Lets talk about finger board woods...

[JIO]

That reminds me of a MARUSZCZYK bass i bought last year - super light, sounded great, but i still do not believe it was of pure wood - it felt cheap...almost like a cheap plastic that was molded to look like it had ash grains etc., When you tapped on it, it felt like a hollowed out piece of plastic - it was chambered obv, but ive tapped other chambered basses without that cheap feel. For that reason alone, i sold it. It didnt "feel" like a bass should....and who knows, maybe the MARUSZCZYK basses are good - i wouldnt know, i sold it very quick.

It's the human element -

 

[alaskaleftybass]

My Killer B T-Hawk bass has a bubinga fretboard on it and I really like it. The body is mohagony and maple and the neck is a dark birdseye maple neck that almost looks slightly roasted but it isn’t. The bass sounds and plays great and I think the different woods that it is made out of, really compliment each other.
Here are some pics of it.

View attachment 3102563 View attachment 3102564 View attachment 3102565 View attachment 3102566 View attachment 3102567 View attachment 3102568 View attachment 3102569 View attachment 3102570

Gorgeous!

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Here's a Wilkins roasted maple neck. The fretboard may not look maple but it is in fact roasted flamed maple. So is the neck.

 

[dragon2knight]

That reminds me of a MARUSZCZYK bass i bought last year - super light, sounded great, but i still do not believe it was of pure wood - it felt cheap...almost like a cheap plastic that was molded to look like it had ash grains etc., When you tapped on it, it felt like a hollowed out piece of plastic - it was chambered obv, but ive tapped other chambered basses without that cheap feel. For that reason alone, i sold it. It didnt "feel" like a bass should....and who knows, maybe the MARUSZCZYK basses are good - i wouldnt know, i sold it very quick.

This reminds me of my first Uke, a Kala Makala, it's body was made of plastic....but it sounds great despite that. Actually I liked it better than their entry level wood Uke. I guess that if you design it properly from the out that what it's made of becomes less important, the sound is what they were after and they didn't care how they got there.

 

[hankabuldank]

I recently commissioned a build and got to hand pick my wood. I looked at rosewood, but what struck my eye was a piece of quartersawn wenge for the neck. When I asked the guy doing the build about wood, he told me that he hasn't seen the wood make a tremendous difference in a solid body electric. In fact, he said you can use the same type wood and depending on the source of the wood it will be different. His advice, pick the wood that was the most appealing and that wasn't too heavy.

I know this is sacrilege to the "tone wood" folks. But we sat and discussed that some electric instruments used to be made of pine or even plywood, and they sounded great. Some very famous instruments weren't even made of wood...old Dano basses were masonite. Dan Armstrong used to build them out of acrylic. Some instruments have had formica tops.

I do believe quality materials make a big difference, but I feel that quality bridges, strings, pickups, preamps, signal path, amp/DI, cabinet and/or PA, and the room have a bigger influence on tone than any wood you build your bass out of.

My bass will have African mahogany body with three vaneers on the top (rosewood, wenge, and figured maple). The neck will be a laminate of birdseye maple, rosewood, wenge, and purpleheart. The fingerboard will be wenge. But the most important parts, to me, are the frets, nut, bridge, preamp, and pickups.

A year ago I considered a custom bass. I quickly became overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge and thought required... the electronics alone!! then other parts, then the wood. YES, the wood! I did some research and found Alder to be a far and away standard for bodies, followed by ash, and usually maple necks, sometimes covered with rosewood. These are production mainstays mind you. Custom crafters offered many options as you undoubtedly found out too. My only point here is that over some 10 years I've acquired 4 basses. Simply by chance, all four have rosewood covered necks, it just worked out that way. Now I hear rosewood is becoming endangered or something. Who knows?

 

[mark5009]

Now I hear rosewood is becoming endangered or something. Who knows?

More here

Furniture that destroys forests: crackdown on 'rampant' trade in rosewood

Take-away: "Governments have launched a crackdown on the rampant billion-dollar trade in rosewood timber that is plundering forests across the planet to feed a booming luxury furniture market in China." Instrument makers are caught in the cross-fire as collateral damage

 

[BassHappy]

When I was at a wood supplier a couple of weeks ago, there was a board near the "scrap" area that caught my eye. I am not exactly sure what it is, but it could have been jotaba or the domestic name of brazilian cherry. For lack of a better way to describe, i would say orangish and brownish and blackish areas almost in a puffy cloud-like formation. It was very heavy, maybe 6' X 6" wide by 1" thick. The figure on it was unreal, not really like anything I had seen. I made a mental note to go back to that area and make an inquiry when the worker returned, but it slipped my mind. I am kicking myself now for not buying it. This is the only photo i could find of it and it's not a great representation:

I am going to head back down there soon, and snag that board if it is still there. Could probably get 4-8 nice fingerboards out of it. Really startlingly unique. You would have to be careful where you used it, as it could definitely upstage or conflict with the grain on some nice tops. Any builders here ever use it for a fingerboard?

