heavier bass = better tone?

[Billy Low]

Oh, come on. Have you (or anybody else in the history of electric bass) actually ever played one that did not have enough sustain?

Yes.

I have. I will admit that it has not been often.

Please remember that not all applications are the same. Just because it may not be useful in your context does not mean that it's not in others.

 

[Billy Low]

Me too!

(Hi five!)

 

[mongo2]

(Hi five!)

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

Heavier bass = Heavier bass.

That is the only equation which is unequivocably true regarding a heavier bass.

Prove me incorrect.

 

[rymiraflores]

Well, considering that master luthiers have been selecting different woods for different tones for decades, don't you think your non-expert opinion is pretty foolish?


and people believed the world was flat, and that there were witches and a god......just because they were told that...amigo no need to call someone foolish for disagreeing with you....and how would you know what I am expert in?
no ned to be rude !!!



How about you proove yourself wrong? Take your favorite bass, and saw off as much wood from the body as you can without damaging anything else. Play it and see how it sounds. You'll realize pretty quickly that the wood is a critical component in the tone, and that's it not all electronics and magnetism.

I assume that you have already done that

 

[jumbodbassman]

eh, some heavy basses sound like crap and some light basses sound fantastic. and vice versa. but the heaviest hitting, most brutal sounding bass i own weighs 4 1/2 lbs. it's a jay turser beatle bass, and it'll rip your face off.

i have one of these and it sounds huge once you put flats on it....

heavy/light really depends on what wood it is not the weight. play a early 80's fender precision special made from northern ash... even passive it sounds like a beast compared to other pbasses. if it was mapole it would weigh the same but sound very different. more bright/brittle sounding....

 

[nostatic]

Heavier bass = Heavier bass.

That is the only equation which is unequivocably true regarding a heavier bass.

Prove me incorrect.

play it on the moon - then it isn't heavier

Or play it in a vacuum. Or maybe with a vacuum. Perhaps a vacuum quartet.

Assume a spherical bass...

 

[SurferJoe46]

Not trying to diminish your point, but I think that you have lost many with the academia behind your argument (in earlier postings). <snip>

That's why I dropped it a few octaves - but remember I was talking primarily to a person with some serious radio freq broadcast experience and I thought the lines got a little blurred.

You are also correct - if you don't mind me saying so - as experience is sincerely the best teacher. I concede that what you are doing is 'way over my experience - but you made a lot of valid sense too, even to me.

cont'd::: Being that I have a background in RF (since 1989), cabinet building (since 1990), metrology (not meterology) (since 1992) and instrument building (since 2007) I was able to follow, yet I would never attempt to explain it in such technical terms...no need. Even around the various shops that I worked in (GE, Underwriters Labs) I refused to speak in a way that did not communicate in the simplest of terms.

THAT is a golden viewpoint. I was told during my public speaking years to never talk down to an audience - but instead try to ingratiate yourself to them by including them in the information - even if so in a very cursory manner. Thank-you for reminding me.

I may have assumed that the audience for this line of reasoning (soundwave propagation) MIGHT be just preaching to the choir, so I was somewhat wont to keep it on a higher echelon.

cont'd::: It has been my experience that the more dense (not heavy) the wood the "brighter" the sound. Even in the same species of wood. I have seen ash bodies with a very open grain that mimic the properties that one expects with alder. Wood that is not properly, or fully dried behave differently than wood that has been dried. Properties vary in kiln dried and air dried wood. Both of these point to moisture content.

This lies directly in the full-on path of what I think is mistakenly called: 'sustain'. I feel that any note that doesn't sing loud is somewhat either lost either through the wood, loose adhesion of molecules on the atomic level and even the torque on the screws that hold the bridge in place.

There may be multitudes of factors that affect the loss or support to 'sustain', but that's where the wood (not 'quality') is most illogically blamed.

I cite my silly example of a rubber-bodied bass. Wishfully - it would be nice to go down a list, selecting the attenuating values of woods - but alas, that's not possible for many levels of reasons.

con't::: Now this is coming first hand from someone that has built more than a few hundred basses on a production line, meaning that all other variables (electronics, solder, wire length etc.) were the same. Believe it or not, I and others have noticed slight variations on sound based on paint as well. Metallics behave differently based on certain properties, and hardness of paint makes a difference. Sure these differences are subtle almost to the point of being negligible, but they do exist and are measurable.

