• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Does body wood matter?

#84
4StringTheorist said:
I don't want to sink into the cesspool of Youtube commenting, but this video made me both cheer for joy and grit my teeth a lot, given my degree is in physics. He's not wrong about the physics he's presenting, except for one or two minor misstatements that don't materially impact his point. It's actually a great little functional tutorial on wave physics! The kicker is what he didn't talk about.

He has successfully argued that the materials a guitar is made out of will not alter the frequencies present in the string. He has knocked down one possible explanation that people use for the "woods make a difference" side of the great Tonewood Debate.

The problem is.. if the construction materials do matter, they don't matter because they alter the frequencies present in the string. He admits that different materials will return a differing percentage of energy back to the string on reflection.

(SIDEBAR, safe to skip, instructive but irrelevant)
One of his minor flubs in the video is saying that an 85% coefficient of energy return between the string and the bridge saddle would be "pretty good" and implies that in reality it's less than that. He's wrong because at an 85% coefficient of energy return, if I pluck an open A string, it'll go quiet in under a second.

Proof: Open A is 110Hz, One half second of 110Hz is 55 cycles. 55 cycles of 85% energy return yields 0.85^55 = 0.00013123235, or 0.013% of original energy left in string.

Empirically, I can hit my open A and It's down to about 10% of it's initial volume in about 7 seconds or so. I'm spitballing from memory here, but I'm not far off. So 7 seconds is 770 cycles of open a, so X^770 = 0.1 and we solve for X. X = 0.1^(1/770) or a 99.7% coefficient of energy return for my bass, more or less.
(END SIDEBAR)

What he doesn't consider is that the coefficient of energy return may be non-constant across varying frequencies, which is to say maybe the coefficient of energy return is a function of frequency. He never makes a claim on this, he seems to merely not imagine that it's a possibility. It's a possibility, and one that structural engineers have to take seriously.

None of this is me arguing on one side of the debate. I'm a bit of a fence sitter there. But while I applaud this video as a great little amateur physics lesson because what he says isn't wrong, it's a poor addition to the debate because of what he neglects to mention: he pretended as if the crucial point of contention doesn't exist for purposes of declaring victory.
Click to expand...
Just listen up and learn thats it
 
#85
Catbuster said:
I've tended to go with whatever body wood is used in Spector basses or the Music Man Bongo or Sterling for what modern rock has become.

However... The bassist for Red Sun Rising uses an ash/maple Marcus Miller sig Jazz and he has a fantastic tone. That's an ash body.

Body wood matters to the overall tone of the instrument. Physics says so. But I would personally pick a bass you really like.
Click to expand...
I find it amusing that you listed basses that use 3 different wood types.

Spector is mostly maple (USA models), Bongos are basswood, Sterlings are alder. haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBassNorth
#88
It all boils down to Steinberger bodies made of graphite. Now, ask yourself how many records you can detect what wood the body is made of? Is it graphite or wood? Anything else? On any bass. You'll hear the PICKUPS first, then all the rest later, maybe. Same with the neck. If it's graphite or not. However, when you yourself actually PLAYS the instrument, the feel is of equal importance. It may feel quite different.

Can you hear how the "wood" comes into play on this instrument? ;)

 
  • Like
Reactions: pasi
#89
4StringTheorist said:
I don't want to sink into the cesspool of Youtube commenting, but this video made me both cheer for joy and grit my teeth a lot, given my degree is in physics. He's not wrong about the physics he's presenting, except for one or two minor misstatements that don't materially impact his point. It's actually a great little functional tutorial on wave physics! The kicker is what he didn't talk about.

He has successfully argued that the materials a guitar is made out of will not alter the frequencies present in the string. He has knocked down one possible explanation that people use for the "woods make a difference" side of the great Tonewood Debate.

The problem is.. if the construction materials do matter, they don't matter because they alter the frequencies present in the string. He admits that different materials will return a differing percentage of energy back to the string on reflection.

(SIDEBAR, safe to skip, instructive but irrelevant)
One of his minor flubs in the video is saying that an 85% coefficient of energy return between the string and the bridge saddle would be "pretty good" and implies that in reality it's less than that. He's wrong because at an 85% coefficient of energy return, if I pluck an open A string, it'll go quiet in under a second.

