Ok - but since they are subjective, your warm doesn't mean the same thing as my warm, so therefore they are meaningless since the meaning doesn't exist outside of your own personal frame of reference.
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
That's not strictly true, as it ignores the effect of electronics, which will homogenize the results to some degree depending on the type of pickups etc. used (traditional pickups. I have no idea about piezos). I thought that deadspots paper was a little strange as it specifically attempts to analyse electric guitars/basses and then ignores the most defining part of them by using laser scanning vibrometry.
The general problem I have with this whole issue of wood and tone in solidbody electrics is that it bears all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. There's very little good research. Some people claim to hear a difference where others don't. Authorities on the subject (luthiers) aren't scientists or engineers and are just as, if not more, likely to have a perceptual expectancy as we are. Proponents push a piece of basic science as evidence, by and large ignoring a wealth of other factors (electronics, perception, variation of pieces of wood from the same species, construction).
When you cast a halfway skeptical eye over it, it begins to look like bollocks. I wouldn't totally dismiss this as there just isn't a great deal of data, but everything I've ever heard suggests to me that if there is a difference, it's so small as not to care (barring radical exceptions [probably], like James Trussarts or Electrical Guitar Company instruments), or if you made a guitar out of candyfloss). Even if there is, it seems an odd thing to fixate on so much when there are other, significantly more effective ways of manipulating tone.
No, they're not meaningless. My "hot", "spicy", "tart" or "sour" might not be exactly the same as yours, but we still understand what the terms refer to and we both (presumably) have an understanding of the sensations created by those tastes. If I play you a sine wave followed by a sawtooth wave and ask you which sounds "warmer" I expect you would be very unlikely to answer "sawtooth".
LMAO
Nope, if you've ever changed a neck with a full standard maple fretboard to (let's say rosewood) you would not make that statement. Whether or not it's brighter, darker, snappy or dull... there are differences. I've moved from the maple to rosewood years ago and was convinced by experiencing the difference myself.
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
It's true that the electronics will dilute the vibration effect of wood, doesn't mean it isn't still there though... possibly more perceivable by those of us who use minimal compression and eq so they can hear the true tone of their bumble bee capacitors...
The only relevant science to apply to this whole topic is vibration analysis. And there is enough good science in those two deadspots papers to support the idea that different density woods will affect tone and sustain - to some degree.
This is the most fascinating quote from the article for me! And he's talking about acoustic back & side materials in particular which makes it even more interesting. When he talks about the construction/skill/experience of the luthier being more decisive than the material, I would suspect he's talking about aspects like bracing, which would make sense - this alone surely has much more effect on the vibration of the guitar top than the material used for the back & sides.
We don't have to go that far, just have Talkbass do a blindfold test poll comparing rosewood and maple!
I like rosewood for the way it looks. In this age of electronics, I can make it sound any way I want.
Edit: "I" don't have such a developed ear that I can hear the difference, so I always choose Rosewood because I find it pleasing to MY eyes. I've also never failed to get a sound I wanted by "eq"-ing my amp until I found said sound. For deep thump, I use my Jazz Bass (RW board) with LaBella flats and adjust amp eq. For bright tone, I use my Thunderbird (RW board) strung with stainless steel roundwounds and solo the bridge pickup. I've never been unhappy. However, I've heard of people with absolutely remarkable hearing that can heard a chord on an acoustic guitar and not only tell you the chord, but tell you the wood the body is made of. I will never be one of those people.
Edit: "I" don't have such a developed ear that I can hear the difference, so I always choose Rosewood because I find it pleasing to MY eyes. I've also never failed to get a sound I wanted by "eq"-ing my amp until I found said sound. For deep thump, I use my Jazz Bass (RW board) with LaBella flats and adjust amp eq. For bright tone, I use my Thunderbird (RW board) strung with stainless steel roundwounds and solo the bridge pickup. I've never been unhappy. However, I've heard of people with absolutely remarkable hearing that can heard a chord on an acoustic guitar and not only tell you the chord, but tell you the wood the body is made of. I will never be one of those people.
Last edited:
You're also using the language of taste to describe tastes. "Warm" describes a thermal sensation, "bright" describes a visual sensation, and "sweet" describes an oral sensation. So "spicy" in regards to how a food tastes does have a very specific and single use meaning, as does "sour." "Warm" in regards to a tone means what exactly? What does "bright" or "sweet" mean? Can you at least identify which harmonics are present at what decibels for those tone descriptions, in your opinion?
Warm to me means slightly overdriven, with solid lows and present low mids, not a lot of highs - like a P bass or a J bass neck pickup, with flats, played with fingers through a nice old tube amp - which has nothing to do with Rosewood. Bright to me means a lot of highs present, not a lot of mids, and very clean amp voicing, maybe also played with a pick - trebly, like a Jazz bridge pickup with the tone up to ten and round wound strings through a solid state amp and EQ'd for treble presence - nothing at all to do with maple. I can get warm or bright, to my definition, with any bass. Sweet to me means absolutely nothing, other than "sweet bass tone, dude!!"
