I think we should stop arguing about maple vs rosewood (see inside)

[rotero]

You have to remember though, the fingerboard may not be what is making your bass brighter, there are a lot of other components even if it is the same make, model, in even color.. no two basses are alike.

Totally agreed. They are in fact vastly different. (My maple is a G&L L-2000 and the rosewood is a Jazz, but my observations about brightness are with them unplugged, the pickup systems are another story) That is why I think the design and pickups have a larger role to play. But by larger I don't mean all consuming. There is no way a "cheap" bolt-on will sound anything like a high end "hippie-sandwich" of hard woods even if it has the same pickups.

My original thread (as well as my slightly smart ass response to Mr. Sadowsky) was to broaden the view of tone for any player who is overly concerned with the fingerboard. When you take into consideration the player, pickups, amp, etc. there will be factors that have more influence IMO than fingerboard. I did not mean to imply that all Alembics would sound alike or anything of the sort, just that there would be a bigger difference in your sound if you changed strings from rounds to flats (for example), or if you plugged into an Ampeg instead of an SWR, or if Jaco picked up your axe, than if you changed fingerboard wood.

Sadowsky is about as expert on one particular model as anyone on Earth. So, he is as close to a control group as you will ever get on this issue. If we limit this discussion (correctly) to the tone of the instrument...not the player or the amp or whatever...then I have no doubt he is 100% correct. He and his small team have hand-built hundreds (thousands?) of Jazz style basses using a carefully selected limited "palette" of woods. The guy obviously knows what he is talking about.

Again, you could say that the actual wooden portion of the instrument (which we, as users, cannot really change) is "finished" before the strings are put on. All of us players only get to know the instrument with strings and in the interaction with our hands and amp. The "before strings" aspect is something only a guy like Roger has mastery over so he trumps us all here and I'm sure he is correct.

I am starting my piggy bank to purchase one of his maple neck beauties tonight.

***One question I would like to ask Mr. Sadowsky: Are alder and ash fairly close in tone compared to bubinga, wenge and other heavier and apparently (to me) harder exotic woods? That is, would one of you instruments with a rosewood board sound more like an Alembic or a Warwick with a rosewood board or more like a Sadowsy with a maple board? I'm not trying to be contrary. I honestly want to know how far you take your assertion, which I trust is entirely true within your fine shop.

(I'm just throwing out "different style basses, I don't need someone to tell me Alembic doesn't make...blah..blah...)

 

[Moo]

Just food for thought but Wal basses claim the body top is THE way to control the tone of their basses, Alembic says the top is irrelevant. Neither has done any scientific testing at all. Both companies have fans who will swear that their way is right.

If I posted a clip does anyone think they could tell me what fingerboard it has? Or any of the wood specs.

 

[Moo]

Sadowsky is about as expert on one particular model as anyone on Earth. So, he is as close to a control group as you will ever get on this issue. If we limit this discussion (correctly) to the tone of the instrument...not the player or the amp or whatever...then I have no doubt he is 100% correct. He and his small team have hand-built hundreds (thousands?) of Jazz style basses using a carefully selected limited "palette" of woods. The guy obviously knows what he is talking about.

Sadowsky does not hand make basses. And to all the people who just got really mad that's not a slam, his basses are great, just not hand made. I actually prefer CNC to handmade but that's another thread

And even if Roger or whoever is the best luthier in the world that doesn't mean they are infallible. On the other hand they may even always be right but if we don't test the ability to hear these things without looking first it's just anecdotal.

I would love to hear about any scientific research into solidbody wood tones the likes of which we see for speakers or many other audio products. So many of our facts seem to be based on just looking.

 

[puff father]

Just food for thought but Wal basses claim the body top is THE way to control the tone of their basses, Alembic says the top is irrelevant.

