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.
Well then there's the fact that the back is in contact with a big old acoustic dampener. Which begs the question, do rock hard abs affect tone?
I'll see myself out...
I'll see myself out...
This is not a philosophical debate, it has none of the trappings of philosophy, it has all of the trappings of religion.
I'm not dismissing anyone's personal experiences, I'm reminding them of the science, yes science, you know repeatable and predictable results... that says our experiences, psycho-acoustically may not co-incide with reality. Do I expect this to actually change anyone's mind? No, in fact, what I anticipated was folk whose faith I questioned getting all up in my grill about being dismissive and disrespectful when I was doing no such thing. The perceived slight to their faith, either mainstream religious, or tonewood fairy would prick them into responding when no response was required, only research, reflection and consideration. My position is the product of those things, and it's immensely disrespectful and dismissive of you to summarily dismiss that because it doesn't jive with your faith.
It's tremendously disrespectful and dismissive, and downright insulting that you choose to argue this with me at all, when your last line makes it patently obvious you haven't read the research. It's openly available, it's easy to find, and it's an enlightening read. I strongly encourage you to amend your ignorance before you dive back into this subject again.
But, it's six of one, half dozen of the other to me, it's off to the ignore list with you. Any other zealots on the thread? Don't bother with your half-baked rationalizations, quote this or my other post and put "Add me to ignore" in the body of your post.
Speaking as a research scientist, this is incorrect. For the hypothesis, the method was relatively sound with few holes in the variance analysis and it was conducted in an efficiently controlled manner. Vibration analysis won't tell you anything about how a person perceives sound or quality of same.
I recommend reading the original research article posted by @Frederiek in post #7.
Anyone else find it odd that the playability matched the overall sound quality of a guitar more so than between types of wood?
The author also says the difference in bridge admittance measurements are due likely to variability in manufacturing and not the back wood. That is not possible to determine given the study design. In fact, every effort was made to minimize the variability in manufacturing--for the most part. The study just couldn't tell this. To determine if variability in manufacturing is the cause, it would need multiple identical guitars to compare alongside the different ones.
Lastly, I did not understand the part where the luthier made the thickness and size of the wood for the back and sides to his preference. It would seem better if there was some element of standardization and the luthier was blinded to what he was working with.
Also, I like the discussion so far...keep it up.
My favorite posts are the ones that take a decent scientific paper and then extrapolate conclusions that the paper doesn't and can't make. The only thing you can learn from this paper is that guitars made by this builder in a particular body shape with Sitka spruce tops, ebony fretboards, elixir bronze strings, etc will have a difference in overall sound quality dependent on the back and side wood that is too small for this study design to measure.
The author also says the difference in bridge admittance measurements are due likely to variability in manufacturing and not the back wood. That is not possible to determine given the study design. In fact, every effort was made to minimize the variability in manufacturing--for the most part. The study just couldn't tell this. To determine if variability in manufacturing is the cause, it would need multiple identical guitars to compare alongside the different ones.
Lastly, I did not understand the part where the luthier made the thickness and size of the wood for the back and sides to his preference. It would seem better if there was some element of standardization and the luthier was blinded to what he was working with.
Also, I like the discussion so far...keep it up.
My favorite posts are the ones that take a decent scientific paper and then extrapolate conclusions that the paper doesn't and can't make. The only thing you can learn from this paper is that guitars made by this builder in a particular body shape with Sitka spruce tops, ebony fretboards, elixir bronze strings, etc will have a difference in overall sound quality dependent on the back and side wood that is too small for this study design to measure.
Well, I don't want to drum up more drama but feel a bit compelled to respond to a couple of posts. Then we're back on topic!
Philosophy has beliefs with no proof. Religion may share this but also involves belief in god or the supernatural. People with a tone wood belief are expressing a philosophy, not a religion.
Perhaps that was your intent, but your words were "another damn religion" and "topic of tonewood should be banned here". Insulting to people of faith and calls for an end to open discussion about tonewood.
I better hit "Post" before the thread is locked.
Last edited:
Back on topic - Yes, I've heard differences in basses that I attribute to the wood but found those differences disappear once the bass in used in a band setting. Recordings seem to show no difference at all.
So I'm somewhere between "makes a difference but that difference doesn't matter" and "makes no difference". I do think that the question does not lend itself real well to a controlled scientific experiment mainly due the difficulty of controlling the experiment so that the only difference is the wood.
So I'm somewhere between "makes a difference but that difference doesn't matter" and "makes no difference". I do think that the question does not lend itself real well to a controlled scientific experiment mainly due the difficulty of controlling the experiment so that the only difference is the wood.
Also, what you are measuring tends to be very obscure and subjective. Best sound?
It is tough to extrapolate a study like this to other instruments since maybe a difference would be seen with certain bracing and not others or different body shapes but not others.
You also got me thinking about as much trouble as went into this study, there is no control. So from a scientific perspective it is a very flawed study. Unless I am missing something, in which case please fill me in.
