• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

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.

RichterScale;

You still seem to be missing the concept here. Over the years, I've built my Scroll Basses using different wood species for the bodies. Same basic design and dimensions, although I've varied the configuration and amount of internal chambering to adjust the resulting sound. I've used woods of varying hardness: maple, walnut, ash, honduras mahogany, Phillipine mahogany, koa, and ...poplar.

These basses, with different body woods, have distinctly different sounds or tones. And I mean sound out through the pickup and out the amp. It's not an enormous difference in sound, like you'd get from changing the type of pickup, or the type of strings, or inserting preamps. But there's a definite difference that anyone can hear. If I blindfolded you and handed you different basses to try, you might guess wrong which wood was which. But you would absolutely notice that there was a difference in tone between them. It's not something that you have to hear with a microscope (I like that expression!).

But...My Scroll Basses are deliberately built so that their necks and bodies are softer, and they flex in response to the vibration of the strings. Which affects the vibration on the strings, and changes the tone that goes out through the amp, etc. The bass is designed so that the body wood participates in shaping the sound. In my Scroll Bass, the poplar is being a Tone Wood. It can't help it. That's how it's being used.

In contrast, most mass produced basses, like Fenders, are designed to minimize the ability of the body wood to be Tone Wood. Leo made the body thick enough and solid to minimize the flexing. He wanted to minimize the frame's effect on the sound, or at least control it to something consistent. Leo intended for the sound of his basses to mostly be controlled by the design of his pickups. He didn't want some to sound "better" than others because of the piece of wood chosen for the body. Leo was all about consistency by the millions. If he wanted a bass to sound different, he would make it different with different pickups, different shape, etc.

And it mostly worked. The majority of Fender P-basses sound close to the same, regardless of the body wood. And so the masses march around carrying banners saying "See, Body Wood Doesn't Matter, And Has Nothing To Do With The Sound!". This proves that electric basses are just pickups and strings on a slab of wood. Yup.

But then....Some Fenders slipped by that had Substandard bodies made from softer wood.....which allowed them to flex a little more beyond the design specs. And Fender connoisseurs noticed that some P-basses with bodies of some woods sounded a little different. Maybe a little better? This can't be! Oh No!

The secret knowledge got out and the subculture grew. Boutique Luthiers started building Boutique Fenders using different body woods and demonstrating that, OMG, they did indeed sound better. Or at least different. Under pressure from customers, Fender even started offering some basses with different body woods and even promoting the idea that it affected the sound in a subtle way (gasp!).

Meanwhile the Fender Faithful lined up a row of Fenders that sounded exactly the same and chanted Wood Doesn't Matter! Tone Wood Is A Myth! And point to basses made of plastic and concrete and colored pencils as proof!

And they aren't completely wrong. You certainly can build a bass with a body made from..almost anything..that will sound almost like a Fender. IF you make it similar in stiffness to the Fenders, where the wood isn't being allowed to function as Tone Wood.

That's where the argument stands these days.

So, is poplar a Tone Wood? It's not inherently a Tone Wood as a permanent physical characteristic. Nor is any wood. It depends how the wood is used. In one of my Scroll Basses, the poplar is being used to shape the final tone. A different sound than if it were another species. It is a Tone Wood.

But you can also build a bass with a poplar body, which is stiff enough that the poplar doesn't move with the string's vibration. In that case, the poplar is not a Tone Wood. You could build that bass design using different body woods, and they would sound the same. None of them would be Tone Woods.

That's the center of all these misunderstandings about electric bass bodies and Tone Wood. The choice of wood species can affect the sound of the bass, but only if the bass is built to allow it. You cannot say that a poplar body will always sound like this. And you also cannot say that a poplar body will never affect the sound. It depends on how the poplar is used.
 
Last edited:
That's the center of all these misunderstandings about electric bass bodies and Tone Wood. The choice of wood species can affect the sound of the bass, but only if the bass is built to allow it. You cannot say that a poplar body will always sound like this. And you also cannot say that a poplar body will never affect the sound. It depends on how the poplar is used
This is the gist of what I was attempting to say. I do get the concept, I just get a little flustered and can't find a way to word it properly.
So, thanks for wording it much better.
 