Alembic goes to great lengths to isolate the strings from the rest of the bass. Brass nut, heavy brass tail piece, brass bridge mounted into a brass block..., I guess their idea is that the string should transmit as near to none of it's vibration to the guitar as possible. Just the movement of the string, the p'ups and the electronics is the whole sound. I wonder what their take on the subject of this thread would be? I mean, sooner or later you pretty much have to fret a note!

 

[Brad Johnson]

I think you would find that Roscoe Guitars also claims that fingerboards are a big part of the overall tone of one of their basses.

I've never A/B'd any basses to see if this is true. But whenever I have owned basses with rosewood, I always felt they lacked a certain snap and/or high-end bite. I always assumed that it was the fingerboard, but I guess it could be many other factors. Maybe they just needed MTD strings!

And that is what fingerboard woods CAN contribute to the sound.

If there's a consensus here that the effect of fb wood is negligible, it's news to me. It's always seemed to be the other way around.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Double ditto. The Harmonic Design link above mentions a test where listeners couldn't tell the difference between fingerboards, but offers no real details.

I'm aware of absolutely no scientific testing on this subject. Testing would be so ridiculously complex as to be impossible on a casual basis. Firstly, any real testing must be double blind. If the listener can see the fingerboards being A/B'd, or can determine what they are from touch or any other way, then the test is worthless. Secondly, you have to set up a situation where only the fingerboards are changed. You can't just swap bolt-on necks, because the non-fingerboard neck wood may sound different even if it's made from the same species. Ken Smith mentioned here that he made identical basses from wood taken from the same planks, and they sounded different.

Has anyone else noticed they're talking about guitars and not basses?

There's a difference between the instruments.

Marcus Miller style slap is where the fb differences can become very obvious on a BASS. If you're not doing something similiar you may not notice a difference.

 

[Brad Johnson]

It strikes me that most maple fingerboards that I've seen have been finished along with the rest of the neck. Seems that I read somewhere that maple has to be finished to prevent warping.

OTOH, it seems that the majority of rosewood and ebony boards I've experienced have been unfinished.

I've taken the clear finish off of the board of fretless bass some years ago (it was too sticky), and it had a dramatic effect on the sound. The instrument lost a lot of it's "sheen". It makes me wonder whether added clear finish could affect sound of maple as to make it brighter, even on a fretted instrument.

Check out Elricks.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Except on fretless my strings never touch wood. They touch these metal things called "frets"...

No doubt you meant "fretted".

 

[Brad Johnson]

Yes, but how is it that you believe the fingerboard is responsible for the difference in tone?

Here's my favorite example: I own two Roscoe Beck V basses, both with serial numbers indicating 1997. Both have slightly flamed maple necks. These basses are identical in construction and materials. The only difference aside from a few small dings on one of them is the paint: one is shoreline gold, and the other is teal metallic. The gold one has noticeably brighter tone than the blue one, even when both are freshly strung with the same strings.

So: because the only difference is the paint, we must logically conclude that gold metallic paint imparts brighter tone than teal metallic paint. Or maybe not. Most if not all of us would disagree with this logic. What else could be responsible? Well, maybe it's the fact that wood is inconsistent in tonal response. One piece of alder will sound different than another... same is true for the maple used in the neck.

My alder/maple Sadowsky P5 is bright and snappy and sounds great for slapstyle. My ash/rosewood Lull P5 was bright and snappy and sounded great for slap. I could list more examples, but a bigger point is that small anecdotal samples such as this are not scientifically valid in any way because of the point made above: the natural variation of wood even within the same species. All the tap-testing in the world isn't going to eliminate that inconsistency.

What's that edict... "just because one thing is true doesn't mean another isn't"?



BTW sounding great or sounding identical... which was it with the Sadowsky and Lull?

 

[Brad Johnson]

What if it this is all just related to mass. Can we all agree that a bass with more mass will be brighter? I guess that would be the selling point for those hefty bridges such as BAII, etc. Which fingerboard would have more mass? A maple or rosewood?

</post-fest>

No. Sorry.

