Tonewood Club

[Roger W]

That. But as an example, I have 2 P basses: 1 is alder/rosewood, and the other is alder/maple. All things being equal, I experience these as completely different tones both unplugged and plugged-in. But, I recognize that not everyone is going to hear this, which is completely fine.

If you had 2 basses made from the same types of wood, even pieces of wood from the same trees, made at the same site within the same day, they would still sound different from each other when played unplugged because they are in the physical world and it is impossible for them to be identical. I haven’t even mentioned the bridges, nuts, and strings. That’s why some people play as many Strats/LesPauls/P Basses/J Basses/whatever that are in a store in order to find the good one.

 

[James Collins]

It is also part of the difference of having a factory made instrument and luthier made instruments.

 

[Deleted member 271037]

More than pickups? So wood differences mean more than say a set of Alembic Series pickups vs a Gibson mudbucker? Show me a wood change that is going to have anywhere near the pronounced sonic change that is?

Agreed. I see no reason for any of the claims about those differences not to be examined the same way.

I don't think the wood makes a bigger difference to the TONE than the pickup if we're talking about two completely different types of pickups. But for things like dead spots, sustain and having an even response along the neck then yeah. For those things the wood definitely matters more. In fact the pickup probably means nothing for these things (although I won't completely rule out the possibility that it might have a marginal effect due to things like differences in magnetic drag, etc.). People tend to only think about TONE (as in the frequencies we hear) when we're talking about tonewoods but the way the instrument responds dynamically is perhaps even more important IMO. Wood has a HUGE impact on these things.

If we're comparing two pickups of a similar type (like two "vintage voiced" P-bass pickups from two different manufacturers) I actually think the wood can make a bigger difference, even when it comes to TONE. I don't just mean the TYPE of wood but the QUALITY of the wood too. I think I clarified this in an earlier post.

The POSITION of the pickup (which is a huge factor when it comes to your example of mudbuckers) will certainly have a bigger impact on tone than both the wood and the pickup itself (I think I also mentioned this in an earlier post). In fact, the term "mudbucker" is often used for the position of the pickup as well as the pickup itself.

I get the impression that lots of people don't realize that tonewoods isn't just about TONE but also about dynamic RESPONSE. Even the most expensive boutique pickups can't fix an instrument that has a poor response, poor sustain, severe dead spots or an uneven response along the neck. These things are usually the biggest difference between a cheap instrument and an expensive instrument these days, not the "tone". And these things are most definitely affected by the mass/density of the body/neck. In other words: The wood.

Half the "new bass" posts here on talkbass seem to make the impossible claim that the new bass doesn't have any dead spots so I guess lots of people aren't really aware of these things.

 

[Durham52]

These discussions usually seem to arrive at a middle point.

Yes, wood almost certainly plays some part in the overall sound/tone of a solid body bass, but no one has conduced suitably rigorous tests to confirm how much, or little that part might be.

The specific cases often referred to, where players describe a noticeable difference between bass A and Bass B, may well be quite right, but wood iss a variable natural thing and the next two basses compared with

I think players try to dictate what makers do too much. If I was in the market for another instrument my instruction to the maker would be much more limited than earlier in life.

I am not a luthier but if a client was asking for an instrument that didn't meet his criteria, I would tell him that his request would likely not meet his expectation.

If I thought the instrument was going to sound bad or look bad, I wouldn't make it. I can't see how making a bad instrument with your name on it could be good. If the customer couldn't understand that I was trying to help him, then I wouldn't want his business.

If the instrument was otherwise going to be good, I would make it. I would accept it back if it didn't meet his expectations during the 1 week trial and sell it to someone else.

I think you would make a good customer. (Definitely not touting for business, I'm pretty much retired and probably on the other side of the world from you...)

Coming from the other side, as a maker, I never took a commission that I thought would be a disaster in terms of the instrument as specified, not meeting the customers stated needs, nor would I take one from a customer who keeps changing their mind, but that's a whole other story.

