The truth Wood resonance Build Ect.

[mongo2]

Just because they are made by the same company as the same product, doesn't mean they have the same build quality.

Except that they do. It's one of the goals of mass production, and Fender does it pretty well.

And Mongo2, I never stated that tolerances were a be-all and end-all, they are just have a large impact of the amplified tone of an electrical instrument (just something else in the equation is what I was getting at).

Never said you did but the tolerances of the pots and cap in an insrument actually aren't that big of a player in the grand scheme of amplification, especially when using passive instruments with the pots full on.

 

[melodicly]

Just because they are made by the same company as the same product, doesn't mean they have the same build quality.

And Mongo2, I never stated that tolerances were a be-all and end-all, they are just have a large impact of the amplified tone of an electrical instrument (just something else in the equation is what I was getting at).

Yeah what he said.... I guess instead of "..." I should have clarified....

I feel that in some cases the tolerances of the neck pocket, bridge placement, even if the neck screws are at different angles can have as much of an affect as the wood selection. That's why IMHO two jazz basses built by the same joe at the factory on the same day can sound totally different.

Of course if you feel wood selection makes no difference I guess that's kind moot huh? I know that nobody coming to my shows can tell if my neck is flat sawn or quarter sawn or maple or plastic. They do notice when I play like plastic though.

 

[xk49w]

I think a distinction needs to be made between the two subjective observations that are made with respect to an instrument, its construction, electronics, etc..

One is made by the player of the instrument where pretty much everything matters. The other is by an untrained, or even trained listener, where they pretty much can't hear the differences.

OTOH, if the player thinks there is a difference then his/her performance can be affected, and that is something that can be heard by an observer.

 

[Jim C]

back in the 70's a few bassists that liked the way that their rickenbacker 4001's played, wanted them to sound more like a fender jazz bass. each of them asked me to install a genuine fender jazz bass pickup in the bridge position, since it didn't require any routing and would be completely reversible. on the first two occasions, i did the modification for them, mounting the j bass pickup onto its own plastic piece and mounted it in the same manner as the original pickup (i.e. using the original chrome frame/bezel). well guess what? it didn't sound anything like a jazz bass when comparing using just the bridge pickup on both a jazz or a rick bass. it did change the tonal properties a little, but still sounded like a rickenbacker 4001. ever since the first couple of them that i did, i told every subsequent guy that requested it, that if you want a jazz bass sound out of a rick, its not going to happen, and i will always stand by that observation of the results.

Interesting analogy and one I have never considered or tried

 

[Brad Johnson]

People who have an "opinion" about this one way or the other are unlikely to be swayed without the presence of a real, scientifically conducted set of tests - including wood types, weights, moisture contents, accurately calibrated measurements of pots, caps, wiring, etc, etc, etc - so in the absence of that, these threads invariably only lead to arguments.

If you believe that wood doesn't matter, then great . Go play whatever you want and don't worry. If you believe that it does matter, then great. Go play what you want and don't worry. Trying to convert people to "your way of thinking" is a futile effort.

Well said.

I'm not trying to sway anyone, I enjoy these little forays into alledged logic. My favorite is the observation that electric basses aren't acoustic. But you can still hear them unamplified. Weird... even the people who say they aren't acoustic have to admit they can hear them unplugged.

 

[lowphatbass]

All the scientific tests really wouldn't mean the world to me. Basses are played be humans(us) and therein lies the problem. I agree with certain generalities(maple being brighter than alder, of bolt-on vs. neck-thru, for example), but getting much beyond that can be largely pointless, IMO.

 

[mongo2]

Yeah what he said.... I guess instead of "..." I should have clarified....

I feel that in some cases the tolerances of the neck pocket, bridge placement, even if the neck screws are at different angles can have as much of an affect as the wood selection. That's why IMHO two jazz basses built by the same joe at the factory on the same day can sound totally different.

IME, different pieces of wood, especially necks, is much more of a reason why two jazz basses built by the same joe at the same factory on the same day can sound totally different.

 

[melodicly]

IME, different pieces of wood, especially necks, is much more of a reason why two jazz basses built by the same joe at the same factory on the same day can sound totally different.

I swear I meant to include "from the same piece of wood" in that.

Even further, one can have a large slab (chunk of one tree) of _____, but that doesn't mean the whole slab has the same density, knots, spacing of growth rings, density between the growth rings (dry, hot, cold, wet growing seasons), humidity levels, on and on.... I was raised in a furniture making family and it took me a long time to understand why they chose the "top" woods that they did, as there would be much prettier pieces just lying around, but the "harmonious balance of the woods" (both decorative and structural) MUST come before aesthetics. I.e. if your going to spend the time to make it beautiful, it's worth the sacrifce to make it last.

