Tonewood Club

[chadds]

Tone is a carrot.

I've come to the understanding, through threads like these, that all basses sound the same, especially in a mix.

For the grins of it. Are you saying to you they do? What quality of system are you listening to them on? What genre of music? Some bassists make their basses sound indistinct. Some folks eq the nuance out of live mixes. I know you can go to hear Huey Lewis and the engineer has a John Bonham sound on the drums.

Why do three different classical pianists sound distinctly different on the same 9ft Steinway? They have the skill to bring their own nuances out of the same wood and metal. So all basses might sound the same if you drop baseballs on them. But they don’t when musicians discern the uniqueness of the instrument and use it to bring the music. We are humans who listen to music alone and with others not measuring devices.

 

[Turnaround]

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.

I'm sorry to have to say it again, but it is audible to some people, and apparently not to others. Many builders hear the difference and craft their instruments with specific woods to support the sound they strive for. They don't choose woods by hearsay - they try different woods and select accordingly. TB member Bruce Johnson is one of those as is Roger Sadowsky, Michael Tobias, Rob Elrick, Rob Allen, Mike Pedulla and many others. They all experimented with different woods and they all hear differences.

My experiments were to see if the differences they found were substantiated by spectrum analysis. I found evidence that supported their views.

 

[arbiterusa]

I was an acoustic builder for quite a few years (Santa Cruz Guitar Company). Obviously tonewood matters for acoustics.

OF COURSE it matters for electric instruments as well! How could it not? It's not the only thing that makes a difference, but - and this is the important part - it's the foundational thing. The inherent tone of your electric instrument is a result of the acoustic properties of the wood it's made from. Again, how could it not be?

Where people get wrapped around the axle with this are the assumptions that mahogany has a particular sound and that ash (substitute any wood, doesn't matter) has a particular sound. Only true to a point. Every piece has it's own tone. You can have dead-sounding ash and lively mahogany. Ask an acoustic builder, lol. We know. I didn't spend all that time tapping on tops to impress my non-existent luthier groupies.

Anyhow, this thread's going to be a waste of time and effort. There are a lot of folks on this site who are likely unemployed and have all day to argue and nitpick with facts, and I just don't have the time. Enjoy your ignorance, I'm told it's comforting.

 

[Snert]

I'm sorry to have to say it again, but it is audible to some people, and apparently not to others.

And I'm sorry to have to say it again, but your testing was not done in any sort of controlled manner and is therefore not significant.
Same with the spectral analysis; because it's measurable does not mean it's audible even in the best circumstances, let alone through an amp, and then in a mix live or recorded.

 

[Snert]

Where people get wrapped around the axle with this are the assumptions that mahogany has a particular sound and that ash (substitute any wood, doesn't matter) has a particular sound.

This.

 

[Afc70]

I'm sorry to have to say it again, but it is audible to some people, and apparently not to others. Many builders hear the difference and craft their instruments with specific woods to support the sound they strive for. They don't choose woods by hearsay - they try different woods and select accordingly. TB member Bruce Johnson is one of those as is Roger Sadowsky, Michael Tobias, Rob Elrick, Rob Allen, Mike Pedulla and many others. They all experimented with different woods and they all hear differences.

My experiments were to see if the differences they found were substantiated by spectrum analysis. I found evidence that supported their views.

Some folks will never believe woods make a significant difference in tonal characteristics, no matter how much evidence you present. I’ve known they indeed do impact bass (and guitar) tonal qualities after 35 yrs…Most guitarists will also agree, & some prefer maple boards for a brighter tone, some rosewood for a darker, warmer tone. I think some people just can’t hear very well, or hear things differently, just as we all taste things differently.

 

[GrapeBass]

Some folks will never believe woods make a significant difference in tonal characteristics, no matter how much evidence you present. I’ve known they indeed do impact bass (and guitar) tonal qualities after 35 yrs…Most guitarists will also agree, & some prefer maple boards for a brighter tone, some rosewood for a darker, warmer tone. I think some people just can’t hear very well, or hear things differently, just as we all taste things differently.

Humans are an extremely imperfect test device but argue fantastically well regardless whether we have evidence or not.

 

[Afc70]

Humans are an extremely imperfect test device but argue fantastically well.

