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

[GrapeBass]

I completely agree that the differences are much more noticeable on guitar than bass, because IMO, the difference in wood affects upper harmonics more than the fundamental.

I'm in the belief that it's the overtones, undertones and harmonics that reallt define everything on our basses, the fundamental almost seems secondary to this. As an example, instrument speaker cabinets (mostly) cannot reproduce the fundamental of a low E (40 Hz) yet it sounds bassy. There's a lot going on in the 1st harmonic (80 Hz)??? or does our E strings really fundamentally vibrate at 80 Hz (low E) BUT have a sub-harmonic of 40 Hz??? And all the timre, the flavor is created by all the other overtones (harmonic content). Hey, there's a big difference between flats and rounds. Just some thoughts.

 

[tfer]

I'm in the belief that it's the overtones, undertones and harmonics that reallt define everything on our basses, the fundamental almost seems secondary to this. As an example, instrument speaker cabinets (mostly) cannot reproduce the fundamental of a low E (40 Hz) yet it sounds bassy. There's a lot going on in the 1st harmonic (80 Hz)??? or does our E strings really fundamentally vibrate at 80 Hz (low E) BUT have a sub-harmonic of 40 Hz??? And all the timre, the flavor is created by all the other overtones (harmonic content). Hey, there's a big difference between flats and rounds. Just some thoughts.

Completely agree. Guitars overtones are much more prominent to my ears, which is why I believe it's easier for most to hear the difference.

 

[Jack Butler]

In that one sentence you got to the core issue that was at the back of my mind with every single one of my posts.

Plus, the subtle difference assumes all other settings on bass and amp are equal. So even if under ideal not in a mix conditions you can hear a difference, and a maple board is ever so slightly brighter, wouldn't a slight tweak on the bass or amp controls be able to offset?

 

[tfer]

Plus, the subtle difference assumes all other settings on bass and amp are equal. So even if under ideal not in a mix conditions you can hear a difference, and a maple board is ever so slightly brighter, wouldn't a slight tweak on the bass or amp controls be able to offset?

Probably. But as I tried to say earlier; if I'm gonna pain a room blue, I'm not gonna start with a bright red primer. You could cover the red, but it takes s little extra work, and there's a chance that some red could bleed through.

I'd rather the first piece of the signal chain be complimentary as opposed to having to fight it from the beginning.

 

[mbene085]

The day someone performs the feat of consistently and correctly identifying fretboard woods by listening to an instrument (without touching it or seeing it) is the day I'll believe it.

Yes, technically, that little slab of wood does contribute to the acoustic resonant properties of the instrument. But so does everything, like relative humidity, or whether you have a tuner or capo clamped to the headstock (because extra mass there does certainly impact sustain).

But will anyone ever listen to recordings and pick out, "yes, that was a Snark clamped to the headstock in 35% RH"?

 

[chadds]

We don't have to prove anything to the lab coats. If your instrument is just that, your instrument, and acts as your extension then you are sensing what it can and cannot do to make a note more or less musically impactful. The more you know about this from experience the more you pick out instruments that are capable to you of doing you and more.

My friend is a cousin of Yasser Heifetz. He is first chair where ever he goes. He says he spends all day making four notes sound right. If you disregard where I'm going by saying he's playing an acoustic instrument my news is that everything is acoustic. Sound is being produced around us and reflecting off surfaces and being more or less absorbed by others.

Let's say some people think their experience is strings vibration pickups tone controls cord pre/amp speaks.
Let's say some people's experience is string vibration pickups string vibration through body excites second set of vibrations of strings pickups tone controls etc.

One is not right or wrong. It just is. Maybe some people don't know what to listen for. Maybe some so heavily eq. that the distinction is lost. Maybe some folks just don't hear the overtones undertones like some people's sense of smell is less acute. Not bad not good but just is.

Perhaps you don't need to hear it to enjoy how you play and experience music. Perhaps you do need to hear it or can't help but hear it. No judgement.

 

[honeyiscool]

I completely agree that the differences are much more noticeable on guitar than bass, because IMO, the difference in wood affects upper harmonics more than the fundamental.

I mean, I do wonder why, though, we get weirdness like this.

Invalid Link Removed

Maple:
A heavier, flat-sounding and often beautiful wood of which there are several species, maple is used in acoustic guitars because of its sonically "transparent" qualities, which let the tonal character of the top ring through without significant tone coloration from the back and sides.

