Wait. That makes sense. Begone!
Awesome indeed. Differing cuts can sound different but different species = voodoo.
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.
How exactly does wood affect tone in electric basses?
- Thread starter manutabora
- Start date
Wait. That makes sense. Begone!
Awesome indeed. Differing cuts can sound different but different species = voodoo.
With the incarnation of the newest "wood" thread, we must be due for more Jaco sux, Fieldy is god, Tara Labs, and Monster Cable threads! 
With the incarnation of the newest "wood" thread, we must be due for more Jaco sux, Fieldy is god, Tara Labs, and Monster Cable threads!
This is particularly fun because you have people on both sides citing instances where wood makes a difference... then one side scoffs at the idea that wood can make a difference.
Duh.
If I may adapt an answer I posted in an earlier thread about this:
Play a note on your bass. Put your hand on the body. Feel it vibrating? That's energy going into your hand from the vibrating string.
Now if anyone can tell me how you can get energy from the string into your hand without affecting in any way the vibration of that string, you've just won yourself a Nobel Prize for transcending the First Law of Thermodynamics.
So, that proves the resonant properties of a bass, including the body and neck, influence the string's vibration, and that must therefore influence the signal generated by the pickups. The extent to which this effect results in an audible difference may be debatable (and may vary a lot, depending on the instruments and the listeners), but the effect itself is not. I think the effect is noticeable in many cases - I'm sure a lot of us have picked up apparently identical basses in stores and noticed a difference in the way they sound, even when constructed from different pieces of the SAME species of wood, let alone different woods entirely.
And for the same reason, I would NOT claim that you can easily identify the types of wood a bass is made from just by listening to it, as there are too many other variables. But it may well be possible to generalise along the lines of "xxx bodied instruments tend to have a brighter tone than otherwise similar yyy bodied instruments".
Play a note on your bass. Put your hand on the body. Feel it vibrating? That's energy going into your hand from the vibrating string.
Now if anyone can tell me how you can get energy from the string into your hand without affecting in any way the vibration of that string, you've just won yourself a Nobel Prize for transcending the First Law of Thermodynamics.
So, that proves the resonant properties of a bass, including the body and neck, influence the string's vibration, and that must therefore influence the signal generated by the pickups. The extent to which this effect results in an audible difference may be debatable (and may vary a lot, depending on the instruments and the listeners), but the effect itself is not. I think the effect is noticeable in many cases - I'm sure a lot of us have picked up apparently identical basses in stores and noticed a difference in the way they sound, even when constructed from different pieces of the SAME species of wood, let alone different woods entirely.
And for the same reason, I would NOT claim that you can easily identify the types of wood a bass is made from just by listening to it, as there are too many other variables. But it may well be possible to generalise along the lines of "xxx bodied instruments tend to have a brighter tone than otherwise similar yyy bodied instruments".
there are many basses with the same pups/electronics. Many have the same emgs, barts etc. Compare Spector with warwick streamer w/emgs. Same body shape, same pickups, different woods, totally different sound. Warwick growls and is very mid oriented while spector is more mid scooped.
If you slap the string or pluck it with the finger it sounds different through an amp, string vibrates differently.
Between ash and alder there is maybe not a big difference, and it depends on many other factors. Some basses more depend on electronics. To me every Ken Smith or Fodera sounds the same, they have their signature sounds.
Try playing full mahogany bass or full wenge bass and then alder bass and you'll hear the difference for sure.
If you slap the string or pluck it with the finger it sounds different through an amp, string vibrates differently.
Between ash and alder there is maybe not a big difference, and it depends on many other factors. Some basses more depend on electronics. To me every Ken Smith or Fodera sounds the same, they have their signature sounds.
Try playing full mahogany bass or full wenge bass and then alder bass and you'll hear the difference for sure.
There's no doubt that the wood used makes a difference in the tone. I think the problem is when you start making "X wood produces Y tone" statements. I believe the properties of the particular piece of wood are more important than the species.
