Rosewood/Maple Finger Boards - Tone difference?

[MikeBass]

I'm, for one, am not dismissing it, but I'm curious how many of those who just add a +1 to say, since he posted in this and previous threads, Roger's comments actually *agree* with him totally.

It sounds like you don't, so on one hand (not to single you out but you were one who had the guts to respond while all the others ignore the question repeatedly - thanks and respect for that) you cite him as an authority yet you disagree same as those who might say there's no difference on perhaps there is one but so small it's imperceptible to blindfolded hearing or can't be so easily isolated from all the other variables.

I respect your examples and experience, but IMO they're not exactly apples vs. apples nor are they empirical.


FYI, from earlier in this thread.

I'm sorry Smash, I'm not trying to mis-lead any one.
It's not that I disagree with those who say there is a difference.
Nor do I claim that it does not make a difference either.
It's just that some recient experiences have caused me to not really trust so much of what I see (ie: rosewood or maple) or read as to how the sound is to my ears.
But it's hard to ignor that when I went to order a bass from them and told them where I was at playing wise and what I liked as well, I was directed to ash with maple.
Now could it have been from what I told them and my experences at the time, they keep within those experences and gave me something that I was used to??
I think so and expect that. But not at any time did I get the fingerboard doesn't make a difference.
So to this, and again based on recient experiences, it means less to me now than say 10 years ago.

Maybe my ears are broken!

EDIT: I re-read my post and need to clairify something here. Think one speed, type another!
When I ordered my Sadowsky, I came off of playing rosewood and maple fingerboard Jazz Basses and a Smith CR5G with a rosewood fingerboard as well.
My Sadowsky 5 was ash/maple. I was playing funk and jazz at the time so thats what I got based on the conversation I had with Roger & Co.

 

[Freuds_cat]

I have read (skimmed parts) through this thread and haven't seen anyone make the point that regardless of what wood resonates at what positive or negative frequency most of us will play differently on different fingerboards.

I'm sure that a lot of you will admit that a large part of what you sound like has to do with your fingering & technique.

When I play my Rosewood FB P Bass I just approach it different because it simply "feels" different than when I play my Maple FB Jazz. Obviously the fretless Ebony FB on my Through body Cargill makes me play different again.

I'm not suggesting that these basses should sound anything like each other, just that my approach, style, technique differs from one kind of fingerboard to the other and this in turn will change the overall sound regardless of weather or not the different woods colour the sound.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

If a Bass player can't distinguish the difference between a 10,12 or 15 then he/she needs to be shot.

hahaha, I agree, honestly though, I was trying to make a point. It has been brought up that it would be dubious at the best that any one could claim to disnguish an ebony, rosewood or maple fretboarded intrument by sound alone. The conlusion reached is that they dont sound different. My point was that most of us couldnt tell 10 from a 12 or a 12 from a 15 by sound alone. Does not mean they dont sound different right! I have a GK 4x12 loaded horn cab that goes lower than any 15 I own. I also have a 2x12 that has almost no bottom end. And the sound differences betwen my EV 15 and my JBL 15.... I can tell which is which blindfolded!

on another note. The idea that luthiers cant hear things any better than us mere musicians is nonsnense. Any reputable luthier has spent a long time learning to discriminate which materials and methods sound good and which do not. Sure there is variability from piece to piece in one species of wood, and there are many other variables like finish, moisture etc. But I am sure they are able to compensate. Otherwise certain masters of the craft would not rise to the top. Sadowsky, Tobias et al do hear things differently. Same as a musician who watches a band hears it differently than someone who in not initiated into the mysteries of key, tempo and time signature. Or how a filmaker watches a movie differently than an ordinary joe. Otherwise, luthiers make their art by accident? Chance? They do not have better hearing in a physical sense, but they have the mind tools, the software if you will to take the same raw audio data and interpret it differently.

 

[Akami]

That's the appeal to ego that can make you hear anything. Come on, all the cool kids can hear it, can't you?

What you just did, intentional or not, is a well known sales technique and it works wonders. A great thing about this technique is you get the buyer to do the convincing. Once you've attached your idea to the buyers ego you're done as once they're invested they will defend any attacks on the idea as they see it as attacks on themselves. Good examples of this would be pointing out a recall in a car someone just bought, they often get angry since it implies they made a bad choice.

If you have to try really hard to hear a difference that difference might just be irrelevant or, gasp, imaginary.

You just described The Emperors New Clothes to a "t", especially the attitudes of all the specially gifted who could see that which the idiot masses wouldn't be capable of.

