The truth Wood resonance Build Ect.

[Brad Johnson]

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.

And that is all some people are capable of seeing.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Thanks for inducing coversation, bro.



Others have, I found it pertinent to clarify.



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.




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.



....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.



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.

There is so much that is offbase about this it's like a reverse FAQ. It's fine to have strong opinions, it's even better to understand what you don't know.

Particularly your last paragraph. I just finished playing one of my basses unplugged for about 20 minutes. Don't think that whatever limits you're functioning under apply to everyone. They don't.


The mic/pickups semantics argument is weak at best. Natural sustain is not the same as electronic. Many luthiers design their instruments around their acoustic sound which is why they understand that wood matters.

You could try to understand this or keep digging in. You'll be "right" in your own mind but what good is that?

 

[okcrum]

Well, I could optically (to not influence the sound) measure the acoustic spectrum of a number of basses, then measure the electronic spectrum of the bass directly at the output jack. This removes the amp coloration from the picture, since ISTR we were talking basses here.

Subtracting the acoustic spectrum of each bass from the electronic one (which is the sum of the acoustic and electronic properties of the bass) would give a decent idea of the electronics' contribution to the sound as it comes out of the jack on the bass.

Correlating that data to what my ear hears and doing it for different basses made of different materials would be quite enlightening and prove beyond a doubt that both the electronics and the woods contribute to the sound. Doh!

People far smarter than me have done this before. Would it convince anyone here who has an entrenched position to open their minds up? Likely not. I've had people here dismiss such measurements in the past.

TB rule #57 seems to be (for some) "Don't confuse me with the facts."

 

[Arvin]

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.

+1

A few years back, I put a parts-o-caster Strat together, and it sounded thin, brittle, and dead. I replaced the neck (constructed of the same materials), and bam! -- instant resonant, springy, shimmery Strat.

I advocate practicing with unplugged electic instruments for a couple of reasons. First off, doing so can give you a clearer picture of the instrument's inherent tone (though this will certainly be influenced by the pickups).

Secondly, though, and perhaps more importantly, playing unplugged can teach a person how to "squeeze" the best tone out of the instrument. If you can really work it unplugged, the possibilities plugged in are enormous.

 

[Brad Johnson]

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]

That's that famous article where several succesful luthiers slip up and explain why they're ripping people off.

 

[Jim C]

I have to admit, than upon further thought, many of you have changed my mind as to how important the wood actualy is.

I suppose I'm lucky in that I have a few Fender basses from the 70's that sound reasonably similar. What I had forgotten was that these were the ones I kept after having owned, tried, borrowed, etc. many others. The common thread is the 2 J-s are very light (although one rosewood neck & one maple) and the 3 P's are heavy (all maple necks).
I keep thinking about JK's analogy of putting Fender pups on a Rick.
If the wood and/or string-through didn't make that much difference then the instruments would sound similar.
I believe him to be an honest character and if he claims they sound very different then I stand corrected.

Thanks to all of you who submitted an inteligent opinion based on your experience for my eductaion on this subject.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

Since people think I don't 'have enough experience' (which is based on what? me disagreeing with you?) why not read someone who has a little more experience than most:

http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm

Here's a good article about wood not making much of an impact on tone, from an ACOUSTIC GUITAR luthier. Given that he's discussing acoustic instruments (which would have a much more noticeable difference with different woods, since there's not any electronics a lot of the time) I think it's an interesting perspective.

If you're lazy here's the pertinent part:
The concept of tonewood is a hoax. Of the few things that we can do to a guitar and still call it a guitar, changing the wood it is made of will have the least impact upon the quality of the sound that it produces. The tonal difference between a mahogany guitar and a rosewood guitar is exactly the same as the difference between two mahogany guitars or two rosewood guitars. Can you tell what a guitar is made of while listening to an unfamiliar recording? No one I know claims they can. No one at the blind listening sessions I've attended could reliably distinguish between mahogany and rosewood guitars, or maple and koa guitars for that matter.

His argument is essentially that wood species isn't that important, but it's a combination of quality materials (whatever species) and the ability of the luthier that make a great instrument.