If it matters that much in heirloom furniture, why wouldn't it in an instrument?

Stradivarius anyone? I know there have been thousands of studies of what makes "that" sound, but is it understood enough that it can be "reproduced" in an instrument not made from "that wood, from that time"?

"All the scientific tests really wouldn't mean the world to me. Basses are played be humans(us) and therein lies the problem [BEAUTY]."

Disclaimer: I'm stirring the pot here in hopes that, well....... guess I just like stirring the pot sometimes.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

IMO, you just don't get it and have no idea of what you're talking about.

Thanks for inducing coversation, bro.

i never said that the OP did. i was responding to other replies about the pickups making the biggest difference.

Others have, I found it pertinent to clarify.

completely false. the only sustain that comes from hot pickups is overdriving the front end of the amp.

Nonsense - you can simulate sustain simply - in fact it's one of the easiest things to do purely with electronics - you don't even need 'good wood' - just a setup that doesn't choke the note instantly. Hotter pickups = more gain in the signal = long lasting sound wave (since more is picked up, then amplified). Might not sound great, but it's simple to do.

sorry, but wrong again. a mic or a pickup is used to amplify the source, be it any instrument or human voice. mics and pickups have different 'colors' but the source still plays the major role in the equation.

You're telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and you're still using this comparison?

Yes, they each play major roles, but they aren't close to the same, they don't have the same mechanics, they don't have the same positioning, they aren't used on the same instruments. If they were comparable you should be able to microphone a solid body bass (no amp) and get a similar sound then if you DI'd it (just using the pickups for sound). But, wait, they won't sound anything alike, will they?

Some people like to explain the roles of pickups to people who need a simplistic explanation. The nature of that simplistic explanation is often to liken pickups to microphones - in other words a piece of electronic machinery that takes a quieter signal and processes in a manner that eventually results in it being audible. That's a simplistic (and flawed) comparison. The sheer difference of the design of the two units means they don't and won't work in any way similar, just because they have an end goal (amplification) doesn't mean they work similarly at all. Ergo: don't compare them.

Especially when an instrument is designed around it's ELECTRONIC SOUND (in other words most basses are designed with specific pickups in mind) the microphone discussion becomes even more inane.

I have a bro that collects vintage P basses. He has over 30 of them. I played the 8 that were from '62-'64 and they all sounded different. All were stock with the same strings (flats), same setup, same wood, same fb wood, same pickup distance, all sounded very different.

Some were mellow, some were dubby, one had tons of high end like a jazz bass in the bridge pickup.

Even acoustic, some were a lot louder than others.

....and you've absolutely no basis to determine, factually, that the difference is due to the wood. It might be what you feel, and you may even be right. But a lot of people are saying 'these two basses look the same but sound different: it's the wood' and that's a pretty narrow minded argument - especially considering the myriad of other important factors.

Exactly, there are obvious audible differences in tone even when unplugged. That's certainly not due to any pickups or tolerances in the electronics.

But basses aren't played unplugged, no one's using an unplugged sound. You DI basses or you run them through an amp (pickups and controls do their work) and instantly all these other factors effecting the sonic signature of an instrument come into play, much more so than the acoustic nature of an instrument (since the acoustic nature isn't being taken into effect, magnetic pickups are relating to the metal strings, not the wooden body there's even less of a chance of wood difference translating in an audible fashion) - so I find it really odd that people still think that wood plays a significant role outside of creating an instrument with longevity, solid build and great playability.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

Except that they do. It's one of the goals of mass production, and Fender does it pretty well.

They may 'do it well' but no 2 instruments are the same (for any number of reasons) and Fender has certainly produced thousands of sub-par quality instruments.

 

[johnk_10]

Nonsense - you can simulate sustain simply - in fact it's one of the easiest things to do purely with electronics - you don't even need 'good wood' - just a setup that doesn't choke the note instantly. Hotter pickups = more gain in the signal = long lasting sound wave (since more is picked up, then amplified). Might not sound great, but it's simple to do.

IMO, you're still completley wrong about this, and that's not going to change by continuing to debate about it. hotter pickups can, and often do actually reduce sustain due to many of them having stronger magnets which stop the strings from vibrating sooner, having an electro-magnet braking effect. the most common way that they can increase sustain is by compressing the subsequent preamp stage by overdriving it, but you can do that by just raising the gain of a weaker pickup. and actually, pickups with weaker magnets allow the string to vibrate longer, impeded by less magnetism. as far as a bass' action goes, any decent setup is going to allow the strings to vibrate, unless its so low that its slapping against the higher frets and slightly muting them, so IMO, a setup doesn't have very much to do with sustain.

