Lets talk about finger board woods...

[mongo2]

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).

Putting my engineer hat on, there is a chance for a signal to be altered at every interface between materials. Any change is dependent on the quality signal, the quality of the materials and the quality of the interface. For a simple neck with a fingerboard glued to the body of a neck the interfaces are string to fret, fret to fingerboard wood, fingerboard wood to adhesive and the adhesive to the body of the neck. If any additional layers or a multi-piece neck glued up, it becomes more complicated.

Anywhere along that path changes can occur. Whether those changes are subtle or more extreme is unpredictable because of the variablity of the woods involved and the quality of the interfaces. Over very large samples patterns of changes to be expected may be evident but predicting how a specific sample will react is basically a crapshoot (technical term).

 

[MtManiac]

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

I agree, nothing wrong with it, it’s marketing. Coke doesn’t actually add life, it’s totally Maybelline, there are rules at Outback, Red Bull doesn’t actually give you wings, and whether Papa John’s has better ingredients is up for debate, but I’ll agree that better ingredients do make better pizzas.

The point is there are a lot of opinions, not a lot of facts supported by reproducible data, about how different wood species sound versus others, some builders have built their marketing campaigns around it, and it seems like a lot of people swallow it uncritically while doing mental backflips to justify their positions.

 

[turf3]

Putting my engineer hat on, there is a chance for a signal to be altered at every interface between materials. Any change is dependent on the quality signal, the quality of the materials and the quality of the interface. For a simple neck with a fingerboard glued to the body of a neck the interfaces are string to fret, fret to fingerboard wood, fingerboard wood to adhesive and the adhesive to the body of the neck. If any additional layers or a multi-piece neck glued up, it becomes more complicated.

Anywhere along that path changes can occur. Whether those changes are subtle or more extreme is unpredictable because of the variablity of the woods involved and the quality of the interfaces. Over very large samples patterns of changes to be expected may be evident but predicting how a specific sample will react is basically a crapshoot (technical term).

Until you can put numbers to those speculations, though, it's just "a butterfly's wings could cause the next hurricane" stuff. The fact of the matter is that in any complex system, there are a huge number of factors that IN THEORY could have an effect, but IN REALITY are so small as to be completely lost in the variations of the effects that matter largely. Even in theoretical analysis, if you'll remember, there are always those terms off to the right of the equation, that you apply the "go away theorem" to, simply because their effects can roughly be estimated to be orders of magnitude less than the stuff you end up actually using to calculate. Yes, when I jump up in the air, I impose an equal and opposite reaction force on the earth, but I rise into the air a foot or two; the earth it moveth not. That's because the effect of my jumping up in the air is SO SMALL with respect to the mass of the earth.

Now I'm not capable to put numbers to the effects of vibration amongst the various components of an electric guitar, but we can roughly size them, I think.

You've got a string of mass an ounce or so, vvibrating a quarter inch or eighth inch, over a magnetic pickup; versus the neck of the thing that weighs probably a pound and has no visible vibration at all (you can faintly feel it); versus the body that weighs maube six or seven pounds, made in a shape that's very stiff. Whose vibrational characteristics are going to predominate? Obviously the string. By orders of magnitude.

I like purty stuff as much as the next guy; but I try to recognize this as what it is and not ascribe special properties to the purty woods that they are unlikely to have.

One clear test for me is always this question: "Does the marketeering claim that the more expensive materials invariably have better sonic properties?" If the answer is yes, that's an awful strong piece of evidence right there that someone's hearing with their eyes.

 

[LetItGrowTone]

As I failed to finish engineering school, I'm free to use more general statements that work for me, and I don't think any of the three things I said is *false* (and the last sentence starts with "I think"). I'll let y'all argue about how much it matters. I doubt it's zero.

 

[58kites]

Blackwood Tek...looks like rosewood but smooth and hard like maple.
View attachment 3101796

Rosewood is twice as hard as maple.

 

[Akiyama]

Rosewood is twice as hard as maple.

