Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
heavier bass = better tone?
- Thread starter woaheasylang
- Start date
This is one reason that I stay away from instruments that have multi-laminate bodies, or necks. I love the craftsmanship and the beauty of the woods, but it is my opinion that the variations of the wood properties and the layers of glue affect the frequencies in ways that I find unusable for certain desired results. Many of the multi-lams have a compressed or somewhat dull sound that relies more on the characteristics of the electronics than the wood to achieve certain tonal aspects. Not that this is bad, I just find it limiting for most of my applications. I have noticed that the thickness of the lams also play a part in this as well.
I could go into this forever, so let me stop now!
That has been my experience too.
how often do you get to quote yourself?
I'm home now and listened to this, as suspected it's like his guitars, they sound pretty "normal".
I think this proves that body wood isn't that important (te he he)
I don't believe anyone could claim to figure out that bass has a steel body if it wasn't revealed to them.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,636
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
rather than disagreeing with you, i'd rather talk about fat chicks. 
but i don't know what you expected it to sound like? i mean it has a wood neck, a 34" scale and four strings, but it doesn't sound like any other PJ bass that i've ever heard, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, (and probably has a pleasing tone to some people), it's just not at all for me.
but i don't know what you expected it to sound like? i mean it has a wood neck, a 34" scale and four strings, but it doesn't sound like any other PJ bass that i've ever heard, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, (and probably has a pleasing tone to some people), it's just not at all for me.
That link::
I played that vid a couple of times - and I am not too terribly impressed (nor do I want to use it to argue the pros/cons of woods) - I find that bass to be pretty boring.
I never really heard any different voicing and I suspect he was trying his darndest to get some variety with all the control he has.
The only variation I heard was possibly a flanger on one of the cuts - but the rest were pretty much carbon copies of each other.
About the only positive I can see is that it won't need any shielding at all.
how often do you get to quote yourself?
I'm home now and listened to this, as suspected it's like his guitars, they sound pretty "normal".
I think this proves that body wood isn't that important (te he he)
I don't believe anyone could claim to figure out that bass has a steel body if it wasn't revealed to them.
No, what you proved is what is known, that if you place a pickup under a moving string, you will be able to transfer the frequency generated through mechanical energy into electrical energy. What next, the amazing polyurethane speaker cone? No wait...ALUMINUM CONES!!!
Sorry Michael Faraday, and Joseph Henry both schooled the world on magnetic inductance some where around 1830.I'm just foolin around! LOL! What is being missed by some is not the fact that the pickup PICKS UP the frequency generated by the moving string. The points in which the string is anchored effects the movement of the strings by more or less "absorbing" some of the energy generated (tech guys stay with me, I'm trying to keep it basic. I am aware that I am not placing it in proper terminology. Gimme a pass tonight!
) Understand that the metal that is used in that particular instrument shown also, like wood has resonant properties (in other words, it vibrates too!). That vibration has an effect (actually counter-effect) on the vibration of the string. This instrument would sound different with an aluminum neck and fret board than it does with a rosewood/maple combo. Now should this all metal bass that I just conjured up suddenly get a rosewood bridge, would it sound the same? No. Because the resonant property of the point of contact is different!
This is one reason why players switch to brass nuts on their instrument, because the point of contact has an effect on the tonal properties...in this case it would be on the open notes.
No, what you proved is what is known, that if you place a pickup under a moving string, you will be able to transfer the frequency generated through mechanical energy into electrical energy. What next, the amazing polyurethane speaker cone? No wait...ALUMINUM CONES!!!
I'm just foolin around! LOL! What is being missed by some is not the fact that the pickup PICKS UP the frequency generated by the moving string. The points in which the string is anchored effects the movement of the strings by more or less "absorbing" some of the energy generated (tech guys stay with me, I'm trying to keep it basic. I am aware that I am not placing it in proper terminology. Gimme a pass tonight!
Now should this all metal bass that I just conjured up suddenly get a rosewood bridge, would it sound the same? No. Because the resonant property of the point of contact is different!
This is one reason why players switch to brass nuts on their instrument, because the point of contact has an effect on the tonal properties...in this case it would be on the open notes.
Would you then think a brass top nut would help with the loss of C# on the G string?
On second thought (slow brain tonight and too much Vicadin) I see that it would only apply to an open note. My bad.
If the point of final string freedom is metallic, then that should change the amount of energy that's getting sent to the headstock/neck too - right?
