I have a theory about maple fingerboards

[srxplayer]

I have a theory too:

Somebody wanted to build a bass neck cheaper. By not adding a Rosewood fret board they could save money on materials and labor. When finished, it happened to look really good and played well and the people liked and thought it was good and so it became the norm.

I'm glad somebody did that because I prefer the look of the maple fretboard. I can't tell the difference tonewise between the rosewood and maple.

 

[onosson]

To add a little fuel to the fire ... how about differences in sustain and "feel"? I think they exist, but maybe I won't say which way, yet...

 

[TMart99]

Thanks. One down, nine to go. I wish people would just guess, but only if they really think it's one or the other, not if you haven't a clue. It's fun!

Honestly, I couldn't care less what everyone uses or prefers. That's all personal preference and I believe everyone has right to choose and use what ever they want; based on what ever reasons they have, what ever reasons their hands can feel, what ever differences their own ears hear or can conjure up.

My preferences for Maple or Rosewood are based on feel and playability; as well as tone. Some Maple fingerboards, on some guitars feel right to me. Other maple fingerboards do not.

Some Rosewood fingerboards feel just right for me, while other Rosewood fingerboards do not.

It's all about the individual instrument itself and it's whole construction, parts and design.

I do believe some woods, on certain instruments, do contribute and help deliver a certain tone that I love.

There's no doubt to my own personal ears that good Cedar, good Rosewood and good Mahogony, used on acoustic instruments, deliver warmer....more musically satisfying tones. And I believe it contributes to an electric instruments overall tone, too. I couldn't care less who disagrees with me.

I believe all aspects of the chain of an electric instrument contribute to the overall tone. Everyone knows you can just roll back or roll up your tone controls on your amp and guitar. That's no newsflash. But there is a difference between tones on different instruments, when you roll back the treble or roll up the treble.

I hear a difference in unplugged electric basses and guitars, when played without being plugged in/connected.

If I'm imagining that, then, so be it. I'm happy to have an over-active imagination.

Creative people/artists often do have wonderously active imaginations, more imaginative ears for tone and more eccentric concepts and habits. Whether there's really a difference is of no concern.

This is all about the passion, love and beauty of music and creativity.

Often, it is these eccentric dispositions that help fuel or pave the way to their creativity.

And that's all that matters.

 

[nostatic]

Man, are you a professional photographer?! That is some of the best photography I've ever seen in my life. You have a lot of talent!

Thanks. It is mostly a hobby, but I occasionally have to shoot stuff for work. Funny because 2010 was supposed to be my year to get my photo book organized and published, but instead I swung back into high gear on the music front. I've found there is a conservation of creative juices, and if I'm doing one, I have a tough time doing much of the other.

Back to the original thread, rosewood rules, maple drools!

 

[VinKreepo]

Back to the original thread, rosewood rules, maple drools!

+1

Rosewood is so much more... ballsy.

 

[VinKreepo]

Sooo... we are fighting about the difference between this...

Link Removed

... and this?

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[FretlessMainly]

I have a theory about maple fingerboards- while maybe not as warm as rosewood, it allows the tone of the bass to "breathe" more.

The inherent problem with this statement is that rosewood fingerboards are often not laquered or varnished and maple boards generally always are because maple oxidizes to an ugly grey otherwise. Which wood "breathes" more in that case?

 

[TMart99]

Sooo... we are fighting about the difference between this...

Link Removed

... and this?

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Hahaa

The truth is, I like both Rosewood and Maple fingerboards on different basses. I get different feels from them and I like to use them for different purposes.

If it's all in my head because there's no scientific evidence to support one or the other, I'm more than happy to have it all in my head and guiding my creative flow.



One thing that occured to me. I see a lot of guys here play in religious-music based bands or for churches. Which is cool.

But I wonder how many of these vocal Rosewood/Maple scientific detractors, are religiously inclined. Makes wonder.

 

[39-Bassist]

This is nice in theory but don't forget body woods also make the tones different sounding..but I'm sure someone else has beat me to this statement.

 

[VinKreepo]

Hahaa

The truth is, I like both Rosewood and Maple fingerboards on different basses. I get different feels from them and I like to use them for different purposes.

If it's all in my head because there's no scientific evidence to support one or the other, I'm more than happy to have it all in my head and guiding my creative flow.



One thing that occured to me. I see a lot of guys here play in religious-music based bands or for churches. Which is cool.

But I wonder how many of these vocal Rosewood/Maple scientific detractors, are religiously inclined. Makes wonder.