Is the maple fretboard coated with poly?

 

[mikewalker]

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

That's a legit concern!
The last project I had with a Padauk fretboard turned out WAY TOO ORANGE:

 

[mongo2]

Until you can put numbers to those speculations, though, it's just "a butterfly's wings could cause the next hurricane" stuff. The fact of the matter is that in any complex system, there are a huge number of factors that IN THEORY could have an effect, but IN REALITY are so small as to be completely lost in the variations of the effects that matter largely. Even in theoretical analysis, if you'll remember, there are always those terms off to the right of the equation, that you apply the "go away theorem" to, simply because their effects can roughly be estimated to be orders of magnitude less than the stuff you end up actually using to calculate. Yes, when I jump up in the air, I impose an equal and opposite reaction force on the earth, but I rise into the air a foot or two; the earth it moveth not. That's because the effect of my jumping up in the air is SO SMALL with respect to the mass of the earth.

Now I'm not capable to put numbers to the effects of vibration amongst the various components of an electric guitar, but we can roughly size them, I think.

You've got a string of mass an ounce or so, vvibrating a quarter inch or eighth inch, over a magnetic pickup; versus the neck of the thing that weighs probably a pound and has no visible vibration at all (you can faintly feel it); versus the body that weighs maube six or seven pounds, made in a shape that's very stiff. Whose vibrational characteristics are going to predominate? Obviously the string. By orders of magnitude.

I like purty stuff as much as the next guy; but I try to recognize this as what it is and not ascribe special properties to the purty woods that they are unlikely to have.

One clear test for me is always this question: "Does the marketeering claim that the more expensive materials invariably have better sonic properties?" If the answer is yes, that's an awful strong piece of evidence right there that someone's hearing with their eyes.

Putting numbers to it would only be a specific example and without knowing the exact characteristics of the wood, adhesive and any metal involved would be a useless endeavor. However that doesn't negate the fact that any interface is a chance for the signal to be altered.

The neck, body and hardware act as filters for the vibrations of the strings transmitted to them and that filter action is fedback to the strings. So while the pickups transduce the vibrations of the strings, those vibrations are altered according to the effects of the body, neck and hardware.

I agree that many hear with their eyes. There are many reasons for the differences in tone between different instruments and the fact that signal alteration at interfaces between materials contribute to those differences is one of those reasons.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Not peer-reviewed science by any means, but one of the many YT videos addressing "tonewood" and pretty convincingly debunking the relative importance of wood selection, at least on electrically amplified instruments. if anybody has a link they can post of bonafide, profressional, peer-reviewed study done in laboratory condtions, please post it! I don't think anybody credibly denies the affect of wood selection on acoustic instruments. The same guy has done a whole series of similar videos, but there are many more. I have no doubt that EVERY component of a guitar or bass has some measurable effect (with an occilloscope or audio software), but if it's not audible to a human player or audience, it's functionally irrelevant, like comparing colors in wavelengths of light our eyes cannot see. Given the sheer number of amateur studies and attempts failing to confirm audible effects of wood selection that equal or exceed those inherent to the pickups, strings, and electronics, I think the burden of proof lies with those who claim they can hear a difference, not the other way around. That said, I have no axe to grind on this, if you like maple and prefer to believe it sounds "brighter" than rosewood, by all means get a maple board. For my part darker boards definitely "sound " better to my eyes.

