• 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!

#24
Well, I suppose my personal views fall into the "wood makes a huge difference" camp. A good example is simply observing the sonic differences between two Telecaster guitars. One has an ash body same year/spec pickups as another with an alder body (they are usually found on custom color Tele's). They absolutely sound different, the ash denoting the 'classic' Tele sound. I do notice that some of the same folks that have no qualms insisting that rosewood has a different sound than maple fretboards are the same "pups trump wood" believers...why should this not apply to bodies?
 
#25
Because if you are able to hear the difference in the woods you would not be on TB asking what you would gain/lose with a species; your demand to be in the studio as a sound engineer would prevent you from ever logging on again.
 
#26
My suggestion is to swap in the fralins..... see what it is like. Once you are accustomed to that sound, and have decided if you like it, then swap in the basswood body. If it still plays and sounds good to you, then who cares? My two favourite basses sound very similar, and are totaly different(one is a poplar, walnut, maple, oak hippy sandwich, one is alder with FM cap). Just use what sounds best to you!

Simon
 
#27
WildTrkey said:
Well, I suppose my personal views fall into the "wood makes a huge difference" camp. A good example is simply observing the sonic differences between two Telecaster guitars. One has an ash body same year/spec pickups as another with an alder body (they are usually found on custom color Tele's). They absolutely sound different, the ash denoting the 'classic' Tele sound. I do notice that some of the same folks that have no qualms insisting that rosewood has a different sound than maple fretboards are the same "pups trump wood" believers...why should this not apply to bodies?
Click to expand...
Here's a quote of mine that I still stand behind:

Beej said:
Lots of musicians and builders are scienticians, few are scientists.

Here are a couple of navel gazing exercises:

1. take two identically shaped and constructed basses, one made of all hard maple, the other made of all wenge. Use identical hardware and electronics on both. String one with flats and the other with roundwounds. Give them both to a blindfolded bassist who does not know which is which. Ask him to tell which wood is which. .

2. take two identically shaped and constructed basses, one made of all hard maple, the other made of all wenge. Use identical roundwound strings on both. Put nordy fat stacks on the maple and standard fender jazz pickups on the wenge. Give them both to a blindfolded bassist who does not know which is which. Ask him to tell them apart based on wood.

3. take two identically shaped and constructed basses, both made of hard maple from different suppliers. Use identical flats and pickups on both. Give them both to a blindfolded bassist and ask him to tell you which one is maple and which one is wenge. (get it? - they are the same construction and material - the power of suggestion is at work.)

Some folks need to think scientifically, and think about face versus construct validity. Read up on perception...

There, I said it... :D
Click to expand...
 
#28
WildTrkey said:
Well, I suppose my personal views fall into the "wood makes a huge difference" camp. A good example is simply observing the sonic differences between two Telecaster guitars. One has an ash body same year/spec pickups as another with an alder body (they are usually found on custom color Tele's). They absolutely sound different, the ash denoting the 'classic' Tele sound. I do notice that some of the same folks that have no qualms insisting that rosewood has a different sound than maple fretboards are the same "pups trump wood" believers...why should this not apply to bodies?
Click to expand...
What you've described is actually just user error. You'd need to be able to discern the differences without knowing which is which. And further, if you wanted to be able to definitively make this statement, you'd have to do a double blind test on a minimum N of 40 of each instrument randomly assigned in order to even approach statistical significance that was not accounted for by variation in materials and construction.

Your question at the end is best answered by a statement like this: "because people don't know what they don't know"...
 
#29
Beej said:
What you've described is actually just user error. You'd need to be able to discern the differences without knowing which is which. And further, if you wanted to be able to definitively make this statement, you'd have to do a double blind test on a minimum N of 40 of each instrument randomly assigned in order to even approach statistical significance that was not accounted for by variation in materials and construction.

Your question at the end is best answered by a statement like this: "because people don't know what they don't know"...
Click to expand...

I don't think clouding a simple deduction with unimpressive scientifical jargon will change the fact that woods do effect the sound of a bass. Whether you know what you are playing or not, there will still be a discernable difference in the sounds produced by two different woods. Granted, one might night to be able to tell you which wood is which, but why would that be important?
 
#32
tone is overrated. What sounds good solo rarely sounds good in the mix. The *mix* is key.
Click to expand...