But basses aren't played unplugged, no one's using an unplugged sound. You DI basses or you run them through an amp (pickups and controls do their work) and instantly all these other factors effecting the sonic signature of an instrument come into play, much more so than the acoustic nature of an instrument (since the acoustic nature isn't being taken into effect, magnetic pickups are relating to the metal strings, not the wooden body there's even less of a chance of wood difference translating in an audible fashion) - so I find it really odd that people still think that wood plays a significant role outside of creating an instrument with longevity, solid build and great playability.

what you are completely discounting is that the manner that the magnetic strings vibrate (sustain), including their harmonic properties is completely determined by what they are attached to. if the materials (in this case wood) were to have different properties, the strings would vibrate completely different. as a drastic example to make it easier to explain, if a bass was made out of wood that had the stiffness and density of marble, it would sustain almost indefinitely, as opposed if it were made from balsa wood. the marble body wouldn't vibrate at all, leaving all of the energy for the string to dissipate, and and its would also be much brighter. if the electronics were the main source of an instrument's tone, dropping a set of p bass pickups into a Hofner would make it sound like a p bass, and its scale length would also not matter, but i think that its easy to see that that is not the case at all. even the common dead spots on a p bass are due to scale length and the resonant frequency of the wood, not because of the pickups used.

you appear to be so determined to dispute what i'm saying, that no amount of my experience is going to convince you, and it really doesn't matter to me whether you agree with me or not, so just enjoy your 'theory'.

unsubscribed

 

[mongo2]

But basses aren't played unplugged, no one's using an unplugged sound.

But it does demonstrate the differences between instruments that are not caused by pickups and electronics.

Those "unplugged" differences are the direct result of the influences of the structural components and wood on the vibrating string which is the basis of what the pickups and electronics have to work with.

They may 'do it well' but no 2 instruments are the same (for any number of reasons) and Fender has certainly produced thousands of sub-par quality instruments.

Don't I know it, but "sub-par" instruments are not the norm (hence the term "sup-par") and their existence really doesn't support the claim that build quality is a major contributing factor to the differences in tone found in the examples one finds at their local shops.

 

[bruiser1964]

I often play my basses unplugged, when I'm just noodling in front of the PC for instance... like now... they all sound very different, even with the same strings on, the individual characteristics would be obvious to a very small child. When I plug in it's the same characteristics I recognise through the amp, sustain warmth, colour, brightness all the same as when unplugged...
I'm away to phone my psychiatrist I've been deluding myself all these years...
Ps the OP was making the point about straight through -V- bolt ons... I qualify with my Overwater - V- Fender P, Fender J, or Lakland

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

IMO, you're still completley wrong about this, and that's not going to change by continuing to debate about it. hotter pickups can, and often do actually reduce sustain due to many of them having stronger magnets which stop the strings from vibrating sooner, having an electro-magnet braking effect. the most common way that they can increase sustain is by compressing the subsequent preamp stage by overdriving it, but you can do that by just raising the gain of a weaker pickup. and actually, pickups with weaker magnets allow the string to vibrate longer, impeded by less magnetism. as far as a bass' action goes, any decent setup is going to allow the strings to vibrate, unless its so low that its slapping against the higher frets and slightly muting them, so IMO, a setup doesn't have very much to do with sustain.

It's not a cover up - it's different - it's just an example of how electronics can work to produce an effect, nothing more. Setup only effects sustain when it's a **** setup, that's all I meant.

what you are completely discounting is that the manner that the magnetic strings vibrate (sustain), including their harmonic properties is completely determined by what they are attached to. if the materials (in this case wood) were to have different properties, the strings would vibrate completely different. as a drastic example to make it easier to explain, if a bass was made out of wood that had the stiffness and density of marble, it would sustain almost indefinitely, as opposed if it were made from balsa wood. the marble body wouldn't vibrate at all, leaving all of the energy for the string to dissipate, and and its would also be much brighter. if the electronics were the main source of an instrument's tone, dropping a set of p bass pickups into a Hofner would make it sound like a p bass, and its scale length would also not matter, but i think that its easy to see that that is not the case at all. even the common dead spots on a p bass are due to scale length and the resonant frequency of the wood, not because of the pickups used.

I'm not 'discounting' anything - I'm saying electronics are the more important than wood (although I'd say strings are the most important factor in a tone IMO!). We didn't discuss any number of other factors - scale length included. But that's not a tone wood, so it doesn't quite match your arguments or mine. No doubt marble and balsa wood would change the sound some - but how much? Given that the differences in the tone woods is hardly that extreme for a lot of the time (I've never seen a stone bass) well, things are different.

you appear to be so determined to dispute what i'm saying, that no amount of my experience is going to convince you, and it really doesn't matter to me whether you agree with me or not, so just enjoy your 'theory'.

unsubscribed

I don't care about your experience. Many people are set in their ways, doesn't bother me what they concern themselves with.