 

[RichterScale]

I couldn't care less about how wood "sounds" on an electric bass, because it doesn't "sound" like anything. The pickups have a magnetic field. The strings are ferris metal. The sound is made by the metal strings vibrating within and fluctuating the magnetic field, which generates a current through the coil,....which is then sent to the amp to be amplified and the reverse happens with the coil in the speaker. Which vibrates the cone, the air and sends sound waves to your ears. At no point are you listening to wood, or is the wood generating sound, or is the pickup sensing vibrations through the wood. It doesn't work anything like a violin or acoustic guitar.
I start with wood that I know is structurally desirable to build the frame that holds the strings. Hardness, flexibility, strength:weight, grain orientation, movement in service, etc. Once I know that the wood is structurally up to the task, I worry about looks. If the frame is flexible, it will flex when the strings are vibrating and it will rob energy from the string, making it sound softer, or "muddy". If the frame is rigid, it won't rob as much energy from the string and they will sound brighter/clearer. No need to get any further into detail than that. If you do, it's likely you're taking a wild guess, or trying to sound like the smartest guy in the room by debating things on a microscopic level that have no practical value.
If you attached bass strings to a steel I-beam with a pickup, it wouldn't sound like steel. It would sound like bass strings attached to a very rigid frame.
If you attached bass strings to a blank of willow with a pickup, it wouldn't sound like willow. It would sound like bass strings attached to a soft, flexible frame.
Maple doesn't have a sound. Ebony doesn't have a sound (Unless it's the thin top of an acoustic instrument and it literally is what is making the sound, but that is a compLETELy different set of circumstances than a solid bodied electric instrument). Rigidity is a property of the frame. The frame is something to mount the strings and electronics to. The strings vibrate. That vibration is transduced into an electrical signal. That's the sound. The strings vibrating in a magnetic field. I can build a bass out of poplar and build it in a way that it would be just as rigid as a bass made from maple. And all else being equal, you wouldn't hear a difference if you didn't already know which was which. Would you hear a difference between an acoustic with a poplar top and one with a maple top? Most definitely.
There's plenty of anecdote, plenty of theories, plenty of imagining how it all works and plenty of hairs to split amongst the theoretical physicists, but I like to bypass all that and look at it in the simplest terms. Because that's all that's actually useful.
Knowing how pickups work, what to look for in a piece of lumber and how to navigate construction methods to achieve a good frame is all you need to build a good electric instrument.
Once you know how to build a good frame and put that aside, 90% of your sound is your pickup design/placement, controls in the signal chain and the rest is what strings you have, their condition and your playing.
Not going any further than that helps me avoid analysis paralysis and also from getting ripped off if I were in the market as a buyer.
If you think I'm full of it and think there's a relationship between the type of wood your bass is made of and the pickups, or that the pickups are sensing vibrations through the wood,......string your bass up with nylon strings and let me know how it sounds at the speaker.
If,.....and that's a big IF, you hear a difference between a maple FB and an ebony FB on 2 otherwise identical fretted basses,...it's because one board made the neck stiffer than the other. It has nothing to do with vibrations traveling through the wood, being colored by it and then getting soaked in through the pickups, through the wood.
That's why the guy in that vid that keeps getting posted, was able to get 2 different guitars to eventually sound identical and then attached the strings to 2 work benches and it still sounded exactly like the same guitar.

 

[58kites]

Is the maple fretboard coated with poly?

Doesn't really matter, a well made all maple neck is plenty hard with a truss rod to help keep it straight.
The same maple neck with a rosewood fretboard should be slightly stiffer but the truss rod is still the key piece there.
Poly coating is not making the all maple neck stiffer than the same maple neck with a rosewood fretboard.
Maple vs Rosewood fretboard choice is for feel and looks.
Close your eyes and blind test maple vs rosewood fretboard.
Many/most of the necks in these debates are fretted necks....metal fret to metal saddle.
Arguing over nut material choice might be a better thing to get worked up about.