Or what about the Taylor 'pallet guitar' that was (and I quote0:
"the Pallet guitar by Bob Taylor was originally conceived to prove to the world (and C. F. Martin) that a great guitar builder can build an outstanding instrument regardless of the wood used. To prove this, Bob Taylor went to the back of the Taylor factory and proceeded to tear apart a few of the shipping pallets on the ground, and built himself a guitar using the weathered oak, and pine (or whatever the soft wood is on pallets) that these things are made of. This original pallet guitar was tested by many industry experts including C. F. Martin, and all agreed that Bob Taylor made his point"

SO it's far from a black and white issue at all.

 

[aborgman]

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.

A "hotter" pickup can reduce sustain through magnetic braking.

A "hotter" pickup can also increase sustain through being able to resolve the string motion through more of its cycle.

The same effect can be seen just by raising and lowering the pickups. At the low end you'll have little sustain. As you raise the pickup it will increase - to a point. At that point it will start regressing due to magnetic braking.

If you're below the maxima - a "hotter" pickup will increase sustain. If you aren't, it won't.

--
Aaron (Electrical Engineer and designer of high precision LVDTs and moving coil transducers, with lots of experience resolving mV level signals generated by the motion of ferrous objects in magnetic fields)

 

[Brad Johnson]

Since people think I don't 'have enough experience' (which is based on what? me disagreeing with you?) why not read someone who has a little more experience than most:

I get the impression you might be short on experience based solely on the things you say. They jibe with the same type of strong opinions many people who lack experience seem to hold tightly to. It's understandable to a degree but it doesn't make it right.

http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm

Here's a good article about wood not making much of an impact on tone, from an ACOUSTIC GUITAR luthier. Given that he's discussing acoustic instruments (which would have a much more noticeable difference with different woods, since there's not any electronics a lot of the time) I think it's an interesting perspective.

Fine. You apparently only need one source as proof of what you believe. There's a sourced article in this thread from a very experienced electric bass builder (including several other electric bass builders) who's been doing it since the late 70's that contradicts that... and I'm guessing your experience and your link unequivocably say it's all wrong.

What's his experience building electric basses, which even you seem to realize are different animals?

If you're lazy here's the pertinent part:
The concept of tonewood is a hoax. Of the few things that we can do to a guitar and still call it a guitar, changing the wood it is made of will have the least impact upon the quality of the sound that it produces. The tonal difference between a mahogany guitar and a rosewood guitar is exactly the same as the difference between two mahogany guitars or two rosewood guitars. Can you tell what a guitar is made of while listening to an unfamiliar recording? No one I know claims they can. No one at the blind listening sessions I've attended could reliably distinguish between mahogany and rosewood guitars, or maple and koa guitars for that matter.

Lazy would be relying on that article.

He also said "It's been my experience that hardwoods thinned to the same flexibility as a plate of softwood produce similar tone qualities, though very hard species will be dangerously thin by the time this point is reached".

He's not talking about electric basses, which have far thicker woods being used than typical ACOUSTIC GUITARS.

His argument is essentially that wood species isn't that important, but it's a combination of quality materials (whatever species) and the ability of the luthier that make a great instrument.

Or what about the Taylor 'pallet guitar' that was (and I quote0:
"the Pallet guitar by Bob Taylor was originally conceived to prove to the world (and C. F. Martin) that a great guitar builder can build an outstanding instrument regardless of the wood used. To prove this, Bob Taylor went to the back of the Taylor factory and proceeded to tear apart a few of the shipping pallets on the ground, and built himself a guitar using the weathered oak, and pine (or whatever the soft wood is on pallets) that these things are made of. This original pallet guitar was tested by many industry experts including C. F. Martin, and all agreed that Bob Taylor made his point"

Always fun to see that old saw whipped out. So the pallette Taylor sounded like any other Taylor or merely sounded like an acoustic guitar? If the topic was "Can you build a bass out of any wood?" there might be a bit more relevance. BTW how many pallet guitars has taylor sold to date?

Kevin Brubaker did an experiment a while back, he took some countertop he got at Home Depot, sandwiched it together and made a Brubaker bass out of it.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

And it worked... it sounded fine as an electric bass. It did not however sound like his other basses.

SO it's far from a black and white issue at all.

Then what's with the black and white stance on your part?