 

[Akami]

I think you can see it at work in this thread. You want a certain tone, you search around and ask the luthier for the wood that might best help that tone, then you pick. Just like most people that want a certain slap sound out of a bass pick Ash as thier body wood.

I've always felt myself drawn two different directions by these arguments and what I once accepted long ago because I was told so I have now decided makes little difference, although my mind is always open to the possibility of being convinced otherwise.

However when you try to validate major tonal differences in fingerboard materials, verified by the inescapable differences in body material, it overlooks the fact that the body wood makes up the bulk of the whole instrument, followed by the neck wood, then the bridge/tuners.

Next comes items of little bulk, but which actually come in contact with the strings, the nut and frets.

Finally we have a very thin piece of material between the neck and frets, which the strings never contact (unless it's a fretless) and it's very hard for me to buy that this thin strip of wood makes a large difference in the sound of the instrument; and yet even if I am wrong, there is no way at all that it can have as large an influence on instrumental tone as the body wood itself.

 

[KJung]

Hey guys. I actually understand what Mike is saying, and also totally agree with Smash's comments.

It's not that there isn't any difference, it's just that most of the differences that players site are due IMO to many combinations of things, not just the board.

I'm sure that, on average, if you take 30 RW boards and compare them to 30 maple boards, the maple boards would, again, on average, probably sound 'brighter' than the RW boards. However, my guess is that a significant number of RW boards would sound brighter than a significant number of maple boards.

As in my previous post, it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify why two basses sound different if there is more than one thing different between the two basses.... the basses will sound different, no doubt, but attributing it to fretboard material is dubious at best. Again, it doesn't mean that the fretboard material has no impact, it's just impossible to isolate and identify what that impact is. This becomes clear in Mike's examples of various RW board basses within the same manufacturer being more or less bright, and also given how very different my two Celinders sound, even though they spec out identically in hardware, neck and body woods.

Finally, when you add in that most players who like a bright sound (like me ) end up purchasing maple board/ash basses, string them with SS strings and play out of cabs with tweeters.... the myth of the all important fretboard (since that's the most visible part of a bass at a glance) is reinforced. The brightest bass I own is.... my RV5 rosewood/alder Sadowsky.... go figure!

So... in summary.... different pieces of wood do sound different, and on average (that is the key term here), I do believe maple boards are brighter than rosewood board. However, if you take a relatively large random sample of similar basses that are as similar as possible except for the board (i.e., same pickups and hardward, same body wood, etc.), then ON AVERAGE, I would guess that the maple board basses would sound brighter.... but not in every single case.

 

[poptart]

Hey guys. I actually understand what Mike is saying, and also totally agree with Smash's comments.

It's not that there isn't any difference, it's just that most of the differences that players site are due IMO to many combinations of things, not just the board.

I'm sure that, on average, if you take 30 RW boards and compare them to 30 maple boards, the maple boards would, again, on average, probably sound 'brighter' than the RW boards. However, my guess is that a significant number of RW boards would sound brighter than a significant number of maple boards.

As in my previous post, it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify why two basses sound different if there is more than one thing different between the two basses.... the basses will sound different, no doubt, but attributing it to fretboard material is dubious at best. Again, it doesn't mean that the fretboard material has no impact, it's just impossible to isolate and identify what that impact is. This becomes clear in Mike's examples of various RW board basses within the same manufacturer being more or less bright, and also given how very different my two Celinders sound, even though they spec out identically in hardware, neck and body woods.

Finally, when you add in that most players who like a bright sound (like me ) end up purchasing maple board/ash basses, string them with SS strings and play out of cabs with tweeters.... the myth of the all important fretboard (since that's the most visible part of a bass at a glance) is reinforced. The brightest bass I own is.... my RV5 rosewood/alder Sadowsky.... go figure!

So... in summary.... different pieces of wood do sound different, and on average (that is the key term here), I do believe maple boards are brighter than rosewood board. However, if you take a relatively large random sample of similar basses that are as similar as possible except for the board (i.e., same pickups and hardward, same body wood, etc.), then ON AVERAGE, I would guess that the maple board basses would sound brighter.... but not in every single case.

Agreed...I think what we are talking about here is a "general" term that woods from a certain family "tend" to have a "certain" sound. However as many of us have found a bass can sometimes buck that trend. As wood is not a consistant material then there can be no cut and dried solution to this agruement - it is not science.

However I do believe that there are too many holes in the arguement that one is noticeably brighter than another when all other factors are considered. Each bass I have owned has its own sound which is down, as has been said before, to a complex and impossible to reproduce combination of components.

