I have a theory about maple fingerboards

[dj150888]

The human brain might be more capable than you give credit.

I might say the same thing to you. Its so amazing it can make you hear things that aren't there! As an example, the missing fundamental psychoacoustic effect. The power of suggestion is also well documented in psychological studies, that, I'm sure you won't dispute. Not that its necessarily relevant here, but its a possibility and currently, we're sitting with no evidence either way.

 

[Korladis]

Concerning fretted basses: Can there be a tonal difference if the strings don't make contact with the wood?

The frets themselves are embedded in wood and transmit the vibrations into it.

 

[Fuzzbass]

I might say the same thing to you. Its so amazing it can make you hear things that aren't there! As an example, the missing fundamental psychoacoustic effect. The power of suggestion is also well documented in psychological studies, that, I'm sure you won't dispute. Not that its necessarily relevant here, but its a possibility and currently, we're sitting with no evidence either way.

It is definitely relevant. Again, everyone should check this video about audio myths... the first 10-15 minutes at least. A point that's heavily stressed: if you expect to hear a certain audio result, then you will hear it.

 

[VinKreepo]

Here we go again. Evolution is both fact and theory. There is no micro or macro they are terms made up by creationists not scientists, evolution is evolution and macro is just micro plus time aka speciation. Creationism is not a theory it is not even a valid hypothesis because it cannot be tested.

Believing in evolution on a large scale is like saying I can get from NYC, NY, USA [history] to London, England [present] and I haven't yet found a boat/plane/vehicle[missing links]... Creationism is like saying I can fly like superman to London, England. You can take your pick on which is easier to believe... but until you can prove either or... they are both ideas. Not fact.

A theory is not a fact; rather, it is a hypothesis that stems from various observations. On one hand, people see similarities between organisms and believe that there are links between these organisms that are reminiscent of the evolutionary process. On the other hand, Creationists look at the way strata is layed, fossils are positioned, prehistoric conditions, the complexity of life and conclude there must have been a flood, and more importantly a god. Both are ideas stemming from observations... and neither is yet to be proven.

Both sides agree on one thing... we are creatures bound by time. No one knows the origin of matter. You must either believe it has always existed and will forever exist and is not, nor has been, nor will be bound by time or believe that a being not bound by time that has existed, does exists, and will forever exist created matter and the laws that govern its behaviour.

So, before we can even tackle the origins of our planet and the universe... we must first find the origin of matter and/or time. Only then can we move on to discuss our tiny blue marble in this vast universe.

EDIT: the reason I brought up the flood is because just as the missing links are essential to evolution... the flood is essential to creationism

 

[Korladis]

Oh no, not an evolution/creation debate.

In the scientific method, a theory actually pretty much IS a fact. A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is when that hypothesis has undergone testing, has been supported with empirical evidence. Gravity is also a theory.

Way to completely not understand the scientific method. Creationists don't look at strata (as those tend to support the theory of evolution), typically. People who do look at strata are usually geologists or paleontologists... scientists. Plus, evolution can be seen actually happening in organisms with short lifespans and fast reproductive cycles. You know why HIV is such a difficult disease to combat? Because it's a virus that evolves very very rapidly.

 

[Aspidites]

Believing in evolution on a large scale is like saying I can get from NYC, NY, USA [history] to London, England [present] and I haven't yet found a boat/plane/vehicle[missing links]... Creationism is like saying I can fly like superman to London, England. You can take your pick on which is easier to believe... but until you can prove either or... they are both ideas. Not fact.

Actually evolution is a fact and is the single most supported theory in the history of science. The facts are the change in the frequency of alleles over time, descent with modification and common descent. The theory of evolution is a method of describing those facts.

A theory is not a fact; rather, it is a hypothesis that stems from various observations.

A theory is above, fact, law or hypothesis you are using the colloquial usage not the scientific usage of theory.

On one hand, people see similarities between organisms and believe that there are links between these organisms that are reminiscent of the evolutionary process.

Which is backed up by the evidence from multiple branches of science.

On the other hand, Creationists look at the way strata is layed, fossils are positioned, prehistoric conditions, the complexity of life and conclude there must have been a flood, and more importantly a god. Both are ideas stemming from observations... and neither is yet to be proven.

And yet it was Christians that first discovered there never was a global flood and to this day there is zero evidence to support said flood. That those fossils are laid down by time period and those time periods are separate is all the evidence one need to falsify that assertion.

Both sides agree on one thing... we are creatures bound by time. No one knows the origin of matter. You must either believe it has always existed and will forever exist and is not, nor has been, nor will be bound by time or believe that a being not bound by time that has existed, does exists, and will forever exist created matter and the laws that govern its behaviour.

Cosmologists are coming ever closer to solving that riddle which will merely close one more gap.

