I have a theory about maple fingerboards

[Brad Johnson]

I can't hear a difference, and if you do, I think you're just tricking yourself.

Maple looks so much better imo. thats my theory.

Because you can't hear a difference...?

 

[dj150888]

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.

Hardly the place for a religious debate. I'm firmly of the belief that a persons religious background is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Brad Johnson]

it definitely is for those that can't hear it.

 

[dj150888]

Because you can't hear a difference...?

Are the differences measurable and consistently repeatable? Because if they're not, you can't hear them either!

That was a genuine question. Are they measureable/repeatable? Anyone got any real, hard data to back it up? Otherwise its all speculation which is open to bias effects.

 

[TMart99]

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.

Therein lies the rub. You have every right to believe what you want to believe as being definitive fact. And I would fight to support your right to do so.

But when that believe comes out of your head, your heart and your personal inner-spirituality and people try to insist, impose, bully and force their faith/spiritual beliefs (in the form of definitive fact and truth) onto others and into public law; they have crossed the line and violated of the personal freedom of others.

 

[joeyl]

Do I hear a difference or did I convince myself there is one after reading so many threads on TB from various people, that is the question.

 

[dj150888]

And the answer is carrots!

 

[Brad Johnson]

The King is in his altogether and altogether it's altogether the......

Basses will sound different for all sorts of different reason and, in my humble experience, any subleties between maple and rosewood boards are insignificant compared to a gentle nudge of eq.

They're not insignificant to me. I listen to what I play.

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.

And if you don't gig under those circumstances?

I can't imagine that I would ever find myself doing a sound check trying to get a great sound to underpin a loud Les Paul and a snarling SG in a difficult room and find myself sobbing "oh damn, I wish I'd bought my bass with the maple fingerboard instead of this rosewood one"

More to the point, most of the audience won't even be able to pick out the bass in the mix at all, but even if they can they probably won't be able to tell a graphite necked multiscale bass with Q tuners and stainless roundwounds from an EBO with nylon tapewounds. The only people that might will be other bass players and they'll only be bitching about how your tone is vastly inferior to theirs anyway.

Somehow I knew that the audience can't tell thing would rear it's hoary head yet again. That always made about as much sense to me as playing like crap when you think the audience is largely drunk/high.

If I played based on what I thought the audience could percieve I'd quit performing live.

 

[TMart99]

Hardly the place for a religious debate. I'm firmly of the belief that a persons religious background is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You have the right to that opinion and that belief.

I for one feel it is relevent when people so stringently criticize, ridicule and dismiss those who believe tone woods do make a contribution to tone.

We don't have instruments sophisticated enough to detect, evaluate, analyze, identify and differentiate the different contributing elements to overall tone and their sources. So we don't know exactly how much wood tone-based elements the pickups are transmitting. One thing for sure, pickups do capture some.

 

[Aspidites]

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.

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.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Are the differences measurable and consistently repeatable? Because if they're not, you can't hear them either!

Yes they are. But who measures EVERYTHING about a musical performance?

That was a genuine question. Are they measureable/repeatable? Anyone got any real, hard data to back it up? Otherwise its all speculation which is open to bias effects.

It can also be experience. I don't spoeculate that one bass vibrates against my chest much more than another, I experience it. Does that show up on a CD? No... which by your logic means it doesn't happen or matter.

There are also playing styles/techniques that can make the differences in woods more obvious than others. That's not speculation either.

If someone tells me they hear no difference in their experience I don't doubt them... they probably don't. OTOH to assume that everyone else is blessed with the same ear is a tad presumptuous. One can learn to listen more critically.

 

[Ryan_B]

+1

The difference is subtle. I notice a slight shift in dynamic reciprocity around the upper-mid-high range.

Can you explain what "dynamic reciprocity" is and how it "shifts," please??

 

[dj150888]

You have the right to that opinion and that belief.

I for one feel it is relevent when people so stringently criticize, ridicule and dismiss those who believe tone woods do make a contribution to tone.

We don't have instruments sophisticated enough to detect, evaluate, analyze, identify and differentiate the different contributing elements to overall tone and their sources. So we don't know exactly how much wood tone-based elements the pickups are transmitting. One thing for sure, pickups do capture some.

