More Sheldon Dingwall and Tone Wood

[Roger W]

I recall Michael Tobias saying that solidbody instruments are acoustic instruments.

Sure, you can play your solidbody bass unplugged and there will be sound, but a very softly strummed or plucked Martin HD28 will drown it out. The majority of pickups used in solidbody instruments are designed to create a small electrical current that has the same frequency as a moving string made of a material that reacts to a magnetic field. See what kind sound you get out of nylon strings on a P bass. If the vibration of the string is dampened somehow as it is by the foam rubber I use on all my basses, then there is a distinct lack of sustain and a deader thump, which is what I’m looking for. What you want generally in a solidbody instrument is a rigid platform that will not resonate at any of the frequencies you’re using.

 

[Guitalia]

1. It's a tough thing to copy.
2. When Mr Dingwall explains it, it sounds as if it makes sense
3. He's tapping the wood with his knuckle and the two pieces sound differently.
4. It adds another layer of complexity to a company that charges five figure sums for their flagship models.
5. Apart from trees, no one is harmed in the whole process.
6. Instead of a one piece body, they do two piece bodies (so they get away with smaller wood pieces), but actually sell it as an advantage.


I think it's genius.

Dingwall isn't the first. C.F. Martin and Co. originally designed their D-35 acoustic with a three-piece back to enable them to use wood scraps that they had been throwing away. They then designated that guitar their top of the line.

 

[pravus]

Why can't anyone give a clear, scientific explanation?

The physics of it is pretty simple. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy that is transferred from your hand to the string is a finite amount and represents the maximum amount of energy that can be inducted through the pickups. If any part of the instrument (body wood, neck wood, headstock, nut, bridge, fret material, finish, etc.) absorbs any energy, that leaves less energy in the vibrating mass and therefore less energy that can be inducted by the pickups. Since we are dealing with waveforms which are frequency dependent the result is a change in the response curve.

This isn't debatable. It's high-school level physics. The real question is whether you (personally) perceive these differences. If you don't, great! If you do, great! In either case you have not violated the laws of physics so the universe remains consistent. Arguing about it is a pointless waste of energy because there is no scientific way to measure what I perceive and my choice of instrument composition doesn't affect you.

Also, another point that I don't see discussed often enough is how the construction and materials of an instrument affect the overall feel. I personally can tell the difference between neck woods. I have two custom shop Dingwall Zs that were built at the same time but one has a wenge/wenge neck/fingerboard and the other is maple/bird's-eye maple. They play completely differently to one another even though the neck shape is the same and the body woods are the same material and shape. Also, another bass I have with a heavy bubinga body is extremely unique in how it vibrates compared to its lighter counterparts in my collection. Over the years I've become sensitive to other factors as well such as fret material (nickel vs. stainless), string material (chrome vs. stainless), and string tension (the entire reason I bought my first Dingwall).

Again, maybe you perceive these differences or maybe you don't. There is no clear, scientific explanation that will ever tell you what you prefer in an instrument or why. It's a personal journey that requires your own exploration. If you don't agree with the explanations given, you aren't forced to buy the instrument and you certainly aren't being forced to believe anything you don't want to believe.

 

[el murdoque]

Dingwall isn't the first. C.F. Martin and Co. originally designed their D-35 acoustic with a three-piece back to enable them to use wood scraps that they had been throwing away. They then designated that guitar their top of the line.

What were their reasons to do so?

The beauty of the Dingwall thing is that on the one hand, the customer gets the feeling of getting something that is better than a one piece body, on the other hand, that kind of two piece body wood is much cheaper to acquire and produce in quantities.

This happened many times before. Electric car windows are actually cheaper to make than roll up ones, but they cost more. The CD was more expensive than the LP, because it was "better" - but it cost a fraction to make . . . the list goes on.

I cannot comment on Dingwall basses actually having an advantage from using denser wood on one half of the body - it sounds reasonable enough to produce a difference that can be measured, but my gut feeling tells me that the difference will not be big enough to matter to human ears.
However, Dingwall could of course only use matched pieces from the same tree, which limits the possibilities and probably makes it even harder to find woods for the bodies, this is all speculation. It's just, when you see something like this it makes you wander.
Is it "we found something we believe will make our product better" or is it "we use lower quality material and found a way to spin the tale so that you will think it's actually better and we will charge you more for it" ?

