• 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?

#122
Put the same electronics on a Fender and Warwick. A ovankgol/bubinga combo will easily contrast with an alder/maple combo.

And before someone saying, i dont think all the tone difference will be because they have different bridges :p
 
#123
Georynn said:
I'm surprised nobody has lost an eye or a limb, during one of these...
Click to expand...
Would you like that limb quartersawn or flatsawn?

:hiding:




AFA Jamerson, if you consider that the Funk Machine was a '62, and if you accept the wikipedic assertion (which I am assuming is backed up by his biographies) that by the 80's he was unable to find session work, then most of those songs were recorded on a bass that was between zero and no more than eighteen years old. For me, eighteen years is not aged wood, certainly not in the sense that it is often applied referencing either early 20th century Martin acoustics or Stradivariuses. Maybe that's aged for other people. To me that's well-seasoned, not "vintage."
 
#124
agreed that Jamerson and Hendrix were NOT using "vintage" instruments but I wonder if the quality was a little better and more "old growth" woods were able to be used seeings that the instrument industry was so new. Hence Koa and Brazilian Rosewood not being anywhere near as available today as they were 20-30 years ago. So even though Jamerson's bass wasn't vintage, the qaulity of wood was a bit better than what comes of the line today in most large scale manufacturing situations.

guys like Jimmy Coppolo I think probably has the closest to what Jamerson and Hendrix would've walked into a studio with and that being some good old growth well chosen planks..... ready to spank! :p
 
#127
Psychicpet said:
[emphasis added]agreed that Jamerson and Hendrix were NOT using "vintage" instruments but I wonder if the quality was a little better and more "old growth" woods were able to be used seeings that the instrument industry was so new. Hence Koa and Brazilian Rosewood not being anywhere near as available today as they were 20-30 years ago. So even though Jamerson's bass wasn't vintage, the qaulity of wood was a bit better than what comes of the line today in most large scale manufacturing situations.

guys like Jimmy Coppolo I think probably has the closest to what Jamerson and Hendrix would've walked into a studio with and that being some good old growth well chosen planks..... ready to spank! :p
Click to expand...
Not to say you're wrong, but just to clarify a line between two assertions: the first part I bolded above is a provable fact. The second one, though, is a widely held belief that may or may not be correct. Consider: what if, maybe, old growth woods, with their tighter ring structure, etc., sound worse than new? Maybe fast growth new wood is superior in producing "good tone" in instruments?
 
#128
pilotjones said:
Would you like that limb quartersawn or flatsawn?

:hiding:




AFA Jamerson, if you consider that the Funk Machine was a '62, and if you accept the wikipedic assertion (which I am assuming is backed up by his biographies) that by the 80's he was unable to find session work, then most of those songs were recorded on a bass that was between zero and no more than eighteen years old. For me, eighteen years is not aged wood, certainly not in the sense that it is often applied referencing either early 20th century Martin acoustics or Stradivariuses. Maybe that's aged for other people. To me that's well-seasoned, not "vintage."
Click to expand...

You do realize that by your definition an electric bass can't be "aged"... they're all less than 100 years old.
:D
 
#129
Psychicpet said:
nope, just old growth. it does make a difference in the grain and the way the wood resonates so not so much voodoo as it is just plain old head-not-stuck-up-the-arse logic.
Click to expand...

:eyebrow:

Head-not-stuck-up-the-arse logic?

I won't try to start arguing with such "logic" then. I'll let you keep your own beliefs and keep mine.
 
#131
SDB Guitars said:
<rant>

Good God... how can discussions that have been had dozens of times still generate this much heat? Neither side will convince the other, no matter how much empirical evidence one side or the other presents (and I've seen very little evidence actually presented in this discussion, mostly just opinion), neither side will give ground.

Does arguing really help things? Does it change the view some people have about different woods? I seem to recall Larry stating that in any given species of wood, you can have something like +/-20% fluctuation in density, hardness, etc., and if there is one person on here that I am certain knows wood inside and out, it's Larry.

I don't care what wood sounds like what. When I started playing 18 years ago, my first bass was a Squier II P-bass with a plywood body. You know what? It sounded like a P-bass. Taylor made an acoustic guitar out of oak planks salvaged from a shipping pallet, and people think it sounds good. IIRC, Bendetto made a knotty pine archtop, and it sounded good. Ray stated above that Bendetto is not opposed to using plywood on all sides of the soundbox in an instrument, and has no qualms about it sounding good.

I wish that people would stop trying to guess what wood sounds like, and if they want to know, record the sounds of identically designed and constructed basses with a variety of different woods, and examine the waveform. That will *show* you empirically the differences. Not what one person thinks they hear as the difference, but what the recorded waveform *shows* is the difference. Until someone is willing to go to that expense, I think that they should just let go of the "magic tonewood" discussions.

