• 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.

fretboard material

#101
I've swapped all of my Blacktop P basses to P-Bass Special (ie J) necks with maple boards...except for the one that got an Aerodyne J-neck w/o markers:smug:. Bet you can guess what MY vote is.
Now, Big Orange is obviously not black...but you get the idea.

Big Orange 09-04-2016.jpg
 
#102
-Asdfgh- said:
If you are recording with magnetic pickups, then you probably want the one that is quietest acoustically, apart from the sound the strings make (e.g. jam your ear on the upper horn and hear nothing). You can use EQ to more easily remove than add frequencies, and a loud acoustic is a reduction in some frequencies. You can use mutes to reduce sustain, but it's much harder to add it.
Click to expand...

No idea why you'd want the quietest bass acoustically. I actually prefer the opposite. And I control sustain with technique so on a typical solidbody the more the merrier. Is the idea that an acoustically louder bass will have less sustain? I haven't found that to be the case IME. I also tend to not use EQ other than minor tweaks on a bass. The beauty of finding basses that sound great without the need for tweaks.

In rereading this, I guess I'm not following what would be unwanted as far as being audible beside the strings.

BTW You don't have to jam your ear on the upper horn, your chin can work just fine.
:)
 
#104
ole Jason said:
I guess they're technically right but, as you'd probably agree, passive basses especially do tend to sound pretty similar amplified and acoustically. I think you can get a good quick idea of how a bass sounds by playing it unplugged. I do think some electronics can kind of overpower the natural acoustic sound of a bass though.
Click to expand...


I found it to be technically silly. The basic pretense is that you can't hear an electric bass when it's unplugged. Because if you can hear sound and pitch, it's acoustical in nature.
:D

Synths aren't acoustic. Electric basses are... despite their name.

Agreed that some electronics can take over a bass. Those are electronics and basses that I shy away from. Learn how to play, find a great sounding bass and it's on. Life can be that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tfer and ole Jason
#105
Brad Johnson said:
IME dead spots aren't inevitable. I've found that many on TB think otherwise.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point, but that a dead spot is the extreme example of subtraction. Interestingly in the 1948 paper, though, for transverse vibrational modes across all species of pine and samples, the resonant frequencies were 450+-50Hz, roughly, apart from one which was 1600Hz, although it was a smaller physical sample than all the others.
 
#106
Brad Johnson said:
I found it to be technically silly. The basic pretense is that you can't hear an electric bass when it's unplugged. Because if you can hear sound and pitch, it's acoustical in nature.
:D

Synths aren't acoustic. Electric basses are... despite their name.

Agreed that some electronics can take over a bass. Those are electronics and basses that I shy away from. Learn how to play, find a great sounding bass and it's on. Life can be that simple.
Click to expand...

Electric basses aren't acoustic, it's just a different method of generating signal than a synth, and they vary quite a lot too.
 
#107
Brad Johnson said:
No idea why you'd want the quietest bass acoustically. I actually prefer the opposite. And I control sustain with technique so on a typical solidbody the more the merrier. Is the idea that an acoustically louder bass will have less sustain? I haven't found that to be the case IME. I also tend to not use EQ other than minor tweaks on a bass. The beauty of finding basses that sound great without the need for tweaks.

In rereading this, I guess I'm not following what would be unwanted as far as being audible beside the strings.

BTW You don't have to jam your ear on the upper horn, your chin can work just fine.
:)
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have phrased it better, but the most versatile bass will be one for which the neck-body vibrates the least, which you can determine by sticking your ear on the horn. It would be more versatile as you can comb filter out frequencies to emulate body types, along with damping. What would be more difficult to emulate this way would be dead spots, due to the issue of selective damping. Just using a comb filter wouldn't necessarily emulate all characteristics of all body types, not least to the selective damping effect.
 
