Dual density body ala Dingwall

[Sheldon D.]

BUT, this is my serious question to Sheldon -

If you do believe that your dual density concept works, why not make a dual density neck instead of the body to make a bigger overall difference ? Or were you trying to create a difference at a very subtle level by implementing it at the body?

That's a valid question. The honest answer is it never occurred to me. In our climate neck stability is a real issue so I've been really conservative in our neck wood choices. This of course contradicts the fact that we have done a couple of dual density fingerboards. We monitored a test sample for stability for over a year before trying it on a neck. I predicted that the sample would twist all over the place. It stayed dead straight.

I think people are getting hung up on what defines a huge difference and what's a subtle difference. To an average listener I think the differences an onboard eq can make if you sweep the controls would be considered a "huge" difference whereas the differences in mechanical manipulation through woods or tone chambers would be hard for the average listener to discern. If anything this discussion proves that out even for bass enthusiasts.

So just to be clear: Within the confines of what you can achieve via mechanical means, the Sklar body woods make IMO a huge difference. Not as big a difference as between a 7 lb Elrick and an 11 lb Warwick but way more than the difference between lets say a maple and rosewood fingerboard.

In the end it's all BS if it doesn't inspire the player. I don't know of any test that can measure that.

 

[suraj]

Well put sir..!! I agree that achieving tonal variations through mechanical means with different materials in a solid body guitar will not create huge differences, but for some, those little details in their sound, even if they are getting that tone difference psychologically based on a concept, it makes them happy and inspires them to play

I'm sure you've done your R&D and developed this concept, kudos to you.

I'm sure a lot of TBr's have just picked up random pieces of wood and glued together to make instruments on the cheap wonder what they feel about their accidental multiple density guitars

Thanks for the answer sheldon.

 

[edpal]

Alder Ash Walnut and Mahogany all have something in common. They are all pleasing to look at. I wonder how come, not so attractive woods like poplar or basswood seem to be looked down upon as not sounding good. The "tone wood" thing is a huge marketing tool, so of course builders believe in it.

While I agree with you that much of this is marketing hype, I have to disagree that alder is pleasing to look at. Very boring, large, looping grain like maple with oak speckles. Poplar and basswood are both fairly soft woods compared to the others, so maybe part of their lesser value is their lower physical integrity at holding the hardware.

 

[edpal]

To clarify:
I meant T&G for the joinery of the 2 body planks, running lengthwise of the contact surface. ( not perpendicular) so the only visibility of the joint would be at the butt ends of the body seen edge wise.

Strength and the thought that less "glue" involved in the bonding surface, and would make the 2 wings/halves a more co-cohesively BLENDED unit (more as-one) so to speak.
I can see (although it would be minimal) that there would be a contribution to the overall tonality, as the contact surface would be increased and the bond between the 2 materials would be more mechanical, rather than depending entirely on a bonding agent's surface tension and shearing properties. How much of the subtleties would be lost (or gained) by modifying the traditional way of plank joinery in guitar building. I will explore it with my inaugural build ( and will share the results)_

I have FWIW decided against the neck-through design for various reasons. Including materials selection and "single minded" tonality being constrained by (in part) the mechanics of the "stick" build. VERSUS tonal properties of neck woods combined with body woods.

If the idea is to get different resonance out of different strings, based on different woods it seems like your idea would be counter-productive. Instead of the woods being [slightly]separate entities with their own behavior you want to lock them into a more homogeneous piece? I say this partly in jest as I would hope a glue joint sufficient to hold two halves together is already having a fairly strong effect in that way.

 

[Hopkins]

It depends on the wood. Alder will show a glue line (and rays) no matter how careful you are.

Yeah I have had that experience with alder. Some boards are worse than others.

 

[Hopkins]

While I agree with you that much of this is marketing hype, I have to disagree that alder is pleasing to look at. Very boring, large, looping grain like maple with oak speckles. Poplar and basswood are both fairly soft woods compared to the others, so maybe part of their lesser value is their lower physical integrity at holding the hardware.

While the grain isn't all that special in most cases (I have seen some beautiful curly alder) the color of it is quite nice.
Poplar isn't much softer than alder.

 

[brorbjoern]

To the guy who said that subjective evidence is not scientific evidence... Well it is when we're, talking about things like acoustics. One of the main methods in the field actually, for two reasons: how humans like sound is a highly subjective thing, and thus how good the results are are in a large degree measured by how well humans react to them on a subjective level. B) because a large part of the end results in what we hear come from psychoacoustics. Two good examples of this: humans can only hear from 20hz-20khz. But we a frequency breakup in a speaker that is higher than this affects how we hear the frequencies we actually hear. This is why loudspeaker manufacturers attempt to highten the first breakup mode well beyond the limits of human hearing, and also why people tend to react well to music played from lp's.
secondly: their is no logical reason to why we should find the hard clipping og transistors unpleasant, while actually LIKING a good amount of soft tube breakup. This also means that things that in scientific measurements might be deemed "too small to make a difference" or below the levels of fallibility in the experiment might actually still change our perception of the sound we're hearing.

on a note maybe more relevant to the discussion; i just remembered a way of listening in on the woods effect on tone i got from a vid of richard bona using his bass as a drum: if you remove the strings from your bass, and place it in your lap, connect it to an amplifier, and listen in on high quality CLOSED headphones, you can then hear the microphonic signal going to your amplifier with no interaction from strings moving, and thus actually hear the wood. Obviously the result of the strings vibrating will cause a different type of microphonicity because of the different way of interaction with the wood, but you will be capable of hearing the wood, and only that. If comparing identical basses this way it is obviously preferable to have the pickups wired straight to output, to minimize the way in which the pots move the pickup resonance peak differently depending on their actual resistance (as someone quite rightly pointed out is a significant factor when comparing instruments woth otherwise identical electronics)

hope the method'll proove useful in some fashion.