RichterScale;

You still seem to be missing the concept here. Over the years, I've built my Scroll Basses using different wood species for the bodies. Same basic design and dimensions, although I've varied the configuration and amount of internal chambering to adjust the resulting sound. I've used woods of varying hardness: maple, walnut, ash, honduras mahogany, Phillipine mahogany, koa, and ...poplar.

These basses, with different body woods, have distinctly different sounds or tones. And I mean sound out through the pickup and out the amp. It's not an enormous difference in sound, like you'd get from changing the type of pickup, or the type of strings, or inserting preamps. But there's a definite difference that anyone can hear. If I blindfolded you and handed you different basses to try, you might guess wrong which wood was which. But you would absolutely notice that there was a difference in tone between them. It's not something that you have to hear with a microscope (I like that expression!).

But...My Scroll Basses are deliberately built so that their necks and bodies are softer, and they flex in response to the vibration of the strings. Which affects the vibration on the strings, and changes the tone that goes out through the amp, etc. The bass is designed so that the body wood participates in shaping the sound. In my Scroll Bass, the poplar is being a Tone Wood. It can't help it. That's how it's being used.

In contrast, most mass produced basses, like Fenders, are designed to minimize the ability of the body wood to be Tone Wood. Leo made the body thick enough and solid to minimize the flexing. He wanted to minimize the frame's effect on the sound, or at least control it to something consistent. Leo intended for the sound of his basses to mostly be controlled by the design of his pickups. He didn't want some to sound "better" than others because of the piece of wood chosen for the body. Leo was all about consistency by the millions. If he wanted a bass to sound different, he would make it different with different pickups, different shape, etc.

And it mostly worked. The majority of Fender P-basses sound close to the same, regardless of the body wood. And so the masses march around carrying banners saying "See, Body Wood Doesn't Matter, And Has Nothing To Do With The Sound!". This proves that electric basses are just pickups and strings on a slab of wood. Yup.

But then....Some Fenders slipped by that had Substandard bodies made from softer wood.....which allowed them to flex a little more beyond the design specs. And Fender connoisseurs noticed that some P-basses with bodies of some woods sounded a little different. Maybe a little better? This can't be! Oh No!

The secret knowledge got out and the subculture grew. Boutique Luthiers started building Boutique Fenders using different body woods and demonstrating that, OMG, they did indeed sound better. Or at least different. Under pressure from customers, Fender even started offering some basses with different body woods and even promoting the idea that it affected the sound in a subtle way (gasp!).

Meanwhile the Fender Faithful lined up a row of Fenders that sounded exactly the same and chanted Wood Doesn't Matter! Tone Wood Is A Myth! And point to basses made of plastic and concrete and colored pencils as proof!

And they aren't completely wrong. You certainly can build a bass with a body made from..almost anything..that will sound almost like a Fender. IF you make it similar in stiffness to the Fenders, where the wood isn't being allowed to function as Tone Wood.

That's where the argument stands these days.

So, is poplar a Tone Wood? It's not inherently a Tone Wood as a permanent physical characteristic. Nor is any wood. It depends how the wood is used. In one of my Scroll Basses, the poplar is being used to shape the final tone. A different sound than if it were another species. It is a Tone Wood.

But you can also build a bass with a poplar body, which is stiff enough that the poplar doesn't move with the string's vibration. In that case, the poplar is not a Tone Wood. You could build that bass design using different body woods, and they would sound the same. None of them would be Tone Woods.

That's the center of all these misunderstandings about electric bass bodies and Tone Wood. The choice of wood species can affect the sound of the bass, but only if the bass is built to allow it. You cannot say that a poplar body will always sound like this. And you also cannot say that a poplar body will never affect the sound. It depends on how the poplar is used.

An incredibly well constructed explanation and analysis of your experience Bruce. I've always tried to clarify my own experiences and thoughts regarding 'tone wood'. (I've grown to hate that descriptor) Having worked a lot with Australian woods alongside more traditionally accepted instrument woods, I've often mused on the degree resultant sound and tone is affected by construction and how much effect, density, rigidity and other structural factors had on the result as opposed to the type of wood, particularly given that wood of the same species can vary. I could never quite buy the concept of wood A giving a set result compared to wood B.

