Rosewood/Maple Finger Boards - Tone difference?

[john turner]

However, the original poster did seem a little miffed that he got the "do a search" response, and even pointed out that it would have not taken all that much more time to respond to the question. Anyway, I have strong opinions about things, as you can probably tell.

the point about doing a search is that there just may be a lot of relevant discussion on the topic that may be missed because the folks who were involved the first time around might not be so inclined to repeat themselves. shoot, they might not even be active anymore.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Well, I dunno. Certainly that's one definition. Another might be this: an instrument that has significant acoustic properties. The sounds a synthesizer makes when struck aren't significant in this sense IMO, because they have no real effect on the sound the instrument makes when you use it musically. The sounds an unplugged solid-body bass makes do, however, affect how it sounds when plugged in. If they didn't, a bass made of, say, Lexan would always and everywhere sound the same as one made of maple or walnut or pine plywood. Without getting into the argument of how much body and neck material and construction affect sound, I don't think many of us would argue that construction and material never have any affect at all. As soon as you concede that a solid-body bass's construction can affect sound, to whatever degree, you concede that the bass has audible acoustic properties, even if only modest ones. If these properties are audible, they're significant in tonal terms. Thus, a solid-body bass would be an acoustic instrument by the definition I gave above.

BTW, I don't know if this has ever been done with a bass, but on Buddy Holly's records, part of his guitar sound came from a mike on the strings of his Strat, picking up purely the acoustic sound of his electric guitar.

I am not aware of any electric solidbody basses being recorded or gigged with acoustically.

Acoustic: "of or related to sound or hearing". The sound waves a bass produces aren't relevant because they aren't sensed to a significant degree by pickups. Magnetic pickups sense the oscillation of a metal string within their magnetic field (and microphonic pickups are generally considered bad). Optical pickups sense the vibration of the string via light, and piezo pickups primarily sense string vibration.

Of course the sound you hear when playing a bass unplugged is somewhat related to that you'll hear when plugging in (and I specifically said that was not true about a synth), but I'm not aware of the sound of an electric bass ever being recorded or amplified. Put an unplugged solidbody up against a drummer, acoustic guitar, or upright bass, and you'll lose every time. On recordings and at gigs, what you hear from an electric bass is the signal coming from the pickups.

So, the important thing about an electric bass is how it vibrates, not how it sounds. Huge difference. I've heard plenty of basses that had crappy unplugged tone but wonderful amplified tone... and vice versa. Yes, a bass is mechanical, it vibrates... but it isn't acoustic. Acoustic instruments are built to produce sound. Electric solidbodies are built to vibrate a string in a pleasing way, and their electronics are designed to convert that vibration to electrons. When playing a bass unplugged, your ears will detect information not sensed by the pickups.... and vice versa. So it's perfectly reasonable to say that an electric bass is not an acoustic instrument.





P.S. Jeez, people whine about us going on and on about fretboards, and people whine when we change the subject. Some people are cranky this week!

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Acoustic: "of or related to sound or hearing". The sound waves a bass produces aren't relevant because they aren't sensed to a significant degree by pickups.

Here's where you're going wrong. The sound waves the bass produces *are* directly relevant because they reflect how the body resonates, the way the body resonates influences how the strings vibrate, and the way the strings vibrate within the magnetic field of the PUs directly influences the sound that results. You seem to be assuming that what the body of the bass is doing has no relation to what the strings are doing, or at least that all the influence flows in one direction, and this is incorrect. Not only do the strings act on the body, but the body acts on the strings as well. Even piezos and optical pickups pick up string vibrations that are influenced by the vibrational properties of the body.

And "of or related to sound or hearing" means no more than what it says. What it does not say is "designed to produce sound without amplification." The definition you quote is actually a very broad one that easily accommodates a definition of a solid-body electric bass as an acoustic instrument.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

So, the important thing about an electric bass is how it vibrates, not how it sounds. Huge difference.

Actually, it's not a huge difference, really. Vibration and sound are very closely related. Not to get all cosmic, but all sound is vibration. A bass that vibrates differently will make the strings vibrate differently, and this will affect the sound. Therefore, the bass has acoustic properties--that is, properties of or related to sound or hearing. Therefore, it is, in the sense I mentioned above, an acoustic instrument.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I am not aware of any electric solidbody basses being recorded or gigged with acoustically.

Cool... what exactly does that have to do with whether an electric bass is first an acoustic instrument?

By your statement you're acting as if the EB can only be used for recording and gigging. That's obviously wrong. How could a non acoustic instrument, or one that makes "noise" as you put it, be used to practice at home without plugging in?

Again, try that with most synths. There's your difference.

