Dual density body ala Dingwall

[Hopkins]

For those who say wood doesn't matter but believe the fingerboard makes a big difference in tone, which I believe it does as well, why do you think it makes a difference? I've often wondered if the wood isn't so much resonating the tone back into the strings as it is reflecting it back into them, sort of like a mirror. Maybe as the string is vibrating, the frequencies reflect off the fingerboard (and maybe the body) which is also resonating, causing certain frequencies to cancel out others, giving off a specific tone. With that idea in mind, perhaps the tone of the different fingerboard materials, which all "reflect" differently based on density and compositional make-up, is the reason for tonal difference. It seems like an out there theory but might be worth discussing and expanding upon.

I will take a stab at this,

On a fretless instrument the string is pushed directly against the wood there for directly influencing the string vibration. The same would be true to a lesser extent on a fretted instrument because vibration would be passed through a fret that is directly pressed into the wood.

On the bridge, vibration is being transferred into a saddle, through height adjustment screws into the bridge plate. So on the neck vibrations have to pass directly through less than 1/8" of an inch of metal that is pressed directly into the wood. At the body it has to pass indirectly through at least 1/2" of different metal parts that are screwed down on top of the wood.

Even so, the difference isn't great enough to not choose a fretboard for aesthetic reasons. Any influence the fretboard has on the overall tone of an electric instrument can be mitigated by a simple EQ change.

 

[mapleglo]

I think we have all always wanted to see such a test but I would bet if you built ten basses exactly the same they would sound different. Especially if done by hand. I also imagine if you did ten soundclips from the same bass, posted them on TB and asked for opinions at least some people would insist they heard a difference.

I remember an old interview with Dimebag Darrel and he owned 3 Dean's right off the line next to each other. He was convinced each one had a completely different sound so each was worth owning. They were line guitars so they were all built to identical specs.

I agree that it's close to impossible to build 10 identical basses that all sound exactly alike. I also agree if one posted sound clips from the same bass, there'd be people who claimed they could hear a difference. Further, I suppose I can imagine that they would sound slightly different.

I would argue though, that they'd all sound pretty close, and that most people would agree. I'd also argue that the ones made from different wood would sound *more* different. But that's my opinion.

I suppose a better test would be to build say 100 basses, 10 of each kind, so that the range of variation within one type could also be measured. That way a resulting average could be developed, against which the average sound of the other bass types could be compared.

This is starting to sound like a job for Fender or Gibson. A company of that size would have the resources to perform such a test.

 

[Blue Blood]

Actually, there are many on this site who have made that claim. When I brought it up, I was not specifically referencing this thread. My claim is that wood matters and makes a huge difference. I provided opinion on what I hear out of the common body woods but was not offering it as any sort of proof. So basically, the argument is wood makes a difference or it doesn't. Neither side can provide proof. I'm OK with that as I don't need any, I have 30 years of experience and a great ear and that is all the proof I need. I have no interest in changing minds but do enjoy discussing the subject and think this has been a good thread.

Your strawman is that woods have NO effect on tone.

I don't see anyone saying that but you.

You've made specific claims about specific woods having specific effects on tone.

It's up to you to prove those claims.

Antedotes are not scientific evidence...

 

[Deep Cat]

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

 

[Hopkins]

IV.
Conclusions
Through the course of this research it seems t
hat there is proof to the statement made by
Halliday in that the body of an electric guitar doe
s not have resonance. Of course this is both
correct and incorrect. From the stand point of the
electric guitar’s purpose of being amplified the
statement is correct. However, the guitar body doe
s in fact resonate and when it is not plugged
in, the body is noticed to color the sound. This
observation explains why some would say they
can hear a difference in the wood. When playing an
electric guitar unplugged the tonal qualities
of the wood are apparent as the ears perceive what
the microphone “hears”. These perceptible
variations however, appear to get lost when the vol
ume of the amplified signal takes over.

Isn't this pretty much what everyone who doubts the body woods contribution has been saying?

 

[bustedamp]

I love that "telemaster" body style on the gold and red basses. ****in beautiful!

 

[Blue Blood]

Interesting article, Deep Cat but certainly not conclusive. The graphs definitely suggest that when amplified the two body woods get more similar but not exactly the same which I believe lends some support to the argument that wood matters or else those lines would have matched up exactly. Certainly the unamplified graphs prove that much and makes one wonder about the quality of the pickup used and would a better pickup or different type enhance the different woods even further. Pretty cool stuff!

 

[Blue Blood]

Isn't this pretty much what everyone who doubts the body woods contribution has been saying?

This also speaks to the other part of the equation I mentioned several posts ago when talking about why I have no interest in blind listening tests. When I play I respond to the tone and the resonance of the guitar that I can feel being transmitted back through the strings. So while a pickup may reduce the difference, though not completely as the graphs prove, the resonance is a very big difference that I can certainly feel while playing.

 

[Deep Cat]

Isn't this pretty much what everyone who doubts the body woods contribution has been saying?

Yup. That's why I've been saying it.

 

[BioWeapon]

Yup. That's why I've been saying it.