"The average ash-body bass sounds more _______ than the average alder bass" is a perfectly valid statement. However, there will be examples of two particular instruments where the difference is reversed. All ash is not the same, and all alder is not the same.
Comparing general properties of woods works, in general, as well. Compare swamp ash-alder-poplar against wenge-bubinga-rosewood and you'll see some general tendencies. But what if you take a lightweight and soft piece of bubinga (does that exist?) and compare it to a hard and heavy piece of ash? It might go the other way.
Wood affects the tone. However, you'll have a hard time picking the pieces of wood to give you "that" tone. It's not like a recipe or a painter's palette.
"The average ash-body bass sounds more _______ than the average alder bass" is a perfectly valid statement. However, there will be examples of two particular instruments where the difference is reversed. All ash is not the same, and all alder is not the same.
Comparing general properties of woods works, in general, as well. Compare swamp ash-alder-poplar against wenge-bubinga-rosewood and you'll see some general tendencies. But what if you take a lightweight and soft piece of bubinga (does that exist?) and compare it to a hard and heavy piece of ash? It might go the other way.
Wood affects the tone. However, you'll have a hard time picking the pieces of wood to give you "that" tone. It's not like a recipe or a painter's palette.
In specific cases it's not that hard. Trends aren't that hard to see... unless you believe they can't exist.
I leave you guys alone for 2 days and you start another tone-wood thread :scowl:
__________________
damn kids and their tone-wood
__________________
damn kids and their tone-wood
I just think that if the wood didnt make a difference in tone,be it noticeable or not, then all guitar companies would use the same, lowest-price/high profit wood (Ash?) possible.
but thats just my 2 cents.
but thats just my 2 cents.
Oh I think wood most definitely can. To assume it will based on type is just getting silly, IMO. Way too many variables with each single piece to blatantly assume anything, however.This is particularly fun because you have people on both sides citing instances where wood makes a difference... then one side scoffs at the idea that wood can make a difference.
Duh.
Generally speaking, I like the tonal properties of Ash. That's not to say I can't get a piece of Ash that sounds like Alder, however. Besides, I love the grain of Ash, so it's a win/win for me!
A large part of this debate hinges on thinking that people are saying it will always make a difference. Very few that I've come across say it will as an absolute. Actually none that I can recall but I'll leave the possibility that someone did.
Generally speaking, I like the tonal properties of Ash. That's not to say I can't get a piece of Ash that sounds like Alder, however. Besides, I love the grain of Ash, so it's a win/win for me!
I've found that it's a heck of a lot easier to find Ash that sounds like Ash
I don't think that thinking a particular type of wood on a particular bass design will yeild a certain type of sound is the least bit silly. I've seen it too many times not to know it's entirely possible. What I do find silly is people dismissing wood as a profit motive... particularly when there's no difference in the profit.
I'll make a big blanket statement that anybody who thinks using a different type of wood to build a bass doesn't affect tone, hasn't tried it out for themselves.
Here's the rub with the whole tone wood debate: in acoustic instruments, two pieces of wood from the same tree can behave and sound very different. Lutherie is not only about bending the wood to your will, but it is also about bending to the will of the wood (if there were a yoda emoticon, I'd put it here). Since blanket statements about wood species=tone in acoustic instruments are of limited usefulness, how can they be of any use in a solid body instrument? Does wood matter? Yes, a bass made out of crappy wood isn't nearly as nice as a bass made out of nice wood, now is it? I think luthier's do well to focus on factors like weight, grade and beauty when they choose wood for thier solid body instruments and save worrying about the wood's "tone" for acoustic instruments.
A real quick way to test this would be to play two fender basses (same model) one with a maple fretboard and one with rosewood, see if you notice a difference. Not everybody can tell...
BUT, I have swapped pickups across two basses, with the same stings, and recorded the tracks and let other people listen and everyone could tell the difference, and they all preferred the sound of Bass A over Bass B.
They had the same body wood and same neck woods... but totally different body shapes.
thats fretboard wood not body wood
