How many of you agree with this statement?

[DaveKirkpatrick]

I would have to strongly disagree with this statement.
If you follow this out, why not make electric bass bodies from plastic, graphite, concrete or whatever..... since it has no bearing on the tone.
(yeah, I know... they keep tryin')

I agree that there are many other things involved in instrument construction that have more drastic impact on what you hear from an instrument, but the wood definitely plays a role.

I agree that making gross generalizations about tone woods... maple= bright, rosewood= dark, ebony combines the depth of rosewood with the top end of maple..etc. can be difficult because every piece of wood can vary in density and there are so many other factors involved in tone. I think we've all seen this by playing multiple seemingly identical basses at the shop that all sound different.

It's interesting on the NS design page, in the history section it says:

"Ned wanted to develop and (sic) instrument that was not constrained by conventional design precepts, USING NEW MATERIALS FOR THE TONAL PROPERTIES THEY IMPARTED"

Funny.... if the material used for electric instruments has no bearing on the tone, why would you choose materials for the tonal properties they impart?

 

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

I hate Basswood. Hate, Hate, Hate. I think it sounds nice enough, but it sustains like pudding, and will suck the overtones out the first chance it gets.

I respect your opinion on basswood, but I must say that the EBMM Bongo is a terrific-sounding basswood-made bass (for my taste, of course). Perhaps its electronics counteract such flaws you are mentioning?

 

[David Jayne]

To those of you who want to hear my graphite vs wood neck P basses- sorry but it seems my recording method, which is nothing but a cheap analog to USB dongle into Audacity, doesn't have the fidelity to show the difference well enough. It's obvious through my rig, Markbass TA501 into EPI UL310, which is a very HiFi rig. But the trial recordings I made don't do it justice, so I'm not gonna post them.
This may fuel the fires of the "once it's recorded, or in a mix, it doesn't matter" crowd. But my recordings are truly crap, so, whatever. Sorry for the buildup if there was one.
Maybe I'll try and mic up my rig later.

 

[BuffaloBass]

I respect your opinion on basswood, but I must say that the EBMM Bongo is a terrific-sounding basswood-made bass (for my taste, of course). Perhaps its electronics counteract such flaws you are mentioning?

Precisely. The signal, and all the nuances that have impacted it tonally, come out the end of the pipe. While I appreciate what N.S. created, the blanket statement that wood(s) make no difference must be held patently false. The extent of the difference? well , viva le discussion! Even this amatuer has heard the difference, and heard electronics overwhelm the organic tone of the interface.

In fact, as I toyed with shooting my own bass ( paint that is), I realized that too much paint would indeed alter the natural tones of the wood. Now, how much of that would have made it through the magnetic interface,,,,????

Btw, the way my ear hears the body wood is more in the attack of the note and the sustain, than in overall quality. Board wood is more overall quality.

Yet this is all the icing. The cake is the big round note inside. We're in obsession over the icing, where the general public only hears that cake in the middle. And the cake may be the only "truth" of the matter.Yet, Viva la discussion!

 

[MisterMagician]

Wait... body-less design?

I can understand head-less, but body-less is a bit much.


What are you going to attach the pickups and bridge to?

 

[BartmanPDX]

I think a lot of people here haven't listened to the clip very carefully.

Nowhere in that clip does Ned say that the wood composition of the body (i.e. the type of wood) is not important. He doesn't address the neck at all.

What he is saying essentially, is that you do not need a full size body to make a good sounding bass. In other words, while the body of an acoustic guitar is an absolutely essential part of creating the tone, a bass can be made with a very small body without it affecting tone all that much.

Now I would still argue that there are probably tonal differences between a bass with a full-sized body and an identical bass where much of the body mass has been cut off, but I think in general that he is right in that you don't absolutely have to have a full sized body in an electric instrument, whereas you cannot say the same about an acoustic one.

A bunch of folks here are putting words in his mouth. He never said the material the bass was made out of wasn't important. Indeed, the whole idea for the original Steinberger basses was to use a different material -- everything else like the headless design and the bridge resulted from his desire to use composites.

 

[peterpalmieri]

I didn't do that either.

Fair enough but you did say "the differences will be so small virtually no one but a very small few would even notice that there's a difference, let alone be able to tell what you changed to cause that difference."