Interestingly enough has anyone tried this theory out with all graphite guitars eg Steinberger, where the manufacturing tolerences must be fairly close from bass to bass? (not that the f/b is wood you understand, just wether there are any noticeable differences from bass to bass)

 

[savit260]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Now that's funny!

 

[SamJ]

I think we need to be asking (ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL) is there a difference between maple/rosewood?

We should even maybe go as far as arrange an experiment... maybe take two "identical" Sadowsky or Fender basses with the only difference being the fret-board, played thru the same amp and with the same player and then record it and see if we can oscilloscope the signal..

that would possibly settle it.

 

[lpdeluxe]

Only between those two pieces of wood.

As for me, I buy basses because they sound good, feel good, and (usually) have maple fingerboards. Maybe it's just the crankiness of old age setting in, but I'm not going to replace the fingerboards on my basses just because someone argues that something else is better, no matter how convincing they are.

It's like arguing whether the wings on a 737 are better than the ones on a 747, and, if so, what difference it makes in the passengers' perception. Maybe a lot, maybe none, but what the hell do you propose to do about it?

 

[savit260]

Only between those two pieces of wood.

As for me, I buy basses because they sound good, feel good, and (usually) have maple fingerboards. Maybe it's just the crankiness of old age setting in, but I'm not going to replace the fingerboards on my basses just because someone argues that something else is better, no matter how convincing they are.

It's like arguing whether the wings on a 737 are better than the ones on a 747, and, if so, what difference it makes in the passengers' perception. Maybe a lot, maybe none, but what the hell do you propose to do about it?

I don't recall anyone saying one was "better" than the other. Different yes.... better no. Better for me and better for you may not be the same, given whatever particular sound we happen to be going after. Nor did I read that anyone was suggesting anyone replace the fingerboards on their basses.

Sam, thanks for adding the "All else being equal" I just figured that this was a given, however from reading some posts I guess it's not. Example: Rick vs. Jazz. ?????

As to the airplane wing... Bet it doesn't make any difference to the passenger (audience) but it "might" matter to the pilot(player)

 

[paulraphael]

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.

I just wanted to repeat KJung's wise post in case anyone missed it the first time. It would be worth inserting this into a lot of the sonic holy wars around here.

It's why someone like Roger Sadowsky's impressions are likely to count for more: we have reason to believe he has listened to multiple samples with only one variable changed. This isn't hard science, but it's the kind of empirical experience that's more likely to lead to a meaningful conclusion.

As a counter example, please don't listen to anything I have to say about fretboards. Both my basses are rosewood; they both sound different. Every bass I've listened to sounded different to me, and I've rarely compared more than two of them in a controlled setting. My conclusion: basses sound different. As far as what the various individual parts of these basses contribute, I have absolutely no way of knowing. So I listen to guys like Roger, who have a better knowledge base than me.

I'll add this comment: people talk about these kinds of differences being a matter of opinion, but I don't think that's quite accurate. Opinion is a better description of a preference or a judgement. Which sounds BETTER is a pure matter of opinion. Which sounds DIFFERENT is still subjective, but is a lot less arbitrary.

As an example, this group might be highly divided on which of two kinds of cookies tastes better. That's a fairly pure example of opinion. But as far as discerning which of the two is sweeter, in a controlled test there would probably be a strong statistical agreement. The sweetness test is also subjective, but not at all arbitrary. We all have similar arrangements of tastebuds and nerve bundles, so our subjective experiences of this kind of thing will be at least somewhat similar.

 

[SamJ]

Sam, thanks for adding the "All else being equal" I just figured that this was a given, however from reading some posts I guess it's not. Example: Rick vs. Jazz. ?????

I also would have assumed it was a "given" but others were going on about electronics, etc.. so I thought I'd ground the argument.

As to the airplane wing... Bet it doesn't make any difference to the passenger (audience) but it "might" matter to the pilot(player)

Having spent the past 12 years flying various Jets, including the 737, and a aircraft with the same wing (more or less) as the 747, the Citation X... I can say that from a low speed maneuverability the 737 is better, but for high speed (the 747's game) the larger sweep takes the bag..

i.e. each wing has a different purpose and excels in different areas..

The Maple vs Rose wood is the same thing.. Maple = bright / Rosewood = LESS bright.. I've gone with ebony on my newest for a 1/2 way wood.. as I don't like Maple's brightness, nor it's feel on my fretboard.