"Electronics are more important than wood". Strings are the most important. That's you and your black and white, definitive stance. Notice that you're not seeing definitive statements like that about wood because while it can make a huge difference, that doesn't mean it always will.

Experience might tell you that. How many basses have you personally played to come to your conclusions? Genuinely curious whenever people pulled the you don't think I'm experienced card.

 

[Brad Johnson]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

John Calkin - an 11 year employee and well known Luthier, designed this deep bodied Custom OM.

"For balanced tone and good volume, the OM shape has been my favorite for some time. I thought a deeper body would add some oomph to the overall package, and it seems that it has. Claro walnut is my favorite tone wood. It puts out as much as any other wood, and nothing can touch it for beauty. Just from listening to finished H&Ds I’ve become a red spruce believer, so it was a natural choice for this guitar. The koa trim is my fave, as are the abalone trim details. The walnut neck may add some sustain over mahogany, and of course, it fits the theme better. The frailing scoop and oval soundhole are just for fun, but who knows if they contribute anything sonically? The fine tone of the guitar suggests that they might. The fact that it’s a flattop rather than a radiused top also makes this model punchier."
John Calkin"


Clearly another hoax.

 

[Giraffe]

Guys I would love to do a blind test with you lot, but I can't afford the lay out...

I'd get three basses Neck-through, Bolt on and Graphite. Put the same PicUps put them in exactly the same place,(with regards position in 860mm scale length and electronic set-up.

And I swear blind folded nobody would tell....

I just can't afford the lay out the money to set the test up!

It's been done. And in all due respect, you are dead wrong, because a player with average hearing will be able to hear the difference between sets, neck-throughs, and bolts. I don't know about graphite, but I've seen and participated in tests where the neck joint was the only variable, as the best available technology would allow, and that neck joint makes a much bigger difference than science can currently explain.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

There is so much that is offbase about this it's like a reverse FAQ. It's fine to have strong opinions, it's even better to understand what you don't know.

There's plenty I don't know - and sorry if I've stated anything as other then my own personal rhetoric.

Particularly your last paragraph. I just finished playing one of my basses unplugged for about 20 minutes. Don't think that whatever limits you're functioning under apply to everyone. They don't.

That's not what I meant, and I suspect you know it. Sure, people may play unplugged at home once in awhile, or even regularly - but most people play through an amp, or into a desk most of the time - introducing the components which further change sound.

The mic/pickups semantics argument is weak at best. Natural sustain is not the same as electronic. Many luthiers design their instruments around their acoustic sound which is why they understand that wood matters.

This whole thread is semantic, at best.

You could try to understand this or keep digging in. You'll be "right" in your own mind but what good is that?

Maybe I'm content thinking I'm right and others are deluded? Like the majority of the more vocal participants in the thread (I guess).

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

I get the impression you might be short on experience based solely on the things you say. They jibe with the same type of strong opinions many people who lack experience seem to hold tightly to. It's understandable to a degree but it doesn't make it right.

Cool, impressions, gotcha.

Fine. You apparently only need one source as proof of what you believe. There's a sourced article in this thread from a very experienced electric bass builder (including several other electric bass builders) who's been doing it since the late 70's that contradicts that... and I'm guessing your experience and your link unequivocably say it's all wrong.

I had limited time to pull out sources, I thought of the one I liked the most, from what I'd read, and put it up there for food for thought. The argument isn't about proving anything, it's about arguing.

What's his experience building electric basses, which even you seem to realize are different animals?

I think you can see my point and are deciding to deliberately be obtuse. If an acoustic instrument isn't effect by tonewood how can an electric instrument be? That's the question I'm asking.

Lazy would be relying on that article.

I don't rely on the article, it's an example of someone with notable experience whose thoughts are different from what's been voiced here.

He also said "It's been my experience that hardwoods thinned to the same flexibility as a plate of softwood produce similar tone qualities, though very hard species will be dangerously thin by the time this point is reached".

So density matters - and particular examples of particular woods (he refers to mahogany in the article) can have striking differences in density.

He's not talking about electric basses, which have far thicker woods being used than typical ACOUSTIC GUITARS.

But rely on those woods (IMO) in a much different, and less intimate, way. When you start relying on the back, sides and top to create a larger sound and project it the quality and nature of the wood (ie - not something that's going to snap, like balsa) plays a different role.