So, before we can even tackle the origins of our planet and the universe... we must first find the origin of matter and/or time. Only then can we move on to discuss our tiny blue marble in this vast universe.

One premise does not rest upon the other, they are separate branches of science and ones that most theists have no issue with.

EDIT: the reason I brought up the flood is because just as the missing links are essential to evolution... the flood is essential to creationism

But we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it never occurred. The city of Damascus alone falsifies that assertion.

 

[dj150888]

A theory is not a fact; rather, it is a hypothesis that stems from various observations

For it to be an accepted theory, it needs to have evidence, not just anecdotal observations. The term theory is often misunderstood, and thus, misused. A theory is what stems from a hypothesis after repeatable testing.

While religious faith may have its own merits, the assumption that, in scientific terms, the "Christian science" and traditional science are of equal merit, is quite simply not true. There is considerably more evidence for the traditional science explanation - evolution, than for the creationist science explanation. Thats why religion is FAITH based.

While I have no right to undermine your FAITH, I have every right to dispute the science behind it, if you try and present it as a science rather than what it is.

 

[VinKreepo]

Oh no, not an evolution/creation debate.

In the scientific method, a theory actually pretty much IS a fact. A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is when that hypothesis has undergone testing, has been supported with empirical evidence. Gravity is also a theory.

Way to completely not understand the scientific method. Creationists don't look at strata (as those tend to support the theory of evolution), typically. People who do look at strata are usually geologists or paleontologists... scientists. Plus, evolution can be seen actually happening in organisms with short lifespans and fast reproductive cycles. You know why HIV is such a difficult disease to combat? Because it's a virus that evolves very very rapidly.

I never said parts of evolution aren't fact. Yes, things do evolve... but I have yet to see an HONEST (not fabricated) skeleton of one of the many missing links and so I don't see every living creature today coming from a big brew of "organic soup." And thee look at strata as reminiscent of a worldwide flood since streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water deposit sediment in layers and they feel a flood would do they same with sediment and fossils (as fossils have different amounts of buoyancy). They also question why trees are found upside down in strata considered to be millions of years apart. That's how they use strata. Evolutionists see strata as being like dunes in a desert where vast amount of time and energy have layered dirt in layers.

BTW, if a theory is fact... what is a law? Also fact? What separates the two then? Way to misconstrue the meaning of parts of the scientific method.

 

[VinKreepo]

The OP has a theory about maple boards... must be fact. Why then is there so much argument?

 

[Brad Johnson]

I might say the same thing to you. Its so amazing it can make you hear things that aren't there! As an example, the missing fundamental psychoacoustic effect. The power of suggestion is also well documented in psychological studies, that, I'm sure you won't dispute. Not that its necessarily relevant here, but its a possibility and currently, we're sitting with no evidence either way.

Already knew that. Remember, I'm not the one saying things don't happen.

I don't think I tend to hear what I want to hear. If that were the case I wouldn't have heard what clearly sounded like an Ash bass when I heard a friend of mine's Alder bass... I would've heard Alder. Right?


I think I have a pretty discriminating ear at this point. The fact is, I don't want to hear any particular wood, I listen to the bass as I put it through it's paces. I have "expected" to hear things that didn't pan out. That's different.

And while you may not currently be, I'm sitting with plenty of evidence.

 

[dj150888]

Really, none of this is adding to the discussion at hand. VinKreepo, you have made several incorrect assertions. If you would like to discuss them further, drop me a PM, I'm more than happy to have a conversation about it there, but currently, I'm interested in the discussion I'm having with Brad, and would rather this thread wasn't locked until we have concluded that discussion.

 

[dj150888]

The OP has a theory about maple boards... must be fact. Why then is there so much argument?

Because the term theory was misused in the OP. The OP stated a hypothesis.

 

[mtshark]

Who cares?

Anyone with me???

 

[dj150888]

Already knew that. Remember, I'm not the one saying things don't happen.

Yet again, you've missed my point entirely. I'm not saying things don't happen, I'm saying the things that DO happen are not caused by magic, voodoo, or whatever else non-explanation you wish to provide. If they exist, they're measureable and explainable.

 

[bighead4G&L]

An example I gave taken as the only absolute? Yes, I play with a loud rock covers band now. No, it's not the only band I've played in. I've played a huge variety of stuff, over the years from prog rock to country, pop to dinner jazz. Before I joined the current band with a loud drummer and two half stack equipped guitarists, I was playing fretless on a little project with a guy and his wife playing introspective folky stuff with an unamplified acoustic guitar and violin - so plenty of room for any subtleties in tone to breathe.

I'm not arguing that there is no difference at all in the sound of rosewood vs maple fingerboards. What I am arguing is that there are so many variables that have far more effect on your tone, that the very subtle difference of fingerboard material is largely irrelevant - simply being in a room with a different acoustic has a far more marked effect. Whether you are on a resonant stage, whether you have your cab close to a wall, or a corner. Whether the room is bright or dead sounding, how many people are in the audience with their very presence soaking up higher order harmonics, the effect that the room has on other instruments and how those effect the mix....and so on.

