More Sheldon Dingwall and Tone Wood

[TyBo]

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??

Considering that none of those old links appear to be working , and that this thread here had already reached a natural conclusion of sorts (with its particular focus on the Dingwall basses), I wouldn't really say that "This seems like a good time to remind ... "

I could of course say it seems like a good time to repost the thread with the study showing a majority of folks that did hear a difference in magnetically amplified woods ... but I won't do that. We already know how this goes, and we already have a pretty good idea of what people think. Cheers, all.

 

[HaphAsSard]

 

[retslock]

https://youtube.com/shorts/XzMTyJYo5DA?feature=share

Interesting stuff!

Just to add a little interest with the idea of guitars that aren’t even made of wood and what they sound like.

 

[Jim C]

Considering that none of those old links appear to be working , and that this thread here had already reached a natural conclusion of sorts (with its particular focus on the Dingwall basses), I wouldn't really say that "This seems like a good time to remind ... "

I could of course say it seems like a good time to repost the thread with the study showing a majority of folks that did hear a difference in magnetically amplified woods ... but I won't do that. We already know how this goes, and we already have a pretty good idea of what people think. Cheers, all.

The point was that at least 50% of the people couldn't tell the difference between a 2x6 piece of framing lumber and alder.

 

[calypsocoral302]

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.

If anyone scrolls through my previous posts on the topic, it should be pretty apparent that I'm not exactly on "Team Tonewood", but I'll certainly point out that THIS is actually a very good point!

It's like comparing my American-made G&L ASAT to my Squier strat-- both are quality, gig-worthy guitars, but I can feel another level of quality in the G&L. No one thing in the G&L is significantly-better than in the Squier. But the neck is fitted just a bit better to the pocket. The finish is just a bit thinner and more even. The hardware is just a bit more solid and the machines just a little smoother. It all adds up!

 

[prom311]

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.

Thank you sir for continuing to make these videos that instill your many years of knowledge and not letting some knuckleheads who have never touched one of your basses discourage you. Anyone who has, knows you are doing something (rather many things)very right. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know exactly what all those things are but owning and playing one of your basses is a true pleasure. So thank you for the attention to detail and keep up the good work!

 

[Doug4321]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

No. Energy can be destroyed by turning it into mass. E = mC2 (squared). You need a lot of energy to make a little mass, C2 is a big number.

Edit: I just talked to my high school physicist daughter and she says what I said above is not right, or misleading or something. So scratch all that!

 

[pravus]

No. Energy can be destroyed by turning it into mass. E = mC2 (squared). You need a lot of energy to make a little mass, C2 is a big number.

Mass is energy.

 

[Doug4321]

Here’s my working hypothesis on tonewood. Not proven but I go with it……

A resonant bass imparts some tonal color to the sound. You can hear it unplugged, and that color can come through when plugged in if you don’t have a lot of bass eq, volume, overdrive etc. This is especially noticeable when you hear a hollow body making it’s characteristic sound.

I’ve also had a heavy, dense bass that wasn’t resonant and it more just sounded like the strings vibrating in isolation. Not a bad sound necessarily. I think that bass body was made out of a plywood laminate and was covered in thick red plastic poly finish, Japanese Jazz bass copy.

So given all that I’d agree there is some room for tonewood to make a difference. Don’t have personal experience with much more than that.

 

[Doug4321]

Mass is energy.

I’m going to have to read up on Einstein’s theories.

 

[johnh89]

I’m going to have to read up on Einstein’s theories.

I'm not . Lifes too short . It's only a bass .

 

[retslock]

Mass is energy.

Exactly. Everything is energy.

 

[BQFS]

Logical fallacy; false dilemna.

I never said the basses weren't good, I'm just not accepting that the split density of body woods makes a repeatedly detectable, and positive tonal difference, based simply on someone who is selling a product says so. For all I know he honestly believes it, but it doesn't mean he's correct and his word needs to be accepted because of that. I see no actual evidence, just assertion.

Somewhere on YouTube there is a video of a guy who makes mincemeat out of the "tonewood" idea. He took a guitar and removed most, if not all of, the wood, and set it up. There was insignificant difference between how it sounded before and after. Personally, I agree with the poster I quoted. He could indeed believe it himself, but he's the builder, so there has to be some admitted bias there. These kind of discussions continue to surface because no one has the time or the money to do a quality blind or double blind test. Personally, I think the main difference in tone comes from the strings, the electronics, and mostly the fingers.