Considering you yourself have honed the point we're talking about different instruments, why is my comparison flawed and yours worthwhile?

Always fun to see that old saw whipped out. So the pallette Taylor sounded like any other Taylor or merely sounded like an acoustic guitar? If the topic was "Can you build a bass out of any wood?" there might be a bit more relevance. BTW how many pallet guitars has taylor sold to date?

I don't know - I haven't played it, and I don't know what a 'typical' Taylor sounds like. I also don't know the answer to the second one - if the information I read on it is to be believed Taylor built one to prove a point, and one only because he only needed to prove it once. If I were to hazard a guess at why he didn't make more I'd say there's no market (or interest) in a tonewood doesn't matter approach, or at least not enough for a larger company to get interested in. That's just a guess, though.

Kevin Brubaker did an experiment a while back, he took some countertop he got at Home Depot, sandwiched it together and made a Brubaker bass out of it.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

And it worked... it sounded fine as an electric bass. It did not however sound like his other basses.

Cool - without playing it I'd rather not comment on the bass. I have said that the quality of wood matters, not the species - that might be a factor, I don't know.

Then what's with the black and white stance on your part?

Cause I'm reactionary, yo!

"Electronics are more important than wood". Strings are the most important. That's you and your black and white, definitive stance. Notice that you're not seeing definitive statements like that about wood because while it can make a huge difference, that doesn't mean it always will.

Or the particular people engaged in this thread are more polite then I am?

Experience might tell you that. How many basses have you personally played to come to your conclusions? Genuinely curious whenever people pulled the you don't think I'm experienced card.

I don't count the number of basses I've played overall. I got interested the wood vs non-wood agreement in 2007 when I read something on another board. I kept thinking about it and playing around on various guitars and basses. I thought more about the best instruments I've played, and my favorite sounds - and they weren't coming from common woods, but common electronics.

When in Japan I played about 30 different basses over 2 days, all types. I found that the main thing that changed my opinion on a bass was the position of the pickups, and that if the pickups were positioned in certain places (MM or P, closer to the neck, further from the bridge than70's spacing) I 'liked' the sound and if the pickups were in a different position (70's spacing at the bridge or closer) I didn't. It was as simple as that, for me.

It also was no co-incidence that the basses I like were usually expensive pieces that had clearly had a lot of attention put into the construction, setup, pre-amp tweaking, electronics, neck shape, etc and, of course, wood choice. So I concluded that IF wood matters (in terms of tonality) then it's the quality that makes the instrument sing, not the variety.

This idea also fits into why 'vintage' instruments are often preferred. The ones with the best wood last longer, don't warp, or whatever and hold together better (due to more than wood, probably, as well) - and therefore sound 'better' to some (I'm not keen on vintage instruments, so I've not played many).

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

John Calkin - an 11 year employee and well known Luthier, designed this deep bodied Custom OM.

"For balanced tone and good volume, the OM shape has been my favorite for some time. I thought a deeper body would add some oomph to the overall package, and it seems that it has. Claro walnut is my favorite tone wood. It puts out as much as any other wood, and nothing can touch it for beauty. Just from listening to finished H&Ds I’ve become a red spruce believer, so it was a natural choice for this guitar. The koa trim is my fave, as are the abalone trim details. The walnut neck may add some sustain over mahogany, and of course, it fits the theme better. The frailing scoop and oval soundhole are just for fun, but who knows if they contribute anything sonically? The fine tone of the guitar suggests that they might. The fact that it’s a flattop rather than a radiused top also makes this model punchier."
John Calkin"


Clearly another hoax.

I think the best point he makes is 'who knows if they contribute anything sonically'. What separates wood from electronics is that I (and I assume others) KNOW that when amp'd or DI'd the electronics really shape the sound you're getting. I'd say I 'know' that, someone might disagree.

 

[lowphatbass]

His argument is essentially that wood species isn't that important, but it's a combination of quality materials (whatever species) and the ability of the luthier that make a great instrument.

While lot's of elements effect how a bass guitar sounds acoustically I can tell you this(and I have a feeling a lot of people with experience will agree):

With my playing style and technique and what I do with a bass, I gain much insight into how a bass is going to perform in a real world setting from playing it acoustically for a fairly short amount of time, period.