Okay, I'm done. Flame away.

</rant>
Click to expand...


They go on because people (even you ;)) continue to post with opinions. You don't care what wood sounds like? Cool. You think people are guessing what wood sounds like? Sorry, I don't buy that as absolute. I think Mike Tobias has a pretty good idea how an Ash neck vs. Maple neck will affect tone on a 535. The same goes for Roger Sadowsky and an Alder vs. Ash bodied NYC. I've seen it way too many times with Kevin Brubaker.


So there it is. I have no doubt you think you're on the right track. My experience tells me I am... and it's counter to yours. i don't think that wood is the crapshoot many of you seem to think it has to be.
 
#133
Brad Johnson said:
So there it is. I have no doubt you think you're on the right track. My experience tells me I am... and it's counter to yours. i don't think that wood is the crapshoot many of you seem to think it has to be.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with people stating opinions as just that - opinions. What bothers me is people who are presenting opinions (often someone else's opinions) as fact. They may be *valid* opinions, I'm not contradicting that. But you're not presenting anything *concrete*. I think that if someone is going to present a "*this* is the difference wood makes" arguement, they should have empirical data, not just what someone else is doing. Building, say, 5 basses all identically constructed but for wood variety would be a start. Recording them and comparing the waveforms would be better.

Or rather, maybe that's the wrong approach... maybe the answer would be building 5 completely identical basses, woods, hardware, electronics and all, and then comparing the waveforms would show that you don't have identical sounds.

All of that having been said, that doesn't take into account the human element, which states that you and I will probably sound *very* different when playing the same notes on the same instrument. How do you even quantify *that*?
 
#135
Larry Davis said:
Originally Posted by Brad Johnson
For the record, I am not a builder and I don't know anything about woods or electronics [/b][/color]



Larry: hummmmmm.......
Click to expand...

In a thread full of reaches, this may be the funniest one yet. Somehow the combination of a separate color and words preceding the quote didn't help, huh Larry? Post 116

:D

You just tried to attribute a quote of the OP to me. Or it was a completely lame attempt at sarcasm.

Either way... fail.
:cool:
 
#136
SDB Guitars said:
I have no problem with people stating opinions as just that - opinions. What bothers me is people who are presenting opinions (often someone else's opinions) as fact. They may be *valid* opinions, I'm not contradicting that. But you're not presenting anything *concrete*. I think that if someone is going to present a "*this* is the difference wood makes" arguement, they should have empirical data, not just what someone else is doing. Building, say, 5 basses all identically constructed but for wood variety would be a start. Recording them and comparing the waveforms would be better.
Click to expand...

What facts are people stating that bother you?

Roger Sadowsy has had more than 5 basses made just as you suggested. Maybe he should've taken five of them to the lab to prove that what he and his customers are hearing is legit.

Or rather, maybe that's the wrong approach... maybe the answer would be building 5 completely identical basses, woods, hardware, electronics and all, and then comparing the waveforms would show that you don't have identical sounds.

All of that having been said, that doesn't take into account the human element, which states that you and I will probably sound *very* different when playing the same notes on the same instrument. How do you even quantify *that*?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even try. I'm guessing the condescension coming from the direction of the wood doesn't matter crowd isn't bothersome. Just the people who disagree with that.
:cool:
 
#138
Brad Johnson said:
In a thread full of reaches, this may be the funniest one yet. Somehow the combination of a separate color and words preceding the quote didn't help, huh Larry? Post 116

:D

You just tried to attribute a quote of the OP to me. Or it was a completely lame attempt at sarcasm.

Either way... fail.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Sorry Brad, I did get confused by all the fancy colors and footwork you put in that post. Missed those itty bitty quote marks. Anyway have a nice evening and sleep well. How stupid of me to even think of dissagreeing with your opinions. :D
 
#139
Larry Davis said:
Sorry Brad, I did get confused by all the fancy colors and footwork you put in that post. Missed those itty bitty quote marks.
Click to expand...

Proof that you can't make things simple enough for some people.

Anyway have a nice evening and sleep wellHow stupid of me to even think of dissagreeing with your opinions. :D
Click to expand...


Indeed. No disagreement there.
:D
 
#140
Seriously, Arguing must be your favourite pasttime or something?

I can't remember the amount of threads I've read in the basses forum with 10+ pages where practically half the posts are from you dissecting each little sentence from everyone and going on and on about your views.

I hope these sorts of threads aren't going to be more common in the luthier's section or it'll get boring real fast here.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back