But measuring if there is any difference is easier, and if people don't hear any difference, there is no practical difference (or "better").
They didn't measure if there was a difference in sound for the listener. They rated the sound as overall quality.
The study is much more scientific than anyone else has provided in this thread, and much more reliable than hundreds of anecdotes and vibration analysis.
The study is based on the performers rating of the 1) overall sound quality and 2) playability. There was no measurable difference given the study design. That does not mean that there was no difference in what the guitars sounded like, just that they were rated as sounding about as good as each other.
That is probably a minor point. But it is different than saying that it makes no difference to how the instrument sounded. Both could sound good overall, but one might be more bright or dark. That is different than sounding bad. I think it is in line with what most people perceive when they play a less desirable wood guitar in that it still sounds pretty good as long as construction is good.
That is probably a minor point. But it is different than saying that it makes no difference to how the instrument sounded. Both could sound good overall, but one might be more bright or dark. That is different than sounding bad. I think it is in line with what most people perceive when they play a less desirable wood guitar in that it still sounds pretty good as long as construction is good.
since i build acoustics i just gotta retort:
-the top and how it's braced has the most effect on the instruments sound, back plate second, sides third -but most importantly the guitar works as a whole, every element affects the others.
-build any back and side combo too thick, cover it with thick finish, and it's going to sound like the wood makes no difference.
-the compression and dampening maple brings to the table vs brz rosewood is noticeable . overbuilt guitars or not i suspect these "testers" had undeveloped ears.
-i think what this exercise really reveals is the builders' personal sound profile. using mixed ingredients he's crafted "his sound". Bucknall's been around a long time and he knows what to do to deliver his signature tone regardless of the materials. we all do this to a degree because of the variance in wood quality and availability. production level builders like Flyde even more so. with small scale builders like Klepper and Sexauer, every guitar sounds different because they build right to the edge and bring out what each different wood has to offer.
-at the end of the day "Q" is subjective.
-alternative woods have been in use by us for years now. CITES and other availability issues have made getting the premium stuff difficult. the older builders who have a large wood stash are going to run out eventually. not really new news.
-the top and how it's braced has the most effect on the instruments sound, back plate second, sides third -but most importantly the guitar works as a whole, every element affects the others.
-build any back and side combo too thick, cover it with thick finish, and it's going to sound like the wood makes no difference.
-the compression and dampening maple brings to the table vs brz rosewood is noticeable . overbuilt guitars or not i suspect these "testers" had undeveloped ears.
-i think what this exercise really reveals is the builders' personal sound profile. using mixed ingredients he's crafted "his sound". Bucknall's been around a long time and he knows what to do to deliver his signature tone regardless of the materials. we all do this to a degree because of the variance in wood quality and availability. production level builders like Flyde even more so. with small scale builders like Klepper and Sexauer, every guitar sounds different because they build right to the edge and bring out what each different wood has to offer.
-at the end of the day "Q" is subjective.
-alternative woods have been in use by us for years now. CITES and other availability issues have made getting the premium stuff difficult. the older builders who have a large wood stash are going to run out eventually. not really new news.
Last edited:
^ This.
Tone Wood Tester's YouTube video leaves a lot to be desired in scientific rigour - his measurement was done by eyeballing a wav track visualization in Logic. What bugged me, is that after all the engineering he did to build his test instrument (yuk yuk), he held and strummed the instrument differently in each test. He could have engineered some sort of strum machine to control for those human variables - and used a more rigorous measurement device than Logic and eyeballing.
He basically built a high fidelity tool and measured it with a low fidelity device - kinda like coverting fibre optic cable back into sand.
To the ppl who have 2 of the "same" electric basses, but with different body woods: I'll stipulate that they sound different; but there's no basis for attributing that to the different body woods. Two alder P-basses can sound very different. There are a lot of possible reasons for this, including differences between body blanks of the same species, but also all the other factors we understand have an effect, such as neck joint, how the pickup is wound, etc. etc. etc. There is also the possibility - not blaming, just sayin' it's possible - that you've bought into the body-wood hype. Maybe just a little.
And on a related note, on the "tone is in your hands" point, why is it that people are still debating whether certain tracks on Rubber Soul were cut with the Hofner or the Rickenbacker? Seriously, that is still a thing. Can you name 2 basses that can sound more different in other hands? Given that, it seems silly to debate whether the Hofner would sound different, for example, with a spruce versus a mahogany top.
And on a related note, on the "tone is in your hands" point, why is it that people are still debating whether certain tracks on Rubber Soul were cut with the Hofner or the Rickenbacker? Seriously, that is still a thing. Can you name 2 basses that can sound more different in other hands? Given that, it seems silly to debate whether the Hofner would sound different, for example, with a spruce versus a mahogany top.
This makes sense and in the context of the study. Thanks for your insight.
I think people are reading too much into what the study is demonstrating. It demonstrates that you can make an equally good sounding instrument with any of the woods.