If you are saying that religious people cannot be scientific that is a highly offensive and certainly a wrong statement. Science is the process of observing and making a hypothesis and then running a test(s) with a control and variables and then more observing then making a conclusion. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs and practices held by a group of people.

Anyways, I said "if you are"... not saying you are, but just making sure.

P.S. People who don't believe in MACRO-evolution can be scientific... MACRO-evolution is a theory as is Creationism (or any form of "hey, this (insert a god or gods] made the earth"). Neither is relative fact or law because no one has ever witnessed either one.

 

[Rush-2112]

♫ There is trouble in the forest, and the creatures all have fled. As the maples scream "Oppression!" And the oaks just shake their heads...

 

[TMart99]

♫ There is trouble in the forest, and the creatures all have fled. As the maples scream "Oppression!" And the oaks just shake their heads...

And what of the Rosewoods? Sure, ignore the [light of the Rosewoods. It's always the Maples and always the Oaks......Maples...Maples...Maples ....Oaks...Oaks...Oaks...

Poor little Rosewoods. Always ignored, so neglected..




Love that Rush tune.

 

[TMart99]

If you are saying that religious people cannot be scientific that is a highly offensive and certainly a wrong statement. Science is the process of observing and making a hypothesis and then running a test(s) with a control and variables and then more observing then making a conclusion. Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs and practices held by a group of people.

Anyways, I said "if you are"... not saying you are, but just making sure.

P.S. People who don't believe in MACRO-evolution can be scientific... MACRO-evolution is a theory as is Creationism (or any form of "hey, this (insert a god or gods] made the earth"). Neither is relative fact or law because no one has ever witnessed either one.

What I was saying.....I would hope people who are open-minded enough to believe in a Religion/God, would be equally open-minded enough to hold judgement on something like tone woods.

As for religious people, the problems always start when they insist on imposing and instilling their faith and spiritual beliefs and practices....as definitive fact. That's where all the problems always start.

 

[VinKreepo]

What I was saying.....I would hope people who are open-minded enough to believe in a Religion/God, would be equally open-minded enough to hold judgement on something like tone woods.

As for religious people, the problems always start when they insist on imposing and instilling their faith and spiritual beliefs and practices....as definitive fact. That's where all the problems always start.

Ah gotcha!

And yes, I agree. I'm a big time Christian and pray alot, especially during the holiday season, but I don't push my religion. If someone is intrigued by my Christianity and asks I'll answer their questions, but I don't believe in pushing people towards Christ/God. Many Christians will not let people make religious choices for themselves... someone choosing God out of pressure is not choosing God, but rather choosing to get some Biblethumper off his or her back.

People should be free to make their own choices.

And hence... I choose dark woods : D rosewood, ebony, mahogany, walnut, etc.

Stupid light woods... maple, ash, alder, etc.

 

[Chasarms]

. . . the problems always start when they insist on imposing and instilling their faith and spiritual beliefs and practices....as definitive fact. That's where all the problems always start.

Therein lies the conflict, doesn't it?

If I don't hold my beliefs as "definitive fact," them there is really no substance to my faith at all.

 

[Aspidites]

I have a theory about maple fingerboards- while maybe not as warm as rosewood, it allows the tone of the bass to "breathe" more. Thus, allowing the more subtle nuances of the bass to come through. It can always be dulled down by turning the tone knob down. Thoughts?

Is there any empirical data to back up your hypothesis? It is not a theory, a theory is a method of describing related groups of facts.


P.S. Yes I know the above is anal retentive but the incorrect usage of the term theory is one of my pet peeves.

 

[Aspidites]

Kwesi, we did a study in 1998 at Miami University on sound waves through solid objects. (wood, metal, plastic, etc...) It is proven somewhere in research papers at the library.(but then again, that's just one study)

While there may be supporting evidence for something there is no such thing as proof outside of mathematics and distilled spirits.

 

[Brad Johnson]

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

The neck and fingerboard still vibrate so yes there can.

 

[plangentmusic]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but it's pretty obvious that maple necks need to be varnished. It wears more easily than rosewood.

It's the varnish that add brightness.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I've been seriously considering this as well. I believe that every part of a bass can affect the tone but it's a matter of degrees and not nearly as blatant as so many seem to suggest. Nothing can be completely discredited but by the same token nothing can be absolutely proven. Keep in mind none of the wood on a bass ever comes into direct contact with the strings unless the bass is fretless and even then it's only the fingerboard not the body or neck woods.

Put shortly, I think that all wood in a bass affects the tone of a bass but I think that considering the comparatively small quantity of fingerboard wood to the neck or body it doesn't have as large an effect as so many seem to believe.

Despite it's closer proximity to the strings?