Apples, Oranges and My Opinion:

Pick Ups to a bass are a bit like an Engine is to a car. Swapping engines will change much about how the car performs, but it's still the same car.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

Disagree entirely.

Acoustic sound isn't the same as electric sound, so how can I know how it will be used when I plug it in (ie, most of the time) without plugging it in? Especially considering many, many pickups and pre-amps aren't designed to be transparent (or fail) and have different outputs (some hotter, some not) I can't know how I will play or interact with a bass until it's plugged in.

I certainly haven't heard of people buying, or being enamored, with a bass based on it's acoustic tone alone. I might be looking in the wrong places.

Furthermore, what's the 'with experience' snipe? Are you trying to imply that because I'm not interested about how a bass sounds in situations that aren't entirely important that I'm inexperienced? Or because I draw my own conclusions based on the information available and use my own rationale (not the accepted status quo) that I'm inexperienced? What makes someone experienced - we're talking about subjective component makeup of an overall sound here.

 

[lowphatbass]

Disagree entirely.

I certainly haven't heard of people buying, or being enamored, with a bass based on it's acoustic tone alone. I might be looking in the wrong places.

Furthermore, what's the 'with experience' snipe? Are you trying to imply that because I'm not interested about how a bass sounds in situations that aren't entirely important that I'm inexperienced? Or because I draw my own conclusions based on the information available and use my own rationale (not the accepted status quo) that I'm inexperienced? What makes someone experienced - we're talking about subjective component makeup of an overall sound here.

I'm not saying that you aren't experienced. I am saying that I am experienced, and it's this experience alone from which I draw my opinions on this subject.
I'm not saying I can pick a winner and will slap down cash after a short unplugged test drive, but I can pick a loser and discern enough information to know whether it's worth the time to hunt down a cable or not. A lot of what I learn initially is about the "feel" of a bass, not just physical dimensions or weight(although I'll concede that this is part of it), but attack and sustain play a major role, as well as the tonal spectrum.

I've swapped, added, removed and re-wired(not re-wound)pick-ups in a number of basses. What I've taken from this experience is the conclusion that pick-ups can't effectively add frequencies and attack that isn't there naturally. They can change the tone through addition and subtraction, but when you multiply by zero you always get zero.

 

[Brad Johnson]

There's plenty I don't know - and sorry if I've stated anything as other then my own personal rhetoric.

You've stated so many things definitively... are you backing up on that now?

That's not what I meant, and I suspect you know it. Sure, people may play unplugged at home once in awhile, or even regularly - but most people play through an amp, or into a desk most of the time - introducing the components which further change sound.

You suspect wrong. When I say something as finite as "nobody" I actually mean nobody. Apparently you don't. Like I said, stating opinions as strongly as you do which are as obviously porous as they are is usually based on a need to be right, a lack of experience and a rush to get your point across without truly considering your words.

This whole thread is semantic, at best.

No, it's not. It might be for you but why assume for everyone else? Many are clearly saying exactly what they mean.

Maybe I'm content thinking I'm right and others are deluded? Like the majority of the more vocal participants in the thread (I guess).

Maybe you are. What you still don't seem to understand is that on the two sides of this discussion, you're the one who's saying what does and doesn't happen.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Disagree entirely.

Acoustic sound isn't the same as electric sound, so how can I know how it will be used when I plug it in (ie, most of the time) without plugging it in? Especially considering many, many pickups and pre-amps aren't designed to be transparent (or fail) and have different outputs (some hotter, some not) I can't know how I will play or interact with a bass until it's plugged in.

I certainly haven't heard of people buying, or being enamored, with a bass based on it's acoustic tone alone. I might be looking in the wrong places.

Furthermore, what's the 'with experience' snipe? Are you trying to imply that because I'm not interested about how a bass sounds in situations that aren't entirely important that I'm inexperienced? Or because I draw my own conclusions based on the information available and use my own rationale (not the accepted status quo) that I'm inexperienced? What makes someone experienced - we're talking about subjective component makeup of an overall sound here.

Of course you disagree entirely. Or do you suspect people think you mean something else when you say that?


How many basses have you played unplugged? How many sounded the same when you plugged them in?

