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

[Mantis Tobaggan]

Im thinking of putting the neck from my 58 AVRI on to my 63 AVRI body to make the ultimate precision bass.

 

[MordBass]

Also, since im in the middle of working out and took too much pre-mix again.... lets toss this into the mix because I want to hear opinions from anybody here that build or works on instruments..... how does fret size play into this?
With jumbo frets youre basically floating the portion that youre fretting where as with the tiny frets on my G&L P bass my finger is firmly planting the string against the actual fretboard. Does this have an impact? Do tall frets remove the fretboard form the equation?. Picture a guitar with scalloped frets... is it even a fretboard at that point?

 

[LiveToWin]

That's not quite how it works in my opinion as I don't think energy is reflected from a more rigid body, rather a more rigid body will simply absorb the energy that makes a more resonant structure vibrate, but without transmitting it to other parts of the structure and back to the strings.

This are laws of physics, not some deduction thing. (Third law, of Three laws of motion by Newton).
As I said, you can prove it by simple testing.

To be more specific :
Get a football ball. Kick it against wall of pillows. The ball will get through them.
Now kick the same ball against concrete wall.

You can't cheat physics, simple as that.

 

[GBBSbassist]

Correct me if im wrong... but isnt the principle behind tone woods that the differences in grain, density, consistency.. all impact the string as it impacts them... hence those characteristics translate through the pickups? If that weren't the case I would deduce that any woods of similar density would be identical.

Yes, that's the idea. The thread though is asking does it make a difference that you can hear. I personally don't hear the tonal difference in most of these comparisons people are posting where it apparently should be so blatantly obvious.

For data purposes. I have great hearing according to my last hearing test, and I'm not tonedeaf, nor do I have issues with pitch if any of that is important.

 

[MordBass]

Yes, that's the idea. The thread though is asking does it make a difference that you can hear. I personally don't hear the tonal difference in most of these comparisons people are posting where it apparently should be so blatantly obvious.

For data purposes. I have great hearing according to my last hearing test, and I'm not tonedeaf, nor do I have issues with pitch if any of that is important.

I feel like the music is important too. Like if Im listening to Yves Carbonne on my headphones where the bass is the whole focus... Im more likely to notice those nuances.

 

[MEKer]

Yes, I skipped it. My point was to prove that the more rigid construction = the less energy absorbed = the more sustain you get. The same principle aplies to literally anything, even the wood itself.

Can you imagine bell of Big Ben built from very soft material like rubber ? It will not ring. End of story.
And now, I don't know from what is this bell constructed (correct me please), some metal I bet - the bell, the construction REFLECT the energy, not absorb it (of course some of it will absorbed but this is to be expected) and ring ass hell !

By virtue of physics as I understand it, I have to agree with you, however minimal it could be to a listener which of course would be argued.

Now not to derail, but you made me look this up as it is interesting, so major parts are:

1. Big Ben is made of a combination of tin and copper and weighs in at 13.5 tons.

2. The clockwork mechanism in a room below weighs 5 tons and the part that needs winding---when fully wound--- makes another 4-ton weight (E=MCsquared shows energy adds weight versus unwound).

3. Bell is 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m) tall and 9 feet (2.74 m) diameter.

Note there is other weights and sizes involved in ancillary pieces (even the pennies).

 

[LiveToWin]

Not to derail, but you made me look this up as it is interesting, so major parts are:

1. Big Ben is made of a combination of tin and copper and weighs in at 13.5 tons.

2. The clockwork mechanism in a room below weighs 5 tons and the part that needs winding---when fully wound--- makes another 4-ton weight (E=MCsquared shows energy adds weight versus unwound).

3. Bell is 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m) tall and 9 feet (2.74 m) diameter.

Note there is other weight involved in ancillary pieces.

Thanks for this info, know I know a thing or two

 

[MtManiac]

Starting just before the 43:00 mark, Roger Sadowsky and Michael Tobias are asked about tonewoods.

Very interesting watch.

They go into fretboard wood, and it’s importance in the sound.



But really, what would they know about building basses...?

WADR, their real business is turning wood into a high-margin product, so it is in their interests to convince people that there's an important difference in the materials they use to make their instruments from. It's an important way to differentiate from mass-produced Fenders and Gibsons.

What would be definitive would be some kind of controlled experiment using scientific methods to compare the two. That's what would convince me, not anyone else's mere opinion.

Not a scientific experiment, but somebody did post a blind test on here a few years ago, comparing a bass line played on the same bass but with two different necks, one rosewood and one maple, and had a poll to see who would say which clip was which fretboard. roughly 50% of the people got it right, which meant with two choices that roughly 100% of the respondents were guessing.

However, at the end of the day, play what *you* like for whatever reasons you like it, it doesn't matter if anyone else agrees.

 

[MEKer]

Thanks for this info, know I know a thing or two

no doubt because you have seen a thing or two...


reference :25 on below for your pleasure...just sayin'
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[gazzatriumph]

Absolutely not, queue Einstein to tell me otherwise

 

[tfer]

WADR, their real business is turning wood into a high-margin product, so it is in their interests to convince people that there's an important difference in the materials they use to make their instruments from. It's an important way to differentiate from mass-produced Fenders and Gibsons.

What would be definitive would be some kind of controlled experiment using scientific methods to compare the two. That's what would convince me, not anyone else's mere opinion.