If we anchor the strings firmly on a sounder foundation then the strings can only vibrate for the sake of the pickups.
Perhaps: Change the terminal quality or composition of the anchor point (nut) and the foundation upon which the nut is mounted and that keeps conducted (I want to say induced energy losses here somehow) energy losses to an absolute minimum.
Just chewin' my cud here.
I can always leave it to Joe to put a smile on my face when it comes to TB...........this is how we should form our perceptions. the big name bass players
Okay, I see that a quick lesson in Young's Modulus (solid mechanics, not bass guitar) is in order!
Basically this states in a numeric value how much an object deforms under loading i.e. a vibration in one location while another location is anchored. The greater the number the less the object deforms. The less it deforms, the greater the energy transference and isolation. In other words, the harder the surface the more energy allowed to remain in the string. This is why "high mass" bridges (another improper term) and brass nuts are considered an upgrade. Brass has a higher Modulus of elasticity than bone or plastic, and even though brass and aluminum (usually the components of aftermarket bridges) have a lower MOE than steel, stock bridges usually are made of low grade stamped steel which does not have the same MOE. The mass also allows transference over a greater area of the body.
Whew! NOW....(deep inhale)....the energy that is transfered to the body IS ALSO PICKED UP BY THE PICKUP!!!!! Don't believe me, try tapping yer instrument while it's plugged in, amp on, volume up and see what cha get. This is where the MOE of the wood comes into play. Each species of wood has its own, and some are greater than others. This means that the absorption or transference of energy differs. The inorganic materials that have been used for modern basses and guitars such as carbon fiber and steel, usually have a higher MOE than wood, and have been described as having a "brighter" tone because of the energy transference and absorption properties.
A better example to show that wood affects tone would be to mount a string at two points isolated from on another, place an unmounted pick up underneath the string (have the pickup suspended via fishing line or something), vibrate the string and see what u get tonally! Yes, you will hear a tone but I'm not certain your gonna like it much!
(This wasn't for u Joe! But hopefully yer answer is in there!)
Basically this states in a numeric value how much an object deforms under loading i.e. a vibration in one location while another location is anchored. The greater the number the less the object deforms. The less it deforms, the greater the energy transference and isolation. In other words, the harder the surface the more energy allowed to remain in the string. This is why "high mass" bridges (another improper term) and brass nuts are considered an upgrade. Brass has a higher Modulus of elasticity than bone or plastic, and even though brass and aluminum (usually the components of aftermarket bridges) have a lower MOE than steel, stock bridges usually are made of low grade stamped steel which does not have the same MOE. The mass also allows transference over a greater area of the body.
Whew! NOW....(deep inhale)....the energy that is transfered to the body IS ALSO PICKED UP BY THE PICKUP!!!!! Don't believe me, try tapping yer instrument while it's plugged in, amp on, volume up and see what cha get. This is where the MOE of the wood comes into play. Each species of wood has its own, and some are greater than others. This means that the absorption or transference of energy differs. The inorganic materials that have been used for modern basses and guitars such as carbon fiber and steel, usually have a higher MOE than wood, and have been described as having a "brighter" tone because of the energy transference and absorption properties.
A better example to show that wood affects tone would be to mount a string at two points isolated from on another, place an unmounted pick up underneath the string (have the pickup suspended via fishing line or something), vibrate the string and see what u get tonally! Yes, you will hear a tone but I'm not certain your gonna like it much!
(This wasn't for u Joe! But hopefully yer answer is in there!)
Absolutely!
Yes and no, see previous post You will still get a transference of energy, albeit greater. You will have less loss of energy transfered to the neck.
That's sum good cud yer chewin! MOVE TO THE HEAD OF THE CLASS!!!
(speaking of class, can u believe that I never took physics?!?)
Thanks, Billy.
I need to sleep in a few - almost Midnight o'clock here - and I'll perhaps have another 2AM epiphany.
But where I want to go in the next discussion is to the 'Dead-Zone" of crippled notes on the fretboard.
Like the C# that I am finding AWOL.
Again, thanks and goodnight.
I need to sleep in a few - almost Midnight o'clock here - and I'll perhaps have another 2AM epiphany.
But where I want to go in the next discussion is to the 'Dead-Zone" of crippled notes on the fretboard.
Like the C# that I am finding AWOL.
Again, thanks and goodnight.