I love this. It points out that these factors are so oddly 'romantic' in nature that it's like a guy who likes skinny women and others who want a little meat on the bones of their mates.

"Romance" of our musical tastes may, in the end, be what it's all gonna boil down to. (ending my sentence with a preposition, sorry)

con't:::Yes, I could go into the physics behind this, but no need. I just say that the density, not the weight, is the factor; not just in the body, but neck as well.

I have an instrument that will prove this right away. The body is a two piece swamp ash construction, with a very open grain on the E,A side of the instrument. The E string sounds HORRIBLE; totally nonconsistant in comparison to the other strings. EVERY BIT OF THE INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN SWAPPED! Started with the strings, then nut (see if it made a difference on the open E, used plastic and bone nut), bridge, followed by p'ups, then preamp, finally the neck! NO DIFFERENCE, the E string still sounds like ASS!

Yup! Totally true yet hauntingly unquantifiable!

Funny you mentioned a split-wood for the body. Going along with what I believe is another of those dumb inconsistencies in instruments: possibly the glue line between the body halves could have been an isolating factor, not allowing migration of the E-string notes to cross over into more resonant wood.

Don'tcha love it?

 

[Eublet]

I assume that you have already done that

I didn't intend to be rude, but it's obvious you aren't an expert by the opinions you are posting. No offense intended. The impact of wood choice on tone isn't some mystical thing that you can just disagree with because it doesn't make sense to you somehow. My suggestion for something you can try as an experiment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but obviously that would have an affect on the tone. In the same way, using one type of wood over another also has affect. My use of the term foolish wasn't meant to be offensive, but to describe what it is when one rejects the opinion of a large number of experts to believe something else with no base in reality.

Also, many builders have experimented withing using composites for the body and neck. They do impact the tone of the instrument, either positively or negatively depending on the listener, and often times the electronics themselves are redesigned to compensate for that. It's all subjective, but important.

In the end, all the components used must have a certain synergy to produce the desired result. I've never once read any comments from any builder that would suggest otherwise. So really, the burden of proof is on you if you want to claim otherwise because it's pretty well established that there is a significant relationship.

 

[Thunderthumbs73]

play it on the moon - then it isn't heavier

Or play it in a vacuum. Or maybe with a vacuum. Perhaps a vacuum quartet.

Assume a spherical bass...

Haha. Ok. You win! If THAT'S the conversational gymnastics bar we're setting...

Thanks. I had a good laugh about that. And needed it.

But wait, that doesn't actually make the bass less heavy. It just FEELS that way. No wait, don't answer that... ...I gotta go. Really.

Haha...

 

[nostatic]

loose adhesion of molecules on the atomic level

hmm, ok...that's an interesting description...

 

[nostatic]

It just FEELS that way.

wait, now you're going to bring "feelings" into it? What, are you a chick or something?!?

 

[kai_ski]

I think all weight helps with,is sustain.

Almost foolish to state that a bass sounds better because its heavier. There are so many light weight basses out there that sound amazing. I've found lighter weight basses tend to be more resonant.

Okay then, what's the difference between resonance and sustain? I tried to look this up recently. As far as I can tell, sustain is a measure of resonance and subjective at that.

Well heavier/denser wood in that case would take alot more energy to make vibrate.

It's just like on acoustic instruments. A light weight acoustic,with thin body wood is going to resonate a lot better and be more responsive than one with thick heavy woods,because it takes less energy to make the lighter body move.

Just like trying to wave a thin sheet,and then trying to wave a thick afghan blanket. It's going to take a lot more muscle to make that blanket move the same amount as the sheet.

I don't agree with this statement either. Have you ever played a spruce-topped mahogany backed, then rosewood, then koa guitar? You will find that as you move through these three guitars that they will be increasingly heavy, but this is due to the increasing density and amount of natural oil in the wood. Without doubt, all three of these are fantastic tonewoods, that are known for their resonance and sustain.

Quality of the wood makes more of a difference than the weight.