I certainly wouldn't want my name on an instrument, I was pretty sure the customer wouldn't be happy with, that is a sure fire way to get a bad reputation. Because very few customers are going to tell their friends that they are the cause of their unhappiness with their shiny new custom instrument, because they insisted on bad choices over what went into the instrument. No, they're going to blame the builder for their disappointment.

Once reaching an understanding with a customer, it's important to stand behind your product, but I'm afraid that in most cases with a custom instrument, especially if it' incorporates some unusual specs, (extra wide neck, very radical shape, unusual finishes, unusual scale length, etc.) may well be near unsellable to anyone else other than the person who ordered it, or certainly will only sell by lucky circumstance, or by taking a heavy loss on price. For small scale one person luthier operations, the hundred or so hours wasted, value of woods, finishes, frets, etc. used can be a huge blow.

I don't think the wood makes a bigger difference to the TONE than the pickup if we're talking about two completely different types of pickups. But for things like dead spots, sustain and having an even response along the neck then yeah. For those things the wood definitely matters more. In fact the pickup probably means nothing for these things (although I won't completely rule out the possibility that it might have a marginal effect due to things like differences in magnetic drag, etc.). People tend to only think about TONE (as in the frequencies we hear) when we're talking about tonewoods but the way the instrument responds dynamically is perhaps even more important IMO. Wood has a HUGE impact on these things.

If we're comparing two pickups of a similar type (like two "vintage voiced" P-bass pickups from two different manufacturers) I actually think the wood can make a bigger difference, even when it comes to TONE. I don't just mean the TYPE of wood but the QUALITY of the wood too. I think I clarified this in an earlier post.

The POSITION of the pickup (which is a huge factor when it comes to your example of mudbuckers) will certainly have a bigger impact on tone than both the wood and the pickup itself (I think I also mentioned this in an earlier post). In fact, the term "mudbucker" is often used for the position of the pickup as well as the pickup itself.

I get the impression that lots of people don't realize that tonewoods isn't just about TONE but also about dynamic RESPONSE. Even the most expensive boutique pickups can't fix an instrument that has a poor response, poor sustain, severe dead spots or an uneven response along the neck. These things are usually the biggest difference between a cheap instrument and an expensive instrument these days, not the "tone". And these things are most definitely affected by the mass/density of the body/neck. In other words: The wood.

Half the "new bass" posts here on talkbass seem to make the impossible claim that the new bass doesn't have any dead spots so I guess lots of people aren't really aware of these things.

I agree that the quality of and the strength, degree of flex, or rigidity of wood are viable and often positive features that can be different and measurable in different species of wood and even different pieces of the same species. But that isn't what most people are talking about when they refer to 'tone woods', or ask about how much of an effect on the tone of a solid bodied bass comes from the type of wood.

Certainly some wood species offer greater rigidity, density and are less prone to excessive shrinkage, or warping, twisting, spliting, that others. All of those things can make them more suitable that other species for necks in particular.

I started out in my life with wood learning cabinetry, that teaches you a lot about the structural qualities of woods, I also studied sculpture, specializing in wood as a medium, which makes you think about the grain and stresses within the wood, important if releasing those inherent stresses aren't going to lead to a finished work spliting over time.

I believe good luthiers understand wood and many of the decisions about which woods became "standards" for instrument construction was at least as much about the structural qualities of the species chosen , as about the woods, tonal qualities. It doesn't matter how good a particular type of wood might sound, (though any evaluation of that aspect is a personal one anyway) if the neck is unstable, the fingerboard to soft, or the body splits apart easily.

Could it be that the "tone woods" we have been conditioned to, are actually structurally suitable woods for making lasting stable instruments and we've learned over hundreds of years to accept the tones they produce, as the "best" tones?

Whatever the truth might be, we have seen a huge expansion of the woods used and proclaimed acceptable as "tone woods", over the last few decades. The days of the likes of mahogany, rosewood, ebony, maple, ash and alder, ruling the tone wood roost, have morphed into those woods being just a part of a much wider palate of 'suitable' woods.