Brazilian Rosewood:
Strong and clear at the low end, rich and sparkly at the top end, with a reverberant quality.

I mean, almost everyone says the same thing about acoustic guitar, don't they? And I've heard the difference. Rosewood guitars are bright, clear, and punchy, record like a dream. Mahogany acoustics are more mid focused. I actually don't care much for that sound at all, but for heavy handed strumming, it works pretty well. My acoustic is a spruce top Taylor with sapele back and sides. It sounds like a guitar should. You pick up two acoustics with different wood combos, and you would have to have tin ears not to get that they sound different, and two acoustics with similar woods will sound much more similar.

So when's the last time that any bassist described their maple board as sonically transparent with rosewood having reverberant sparkle at the top end? I really don't know.

 

[tfer]

I mean, I do wonder why, though, we get weirdness like this.

Invalid Link Removed

Maple:
A heavier, flat-sounding and often beautiful wood of which there are several species, maple is used in acoustic guitars because of its sonically "transparent" qualities, which let the tonal character of the top ring through without significant tone coloration from the back and sides.

Brazilian Rosewood:
Strong and clear at the low end, rich and sparkly at the top end, with a reverberant quality.

I mean, almost everyone says the same thing about acoustic guitar, don't they? And I've heard the difference. Rosewood guitars are bright, clear, and punchy, record like a dream. Mahogany acoustics are more mid focused. I actually don't care much for that sound at all, but for heavy handed strumming, it works pretty well. My acoustic is a spruce top Taylor with sapele back and sides. It sounds like a guitar should. You pick up two acoustics with different wood combos, and you would have to have tin ears not to get that they sound different, and two acoustics with similar woods will sound much more similar.

So when's the last time that any bassist described their maple board as sonically transparent with rosewood having reverberant sparkle at the top end? I really don't know.

When you're talking about completely acoustic instruments, I understand all of that. A piezo pickup will transmit that information pretty much as it's written, but a bassist has different demands, even in an acoustic environment.

My AEB is a cedar top with mahogany back and sides. Designed for a warm, round sound with an almost muted top end.

 

[accusteve]

I've been playing bass for 40 years. I can't say that I have ever noticed a difference in various (fretted) fretboard woods. I do, however, notice almost immediately a difference with Carbon Fiber necks....the consistancy of sustain across the neck always (pleasantly) surprises me.

 

[TH63]

I switch my necks out all the time. The maple necks have more bite than rosewood.

I thought the notes were produced from the frets. Then the block inlays sound different on a jazz bass right? Oh and on a les paul too...

 

[Keith Guitars]

Yes, it does make a difference. Everything else does too, so the important variable here is sample size.
With a sample of 1, or 4 or even 10 instruments, it can be hard to learn to hear the contribution of the fingerboard.

However, get upwards of 100 instruments (or, in my case, pushing 1000 that I have built in full or in part, with mostly my hands
assembling/setting up the lion's share of those), and you can start to understand the effects of each part.

For example - we used to build a model with wenge fingerboards. We built dozens like that. Then we built one with ebony by client request,
and heard the difference. Later, we would move to ebony as stock for that model. The change we'd heard the first time reappeared, and was
present on all models. Same thing with maple - whenever we would build one, a particular component of the sound would appear, which simply wasn't there
with other woods. Bear in mind, these models had otherwise VERY similar specs (body wood, thickness, weight, neck joint, pickups, preamp, fretwire, scale, strings, etc.).
This is precisely why the production guitar shop is such an ideal laboratory for this kind of experiment. We even used the same amp to test them all during setup.

It's easy for anyone to hear differences between instruments. The challenge comes in learning, over time and repeated exposure,
to identify where they originate. Yes, you can EQ in treble to a darker-sounding instrument. It will not ever sound quite the same as a natively bright instrument, though - at least, not to those who have learned to hear the difference.

Regarding the colorful descriptions of acoustic back/side woods above - I'll only say that everything matters there as well, and there are many many more variables at play with acoustics. In that world, the general rule is that a lousy builder can make anything sound lousy, even wonderful material.
(Or, in the case of a factory guitar - they can overbuild to the point where the woods' particular properties are less significant in their contribution.)
However, a good builder can exploit the little differences between back/side woods to very meaningful effect.

