Dingwall Owners Club

[akizh]

The woods makes difference, and yes the difference will get smaller when having lots of pedals, cables, amps and recording gear in the signal chain. You can always get good results by using amp, EQ or post effect with any kind of wood combination on bass.
However, getting the ideal tone right from the woods makes shaping the tone much easier, that's why the wood matters, at least to me. You don't need to spend time on EQ or something, just plug and it sounds good, and you can focus on playing.

Back to the wenge vs maple. @Scott McArron
Maybe you can check out some MTD demos for reference, as MTD made lots of wenge neck basses and players don't tend to add lots of distortion (and the colorful Darkglass things).




These two demos are both played by Bobby Lewis, although the body woods are not the same, I think it still present the character of the wenge and maple neck.
To my ear and experience, wenge has a bit less brightness on top, much tighter on the low ends and the mids are pushed in the front, so you'll get more growl in mid range. To me, sound of wenge neck is really good to have a low end support in a dense mix but still cut through in mids.
On the other side, if this bass is going to used on your solo project, I think maple will be good cause with it's brightness you can make the bass sound more easier to be heard as a main character. And you can never go wrong with maple neck.
Just my two cents, hope this helps.

 

[Scott McArron]

The woods makes difference, and yes the difference will get smaller when having lots of pedals, cables, amps and recording gear in the signal chain. You can always get good results by using amp, EQ or post effect with any kind of wood combination on bass.
However, getting the ideal tone right from the woods makes shaping the tone much easier, that's why the wood matters, at least to me. You don't need to spend time on EQ or something, just plug and it sounds good, and you can focus on playing.

Back to the wenge vs maple. @Scott McArron
Maybe you can check out some MTD demos for reference, as MTD made lots of wenge neck basses and players don't tend to add lots of distortion (and the colorful Darkglass things).




These two demos are both played by Bobby Lewis, although the body woods are not the same, I think it still present the character of the wenge and maple neck.
To my ear and experience, wenge has a bit less brightness on top, much tighter on the low ends and the mids are pushed in the front, so you'll get more growl in mid range. To me, sound of wenge neck is really good to have a low end support in a dense mix but still cut through in mids.
On the other side, if this bass is going to used on your solo project, I think maple will be good cause with it's brightness you can make the bass sound more easier to be heard as a main character. And you can never go wrong with maple neck.
Just my two cents, hope this helps.

Many thanks! I have to say definitely preferred the tone of the maple here between the two.

 

[AB Nate]

That chorus sure had a resonant effect(of course) from A to B. I’m not sure that’s actually a really solid comparison side by each

 

[jaco944]

John is a good guy. Bought my D-Roc from him, and have an Adamovic on order.

View attachment 4385647

I took the sticker pickguard off. Like it much better clean.

What did you use to remove the sticker? I’ve been contemplating that since day 1.

 

[gearhound22]

I've said it before a number of times here -- even outside of a band context, I don't think "tonewoods" in a solidbody electric bass has nearly the influence on timber that a lot of TBers give it. By the time you hit a preamp, any pedals, amp, speakers, etc., any nuance there is lost. Once in a band mix, even more so. If 500 Euros is meaningful to you, then you could likely save yourself the money if you're approach is purely from a timber/tone angle.
.

I believe the builders ...I don't believe some progressive start/stop nerd boasting about his Madagascan burl spalted roasted top has "defined mids" when he plays 1% of his guitar fretboard and is buried in distortion...

I understand these guys ain't fans of LP's or strats LOL but the tonewood snobbery is thru the roof with those guys, maybe if their shows were loaded with chicks I might buy into a little more but that ain't the case....you can't dance to something that sounds like a beaten in trash can rolling down a hill lol

 

[J Posega]

I believe the builders ...I don't believe some progressive start/stop nerd boasting about his Madagascan burl spalted roasted top has "defined mids" when he plays 1% of his guitar fretboard and is buried in distortion...

I understand these guys ain't fans of LP's or strats LOL but the tonewood snobbery is thru the roof with those guys, maybe if their shows were loaded with chicks I might buy into a little more but that ain't the case....you can't dance to something that sounds like a beaten in trash can rolling down a hill lol

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

 

[Selta]

I'm thoroughly confused why I was quoted for that reply xD

 

[gearhound22]

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Absolutely none! Not aimed at anyone here but on other forums you will see these progressive guys boasting about their new build and how some tonewood no one has ever used before in a guitar has all sorts of cork sniffer properties and then the guy is just playing 01 000 1 1 0 00

 

[gearhound22]

Are you telling me some Kyrgyzstan roasted colophospermum mopane is gonna make the mids more defined on this?

 

[groovaholic]

Are you telling me some Kyrgyzstan roasted colophospermum mopane is gonna make the mids more defined on this?

Jaco only needed 4 strings, but this guy got it done with ONE.

Ergo, he is 4x as good as Jaco.

Now, if only he could put flats and a tortoiseshell pick guard on his 1-string bass.

Joking aside; dude made something, then played music with it so KUDOS!

 

[Selta]

So anyway.
No real news on my Z1 delivery, but, I had a small change in thought.

Instead of dumping both filter pre's in right away, I might just put both pickups into one filter pre and see how I get along with that first. That saves me from jumping in the deep end and drilling a hole I may not end up needing.
I talked with a local pickup winder as well as John East a bit about this, and based off my FD3s in my other Dingwalls, it might not be the pairing as-is. Going to be an interesting few weeks once it shows up. Even if I end up with "just" the Glock in there, I'll be more than happy... but I'm really hoping a filter or dual-filter setup can work out!

 

[Sheldon D.]

When it comes to tone woods, the question needs to include what it is about the wood that changes the tone. The answer to that is how it responds to vibrations. Which frequencies get damped, and which resonate.