I tried to organize my thoughts in an early post to this thread, but I suspect I didn't get anywhere near to being coherent as you have.

Anyway, great post Bruce, though I suspect it won't change, or influence many opinions on the 'tone wood' subject....
 
RichterScale;

You still seem to be missing the concept here. Over the years, I've built my Scroll Basses using different wood species for the bodies. Same basic design and dimensions, although I've varied the configuration and amount of internal chambering to adjust the resulting sound. I've used woods of varying hardness: maple, walnut, ash, honduras mahogany, Phillipine mahogany, koa, and ...poplar.

These basses, with different body woods, have distinctly different sounds or tones. And I mean sound out through the pickup and out the amp. It's not an enormous difference in sound, like you'd get from changing the type of pickup, or the type of strings, or inserting preamps. But there's a definite difference that anyone can hear. If I blindfolded you and handed you different basses to try, you might guess wrong which wood was which. But you would absolutely notice that there was a difference in tone between them. It's not something that you have to hear with a microscope (I like that expression!).

But...My Scroll Basses are deliberately built so that their necks and bodies are softer, and they flex in response to the vibration of the strings. Which affects the vibration on the strings, and changes the tone that goes out through the amp, etc. The bass is designed so that the body wood participates in shaping the sound. In my Scroll Bass, the poplar is being a Tone Wood. It can't help it. That's how it's being used.

In contrast, most mass produced basses, like Fenders, are designed to minimize the ability of the body wood to be Tone Wood. Leo made the body thick enough and solid to minimize the flexing. He wanted to minimize the frame's effect on the sound, or at least control it to something consistent. Leo intended for the sound of his basses to mostly be controlled by the design of his pickups. He didn't want some to sound "better" than others because of the piece of wood chosen for the body. Leo was all about consistency by the millions. If he wanted a bass to sound different, he would make it different with different pickups, different shape, etc.

And it mostly worked. The majority of Fender P-basses sound close to the same, regardless of the body wood. And so the masses march around carrying banners saying "See, Body Wood Doesn't Matter, And Has Nothing To Do With The Sound!". This proves that electric basses are just pickups and strings on a slab of wood. Yup.

But then....Some Fenders slipped by that had Substandard bodies made from softer wood.....which allowed them to flex a little more beyond the design specs. And Fender connoisseurs noticed that some P-basses with bodies of some woods sounded a little different. Maybe a little better? This can't be! Oh No!

The secret knowledge got out and the subculture grew. Boutique Luthiers started building Boutique Fenders using different body woods and demonstrating that, OMG, they did indeed sound better. Or at least different. Under pressure from customers, Fender even started offering some basses with different body woods and even promoting the idea that it affected the sound in a subtle way (gasp!).

Meanwhile the Fender Faithful lined up a row of Fenders that sounded exactly the same and chanted Wood Doesn't Matter! Tone Wood Is A Myth! And point to basses made of plastic and concrete and colored pencils as proof!

And they aren't completely wrong. You certainly can build a bass with a body made from..almost anything..that will sound almost like a Fender. IF you make it similar in stiffness to the Fenders, where the wood isn't being allowed to function as Tone Wood.

That's where the argument stands these days.

So, is poplar a Tone Wood? It's not inherently a Tone Wood as a permanent physical characteristic. Nor is any wood. It depends how the wood is used. In one of my Scroll Basses, the poplar is being used to shape the final tone. A different sound than if it were another species. It is a Tone Wood.

But you can also build a bass with a poplar body, which is stiff enough that the poplar doesn't move with the string's vibration. In that case, the poplar is not a Tone Wood. You could build that bass design using different body woods, and they would sound the same. None of them would be Tone Woods.

That's the center of all these misunderstandings about electric bass bodies and Tone Wood. The choice of wood species can affect the sound of the bass, but only if the bass is built to allow it. You cannot say that a poplar body will always sound like this. And you also cannot say that a poplar body will never affect the sound. It depends on how the poplar is used.
This was possibly the best explanation I’ve read on this topic thus far, thank you @Bruce Johnson for describing how you’ve used different woods to affect the overall tone.