None of that answers the old "how much of the tone of a solid body electric bass/guitar, is the wood responsible for?" Though I think the end answer has to be something like, 'it's variable, ranging from a little to a clearly noticeable amount, defendant on the individual pieces of wood used in the instrument as they interact with all the other components and are hear in a particular circumstance. But can we accept that not every piece of ash, alder, or whatever, will sound exactly the same as every other piece of ash, alder, or whatever?

 

[chadds]

The rigorous scientific test doesn't show what the musician does with the idiosyncrasies of the a particular instrument. These aren't synths. You don't try three of the same model synth to determine which one you take home.

The variances between even factory instruments are discernible. They aren't to everyone.

When an astute player tries out numerous versions of the same bass and picks one, that individual is picking on feel. At this point if the argument is this is subjective, than this discussion isn't for you. Because it is subjective. When you head to the gig and you choose which shoes you want to wear that's personal/subjective. There is no law of science here. The only constraints are what rules for attire are in affect. Tux or jeans for example.

Subjective isn't bad and objective good. Those are useful when we need near absolute certainty that a system works. Like red yellow and green lights at intersections. My choice between this instrument and that is mine alone. As I develop as a musician I learn what I hear and what I feel. That enables me to successfully express music.

So while I picked #14 out of 15 P basses (all the same color model etc.) your fave was #2. That's just wonderful.

 

[James Collins]

Once reaching an understanding with a customer, it's important to stand behind your product, but I'm afraid that in most cases with a custom instrument, especially if it' incorporates some unusual specs, (extra wide neck, very radical shape, unusual finishes, unusual scale length, etc.) may well be near unsellable to anyone else other than the person who ordered it, or certainly will only sell by lucky circumstance, or by taking a heavy loss on price.

None of that answers the old "how much of the tone of a solid body electric bass/guitar, is the wood responsible for?"

I wasn't really thinking of radical instruments. Of course if someone wants an inlay with his name on it, that is going to make me less interested in taking it back and telling it. I probably wouldn't do that kind of inlay anyway. But solid point.

I also think that construction techniques can make the wood tone characteristic higher or lower. Ultimately, I think we will never have the definitive answer because a lot of variables come into play.

The variances between even factory instruments are discernible.

I would expect higher variation in factory made instruments than single luthier built instruments. Serious luthiers that is. Precisely because a real luthier is highly selective of the pieces of wood they work with, and accustomed to making decisions and deviations to get the wood to sound right. Less experienced makers and factories just make everything to imprecise or precise specifications which can result in gems or bad instruments and all in between.

 

[RichterScale]

I copied my response to a different thread, but it applies here. This is my take on it.

In my own experience, I seem to have seen that adding stiffness (up to a point) sounds as if it adds definition. Possibly introducing the sealed chambers removes wood, which would lessen stiffness:. Maybe that's why these sound a bit softer vs a totally solid body.

You nailed it. This is exactly it. Material choice and construction methods absolutely affect performance, playability and ultimately, the sound. And yes, by carefully removing material in a precise way, you can weaken the structure in a controlled way that allows just enough flex to absorb string energy and dull the sound of the strings. Which would translate to what most people hear as a "warmer" tone. However, with the hardwoods typically used and where/how much chambering is typically done, I don't see the structure from the nut to the bridge flexing much more than if there were no chambering, if at all. That said, I know Bruce has experimented with removing more material from his scroll bass bodies to give them just a tiny bit more flex and dialing the tones back a hair. But he already removes a lot of material from his bodies and he has put a lot of time and experimentation into his designs. Is that what other builders are doing? Tons of R&D into the precise flexibility of the structure, and adjusting for each type of wood and body shape? Yeah, I doubt it.
Typically (ideally), there's no flex in the body or neck joint. There's enough flex in the neck to create relief for string clearance and then it's stopped and locked in place with the truss rod.
When someone simply CNCs a few chambers into the wings for weight reduction, it won't cause enough weakness to make the body flex. My issue is when people say they're "tone" chambers. As if it's an acoustic body. If the structure is doing its job, the strings are vibrating and the pickups are transducing the string vibrations into an electrical signal. The pickups are not microphones that are hearing body resonance from little chambers in the wings. If the material or chambering is not flexing, it's not affecting how the strings vibrate. Therefore, not affecting what the pickup sees.
That's my theory and that's why I don't think builders should blurt out terminologies from the acoustic world. If they do, they should explain the how/why of it. But I notice they never do. They simply say words like "tone" and "resonant", which implies something and they leave it to the imagination and assumption. Then people connect dots that aren't there and when you try to have a discussion about it, well, you see how every "tonewood" thread goes.
So, builders should just stop doing it. Especially the good ones. I think it cheapens and takes away from the good work they do. It's an element of dishonesty and bull$#!ttery that's simply not called for.