 

[DaveKirkpatrick]

I agree about Mr. Steinbergers statement, but the OP did use that statement as a jumping off point into the idea that the wood used on an electric instrument's body is inconsequential to the tone that you hear from your amp.
I am definitely not trying to bash on Mr. Steinberger or his innovations, I'd love to have one of his basses for travel.

I think a lot of people here haven't listened to the clip very carefully.

Nowhere in that clip does Ned say that the wood composition of the body (i.e. the type of wood) is not important. He doesn't address the neck at all.

What he is saying essentially, is that you do not need a full size body to make a good sounding bass. In other words, while the body of an acoustic guitar is an absolutely essential part of creating the tone, a bass can be made with a very small body without it affecting tone all that much.

Now I would still argue that there are probably tonal differences between a bass with a full-sized body and an identical bass where much of the body mass has been cut off, but I think in general that he is right in that you don't absolutely have to have a full sized body in an electric instrument, whereas you cannot say the same about an acoustic one.

A bunch of folks here are putting words in his mouth. He never said the material the bass was made out of wasn't important. Indeed, the whole idea for the original Steinberger basses was to use a different material -- everything else like the headless design and the bridge resulted from his desire to use composites.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Sure, but I believe you can separate the 2 when it comes to a "neck through" vs "bolt on" or "glued". With a neck through, there's less emphasis on the body wings, as opposed to the neck woods. For a bolt on or glued joint, there are some differences, due to the neck, joining to another separate piece of wood, that continues to the bridge. Granted, the wood type itself translating to tone is subjective, but there is the sustain/resonance factor. And this is before the pickups and electronics are factored in.

 

[AltGrendel]

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.

+1

I agree, everything I've read, studied and basses I've played support this. The neck is it when it comes to affecting tone. If you want, check out Alembic's site. If you dig around you'll notice that a majority of the tone debate is on what wood is in the neck. Second is electronics, and everything else tends to be cosmetic/personal taste.

 

[GM60466]

Keep mine wood

 

[KJung]

I enjoy this topic! Over many years, I've found that EVERY bass sounds different, even with identical electronics and design, and wood spec. For example, I had two Celinder Updates that were identical in every way on the spec sheet... same wood, very similar weight, etc., etc. They sounded quite different.

I agree that many oversimplify the impact of wood 'types' (e.g. ash is brighter than alder, etc., etc.). The wood used in EB's has a HUGE impact on the tone, IMO and IME. However, it's not so simple as to say 'maple boards sound like this, or ash bodies sound like this, or neck through basses sound like this, etc.

Every one of the hundreds of components of a bass (wood density, age, type, size, weight.... interaction of neck, body, and fretboard woods with size and weight of each piece, etc., etc.) all combine to make each and every instrument 'unique'.

IMO, that is why spec'ing a custom bass can be, for the most part, disappointing. You can work out all the the issues in your head (i.e., rosewood board for warmth, mahogany body for fatness, neck through for sustain or whatever), and the result can end up sounding like mud, or like Marcus Miller's old J Bass, depending on how it all comes together, and the nature of each component and how each component interacts.

IMO and IME!

 

[dave64o]

Fair enough but you did say "the differences will be so small virtually no one but a very small few would even notice that there's a difference, let alone be able to tell what you changed to cause that difference."

I did, and I stand by that statement based on blind A/B tests I've seen here on TB, on the Fender Forums, and on Home Recording.com (can't recall following any recent ones on the EBMM forums, but I'm not there all that often). In general, most people who guaranteed they would get the correct answers end up being wrong, even on samples of just the instruments by themselves. When trying to identify those differences in the context of a full mix, the results seem to be even worse. So, based on multiple threads on multiple forums, it seems to me that most people who made those guarantees were wrong most of the time and did no better than the people who said they were simply guessing. You certainly may be one of the people who can do it, but from the threads I've seen it seems like the number who say they can is a lot smaller than the number who can actually demonstrate it.

I don't remember seeing this come up earlier in this thread, but I thought of something else that could be a factor in this ability. I'll guess that it's easier to do it for yourself on your own gear than it is to do it for someone doing an A/B test on their gear. You're going to be far more used to your own tone so it makes sense to me that it's easier to pick up smaller differences in that case. I won't try to estimate how much easier since that will vary from person to person.

