• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

I have a theory about maple fingerboards

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know how you guys can possibly hear the difference, when you are still using those *ordinary* patch cables.

Know what I mean?

I like the way maple looks, and feels... the glossy fretboard coating maybe? Maybe it's because the back of the neck and fretboard feel the same? I like maple because it's what I'm used to.
 
i didn't see a single response saying that there were "MASSIVE" differences, but if you're one of those can't tell the difference, then there isn't one (to you). ;)

Ahh, very clever, ignore my entire post apart from one word to avoid the actual point of it.

Ok, lets try again without the word that you have such a problem with -

"I find it funny that of all the people so adamant that there are differences between rosewood and maple fretboards that even the people on that side of the argument can't agree on what the difference is. You've got people claiming that the maple is brighter, or more crisp, then you've got other people claiming its warmer, with more mids."

Now you can astonish me with a spectacular rebuttal about how your ears are vastly superior to everyone elses, point out a pedantic error that is irrelevant to the actual point I made, or you know, just actually address the genuine point I was making?

Edit - for the record

Without my knowing it he played the rosewood Strat first and I loved what I heard. I'll tell ya, as soon as he played the all maple neck Strat I knew right away what it was...but I still kept my back turned. I bought the rosewood one. Had a nice warmth to it. Strat tone all the way but not ice-picky.

My bass, with the same strings, was much snappier than my Dad's. He was always used to maple neck basses and it was the first thing he pointed out when I got mine.

The maple is more "nasal" and maybe a tad brighter. The rosewood is more "muh", thicker girth to the tone. I've swapped necks on both P and J basses and ALWAYS hear a difference. The proof is whenever I go to play straight ahead jazz or OLD school R&B, it's ROSEWOOD I go for ALL THE TIME! The Maple just comes off as having a tad too much "edge" and not enough mid "thickness".
There, I said it

When he did the AB test with toward the end, it was like panning a filter knob back and forth

mine sounded more growly and punchy and the one with the rosewood board sounded clankier and duller so imo wood plays a big part in the sound of a bass

First three pages, all of those imply a less than subtle difference. Perhaps you could argue that "massive" is a slightly strong word, but all of these people have stated a very obvious, easy to hear difference. If its obvious and easy to hear, I'd say its a massive difference alright.
 
"I find it funny that of all the people so adamant that there are differences between rosewood and maple fretboards that even the people on that side of the argument can't agree on what the difference is. You've got people claiming that the maple is brighter, or more crisp, then you've got other people claiming its warmer, with more mids."

Different basses sound different, even basses off the same production line using the exact same materials and processes.

There are several structural components to an instrument and they can all contribute to the differences in tone we hear. However, the components themselves are so variable that trying to say a particular characteristic is unequivocally the result of a specific structural component is simply not going to work.
 
AYou've got people claiming that the maple is brighter, or more crisp, then you've got other people claiming its warmer, with more mids."

fwiw I rarely hear people talking about maple being warmer with more mids relative to rosewood.

People can always find exceptions. Back to my danger in generalizing from n=1 (or more accurately for some on TB, n=0). But in general, all other things being equal, I have to agree with most builders who will maintain that maple tends to be brighter/snappier and rosewood tends to be warmer. The different is subtle (as opposed to MASSIVE), but I think I can hear it.

In the end, I don't really care as long as the instrument speaks to me and works in the application. That's another problem on TB - you have some people pontificating on tone from their bedrooms. Some (many?) here don't gig (but they do a lot of reading and calculations). And that's ok...but commenting from experience requires having some actual experience.

For my tone goals, and the groups I play with, I have yet to find a maple fretboard bass that I like. Now either that means I'm brainwashed (could be), or that there is something about the inherent tone that doesn't speak to me. I'm willing to say in my case it is a little from column A, a little from column B.
 
In the end, I don't really care as long as the instrument speaks to me and works in the application. That's another problem on TB - you have some people pontificating on tone from their bedrooms. Some (many?) here don't gig (but they do a lot of reading and calculations). And that's ok...but commenting from experience requires having some actual experience.