You're basically illustrating my point. The fact that you don't attribute the characteristics you describe to a certain wood is beside the point. I can pretty much guarantee that if you take a group of bassists and tell them to "make your bass sound bright" they will all make similar adjustments to EQ or pickup selection (few would be likely to boost the bass and roll off the highs and upper mids, and few would select the neck pickup over the bridge pickup, for example). Same thing if the request is "make your bass sound warm". Most people are going to have some notion of what "bright" and "warm" entails.
I will say that I agree about "sweet" not being terribly descriptive where bass tone is concerned.
I'm not if I'm saying those qualities have nothing to do with wood, which is what I'm saying.
That wasn't clear in the post I cited. It seemed you were suggesting that the terms in question were meaningless where describing sound is concerned.
Yes I have, thanks for asking. And it has been a civil discussion However, this is a basically a duplicate of another thread on "maple or rosewood fingerboards" that was started 4 days before you posed your question, and I did put my 2¢ in that one. You can see that thread at the link below. If the link doesn't pull up my response, you can go look on page 7 of that thread. I'm #12 on that particular page:
Fender Precision Bass question: Does the fretboard material make any difference in sound or anything
Since that thread started on the 24th and your thread started on the 28th, if you'd done a search or had even been looking at TB on the 24th, you'd have found it (it was on the home page of TB). I do have to give you kudos though. You expanded the subject to include all basses, and you've managed to get 21 pages of responses so far. However, it's all basically the same things that folks said in the first thread that was started 4 days before yours. So, I'll just continue to eat my popcorn for now. I was actually interjecting that gif as a bit of comic relief after so many pages. Sorry if I offended you.
Is this thread not about fretboard tonewood? Isn't that what we are still discussing?
We've moved on, those chin pokemon controllers are so last week (did I spell that right? I don't want to google)
Um, I hate to break it to you, but many of us Luthiers actually are degreed and experienced engineers and scientists. We got into building basses for fun. We do understand the engineering and science behind all this stuff, and we enjoy exploring and testing and trying to figure it out. We don't take the time to do full rigorous scientific testing procedures or write papers because that's boring and takes away from the fun of developing basses.
I don't "push a piece of basic science as evidence, by and large ignoring a wealth of other factors". I think and study carefully to see what design changes have an effect, and how other factors play into it. And I'm skeptical if something happens that I didn't expect. I don't believe it unless it's repeatable and makes sense technically. When I learn something interesting, I use it in my products. And I continue testing it and proving it to my own satisfaction. But I don't feel the need (or have the patience) to do rigorous scientific method to prove it to you. My proof is in my final product. Maybe you like them and maybe you don't, but they contain my design ideas and discoveries.
I'm unusual among Luthiers in that I enjoy talking and writing about all the little engineering details. So, you'll often see me on here talking about and explaining all of these details that you may not have considered. Other Luthiers tend to be more shy and keep their technical opinions to themselves.
Personally, I've always found the differences somewhat obvious and always found it curious that others disagree.
I believe every component in a solid body electric bass plays a role, including the strings that are on it, and most importantly, the hands playing it.
I truly believe the wood(s) used for the neck have a huge impact, including the fingerboard wood. I've replaced two stock Fender necks, both with rosewood fingerboards, to Warmoth necks, both with ebony fingerboards, and I wasn't the only person that could instantly hear the difference. And the difference was by no means subtle.
Mike Lull swapped my neck with a maple fingerboard to a neck with a rosewood fingerboard, because the bass sounded too bright for my taste. The rosewood fingerboard warmed up the tone of the bass, which has a swamp ash body.
My experiences with different body woods over the years has proven to me that the body wood also contributes to the instrument's tone. For me, alder provides a bright tone, with more audible midrange, compared to my basses with swamp ash bodies. However, my basses with swamp ash bodies have a stronger low end, and brighter sounding highs.
My overall favorite wood combination is an alder body with a bolt on maple neck, with a maple fingerboard, with an oil finish on the neck.
And yes, the pickups, electronics, and the instrument's bridge absolutely contribute to the tone of the instrument.
I still believe the neck wood(s) and fingerboard wood have the greatest overall effect on the instrument's tone.
I truly believe the wood(s) used for the neck have a huge impact, including the fingerboard wood. I've replaced two stock Fender necks, both with rosewood fingerboards, to Warmoth necks, both with ebony fingerboards, and I wasn't the only person that could instantly hear the difference. And the difference was by no means subtle.
Mike Lull swapped my neck with a maple fingerboard to a neck with a rosewood fingerboard, because the bass sounded too bright for my taste. The rosewood fingerboard warmed up the tone of the bass, which has a swamp ash body.
My experiences with different body woods over the years has proven to me that the body wood also contributes to the instrument's tone. For me, alder provides a bright tone, with more audible midrange, compared to my basses with swamp ash bodies. However, my basses with swamp ash bodies have a stronger low end, and brighter sounding highs.
My overall favorite wood combination is an alder body with a bolt on maple neck, with a maple fingerboard, with an oil finish on the neck.
And yes, the pickups, electronics, and the instrument's bridge absolutely contribute to the tone of the instrument.
I still believe the neck wood(s) and fingerboard wood have the greatest overall effect on the instrument's tone.
