How many of you agree with this statement?

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/play/80766080

That's the voice of Mr. Ned Steinberger explaining some of the reasons why he came up with his bodiless design. I've just found this recording on a YouTube video and extracted the audio part for the section I wanted to talk about.

Putting aside any player's aesthetic (and perhaps comfort) preferences, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Every time I see a discusion like "Tonal differences between alder and ash?" or even "Maple or rosewood: Which one is brighter?" I can do nothing but scratch my head. I mean, I agree that different woods give different tonal properties to electric guitars and basses when played unplugged but... so what? You only play your solid-body electric unplugged for practicing or fiddling around, and those differences become extremely subtle when your instrument is amplified (and I think that's how all of us play our instrument). Paraphrasing Mr. Steinberger, an acoustic instrument is a totally different story for obvious (I think) reasons. The body of the instrument is vital for it to work and of course, the impact of the material from which it is made can actually be heard. But what any player needs from a solid-body electric guitar or bass is a rigid and long-lasting material that can hold the strings properly and in tune, and the best possible electronics package.

Again, I'm not involving the beauty of certain woods or how a certain body design feels comfort-wise on this assertion. It's just that I don't find the point of "the quest for the best wood tone" on a solid-body electric instrument and I'm backed by one of the most innovative instrument designers of the 20th century. Of course you are free to disagree, and that's what I want to monitor. I think an interesting discussion can start here. My apologies if this has been discussed before, but I think Mr. Steinberger's statement is a good and differentiating starting point. Thank you in advance for your input!

 

[silky smoove]

I agree with what he's saying. Construction methods, construction tolerances, pickup design, pickup placement, scale length, etc. All these things, to me, play a far greater role than what the body is made of, or in the case of some of the NS designs, whether there's a body at all.

 

[mongo2]

The wood components contribute to the timbre of the instrument and the results of that contribution are tranduced by the pickups since the the interactions between the vibrations in the body effects the harmonic content and phase relationships of the vibrating strings.

This is true for any solidbody bass no matter if it's made of wood or not. The structural elements of the instrument contribute what they contribute. The result may be subtle or hit you like a flying mallet, but it's there.

Besides my "regular" electric basses, I also play a Stienberger CR4M.

 

[RedemptionBass]

He neglected to mention the crucial importance that clay dots play in tone.

 

[lousybassplayer]

I have said this myself for a long time. I don't care for Steinbergers or most headless basses for that matter, simply due to asthetics, and I love the looks of a beautifully sculpted exotic wood bass, but I really think that any sonic differences are just too subtle to be a primary concern in picking out what bass sound you like. Electronics, both quality and the settings used have the biggest single impact. A lot of what is percieved in terms of the wood affecting tone is in the ear of the beholder, IMO.

I am building a P bass right now and equiping it with MIA electronics and higher end aftermarket components. The body is a squier affinity body. Am I expecting it to be as good as an MIA? Hardly. But I think that a number of folks who will swear up and down that it could never sound even close would have a tough time comparing soundclips and picking the right one ten out of ten times. There are a numbe reasons I would prefer an ash body, but I know for a fact that my ears will not hear enough of a difference for me to care.

 

[Matt Dean]

He neglected to mention the crucial importance that clay dots play in tone.

I always thought it was because the dots were round....

 

[NortyFiner]

I always thought it was because the dots were round....

So that's why my SR505 sounds different...oval inlays!

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

. It's just that I don't find the point of "the quest for the best wood tone" on a solid-body electric instrument and I'm backed by one of the most innovative instrument designers of the 20th century.

Keep in mind that you and he have opposing views that many of the other most innovative instrument designers have Body and neck woods do change tone. Sometimes it's very subtle, sometimes it's quite drastic. When you've played instruments that keep the other factors constant (pickups, scale, etc.) and only change the woods, it's often pretty easy to hear the difference.

 

[unclejane]

Keep in mind that you and he have opposing views that many of the other most innovative instrument designers have Body and neck woods do change tone. Sometimes it's very subtle, sometimes it's quite drastic. When you've played instruments that keep the other factors constant (pickups, scale, etc.) and only change the woods, it's often pretty easy to hear the difference.

I'd be very surprised if many listeners did much better than chance in a blindfold A/B of solid-body instruments that only differed in the type of woods used and were otherwise constructed the same, used the same strings, electronics and so on.

A primarily acoustic instrument, yeah, you might be able pick one from the other, or if you went to very different woods with very different characteristics like hardness, density etc.

But among the typical woods used for solid-body basses, nah. Mythology mostly.

Far and away it's construction differences (i.e. thicknesses of the woods, neck shape/thickness, neck-thru vs bolt-neck etc.) and electronics that make the noticeable differences in tones of various basses.

I agree completely with Ned S here. I played a steinberger for a while when I was gigging and it definitely sounded like, well, a bass guitar with EMG's in it. Actually it sounded absolutely extraordinary IMO, but I've since heard other solid body basses made of traditional woods with the same (or very similar) EMG soapbars in them and they sound very close to the same as the "stein".

I don't deny that acoustic properties contribute to the ultimate tone of the instrument, but the type of woods used is way down in the noise of other aspects of construction that give those acoustic properties.

LS

 

[David Jayne]

Mr. Steinberger, as brilliant as he is, is just one man with an opinion.
I agree that the body wood species/finish/etc. has little influence.

The neck is an entirely different story.
I have a project bass which has worn 8 different necks, and they all make it sound different, sometimes a LOT different, plugged and unplugged. Absolutely no question about it.

If you think about it, a Steinberger has a rather unique sound. Do you think it's all in the electronics? I don't.
See these two basses? Aside from necks, they are as identical as they could be; exact same electronics/hardware/strings/body wood, and weigh within an ounce of each other.
But the one on the left has a Status Graphite neck while the other wears it's original '08 Am Std maple/rosewood neck.
They sound radically different.

