Let's clear one thing one and for all: Tonewood: Does it really matter?

[Hopkins]

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.

It would matter if I were trying to test the frequency response of the instrument on a scope, but in that situation everything would matter, including using the exact same electronics and hardware, and strings, and the pickup height and setup would have to be within a few thousands of each other. My test is human perception of sound, and the accuracy of the way woods are advertised. If the absolutes used to describe the sonic attributions of body wood are true, then they should be present even if there are slight differences in the neck wood. Setups will be carefully measured so each guitar plays the same, and the pickups will be at the same height. I will also test each pot on my multimeter to make sure the resistance is the same for each pot.

 

[Hopkins]

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.

If the pickup location is in the same spot, its the same scale length, and a MM pickup and preamp are used then it will sound exactly like a MM bass.

 

[mongo2]

My test is human perception of sound,

Human perception is the biggest variable of all. Essentially, it is the crux of the entire matter. Good luck testing it.

 

[Hopkins]

Human perception is the biggest variable of all. Good luck controlling it.

There is nothing to control, if they can accurately tell me that bass A is Mahogany, bass B is Alder, and bass C is Maple then the advertisements are correct. If the results are similar to the odds when guessed randomly then advertisement is basically full of beans.

 

[snarebear]

I used MM as an example. Tried the switchout with fender electronics and hardware to a Fernandes back in the 90 s. It sounded close but not the same as a fender. We beat this horse to death already several times.

 

[AltGrendel]

I think what convinced me that wood doesn't matter (see sig) is when I read an interview with Sir George Martin where he said that he could take any bass Paul played an make them all sound the same.

 

[Rocktometrist]

I'm of the opinion that tone woods in the body make no real-world, discernible difference--and every scientific attempt I've seen to explore the issue arrives at the same conclusion.

I'm fully prepared to accept that tonewood might make a minuscule difference, but it is so small that it is virtually undetectable, and utterly meaningless in a mix or any other real-world musical situation.

So basically this argument is for collectors and other assorted obsessives. Most guys who actually make music (like Sir George Martin mentioned above) don't seem to think tonewood matters. (They're right.)

 

[mongo2]

There is nothing to control,

Then your test isn't really a test.

Other's have tried that kind of "test" here. Mostly in an attempt to force an axiom from tiny simple sizes which renders the test meaningless. Add the plethora of variables introduced by using different necks and there is no way to determine which causes what result.

Personally, I don't pay any attention to claims made by any vendor. Wood is simply too variable of a material to precisely predict what an instrument will sound like based on species.

I try for myself and see if it works for me. In the long run, that's the only test that matters.

 

[Hopkins]

Then your test isn't really a test.

Other's have tried that kind of "test" here. Mostly in an attempt to force an axiom from tiny simple sizes which renders the test meaningless. Add the plethora of variables introduced by using different necks and there is no way to determine which causes what result.

Personally, I don't pay any attention to claims made by any vendor. Wood is simply too variable of a material to precisely predict what an instrument will sound like based on species.

I try for myself and see if it works for me. In the long run, that's the only test that matters.

Again, it will still be perfectly valid for the results it is designed to show. I am not trying to run a sound wave frequency analysis. I am just trying to see if people can actually hear what different body woods sound like, according to how some builders describe the sound. If the body woods make a big enough difference that you can accurately hear what kind of wood it is then it won't matter if they all have the same neck on them.

The companies making these claims are not using the same neck on all of the guitars they produce, but they still make absolute statements. This test is very much a real world test with real world variables. How do you not see that the variables are very much part of the test.

As far as accuracy goes, anyone that gets every body wood right will be asked to repeat the test to see if the results are repeatable.

 

[mongo2]

Again, it will still be perfectly valid for the results it is designed to show. I am not trying to run a sound wave frequency analysis. I am just trying to see if people can actually hear what different body woods sound like, according to how some builders describe the sound. If the body woods make a big enough difference that you can accurately hear what kind of wood it is then it won't matter if they all have the same neck on them.

The companies making these claims are not using the same neck on all of the guitars they produce, but they still make absolute statements. This test is very much a real world test with real world variables. How do you not see that the variables are very much part of the test.

As far as accuracy goes, anyone that gets every body wood right will be asked to repeat the test to see if the results are repeatable.

Sorry, but it will never be valid the way you want to do it. There are simply too many variables to determine the influence of one particular variable on the outcome. How do you not see that?

 

[Hopkins]

Sorry, but it will never be valid.

Whatever man, I am not trying to point out minute differences in frequency that cant be differentiated by the human ear. You sound like an physicist trying to challenge the validity of a psychologist. Just because you cant put a number value on something doesn't mean the information you get from it isn't valid. In a real world application it is more valid than scientific analysis that has no real world value.

 

[mongo2]

Whatever man, I am not trying to point out minute differences in frequency that cant be differentiated by the human ear. You sound like an physicist trying to challenge the validity of a psychologist. Just because you cant put a number value on something doesn't mean the information you get from it isn't valid. In a real world application it is more valid than scientific analysis that has no real world value.

I'm not talking about numbers at all. I'm talking about basic misconceptions in your test methodology.

 

[Hopkins]

I'm not talking about numbers at all. I'm talking about basic misconceptions in your test methodology.

Your post are not helpful at all, you keep telling me what I am trying to do is invalid, but give no reasons as to why its invalid.

 

[Joshua]

OK - here's how this shapes up:

1) The OP has been here long enough to use the search function.
2) The search function would have easily shown that this topic never resolves well.
3) The OP should have at best walked away, at worst posted to an existing thread.

Closed.