This statement I agree with. Higher grade woods are SAID to resonate better than their lower graded counterparts, when the luthier is selective about their resonant qualities.

I'm not sure how any of this applies to a solid-body instrument. I can't imagine any difference being detected in resonance of an slab of wood more than a few cm thick.

 

[SurferJoe46]

Quote:Originally Posted by rymiraflores View Post
I assume that you have already done that

I didn't intend to be rude, but it's obvious you aren't an expert by the opinions you are posting. No offense intended. The impact of wood choice on tone isn't some mystical thing that you can just disagree with because it doesn't make sense to you somehow. My suggestion for something you can try as an experiment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but obviously that would have an affect on the tone. In the same way, using one type of wood over another also has affect. My use of the term foolish wasn't meant to be offensive, but to describe what it is when one rejects the opinion of a large number of experts to believe something else with no base in reality.

Also, many builders have experimented withing using composites for the body and neck. They do impact the tone of the instrument, either positively or negatively depending on the listener, and often times the electronics themselves are redesigned to compensate for that. It's all subjective, but important.

In the end, all the components used must have a certain synergy to produce the desired result. I've never once read any comments from any builder that would suggest otherwise. So really, the burden of proof is on you if you want to claim otherwise because it's pretty well established that there is a significant relationship.

Please go easy on each other - both of youse guys - as this is one area that is rife with voodoo logic, wishful thinking and knee-jerk anecdotes.

We can all come away from this better educated and more-knowing if we keep it more on an academic level.

I know it's hard to bite our tongues sometimes - as we've all come through our own era of ignorance and lack of understanding - but if we all remember that there is new blood in this forum every day - then it gets easier to give them a little slack.

I am many times the greatest poor example of patience and grace.

 

[SurferJoe46]

Okay then, what's the difference between resonance and sustain? I tried to look this up recently. As far as I can tell, sustain is a measure of resonance and subjective at that. <snip>

I don't agree with this statement either. Have you ever played a spruce-topped mahogany backed, then rosewood, then koa guitar? You will find that as you move through these three guitars that they will be increasingly heavy, but this is due to the increasing density and amount of natural oil in the wood. Without doubt, all three of these are fantastic tonewoods, that are known for their resonance and sustain.<snip>

This statement I agree with. Higher grade woods are SAID to resonate better than their lower graded counterparts, when the luthier is selective about their resonant qualities.

I'm not sure how any of this applies to a solid-body instrument. I can't imagine any difference being detected in resonance of an slab of wood more than a few cm thick.

Makes me want to ask this question then: Who denotes one wood as Higher graded?

Is it clarity of veining? Luster? Color or refraction thereof? Softness? Machine-ability? Oiliness?

 

[nostatic]

Makes me want to ask this question then: Who denotes one wood as Higher graded?

Usually the person who slaps the price tag on it.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Wait...wait...I GOT the answer....

Lighter colored basses are "brighter" in tone, darker color basses are deeper and darker in tone...

So that's why you see so many black basses used for Metal... it's the COLOR!!!

Uhhh... maybe not...

 

[kai_ski]

Makes me want to ask this question then: Who denotes one wood as Higher graded?

Is it clarity of veining? Luster? Color or refraction thereof? Softness? Machine-ability? Oiliness?

There is no standard system, but it is up to the luthier to select the woods based on his suppliers' grading policy. Some grading systems range from A to AAAA with a master and presentation grade. Others are A to AAA with master/presentation grade being the same. Most guitar builders have a standard grade they use, hypothetically AAA for Martin, AA for fender, and say A for Yamaha, this is translated to the consumer in terms of cost and perceived quality. These builders will use one grade higher for NAMM/Show pieces i.e. AAAA/master for Martin, AAA for Fender, and AA for Yamaha

Good article on grading. http://www.lmii.com/carttwo/Grading.asp

 

[spade2you]

Wait...wait...I GOT the answer....

Lighter colored basses are "brighter" in tone, darker color basses are deeper and darker in tone...

So that's why you see so many black basses used for Metal... it's the COLOR!!!

Uhhh... maybe not...

The Mothman is mostly brown and the best bass for metal.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

...Seee???