Hopkins
Commercial User
Until you find out that that wood is from a tree species that is in danger of being wiped out of existence because of how pretty and exotic its heart wood looks.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Let's clear one thing one and for all: Tonewood: Does it really matter?
- Thread starter MovingPitchers
- Start date
- Status
Until you find out that that wood is from a tree species that is in danger of being wiped out of existence because of how pretty and exotic its heart wood looks.
I'm no pro, but I've been around a while and have been playing for years, as well as absorbing information. My opinion is for a solid body electric instrument with magnetic pickups the wood doesn't make a lot of difference. For a wooden acoustic instrument, I could see the wood making a difference. The pickups transfer the energy from the vibrating metal strings. They either transfer more/less energy for more/less time. That's it as far as I can tell. I think it is all very psychological. Even the fingerboard wood. Maple looks harder and shinier, so it sounds harder and shinier.
Last edited:
They may have necks made of the same woods but that is not the same as having the same neck. Since the necks are made from different pieces of wood, the necks will not have identical characteristics even if the made of same species of tree. That introduces more variables to consider that can have a considerable influence on the final outcome.
Last edited:
Hopkins
Commercial User
Its not important for this test. I am trying to debunk the way "tonewoods" are described in advertisements. The tones advertised for the woods I am choosing are described as covering the spectrum from very warm to very bright, and right in the middle. These descriptions are quoted directly off of the Warmoth website.
Alder: "The tone is reputed to be most balanced with equal doses of lows, mids and highs."
Mahogany: "The tone is warm and full with good sustain"
Maple: "The tone is very bright with long sustain and a lot of bite"
So every guitar having a maple neck will still make this test valid, because I am trying to confirm or debunk the way these woods are advertised, using people that claim to have a very good ear and claim they can hear a difference between different species of body woods. I am not really aiming to test if there is actually a difference or not, I am testing if the descriptions of different woods are accurate and that people can actually hear the way certain species of wood sounds. It doesn't need to be very scientific.
Hopkins
Commercial User
If it's unheard of then chances are it's not endangered.
I am pretty sure that most people haven't heard of half of the woods on the endangered species list.
I have always wondered about quartersawn necks...I have always found them to have a very rich character with superb note articulation.
Any thoughts on these?
Any thoughts on these?
Great comparison coming up- thanks Hopkins: not everyone has the resources to do this.
If they're all going to be the 'same' necks, if there seems to be a validation of some sort as to body woods (I think there will be), could you then swap the necks for a further validation to see if you get the same results? Similar results with swapped necks should put it to rest for most people.
My take on tonewoods (did not read whole thread yet)
WHEN IT MATTERS:
Acoustic instruments - the volume is provided by vibrating strings and amped up by the wood top/inside resonance. Different woods resonate differently, more tonez.
Piezo pups: they capture vibration. Obviously from the body and the strings, and here, again, different woods would make different tones.
Where the difference is minimal:
Electric instruments: electromagnetic pups don't directly capture vibration, just string movement. The effect of the wood is on the strings, and is indirect and minimal.
Where it REALLY doesn't matter:
Your baseball bat doesn't have to sound pretty, just hit the ball.
WHEN IT MATTERS:
Acoustic instruments - the volume is provided by vibrating strings and amped up by the wood top/inside resonance. Different woods resonate differently, more tonez.
Piezo pups: they capture vibration. Obviously from the body and the strings, and here, again, different woods would make different tones.
Where the difference is minimal:
Electric instruments: electromagnetic pups don't directly capture vibration, just string movement. The effect of the wood is on the strings, and is indirect and minimal.
Where it REALLY doesn't matter:
Your baseball bat doesn't have to sound pretty, just hit the ball.
I, too, was skeptical about this image so I saved it and did a little copy and paste trick to try and debunk the claim that the two squares are the same shade. The result proved that they are the same!
Hop, I really like your approach on this and the results should be very telling. While your doing the test could you structure the the questions to something like...
Q: with your back to me and not seeing which instrument I'm playing do you hear a difference between instruments 1, 2, and 3 while I play them with all amp settings on neutral and with each instrument volume knob set at the same percent on? If you hear a difference please describe the difference ( i.e. tone, attack, sustain, etc.).
Q: now while you play each instrument unplugged, do you hear a difference between instruments 1, 2, and 3? If so please describe.
Q: now while you play each instrument with whatever amp settings you most frequently use, do you hear a difference? If so describe.
Q: Please adjust the tone, pickup, and volume settings on each instrument until it sounds best to you? Did you end up with the exact same settings on each instrument? If not, why?
Q: using the following wood tone descriptions (lifted from the Warmoth website) which instrument would you say is most likely mahogany, which one do you think is alder and which one is maple? Please indicate the degree of certainty with your selection of which instrument is which wood using a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most certain and 1 not being certain at all.
Now that would be an interesting test!
Actually, it is extremely important to this test. The first premise of any test is to isolate the variable under test or the test is meaningless. Introducing different necks immediately invalidates the test for body tone woods since the different necks introduce their own characteristic variables so any isolation of the variable under test is impossible.
If you want you can take those bodies and use the same neck on each body and record the results that may be more meaningful but only for the specific pieces you test. Still, the variables of setup, player technique and recording techniques must be tightly controlled to minimize the influence of those variables.
After all that, what have you got? Results from one particular body each of 3 different wood species. That's not s sufficient sample size to be meaningful. Any test does need to be more "scientific" than that.