Also, the Earth is round.

Someone have this man executed for heresy!

 

[Toptube]

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

I really dislike the type of graph they used, because it is difficult to know the exact values at any given point.

But, based on how things appear, it would seem their conclusion is wrong. I mean, the mids/high mids between the two, often vary by 10db, sometimes as much as what looks to be 15db.

10db is not negligible. and would align with the fact that Alder is said to have more mids, warmer highs. whereas Ash is less rich in the mids, which tends to emphasize highs and lows.

it would be interesting to see the same comparison with some very different pickups. One set of pickups is not enough data.

 

[Blue Blood]

That's how I read the graph, as well. It definitely seems that while the pickup neutralized to a degree the effect of the wood the differences still appear to be quite obvious.

I really dislike the type of graph they used, because it is difficult to know the exact values at any given point.

But, based on how things appear, it would seem their conclusion is wrong. I mean, the mids/high mids between the two, often vary by 10db, sometimes as much as what looks to be 15db.

10db is not negligible. and would align with the fact that Alder is said to have more mids, warmer highs. whereas Ash is less rich in the mids, which tends to emphasize highs and lows.

it would be interesting to see the same comparison with some very different pickups. One set of pickups is not enough data.

 

[newbold]

Most likely Nobody's going to do a heavy, in depth, scientific study on tonewoods on electric instruments.

Why is 'science' that determining factor rather than the outcome?

 

[pilotjones]

Strings in the experiment seem to have been plucked by hand rather than with some repeatable device. That pretty much invalidates the data since the two sets of samples had to be collected at least an hour apart, if a person rushed to disassemble and then reassemble the guitar - said disassembly/reassembly also playing greatly into how the guitar is subsequently handled. Also, along with identical plucking events, action heights and pickup heights would have to be measured as equal.

 

[Jensby design]

the "tonewood" thread has mutated into some kind of "double tonewood" thread
to think the one year I don't get the vaccination shot
__________________
damn kids and their vaccination shots

 

[Blue Blood]

Good points, pilotjones. I didn't even consider the plucking.

Strings in the experiment seem to have been plucked by hand rather than with some repeatable device. That pretty much invalidates the data since the two sets of samples had to be collected at least an hour apart, if a person rushed to disassemble and then reassemble the guitar - said disassembly/reassembly also playing greatly into how the guitar is subsequently handled. Also, along with identical plucking events, action heights and pickup heights would have to be measured as equal.

 

[Hopkins]

Strings in the experiment seem to have been plucked by hand rather than with some repeatable device. That pretty much invalidates the data since the two sets of samples had to be collected at least an hour apart, if a person rushed to disassemble and then reassemble the guitar - said disassembly/reassembly also playing greatly into how the guitar is subsequently handled. Also, along with identical plucking events, action heights and pickup heights would have to be measured as equal.

I think it still shows that most of the tone coming out of the amp is generated by the pickups.

 

[ctmullins]

Good points, pilotjones. I didn't even consider the plucking.

Yeah, that's the whole problem with treating this as an actual scientific exercise: there are far too many variables that cannot be (easily) controlled. Plucking force/vectors, assembly variances, manufacturing variances, non-linear qualities in wood density/stiffness/resonance, etc.

For the record (as if the record cares what I think), I am a tonewood mysticist, which is similar to a tonewood agnostic, but cooler.

 

[Blue Blood]

The more I think about it, even though I believe the study/graphs clearly supports more the theory of wood making a difference regardless of the authors conclusions, the study is too flawed to really consider.

 

[brorbjoern]

I've been reading up on some textbooks on the seasoning and material properties of wood. Turns out that hardwoods vary in density by up to 50 percent in the same species. If wood has has an effect on tone, you can be sure there is variation in intruments made from the same species of wood (and in fact luthiers, particularly in acoustic instruments where tonal quality is more dependent on the material properties of the wood, determining dynamic range and thus, regularly fit different woods together by tap tone alone, and also determine the woods qualities based on same). As for proof of woods affect on tone, there is, as far as i know, not made any tests, at least not published ones. However the amount of purely subjective evidence is staggering. I think most musicians out there can tell distinct differences between a mahogany and an alderbodied instrument. Van Halen mounts his pickups directly into wood (theoretically increasing vibration transfer, and thus increasing the microphonic effect of the pickup coil). Also doesnt it seem suggestive that the most renowned years of guitar production are the years in which pickups were not feedback damped, again increasing the microphonic effect.
i'm intent on making a scientific test documenting,this, and providing resources for better predicting the frequency response of an instrument made from pieces of lumber of which the material properties are known.
the amount of subjective evidence is however quite enough to give scientific credibility to wood affecting tone in electric instruments, so the research will be primed at answering in what ways it does it, and how much, rather than if.
but i'll be sure to publish it so we dont get any more of these discussions at talkbass xD (or well... We still will, that's the way of life)

as a side note i'll also research where "punch" comes from. It seems to actually be more elusive than frequency response, combining factors of weight, hardness, elastic modulus and elasticity into one great cauldron in a way i have no understanding og as of yet.
cheers