Ah now, the old snake-oil salesman's trick of , "we don't have precise enough instruments". The instruments used for testing these things are a lot more sensitive than our ears. If it can't be measured consistently on the technology we have available today, then your ear sure as hell won't be able to consistently tell the difference.

Now I'm not saying that the differences can't be measured, my statement is only relevant IF they can't be measured.

And religious faith is still totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. There are plenty of people out there with and without religious faith who believe the fingerboard wood affects tone, there are plenty of people with and without religious faith who believe it doesn't. There may be a correlation in the percentages of each, but they are still largely completely irrelevant.

 

[dj150888]

Yes they are. But who measures EVERYTHING about a musical performance?




It can also be experience. I don't spoeculate that one bass vibrates against my chest much more than another, I experience it. Does that show up on a CD? No... which by your logic means it doesn't happen or matter.

There are also playing styles/techniques that can make the differences in woods more obvious than others. That's not speculation either.

If someone tells me they hear no difference in their experience I don't doubt them... they probably don't. OTOH to assume that everyone else is blessed with the same ear is a tad presumptuous. One can learn to listen more critically.

Who measures everything about a musical performance? Not I for sure. Whether I do or don't measure it doesn't detract from whether its POSSIBLE to measure it or not though.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with the bass vibrating against your chest and it not showing up on CD, but yes, the vibration of a bass on your chest would be measureable XD

I, for one, haven't played the hundreds of instruments that would be necessary to realistically see if there is a correlation between the fingerboard woods and tone from personal experience, which is why I'd like to see real, non-anecdotal evidence, which is distinctly lacking at the minute.

I'm not outright dismissing the possibility of differences, I'm just trying to get to some real science behind the differences.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Having seen a bunch of "Guess which one is <choice A> and which is <choice B>" threads here and on various recording websites, I'm thoroughly convinced that the VAST majority of people VASTLY overestimate their ability to identify which is which. It's always fun seeing them guarantee they can identify which is maple/rosewood, or P/J, or HiBeam/Roto, etc.. but the real fun is watching all the excuses come out after they're proven wrong when the OP reveals the correct answers.

Can people hear a difference between two samples? Ahhh, that's a VERY different question. Yes, I believe it's much easier to hear differneces between the samples in these tests (as in, "I prefer sample B to sample A because ..."), but that's rarely the question asked. The question that is almost always asked in these tests is "Can you identify which is which - CONSISTENTLY?" And from what I've seen, these tests show pretty consistently that people generally do no better than if they merely guessed.

(* putting flame-retardant suit on...*)

I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel on a recording of someone else playing a bass. By the same token I do not play samples like that on gigs. I play actual basses myself and in that light I do hear differences.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Who measures everything about a musical performance? Not I for sure. Whether I do or don't measure it doesn't detract from whether its POSSIBLE to measure it or not though.

The point is a pretty basic one... do you think a recording captures EVERYTHING about a live musical performance and that when played back will give the same?

I don't. But I'm not going to say that what I don't hear in the recording never existed live. Make sense?

Maybe you don't realize that what you quoted from me was in response to the idea that because one person couldn't tell the difference he proclaimed: "and if you do, I think you're just tricking yourself".

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with the bass vibrating against your chest and it not showing up on CD, but yes, the vibration of a bass on your chest would be measureable XD

Love to see the measurements then... regale us.

I, for one, haven't played the hundreds of instruments that would be necessary to realistically see if there is a correlation between the fingerboard woods and tone from personal experience, which is why I'd like to see real, non-anecdotal evidence, which is distinctly lacking at the minute.

I, for one, have...and in all seriousness, believe whatever you need to believe. You want the experience done for you. I've found little value in that because the only person that plays like you, that hears like you and likes what you do is you.


Just curious.. if you got scientific proof that a component of an instrument did or did not affect something in the study, what would that do for you? Would it become an across the board edict to be followed? Would it reinforce what you already thought you know or destroy it?

This stuff is clearly important to be a non factor or at most an overwhelmingly unimportant one to many people AND they seem to need it to be the same for everyone else.

I'm not outright dismissing the possibility of differences, I'm just trying to get to some real science behind the differences.