 

[TheArchitect]

I couldn't care less about how wood "sounds" on an electric bass, because it doesn't "sound" like anything. The pickups have a magnetic field. The strings are ferris metal. The sound is made by the metal strings vibrating within and fluctuating the magnetic field, which generates a current through the coil,....which is then sent to the amp to be amplified and the reverse happens with the coil in the speaker. Which vibrates the cone, the air and sends sound waves to your ears. At no point are you listening to wood, or is the wood generating sound, or is the pickup sensing vibrations through the wood. It doesn't work anything like a violin or acoustic guitar.
I start with wood that I know is structurally desirable to build the frame that holds the strings. Hardness, flexibility, strength:weight, grain orientation, movement in service, etc. Once I know that the wood is structurally up to the task, I worry about looks. If the frame is flexible, it will flex when the strings are vibrating and it will rob energy from the string, making it sound softer, or "muddy". If the frame is rigid, it won't rob as much energy from the string and they will sound brighter/clearer. No need to get any further into detail than that. If you do, it's likely you're taking a wild guess, or trying to sound like the smartest guy in the room by debating things on a microscopic level that have no practical value.
If you attached bass strings to a steel I-beam with a pickup, it wouldn't sound like steel. It would sound like bass strings attached to a very rigid frame.
If you attached bass strings to a blank of willow with a pickup, it wouldn't sound like willow. It would sound like bass strings attached to a soft, flexible frame.
Maple doesn't have a sound. Ebony doesn't have a sound (Unless it's the thin top of an acoustic instrument and it literally is what is making the sound, but that is a compLETELy different set of circumstances than a solid bodied electric instrument). Rigidity is a property of the frame. The frame is something to mount the strings and electronics to. The strings vibrate. That vibration is transduced into an electrical signal. That's the sound. The strings vibrating in a magnetic field. I can build a bass out of poplar and build it in a way that it would be just as rigid as a bass made from maple. And all else being equal, you wouldn't hear a difference if you didn't already know which was which. Would you hear a difference between an acoustic with a poplar top and one with a maple top? Most definitely.
There's plenty of anecdote, plenty of theories, plenty of imagining how it all works and plenty of hairs to split amongst the theoretical physicists, but I like to bypass all that and look at it in the simplest terms. Because that's all that's actually useful.
Knowing how pickups work, what to look for in a piece of lumber and how to navigate construction methods to achieve a good frame is all you need to build a good electric instrument.
Once you know how to build a good frame and put that aside, 90% of your sound is your pickup design/placement, controls in the signal chain and the rest is what strings you have, their condition and your playing.
Not going any further than that helps me avoid analysis paralysis and also from getting ripped off if I were in the market as a buyer.
If you think I'm full of it and think there's a relationship between the type of wood your bass is made of and the pickups, or that the pickups are sensing vibrations through the wood,......string your bass up with nylon strings and let me know how it sounds at the speaker.
If,.....and that's a big IF, you hear a difference between a maple FB and an ebony FB on 2 otherwise identical fretted basses,...it's because one board made the neck stiffer than the other. It has nothing to do with vibrations traveling through the wood, being colored by it and then getting soaked in through the pickups, through the wood.
That's why the guy in that vid that keeps getting posted, was able to get 2 different guitars to eventually sound identical and then attached the strings to 2 work benches and it still sounded exactly like the same guitar.

I generally agree with you.. the pickup hears the strings and that is your sound.

That said, it's hard to accept that what the strings are producing is not being influenced by the energy being absorbed (or not absorbed/cancelled out) by the rest of the frame as you refer to it. "Phase cancellation" for lack of a better term. So while I agree with your basic premise, I don't belive it considers all the variables influencing the vibration of the string

 

[TheArchitect]

And don't even get me started on the tonal advantages of black pickguards vs white...

 

[RichterScale]

I generally agree with you.. the pickup hears the strings and that is your sound.

That said, it's hard to accept that what the strings are producing is not being influenced by the energy being absorbed (or not absorbed/cancelled out) by the rest of the frame as you refer to it. "Phase cancellation" for lack of a better term. So while I agree with your basic premise, I don't belive it considers all the variables influencing the vibration of the string

