and nobody’s doing that anyway. Roger Sadowsky isn’t publishing spectrum analysis graphs of each bass’s tone. He’s just saying “rosewood is warm, and my rosewood is magically extra specially warm.” Of course he is, that’s how we sell things.

Look, you can go ahead with your little passive aggressive jibes implying that I’m stupid all you want. I’m afraid though that it doesn’t make you any smarter. It just makes you unpleasant - but I’ll happily reply to your posts on tonewood all day long.

You can objectively measure blue....all of its variations and how they are perceived by each individual? This is to the point of being a joke, a troll reply.

 

[MtManiac]

You have made some edits yourself. What’s your point?

You got me. Congratulations - I’m 12 years here, I’m finally engaged in a “tone paint” discussion! It’s a first! Can’t wait to move on to pickguards and screws though.

 

[MtManiac]

You can objectively measure blue....all of its variations? This is to the point of being a joke, a troll reply.

Yes, sure you can.
Spectrum analyzer - Wikipedia

 

[DJ Bebop]

 

[AboutSweetSue]

You keep editing things substantially after I’ve already replied.

Yes, actually, blue can be measured. Light, like sound, travels in waves, with peaks and distances between those peaks, and the difference between two different colours or two different tones is the difference in the frequencies or wavelengths of those peaks. Frequencies are measurable. Blue objectively exists, just like A440 objectively exists. Did your physicist friend tell you that wasn’t the case? If so, now we’ve gotta throw out standard tuning along with the entire Spring fashion lineup.

What doesn’t objectively exist are synesthetic descriptions like “warm” or “bright”. Sure, they mean something, but what? What combination of fundamental and harmonic frequencies equates to “warm”? We could spectrum analyze a bass tone and say “it’s this, this is warm” but somebody is gonna disagree, and nobody’s doing that anyway. Roger Sadowsky isn’t publishing spectrum analysis graphs of each bass’s tone. He’s just saying “rosewood is warm, and my rosewood is magically extra specially warm.” Of course he is, that’s how we sell things.

Look, you can go ahead with your little passive aggressive jibes implying that I’m stupid all you want. I’m afraid though that it doesn’t make you any smarter. It just makes you unpleasant - but I’ll happily reply to your posts on tonewood all day long.

Man, you’re calling yourself stupid, not me. I haven’t said a word about it. I can’t help how you feel. And, honestly, I give not two poopies about your feelings, or this absurd, middle school level conversation about your science.

 

[MtManiac]

You can objectively measure blue....all of its variations and how they are perceived by each individual? This is to the point of being a joke, a troll reply.

Now it’s a troll reply... ok. I just provided a link to a Wikipedia entry for a spectrum analyzer. I’m sorry you seem to think this is science fiction or maybe a cruel joke but they’ve been around for a long time. Scientists use them.

 

[AboutSweetSue]

View attachment 3331622

Yeah I bet. Welcome to the freak show.

Yes, sure you can.
Spectrum analyzer - Wikipedia

How is color perceived by the individual is my point. You can measure individual perception? Good luck.

 

[MtManiac]

Man, you’re calling yourself stupid, not me. I haven’t said a word about it. I can’t help how you feel. And, honestly, I give not two poopies about your feelings, or this absurd, middle school level conversation about your science.

Lol “middle school.” There you go again. Passive aggressively calling me stupid. Cmon, have a little self awareness...

 

[AboutSweetSue]

You got me. Congratulations - I’m 12 years here, I’m finally engaged in a “tone paint” discussion! It’s a first! Can’t wait to move on to pickguards and screws though.

Pfft, congratulations.

 

[MtManiac]

Yeah I bet. Welcome to the freak show.

How is color perceived by the individual is my point. You can measure individual perception? Good luck.

Oh ffs... you said “objectively measure blue”. Now you’re changing it to subjectively measuring something. Of course I can’t measure whatever you call blue, or warm, or bright. That’s been my point all along. Words mean things. Can you please google “objective” and “subjective” before you start using them in conversations?