I'm a musician... I'll take real actual experience over someone's idea of real science any day. I do stuff that defies their idea of science on a regular basis.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ah now, the old snake-oil salesman's trick of , "we don't have precise enough instruments". The instruments used for testing these things are a lot more sensitive than our ears. If it can't be measured consistently on the technology we have available today, then your ear sure as hell won't be able to consistently tell the difference.

So who has done the testing you've described?

So much for snake oil.


Alot more sensitive than our ears? In some respects yes but I'd bet in others, no. The human brain might be more capable than you give credit.

Now I'm not saying that the differences can't be measured, my statement is only relevant IF they can't be measured.

And religious faith is still totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. There are plenty of people out there with and without religious faith who believe the fingerboard wood affects tone, there are plenty of people with and without religious faith who believe it doesn't. There may be a correlation in the percentages of each, but they are still largely completely irrelevant.

 

[Fuzzbass]

And the answer is carrots!

Finally. Thank you!

 

[VinKreepo]

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.

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.

I think TMart99 means it wrong to push those beliefs and practices on others. For instance, the Crusades or Islamic Holy Wars... those are drastic examples, but examples nonetheless.

Do I believe God is real? Yep. Do I believe being an awesome Hindu will get you to heaven? Nope. Do I believe all kids should take part in a school prayer? No... but I do believe kids should be able to pray when and if they feel like it... not necessarily loudly and absurdly, but in a manner that respects the space of others.

I just realized I've never seen an upright acoustic bass with a maple fretboard...

 

[dj150888]

The point is a pretty basic one... do you think a recording captures EVERYTHING about a live musical performance and that when played back will give the same?

Your straw man isn't needed here. But what the hell, I've got a spare few minutes, so I'll humour you. No, I don't think a recording captures everything about a live performance. A recording doesn't place you shoulder to shoulder with people, a recording probably wont have the fidelity to totally accurately reproduce the extreme frequencies in a live environment. Watching the recording will probably be at a different volume too!

But guess what? These things are measureable. I can hear them too

I don't. But I'm not going to say that what I don't hear in the recording never existed live. Make sense?



Love to see the measurements then... regale us.

So now you're claiming you can feel vibrations, yet these vibrations are totally unmeasureable? I'd take a bet they're probably related to the frequency of the note you're playing. Those vibrations are spreading all through the room too, you just happen to be in direct contact with the plank they're resonating through

I, for one, have...and in all seriousness, believe whatever you need to believe. You want the experience done for you. I've found little value in that because the only person that plays like you, that hears like you and likes what you do is you.


Just curious.. if you got scientific proof that a component of an instrument did or did not affect something in the study, what would that do for you? Would it become an across the board edict to be followed? Would it reinforce what you already thought you know or destroy it?

Its science, we're not dealing in proof, we're dealing in evidence. But if insurmountable evidence was provided, for me, it would satisfy a curiosity to know and understand things. Thats why we science folk do what we do. It wouldn't change my day to day life in the slightest. But if this evidence was provided, I'd immediately start questioning WHY the fingerboard is causing the difference. Some of us just aren't satisfied with being told its voodoo causing these things to happen. If you are, fair enough.

This stuff is clearly important to be a non factor or at most an overwhelmingly unimportant one to many people AND they seem to need it to be the same for everyone else.

You're the only person claiming absolutes here. I'm asking questions, not trying to persuade anyone.

I'm a musician... I'll take real actual experience over someone's idea of real science any day. I do stuff that defies their idea of science on a regular basis.

You obviously have a flawed understanding about what science is. I'd love to hear an example of something you do on a regular basis that defies all science. Science isn't one persons incomplete knowledge of a topic, its a concept. Whether we've got a working theory for something yet or not, you're not defying science. You're defying some peoples attempt to explain. It doesn't undermine the concept at all. If we all took your voodoo attitude, you wouldn't have those fancy amplifiers you're playing through, a shiny computer to type on, nice medicines to treat your ills and a thousand other things.

So who has done the testing you've described?

So much for snake oil.

Go back and read my statement again, at no stage was I referring to specific testing in the post you've quoted, I was referring to specific equipment and the detail it can pick up.