Two threads I generally don't pursue - which "tonewood" is best and which strings are "best." I would rather play what I own and like, then spend time arguing about it.

 

[TyBo]

Somewhere on YouTube there is a video of a guy who makes mincemeat out of the "tonewood" idea. He took a guitar and removed most, if not all of, the wood, and set it up. There was insignificant difference between how it sounded before and after. Personally, I agree with the poster I quoted. He could indeed believe it himself, but he's the builder, so there has to be some admitted bias there. These kind of discussions continue to surface because no one has the time or the money to do a quality blind or double blind test. Personally, I think the main difference in tone comes from the strings, the electronics, and mostly the fingers.

Two threads I generally don't pursue - which "tonewood" is best and which strings are "best." I would rather play what I own and like, then spend time arguing about it.

Such a test has been done, as previously mentioned. There was a whole thread about it back at the beginning of the year (yeah, most people in a blind test heard a difference). There are also various videos variously supporting both hypotheses in this thing. "More study is needed," yada yada yada. People will believe as they see fit. And that's ... ok, as Stuart Smalley would say.

 

[Doug4321]

Exactly. Everything is energy.

No, everything has energy. Energy is a measurement like velocity or acceleration.

 

[Snert]

Somewhere on YouTube there is a video of a guy who makes mincemeat out of the "tonewood" idea. He took a guitar and removed most, if not all of, the wood, and set it up.

Nashville guitarist Jim Lill. His latest one on amp tone is excellent, but there were two threads in amps, and no one commented. I'm an EE, and I agree with it.

 

[R Baer]

More argument from authority.

As they don't behave at all like them, no. He could call them a bowl of goldfish, but it doesn't make it so.

What Mike Tobias is saying when he talks about a solid body instruments being an acoustic instruments is correct in my experience. A bass that has a good lively tone played on its own is going to sound much better when plugged in than a bass that sounds dead and lifeless played acoustically. When checking out a new bass, I always play it unplugged first for this very reason. I like basses with good sustain and a very clear articulate tone. If I pick up a bass that is dead sounding, then I know I'm not going to get the tone I want out of it.

So, if you agree that an instrument play unplugged is probably going to sound similar plugged in, then by extension, it makes sense that a dead sounding piece of wood when tapped, probably isn't going to translate into a bass that has great sustain and a bell like quality to the tone. If you accept that argument, then it also makes perfect sense that a luthier with decades of experience can tap on a piece of wood at the lumber yard and get a feel for what kind of tone they can expect from that board when made into a bass.

I switched over to the camp that believes wood makes ages ago when I used to spend a lot of time at a bass shop in Los Angeles that carried a lot of MTD basses. I remember numerous occasions seeing several MTD basses hanging on the wall that were all identical, except for the wood combinations. Same hardware, pickups, strings, etc. The only difference being the body and neck woods. And when I went from bass to bass, I was able to hear clear differences between them. Sometimes the differences were subtle and sometimes quite dramatic. It was a safe bet to assume that a bass with and ash body and maple/maple neck would sound quite different than a bass with say a poplar body and a wenge/wenge neck. Now, if the wood is irrelevant to the equation, then all these basses should have sounded exactly the same, right? On numerous occasions I heard dramatic differences in tone between two or three basses with identical specs. This is due to the fact that, even among the same species, no two pieces of wood are exactly the same. An ash body that weighs 5lbs, is obviously more dense than an ash body that weighs 4lbs and because of differences in the density, they will resonate differently.

I think this is what Sheldon was referring to in his last post about tapping. If he was to build basses out of every piece of lumber he comes across, then his results end up all over the map. To keep his basses within a product line consistent, it's important for him to choose lumber with similar tonal properties and the way this is done is by tapping on the lumber and listening for things like the tone, ring and sustain of each piece of wood.

 

[Snert]

If you accept that argument

I don't.

 

[R Baer]

...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.

THIS! I have go through this same process when building an amplifier. Do we like OP amp #1 better than OP amp #2 in the first gain stage? Ruby 12AX7 or Tung-Sol? Does output transformer #1 sound better to my ear than transformer #2? The differences in most of these things is very small and it takes a lot of critical listening to by a trained ear to pick out, but they are there. But, when made throughout the design process all these little things add up to the point where prototype #1 can sound quite different than prototype #2 even though the schematic was identical. All those little details add up, but it's also the reality that that a lot of players probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Mass is energy.