But it does demonstrate the differences between instruments that are not caused by pickups and electronics.

Those "unplugged" differences are the direct result of the influences of the structural components and wood on the vibrating string which is the basis of what the pickups and electronics have to work with.

Yes, they may well be the result of the wood. BUT! when you plug in and play (most of the time for the majority of the players) it's impossible to know if those unplugged characteristics are being put into your sound - and if they are where the sound signature derives from (all construction aspects of the bass). That's all I'm saying.

When you amp up a bass you introduce new components that are, IMO, much more important then wood - pickups, pre-amp, amp and cabinet - I think those factor much more into the overall sound then wood.

Don't I know it, but "sub-par" instruments are not the norm (hence the term "sup-par) and their existance really doesn't support the claim that build quality is a major contributing factor to the differences in tone found in the examples one finds at their local shops.

All I was trying to do was demonstrate that there's wide variation in Fender instruments, and that's fine, variety is the spice of life. But, comparisons between 'just 2 ol Ps' are hardly accurate or fair - IF you're attributing sound differences to the wood. Most likely it's a combination of things, most of which no one can ever say for sure.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Johnk... Thank you for bringing your years of real-world experiences to the discussion. Your observations are spot-on, of course, and you obviously KNOW what you're talking about.

NoseBleedKid... you are just flat-out wrong on most counts. The microphone/voice vs. pickups/structure analogy is much more accurate than you realize.

You could learn a lot from your seniors on TB with years of real-world playing, modding and luthier experience if really you wanted to.

 

[Fishheadjoe]

Ok, this may be way out in left field, a place I am quite familiar with btw, but what are your thoughts on this.
What about an all graphite bass, like a Steinberger... in a perfect world with a very close eye to production techniques, would'nt each and every Steinberger bass sound the same as the next one, assuming they have the same strings? By using this material and again, assuming that each are identical, which is much more feasible than a wood bass, they should all sound the same?
Out in left field wondering what your thoughts are?! Anyone had two of 'em to compare?
Fishheadjoe

 

[Nedmundo]

IME, different pieces of wood, especially necks, is much more of a reason why two jazz basses built by the same joe at the same factory on the same day can sound totally different.

My 2003 Am. Series Jazz developed a neck twist after a few months, and Fender replaced it under warranty. So, not the same tree or same day of production, but the same spec neck built around the same time. The tone of the bass changed noticeably, with more warmth and "wood" in the sound. I don't have nearly as much experience as many on here, but I've noticed that basses with strong acoustic resonance tend to sound the best amplified as well, with more punch and "woodiness." The very best basses are distinguished by this IMO, and an instrument that sounds dull or flat played acoustically can be improved only to a limited extent with better electronics.

I like this piece by Michael Tobias on the subject:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Ruckus_Instrmts]

Yes, they may well be the result of the wood. BUT! when you plug in and play (most of the time for the majority of the players) it's impossible to know if those unplugged characteristics are being put into your sound - and if they are where the sound signature derives from (all construction aspects of the bass). That's all I'm saying.

When you amp up a bass you introduce new components that are, IMO, much more important then wood - pickups, pre-amp, amp and cabinet - I think those factor much more into the overall sound then wood.


.

The "acoustic" properties of an electric bass may be negligible, however the pickups, pre-amp, controls all amplify these acoustic properties, as well as "color" them. The sound of an instrument ultimately begin at the those acoustics and are futher mended and molded "down the line". The difference from acoustic sound to electric sound has a lot to do with the limitations of electricity to capture and transmit accurately the complexity of sound. Don't believe me, Listen to orchestral music on record, then listen to it live. I don't care how good your stereo system is it will never be as "full" as live acoustic instruments.

 

[mongo2]

Most likely it's a combination of things, most of which no one can ever say for sure.

There ya go.

 

[JTE]

Now in electrical instruments, the role of the sound board, is taken exclusivity by the pick-ups...

This assumption is wrong, just dead wrong. The PUP only translates what the string is doing magnetically. And what the string is doing is the net result of complex interactions between the string, the bridge, the body, the neck, and all the components and choices made in the whole instrument. Otherwise, a Gibson SG and a Les Paul and an ES-335 and an ES-175 would all sound the same because they use the same pickups and controls.

Nope, an electric bass is still at heart a string vibrating. The neck design (both the neck itself and how it attaches to the body) has a huge impact on how the string vibrates, what frequencies are reinforced, which are damped, and the relative levels of different overtones. Typical natural finished ash bodied mid to late '70s Precisions don't sound the same as ones from ten year earlier with their alder bodies and generally smaller, less clunky necks. If the bass' sound is all attack and sustain like a '70s ash one there aren't any combinations of strings and pickups that'll make it a big fat warm sounding alder one. And vice-versa.

John