 

[savit260]

I just wanted to repeat KJung's wise post in case anyone missed it the first time. It would be worth inserting this into a lot of the sonic holy wars around here.

It's why someone like Roger Sadowsky's impressions are likely to count for more: we have reason to believe he has listened to multiple samples with only one variable changed. This isn't hard science, but it's the kind of empirical experience that's more likely to lead to a meaningful conclusion.

As a counter example, please don't listen to anything I have to say about fretboards. Both my basses are rosewood; they both sound different. Every bass I've listened to sounded different to me, and I've rarely compared more than two of them in a controlled setting. My conclusion: basses sound different. As far as what the various individual parts of these basses contribute, I have absolutely no way of knowing. So I listen to guys like Roger, who have a better knowledge base than me.

I'll add this comment: people talk about these kinds of differences being a matter of opinion, but I don't think that's quite accurate. Opinion is a better description of a preference or a judgement. Which sounds BETTER is a pure matter of opinion. Which sounds DIFFERENT is still subjective, but is a lot less arbitrary.

As an example, this group might be highly divided on which of two kinds of cookies tastes better. That's a fairly pure example of opinion. But as far as discerning which of the two is sweeter, in a controlled test there would probably be a strong statistical agreement. The sweetness test is also subjective, but not at all arbitrary. We all have similar arrangements of tastebuds and nerve bundles, so our subjective experiences of this kind of thing will be at least somewhat similar.

Well put, and great example.

 

[savit260]

I also would have assumed it was a "given" but others were going on about electronics, etc.. so I thought I'd ground the argument.



Having spent the past 12 years flying various Jets, including the 737, and a aircraft with the same wing (more or less) as the 747, the Citation X... I can say that from a low speed maneuverability the 737 is better, but for high speed (the 747's game) the larger sweep takes the bag..

i.e. each wing has a different purpose and excels in different areas..

The Maple vs Rose wood is the same thing.. Maple = bright / Rosewood = LESS bright.. I've gone with ebony on my newest for a 1/2 way wood.. as I don't like Maple's brightness, nor it's feel on my fretboard.

And agian, well put with a great example!

 

[michaelprice83]

If the neck contributes to a guitar/bass sound, then the fretboard must contribute as well as it is laminated to the neck and therefore affecting the vibration of the entire neck. whether or not the fretboard wood itself directly impacts the tone is the only issue I'm not yet sure of. But if you think about it, a maple neck with a quarter inch slab of ebony glued to it will certainly vibrate differently than an all maple neck. also, a lot of guitars and basses have 1 piece maple necks and that's where a lot of people hear convincing differences between maple and rosewood necks.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Unless you test 100 random samples of each type you can't draw any significant conclusion.

Very true!

 

[jmorbita]

Somewhere i read or someone gave me this easy "experiment" to check that wood does matter in the way the isntrument sounds and all, and therefore ther must be some difference in the wood you use.. though it's true myself i can't tell the difference in sound between reosewood and maple... play a note in you bass unplugged, and then play the same note in you bass with the body touching a wood door... the difference is rally clear... the wood vibrates in a different way, the vibration in the body is transfered to the door...

 

[Sadowsky]

Instead, I'm willing to believe he has heard so many instruments over the years with the same specs except the fingerboard that the differences are very consistent over enough samples to have convinced him those differences can only reasonably contributed to the fingerboard. That's much different than literally the same bass sampled with two or more different fingerboards on it. Just a guess on my part, but it seems much more likely.

Agreed!

I still wonder why there is so much arguement over this. There are very few people who have the experience that Mike Tobias and my other colleagues have in this regard. We all agree. Of couse, every piece of wood is different. Of course, lots of other things affect tone. But given everything else being a constant, I stand by my comments regarding the tone of the fingerboards.

I come from a hard science background and I do understand scientific method. But since it very difficult to test this empirically, especially at a reasonable cost, you'll have to rely on my experience. As I said, I have nothing invested in this point of view. I really don't care if I make more basses with rosewood or maple boards.

Roger

 

[SamJ]

Agreed!

I still wonder why there is so much arguement over this. There are very few people who have the experience that Mike Tobias and my other colleagues have in this regard. We all agree. Of couse, every piece of wood is different. Of course, lots of other things affect tone. But given everything else being a constant, I stand by my comments regarding the tone of the fingerboards.

I come from a hard science background and I do understand scientific method. But since it very difficult to test this empirically, especially at a reasonable cost, you'll have to rely on my experience. As I said, I have nothing invested in this point of view. I really don't care if I make more basses with rosewood or maple boards.

Roger

What more do you all need? Subject closed!