Rosewood/Maple Finger Boards - Tone difference?

[Gard]

Gard, do you agree that the fingerboard has a "HUGE" effect on tone and more so than even the body wood?

Kudos to Mr. Sadowsky for clearly stating what he thinks.

It's still not clear where most of the "+1" crowd stands though, and while many (not you, but many) will mock those who state an opinion they don't agree with, at the same time very few of them are stating what they actually agree or disagree with.

Roger never said (to my memory) that the fingerboard has a "HUGE" effect on tone, just an effect. It is my experience, both as a manager at Bass Central for over 5 years, and as the GM here at Roscoe for the past year now, that there is a noticeable difference between the tones produced by fingerboards. It is not "HUGE", but it is THERE. For some clarity on my position, I suggest you refer back to my first post on this very thread: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2998317&postcount=70

More of an effect than body wood? No, I never stated that, nor did Roger at any point that I can remember. Again, it has AN effect, it is not (necessairly) the PRIMARY contributor to the tone.

I'd never mock someone for their opinion, even if I strongly disagree with it (well, at least not on THIS topic! ).

 

[Sadowsky]

I will go on record as saying that at least between alder and swamp ash, and only in regard to my basses, (got to watch what I say here ), I hear the fingerboard making a bigger tonal difference than the body wood.

Roger

 

[paulraphael]

Maybe someday a thorough and conclusive scientific study will be performed. Until that happens, this is still a matter of opinion and therefore subject to debate.

Opinion is an odd word to describe things that conceivably CAN be verified objectively. It's specifically about things that cannot.

If you say it's your opinion that a particular bass weight 8 pounds, that's a bizzarre statement. If you don't have evidence, then 8 points might be your guess, or your estimation, or your recollection, but the weight of something is verifiable therefore not truly a matter of opinion.

 

[Fuzzbass]

...and only in regard to my basses....

Roger

Important point. It might well be that the fingerboard makes more of a difference in some basses than in others: f'r instance, it might make more of a difference in a bolt on bass commonly made of three woods (body, neck, fingerboard) than in a neck-thru multi-laminated bass made of a half-dozen or more woods. Or maybe there's something about the design and construction of Sadowsky basses in general that enhances the contribution of the fingerboard.

That said: I think most of us agree that woods contribute far less than pickups and electronics. For example, when I play Sadowsky basses I predominantly hear the clear Sadowsky electronics, and the signature tone of either P or J pickups (I haven't played many H's).

Also IME: tonal differences between fingerboard woods might well exist, but are lost in the mix when playing with guitars, drums, etc. And the last time I compared (just recently, many thanks to kjones), the bass rigs were top-notch: Aguilar/Accugroove, Read/Bergantino, AI/EA.

 

[DigthemLows]

In the time you made the thread and responded to it, you could have searched.

Why don't people get angry at the crazy amount of sadowsky threads then........There's soooo much on this site, the searches take forever to weed through.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Opinion is an odd word to describe things that conceivably CAN be verified objectively. It's specifically about things that cannot.

If you say it's your opinion that a particular bass weight 8 pounds, that's a bizzarre statement. If you don't have evidence, then 8 points might be your guess, or your estimation, or your recollection, but the weight of something is verifiable therefore not truly a matter of opinion.

Differences in weight are easily measured and therefore verified. We're talking about the tonal contribution of various fingerboard woods. How do you propose to measure and verify that?

Almost all of us agree that some basses sound different than others, but the issue is, WHY? Usually it's electronics. But as noted by myself, Ken Jung, Ken Smith, and others, basses can sound distinctly different even when they are identical brands and models made of identical components. Therefore, when comparing two basses whose only difference is fingerboard wood, one cannot conclude that any tonal difference between the two must be from the fingerboard.

If anyone has some sort of scientific evidence that verifies the difference between maple and rosewood, I'd love to see it! Sure, Roger Sadowky's opinion carries more weight than the rest of us because he has so much experience (at least WRT to his own basses, as he himself recently specified), but without any sort of hard data (frequency response charts, whatever), he's only expressing an opinion... as are the rest of us, of course.

I go with my own experience, because it's more real to me than anyone else's reports. In the all-else-is-equal tests I've done, sometimes maple is brighter than the rosewood, but sometimes not. So, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to say that maple isn't brighter, only that it's brighter some of the time, with rosewood being brighter some of the time. And I won't try to guess whether the percentage is 50-50, 60-40, or whatever.

 

[Brad Johnson]

This is one debate I don't care much about either way as I'm happy with basses of either variety, but I am curious :

Do those that agree there's a difference also agree that it's a "HUGE" difference that eclipses all other woods on the instrument? Or, per the current analogy, does the turbo contribute more to the sound of the car than even the rest of the engine?

