D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
Those who voted yes, can hear a difference. Those who voted no, can't hear a difference. Issue solved.
I voted carrotwood, but I still can't hear any carrots
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 fretboard wood make a consistent difference in tone that you can hear?
- Thread starter Gorn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- difference fretboard tone wood
I voted carrotwood, but I still can't hear any carrots
This just demonstrates that string vibration is conducted through the neck moreso than the body near the bridge, and therefore more dampening occurs at the neck than the bridge, especially with bass notes. This is why we place pickups near the bridge and not along the neck. This doesn't get into identifying "warm" or "sweet" using an oscilloscope or any other instrument of measurement.
Admirable try, but sorry.
I'm glad for you that you can hear these differences. To me, a basswood P bass sounds just like an ash one. Nobody has yet shown any actual data that these differences are measurable, and that's the only "opinion" that matters, one that's measureable.
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
I see you didn't bother reading it fully. Equation f1 contains a component for density of the supporting structure, clearly indicating that the density of the supporting structure is a factor in mechanical conductance of vibration. If you don't get that from the paper, you're not going to understand the science.
I did get that. I read it.
Is that "warm"? Is that "sweet"? Or is it "bright"? How does conductance relate to these characteristics, and if it does, the characteristics should be measureable, like "this guitar is 494 on the warm scale, with a brightness of 233 and a sustain of 851."
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
Well the density of the material affects attenuation of higher frequencies, so denser wood will transmit lower frequencies more than higher ones and will sustain differently to lighter woods. You could use accelerometers to measure vibration at various places on the body and the neck and plot the vibration against the electronic output to show how the resonance and/or damping in the body affects the electrical output at different frequencies which you could categorise as warm or bright or whatever, but that would be quite a project...
We can't win it man.
We never reach agreement in this matter. If they want to believe in some magic tonewood - who cares?
It's like talking with deaf, blind person about colours. Even when you post EVIDENCE and science backed facts to them, they will tell you "Stop talking BS ! My ears can sense the difference!"
Nice try, this test is flawed (probably.)You know that in this article you cannot find that IF it was done on electric or on acoustic bass ?
If it was on acoustic - I cannot disagree with it. It's true. Tonewood matters for acoustic guitars and basses. But for electric - NO.
Did you really post a Gibson article ? Seriously ? They are the least trusted brand you can ever imagine. This is the same brand which advocates that their cleaning polish for guitars improves tone and their lacquer also ... just sayin ...
Last edited:
I do not deny that differences in structure, density, torsion resistance, or the way a neck is attached to a body result in damping of some harmonics - this is what makes an instrument's timbre, after all, it is why a bass guitar is different than a flute or a wash tub bass, and this paper definitely demonstrates that this is the case, as well as makes the case for dead spots. I still say so what - I can't see in this study that rosewood was compared to maple, or how ash was compared to alder or mahogany, and what reliably, consistently measurable and *perceptible* differences those materials make to timbre in an amplified electric instrument, so it does *not* address the argument at hand. What woods make which differences, and why? It also does not address open or closed grains, which is what one respected fretboard=tonewood arguer here was asserting. I *can* hear the difference between one P bass and another, what I'm saying is I can't reliably attribute any of those differences to fretboard wood or body wood. I've owned and played many different basses since 1982: ash with rosewood and ash with maple, alder with maple and alder with Rosewood, ebonol, Pao Ferro, agathis, basswood, even a couple that were plywood (an Ampeg Big Stud with Rosewood and blocks/binding and a Harmony with maple and crappy finish that chipped off when you picked it up), a couple of both fretted and fretless Jazz basses with different boards, and seven or eight P basses with a variety of combinations. I'm not an expert, but I sure as heck didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday, and my anecdotal evidence can take on the anecdotal evidence of *anyone* else on this forum. I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence or subjective descriptions. You can have them and keep them, and even share them as opinions, but it's when you start swearing that it's truth that I start to have an issue with it, because according to my equally valid anecdotal evidence, it's false.
So long as people are using terms like "warm," "sweet", "bright" and "focused low frequencies" to describe their instruments' materials (subjective meaningless terms, Roger Sadowsky), attributing those differences to how much harder maple is than rosewood (which is simply not true, Mike Tobias), and being completely inconsistent about it (somehow ebony *and* maple are both brighter than Rosewood?? Is it density, hardness, or how open the grain is that determines "warmth" and "brightness"? The people arguing for tonewood do not agree on this.) this debate is going to continue, and people are going to keep asking questions and calling BS. You're entitled to your opinions, and maybe they're not even factually wrong, but if you're going to assert them, the burden of proof is on you, not the skeptics.
Last edited:
I just want to add, that Gibson was the same brand which sells this hyped bumblebee capacitors and tll you that they are superior ... WRONG ! There is zero difference in tone actually between capacitors if the value is close. Check it out :
And this is fully backed up by science BTW.
And this is fully backed up by science BTW.