Sadowsky Wood Selection

 

[Beej]

I copied my response to a different thread, but it applies here. This is my take on it.


You nailed it. This is exactly it. Material choice and construction methods absolutely affect performance, playability and ultimately, the sound. And yes, by carefully removing material in a precise way, you can weaken the structure in a controlled way that allows just enough flex to absorb string energy and dull the sound of the strings. Which would translate to what most people hear as a "warmer" tone. However, with the hardwoods typically used and where/how much chambering is typically done, I don't see the structure from the nut to the bridge flexing much more than if there were no chambering, if at all. That said, I know Bruce has experimented with removing more material from his scroll bass bodies to give them just a tiny bit more flex and dialing the tones back a hair. But he already removes a lot of material from his bodies and he has put a lot of time and experimentation into his designs. Is that what other builders are doing? Tons of R&D into the precise flexibility of the structure, and adjusting for each type of wood and body shape? Yeah, I doubt it.
Typically (ideally), there's no flex in the body or neck joint. There's enough flex in the neck to create relief for string clearance and then it's stopped and locked in place with the truss rod.
When someone simply CNCs a few chambers into the wings for weight reduction, it won't cause enough weakness to make the body flex. My issue is when people say they're "tone" chambers. As if it's an acoustic body. If the structure is doing its job, the strings are vibrating and the pickups are transducing the string vibrations into an electrical signal. The pickups are not microphones that are hearing body resonance from little chambers in the wings. If the material or chambering is not flexing, it's not affecting how the strings vibrate. Therefore, not affecting what the pickup sees.
That's my theory and that's why I don't think builders should blurt out terminologies from the acoustic world. If they do, they should explain the how/why of it. But I notice they never do. They simply say words like "tone" and "resonant", which implies something and they leave it to the imagination and assumption. Then people connect dots that aren't there and when you try to have a discussion about it, well, you see how every "tonewood" thread goes.
So, builders should just stop doing it. Especially the good ones. I think it cheapens and takes away from the good work they do. It's an element of dishonesty and bull$#!ttery that's simply not called for.

Sadowsky Wood Selection

Agreed, but, and this is a big but, it's what the customers demand. Cork-sniffing vintage aficionados have already decided that wood makes an enormous difference and so they "test" the builder's knowledge by looking for confirmatory statements of tone mythology. Someone like that does not want to hear actual experience, scientific analysis or points that underscore the importance of other factors in construction as they fly in the face of their pre-existing conclusions about how the wood used impacts the sound produced. They want to hear the appeals to authority. Their authority.

But I'm not finger pointing or blaming anyone, these arguments are myriad and circular, it's hard to get out from under them. I used to get pretty fired up about this stuff, not so much because of my building experience, but more from my psychology-career experience. I spent some time early in my career back in the 90s in a perception lab working with some interesting things around perception, and have said it before, but the best-researched hard science in the realm of tonewoods is the impact of cognitive bias on our perception of nearly anything.

I get less fired up now, too old to bother anymore. We can talk about and examine whether or not there is an objective difference to particular woods or construction types, but is that really the argument? Whether or not there is any difference? Cripes, I'm 100% sure there is a difference and probably no need to set up any experiments to prove that as it's pretty much a self-evident truth.

The question to me is more about what magnitude of difference between instruments can be ascribed to the woods used in the construction? That's a much more difficult question to definitively answer. Can we determine this through objective measurements? I'm sure we can. But, that will only prove that there exists an objectively measurable difference, and that will not necessarily translate into a person being able to tell a difference reliably. And even if they could simply tell a difference, is that of any value in the realm of playing instruments? There are many, many factors that contribute to tone, so how would a player be able to tell that it's the different woods used in construction versus another build factor?