I'd like to comment further but I have to head out to my 3rd gig this week. I'll be using 2 of the many instruments I've spec'd and assembled myself.
 
Now you can astonish me with a spectacular rebuttal about how your ears are vastly superior to everyone elses, point out a pedantic error that is irrelevant to the actual point I made, or you know, just actually address the genuine point I was making?

as a matter of fact, i do happen to have extremely good ears. :D

i agree that some say that maple necks are brighter while others say that they're not, which adds to the confusion and can tend to make people think that there is no difference, but after building 100's and 100's of basses since 1973, i can definitely hear it, and to me it's more resonant and slightly brighter. IME, it's not enough to make one 'better' than the other, so when building a bass for someone, i always recommend that one chooses by the 'feel' of having a gloss finished fingerboard, or even the looks and not the tone.
 
as a matter of fact, i do happen to have extremely good ears. :D

i agree that some say that maple necks are brighter while others say that they're not, which adds to the confusion and can tend to make people think that there is no difference, but after building 100's and 100's of basses since 1973, i can definitely hear it, and to me it's more resonant and slightly brighter.

I can also definitley hear it and my experience with my many builds and countless repairs tells me it's really a crapshoot.

Adios, gig time.
 
I'd like to think my own ears are pretty good at picking up subtle nuances, but I'm also pretty open to the idea that we tend to hear maple as that tiny bit brighter because the statement has been made so many times, that we expect to hear it. Psychoacoustics, the power of suggestion and so on and so forth.

Is there a difference? I don't know. If there is, its not nearly significant enough to be a consideration when I buy an instrument.
 
Someone smarter than me said this once:

"This is my opinion, based on building over 4000 NYC basses during the last 30 years. From brightest to warmest.

Maple---tightest and brightest. best for slap. can produce more string and fret noise than others. Requires a finish to keep from turning dirty and grey.

Ebony--not as bright as maple. most immediate attack and punch of all our fingerboard woods. Note is more fundamental and less overtones. Best for fretless.

Morado Also known as Caviuna, Bolivian Rosewood or Pau Ferro. Although not a "true" rosewood, I have been a fan of this wood for fingerboards for 30 years. Also used a lot by Stu Spector. Grain is very tight and smooth. More warmth than maple or ebony, but tighter than East Indian Rosewood. Excellent wear resistance, even on a fretless. For fretless, produces a somewhat more "acoustic/upright tone than ebony.

Madagascar Rosewood A less expensive alternative to Brazilian Rosewood. Many boards have the spider-web like grain of Brazilian. Rich reddish brown colors. Can be more open grained that some others. Tone is the same ballpark as Morado and Brazilian.

Brazilian Rosewood For me, the King of tonewoods for fingerboards and acoustic guitar sides and backs. Beautiful browns and blacks. Wood has very high oil content. Banned from export out of Brazil in log form since 1969. Currently protected by the CITES treaty which prevents shipment between countries without intensive permits. Same treaty that protects tortoise shell and ivory.

I personally believe, IMHO opinion, that all things being equal, the fingerboard can have a bigger influence on the tone of the bass than the body wood."

Roger Sadowsky

-Just sayin'.
 
The King is in his altogether and altogether it's altogether the......
"Even if these subtleties could battle their way through an entire signal chain, I can tell you now that there is not one person on this forum who would be able to tell the difference in a gig situation competing with a loud drummer and a couple of Marshall half stacks."


I just love the "absolutes" you guys toss around, and we don't all play with loud drummers and Marshall Stacks.
We're talking about the "acoustic characteristics" of different fretboard woods. What gets amplified is what your instrument produces acoustically. Sure, electronics alter that but cannot CHANGE the sonic acoustic "footprint" of your bass.

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.


Johnk 10 said:
if that were the case, then why even bother having a bass that inherently has the tone that you want in the first place?

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.