I'm asking to gauge how black 'n' white this all really is. To me, totally incongruous examples about turbos and such aside, it seems like there are probably a half-dozen differing strongly held opinions on the topic as to how much, if any, audible difference it makes.

I think the difference can be "HUGE" if it's the difference you're looking for. Think about it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

After all, you can SEE what the woods look like together, but unless you are someone with a lot of experience (perhaps Mr Sadowsky) you can't HEAR the combinations until they are built.

A lot of it comes down to trying to outwit Leo Fender.

Most people probably do. It might explain why IME most people buying customs usually end up trading or selling them at some point. I don't have any stats to back that up but as someone who watches the market that's what I see.

As far as hearing the combination before you buy, if you've HEARD the combination before from the same builder you have a pretty good shot at replicating that.

Here's an obvious caveat to that: I've had people on several occassions remark that they love a bass of mine that they checked out. I insist they check them out personally because how they play can obviously affect tone (or does anyone want to argue that too?). They then proceed to order a bass that has little to no resemblance to the bass of mine that they loved.

Duh.

"I loved your beef stew before... but this time it tastes different".

"I can't imagine why... I used gopher this time"

 

[Brad Johnson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Johnson
Seriously, sometimes the differences are nuanced, while other times it's pretty dramatic. If you've never noticed basses sounding different, that's you, not the instrument. It happens quite frequently.

99% of the audience can't tell a Hofner from an Alembic with ears alone, but 99% of us bassists can. So, the issue is: *Why* does bass X sound different from bass Y?

I disagree. If the audience members are familiar with what either bass sounds like, I'd bet they can tell the difference. It also depends on what the player is doing with each bass. Use enough affects and just about any bass will be unrecognizable.

This whole conversation is typical. There are people here saying that fretboard material absolutely makes no difference. That's okay, for them I guess it doesn't. The idea that only gear snobs can hear the difference is funny too. Because people who experience stuff you can't must be snobs. The Ric/Jazz comparison was especially entertaining. Apples-to-taranntulas, anyone?

The answer is usually electronics, but we're talkin' fingerboards. The majority of us believe that when a maple board bass sounds brighter than a rosewood board bass, it's because of the fingerboard (for the purpose of this post, all basses are fretted). So... what's the explanation when a rosewood board bass sounds brighter than a maple board one? (It happens often... if you've never heard it, then it's you, not the instruments. ) Ohhhh, if rosewood board is brighter, then something *besides* the fingerboard is at play. But if "all else is equal", what then? A warp in the space-time continuum?

I disagree. IME the difference usually isn't electronics, unless there's either an obvious noticeable difference bewteen them right out of the box or it's the ONLY different thing about an instrument. IME body and neck/fingerboard material USUALLY decide the base sound of an instrument.

I usually check out basses unamplified first. And I hear distinct differences on a regular basis. Hmmm...

obviously I'm a snob

Specifically, which "all else being equal" basses did you try where Rosewood was brighter than Ash? I mean what actual basses are you talking about? Brand/model/etc.? And was that experience what you would consider the norm?

Short answer: it's the inconsistency of wood. All the tap testing in the world can't eliminate that inconsistency. I've noticed differences in tone from identical basses strung with identical string sets. Ken Smith said he's noticed differences between identical basses built with wood taken from the very same planks.

I don't think that anyone saying wood matters is saying there are no inconsistencies in wood. OTOH when was the last time you heard an Alder bass and an Ash bass sound IDENTICAL? "All else being equal" of course.

The logical conclusion is to listen with your ears, not your eyes. Ok, this doesn't apply when you can't try before you buy: in that case, go with your opinion, or that of your luthier. But most of us who have placed a custom order or built a parts bass will testify that actual results often vary from expected. It's not chemistry or math: there are many possible results for A + B + C, regardless of the skill of the manufacturer or quality of materials.

The part that can be particularly frustraing about this is that people just can't seem to discern one thing from another. No offense to anyone in particular.

I have a friend who decided his next bass was going to be a custom and that it had to have an Ebony fretboard. Why? Because a bassist he had seen had a completely dissimilar custom bass with an Ebony board. The logic is baffling if it's not as simplistic as it seems. I asked him if he had played the guy's bass and the answer was no. So by all means, get Ebony.

Building or choosing a bass can't always be simply going down a laundry list but that's exactly what some people do. You can easily end up with less than what you wanted simply because you had no idea how to get there sonically. getting black block inlays on any bass won't make you sound like Geddy Lee. Getting a Maple board on any bass won't make you sound like Marcus. Getting silver inlays won't make you sound like the Ox.