Not a scientific experiment, but somebody did post a blind test on here a few years ago, comparing a bass line played on the same bass but with two different necks, one rosewood and one maple, and had a poll to see who would say which clip was which fretboard. roughly 50% of the people got it right, which meant with two choices that roughly 100% of the respondents were guessing.

However, at the end of the day, play what *you* like for whatever reasons you like it, it doesn't matter if anyone else agrees.

Yes - they turn high quality wood into incredible instruments.

Perhaps the reason their instruments are incredible, is because they know what they are doing?

 

[MtManiac]

Yes - they turn high quality wood into incredible instruments.

Perhaps the reason their instruments are incredible, is because they know what they are doing?

Of course they know what they're doing. That doesn't mean everything you hear them say actually matters as much as they want you to care about it.

"Rich, Corinthian leather..."

 

[tfer]

Of course they know what they're doing. That doesn't mean everything you hear them say actually matters as much as they want you to care about it.

"Rich, Corinthian leather..."

I took a quick look online to see the price difference between Sadowsky basses equipped with both maple and rosewood.

The difference in price was less than $40 on basses priced well over $2K. Maple was more expensive - my assumption is that the lacquering process requires an hour or so of labor.

I appears to me that there is no real financial incentive in pushing a customer one way or the other.

There is an advantage in giving a customer an instrument that meets their tonal expectation. So, instead of assuming that they are pushing tonewoods for financial gain, how about giving them the benefit of the doubt, and are trying to educate possible customers on what combines to give them the tone they desire?

 

[Blaargh]

A very teeny tiny bit, that you could probably just EQ differently anyway and achieve identical results. Certainly not enough to consider paying extra for.

I'm very much of the opinion that most things to do with woods and solid-bodied instruments are mostly in people's heads. The more I learn about neuroscience, the less I trust people who 'know what [they] heard/saw/etc.' Think about all those stories you hear about sommeliers screwing up blind taste tests; it's a similar deal.

 

[Sixgunn]

No

 

[Deleted member 165050]

This are laws of physics, not some deduction thing. (Third law, of Three laws of motion by Newton).
As I said, you can prove it by simple testing.

To be more specific :
Get a football ball. Kick it against wall of pillows. The ball will get through them.
Now kick the same ball against concrete wall.

You can't cheat physics, simple as that.

That's an extreme example, at the one end of softness, and at the other end of extreme rigidity.

Wood is a substance of variable density that lies somewhere between the two extremes.

You definitely can't cheat physics; everything vibrates.

 

[MtManiac]

I took a quick look online to see the price difference between Sadowsky basses equipped with both maple and rosewood.

The difference in price was less than $40 on basses priced well over $2K. Maple was more expensive - my assumption is that the lacquering process requires an hour or so of labor.

I appears to me that there is no real financial incentive in pushing a customer one way or the other.

There is an advantage in giving a customer an instrument that meets their tonal expectation. So, instead of assuming that they are pushing tonewoods for financial gain, how about giving them the benefit of the doubt, and are trying to educate possible customers on what combines to give them the tone they desire?

But once you agree that tonewoods are important to electric instruments, they can then persuasively say that *their* maple is better than anyone else's, or that their rosewood is better than anyone else's, because they truly understand tonewoods better than Fender or Gibson, and their wood is all individually selected based on their expertise. I've been in sales and marketing for my entire adult life, it's all about polishing the turds to differentiate yourself, and turn your weaknesses into strengths. To make it a viable business, they need to get much higher profit margins from each unit than Fender or Gibson need to, so they need to create and sell a value well over and above the cost of the materials and their time to avoid competing on price, where they will always lose versus the bigger household names who can take more of a margin a hit for each unit because they're making it up across their huge sales/supply channel and product line.

I'm not trying to convince you - like I said, you should absolutely play whatever you like, for whatever reason you like, and ignore anyone who says otherwise - and I'm not knocking Sadowsky's, I'd *love* to be able to own one. If you can hear a difference, I am by no means qualified to say you are wrong. I can't hear a difference between maple and rosewood fretboards, and I am also not wrong. Like you, I'm sure, I've played lots of both, on recordings and in different venues, and have listened to plenty of other artists who play both and I cannot tell a difference, all other things being equal. So I do not believe it until someone proves otherwise, with science, and I will remain skeptical of anyone who says otherwise, unless they have science to support their claim.

Who knows, maybe if I owned a Sad, I could hear a difference!

 

[Sixgunn]

Of course they know what they're doing. That doesn't mean everything you hear them say actually matters as much as they want you to care about it.

"Rich, Corinthian leather..."

Actually it was "soft" Corinthian leather

 

[MtManiac]

Actually it was "soft" Corinthian leather

I stand corrected!! That was fun, thanks!

 

[Kragnorak]

There are some obvious examples of differences. You can prove it with fretless basses. Rosewood necks just don't growl or sustain the same as harder woods. I have a 6-string rosewood fingerboard and a 6-string laminated ebony fingerboard. You can argue that the laminated surface is cheating, but the huge difference in sound and sustain between the two basses shows that fingerboard material absolutely matters.

To that end, even on fretted basses, try slapping on a P-bass with a maple neck vs one with a rosewood neck. I bet the maple produces a more dynamic response when the string bounces off of it even if all the other factors are the same.