Does fretboard wood make a consistent difference in tone that you can hear?

[MtManiac]

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!"

Or completely sidestep valid points and valid questions.

 

[LiveToWin]

Where's this evidence you posted...?

The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods
And here is described it with physics involved :


I can post all similar proof to this, and you will never admit that IT CAN BE TRUE, that tonewood does not matter. NEVER. So what is the point ?

I don't care if it matters or not by the way, I simply cannot accept speculations viewed as true facts. If something is a fact you can simply prove it right ? Here you got the proof.

 

[bass12]

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.

I don't know - I would think that many, if not most, of us would agree on what terms such as "warm", "bright" and "focused low end" connote. I don't see the problem.

 

[MtManiac]

I'll just leave this here, with no comments on the clinical methodology employed:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

However, it's worth noting that:
- he makes guitars, therefore his assertions that expertise matters in picking out wood
- however, he agrees that randomly a guitar made un-selectively can sound identical to one made selectively
- he blames pickups for masking the differences between woods, and he claims to make pickups that don't
- his website doesn't make his business appear to be very successful

 

[bass12]

I'm not going to bother trying to change anyone's mind about whether or not wood matters, but I found this video interesting:

 

[MtManiac]

The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods
And here is described it with physics involved :


I can post all similar proof to this, and you will never admit that IT CAN BE TRUE, that tonewood does not matter. NEVER. So what is the point ?

I don't care if it matters or not by the way, I simply cannot accept speculations viewed as true facts. If something is a fact you can simply prove it right ? Here you got the proof.

Great article! Some highlights:
"Quilted maple is soft and floppy. Bird's-eye maple is very hard and stiff. Flame maple can cover the whole gamut. Yet guitarists believe that all maple sounds the same, which goes against the rules they have set up for rosewood and mahogany."
"Ash is considered by many to be the premier firewood, and not of much further use."
"As the saying goes, give them loud and they'll hear tone."
"Bob Benedetto made his fabled knotty pine archtop that sounds just like his other guitars. This is the best evidence I can offer that the sound of an instrument is in the hands of the maker, not in the wood."
"I don't think the species of wood contributes to the tone of a guitar. I don't concern myself with with tap tones or tap tuning. I believe that good work and experience is everything. None of this will sway a mind that is already drenched in traditional guitar mythology, but so be it. Most of those folks never made an instrument."

 

[MtManiac]

I don't know - I would think that many, if not most, of us would agree on what terms such as "warm", "bright" and "focused low end" connote. I don't see the problem.

The problem is that my maple necks have sounded just as warm as my rosewoods, and just as bright - depending on strings, EQ, and amp.

 

[Wisebass]

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

Isn' t that dangerous?

Wise(b)ass

 

[bass12]

The problem is that my maple necks have sounded just as warm as my rosewoods, and just as bright - depending on strings, EQ, and amp.

That's a separate issue from the use of the terminology in question.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

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.

How wrong you are, they are called bumble bee capacitors because they contain special bee magic which generates a sonic aura encompassing the instrument and the player. Everyone knows this.

 

[MtManiac]

I'm not going to bother trying to change anyone's mind about whether or not wood matters, but I found this video interesting:

Now if he could redo that ten or so times with ten or so brand new otherwise identical pieces of mahogany, maple, and pressure treated fir, and consistently identified the tonal differences relative to each species of wood, consistently across all ten pieces of each species, it would be scientifically valuable. Otherwise it's as valuable as comparing one alder/rosewood Strat with another alder/rosewood start with the same pickups, strings, and amp.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

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.

Well I actually presented proof in the form of two research papers confirming theory with experimentation, demonstrating that the density of the supporting structure affects string vibration.

 

[MtManiac]

That's a separate issue from the use of the terminology in question.

Sure, but it isn't a separate issue from the topic, which is assigning those characteristics to species of wood.

 

[MtManiac]

Well I actually presented proof in the form of two research papers confirming theory with experimentation, demonstrating that the density of the supporting structure affects string vibration.

Yeah, and I've addressed the one that I've seen already, but haven't seen a response from you to any of my points.

 

[bass12]

Now if he could redo that ten or so times with ten or so brand new otherwise identical pieces of mahogany, maple, and pressure treated fir, and consistently identified the tonal differences relative to each species of wood, consistently across all ten pieces of each species, it would be scientifically valuable. Otherwise it's as valuable as comparing one alder/rosewood Strat with another alder/rosewood start with the same pickups, strings, and amp.

Again two separate issues. Some people claim that wood does not make a difference to tone - that it's purely a matter of electronics, strings and witness points. If you accept what is presented in the above video then that line of reasoning is clearly false. Consistent/predictable results according to wood-type is another subject altogether.

 

[MtManiac]

Again two separate issues. Some people claim that wood does not make a difference to tone - that it's purely a matter of electronics, strings and witness points. If you accept what is presented in the above video then that line of reasoning is clearly false. Consistent/predictable results according to wood-type is another subject altogether.

Again - the topic of this thread is whether fretboard tonewood matters. Not electronics, build mastery, or body wood. However he seems to be using this as an experiment to demonstrate body wood as tonewood, and I'm saying it's inconclusive because of his sample size. You seem to be using it to refute an altogether different point, that only electronics matter. Some people here may have said that, but it isn't the point being debated in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Yeah, and I've addressed the one that I've seen already, but haven't seen a response from you to any of my points.

But your points are talking about specific types of wood and generalised terms for sonic characteristics - the studies aren't concerned with specific woods, but just density and shape of the supporting structure, and a term such as "warm" has no real meaning in the analysis of audio vibration data as it's entirely subjective. The papers make the abstract point that structure density and shape affects string vibration, which should be enough to show that different woods will sound different.

Incidentally I am talking about body/neck materials and the overall instrument structure, I'm not saying this means you can hear the difference between fingerboards so maybe I am completely OT.

 

[MtManiac]

Incidentally I am talking about body/neck materials and the overall instrument structure, I'm not saying this means you can hear the difference between fingerboards so maybe I am completely OT.

Well, the topic is "Does fretboard wood make a consistent difference in tone that you can hear?" I agree with the first phrase of your sentence.

 

[bass12]

Sure, but it isn't a separate issue from the topic, which is assigning those characteristics to species of wood.

I was referring specifically to this part of your quote:

"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)...".

The terms in question might be partially subjective but they are not "meaningless".

 

[bass12]

Again - the topic of this thread is whether fretboard tonewood matters. Not electronics, build mastery, or body wood. However he seems to be using this as an experiment to demonstrate body wood as tonewood, and I'm saying it's inconclusive because of his sample size. You seem to be using it to refute an altogether different point, that only electronics matter. Some people here may have said that, but it isn't the point being debated in this thread.

The original point of the thread had to do with consistency but the thread has expanded to include several posts suggesting that wood has no effect on tone whatsoever.