You have two basics you need to decide on, is your priority looks or function. Most people I know who order custom basses look for the visual "Wow!" factor. Bad move IMO unless you plan on only looking at the bass. Few things more annoying than a great looking bass that sounds blah.

On the playability issue, I have seen no advantage or disadvantage to playability regarding fretboard material. You might have to play harder or softer to get the sound you want but as far as merely fretting the strings I haven't seen any FB material that had an advantage. The main differences on that are construction, finish and design. That's where playability is determined IME. I don't touch the fretboard so how could it affect touch?

 

[paulraphael]

Differences in weight are easily measured and therefore verified. We're talking about the tonal contribution of various fingerboard woods. How do you propose to measure and verify that?

You could do it with a double-blind listening test, with a large sample of listeners and a large sample of instruments designed identically except for the fingerboard wood.

Or if you find the conventions of subjective testing unconvincing, you could make a plucking machine and analyze wafeform patterns with an oscilloscope. Dramatic differences in waveform would probably count as supporting a difference in tone.

I'm not suggesting doing any of this ... it would be a major pain, and personally, I'd rather just buy a bass that sounds good and feels good to me.

But the point is, you COULD scientifically support (or dispute) the existence of a difference --which makes the issue no more a matter of opinion than weight is.

Which one sounds BETTER is, and will always be, a matter of opinion.

 

[lug]

You could do it with a double-blind listening test, with a large sample of listeners and a large sample of instruments designed identically except for the fingerboard wood.

Or if you find the conventions of subjective testing unconvincing, you could make a plucking machine and analyze wafeform patterns with an oscilloscope. Dramatic differences in waveform would probably count as supporting a difference in tone.

I'm not suggesting doing any of this ... it would be a major pain, and personally, I'd rather just buy a bass that sounds good and feels good to me.

But the point is, you COULD scientifically support (or dispute) the existence of a difference --which makes the issue no more a matter of opinion than weight is.

Which one sounds BETTER is, and will always be, a matter of opinion.

A Spectrum Analyser would be more appropriate. Actually gives the amplitude at a given frequency. You can check the power of the fundimental and all associated overtones much easier this way.

 

[Fuzzbass]

IME body and neck/fingerboard material USUALLY decide the base sound of an instrument. I usually check out basses unamplified first. And I hear distinct differences on a regular basis. Hmmm...

Sure. But playing an electric instrument unplugged is of limited usefulness. Ears pick up acoustic reflections that won't be sensed by magnetic pickups. Likewise, pickups have colorations that won't be present in the ear... and vice versa, for that matter.

Anyway, I don't know that anyone's saying wood isn't a factor.

I don't think that anyone saying wood matters is saying there are no inconsistencies in wood. OTOH when was the last time you heard an Alder bass and an Ash bass sound IDENTICAL? "All else being equal" of course.

"Identical"? BTFOM. However on multiple occasions I've heard identical basses that didn't sound identical... that says a lot.

I've also heard alder basses that sounded ashy and vice versa; rosewood board basses that sounded brighter than their maple equivalent (and maple warmer than rosewood), etc.

IME, these so-called "exceptions to the rule" are not uncommon. I started noticing them after I opened my mind to the fact that the accepted rules don't always apply... no offense to anyone in particular!

Building or choosing a bass can't always be simply going down a laundry list but that's exactly what some people do. You can easily end up with less than what you wanted simply because you had no idea how to get there sonically.

Sure, that's part of the story. The other part is that you can also get less than (or simply something different than) what you want even when you DO make the right choices based on the commonly accepted truths: swamp ash sounds like X, alder sounds like Y, etc.

Wood is that inconsistent. Again, luthery isn't math: there can be many different answers to A + B + C. I'm not the only one who has noticed that identical basses can sound dramatically different.

If equivalent basses can sound different, then of course different basses can sound different. In the real world: sure, sometimes maple follows the rule: it is brighter than rosewood (AEBE). But sometimes rosewood is brighter than maple.

Finally: sometimes maple is brighter than maple. That says a lot... think about it. Example: swapping rosewood-to-maple on the same J-bass body doesn't prove anything. Any difference in tone might be due to differences in the neck wood rather than the fingerboard. Again: maple is sometimes brighter than maple!

 

[Fuzzbass]

But the point is, you COULD scientifically support (or dispute) the existence of a difference --which makes the issue no more a matter of opinion than weight is.

No such study has been done, and nobody really knows if a conclusive study could be done**. So, by definition, all anyone has is opinion.