Calling the woods "tone" woods I think limits the discussion. I admit I'm guilty of calling them that all the time but don't have a better descriptor that would be universally understood.

How the wood responds to vibration affects not just the tone but also how the bass responds to your touch. Some woods work well together consistently, where one's resonance fills the whole left by the other's damping. In my mind this results in a bass that has a full response and feels effortless to play. If you combine two woods with similar damping, you can end up with a large hole in the response where notes seem to disappear. In this case the bass can seem like it's fighting you and requires more effort to play than it should.

We've developed a rule of thumb where we suggest balancing woods with strong mids with woods with scooped mids. Ash/maple, alder/wenge, mahogany/wenge are all pretty predictably balanced which is why we suggest them. Ash/wenge can sound amazing but every now and then, things don't line up and it seems like the two woods are fighting each other.

 

[singlemalt]

He kinda skimped out on the beaten Bronze Age spear point that could have made all the difference.

Kids these days. No respect for tradition.

 

[Sheldon D.]

So anyway.
No real news on my Z1 delivery, but, I had a small change in thought.

Instead of dumping both filter pre's in right away, I might just put both pickups into one filter pre and see how I get along with that first. That saves me from jumping in the deep end and drilling a hole I may not end up needing.
I talked with a local pickup winder as well as John East a bit about this, and based off my FD3s in my other Dingwalls, it might not be the pairing as-is. Going to be an interesting few weeks once it shows up. Even if I end up with "just" the Glock in there, I'll be more than happy... but I'm really hoping a filter or dual-filter setup can work out!

Doesn't John East or ACG offer a filter pre-amp pedal that you could try?

 

[PaulS]

What did you use to remove the sticker? I’ve been contemplating that since day 1.

actually was just able to lift it up with a gentle fingernail under it. My brother is a sign guy who works with vinyl all the time, so let him do it. There was some ghosting from the sticker, which cleaned up with some light windex. Keep in mind my bass is pretty much new. Not sure how much harder it might be for an older bass, proceed with caution.
When I contacted Dingwall they just said use VERY gentle heat to warm it up, and that you’d be able to peel it off.

 

[Selta]

Doesn't John East or ACG offer a filter pre-amp pedal that you could try?

I do believe so. I have both pres in hand though, and all the time in the world to tinker with it haha. I have a feeling decoupling the pickups from the pre would also change things and not be a solid test. In other words, going from pickup -> glock (buffer signal here on out) -> filters would work, but, be different than pickups -> filters -> blah blah. Might be worth playing with it both ways... maybe I'll breadboard a "pedal" format with one of my two pres and try that as well!

 

[Selta]

When it comes to tone woods, the question needs to include what it is about the wood that changes the tone. The answer to that is how it responds to vibrations. Which frequencies get damped, and which resonate.

Calling the woods "tone" woods I think limits the discussion. I admit I'm guilty of calling them that all the time but don't have a better descriptor that would be universally understood.

How the wood responds to vibration affects not just the tone but also how the bass responds to your touch. Some woods work well together consistently, where one's resonance fills the whole left by the other's damping. In my mind this results in a bass that has a full response and feels effortless to play. If you combine two woods with similar damping, you can end up with a large hole in the response where notes seem to disappear. In this case the bass can seem like it's fighting you and requires more effort to play than it should.

We've developed a rule of thumb where we suggest balancing woods with strong mids with woods with scooped mids. Ash/maple, alder/wenge, mahogany/wenge are all pretty predictably balanced which is why we suggest them. Ash/wenge can sound amazing but every now and then, things don't line up and it seems like the two woods are fighting each other.

That's a really interesting path to explore. I think you nailed something on the head off the bat - we try to simplify and ascribe "X means Y", where as things are more systemic than that, and the interaction between all parts really needs considered. Thanks for that

 

[AB Nate]

So should we be calling them:

Approximate frequency responsive wood species?

Would that end the age ole Tone wood debate? Take the Mystical out of it and apply math and science….?

Ie. Do Approximate frequency responsive wood species make any difference?
I’ll speculate a hard Yes

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

When it comes to tone woods, the question needs to include what it is about the wood that changes the tone. The answer to that is how it responds to vibrations. Which frequencies get damped, and which resonate.

Calling the woods "tone" woods I think limits the discussion. I admit I'm guilty of calling them that all the time but don't have a better descriptor that would be universally understood.

How the wood responds to vibration affects not just the tone but also how the bass responds to your touch. Some woods work well together consistently, where one's resonance fills the whole left by the other's damping. In my mind this results in a bass that has a full response and feels effortless to play. If you combine two woods with similar damping, you can end up with a large hole in the response where notes seem to disappear. In this case the bass can seem like it's fighting you and requires more effort to play than it should.

We've developed a rule of thumb where we suggest balancing woods with strong mids with woods with scooped mids. Ash/maple, alder/wenge, mahogany/wenge are all pretty predictably balanced which is why we suggest them. Ash/wenge can sound amazing but every now and then, things don't line up and it seems like the two woods are fighting each other.

Interesting. When you are listing the wood combos, is the body wood/neck wood? And how does the fingerboard wood figure into the equation when it's not the same wood as the neck?

 

[Selta]

So should we be calling them:

Approximate frequency responsive wood species?

Would that end the age ole Tone wood debate? Take the Mystical out of it and apply math and science….?

Ie. Do Approximate frequency responsive wood species make any difference?
I’ll speculate a hard Yes

I'll just say this, then probably see myself out of the broader topic. I fell that bringing pure "cold" science into it would probably not have a positive influence - it may come across poorly and actually have folks dig in to their beliefs and feelings. Plus, how would you even measure it and apply it to "sound" and "feel" .