Acoustic: "of or related to sound or hearing". The sound waves a bass produces aren't relevant because they aren't sensed to a significant degree by pickups. Magnetic pickups sense the oscillation of a metal string within their magnetic field (and microphonic pickups are generally considered bad). Optical pickups sense the vibration of the string via light, and piezo pickups primarily sense string vibration.

Did you leave something out?

"of or related to sound or hearing"... when gigging or recording.


The sound waves are relevant because they can in many cases represent what the basses sound when plugged in will be.

Can you tune a bass unplugged? I can.
Can you transpose on an unplugged bass? I can.

Now substitute "synth" for bass in the above. Same answer?

The only way either of these would truly be possible for an instrument is if you can HEAR the instrument unplugged and so far you're contending that they make "noise" not usable musical notes.

Of course the sound you hear when playing a bass unplugged is somewhat related to that you'll hear when plugging in (and I specifically said that was not true about a synth), but I'm not aware of the sound of an electric bass ever being recorded or amplified. Put an unplugged solidbody up against a drummer, acoustic guitar, or upright bass, and you'll lose every time. On recordings and at gigs, what you hear from an electric bass is the signal coming from the pickups.

Somewhat related? Meaning? When I play notes on any EB unplugged I've yet to find that those notes are not the same notes when plugged in. Electronics CAN make the unplugged and plugged in tone very different but by the same token most of my favorite basses, when amplified, sound like the unplugged tone... just louder. Coincidence? Nope. Much simpler reason

Maybe you just mean they aren't LOUD acoustic instruments. Saying they're not acoustic just makes no sense to me.

So, the important thing about an electric bass is how it vibrates, not how it sounds. Huge difference. I've heard plenty of basses that had crappy unplugged tone but wonderful amplified tone... and vice versa. Yes, a bass is mechanical, it vibrates... but it isn't acoustic. Acoustic instruments are built to produce sound. Electric solidbodies are built to vibrate a string in a pleasing way, and their electronics are designed to convert that vibration to electrons. When playing a bass unplugged, your ears will detect information not sensed by the pickups.... and vice versa. So it's perfectly reasonable to say that an electric bass is not an acoustic instrument.

Those vibrations ARE sound. Have you heard sounds without vibrations?

P.S. Jeez, people whine about us going on and on about fretboards, and people whine when we change the subject. Some people are cranky this week!

Maybe they should start a separate whining thread

Probably been done before... do a search!

 

[Brad Johnson]

Actually, it's not a huge difference, really. Vibration and sound are very closely related. Not to get all cosmic, but all sound is vibration. A bass that vibrates differently will make the strings vibrate differently, and this will affect the sound. Therefore, the bass has acoustic properties--that is, properties of or related to sound or hearing. Therefore, it is, in the sense I mentioned above, an acoustic instrument.

Agreed.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Can you tune a bass unplugged? I can.
Can you transpose on an unplugged bass? I can.

Now substitute "synth" for bass in the above. Same answer?

Yep, that's an even simpler and clearer way to to think about it.

Can you hear and differentiate pitches on an unplugged bass?

Can differently made (or sometimes even identically made) basses sound different unplugged?

Can differently made basses sound different even when all hardware electronics, and strings are identical?

Yes, yes, and yes. Therefore, a solid-body bass has inherent physical properties that are of or related to sound--that is, properties that are by definition acoustic.

 

[FaithNoMan]

Richard, you and Brad make a lot of sense(been following this thread from afar)

 

[Fuzzbass]

Yep, that's an even simpler and clearer way to to think about it.

Can you hear and differentiate pitches on an unplugged bass?

Can differently made (or sometimes even identically made) basses sound different unplugged?

Can differently made basses sound different even when all hardware electronics, and strings are identical?

Yes, yes, and yes. Therefore, a solid-body bass has inherent physical properties that are of or related to sound--that is, properties that are by definition acoustic.

An electric solid-body bass has acoustic properties, but those acoustic properties are not used to create music: pickups sense the oscillation of the string, not the sound produced by that string. Sure, there's some relationship between the two, and sure, I can rehearse with my bass unplugged, and tune my bass unplugged. But that is not significant: the bottom line is that I will never ever record or gig with my bass unplugged, and I'm not aware of anyone else doing so. It's a huge stretch to call an electric solidbody bass an acoustic instrument just because it makes sound with pitch.

On the flip side of the coin, it's a huge stretch to call a double bass an electric instrument just because some of them have pickups!

It's simple: double basses were designed to be used without amplifcation. Solidbody bass guitars were not.

 

[Sadowsky]

Agreed----but the pickups reflect the acoustic properties of the instrument.

