Just for profit? No. Largely for profit? I think so. I think he believes the things he says. I don't think he's lying. I remain unconvinced.So then, you're not pursuing your contention that he's just recommending expensive woods for profit?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Roger's take, in a nutshell
- Thread starter TyBo
- Start date
I agree.
Sure, you can always say the differences are so subtle that the average audience listener is not going to notice, but you could also have the same argument for amps, speaker size, string gauge and material, pickups and electronics. It all makes an amplified sound and sounds like bass, right? Who's going to notice any difference? At the very least, the player will and that will affect how they play.
I think that confirmation bias plays a large factor in how people perceive the sound of one wood or the other. It will always be impossible to determine what makes an instrument sound the way it does and how much of it is due to certain parts of it.
However, one has to respect Mr. Sadowsky's experience. I am merely theoretizing (I am sure this isn't even a word) while he is drawing his conclusions from a lifetime of experimenting.
I don't think I have ever met or read about a luthier that has ever said that the wood doesn't matter. It's not only him.
Wait. Things are being sold for profit these days?
The UV70 is supposed to be “ultra vintage”, so it should be heavy ash/maple like 70s Fenders.
I wish more basses were made with ebony boards. They are actually my favorite, although I don't have any right now. Not as bright as maple, but brighter than rosewood.
That's why I like Pau Ferro, by his own description is "Grain is very tight and silky smooth. More warmth than Maple or Ebony but tighter sounding than the other Rosewoods.".
"Largely for profit" - How so? Again, listening to his actual words, Sadowsky is saying very clearly that the fingerboard wood makes the biggest difference. Maple or rosewood, for the most part. Not a lot of difference in profit either way. You may have listened to his video, but you don't seem to have really heard it.
You are of course free, as we all are to disagree or remain unconvinced. Ad hominum arguments concerning his motivations, on the other hand, don't sit so well, given the lack of evidence for that.
Yes! I miss that crust! Not sure what they do, but like you said, the difference is night and day!
I can't even get neopolitan pizza around here ..
But I digress.
You don't think that maple and rosewood fretboards sound different? It's 100% fact. I've owned at least 3 identical models over the years, one maple one rosewood. Rosewood sounds much different than maple, it's not subtle.
Predictably and consistently? I'm not convinced that they do.
ANCORA? I've not eaten there but from what I can tell it looks pretty legit..
IOW, you're challenging Roger's character on a board where he has shown the highest levels of character multiple times. Have fun with that.
I can't stand that train of thought. That is such a logical fallacy. If that's the way that they really think, then that person should be playing the absolute cheapest bass, the absolute cheapest strings, the absolute cheapest strap, no amp, and so on. Otherwise, they are a hypocrite. Heck, follow that logic a little further, and you start making a case for backing tracks! Also, what about the small percentage of the audience that DOES care? What if I'm playing in a room full of bass players? Or drummers? What if the only thing the audience cares about is the way that i look?
It's such a dumb argument, and unfortunately so many ppl think that it's a mic drop moment, but really it just shows a lack of critical thinking on their part.
Nice! Thanks for the recommendation, I'm gonna check it out!
Agreed. Dismissing Roger's observations about wood and how it affects tone because he sells basses is pretty cynical. I've spoken with Roger on several occasions, including when I visited his shop twice. He comes across as being totally down to earth and no-BS in his approach. No hard-sell tactics whatsoever.
Yes, that is an issue. I do think certain woods have certain tendencies (I observed these where maple was concerned before I heard anyone talking about how maple was "supposed" to sound). But predicting with any degree of certainty isn't, I don't think, possible. But if I am going to order a bass without being able to play it first then I'll go with the "theory" and keep my fingers crossed. That, to me, is a better approach than just choosing wood randomly.
