+1
If heavy basses have the BEST tone,then I'll lower my standards go with a light bass that has a minute variance compared to the one that will kill my shoulders.
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
+1
If heavy basses have the BEST tone,then I'll lower my standards go with a light bass that has a minute variance compared to the one that will kill my shoulders.
I don't like light basses. They don't feel "solid" in the way that heavy behemoths do. Of course part of that is that a lot of low end, crappy basses are actually quite light, so I probably became a bit prejudiced.
My first bass, which I still have, is a 78 Fender P that could double as a boat anchor. It definitely doesn't sound any better than any of the stable of basses that I now have - including chambered Sadowskys - but there's a sense of solid comfort that I feel with that bass that I just don't feel with my newer basses.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
This has been a topic of debate and discussion for a long time, heavy vs. light for tone. There's good instruments on both sides of the fence.
In the old days (the 80's) we couldn't WAIT to brass-up our basses, heavier bridges, brass nuts, anything to add "mass" and sustain for days. It was a fad. These days, it's "How heavy?" in every ad, and the pendulum swings the other way and now lighter is more desireable.
IMHO, it's about the balance of resonance vs. reflection (or absorbing vs. NOT absorbing) of the vibrations of the strings, some heavy instruments produce musically pleasing and useful tones, some lightweight ones do, too. One is not better than the other.
In the old days (the 80's) we couldn't WAIT to brass-up our basses, heavier bridges, brass nuts, anything to add "mass" and sustain for days. It was a fad. These days, it's "How heavy?" in every ad, and the pendulum swings the other way and now lighter is more desireable.
IMHO, it's about the balance of resonance vs. reflection (or absorbing vs. NOT absorbing) of the vibrations of the strings, some heavy instruments produce musically pleasing and useful tones, some lightweight ones do, too. One is not better than the other.
My hypothesis (a theory is fact) is that it is more the individual bass than any set criteria that would state that a given weight or lack thereof was optimal tonally.
It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, bass to bass. Fit, finish, components, etc.
I have ash, alder and basswood basses in my collection. I chose each based on how they felt and how they sounded. Never really though about what they were made of when I bought them.
If a bass inspires me to play and never put it down, coupled wth enabling me to find my voice every time I play it, it could be made of masonite for all I care.
As you are aware, there are all kings of shapes, sizes, weights and sounds. There are many variables at play. IMO
I have ash, alder and basswood basses in my collection. I chose each based on how they felt and how they sounded. Never really though about what they were made of when I bought them.
If a bass inspires me to play and never put it down, coupled wth enabling me to find my voice every time I play it, it could be made of masonite for all I care.
As you are aware, there are all kings of shapes, sizes, weights and sounds. There are many variables at play. IMO
Musical instruments are not exempt of the Universal First Law Of Thermodynamics And Conservation Of Energy. *
I will try to keep this simple - but that's asking a lot of me.
Since the wood of a slab guitar isn't active and contains no stored energy it can only attenuate (diminish by absorption) sounds/vibrations and is not therefor additive. {see footnote 1}
If the body absorbs mostly only certain ranges of frequencies or is resonant to one or just a few of them, then the non-absorbed frequencies sound more forcefully to the hearer.
An instrument may be 'resonant' - but is only passively so and in logical orders of magnitude.
Since most people falsely believe that solid wood bodies can add to 'tones' or gloriously amplify certain ranges or frequencies, one can find themselves in a heated debate about wood/woods/wood qualities and other untenable yet glorified and nebulous factors.
If the body then can be caused to vibrate at a certain frequency - where did that energy to excite it come from and at what cost?
Think about it - in the realm of musical instruments - the wood is passive and only subtracts from and cannot add to any sound generation by and of itself.
The wood is dead.
It cannot of or by itself add to anything without the use of some form of outside energy input, ie: you don't get something for nothing.
That energy would only be taken from the plucked/oscillating string.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it can only be converted or changed from one form to a different one.
That is an inviolate truth.
The somewhat limited capacity of the slab body to resonate does however act as an absorptive wooden 'sponge', taking away certain ranges of frequencies according to it's density, moisture content, shape, position of string attachment, contour and thickness, and molecular composition thereof - to only resonate within a narrow range of frequencies.
Finishes, paints, coatings, wax, hardware, bridges and even screws in the body all also act as absorptive devices. These too cannot 'add' to- but only subtract from- the sound emanating from the instrument.
These only serve to alter the subjectively perceived sounds in a diminished capacity since they would require energy to cause them to vibrate (that requires energy to set them in motion - and is one of the universal physical laws of energy conservation) - and they too will decrease or eliminate the sound quantity or quality.
The only mechanism whereby a body could be made to vibrate is from the energy in the oscillating string and since the physical laws of the universe are 'universal' in nature - they also must apply here too and the act of sharing that energy can only diminish the sound production.
Any time you absorb a frequency or 'tone', the unattenuated frequencies or 'tones' may sound larger or louder and thus people think the body is adding to those perceived sounds when it is actually taking away sounds on the other side of their listening spectrum.
Hollow body instruments are included in the same physical laws of the universe, but have other harmonic and orders of magnitude and frequent-resonance factors that come into play; these are not as evident in a slab-body instrument.