 

[peterpalmieri]

The wood components contribute to the timbre of the instrument and the results of that contribution are tranduced by the pickups since the the interactions between the vibrations in the body effects the harmonic content and phase relationships of the vibrating strings.

+1

If you buy into Ned's concept and the OPs comments wood would have to play ZERO role in the tone of an electric bass and for ALL basses made of wood that is a 100% false statement, unless you don't want it too in that case a Steinberger is the perfect bass....

There is room in the world for all kinds of instruments!

 

[peterpalmieri]

I'd be very surprised if many listeners did much better than chance in a blindfold A/B of solid-body instruments that only differed in the type of woods used and were otherwise constructed the same, used the same electronics and so on.

A primarily acoustic instrument, yeah, you might be able pick one from the other, or if you went to very different woods with very different characteristics harness, density etc.

But among the typical woods used for solid-body basses, nah. Mythology mostly.

Far and away it's construction differences (i.e. thicknesses of the woods, neck shape/thickness, neck-thru vs bolt-neck etc.) and electronics that make the noticable differences in tones of various basses.

I agree completely with Ned S here. I played a steinberger for a while when I was gigging and it definitely sounded like, well, a bass guitar with EMG's in it. Actually it sounded absolutely extraordinary IMO, but I've since heard other solid body basses with the same (or very similar) EMG soapbars in them and they sound very close to the same as the "stein".

LS

Maybe your primary care physician can recommend you a good Audiologist....

A double blind A/B test? For us as bass players instruments are played not listed to in a blind test. For that matter basses made to the exact same spec sound different, it just depends on the level of critical listening.

 

[ProfGumby]

He neglected to mention the crucial importance that clay dots play in tone.

Don't forget the carrots!

And as far as I am concerned I do really believe the material of the body as well as the neck and fingerboard do make a difference. If you don't believe me, play a Jazz bass from the same manufacturer, and just to piss everyone off, let's use SX as an example.

The same man, same day, same amp same cord, same strings on all basses same guy tuned them and everyone at Broccoli for lunch. The only variable being body woods and neck woods. They will sound different. But how noticeable?

Can one pick out these differences in a band setting? And obviously a Rick sounds different than a Grabber or Thunderbird, but I'm not talking about that. I mean same bass, same everything, different woods.

I'd like to see this test done.

 

[unclejane]

Maybe your primary care physician can recommend you a good Audiologist....

A double blind A/B test? For us as bass players instruments are played not listed to in a blind test. For that matter basses made to the exact same spec sound different, it just depends on the level of critical listening.

Again, I'm skeptical those differences have to do with the types of woods used. You got a _long_ way to go to get to a real result on this.

for instance, the variability you're talking about occurs just as much among different copies of instruments made out of the _same_ woods.
Same with instruments of different designs made out of the same woods. They sound drastically different and it should be obvious why they sound different (i.e. my L2000 and L2500 - made of absolutely identical woods, maple neck, ebony fingerboards, swamp ash bodies, but they sound vastly different).

It'd be a good test tho. I.e. if we could blind A/B the above poster's two basses that are identical but use different materials for the necks.

If we got a result there that'd be a start.

Of course, in order to really have evidence we need a robust result so we couldn't stop there. We'd have to test this under a wider variety of conditions (i.e. more bass types that differ only in the woods used) and get statistically significant results throughout the entire test.

Until then, I'm skeptical and on Ned's side...

LS

 

[bass player 48]

I tend to believe what I see, and what I hear. I'm no audiophile, I'm not even a very good bass player - but when I was shopping for a jazz bass I played a few MIM and MIA Fenders (all were Alder bodies) before playing the Geddy Lee Jazz... they all sounded the same, the Geddy sounded just a little tiny bit different I assumed because of BAII / 70's spacing / thin neck... then the salesman said - if you want to hear my favorite Jazz, play this Ash Jazz - you can really hear the difference. I listened and sure enough - it sounded different than all of the Alder basses. What about a semi hollow bass - you can't hear the difference between a semi hollow bass and a similar solid body? I think the notion that the body doesn't matter is pretty silly. If I can hear differences, I can't believe there is even any debate about the subject. FWIW - The fact that I completely disagree with Mr. Steinburger has nothing to do with the fact that I think his designs are the most disgusting things I've ever seen built.

 

[David Jayne]

It'd be a good test tho. I.e. if we could blind A/B the above poster's two basses that are identical but use different materials for the necks.

If we got a result there that'd be a start.

If someone can tell me how to post clips I'll do it. I can record them, just don't know how/where to host them.

 

[grifff]

If someone can tell me how to post clips I'll do it. I can record them, just don't know how/where to host them.

This is about all that I can contribute to this thread. You can make a free account on soundclick.com and upload mp3's there.

 

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

Or you can use the same service I used for uploading the audio file in my original post. I'm really interested in hearing both basses.

 

[lomo]

I agree with what he's saying. Construction methods, construction tolerances, pickup design, pickup placement, scale length, etc. All these things, to me, play a far greater role than what the body is made of, or in the case of some of the NS designs, whether there's a body at all.

Absolutely, + much

 

[Pierrot]

A friend of mine did some tests on a cheap electric guitar a while back. One of the things he experimented with was adding extra mass to the body to see how it affected the sound. There was a clear difference when the vibration of the body was measured, a less obvious, but still detectable difference on the measured signals but it could not be noticed in listening trials.

As for me, I'm a little bit in both camps. I do believe the properties of the body influence the output signal, but I also believe that the extent of that influence is greatly exaggerated by a vast majority of luthiers and musicians alike.

I wonder why there is so little discussion regarding the tonal qualities of a solid silver bridge.