**The only way to prove anything is to take the very same instrument and test it with, say, 100 maple fingerboards and 100 rosewood fingerboards. (What kinds of maple? What kinds of rosewood? Gets complicated, doesn't it?) Anyway, one could easily argue that the act of removing and regluing so many fingerboards would change the structure of the instrument, and therefore invalidate the test.

If you don't test using the same instrument, you have to somehow account for differences in the non-fingerboard portions of the instruments even if made from the same materials. As noted, identical instruments can sound distinctly different.

 

[Fuzzbass]

I love these debates.


Questions for those who believe maple = this and rosewood = that:

What are the tonal differences (if any) between birdseye, flame, rock, quilt, spalt, and other maple fingerboards?

What are the differences (if any) between Bolivian, Indian, pau ferro, and other rosewood boards?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, either... I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Akami]

Metal volume knobs sound better than plastic!

Just kidding guys!!

If a Maple tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, will it sound like rosewood?

Well I noticed that my Sterling has pretty good sustain and I think you may have a point about the metal knobs.

Also I think my Adamas got a little brighter sound when I changed my tuner knobs from gold plated to ebony.

 

[paulraphael]

No such study has been done, and nobody really knows if a conclusive study could be done**. So, by definition, all anyone has is opinion.

Dude, a little philosophy and a little science will serve you well here.

By definition in this case we have speculation, prediction, assumption, or any number of other things. Opinion really isn't one of them.

This is a semantic point, more than anything else, but it's a pet peeve of mine. People state opinion as fact, and factual speculation as opinion, sometimes in the same argument, and wonder why suddenly the other guy is condescending to them and not taking them seriously. This might be one of the reasons.

As far as a "conclusive study," well, there is no such thing. As there is no such thing as scientific proof. If you see that phrase, it's not being used by a scientist. The world is too complicated for conclusiveness, so everything is presumed to be provisional. You're right that there are a lot of variables to contend with in a case like this, but compelling studies have been done with much more complex variable sets and starting conditions. The only reason it hasn't been done is because who cares? We're talking about basses, not world hunger. Either you like the way they sound or not. Which is a matter of opinion.

 

[SamJ]

wow, 14 pages and we're still at:

1. most experts agree that a maple fretboard is brighter than a rosewood board.

2. Fret board has more effect on sound than body, but body nevertheless has effect

3. Some can't tell the difference

4. The same type wood can sound different on a similar bass, due to variance.

Did I miss something?

 

[paulraphael]

No such study has been done, and nobody really knows if a conclusive study could be done**. So, by definition, all anyone has is opinion.

Dude, a little philosophy and a little science will serve you well here.

By definition in this case we have speculation, prediction, assumption, or any number of other things. Opinion really isn't one of them.

This is a semantic point, more than anything else, but it's a pet peeve of mine. People state opinion as fact, and factual speculation as opinion, sometimes in the same argument, and wonder why suddenly the other guy is condescending to them and not taking them seriously. This might be one of the reasons.

As far as a "conclusive study," well, there is no such thing. As there is no such thing as scientific proof. If you see that phrase, it's not being used by a scientist. The world is too complicated for conclusiveness, so everything is presumed to be provisional. You're right that there are a lot of variables to contend with in a case like this, but compelling studies have been done with much more complex variable sets and starting conditions. The only reason it hasn't been done is because who cares? We're talking about basses, not world hunger. Either you like the way they sound or not. Which is a matter of opinion.

 

[Fretless5verfan]

Dude, a little philosophy and a little science will serve you well here.

By definition in this case we have speculation, prediction, assumption, or any number of other things. Opinion really isn't one of them.

Oh come on man There's nothing that sperates opinion from those other words.

 

[paulraphael]

Oh come on man There's nothing that sperates opinion from those other words.

Yeah, there's one thing. One key thing. Your opinion can't be wrong.

You're entitled to it, whatever it is. If you think milk chocolate tastes better than dark chocolate, that a mexican fender sounds better than a Sadowsky, that Green Day is the pinnacle of punk ... you're entitled. The rightness or wrongness of your opinion can't be demonstrated. Someone might disrespect your opinion, disagree with you, or think you're a dork ... but that's just his opinion.

Not so with those other concepts. Assumptions, predictions, speculations, can apply to things that are verifiable. "I'm going on the assumption that he doesn't have a gun." "I predict the Mets will lose." "It's my speculation that zinc prices will go up thousand percent." These topics are all up for debate, but they are not matters of opinion.

If more people got the significance of distinctions like these, they'd communicate more clearly, and we might even have fewer 14 page threads that don't go anywhere.