The laws of the universe are inviolate - except to those who falsely believe otherwise.
*NOTE: First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law states that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms; it can not be created or destroyed.
Footnote 1: ATTENUATE: to become weaker or to be made to be weaker in strength, value, or magnitude.
Nutshell observation: Wood taketh away, not addith-to the sound of you bass. SurferJoe 1:1
I will try to keep this simple - but that's asking a lot of me.
Since the wood of a slab guitar isn't active and contains no stored energy it can only attenuate (diminish by absorption) sounds/vibrations and is not therefor additive. {see footnote 1}
If the body absorbs mostly only certain ranges of frequencies or is resonant to one or just a few of them, then the non-absorbed frequencies sound more forcefully to the hearer.
An instrument may be 'resonant' - but is only passively so and in logical orders of magnitude.
Since most people falsely believe that solid wood bodies can add to 'tones' or gloriously amplify certain ranges or frequencies, one can find themselves in a heated debate about wood/woods/wood qualities and other untenable yet glorified and nebulous factors.
If the body then can be caused to vibrate at a certain frequency - where did that energy to excite it come from and at what cost?
Think about it - in the realm of musical instruments - the wood is passive and only subtracts from and cannot add to any sound generation by and of itself.
The wood is dead.
It cannot of or by itself add to anything without the use of some form of outside energy input, ie: you don't get something for nothing.
That energy would only be taken from the plucked/oscillating string.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it can only be converted or changed from one form to a different one.
That is an inviolate truth.
The somewhat limited capacity of the slab body to resonate does however act as an absorptive wooden 'sponge', taking away certain ranges of frequencies according to it's density, moisture content, shape, position of string attachment, contour and thickness, and molecular composition thereof - to only resonate within a narrow range of frequencies.
Finishes, paints, coatings, wax, hardware, bridges and even screws in the body all also act as absorptive devices. These too cannot 'add' to- but only subtract from- the sound emanating from the instrument.
These only serve to alter the subjectively perceived sounds in a diminished capacity since they would require energy to cause them to vibrate (that requires energy to set them in motion - and is one of the universal physical laws of energy conservation) - and they too will decrease or eliminate the sound quantity or quality.
The only mechanism whereby a body could be made to vibrate is from the energy in the oscillating string and since the physical laws of the universe are 'universal' in nature - they also must apply here too and the act of sharing that energy can only diminish the sound production.
Any time you absorb a frequency or 'tone', the unattenuated frequencies or 'tones' may sound larger or louder and thus people think the body is adding to those perceived sounds when it is actually taking away sounds on the other side of their listening spectrum.
Hollow body instruments are included in the same physical laws of the universe, but have other harmonic and orders of magnitude and frequent-resonance factors that come into play; these are not as evident in a slab-body instrument.
The laws of the universe are inviolate - except to those who falsely believe otherwise.
*NOTE: First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law states that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms; it can not be created or destroyed.
Footnote 1: ATTENUATE: to become weaker or to be made to be weaker in strength, value, or magnitude.
Nutshell observation: Wood taketh away, not addith-to the sound of you bass. SurferJoe 1:1
When I got chatting with a luthier about the general qualities that come with heavier and lighter basses, the first thing we agreed on was that there's no predicting exactly what one piece of wood or another will do to the tone. That's why conventional wisdom when shopping a certain model of bass is to try out every individual bass of that model in the store.
What seems to ring true for me is the idea that heavier basses have more significant attack and can seem to sound more bold while lighter alternatives have more of that open resonance that Snipper! noted above.
If a bass is too light and "unsubstantial" for me, especially in the neck, I usually get a sense that it doesn't create a very good foundation for the strings to shake against. I'm probably a bit more used to heavy basses myself and while I don't like having to heft more on my shoulder than I need, I've been disappointed more in the past by a couple of lighter instruments that I've owned or tried out.
What seems to ring true for me is the idea that heavier basses have more significant attack and can seem to sound more bold while lighter alternatives have more of that open resonance that Snipper! noted above.
If a bass is too light and "unsubstantial" for me, especially in the neck, I usually get a sense that it doesn't create a very good foundation for the strings to shake against. I'm probably a bit more used to heavy basses myself and while I don't like having to heft more on my shoulder than I need, I've been disappointed more in the past by a couple of lighter instruments that I've owned or tried out.
Rickett Customs
Commercial User
"Better" is and always will be a subjective term on this forum, it is to me. Better believe it, or at least you're better off.
I'll give you some examples:
Is mahogany better than Swamp ash? No
Is an Ebony fretboard better than rosewood or maple? No
Is a neck through better than a bolt on? No
Is XXX wood gonna sound "snappier" and/or "darker" than XXX wood?
Only if you think it does.........Only if you think it does.
I'll give you some examples:
Is mahogany better than Swamp ash? No
Is an Ebony fretboard better than rosewood or maple? No
Is a neck through better than a bolt on? No
Is XXX wood gonna sound "snappier" and/or "darker" than XXX wood?
Only if you think it does.........Only if you think it does.
If you are expecting any sort of definitive answer to this question, think again. Or are you just trolling?