The frame does influence how the strings vibrate. That's why it's critical to build it properly, for use as a frame that holds strings.
It's about the final physical properties and performance of the frame, not about the species, or color of the wood, alone. it seems a lot of folks are under the impression that a specific species has an inherent "tone", or adding a veneer, or a block of a specific species to the body will add a "tone". Seems a lot folks also think that bass/guitar pickups work like a microphone and sense vibrations through the wood. But it doesn't quite work like that.
At the end of the day, I guess none of it matters much to the end user, as long as they're happy with their bass. They don't actually need a better understanding of how it all works. But, if someone is looking to spend a significant amount of extra money on a bass, based on misinformation or marketing hokum, at least they have the option to choose differently because they're informed.
Personally, I'm turned off by marketing that uses the term "tonewood", unless they are specifically referring to acoustic instrument tops. It gives me the vibe that they are misinformed, or dishonest. I don't wanna get into bashing anyone. I simply choose to not purchase from them.

 

[TheArchitect]

I agree fancy maple vs plain or veneers etc are not tone differentiators. I can't say with certainty there is no difference between agathis and rock maple bodies or a little steinberger body vs a Spector. I just don't have the objective data or subjective experience to answer that question either way.

 

[mongo2]

I agree fancy maple vs plain or veneers etc are not tone differentiators. I can't say with certainty there is no difference between agathis and rock maple bodies or a little steinberger body vs a Spector. I just don't have the objective data or subjective experience to answer that question either way.

I recently built a bass using a Paulownia body. It turned out to be very dark sounding with little highend. I originally had planned to put on a 1/16" veneer of walnut I've had in storage for over 20 years on it but I wanted to see how it sounded without it. I then disassembled the bass applied the walnut to the top of the body and reassembled the bass. I really didn't know what to expect but the tone had changed rather drastically with the walnut top. I now has a much clearer low end and considerably more high end.

 

[RichterScale]

I recently built a bass using a Paulownia body. It turned out to be very dark sounding with little highend. I originally had planned to put on a 1/16" veneer of walnut I've had in storage for over 20 years on it but I wanted to see how it sounded without it. I then disassembled the bass applied the walnut to the top of the body and reassembled the bass. I really didn't know what to expect but the tone had changed rather drastically with the walnut top. I now has a much clearer low end and considerably more high end.

Paulownia is very soft. My best guess is there was a small amount of flex in the structure, which would make the strings sound muddier. Adding the walnut, plus the glue, added just enough rigidity to the frame to make an audible difference in how the strings vibrate.
This is one of the reasons I like a neck-thru design. I can have one, solid structure from the headstock to the bridge and then I have the option to use a light (and even soft) material for the body wings to save weight.
And you can always add a decorative top and back to hide all the layers if you like.

 

[mongo2]

Paulownia is very soft. My best guess is there was a small amount of flex in the structure, which would make the strings sound muddier. Adding the walnut, plus the glue, added just enough rigidity to the frame to make an audible difference in how the strings vibrate.
This is one of the reasons I like a neck-thru design. I can have one, solid structure from the headstock to the bridge and then I have the option to use a light (and even soft) material for the body wings to save weight.
And you can always add a decorative top and back to hide all the layers if you like.

Yes, Paulownia is soft but I like the deeper tone on other basses where I've used it. However, the one with the walnut top was exceptionally dark and could use a bit of high end. The addition of the walnut top resulted in more highend than I wanted but my amp can easily tone it down.

 

[shade_1313]

I'm seeing a few out there now that seem like an odd choice, like Pau Ferro, so this may end up being the norm now that Rosewood is starting to vanish from production. Thoughts?

Pau Ferro is not new. I remember it in the specs for fingerboards on some basses back in the mid 90s. I believe I recall EBMM using it on some models.

 

[Bassinthemudd]

I recently built a bass using a Paulownia body. It turned out to be very dark sounding with little highend. I originally had planned to put on a 1/16" veneer of walnut I've had in storage for over 20 years on it but I wanted to see how it sounded without it. I then disassembled the bass applied the walnut to the top of the body and reassembled the bass. I really didn't know what to expect but the tone had changed rather drastically with the walnut top. I now has a much clearer low end and considerably more high end.

Did you happen to create sound clips before and after? If no, it'd be great to hear if you do another similar build.