EDIT - and techniques
 
Last edited:
This was possibly the best explanation I’ve read on this topic thus far, thank you @Bruce Johnson for describing how you’ve used different woods to affect the overall tone.

Yes, but don't overlook Bruce's thoughts and experiences regarding rigidity, wood removal etc. to change and affect tone. Most of his comments weren't just about wood types.

For example, Bruce's final paragraph, using Poplar as the example,
"That's the center of all these misunderstandings about electric bass bodies and Tone Wood. The choice of wood species can affect the sound of the bass, but only if the bass is built to allow it. You cannot say that a poplar body will always sound like this. And you also cannot say that a poplar body will never affect the sound. It depends on how the poplar is used."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avalon5 and Roger W
Yes, but don't overlook Bruce's thoughts and experiences regarding rigidity, wood removal etc. to change and affect tone. Most of his comments weren't just about wood types.

For example, Bruce's final paragraph, using Poplar as the example,
"That's the center of all these misunderstandings about electric bass bodies and Tone Wood. The choice of wood species can affect the sound of the bass, but only if the bass is built to allow it. You cannot say that a poplar body will always sound like this. And you also cannot say that a poplar body will never affect the sound. It depends on how the poplar is used."
How did I overlook it??
 
Part of the problem with the tonewood debate is that some hear a difference, some don't. Some may imaging that they hear a difference and some may imagine that they don't. But a spectrum analysis will tell you if there really is a difference. The tests I did showed that there was indeed a difference between certain "tonewoods". And perhaps you could identify the species from the spectrum analysis alone, but I wouldn't count on a listening test to identify species.

But given that there is a difference in resonance of different species, I leave it to the builders, like Bruce Johnson, to make use of that information to craft a fine instrument taking into account the character of the wood, the pickups and all other components of the instrument. Bruce can hear the difference. I hear it too. Perhaps some do not or cannot.
 
Also, when most players listen for the Tone or Sound of a bass, they are primarily thinking of the overall EQ curve. That is, how loud and soft the different areas of the frequency curve are. That's the big picture of the sound. But there are other characteristics that are part of the Sound of a bass too: Particularly the Attack Curve, Clarity, and Coloration. They are important characteristics that anyone can hear, if you listen for them.

But many players willfully ignore them. Because they don't think they are important to the sound they are trying to get. They just want a basic tone with a good EQ curve that they can send off down the line. Let the pedals and amp circuits crunch on that and make a Great Tone from it. Electronically.

When you build a bass to shape the sound mechanically, with the legendary Tone Wood, the effect on the EQ curve is usually fairly small. Most of the effect is in the Attack Curve, Clarity, and Coloration. Players who don't listen to those things will conclude that Tone Woods do nothing. Playing through a distorted amp in a loud nightclub, who cares about Clarity and Coloration, right?

Actually, the best Doom Metal players know that a bass with exceptional inherent Clarity will create the nastiest, best distorted sound. A secret of the pros.
 
But a spectrum analysis will tell you if there really is a difference.
As someone who has done more than enough analysis of spectral content in hifi systems, just because it's measurable does not mean that will translate into a consistently detectable signature. There was tons of this sort of testing done during the days developing codecs. This is why double blind is the only way to determine if it is audible or not.
 
As someone who has done more than enough analysis of spectral content in hifi systems, just because it's measurable does not mean that will translate into a consistently detectable signature. There was tons of this sort of testing done during the days developing codecs. This is why double blind is the only way to determine if it is audible or not.
But you cannot argue that there is no difference when a spectrum analysis shows that there is. Once again, some can hear the difference, some can't. But there is a measurable difference.
 
At the risk of repetition, over the years I've spoken to numerous engineers about this. Some musicians most not. They didn't know this was an issue or debate and had interesting takes.

This really fits with the above analysis of basses being designed to emphasize or de-emphasize the effect of the body/neck.