What's important is to remember that a properly controlled experiment simply cannot be done with a small sample. For example, the case described above
(identifying a maple vs. rosewood board from a recording alone) is basically impossible because it doesn't factor in the multitude of possible variables.
If the question were to isolate the differences between recordings of 50 maple fretboards and 50 rosewoods, then maybe it would become more legitimate as an experiment.

Cheers,
Martin

 

[Member8675309]

I'm not an

I thought the notes were produced from the frets. Then the block inlays sound different on a jazz bass right? Oh and on a les paul too...

I'm sure you think a lot of things are correct.

 

[mje]

The wood makes far less difference than a tiny tweak of the tone knob.

 

[Member8675309]

Yes, it does make a difference. Everything else does too, so the important variable here is sample size.
With a sample of 1, or 4 or even 10 instruments, it can be hard to learn to hear the contribution of the fingerboard.

However, get upwards of 100 instruments (or, in my case, pushing 1000 that I have built in full or in part, with mostly my hands
assembling/setting up the lion's share of those), and you can start to understand the effects of each part.

For example - we used to build a model with wenge fingerboards. We built dozens like that. Then we built one with ebony by client request,
and heard the difference. Later, we would move to ebony as stock for that model. The change we'd heard the first time reappeared, and was
present on all models. Same thing with maple - whenever we would build one, a particular component of the sound would appear, which simply wasn't there
with other woods. Bear in mind, these models had otherwise VERY similar specs (body wood, thickness, weight, neck joint, pickups, preamp, fretwire, scale, strings, etc.).
This is precisely why the production guitar shop is such an ideal laboratory for this kind of experiment. We even used the same amp to test them all during setup.

It's easy for anyone to hear differences between instruments. The challenge comes in learning, over time and repeated exposure,
to identify where they originate. Yes, you can EQ in treble to a darker-sounding instrument. It will not ever sound quite the same as a natively bright instrument, though - at least, not to those who have learned to hear the difference.

Regarding the colorful descriptions of acoustic back/side woods above - I'll only say that everything matters there as well, and there are many many more variables at play with acoustics. In that world, the general rule is that a lousy builder can make anything sound lousy, even wonderful material.
(Or, in the case of a factory guitar - they can overbuild to the point where the woods' particular properties are less significant in their contribution.)
However, a good builder can exploit the little differences between back/side woods to very meaningful effect.

What's important is to remember that a properly controlled experiment simply cannot be done with a small sample. For example, the case described above
(identifying a maple vs. rosewood board from a recording alone) is basically impossible because it doesn't factor in the multitude of possible variables.
If the question were to isolate the differences between recordings of 50 maple fretboards and 50 rosewoods, then maybe it would become more legitimate as an experiment.

Cheers,
Martin

Exactly right, in regards to sample size. Twenty years of playing and constructing my own basses, it is undeniable that species of wood affects tone. How much, let's just say I choose aesthetics over wood species.

 

[Keith Guitars]

Let's make the analogy to a visual image. The woods and mechanical properties of the instrument produce the image.
These include (but are not limited to) materials, neck flexibility, weight of tuners, bridge, type and thickness of finish, etc.
These create the fundamental tonal character of the bass. Strings, as mechanical objects, are included here as well.

The pickups, preamp, amp, EQ etc. are all filters on that image.
A tone knob or EQ, for example, would be comparable to a brightness or contrast adjustment.
It will affect the appearance of the image. In small amounts, it will improve or disimprove it to useful effect.
In excessive amounts, it will distort the visible image to the point where it may appear to be something else.
However, they do not fundamentally change the nature of the image itself (i.e. who is in the picture).

Cheers,
Martin

 

[GrapeBass]

Norma Jean Mortenson

 

[Keith Guitars]

Norma Jean Mortenson
View attachment 2941749

The above example illustrates an excellent choice of materials with great mechanical properties.

 

[Gaolee]

It's all about tone fretwire.

 

[bottomzone]

Here are two Music Man StingRay basses both with dual Humbuckers. One has an ebony board and the other has a maple board. The amp and/or interface and settings aren't specified in these videos, but there is a definite difference in tone.

 

[chadds]

In the Bass Player article on tone woods it is apparent that these known makers, are mixing woods for certain desired tonal outcomes.

One mentioned that too many laminations and you are playing a lot of glue.