• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Rosewood/Maple Finger Boards - Tone difference?

bigd4207 said:
Is that your final answer. Time's up. Gotta argue that one. The fretboard absolutely makes no difference in sound. Fretting and playability yeah, but think about it. The pickups are down in the body, that is where you get the tonal differences in your wood on the bass. When a note is played on a fretted instrument, it is pushing off of metal, that is where the vibration ends. You cannot get any different tone from a different fretboard only different playability. The neck however can probably make a difference.


Man, some of the biggest names in electric bass building history would like to have know this.
Vinny Fodera, Roger Sadowsky, Keith Roscoe, Ken Smith, Mike Tobias, Stuart Spector, you guys should have known better!!
:rollno:

I have a question, does the metal fret absorb the vibration?? or does it transfer thru it to, say a material that it is set into? Say something that has various densities and hardness. That would either absorb more or transfer more of that energy to another material allowing the string to speak differently?
Given that the material in which the fret was set, was properly chosen to either transfer or absorb those vibrations in various degrees I'm sure it would have an impact on the tone to some degree.

And BTW, it is impossible for a pick-up to...well, pick-up any wood vibrations. Simply put, for a pick-up to work, there has to be metal vibrating over the magnets to stimulate the electron flow thru the magnets causing sound.
Don't agree?? Take a gut string and string it on your bass and turn things up. Go ahead, we'll wait.
Done??
Not yet?? Oh! Gotta tune it. Right! Good idea.
Oh, your tuner stopped working? Tune it by ear.
I know it's plugged in. And I'm sure the battery is fine in the tuner.
See my above statement about pick-ups silly!!
Now, if you piezo equipped, they directly read vibration of a given element. Be it wood, metal, plastic blah blah blah.....

Magnetic pick-ups are influenced by the string, which in turn is affected by the material in which supports it.
Sound does wood make a pick-up sound different? Yes, but it needs the metal string to tell it what to do.

Class dismissed!!:D
 
MikeBass said:
Man, some of the biggest names in electric bass building history would like to have know this.
Vinny Fodera, Roger Sadowsky, Keith Roscoe, Ken Smith, Mike Tobias, Stuart Spector, you guys should have known better!!
:rollno:

I have a question, does the metal fret absorb the vibration?? or does it transfer thru it to, say a material that it is set into? Say something that has various densities and hardness. That would either absorb more or transfer more of that energy to another material allowing the string to speak differently?
Given that the material in which the fret was set, was properly chosen to either transfer or absorb those vibrations in various degrees I'm sure it would have an impact on the tone to some degree.

And BTW, it is impossible for a pick-up to...well, pick-up any wood vibrations. Simply put, for a pick-up to work, there has to be metal vibrating over the magnets to stimulate the electron flow thru the magnets causing sound.
Don't agree?? Take a gut string and string it on your bass and turn things up. Go ahead, we'll wait.
Done??
Not yet?? Oh! Gotta tune it. Right! Good idea.
Oh, your tuner stopped working? Tune it by ear.
I know it's plugged in. And I'm sure the battery is fine in the tuner.
See my above statement about pick-ups silly!!
Now, if you piezo equipped, they directly read vibration of a given element. Be it wood, metal, plastic blah blah blah.....

Magnetic pick-ups are influenced by the string, which in turn is affected by the material in which supports it.
Sound does wood make a pick-up sound different? Yes, but it needs the metal string to tell it what to do.

Class dismissed!!:D


HAH! You've been typing that up all day haven't you mike? :p
 
KJung said:
These are always fun threads, and nobody ever really agrees.

With my research background in statistics and experimental design, I pretty much totally discount most comments regarding one particular component of a bass made by players who don't take other differences into account.

Until you hold all the other components constant, it's really impossible to assess the impact of a particular component ACROSS basses. So, many people that swear maple boards are 'brighter' have usually played those boards on basses with dense ash bodies, strung with SS strings, etc. Most RW boards seem to be on Alder basses. When you add different pickups, strings, pickup placement, fingerboard thickness, fret size, bridge, preamp, neck wood density, body wood, body wood density, neck joint design (bolt on), size of tone block (neck through), etc., etc., etc., etc., it's pretty hard to support these general statements.

For gosh sakes, I have two basses made by the same manufacturer with the same body woods, hardware, neck woods, preamp, strings, pickups, etc., etc.... and they sound VERY different.

So, IMO, most of this disagreement about whether you can hear differences in the board material is probably based on honest differences.... many maple board basses sound bright... some RW board basses sound brighter, etc., etc., etc.

Now, I wouldn't want to go up against KJung here, the man has the goods when dealing with statistics and such.
If any one here would to "crunch" the numbers after anything was said and done, it should be him. Thats all he does.
Dude, you need a life!:D

Anyway, I have a maple necked bass now that does not sound "maple" at all. And I had an F Bass that also didn't sound anything like what you would have thought (maple/ash).
My rosewood fingerboard 70's Jazz is pretty bright.
Put a maple neck on an alder body and a rosewood neck on a ash body and I dought it's gonna sound "typical" to it's type.
 