Roger

 

[Fuzzbass]

Agreed----but the pickups reflect the acoustic properties of the instrument.

Roger

Yes. True whether the instrument is electric or acoustic.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Yes. True whether the instrument is electric or acoustic.

But that where the logical disconnect happens. If the pickups reflect the acoustic properties of an electric instrument, then that electric instrument *is* an acoustic instrument, simply because of the fact that it has acoustic properties.

Also, you're assuming that a bass has to be either acoustic or electric, and I know of no reason to assume that. It's a mistaken assumption IMO.

A bass guitar is an electric instrument that is also to a significant extent an acosutic instrument, because it has acoustic properties that affect the sound. A synthesizer is an electric, or perhaps rather electronic, instrument that is *not* also an acoustic instrument, because it has no acoustic properties that affect the sound to any meaningful extent.

 

[Sadowsky]

Very good analogy!

Roger

 

[Dbassmon]

Shouldn't somebody be practicing the bass. All this waisted energy could have been spent in more valuable ways? Just an opinion

BYW- who's winning? I stopped reading afer post 462. Last tally 167 v 193 for what the definition of is, is. 367 to 0 that a rock is not an acoustic instrument if it falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it. Depends are more absorbant the the store brand by a vote 266 to 9. I concur with the Depends being more absorbant cause this thread is waist deep.
Please keep us posted

 

[lug]

367 to 0 that a rock is not an acoustic instrument if it falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it.

Made that 367 to 1.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Also, you're assuming that a bass has to be either acoustic or electric, and I know of no reason to assume that. It's a mistaken assumption IMO.

Was the bass designed to be used with or without amplification? In the studio, do you mic the instrument or the amp? Some basses blur the line (ABG's), but for the most part, they're easy enough to classify.

But that where the logical disconnect happens. If the pickups reflect the acoustic properties of an electric instrument, then that electric instrument *is* an acoustic instrument, simply because of the fact that it has acoustic properties.

It all starts with vibration: plucking the string. The harmonics of that oscillating string are determined by the bass' mechanical properties. The vibration of that entity creates the sound. But the pickups sense oscillation, so the sound is simply an artifact. If it was useful, we'd be mic'ing our EBG's in the studio, not plugging them in.

My definitions: sound is what you hear when playing unplugged. Tone comes from the pickups.

Does the sound of an EBG reflect its tone? Sometimes... to a limited extent. Frankly IMO, all EBG's, even the highest-dollar ones played by the highest-caliber players, sound like crap unplugged: too much treble, not enough bass. But even when accounting for that, I've heard basses that sounded reasonably good when unplugged but had poor tone when amplified, and vice versa: poor sound, great tone.

Another tack: A Sadowsky J-bass can be ordered with JJ pickups, PJ pickups, and the "reverse" PJ setup. The bass will sound the same regardless of which pickups are installed... but these pickup configs produce different tone. No matter how transparent a pickup is, if you change its location and/or aperture, you get a very different tone from the instrument... dynamics, too. Jaco couldn't work his magic to the same extent on a stock 1957 P-bass (try squeezing burps or harmonics out of that)... but add a J bridge pup to it, wahlah... he can pretty much do his thing. Still *sounds* the same unplugged, just has another pickup for different tone and dynamics when amplified.

Point being, I see no disconnect. To the contrary: if you disconnect the pickups from an EBG, it's nearly useless. With DB, not so. Therefore an EBG is an EBG... nothing more.


P.S. I realize this is a semantic argument (an entertaining one for me, obviously ). I completely disagree with acoustic elitists who say "you can put strings and a pickup on any old plank of wood and have yourself a fine EBG". But I also disagree that a solidbody bass can be classified as acoustic simply because it produces some sound. That sound is never used for makin' music.

 

[bigd4207]

I can't believe this thread is still going. It's like the energizer bunny.

 

[Fuzzbass]

You seem to be assuming that what the body of the bass is doing has no relation to what the strings are doing, or at least that all the influence flows in one direction, and this is incorrect. Not only do the strings act on the body, but the body acts on the strings as well. Even piezos and optical pickups pick up string vibrations that are influenced by the vibrational properties of the body.

FWIW I believe that strings and body should be considered one mechanical entity. And yes, that vibrating entity happens to create sound waves that are recognizable in pitch and timbre.

But all that's beside the point: as noted above, the sound produced by an EBG is mostly an artifact. Some of us use it to gauge the quality of that instrument's amplified tone -- this is of dubious reliability, IME -- but anyone who uses acoustics alone to judge an EBG is a fool, unless he doesn't mind replacing electronics (or perhaps that's the intent: when purchasing an MIM Fender, for example).