I personally think the value is in knowing that different factors can come together to produce different tonal palettes and we should simply enjoy what we have, identify things we like, and work towards finding something that scratches the itch. But the idea that you "like" the tone of maple necks with alder bodies, is ignoring many other factors that have come together to produce the tone soup you love about that instrument. If you then go on to love all maple necked alder bodied instruments, at that point we're in the realm of expectation bias.

Last comment, it's possible that a person has 'golden ears' but to paraphrase @Snert those "extraordinary skills" overall tend to disappear when a controlled experiment is applied. Once you control the person's ability to use other sensory cues to discern differences, special aptitudes, more often than not, do not stand up to rigorous analysis.

 

[LetItGrowTone]

Average basswood vs average alder - I can hear it, sorry.

EDIT: I like both.

 

[RichterScale]

and this is a big but

I like big buts

 

[RichterScale]

expectation bias

the impact of cognitive bias on our perception of nearly anything.

No one is exempt. Even when you're aware of it, you're still not exempt.

 

[Beej]

No one is exempt. Even when you're aware of it, you're still not exempt.

Precisely. There is a reason that RCTs are the gold standard in experimental design. They were invented to control for the influence of the experimenter and the subjects. It was made clear over time that experimenters cannot remain objective as they are human. Without controls, it's not possible to tell the influence of which factor in the analysis of variance.

 

[RichterScale]

The bottom line is, we all live in a world of make believe that revolves around our own perception.
Either that, or none of it's real and we live in the matrix.
Or,....directed energy microwave beam technology has just gotten way out of hand since the 40s/50s and the damage is irreparable.

 

[SC Bassboy]

Tell it to those who play EBMM SUB basses.
Sure, they sounded terrible

edit: absolutely not

I stand by my opinion that Poplar is not a good tonewood. You should ask the players that have a EBMM SUB if they wouldn't rather have an Alder body were it an option. Regardless, I respect your opinion.

 

[Beej]

I stand by my opinion that Poplar is not a good tonewood. You should ask the players that have a EBMM SUB if they wouldn't rather have an Alder body were it an option. Regardless, I respect your opinion.

My number one player is a killer and it's poplar. Bruce Johnson's Ampeg-style instruments are also all poplar except the walnut ones. It's a great wood for building.

 

[Grinderman]

I have two P basses.

One is a Nash PB-63, with alder body, 2-pc maple with rosewood slab neck, Lollar pickups and .1uf cap. The other P bass I built has a swamp ash body, 1-pc quarter sawn maple neck (fairly thick soft V shape), Klein Epic '58 pickups and .1uf cap. Both have typical CTS pots and Switchcraft jacks and both have Dunlop 45-105 stainless flats.

They don't sound exactly the same.

The Nash PB sounds darker, has lower lows with bright highs, when the tone isn't rolled off.

The '58 type I built with the Klein pickups sounds more mid-forward, more open/less dark, not as low, with somewhat bright highs, when the tone isn't rolled off, but different from the Nash.

If I switch between the two the quickest/easiest adjustment, if I need to even out the difference some so one isn't putting out too much low end or not enough from the other, is in how I set my highpass filter on my amp head.


Rhetorical Q: Why precisely do the sum totals of these two different P basses sound different from each other?

A: Beats me, they just do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Durham52]

My number one player is a killer and it's poplar. Bruce Johnson's Ampeg-style instruments are also all poplar except the walnut ones. It's a great wood for building.

I agree, I've built several solid bodied basses and guitars using poplar for the bodies and they've been great. But then a lot of the wood described as poplar isn't poplar at all and even when the wood used is poplar, like all wood it can vary from piece to piece and tree to tree.

Using the Wood Database and Warmoth's descriptions, poplar is about the same weight as alder, some species of poplar are a little softer on the Janka, scale, some about the same, or a bit harder and is rated about the same on the warm to bright tone scale.

I like poplar, especially for a reasonably light weight painted body, it doesn't need grain filling and paints really well. Just like any other wood, pick good pieces and avoid the rubbish.