 

[Thir13teen]

I think

I think Chechen is from Mexico.

Correct.

 

[turf3]

This topic generates endless conjecture and debate. Full stop - there is no definitive answer, just a lot of opinions. Mine is that pu's have to be attached to something and wood is a logical choice because of stringed instrument tradition and it's high craft through woodworking skills. Other people will have a myriad of other opinions on the matter. So the short answer is; whatever you choose to believe based on your own honest assessment is a good enough reason and don't get into endless arguments trying to convince skeptics that your insight is the only truth. There's nothing to be gained by always being 'right', and always leaving someone 'wrong'. In this example anyway - as long as the player who believes what he wants to believe is happy believing that.., does it really matter who's right or 'not right'?

Or, you could do a double blind test and settle the matter...

NAAAHHHHH...

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Or, you could do a double blind test and settle the matter...

NAAAHHHHH...

It's already been done, multiple times, with YT links posted to TB on other endless threads. The facts are irrelevant, human beings Hear with their Eyes regardless of any objective and highly convincing data. Sounds kinda familiar in many spheres of modern life. This must be really confusing for people with Synesthesia, who can "hear" colors.

 

[adudenamedruby]

You don't need to do a double blind test. And anyone who says there's no definitive answer is lying to you. This isn't something esoteric that has to be taken on faith.

This is just physics.

The sound comes from the metal string vibrating above a magnet. In an acoustic instrument, sure, the wood certainly has a role to play in the sound. But on an electric instrument? Maybe wood has a tiny effect on the amplitude of the vibration of the string when you play, but I bet you that that change is imperceptible unless measured extremely accurately, and will have no perceivable change on the sound.

I'm all for fancy woods for whatever part of the instrument.... heck, I hate the way a maple neck looks, and deeply love the look of a rosewood neck, and I'm all for choosing whatever wood you want for the look of your bass... but with the understanding that there's no real difference between maple or rosewood or ebony or whatever when it comes to sound because they're not meaningfully involved in producing sound. The string (and, by extension, the fret & setup) and the pickup are the only parts meaningfully involved. Everything else is eye candy.

 

[RichterScale]

There's a good chance I'll use Padauk for my next FB.
I hope it doesn't sound too orange.

 

[dabbler]

You don't need to do a double blind test.
...
I'm all for fancy woods for whatever part of the instrument.... heck, I hate the way a maple neck looks, and deeply love the look of a rosewood neck, and I'm all for choosing whatever wood you want for the look of your bass... but with the understanding that there's no real difference between maple or rosewood or ebony or whatever when it comes to sound because they're not meaningfully involved in producing sound. The string (and, by extension, the fret & setup) and the pickup are the only parts meaningfully involved. Everything else is eye candy.

OK, I disagree with this part ^.

You mention physics, but then ignore this:

Both the string and the neck are vibrating. Sooooo, differences in the material of either WILL affect the overtones and resonances in the combination, which will affect tone.

The difference may not be noticed by everyone, but it's there, and I have heard it. I'm not going to try to convince you or anyone else that this is true, but it is.

And yes, it is also true that most people listen with their eyes.

 

[MtManiac]

Similarly as with musical instruments, everyone’s ear canal, skull bone structure, fleshy padding, and signal path (neurology) is individual and different, so I can accept that others hear things I don’t, even if to me it makes little sense, as I’m not an engineer or any sort, I’m a musician. My job is to use *my* ears to choose an instrument and other equipment to amplify it, and I’m empowered to use *my* money to execute those choices.

Luthiers are not scientists. I mean, they could be, but unless they’re backing up their opinions with data that’s collected using a reproducible and peer reviewed methodology, they have opinions, just like you and me. They make their choices for woods based on their opinions, which maybe suit their ear canal/skull/neurology in some way or maybe it suits their sense of how to coax a profit margin out of a market (and nothing wrong with that). They’re essentially highly specialized artisanal cabinetry makers. Their primary expertise is construction, not getting a good sound out of an instrument. That’s my job. My ears matter a lot more to me than their ears matter to me, and it’s my money, so I’ll place my bets where I like.