Proof: Open A is 110Hz, One half second of 110Hz is 55 cycles. 55 cycles of 85% energy return yields 0.85^55 = 0.00013123235, or 0.013% of original energy left in string.

Empirically, I can hit my open A and It's down to about 10% of it's initial volume in about 7 seconds or so. I'm spitballing from memory here, but I'm not far off. So 7 seconds is 770 cycles of open a, so X^770 = 0.1 and we solve for X. X = 0.1^(1/770) or a 99.7% coefficient of energy return for my bass, more or less.
(END SIDEBAR)

What he doesn't consider is that the coefficient of energy return may be non-constant across varying frequencies, which is to say maybe the coefficient of energy return is a function of frequency. He never makes a claim on this, he seems to merely not imagine that it's a possibility. It's a possibility, and one that structural engineers have to take seriously.

None of this is me arguing on one side of the debate. I'm a bit of a fence sitter there. But while I applaud this video as a great little amateur physics lesson because what he says isn't wrong, it's a poor addition to the debate because of what he neglects to mention: he pretended as if the crucial point of contention doesn't exist for purposes of declaring victory.
Click to expand...


In terms of differences over the frequency spectrum then even relatively small differences would become apparent over five seconds of decay, and that's relatively easily testable with simple recording equipment and some FFTs. The effect difference in construction of the bridge could then be tested by such simple expedients such as replacing the saddles with blocks of wood which would allow you to look at changes in construction which are independent of the natural frequency dependent amplitude decay of the strings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4StringTheorist
#91
I agree with @awilkie84 that it has little bearing. I remember an interview with Commerford from RATM a decade back in a magazine, that he said, all sound comes from the pickup, and the density of the material is just the sustaining part of the tone. The issue a month later a luthier said he was wrong. Then some debate started and they took out the Steinberger and other alternative materials as an example. You can't simply say it has any bearing. You'll hear the pickups first and foremost, the rest is just so-so and aestethic and feel only, same with the neck. The sustaining/decaying portion of the sound may play part, but it's so with any material then, not just wood.

The stainless steel Gittler instrument above is a perfect example. If you just heard it, could you have guessed it? I am up for a bet on a blindfold test any time. I for sure couldn't.

Same with electric guitars...here's just another example:

 
#92
Honch said:
I agree with @awilkie84 that it has little bearing. I remember an interview with Commerford from RATM a decade back in a magazine, that he said, all sound comes from the pickup, and the density of the material is just the sustaining part of the tone. The issue a month later a luthier said he was wrong. Then some debate started and they took out the Steinberger and other alternative materials as an example. You can't simply say it has any bearing. You'll hear the pickups first and foremost, the rest is just so-so and aestethic and feel only, same with the neck. The sustaining/decaying portion of the sound may play part, but it's so with any material then, not just wood.

The stainless steel Gittler instrument above is a perfect example. If you just heard it, could you have guessed it? I am up for a bet on a blindfold test any time. I for sure couldn't.

Same with electric guitars...here's just another example:

Click to expand...


People have also made guitars from impregnated cardboard and also concrete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nbsipics and Honch
#93
Honch said:
It all boils down to Steinberger bodies made of graphite. Now, ask yourself how many records you can detect what wood the body is made of? Is it graphite or wood? Anything else? On any bass. You'll hear the PICKUPS first, then all the rest later, maybe. Same with the neck. If it's graphite or not. However, when you yourself actually PLAYS the instrument, the feel is of equal importance. It may feel quite different.

Can you hear how the "wood" comes into play on this instrument? ;)

Click to expand...

That fretted model sounds like an upright bass!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Honch
#97
pasi said:
Just listen up and learn thats it
Click to expand...

pasi said:
And i mean video
Click to expand...

I watched the entire thing, and I have a degree in the relevant field (physics). My comment was one part praise because the guy doing the video wasn't wrong about the bulk of his presentation about physics... and one part critique that he (intentionally or not) omitted a relevant possibility to win the argument. Opening the video with a statement amounting to 'if you disagree with me, you disagree with science' was a bit over the top, but mehh.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back