Maple vs. Rosewood?

[Bassin']

No. In a small sample, 10% of the respondents can easily be within a three sigma standard deviation from being split down the middle, i.e., a coin flip. For a very simple example, flip a coin three times and get two heads and one tails - 66% and 33%, roughly. Does that mean that the odds will always be 2:1 that you'll get heads? Of course not, it just means that the margin of error in such a tiny sample size is very large.

That tells me that no one could tell which was which.

So what your saying is that when everyone listened to the sound samples, there wasn't one person who could tell the differences between the two basses... everyone HAD to be guessing. AND, there is absolutely no conjecture in making a statement like that... okay... now I understand.

 

[scottbass]

And for those of you who need to look at top or side dots when playing... time to practice more

Stanley Clarke began playing an LED fret marked Piccolo bass more than 15 years ago. I will send him an email and tell him you said he should practice more.

 

[Bassin']

+1 Some varieties of RW are very hard and some varieties of maple are quite soft (and this even varies depending on the Janka scale tables from site to site on the wood forums, etc.) 'Hard' was probably not the most accurate term to use... it's more of the feel of the wood.. the open grain and somewhat oily feel of madagascar or Brazilian Rosewood is quite different from the 'hard' shiny, smooth texture of maple or morado. I believe RW can benifit from oiling occasionally, whereas maple is pretty much 'maintenance' free. That open grain and oily feel gives the impession of a softer wood, as does the feel and, in some instances the tone and attack.

That being said, we are all saying the same thing.... it's rare that a single component of a bass can totally define it's tone, but each piece seems to work together, and on average, have a very general tone profile that can help build the tone you want.

And for those of you who need to look at top or side dots when playing... time to practice more

I think the open grain of a wood is what has the most impact. My theory is an open grain is going to absorb more of the frequencies vibrating off the strings while more of the frequencies will bounce off a wood that has a more closed grain or finish on it. I think that's why I always felt rosewood had a more "organic" feel and sound. It's almost like you can hear the wood.

Okay, never mind.

 

[Bassin']

Stanley Clarke began playing an LED fret marked Piccolo bass more than 15 years ago. I will send him an email and tell him you said he should practice more.

I'm guessing the LEDs were more for show than reference. I could be wrong.

I saw Stanley Clark a few years back and he played what was probably the most impressive upright bass solo I've ever seen or heard. I could have sworn I saw little reference stickers on the side of his bass, though. Now I know.

 

[ggunn]

So what your saying is that when everyone listened to the sound samples, there wasn't one person who could tell the differences between the two basses... everyone HAD to be guessing. AND, there is absolutely no conjecture in making a statement like that... okay... now I understand.

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said was, statistically speaking, as many folks got it wrong as got it right. Eyebrow yourself. ;^)

 

[KJung]

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said was, statistically speaking, as many folks got it wrong as got it right. Eyebrow yourself. ;^)

+1 to this.... a 60/40 split given the small number of 'testers' has an error range beyond the percentage difference... it was probably pretty close to chance (i.e., 60/40 is statistically equivalent to 50/50.. random chance).

Of course, this doesn't really mean there is or isn't a difference in maple versus rosewood, just that it isn't that noticable on these two basses in these particular testing situations.

 

[ggunn]

+1 to this.... a 60/40 split given the small number of 'testers' has an error range beyond the percentage difference... it was probably pretty close to chance (i.e., 60/40 is statistically equivalent to 50/50.. random chance).

Of course, this doesn't really mean there is or isn't a difference in maple versus rosewood, just that it isn't that noticable on these two basses in these particular testing situations.

Perzactly! I'm glad someone got what I was struggling to say.

 

[Bassin']

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said was, statistically speaking, as many folks got it wrong as got it right. Eyebrow yourself. ;^)

Okay, here's your exact reply:

60% is only a little better than a coin flip and depending on the sample size that 10% diff may be in the noise. That tells me that no one could tell which was which.

I understand what you were trying to say but please tell me how the last sentence in that statement is anything but conjecture.

I just found humorous that you were blaming someone else of conjecture right after you did the same thing.

I'll stop now.