 

[brorbjoern]

To shorten up the rant for people not liking long texts: in the making of music, instruments, and music reproduction humans are equipped with two things only: our ears, and our ability to quantify and explain what why our ears are hearing what they are based on scoentific principle, and good old logic. Use both, and dont attempt to make one worth more than the other.

 

[brorbjoern]

And if we are to split hairs as to scientific principle, which seems to be popular: can you tell how something sound based on a frequency response graph? No you cant, and thus the only access we humans have to how sound sounds, is our ears. And thus no experiment in the field of sound is more valid than a listening test. But the afterthought to any listening test should, of course, be to quantify the data and attempt to explain it, with respect to foreseeing how people will react to other sounds.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

Good job missing the point entirely, brorbjoern.

 

[Sheldon D.]

Thanks for chiming in brorbjoern. I couldn't agree more.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

Strength and the thought that less "glue" involved in the bonding surface, and would make the 2 wings/halves a more co-cohesively BLENDED unit (more as-one) so to speak.

Getting perfectly flat mating surfaces is a key element in getting a good butt joint, and there's more going on than simple surface tension.

A good joint has very little glue in it, and it is stronger than the wood around it. When you break one made with Titebond, it fails on either side the glue joint, not down the centre.

The tongue and groove joint actually has more surface area, and therefore more glue in it.

These things are not always as simple as they seem...

 

[brorbjoern]

Rather than state that i missed the point, explain why. I can't really take criticism seriously if it provides no reason as to why it is critical.

so... What is the point? HaMMerHeD style?

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

That's a valid question. The honest answer is it never occurred to me. In our climate neck stability is a real issue so I've been really conservative in our neck wood choices. This of course contradicts the fact that we have done a couple of dual density fingerboards. We monitored a test sample for stability for over a year before trying it on a neck. I predicted that the sample would twist all over the place. It stayed dead straight.

I think people are getting hung up on what defines a huge difference and what's a subtle difference. To an average listener I think the differences an onboard eq can make if you sweep the controls would be considered a "huge" difference whereas the differences in mechanical manipulation through woods or tone chambers would be hard for the average listener to discern. If anything this discussion proves that out even for bass enthusiasts.

So just to be clear: Within the confines of what you can achieve via mechanical means, the Sklar body woods make IMO a huge difference. Not as big a difference as between a 7 lb Elrick and an 11 lb Warwick but way more than the difference between lets say a maple and rosewood fingerboard.

In the end it's all BS if it doesn't inspire the player. I don't know of any test that can measure that.

Ugh tell me about it... not only do I have old man winter looming around the corner I have to setup all my basses... my EBMM needs adjustments all winter long...

 

[brorbjoern]

To make the basswood guy happy it should be mentioned that basswood has been used for piano and organ soundboards in the past, and is quite a sounder in the acoustic domain, having a stiffness coefficient between alder and spruce (quite high). It's one problem is its softness, which both has an effect on the toughness of an instrument and the tone.
and to make you even happier: mahogany is (on an objective level) a very poor instrument wood, being heavy, and low in stiffness, as well as not being particularly hard. The midrange emphasis in a mahogany acoustic guitar is in fact due to it's incapability to properly amplify other areas of sound (having far too much weight when adequately stiffened to make the lsrge vibrations required to produce bass, and far too high damping to properly reproduce highs). It's main goodness is ease of carving along with plain good looks.

Ash on the other hand, and particularly alder, can not be said to be bad acoustically. Port orford cedar, noble fir, douglas fir and sitka spruce should however (at least on a mechanical level, which doesn't guarantee satisfaction on a subjective level) be more suited acoustically to use as instrument bodies, because of extremely high stiffness levels, as well as a generally good, or at least fair, hardness, when compared to weight.

remember that all numbers used in my calculations are averages, and as softwoods vary about 25% from the average inside their species a bad piece of spruce is clearly not to be preferred above a good piece of alder.

 

[JR Bass 62]

If tone wood doesn't matter, Crap!! Who will line up for my new plywood/mdf with vinyl sticker tops?!!

 

[JR Bass 62]

Here is something interesting...

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[the baint]

Here is something interesting...

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Ha! Surely this is trolling a 3 year old tone wood thread? Two different recordings, two different players, decades of recording equipment advances. NOTHING about that comparison is objective.

Plus, as tone wood defenders often seem to forget, that is a comparison of the effect in acoustic instruments and presuming they apply to electric instruments with dependable, predictable, repeatable results…