I don't hold to the concept that the tone can be predicted with precise accuracy based on the species of wood used. Wood is an inherently very variable material so no two bodies made from the same species of wood have the same characteristics and precise predictability isn't possible, hence my "It's a crapshoot" sig. However, the wood is the primary structural component of the instrument so the characteristics of the wood will influence the vibration of the string and therefore the tone to a degree that depends on those characteristics, hence my "The timbre is in the timber" sig.
I'm all about the scientific method, and love the idea of this being quantified, but if using different necks of the same species of wood is a meaningful enough variable as to invalidate the data about the body tonewood, that seems nearly as good as saying it doesn't matter. If the variables need to be that tightly controlled to gain significant data, the data you're going to gain isn't going to be significant. This seems basically as good as saying it doesn't matter, or at the very least cannot be reliably predicted in any kind of useful way.
This all just seems very far removed form reality. We're debating something that can't be quantified, or replicated, or even commonly agreed to exist.
This all just seems very far removed form reality. We're debating something that can't be quantified, or replicated, or even commonly agreed to exist.
If wood doesn't matter then why do some 5 strings basses have great
low B strings and some don't. I've seen this with Music Man basses.
I'm using them as an example only because I can play at least a half
dozen 5's at my local store. Out of 6, 3 will have a good Low B. 2 will be excellent and one will be near perfect. You can clearly hear this plugged in AND unplugged!
If wood doesn't matter, than why does this occur?
My conclusion? They are likely right and wrong.
"Different" woods may not matter much in the grand
scheme of things, but any wood and a good bit of luck can
produce a better instrument than another identical one.
My two cents.
(PS: My SR5 has an excellent low B...)
low B strings and some don't. I've seen this with Music Man basses.
I'm using them as an example only because I can play at least a half
dozen 5's at my local store. Out of 6, 3 will have a good Low B. 2 will be excellent and one will be near perfect. You can clearly hear this plugged in AND unplugged!
If wood doesn't matter, than why does this occur?
My conclusion? They are likely right and wrong.
"Different" woods may not matter much in the grand
scheme of things, but any wood and a good bit of luck can
produce a better instrument than another identical one.
My two cents.
(PS: My SR5 has an excellent low B...)
Ironically, I've had almost exactly the opposite experience of this.
I have a Spector 5-string that I was enamoured with when I bought it, but became gradually more dissatisfied with it's low B
Then I got some fearfuls, and a bigger amp, and upgraded the HZs to 40PXs, and some Circle K strings, and now that low B thumps like an iron fist in a velvet glove while being as nimble as Ali's shuffle. Maybe this could be taken as proof that without the 'right' wood it takes a lot of compensating, but I take it as more evidence literally everything does more than the wood (whether the wood does something or not)
Edit: and seem to have written a love letter to all the things people get hated on for being fanboys of around here. TB made me like this.
Hopkins
Commercial User
Using different necks of the same wood actually supports this test, because what I am testing is the theory that wood species have unique tonal properties. So if this is true, necks made from the same material will sound similar enough that the differences in body woods should clearly present itself. Player technique doesn't matter, either because I am testing his/her ability to tell me what wood the body is made of. You are right that having a larger test sample, say 5 guitars made of each body wood would be better, but I am also not a rich man, and cant afford to sink that much money into it, and it would take a while to sell, 15 solid color Strats, even at cost to get my money back out of it.
Hopkins
Commercial User
You have some very good ideas, and yes I will absolutely implement some of them that I hadn't thought of. Especially with the neutral amp settings, and the settings they would normally use. The 1-10 description is also a great idea, but I also kind of want a definite answer. If everyone just says they are 5 out of 10 sure then the results will be very cloudy. Thanks for the input, the test is still a long way off, as I haven't even started building the bodies yet. I am thinking of putting an ad on craigslist, with the incentive that there will be a drawing after the test to give away one of the guitars. The other two will be offered for sale at cost to anyone else that was involved.
IME, necks definitely matter. On several occasions I've swapped different necks made of of the same materials on the same body and the tones varied quite a bit.
Player technique may be the largest but perhaps an easy variable to control. I know that how I play greatly influences the tone. I don't find keeping my playing technique relatively constant hard to do since it's practically the job title for bassists.
As far as sample size goes several hundred would give a better idea of any trends that may develop. But I seriously doubt that's ever going to happen.
So we're left with the personal experience of those playing the instruments. What doesn't matter to one player may matter greatly to another.
Last edited:
Just sit down with a few basses (all strung with the same fresh strings) - even better if you have access to basses with the same hardware and construction. Do you hear a difference ?
You could always compensate whatever (perceived or assumed) effect woods have on tone with stuff you put in the signal chain, therefore I'd rather chose based on feel.
Ultimately, whether or not wood has an effect on tone isn't even relevant when playing music. It just keeps Talkbass running.
You could always compensate whatever (perceived or assumed) effect woods have on tone with stuff you put in the signal chain, therefore I'd rather chose based on feel.
Ultimately, whether or not wood has an effect on tone isn't even relevant when playing music. It just keeps Talkbass running.
There are alot of variables that make up the tone of electric instruments. Electronics, pups, bridge, nut, construction all add some quality of tone to the build. I think that all parts contribute to the sound. Put a MM pups, hardware, and electronics in a MM copy and it will not sound the same as a MM.
- Status