IME and IMO:
I’ve owned a lot of Fender P basses. I’ve owned and swapped and played pretty much every combo of ash, alder, rosewood, maple, and others available, across multiple examples and pieces, with similar pickups/strings/amps. There are slight individual differences between one and another, which must be attributable to the wood, but which 1) can’t be attributed to a species of wood, and 2) make pretty much no difference to anyone except me. Again, that difference made to me matters, it’s my job and it’s my money, but making broad generalizations about wood species seems to me to be very ridiculous. I’ve heard maple that’s warmer than rosewood, alder that’s brighter than ash. A couple of ebonol fretboards I’ve owned sounded fantastic, and that’s the same material used to make bowling balls.

Fender is now using pine where they used to use ash. Two very different woods.

So unless someone has some actual science that matters to what I’m hearing or not hearing, that’s my opinion, and Roger Sadowsky or anyone else is entirely equally entitled to their dissenting or agreeing opinion as well. A luthier’s opinion on what woods matter when to me isn’t much use to me, I’ll buy and play what I like, based on what I hear or feel in my hands. They’re not entitled to my money just because they have a big name, there are lots of big names around. The worlds of rock and roll, Jazz, R&B, etc are full of much wealthier and more successful people playing off the shelf Fenders that are more or less identical to what I’ve bought. Surely their opinions matter as much or more than a well-known luthier. However, at the end of the day, like I said, my money, my ears, my choice.

I’m mystified by people who choose to outsource their opinions and use other people’s opinions in a desert of supporting data and facts. All power to you, but whoa up on the certainty, so far all we’ve got is opinions.

 

[Levent]

Similarly as with musical instruments, everyone’s ear canal, skull bone structure, fleshy padding, and signal path (neurology) is individual and different, so I can accept that others hear things I don’t, even if to me it makes little sense, as I’m not an engineer or any sort, I’m a musician. My job is to use *my* ears to choose an instrument and other equipment to amplify it, and I’m empowered to use *my* money to execute those choices.

Luthiers are not scientists. I mean, they could be, but unless they’re backing up their opinions with data that’s collected using a reproducible and peer reviewed methodology, they have opinions, just like you and me. They make their choices for woods based on their opinions, which maybe suit their ear canal/skull/neurology in some way or maybe it suits their sense of how to coax a profit margin out of a market (and nothing wrong with that). They’re essentially highly specialized artisanal cabinetry makers. Their primary expertise is construction, not getting a good sound out of an instrument. That’s my job. My ears matter a lot more to me than their ears matter to me, and it’s my money, so I’ll place my bets where I like.

IME and IMO:
I’ve owned a lot of Fender P basses. I’ve owned and swapped and played pretty much every combo of ash, alder, rosewood, maple, and others available, across multiple examples and pieces, with similar pickups/strings/amps. There are slight individual differences between one and another, which must be attributable to the wood, but which 1) can’t be attributed to a species of wood, and 2) make pretty much no difference to anyone except me. Again, that difference made to me matters, it’s my job and it’s my money, but making broad generalizations about wood species seems to me to be very ridiculous. I’ve heard maple that’s warmer than rosewood, alder that’s brighter than ash. A couple of ebonol fretboards I’ve owned sounded fantastic, and that’s the same material used to make bowling balls.

Fender is now using pine where they used to use ash. Two very different woods.

So unless someone has some actual science that matters to what I’m hearing or not hearing, that’s my opinion, and Roger Sadowsky or anyone else is entirely equally entitled to their dissenting or agreeing opinion as well. A luthier’s opinion on what woods matter when to me isn’t much use to me, I’ll buy and play what I like, based on what I hear or feel in my hands. They’re not entitled to my money just because they have a big name, there are lots of big names around. The worlds of rock and roll, Jazz, R&B, etc are full of much wealthier and more successful people playing off the shelf Fenders that are more or less identical to what I’ve bought. Surely their opinions matter as much or more than a well-known luthier. However, at the end of the day, like I said, my money, my ears, my choice.

I’m mystified by people who choose to outsource their opinions and use other people’s opinions in a desert of supporting data and facts. All power to you, but whoa up on the certainty, so far all we’ve got is opinions.