Many people "know" how important the unplugged sound can be THROUGH EXPERIENCE. You've decided, WITHOUT THAT EXPERIENCE, that it doesn't make any difference. Basically basing it on your OPINION DESPITE A LACK OF EXPERIENCE. Pretty funny, right?

EXPERIENCE might tell you otherwise.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Cool, impressions, gotcha.

You words are all we have to go on. It helps to say exactly what you mean.

I had limited time to pull out sources, I thought of the one I liked the most, from what I'd read, and put it up there for food for thought. The argument isn't about proving anything, it's about arguing.

So you picked something that reinforces what you believe vs. actually doing any research. It's obvious.

I think you can see my point and are deciding to deliberately be obtuse. If an acoustic instrument isn't effect by tonewood how can an electric instrument be? That's the question I'm asking.

Please don't use the word obtuse... I haven't.

There's far more wood in the typical electric bass than and acoustic guitar. More mass. No doubt you think mass doesn't matter.

I don't rely on the article, it's an example of someone with notable experience whose thoughts are different from what's been voiced here.

What did you know about him prior to that article? I'm notably more experienced than you... does that make me right?

So density matters - and particular examples of particular woods (he refers to mahogany in the article) can have striking differences in density.

But mass doesn't?

But rely on those woods (IMO) in a much different, and less intimate, way. When you start relying on the back, sides and top to create a larger sound and project it the quality and nature of the wood (ie - not something that's going to snap, like balsa) plays a different role.

Considering you yourself have honed the point we're talking about different instruments, why is my comparison flawed and yours worthwhile?

If that's really baffling to you, cool.

I don't know - I haven't played it, and I don't know what a 'typical' Taylor sounds like. I also don't know the answer to the second one - if the information I read on it is to be believed Taylor built one to prove a point, and one only because he only needed to prove it once. If I were to hazard a guess at why he didn't make more I'd say there's no market (or interest) in a tonewood doesn't matter approach, or at least not enough for a larger company to get interested in. That's just a guess, though.

Then why do the experiment?

Cool - without playing it I'd rather not comment on the bass. I have said that the quality of wood matters, not the species - that might be a factor, I don't know.

That hasn't stopped you so far. You have to assume so much about things you haven't played to come down with as hard a stance as you have. Why stop now?

Cause I'm reactionary, yo!

Not really.

Or the particular people engaged in this thread are more polite then I am?

Obtuse much?

I don't count the number of basses I've played overall. I got interested the wood vs non-wood agreement in 2007 when I read something on another board. I kept thinking about it and playing around on various guitars and basses. I thought more about the best instruments I've played, and my favorite sounds - and they weren't coming from common woods, but common electronics.

Maybe YOU LIKE ELECTRONICS?

When in Japan I played about 30 different basses over 2 days, all types. I found that the main thing that changed my opinion on a bass was the position of the pickups, and that if the pickups were positioned in certain places (MM or P, closer to the neck, further from the bridge than70's spacing) I 'liked' the sound and if the pickups were in a different position (70's spacing at the bridge or closer) I didn't. It was as simple as that, for me.

What's funny is someone like you should be able to pick apart these overly simplistic conclusions you've drawn. maybe they will. Heck, maybe you will.

30 basses in 2 days and going back to 2007 is your idea of experience?

Cool.

It also was no co-incidence that the basses I like were usually expensive pieces that had clearly had a lot of attention put into the construction, setup, pre-amp tweaking, electronics, neck shape, etc and, of course, wood choice. So I concluded that IF wood matters (in terms of tonality) then it's the quality that makes the instrument sing, not the variety.

Again, it wouldn't take much to beat that supposition into the ground. But you seem content with it in spite of that.

This idea also fits into why 'vintage' instruments are often preferred. The ones with the best wood last longer, don't warp, or whatever and hold together better (due to more than wood, probably, as well) - and therefore sound 'better' to some (I'm not keen on vintage instruments, so I've not played many).

Then why would you bother having an opinion on that based on what you clearly don't...

oops.

Hey, if you consider Alder, Maple and Ash the "best wood", I guess there might be merit to that. In the meantime, in the real world, vintage instruments are often preferred for all sorts of reasons, many of which have zip to do with any material superiority.