 

[RichterScale]

It's true. Poplar isn't a good tonewood.
That's why it's not a popular choice for acoustic guitar tops. But a good, solid hunk of poplar is absolutely fine for a solid electric body.
"Tonewood" is a term used to describe the acoustic properties of acoustic instrument soundboards.
It doesn't apply to solid body electrics that make sound by way of strings vibrating in a magnetic field, which causes current in a coil around a magnet, which travels to an amplifier, is sent to the speaker's coil and then the reverse happens: the current causes the coil to vibrate in the magnetic field, the coil makes the speaker cone vibrate, pushing air and sound waves which are audible. It's an electric instrument. Without all that, it's a hunk of wood with strings and not very useful. The wood in an electric is just the frame. It doesn't produce the sound. If it did, it would be an acoustic instrument and you would use (preferably) what have become referred to as one of the tonewoods for the sound board. No tonewood is used in an electric. There's no paper thin soundboards acting as an air pump/speaker cone on an electric.
With an acoustic, the body of the instrument is the speaker and the top of the guitar (the tonewood) is the speaker cone.
The wood of an acoustic is what amplifies the strings and makes the sound.
In an electric, the wood is just the frame for the strings and electronics. If the material is weak, flexible, compresses easily, it's constructed and put together sloppily and inaccurately, it will affect the way the strings vibrate. Just like if the frame is made of cast iron. Like anything else with a frame, it will affect the the performance of whatever it's supporting. But the wood is not making the sound like an acoustic and the wood doesn't affect the sound in the same ways as the wood in an acoustic. "Tonewood" is an inappropriate term to use in the electric solid body world and it's not interchangable. It's not that wood has no effect at all. It's that it affects the sound in a different way than what calling it "tonewood" implies.
This is the best way I can explain and clarify why the term "tonewood" for solid bodied electrics is irritating (to me) without writing a book. Although, I've seen people get into the weeds and put in a stellar effort to explain it, at length, but it's not catching on. That's why you get one liners, drive-by posts and sarcasm. It's really not worth getting into it. It's not about being a "denier" or believing "wood doesn't matter." This isn't about all the tribal crap of "believers vs non believers". This isn't bigfoot, or aliens, or ghosts, or politics. It's art, science, math, physics and engineering. It's about trying to explain to people how it all works, so they can understand and appreciate the craft and what goes into it and among builders, to help each other build better instruments. It's about dispelling myths and marketing hokum so people aren't made fools of and taken advantage of. If you don't build, I encourage you to get into it. It's extremely rewarding and satisfying. It's also extremely educational.
Anyway, if there's a noticeable difference between a mass produced model that has a poplar body or alder and they are otherwise identical, my theory would be that it's the difference between an experienced builder, hand picking a specific piece of poplar for a body and spending weeks-months building.... and a large warehouse filled with hourly line workers, using pieces of poplar that were delivered by the tractor trailer load and they are gluing 2-3 pieces together with no regard for grain orientation, different densities, whether of not it's even really poplar, etc, etc.
Then they get sent to finish where they're lathered with sealer, filler and spray painted.
My guess is that out of however many they pump out in a day, some sound okay and some not so much. But it's not likey due to simply being poplar.
Because people use it for bodies and turn out some killer looking and sounding instruments.
If poplar was a bad wood to use on solid body electrics, then all solid bodied electrics made with poplar would sound bad.

 

[mcnach]

I stand by my opinion that Poplar is not a good tonewood. You should ask the players that have a EBMM SUB if they wouldn't rather have an Alder body were it an option. Regardless, I respect your opinion.

I don't need to ask: I have owned 3 of the things. A 5 string and two 4 strings. I had those at the same time as my EBMM Stingray (natural finish ash/maple).

I can't say there were any shortcomings in any of them and my reasons to sell them had nothing to do with their quality. I wish I had kept the 5 string one in particular. Ah well.

 

[RichterScale]

I know that the Sterling version of the Stingray uses a different pickup than the Stingray. The pickups look the same, but they are made differently. And you can hear the difference.
What is the difference between a Stingray and a SUB?