Does a bass really improve with age??

[BobXboB]

...the fiddle part made me chuckle.

Trying to keep it light these threads usually get filled with crying and temper tantrums pretty fast.

 

[spade2you]

Old growth is usually more dense and not random.

Kinda depended on the location. Planting wasn't nearly as organized. Thus a random tree with plenty of room could grow fast and not as dense while the tightly packed trees would grow much more slowly and more dense.

 

[BobXboB]

Kinda depended on the location. Planting wasn't nearly as organized. Thus a random tree with plenty of room could grow fast and not as dense while the tightly packed trees would grow much more slowly and more dense.

In general all old growth wood is more dense than it's farmed variants. You do know that where the farm is also has an effect on the tree and all farmed wood is not automatically homogenous? Look at the extreme variations in Eucalyptus in California or the many farmed mahoganies for examples. I think you're making an assumption and ignoring actual measurements made of woods. Compare the variation in weights in old growth samples and farmed varieties for the real answers.

Hey, who can tell me when Fender or any company switched from old growth and went to farmed woods?

 

[spade2you]

In general all old growth wood is more dense than it's farmed variants.

In general, yes. However, harvesting was much less controlled, thus not improbable to grab a randomly placed large tree of less density.

 

[JanusZarate]

Kinda depended on the location. Planting wasn't nearly as organized. Thus a random tree with plenty of room could grow fast and not as dense while the tightly packed trees would grow much more slowly and more dense.

The density in that scenario is the number of trees per square yard.

On a serious note... considerable factors in wood density (although apparently in some studies I've glossed over, they're inconsistent as to their influence, especially from one species to another) are soil nutrients, climate, and moisture. I'd imagine in a densely packed set of trees, they'd be competing for resources... and might possibly have lower wood density.

I'm no expert on trees, though... anyone who is an expert care to chime in?

I think you'll find greater variations in wood density between different species than between trees of the same species.

 

[nuno.ka]

So a good tree surgeon is the best person to spot the mojo in a vintage fender. Just give me a brand new Jazz Aerodyne out of the factory today, that's all the mojo I need.

 

[spade2you]

The density in that scenario is the number of trees per square yard.

On a serious note... considerable factors in wood density (although apparently in some studies I've glossed over, they're inconsistent as to their influence, especially from one species to another) are soil nutrients, climate, and moisture. I'd imagine in a densely packed set of trees, they'd be competing for resources... and might possibly have lower wood density.

I'm no expert on trees, though... anyone who is an expert care to chime in?

I think you'll find greater variations in wood density between different species than between trees of the same species.

Surprisingly, the slow growth is more dense. I guess my previous point was that old growth is generally more dense, but there is a certain degree of variability. New growth is generally less dense and has less variability.

 

[BobXboB]

In general, yes. However, harvesting was much less controlled, thus not improbable to grab a randomly placed large tree of less density.

Again those are assumptions, why not just go with real repeatable measurements? There are so many things you are not considering in your assumptions like variation of density in a single tree, variation throughout a field, fields in different countries, different species being sold as the same thing. And of course the belief that old wood is the less dense stuff is a direct contradiction to your assumptions.

 

[BobXboB]

I think you'll find greater variations in wood density between different species than between trees of the same species.

Not really, for example all alder falls within the weight range of ash. All commercial rosewoods combined have a density range of less than maple though in this example I'm using genus and not species but that distinction is lost on most.

 

[spade2you]

Again those are assumptions, why not just go with real repeatable measurements? There are so many things you are not considering in your assumptions like variation of density in a single tree, variation throughout a field, fields in different countries, different species being sold as the same thing. And of course the belief that old wood is the less dense stuff is a direct contradiction to your assumptions.

I am making no assumptions, just stating the variability. It's been a long time since I took the class, but it made the transcript. As stated ad nauseum, old growth is generally more dense than new growth, but growing lumber takes many decades. The growing practices were variable way back when as not everything was as well understood.

 

[Tom Howland]

A well made bass will get better with age.

A poorly made bass, will get worse, with age.

 

[BobXboB]

I am making no assumptions, just stating the variability. It's been a long time since I took the class, but it made the transcript. As stated ad nauseum, old growth is generally more dense than new growth, but growing lumber takes many decades. The growing practices were variable way back when as not everything was as well understood.

Earlier you stated old growth was less dense. I'm happy to see you learning

Old growth forests didn't have growing "practices" and your statements about density are assumptions.

So when did basses switch from old growth trees to farmed trees? No one seems to know that but so many assume old guitars were never made with farmed woods. Another bad assumption.

 

[BobXboB]

A well made bass will get better with age.

A poorly made bass, will get worse, with age.

The higher the price tag the better the tone. At least we can all agree on that. Old Fenders that were once cheap ooze with mojo & tone once the price tag crosses 4 figures. Just ask any expert.

 

[JanusZarate]

...though in this example I'm using genus and not species but that distinction is lost on most.

Not lost on me... but I certainly forgot about it.

I may be a college graduate, but as you might have guessed from my inability to remember the classifications, I'm clearly not a science major.

 

[dvh]

It is very rare for alder and ash - two very commonly used woods in solid body basses -to be grown on tree farms. They grow and multiply naturally. For that reason, as stated a few times already, there can be much variability among each species.

 

[spade2you]

Earlier you stated old growth was less dense. I'm happy to see you learning

Old growth forests didn't have growing "practices" and your statements about density are assumptions.

So when did basses switch from old growth trees to farmed trees? No one seems to know that but so many assume old guitars were never made with farmed woods. Another bad assumption.

I did no such thing, I stated VARIABILITY. The fact that old growth LACKED practices enforces my assumptions of variability.

 

[BobXboB]

Not lost on me... but I certainly forgot about it.

I may be a college graduate, but as you might have guessed from my inability to remember the classifications, I'm clearly not a science major.

Don't worry about it, knowledge of science has very little to do with these discussions

 

[BobXboB]

I did no such thing, I stated VARIABILITY. The fact that old growth LACKED practices enforces my assumptions of variability.

Usually "old wood" was grown at random, some really dense, some not so dense. Most modern tree farms have the trees spaced for maximal growth, which has thinner "rings", which will typically make them less dense on average.

Maybe you just don't understand how density and tree rings relate. So I guess you could have had the density part right and were just clueless as to how that manifests itself in trees. But thinner rings are more dense than thicker ones. Can't just go by assumptions

You're still wrong about old growth lumber being random and varying, you can google the weights of these woods and if you're willing to spend a bit of time learning you can find this out for yourself. It will make a better argument than all caps any ways

 

[spade2you]

Maybe you just don't understand how density and tree rings relate. So I guess you could have had the density part right and were just clueless as to how that manifests itself in trees. But thinner rings are more dense than thicker ones. Can't just go by assumptions

You're still wrong about old growth lumber being random and varying, you can google the weights of these woods and if you're willing to spend a bit of time learning you can find this out for yourself. It will make a better argument than all caps any ways

I understand fully how rings and density relate. I didn't graduate from google university.

 

[BobXboB]

In nature trees grow in a narrow set of conditions, on a farm they can grow under a huge range of conditions. Look at the species of wild dog that gave us domestic dogs. Which has more variation? Wolves or all breeds of domesticated dogs?

Same rules of nature applies to trees.