One scientist said this. The first pulse is your pluck of the string. That gets picked up (play on words:)) by the pickup. The second pulse is vibrations that go from the bridge through the body and back through the neck nut etc. They are transmitted back to the string and influence it's vibration. This is delayed but is at great speed. This effect on the string is tone. It imparts character to the vibrating string. You may like it you may not.

No one is saying that our electronics are picking up the acoustic sound of the wood as if they were microphones!

Meanwhile everything vibrates. We hear because of this. You hear the difference between a hammer landing on your kitchen floor and a teaspoon. They have different amplitude and sustain. The spoon may have a near pleasant ring. The screech of your mate after dropping a hammer on your tile floor is another sound effect.:)

Side bar. I have a 200 year old Oak kitchen table. When I put a terry cloth bath towel on it and lay a Fender bass on it the sound is huge.

A player can eq out all of this effect and concentrate all of their tone making farther down the signal chain. So they may argue the bass has no effect and that no one can hear it anyway. To them they are correct.

The musician who says, "oh this is my favorite bass", is sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of the vibrations of that bass distinguished from others like it. That musician uses those vagaries to get effects from touch. Lifting fretting finger slightly, all manner of finger pad to tip techniques and placement of plucking fingers at any place on the strings for example. These musicians learn through time to discern almost immediately what will work for them to make the music. This last part is hard for science to measure. Do we need it to? Why? Isn't this the ultimate of personal subjectivity? Objectivity isn't good or bad. Subjectivity isn't good or bad. There is a time for each.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Roger W
What I've learned from this thread:

Three basses that are built with three different species of wood but are otherwise identical will definitely sound different to all, or most, or some listeners.

Also, three basses that are built identically in every regard, including wood species, will definitely sound different to all, or most, or some listeners.
 
Though there is a good explanation of how an acoustic works as a "pump", there seems to be no regard for how the solid body affects how the string vibrates.
Also, he ignores the neck which clearly impacts the ability of a string to vibrate. Otherwise we wouldn't have terms like dead spot or wolf note.

I found some of the pump analogy funny. When I hold my hand in front of my sound hole, I don't feel any air moving. He focused a lot on the design of an acoustic guitar being to force air out of the guitar to the listener, but I suspect net zero air moves out of a guitar sound hole intuitively. I know air moves in and out of the sound hole, he just made it seem more dramatic. Most of the sound we hear is the top vibrating, the other components are shaping the tone.

My understanding of the sound hole is that it is mainly there to create an air resonance which changes the tone of the instrument. "Tone air" if you will. I suspect that changes in humidity and temperature affect my guitars tone independent of the changes in wood humidity and temperature. Not as much as the room affects it, but noticeable to me despite no actual measurements or blind tests.
 
But there is a measurable difference.
So what?If it's not AUDIBLE and repeatedly so, then it's irrelevant. It's not difficult to measure many different things that people can't tell with naked senses. You are claiming it's audible, not measurable.
Record them, level match and then ABX test the files blind and get a statistically significant number correct, then I'll believe you can tell it by ear alone.
Then do the same in a mix.
 
So what?If it's not AUDIBLE and repeatedly so, then it's irrelevant. It's not difficult to measure many different things that people can't tell with naked senses. You are claiming it's audible, not measurable.
Record them, level match and then ABX test the files blind and get a statistically significant number correct, then I'll believe you can tell it by ear alone.
Then do the same in a mix.

Tone is a carrot.

I've come to the understanding, through threads like these, that all basses sound the same, especially in a mix.
 
So what?If it's not AUDIBLE and repeatedly so, then it's irrelevant. It's not difficult to measure many different things that people can't tell with naked senses. You are claiming it's audible, not measurable.
Record them, level match and then ABX test the files blind and get a statistically significant number correct, then I'll believe you can tell it by ear alone.
Then do the same in a mix.
This study showed in a simplified electric guitar model, 92% of the time, listeners could hear a difference and identify the correct tone wood in addition to the wave form differences.

https://journals.pan.pl/Content/121810/PDF/aoa.2021.138150.pdf?handler=pdf

But believe whatever you like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Afc70 and GrapeBass