Every Dingwall I ever touched has been a spectacular piece and I loved them all. Great basses, no matter the body wood construction.

 

[Jim C]

I have two custom shop Dingwall Zs that were built at the same time but one has a wenge/wenge neck/fingerboard and the other is maple/bird's-eye maple. They play completely differently to one another even though the neck shape is the same and the body woods are the same material and shape.

Great post and 2 questions about the above statement.
Would the sonic differences between the 2 necks remain constant if you swap them?
If you had 5 of each of the above necks, would they really sound all that similar (wenge vs. wenge / maple vs. maple)?

 

[RichterScale]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy that is transferred from your hand to the string is a finite amount and represents the maximum amount of energy that can be inducted through the pickups. If any part of the instrument (body wood, neck wood, headstock, nut, bridge, fret material, finish, etc.) absorbs any energy, that leaves less energy in the vibrating mass and therefore less energy that can be inducted by the pickups. Since we are dealing with waveforms which are frequency dependent the result is a change in the response curve

Thanks. But that's an answer to a question that wasn't asked. At least not by me.
And I'm not taking part in, carrying over and continuing debates and sidebar debates from other tonewood threads. My question was quite specific to this thread and knocking on 2 slabs of wood glued together. Nothing about playing a finished bass with strings. I wasn't debating. Asking for an explanation.
Several people have implied that this is simple and easy to understand, is if the problem isn't that it's nonsense,....it's just not being absorbed by my hillbilly lizard brain.
The irony is, my question is quite simple and no one has come close to answering it.
Which, actually, answers it for me.

Anyway, I've never played a Dingwall bass and have never tried a fanned fret. However, based on everything I've seen and heard people say, they are top notch basses and the flagship for fanned fret basses. I never doubted that and still don't doubt it.
I'm not sure why someone with a reputation such as Dingwall, who's already known for making top notch instruments, would feel the need to make a silly video like that. I wouldn't doubt if he regrets making it. Although, I doubt it will hurt business. Actually, it might help sales, based on the number of folks it appeals to.

 

[TyBo]

Thanks. But that's an answer to a question that wasn't asked. At least not by me.
And I'm not taking part in, carrying over and continuing debates and sidebar debates from other tonewood threads. My question was quite specific to this thread and knocking on 2 slabs of wood glued together. Nothing about playing a finished bass with strings. I wasn't debating. Asking for an explanation.
Several people have implied that this is simple and easy to understand, is if the problem isn't that it's nonsense,....it's just not being absorbed by my hillbilly lizard brain.
The irony is, my question is quite simple and no one has come close to answering it.
Which, actually, answers it for me.

Anyway, I've never played a Dingwall bass and have never tried a fanned fret. However, based on everything I've seen and heard people say, they are top notch basses and the flagship for fanned fret basses. I never doubted that and still don't doubt it.
I'm not sure why someone with a reputation such as Dingwall, who's already known for making top notch instruments, would feel the need to make a silly video like that. I wouldn't doubt if he regrets making it. Although, I doubt it will hurt business. Actually, it might help sales, based on the number of folks it appeals to.

You're question was answered very directly. Apparently you didn't like the answer. Dingwall makes basses that are superb, not in dispute, and has been doing the tapping thing for a long time as part of his process in making those basses. As a practical matter, he finds it useful. You're looking for a different sort of answer (which a poster just above here may have given), but the reason for it being done in production is as stated - the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The builder finds it useful.

 

[RichterScale]

You're question was answered very directly. Apparently you didn't like the answer.

You sound quite authoritative. What is your rank?
Can you take me to your leader?

 

[TyBo]

You sound quite authoritative. What is your rank?
Can you take me to your leader?

Just speaking factually, and, again, directly. Nothing more. Carry on men!

 

[mtdkingstonheir]

Yes, and I like to make a chart, showing how big my piece is.

Pumpkin, please!

 

[Samus C]

I'm all about that left side tone

 

[pravus]

Would the sonic differences between the 2 necks remain constant if you swap them?

I was primarily talking about the feel of the neck and not its sonic qualities what that statement. In theory, however, yes those would transfer with the neck since they would be an intrinsic property of that specific piece of wood. But you also have a lot of variables at play so testing something like that would be extremely difficult to do correctly. I've thought about doing this from time to time but I don't have the necessary equipment and I would want to build some rigs to control for things like the force imparted to the strings. I would also want to transfer all of the electronics between instruments since the pickups and pre-amps are going to be different within some specified tolerance.