+1... to some degree. While solo tones often don't sound so good in a mix (and vice versa), tone still matters IMO. There are many great bassists out there fitting into their respective mixes well... But the ones I really love listening to still have a great tone that pleases my ears.

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!
Click to expand...

+1000. To each his own, but I would rather listen to a guy playing freakin' whole notes with great tone than any virtuoso whose tone sucks. Granted, I'm exaggerating to some degree to make a point... More than likely, a great bassist is usually gonna have pretty decent tone, even if it's not my favorite... And those whole notes would get boring real quick. But I've still always been more attracted to a great bass tone than I have great chops... IMO, of course.
 
#33
Nobody is saying wood doesn't make a difference, only that the discernable difference between most similar species such as you querried is much more minimal than you might think. It's not a knock, just our experiences we are sharing, as you asked for. Lots of people have different experiences.
 
#34
WildTrkey said:
I don't think clouding a simple deduction with unimpressive scientifical jargon will change the fact that woods do effect the sound of a bass. Whether you know what you are playing or not, there will still be a discernable difference in the sounds produced by two different woods. Granted, one might night to be able to tell you which wood is which, but why would that be important?
Click to expand...
Sorry about that, it was not my intent to impress, but being that I make a living doing psychological research, of which perception is a component, I thought it prudent to at least describe what would be necessary to achieve statistical significance. In an analysis of variance, in order to maintain adequate construct validity, you need a minimum N of 40 (that means a minimum of 40 units per "thing" being analyzed), randomized trials and double-blind construction, otherwise, what you come up with is basically simple preference.

To put it simply, I'd put $100 on the table against you being able to tell which body was which if you did not already know and had no clues.

Furthermore, there is plenty of variation within a species as well - two hunks of ash may present with as much difference between their "tone" as a hunk of maple vs. a hunk of ash...
 
#35
Beej said:
Furthermore, there is plenty of variation within a species as well - two hunks of ash may present with as much difference between their "tone" as a hunk of maple vs. a hunk of ash...
Click to expand...

Yes.

For whatever reason, basses sound different. In 40+ years I've never played two in the same sitting that sounded the same.

However, from that experience, I can still only conjecture that all basses sound different because I will admit that maybe during that time it is possible that a bass I tried in 1973 sounds like one I tried in 2006 or some other such random silliness.

Why they sound different is another question but it seems to me that the most variable component between any two basses made of wood is the wood itself which can easily cause variablilty in how the energy of the of the vibrating string and therefore the harmonics are effected by their passage through the wood.

That being said such timbral differences can easily be lost in a situation involving more than auditioning the instrument in a quiet environment, such as playing live with a band.

Assuming one is so inclined to give the proverbial rats patoot about the timbre of basses they're thinking of purchasing, the only real skill necessary is to be able to discern that there is a difference between the instruments being auditioned at a particular sitting and being able to decide which, if any, suit your purpose.
 
#37
Beej said:
Sorry about that, it was not my intent to impress, but being that I make a living doing psychological research, of which perception is a component, I thought it prudent to at least describe what would be necessary to achieve statistical significance. In an analysis of variance, in order to maintain adequate construct validity, you need a minimum N of 40 (that means a minimum of 40 units per "thing" being analyzed), randomized trials and double-blind construction, otherwise, what you come up with is basically simple preference.

To put it simply, I'd put $100 on the table against you being able to tell which body was which if you did not already know and had no clues.

Furthermore, there is plenty of variation within a species as well - two hunks of ash may present with as much difference between their "tone" as a hunk of maple vs. a hunk of ash...
Click to expand...


:rollno: It is not a bet. It is not a competition to prove that you are right and I am wrong, it is a question, k? I was under the assumption that some folks left their work at the door when answering very basic questions on certain tonal properties of different woods. If you are of the party that feels the difference is negligable, say so and stuff the rest in your pocket protector. :D
 
#38
No need for your snottiness, wildturky . You ask a stupid question with your preconceived answers locked up in your head and dare posters ro defy your cuteness. We call that TROLLING!!! A smiley face tacked on to your comment doesn't deflect from what it is.

After reading this it's a bit harsh..sorry Turkey. What I should have included was the tone-heads keep asking these same stupid questions and when the answers are relevant to experience and logic from contributors and not what they want to read, inevitably the tone-head turns to attacking the posters. TONE IS NOT A BUILDING MATERIAL.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back