• 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.

Tone Junkies!

W

WildTrkey

Inactive
Mar 1, 2009
210
1
#1
I like to think of myself as someone in search of good tone. Granted, it is a hugely subjective matter...one man's BadassII is another man's headache and so on. But this particular matter pertains to wood and fashion (sorta).

I like sonic blue. My 50's CL MIM is fiesta red.
My electronics are CTS pots, Switchcraft jack, (soon to be) Fralin split coil.

The neck is one piece maple, plus board.

The body wood is Alder and I am thinking of swapping it for the Basswood body of a sonic blue Squire. I have my own views on the difference such a modification would make, but what are yours? This is a money issue more than anything because it would actually be cheaper than a quality re-fin for a poly instrument.

My question is what will I gain/lose tone-wise?

Weight wise?

And finally, would this all be a (for lack of a better term) "drop in" mod? Any thoughts would be much appreciated and pics will follow this experiment.
 
#2
Basswood will give you more mids than the alder, but suffers more on the low and high ends. Alder is going to give you a brighter tone, but also more lows than basswood. I've owned a couple of basswood bodies, I've sold them all...not personally a big fan. It depends what tone you are looking for. If you are ever looking for a vintage tone, definitely go with the alder. In general, alder would certainly be considered a higher quality wood than basswood.

Here's a decent link:
http://www.petrucciforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54810
 
#11
These threads are always such fun! :D

Wildtrkey if you're wondering what's going on, there is a running debate regarding how much "tone" is imparted from the wood itself in a solidbody electric instrument.

Those that I agree with are firmly entrenched in the camp that states "not nearly as much as is imparted by strings, pickups and electronics".

Long story short, wood makes only barely perceptible differences to tone that are easily overwhelmed by the major tonal differences that are imparted by strings, pickups, electronics, etc...
 
#12
Tone....hmmm....soundis what you are after. (He barely discernable difference between alder and basswood is negligable... Alder is a bit warmer with better attack and low mids. Basswood is lighter with less attack. Both can sound good, it's what you hear that will make your final decision, not someones 0pinion of what "tone" they think a wood gives. Go listen to some basswood basses and compare.
 
#15
Bla Bla Bla. Wood makes a difference for sure...Given the same pickups, strings, electronics etc..., basses will sound different. How much they sound different depends on how different the woods are. Sustain will be affected, attack, frequency bias and so on. If the wood doesn't matter that much, let's just make basses out of particle board with a veneer to make it look nice.

Also red stained basses are bestest.

(new to the forums...flame away)
 
#16
You are actually quite correct Salman. Wood does make a difference. However, someone coming to this forum wanting a "sharper," or "crisper," or more "mid-hump" will not know what the answer is. My argument is that >99.95% of "tone" is coming from the pick ups, strings, and amp. If the person is able to discern the difference of that last .05% they would not be here asking the difference of, say, Maple v. Rosewood.
 
#17
Not sure about 99.95% but yes, electronics, amp and strings account for most of the tone. But if you want a crisper sound, start off with the wood that has those characteristics. You want the wood to work with your electronics, not against them. It's the difference between good tone and great tone. Can't help it, when someone says they want brilliant highs, i say don't use basswood. For the electronics to enhance the highs, they have to be there to begin with. You can't squeeze diamonds from a turd. Admittedly, we are talking about nuance and opinions here.

We are now completely off topic.
Have fun with the Frankenbass. I love them too
 
#18
BigOldHarry said:
tone is overrated. What sounds good solo rarely sounds good in the mix. The *mix* is key.
Click to expand...

+1 totally, but ...

Tone is not irrelevant in the mix! :eyebrow:

One of the best bassists I know has no time for tone, and consequently holds the record for the worst sounding bass I've ever heard (he actually topped his own record twice so far), and both times was in the mix (no solo stuff). The worst time he actually sounded like a comic doing some sort of parody pi$$ take!!! Seriously, the only way I can describe it is that it sounded like some sort of alien cow twanging an elastic band - great playing, but the end result sounded ridiculous.

I'd rather listen to a simpler piece of music that sounds beautiful, than a very clever piece of playing that sounds like a wet fart on a windy day!
 
#20
Rocky McD said:
It's obvious that beautiful, exotic, laminated woods sound best. That's what all the high dollar basses are made from.
Rocky
Click to expand...

Sarcasm noted. I don't think that's true. I like a good solid hunk of swamp ash with a maple neck. Maybe a quilted maple top thrown in there...a flame maple is always nice. That's just me. (as long as it is red, red basses are bestest)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back