If you had 5 of each of the above necks, would they really sound all that similar (wenge vs. wenge / maple vs. maple)?

This really has to do with the variability of the species of wood. I suspect both wenge and maple would be very consistent assuming you matched grain densities. Most of my basses have wenge and there is some variation in how tight the grain lines are in the neck. You would probably see a lot more variation in woods like ash, black limba, or pale moon ebony since they have virtually no consistency between different pieces (even from the same tree).

 

[pravus]

My question was quite specific to this thread and knocking on 2 slabs of wood glued together.

It has been answered. The knocking on the wood gives you a rough impression of how that specific piece of wood vibrates which (with experience) can inform the builder about how that specific piece of wood will interact with other components of the build.

Several people have implied that this is simple and easy to understand

It depends on what you are trying to understand. The concept is simple. If what you are wanting to know is an exact formula that translates into a high precision predictive model, that doesn't exist. What you are relying on is the personal experience of the builder and the methods they use which has been informed by that experience. Otherwise I have no idea what question you are asking.

 

[Snert]

What you are relying on is the personal experience of the builder and the methods they use which has been informed by that experience.

Like homoeopathy.

 

[Guitalia]

What were their reasons to do so?

Not sure what Martin had in mind when they introduced the D-35, although using up those wood scraps might have been one motivation. I do remember that the two local folk guys I looked up to when I was starting to learn guitar as a kid in the late '60s said that they had tried the D-35 and greatly preferred their own D-18's.

 

[5StringBlues]

 

[TyBo]

Like homoeopathy.

Or like, y'know, craftsmanship (which those basses undeniably have). Last I knew, luthiers weren't attempting "medical" interventions.

 

[Sheldon D.]

Thanks. But that's an answer to a question that wasn't asked. At least not by me.
And I'm not taking part in, carrying over and continuing debates and sidebar debates from other tonewood threads. My question was quite specific to this thread and knocking on 2 slabs of wood glued together. Nothing about playing a finished bass with strings. I wasn't debating. Asking for an explanation.
Several people have implied that this is simple and easy to understand, is if the problem isn't that it's nonsense,....it's just not being absorbed by my hillbilly lizard brain.
The irony is, my question is quite simple and no one has come close to answering it.
Which, actually, answers it for me.

Anyway, I've never played a Dingwall bass and have never tried a fanned fret. However, based on everything I've seen and heard people say, they are top notch basses and the flagship for fanned fret basses. I never doubted that and still don't doubt it.
I'm not sure why someone with a reputation such as Dingwall, who's already known for making top notch instruments, would feel the need to make a silly video like that. I wouldn't doubt if he regrets making it. Although, I doubt it will hurt business. Actually, it might help sales, based on the number of folks it appeals to.

I regret every video I've ever made when I watch it. It's like hearing your voice on tape except magnified. But more to your point, others have already posted that wood absorbs energy. Wood with a lower pitched tap tone will absorb more highs than a denser piece. That's literally what you're hearing - more damping or less damping. Taken to extremes you'll notice more sustain and a snappier response from a higher density wood than a lower density with very few exceptions. Most 5-strings share the same trait, B-strings are typically darker sounding and G-strings typically brighter. The body is made from two pieces already, so why not take advantage of this? Less damping on the B side and more on the G side.

People are arguing over this topic as if the pro-tone wood guys are suggesting that wood A will make a 50% difference in tone/response vs wood B. That's not the case. It's more like a 1% difference. But 10 well thought out 1% improvements add up.

It's the job of the builder to make the best use of the materials they have, then share the "why" with their customers so that they can make up their own minds. It's the job of the customer to decide if that's important to them or not.

 

[Jim C]

This seems like a good time to remind folks about this TB real world listening test from 2011.
SCRAP LUMBER BASS vs. ALDER BASS - Can You Tell The Difference??

 

[chadds]

The effect that is significant when a builder knocks on a blank of wood is what the builder hears or feels through his hand. We over here in the interweb aren't involved. If that knock tells the builder something then more power to him. He may have decades of experience equating the knock to specific outcomes in a finished instrument.