I stand by the fact that a tiny nudge of eq will have far more effect than the choice of fingerboard.

Oh, and I also disagree that what gets amplified is what your bass produces acoustically. I would be very disappointed if all that got amplified was the thin clacky tone of the solid body acoustic sound of my bass. What is amplified in most conventional basses is the signal produced by the vibration of a metal string that is modulating the magnetic flux flowing through the windings in the pickup coils. The only 'acoustic' influence on this (supposing that you don't have microphonic pickups) is that the materials the bass is made out of, the method of construction and components such as the bridge will have a complex interaction of resonant frequencies that will soak up energy at those frequencies from the vibrating string.

So yes, a complex interaction of every component in the entire signal chain from string to speaker (and cab) will contribute to tone and in this respect the fingerboard will play a part, but unless you're playing in a totally controlled environment with absolutely every other parameter as a constant it's effect is marginal to say the least. I say again, I have never wished for a bass with a different fingerboard to make a tonal difference on a gig that couldn't be better served by a tweak of tone knob or eq on the amp.




Yes, it's sad isn't it. We obsess over minute details that allow us to express our deepest tonal desires, and spend fortunes on a never ending search for the tonal holy grail. In the real world, the only person that really cares about the finer points of my tone is me (and maybe a few other bass players that would pick holes in my choice of tone anyway). For me, hearing a satisfying bass tone is inspiring and helps me play to my best ability, but I am under no illusions, once those notes have left my fingers and found their way into the audience, all that 99% of the audience will give a flying fart about is that there is some sort of low frequency action going on. They may subliminaly appreciate that the tone is helping me keep it groovin but beyond that....meh.

Although I agree that there are MANY variables that affect the final tonal output of the instrument, we are talking about maple vs rosewood fingerboards; All other things being equal, not these other variables.
It starts with the wood and you CANNOT change the origin of the instrument's sound. You can only alter what is originally produced by unique sonic signature of the instrument. By the way, my electric basses all sound different when strummed acoustically and a couple of them are surprisingly "alive" sounding for no amplification. Not at all a "thin clacky tone".

 

[Aspidites]

I never said parts of evolution aren't fact. Yes, things do evolve... but I have yet to see an HONEST (not fabricated) skeleton of one of the many missing links and so I don't see every living creature today coming from a big brew of "organic soup.

"
Then you do not understand what evolutionary theory states. If one species gave birth to a member of an entirely different family it would falsify evolution. I will also add that there is no such thing as a missing link it is merely a term that journalists use to sensationalize a story.

And thee look at strata as reminiscent of a worldwide flood since streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water deposit sediment in layers and they feel a flood would do they same with sediment and fossils (as fossils have different amounts of buoyancy).

Evolutionary biologists have nothing to do with geology.Geologists are the ones that have stated categorically that there was no flood and that comes from those that are in fact theists.

They also question why trees are found upside down in strata considered to be millions of years apart. That's how they use strata. Evolutionists see strata as being like dunes in a desert where vast amount of time and energy have layered dirt in layers.

Do you care to read what actual geologists state about that?

Hint it is not what you think it is.

BTW, if a theory is fact... what is a law? Also fact? What separates the two then? Way to misconstrue the meaning of parts of the scientific method.

A law is a term that is no longer used because any law is subject to refutation.

There is a colloquial usage of theory which is akin to a hypothesis, basically an educated guess and there is the scientific usage of theory which is the highest level of attainment there is in science because it is an overarching method of describing groups of related facts.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

[johnk_10]

Who cares?

Anyone with me???

+1

 

[Aspidites]

The OP has a theory about maple boards... must be fact. Why then is there so much argument?

What he has is personal conjecture or if it can be tested a hypothesis.

 

[Aspidites]

Who cares?

Anyone with me???

I am overly geeky and enjoy detailed conversations about stuff most people could not care less about. Drives my gf nuts.You should have seen her face when I had a had dozen friends over to talk about genetic mutations in Boas and Pythons and it lasted for over 10 hours.

 

[Arthur U. Poon]

IMO a maple fingerboard has a brighter tone and a quicker response compared to a rosewood fingerboard, which sounds warmer -to me. A graphite composite fingerboard sounds the brightest and quickest, followed by an ebony fingerboard. A maple fingerboard comes in after these two -IMO.

IMO the sound is mainly in a players' hands, and a good EQ can help a player to dial in the tone they like. I also feel an instrument's body wood has an effect on the tone, as do the pickups and string type.

For my style, an alder body, maple neck, with a maple fingerboard, and nickel roundwounds require the least amount of EQing to get the sound that I prefer.

YMMV/IMO/IME