 

[Marlat]

Just food for thought but Wal basses claim the body top is THE way to control the tone of their basses, Alembic says the top is irrelevant. Neither has done any scientific testing at all. Both companies have fans who will swear that their way is right.

If I posted a clip does anyone think they could tell me what fingerboard it has? Or any of the wood specs.

No, but that wouldn't really address the issue at all, would it?

Now if you posted two clips of basses that were identical except in their fingerboard wood, played exactly the same way by exactly the same player and asked the same question, you might get a meaningful response.

 

[Pennydreadful]

No doubt you meant "fretted".

He said it right. Except on fretless (meaning, when playing fretted) the strings never touch wood.

 

[Brad Johnson]

He said it right. Except on fretless (meaning, when playing fretted) the strings never touch wood.

Except on fretless, (COMMA) my strings never touch wood. They touch these metal things called "frets"...


Kind of changes the meaning, doesn't it?

 

[Moo]

No, but that wouldn't really address the issue at all, would it?

Being able to hear the difference in the woods doesn't address the issue of the woods having different tones??? If you say so

 

[SundanceChile]

Wow, a potential mega thread over an argument that was spawned over NOT having an argument. Only at TB folks.

 

[Marlat]

Being able to hear the difference in the woods doesn't address the issue of the woods having different tones??? If you say so

Hey, you're really good at this. How about you show me where I said that.

That certainly wasn't what you said or implied in your post which I was repsonding to. Here's your quote (in case you forgot):

If I posted a clip does anyone think they could tell me what fingerboard it has? Or any of the wood specs.

Following your logic, the fact that I cannot name two different notes played means I am not qualified to talk about whether there is a different between the two notes. That simply doesn't follow. The correct question in this case is not "what are the notes" (which is what you asked in your post) - but "can you hear a difference" (which is what I asked). Please re-read the posts, I am sure it will become quite clear to you

Now, I can hear the difference between two random samples of basses being played. It does not follow that I can identify the specific fingerboard that is on the bass, nor any of the other wood specs. Which is what you posted. That does not mean that there is no audible difference.

 

[Moo]

Is there a smiley for trolling? Could you use it?

Unbunch your panties and welcome to the world were people ask questions. It will be rough but with that chip on your shoulder and your great sense of pride you'll get through it.

I'm still sticking by my statement that being able to tell the difference is relevant to the question of if there's a difference. One could follow with if you can't tell the difference is it really important? I'm okay that you disagree. But the trolling is lame, please keep your issues from the other threads out of this thread. Thanks.

Notice in your quote I just asked the question, you deciding I was making a statement and what that statement was is your issue and reading error. Please don't deal with that in this thread. Thanks again

 

[Marlat]

I'm still sticking by my statement that being able to tell the difference is relevant to the question of if there's a difference.

I agree. However in your post, you implied that I said that "being able to hear the difference in the woods doesn't address the issue of the woods having different tones". With the expression "if you say so". Again, please point me to where I said that.

This may help. Go and reread your question posted and my response to it.

If I posted a clip does anyone think they could tell me what fingerboard it has? Or any of the wood specs.

No, but that wouldn't really address the issue at all, would it?

Now if you posted two clips of basses that were identical except in their fingerboard wood, played exactly the same way by exactly the same player and asked the same question, you might get a meaningful response.

Being able to hear the difference in the woods doesn't address the issue of the woods having different tones??? If you say so

Your point about being able to hear the difference in the woods doesn't flow from your orginal question, which was targetted not at hearing a difference, but in identifying the woods or the wood specs. That is what I was pointing out in my response to your post. Not that hearing a difference doesn't address the issue. I thought that would be clear from my rephrased version of your question. Maybe you missed that part.

Perhaps you just used language poorly in phrasing your original question. I don't know. In any event, the rest of your post is hyperbole and grandstanding - I am not going to engage you on that sort of level.

 

[Moo]

Whatever you say boss.