 

[RKB900player]

In terms of fretboards, I'd have to say I'm a fan of maple. Makes for a snappier tone I think.....and it feels and looks more solid than rosewood IMHO.

 

[WarriorJoe7]

can anyone tell me the difference between the look of rosewood and the look of maple. I can't tell.

We should have a poll to see if we can get better than 60/40

 

[RKB900player]

can anyone tell me the difference between the look of rosewood and the look of maple. I can't tell.

We should have a poll to see if we can get better than 60/40

okay, uhhhh, how should I put this? Rosewood is a dark brown with some red thrown in colour and maple is an almost white-ish looking wood.

 

[Cerpin_Taxt]

The difference is that maple looks so much cooler! Get the maple!

 

[scottbass]

can anyone tell me the difference between the look of rosewood and the look of maple. I can't tell.

Easy! Maple looks like it sounds brighter, and rosewood looks like it sounds warmer!

 

[RKB900player]

That what I meant by snappier

 

[ggunn]

Okay, here's your exact reply:



I understand what you were trying to say but please tell me how the last sentence in that statement is anything but conjecture.

I just found humorous that you were blaming someone else of conjecture right after you did the same thing.

I'll stop now.

I know what I said; you can print it as big as you want and put all the exclamation points around it you want. I had hoped what I said after that cleared it up. I didn't state it as clearly as I might have; that's true, but if you read it in context you might have understood what I was trying to say, which is that, statististically speaking, the SAMPLE, taken as a whole, could not tell the difference.

I take no stand on whether any individual in the sample group could tell the difference or not, though if you grant equal discernability to every member of the group, then there is at least some doubt whether anyone in it could tell the difference, since for each member who chose one way, there is another who chose the other. But no group is absolutely homogeneous; maybe all the smart people got it right and the idiots got it wrong. Or maybe it was the other way round, hell if I know. Or care. Plainly stated, a 60-40 split does not prove that there was any difference that could be discerned by the sample group.

That is a far cry from stating flatly that if one were to sample a huge number of basses, then the tonal differences between rosewood and maple neck construction would be self-evident. There is simply no data whatsoever to back up that statement, hence it is conjecture.

Is that clear enough? I need to take a nap. ;^)

 

[BobXboB]

60% is only a little better than a coin flip and depending on the sample size that 10% diff may be in the noise. That tells me that no one could tell which was which.

It tells me that 60% will say they can tell the difference and 40% will say the test was flawed

 

[BobXboB]

There are a few of other things that really make this question 'murky'. One is that most players who like a modern, bright slap tone gravitate toward maple boards... based on combined consensus of maple tone opinions, etc. Since these types of players also tend to prefer aggressive pickups, bright strings, and modern sounding SS amps, it tends to further reinforce the idea that 'maple boards are bright'. The opposite is true with the RW boards, which seem to be prized by those players who want a more organic tone, and are usually seen on mellower voiced instruments, those using vintage amps, etc. (I know this is an over-generalization, but you get the point.

I think this is an important point. I can make any RW boarded bass sound brighter than maple simply by turning the knobs on my amp.

I would also suggest that anyone who claims to be able to tell the tonal difference between woods and discuses them using the trade names like maple and rosewood is completely lost. Real wood experts use the latin names since many species with widely varying qualities will fall under the same trade name. If someone talks about the difference between acer rubrum and dalbergia latifolia then it might be time to consider listening. But until then these comparisons are like judging cars based on the paint color. Red cars are faster.

 

[BobXboB]

The major difference between rosewood and maple, IME, is that when I'm on a mostly-dark stage I can see the black side marker dots against a maple fretboard much easier than I can see the white side marker dots against a rosewood fretboard.

It's the other way around for me

 

[BobXboB]

That's interesting, because Invalid Link Removed.

So many people love to say that maple is brighter because it's harder. Maybe maple is brighter, but it isn't harder.

Facts



Notice your chart gave two very different specs for hard and soft maple. It also just gives an average, some charts will show the range of hardness commonly found and that will show overlap amongst some species.

 

[meev992]

Apparently, TBers can't see the visual difference either.