When we start mic'ing our EBG's or playing 'em unplugged at coffee house gigs, we can call 'em acoustic. As it is now, few but us EBGers (when rehearsing at home) have ever heard the *sound* of an EBG.

 

[bigd4207]

Well put Fuzz, but still, mic'n a bass really doesn't make it acoustic IMO. The way I see it, an acoustic is defined by the ability to create notes and play them back self-amplified. Self amplified being the key term. Anything that vibates, creates accoustics. Everything has it's own acoustics, to a point. The body of any acoustic instument amplifies the the vibations. But just because you -can- hear an electric unplugged, doesn't really make it acoustic because nothing is amplified, it's just the acoustics of the vibrating string to the body. Take a string and hold one end down with something and stretch it tight. Pluck it and it will send out the acoustics of the vibrating string, but in no way now makes it an acoustic instrument. Do it again but hold a pot or something under it, not saying it will be loud but it will amplify the acoustics of the string and reflect them back, thus an acoustic one string pot. But IMO, an EBG is not close to acoustic, an ebg is meant to get it's sound through the pickups.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Was the bass designed to be used with or without amplification? In the studio, do you mic the instrument or the amp? Some basses blur the line (ABG's), but for the most part, they're easy enough to classify.




It all starts with vibration: plucking the string. The harmonics of that oscillating string are determined by the bass' mechanical properties. The vibration of that entity creates the sound. But the pickups sense oscillation, so the sound is simply an artifact. If it was useful, we'd be mic'ing our EBG's in the studio, not plugging them in.

My definitions: sound is what you hear when playing unplugged. Tone comes from the pickups.

Does the sound of an EBG reflect its tone? Sometimes... to a limited extent. Frankly IMO, all EBG's, even the highest-dollar ones played by the highest-caliber players, sound like crap unplugged: too much treble, not enough bass. But even when accounting for that, I've heard basses that sounded reasonably good when unplugged but had poor tone when amplified, and vice versa: poor sound, great tone.

Another tack: A Sadowsky J-bass can be ordered with JJ pickups, PJ pickups, and the "reverse" PJ setup. The bass will sound the same regardless of which pickups are installed... but these pickup configs produce different tone. No matter how transparent a pickup is, if you change its location and/or aperture, you get a very different tone from the instrument... dynamics, too. Jaco couldn't work his magic to the same extent on a stock 1957 P-bass (try squeezing burps or harmonics out of that)... but add a J bridge pup to it, wahlah... he can pretty much do his thing. Still *sounds* the same unplugged, just has another pickup for different tone and dynamics when amplified.

Point being, I see no disconnect. To the contrary: if you disconnect the pickups from an EBG, it's nearly useless. With DB, not so. Therefore an EBG is an EBG... nothing more.


P.S. I realize this is a semantic argument (an entertaining one for me, obviously ). I completely disagree with acoustic elitists who say "you can put strings and a pickup on any old plank of wood and have yourself a fine EBG". But I also disagree that a solidbody bass can be classified as acoustic simply because it produces some sound. That sound is never used for makin' music.

Obviously this thread is entertaining to me too.

For starters, what the bass was "designed" to do is irrelevant. What's relevant is what it actually does. By your own definition of acoustic, I remind you--of or related to sound or hearing--an EBG must be an acoustic instrument. There's nothing in that definition that says it has to be "designed" for unlpugged use. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether the sound is usable unplugged or not. What matters is that the unplugged sound indisputably exists, and that that sound affects the way the instrument sounds when in use plugged in.

Second, I think your distinction between sound and tone is a false one, and I don't think I've ever come across anyone who would agree with it or could support it. To me, the only definition of tone that makes any sense is something like "the totality of the sound that reaches the listener's ears." You could subdivide it into components, I guess, but that's about it. Jaco's tone was the way he sounded to a listener: a combination of his touch and technique, his bass (both its physical acoustic characteristics and its electronics), and his amp. It was also his sound. If you take my Shuker bass and plug it into me EA-Acme rig, that's its tone. It's also its sound. I've never heard anyone claim that the way an electric bass sounds plugged in is its tone but somehow not its sound. Or that the sound of an unplugged bass in somehow not a tone. In that verbal setting, the tone of a bass *is* its sound. If you'd said that one is the unplugged tone of the instrument and the other the plugged tone, I'd agree. But the distinction you're trying to make, as is, doesn't make sense. As an example, it boggles the mind to think how three different Sadowskys could have different tone but sound the same. That would be a neat trick if you could manage it. Sort of like having three flowers that all smell the same but have different odors.