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.
Because the electronics were the weakest link to begin with. However, by adding $1000 worth of electronics to an acoustically bad-sounding instrument, it still won't make up for it, after the strings break in, you'll still have bad tone, but at least now it will be more precisely reproduced with higher shapeabilitywilser said:How come you can take a crappy $50 instrument and make it sound 10x better by replacing pickups and electronics?
I didn't say that it doesn't dampen the tone. It does - it looses a bit of the lows/low mids, which makes it sound a bit more focused, tight vs the airy, loose tone.wilser said:The description Frank Martin makes about how different finishes affect tone actually contradicts the beliefs of hundreds of acoustic guitar builders. They say hard finishes dampen the sound and lessen the high freqs and that more flexible finishes allow the wood to vibrate more freely and lets all freqs ring naturally.
He didn't make scientific measurements, but he did notice the difference in tone after an originally oil-finished bass was refinished with poly. No other components were changed.wilser said:Unless Mike Tobias can come up with scientific measurements, my opinion is that this is all BS.
Frank Martin said:He didn't make scientific measurements, but he did notice the difference in tone after an originally oil-finished bass was refinished with poly. No other components were changed.
This is not like that.Hookus said:This reminds me of the cable debate.
Michael Tobias said:There are cases when a piece of wood sounds
significantly better with a certain type of finish. I
remember building a bass that had a body made
of very light swamp ash that received an oil
finish. The instrument's tone was okay but a bit
mushy and lacking crispness. For some reason,
which I can't recall, we had to refinish the bass;
the oil was cleaned off and the bass was shot
with polyester. When we plugged it in, lo and
behold--it had gained brightness and clarity.
Frank Martin said:Do you at least know who Michael Tobias is? If he says there was a major difference, then there was.
Frank Martin said:don't tell me you can't tell the difference between the taste of an orange and a lemon.
Xanaptabil said:What do you guys think?
clink said:Wood vibrates.
Any finish applied to the wood will affect the vibration to a greater or lesser degree.
Whether or not there is an audible difference would depend on too many variables, I believe, to be definitive.
Unfortunately, some people are convinced that if you can't prove something with scientific instruments it doesn't exist.
I believe the human ear can discern subtle differences that may be unmeasurable, but audible. If someone can hear differences between oil and poly or cables, tubes or capacitors, who are we to question their ears.
Geoff St. Germaine said:Given the bit resolution of modern data acquisition, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that an ear can detect things that top end high-resolution data acquisition system can't. I'm not saying that you can then look at it and see what it sounds like, but the scope is going to see a change before you hear one.
Xanaptabil said:I could care less about what a machine can measure or not. The only real judge are the ears. Music, not sound, is one of the most ephemeral things in existence.
Ears are intuitive. Machines are not. To say it doesn't exist because we can't detect it (yet) on our machines is as rediculous as blind faith.