#110
-Asdfgh- said:
Maybe I should have phrased it better, but the most versatile bass will be one for which the neck-body vibrates the least, which you can determine by sticking your ear on the horn. It would be more versatile as you can comb filter out frequencies to emulate body types, along with damping. What would be more difficult to emulate this way would be dead spots, due to the issue of selective damping. Just using a comb filter wouldn't necessarily emulate all characteristics of all body types, not least to the selective damping effect.
Click to expand...

What? I disagree even more with this. I guess there are those who comb filter and those who don't require that.
:)
 
#111
MotorCityMinion said:
"it's acoustical in nature."

Agreed, at least from a resonance perspective. Take any electric bass. Do not plug it in. Rest the head stock on a dresser and open a couple of drawers. Play the bass.
Click to expand...

Place the headstock agains a drywall wall and it gets louder too.

Not to get too deep in the woods but how people think clip-on tuners work?



...or do they?
:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tfer and M.R. Ogle
#112
-Asdfgh- said:
That wasn't my point, but that a dead spot is the extreme example of subtraction. Interestingly in the 1948 paper, though, for transverse vibrational modes across all species of pine and samples, the resonant frequencies were 450+-50Hz, roughly, apart from one which was 1600Hz, although it was a smaller physical sample than all the others.
Click to expand...

It was stated as the only outcome. Scientific papers aside.

Just curious... have you played a wide variety of basses?
 
#114
Brad Johnson said:
It was stated as the only outcome. Scientific papers aside.
Click to expand...

I think you must have misunderstood what I meant, or what I meant wasn't obvious. I was trying to emphasise that the effect of wood can be subtractive only.

Just curious... have you played a wide variety of basses?
Click to expand...

Yes, electric, and ABG, and hollow bodied. I've owned basses with Jazz, Precision, soapbar, humbucking and piezo pickups, and have a GK pickup too. Fretted and fretless. I own 8. And four guitars.
 
#115
Brad Johnson said:
What? I disagree even more with this. I guess there are those who comb filter and those who don't require that.
:)
Click to expand...

If wood has an effect then it is primarily at the resonant frequencies, and to a lesser extent multiples thereof. It's a comb filter. If there is an effect and you like the comb filtering then that's fine, but it's potentially possible to take a pure signal and filter it. The most severe instance of such filtering you get is a dead spot.
 
#116
-Asdfgh- said:
If wood has an effect then it is primarily at the resonant frequencies, and to a lesser extent multiples thereof. It's a comb filter. If there is an effect and you like the comb filtering then that's fine, but it's potentially possible to take a pure signal and filter it. The most severe instance of such filtering you get is a dead spot.
Click to expand...

How does that equal this: "It would be more versatile as you can comb filter out frequencies to emulate body types, along with damping"?

So the wood is a comb filter AND that is what you would use to emulate body types? Wood?
 
#117
-Asdfgh- said:
I think you must have misunderstood what I meant, or what I meant wasn't obvious. I was trying to emphasise that the effect of wood can be subtractive only.
Click to expand...

I'd go with the latter.



Yes, electric, and ABG, and hollow bodied. I've owned basses with Jazz, Precision, soapbar, humbucking and piezo pickups, and have a GK pickup too. Fretted and fretless. I own 8. And four guitars.
Click to expand...

That's not very many. Which of them could you not hear unplugged?
 
#118
JPMcGuire said:
My old 64 pre cbs is so resonant I can play/practice with it unplugged. It has its characteristic tone unplugged. Also sounds stellar amplified. My 62 jazz is similar
Click to expand...

That's been my experience too.

This is the first I've ever heard someone state that a less resonant instrument was more desirable. But not the first time I've heard that the instrument itself is not acoustic.
)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tfer
#119
-Asdfgh- said:
Electric basses aren't acoustic, it's just a different method of generating signal than a synth, and they vary quite a lot too.
Click to expand...

Anyone else believe this?

A synthetic generates a signal electronically. No electricity, no synth. What other varieties of synth are there? Hydraulic? Pneumatic? Solar would be converted to electricity.

An electric bass does not need electricity to generate varying pitches aka "notes".

And you disagree.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back