 

[kraigo]

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.

Well, one's black...

KO

 

[BluesWalker]

Having played and/or owned typical wood basses (Fender P, Fender J, clones of both), Steinberger graphite based basses (all graphite early Steinbergers, wood body/graphite neck, dense wood Synapses) and an all graphite Status Streamline (after trying out a friends, I ordered one and it is about to be delivered), I really believe the composition of the neck and body do have an affect on tone after amplification. However, other factors are just as important so it is not a dominating effect. Choice of pickups, sound modification (effects, modeling, equilization), amp, strings, setup, bolt-on vs through neck, rigidiy of the bolt-on, etc., also have a significant affect on tone after amplification.

While changes in type of wood can probably have an affect, I can't believe it is that significant and readily discernable given all the other factors that affect tone.

 

[spade2you]

I think a key element to this debate is the type of pickup. Some are more transparent than others. Something like an EMG PJ set will sound almost identical (given identical/near identical placement) on any given instrument. Others are more transparent and you'll hear a difference.

In regards to recording or live, it's hard to say if a difference can be heard. In both cases, it all depends on how the bass is mixed and in the given musical context. In the studio, I've been able to tell the difference between basses with different fingerboards or body woods.

 

[flipper_gv]

Body wood is very important to the tone. The best proof I have is:

Take a Warwick corvette std. bubinga and ash model. Play them, and you'll how much the difference is drastic.

 

[kraigo]

I think a lot of people here haven't listened to the clip very carefully.

Nowhere in that clip does Ned say that the wood composition of the body (i.e. the type of wood) is not important. He doesn't address the neck at all.

What he is saying essentially, is that you do not need a full size body to make a good sounding bass. In other words, while the body of an acoustic guitar is an absolutely essential part of creating the tone, a bass can be made with a very small body without it affecting tone all that much.

Now I would still argue that there are probably tonal differences between a bass with a full-sized body and an identical bass where much of the body mass has been cut off, but I think in general that he is right in that you don't absolutely have to have a full sized body in an electric instrument, whereas you cannot say the same about an acoustic one.

A bunch of folks here are putting words in his mouth. He never said the material the bass was made out of wasn't important. Indeed, the whole idea for the original Steinberger basses was to use a different material -- everything else like the headless design and the bridge resulted from his desire to use composites.

Great point. +1

KO

 

[peterpalmieri]

I did, and I stand by that statement based on blind A/B tests I've seen here, on the Fender Forums, and on Home Recording.com (can't recall following any recent ones on the EBMM forums, but I'm not there all that often). In general, most people who guaranteed they would get the correct answers end up being wrong, even on samples of just the instruments. When they're trying to identify differences in a mix, the results seem to be even worse.

So, based on multiple threads on multiple forums, it seems to me that most people who made those guarantees were wrong most of the time and did no better than the people who said they're simply guessing.

I don't remember seeing this come up earlier in this thread, but I'm also going to guess that it's probably easier to do it for yourself than it is to do it for someone else who did the A/B test. You're going to be far more used to your own tone so it makes sense to me that it's easier (I won't try to estimate how much easier) to pick up smaller differences in that case.

I guess we could go all day while you talk about apples and me oranges......

I only continue to argue that I am a bass player that buys an instrument for performing it live or in a studio, most often live. What matters to ME is that when I'm on a gig or in a studio standing less then 5 feet from my bass amp or listening in cans I can easily tell the difference.

Being able to listen to an A/B test on my computer speakers, with headphones or using my studio monitors of either a solo'd bass track or a bass in the context of a group can be a fun experiment but really has no bearing on what I do as a bass player.

If things we're this simple all bass makers would simply post clips of their basses and we'd make our decision based on that. More to the point we'd just start making Headless/bodyless basses out of pressure treated lumber because who the heck can tell the difference when listening to the bass in a dense mix through a set of Ipod ear buds.

 

[groooooove]

the difference is obviously there. i used to have two identical carvins, only difference was the fretboard - one ebony, one birdseye maple. the maple one sounded significantly brighter. same neck thru design, pickups, strings, everything. body woods make even more of a differnce. thats why plywood instruments dont have a fat punchy tone (as well as gennerally having a lesser build quality.)

get a good luthier to build a body out of ply, and a/b it with a body made of alder or ash..