Fretless5verfan said:
Dammit mike!! I stopped making fun of your terrible fashion sense last week, stop making fun of my bass! :p :D

Hey man, my fashion sense is only dictacted by the type of fingerboard on the bass!:D

For example:
In this picture I'm wearring a "straw" type of cowboy hat to make up for the lack of maple on my fingerboard:
DSC_0084.jpg


But in this picture, I'm wearring a dark cotton hat to make up for the ash/maple combo going on:
DSC_01131.gif


And in examlp 3, I'm not wearring a hat at all, but I am wearring a turtleneck to soften up the rockwood fingerboard, but still let the brightness through:
TDFCurbow.gif



:D
 
MikeBass said:
Hey man, my fashion sense is only dictacted by the type of fingerboard on the bass!:D

For example:
In this picture I'm wearring a "straw" type of cowboy hat to make up for the lack of maple on my fingerboard:
DSC_0084.jpg


But in this picture, I'm wearring a dark cotton hat to make up for the ash/maple combo going on:
DSC_01131.gif


And in examlp 3, I'm not wearring a hat at all, but I am wearring a turtleneck to soften up the rockwood fingerboard, but still let the brightness through:
TDFCurbow.gif



:D



too funny.i STARTED to laugh until i remembered i have a hat almost exactly like that.:eek:
 
SMASH said:
In all seriousness, that's what most of the laundry list of woods you see in most custom orders amounts to IMO - whatever looks good to the buyer or those voting in TB polls - given that many luthiers, including at least some of the ones you cite, will admit that two basses made with identical woods and components can sound quite different.

Speaking of which, since you cite several luthiers (are you sure they've all agreed on fingerboard woods?) do you agree with the ones who say the fingerboard wood makes a "HUGE" difference, greater than even the body wood?


A huge difference??
No, but a difference none the less. And not all of the ones I listed see a great difference, but do admit there is a difference.
I think it was Roger Sadowsky (I may be mis-quoting here-sorry if I do <EDIT- I did see posts below!>) who said he hears more of a difference in either ash to alder (in a body) than rosewood to maple for a fingerboard.
But, it HAS to make a difference. The densities of the wood and how they absorb vibration is enough to show that a difference is evident.
To dismiss it as a non-factor is IMO a bit of ignorance.
Again, how much??

Think of all the discussions of bridge material reguarding this. And we are talking about something with extreamly higher dampening properties than metals. And the rates for those are pretty extream from one type to another.
How much does if affect the tone OTOH is subjective.
Another factor here would be thickness. Would a slab board Jazz be "warmer" than say on with a thinner fingerboard. That is if we go down conventional lines of thinking with the wood type/tone relationships.

To me it doesn't matter that much. Like I said in the past, my favorite combo is alder/rosewood.
Kjung said it the best though: It's mostly alder/rose in that combo. IME thats kinda the way it's been.
Now, my Fodera is ash/maple-not a real bright bass, but more defined if you will.
My Smith OTOH is rosewood fingerboard with a maple body! And it's warm as hell!

I hope I didn't ride the fence too much there for ya Smash!;)
 
MikeBass said:
I think it was Roger Sadowsky (I may be mis-quoting here-sorry if I do) who said he hears more of a difference in either ash to alder (in a body) than rosewood to maple for a fingerboard.

Actually I got in trouble for this same misquote.. Roger believes the fretboard makes more difference than the body wood.. which surprised me, but I nevertheless went with ash for my next body with ebony neck for a slap bass.
 
I'd like to apologize for any perceived slight on any bass builders. I still think they have an agenda, but that doesn't mean it is an evil one. They just want to sell basses. If I were a builder, I might even try the same thing.

Not trying to be difficult, just want to get my point out there. In the future, I'll try and tone it down. Still hovering around 30posts, and it seems like I offend with each one.

But still: maple/rosewood= no diff ;)
 
SamJ said:
Actually I got in trouble for this same misquote.. Roger believes the fretboard makes more difference than the body wood.. which surprised me, but I nevertheless went with ash for my next body with ebony neck for a slap bass.

Thanks!!!
I wasn't exactly sure. Shouldn't have named him directly.
SORRY!!!

I'll edit my post so the rumor doesn't get spread!!
 
MikeBass said:
Hey man, my fashion sense is only dictacted by the type of fingerboard on the bass!:D

For example:
In this picture I'm wearring a "straw" type of cowboy hat to make up for the lack of maple on my fingerboard:
DSC_0084.jpg


But in this picture, I'm wearring a dark cotton hat to make up for the ash/maple combo going on:
DSC_01131.gif


And in examlp 3, I'm not wearring a hat at all, but I am wearring a turtleneck to soften up the rockwood fingerboard, but still let the brightness through:
TDFCurbow.gif



:D


hehe nice :bassist:
 
jobo4 said:
But still: maple/rosewood= no diff ;)

It does, but to what degree??
To you, none.
To me, maybe none as well. But again to what degree?

You can't argue that alone either wood will react differently due to vibrations.
But glue that sucker up to a maple (or other woodtype neck) and things change. Fast!