I agree with you, we are the end user and we are entitled to choose what we like. Just like I didn't like my steak on a 5 star restaurant few days ago. I have also seen same wood species like a brick or a styrofoam. I think every wood should be labeled by density, moisture and vibration damping after being sawn to shape rather than species name to get similar results.
But I always listen to my luthier and try to see his view, I actually leave my comfort zone and spend time with something I didn't like out of respect and sometimes I do find a hidden gem. An avarage regular musician uses maybe 20-30 instruments actively their whole lives (x10 for TB users!) but thats less than what a busy luthier handles each week. I mean they had their ''10 000-hour rule'' on trying and correcting different instruments. It's given they can notice things we can't yet fathom, thinking any less would be demeaning what human mind can muster with experience over time.
Also If the said luthier is also crafting acoustic/classical instruments where the woods actually make a lot more undeniable impact, their experience carries on to solid instruments where It's a lot less noticable If none at all for some of us.

 

[MtManiac]

I agree with you, we are the end user and we are entitled to choose what we like. Just like I didn't like my steak on a 5 star restaurant few days ago. I have also seen same wood species like a brick or a styrofoam. I think every wood should be labeled by density, moisture and vibration damping after being sawn to shape rather than species name to get similar results.
But I always listen to my luthier and try to see his view, I actually leave my comfort zone and spend time with something I didn't like out of respect and sometimes I do find a hidden gem. An avarage regular musician uses maybe 20-30 instruments actively their whole lives (x10 for TB users!) but thats less than what a busy luthier handles each week. I mean they had their ''10 000-hour rule'' on trying and correcting different instruments. It's given they can notice things we can't yet fathom, thinking any less would be demeaning what human mind can muster with experience over time.
Also If the said luthier is also crafting acoustic/classical instruments where the woods actually make a lot more undeniable impact, their experience carries on to solid instruments where It's a lot less noticable If none at all for some of us.

I completely agree that tonewoods have an undeniable impact with acoustic instruments.

I don’t have a luthier. There are experienced techs I take my instruments to, and I find some folks on the internet use “luthier” when they mean tech. Techs see a lot of instruments, for sure. They’re like doctors. Guitar makers see far fewer, and it’s a much riskier business to be in because of that, there’s a lot of time spent handcrafting a single instrument, and a lot of money spent buying expensive woods, some of which inevitably end up in the scrap pile or are de-selected based on their expert opinion. For sure, they want to get top dollar for their instruments, and they want their instruments to be desired - thus a lot of oft-quoted comments from luthiers like Sadowsky and Tobias about tonewoods. Always reminds me of “rich Corinthian leather.”

 

[Levent]

I completely agree that tonewoods have an undeniable impact with acoustic instruments.

I don’t have a luthier. There are experienced techs I take my instruments to, and I find some folks on the internet use “luthier” when they mean tech. Techs see a lot of instruments, for sure. They’re like doctors. Guitar makers see far fewer, and it’s a much riskier business to be in because of that, there’s a lot of time spent handcrafting a single instrument, and a lot of money spent buying expensive woods, some of which inevitably end up in the scrap pile or are de-selected based on their expert opinion. For sure, they want to get top dollar for their instruments, and they want their instruments to be desired - thus a lot of oft-quoted comments from luthiers like Sadowsky and Tobias about tonewoods. Always reminds me of “rich Corinthian leather.”

Had my share of bad memories with 'techs' thats why I deal only with small boutique luthiers who also does repairs. Best of both worlds.
I trust Sadowsky about what he changed in active electronics in the industry starting with New York scene when he didn't have his own brand yet. He put 'steroids' in peoples old Fenders and created something awesome.
On the other hand, brands who also create on mass scale ofcourse care about maximum profits. If they can't find a consistent 40 yr old figured cuban mahogany and rosewood supply (nobody can legally) they have to find a good enough substitute which has consistency and advertise in a way they can get a profit out of. Nothing wrong with It

 

[LetItGrowTone]

3 cents:

The wood vibrates and the pickup is connected to the wood, so the pickup vibrates relative to the string.
*
The string's vibration passes through the bridge and the fret and then into the wood, and this vibration gets filtered by wood before it gets to the pickup.
*
On a maple neck, any fretboard wood except maple creates a sandwich of dissimilar materials, and analogous to an impedance mismatch, every time a vibration passes through this transition (many times, many more times for higher frequencies), it gets dampened. I think this is why a maple fretboard is brighter than you'd think from its hardness compared to others (for example, in my very limited experience (I'm not an expert), ebony).

 

[RichterScale]

Interesting

 

[chris_b]

I don't mind what the fret board is made of, but, given a choice, I'll take a darker wood.

The birdseye maple fret board on my Lakland 55-94 looked fantastic but, after 8 years, was starting to mark when I sold it.

Just like Leo I didn't like the look of worn and marked Maple.