I totally agree with you, but there are some folks here that would even argue about that with you…

 

[Snert]

Humans are an extremely imperfect test device

Yes and are full of biases both overt and covert and the testing most usually cited is so flawed as to be not worth using.

 

[Turnaround]

And I'm sorry to have to say it again, but your testing was not done in any sort of controlled manner and is therefore not significant.
Same with the spectral analysis; because it's measurable does not mean it's audible even in the best circumstances, let alone through an amp, and then in a mix live or recorded.

I did NOT do a listening test - just spectrum analysis and there was a measurable difference. And I will say that the MEASURED differences I found seemed to support the "opinions" of a number of builders. Coincidence? Maybe. If you have a spectrum analysis that goes contrary to this, I would be interested.

 

[GrapeBass]

Yes and are full of biases both overt and covert and the testing most usually cited is so flawed as to be not worth using.

like sommeliers... there are qualified people who can taste the difference. Even if 90% of people can't taste the difference doesn't mean that the difference cannot be tasted or doesn't exist.

 

[Turnaround]

I think some people just can’t hear very well, or hear things differently, just as we all taste things differently.

Good point. I remember a study that was done many years ago that tested people's experience of taste. The most striking result was when a particular substance was presented to a large group of people. About half of them said it tasted like cardboard - kind of flat and uninteresting. The other half reported that it was it was exceedingly bitter. There was no in between.

Maybe it's the same with hearing.

 

[Snert]

I did NOT do a listening test - just spectrum analysis and there was a measurable difference.

Hence my point that measured does not mean audible, and that's been the entire claim; that tonewoods make an audible difference and that this has been detected by average ears.

If you have a spectrum analysis that goes contrary to this, I would be interested.

Now you're asking me to prove a negative.

like sommeliers... there are qualified people who can taste the difference. Even if 90% of people can't taste the difference doesn't mean that the difference cannot be tasted or doesn't exist.

I saw a great double blind test of sommeliers some years back (I cannot find it as I'm travelling and on a phone) and they were not statistically able to do so consistently.
Then there have been DBTs with Stradivari vs modern instruments, one I recall years back with a Fender vs an SX and there have been many over the decades with hifi manufacturers doing live vs recorded tests. None have shown consistent results with the basic narrative, which in this case is that certain types of woods have a characteristic tine that is detectable, repeatedly, with non specially trained ears in normal use.

 

[Snert]

Maybe it's the same with hearing.

Hearing has been analyses a lot in recent decades, namely the codec design era and with the development of audio protheses. So, maybe it's not.

 

[Turnaround]

Now you're asking me to prove a negative.

No I'm not. I am truly interested to see if ANYONE has a spectrum analysis that positively supports a different view.

 

[Snert]

No I'm not. I am truly interested to see if ANYONE has a spectrum analysis that positively supports a different view.

Which is in effect, trying to prove a negative. You are making the claim that your spectral analysis, done under what conditions and methodology we don't know is correct and therefore to show something similar that shows it is not. You have not even proved audible significance with the spec analysis you've done so far, just expected everyone to take it as a proof.

 

[James Collins]

Which is in effect, trying to prove a negative. You are making the claim that your spectral analysis, done under what conditions and methodology we don't know is correct and therefore to show something similar that shows it is not. You have not even proved audible significance with the spec analysis you've done so far, just expected everyone to take it as a proof.

One could argue you have done even less. You haven't even provided the articles you mention as definitive proof.

 

[James Collins]

Also what is wrong with proving that a relationship doesn't exist? We do that all the time.

 

[Snert]

Turnaround has claimed he made these measurements, not given the circumstances and methodology nor the actual measurements and expected us to take them as proof that tonewoods have a character based on their genus.

You haven't even provided the articles you mention as definitive proof.

I'm in the middle of a house move and don't have all my stored data at hand but I'll dig it out later.

Edit: But if you're referring to things like level matching etc, the Dr Toole talks about it in his book on speakers, Sound Reproduction.

Also what is wrong with proving that a relationship doesn't exist? We do that all the time.

I've yet to see any relationship to be proved.

I'm typing on my phone so I'm keeping things short, but there are a ton of holes in the article you linked before that would not pass muster in any engineering journal.

 

[James Collins]

Turnaround has claimed he made these measurements, not given the circumstances and methodology nor the actual measurements and expected us to take them as proof that tonewoods have a character based on their genus.

I'm in the middle of a house move and don't have all my stored data at hand but I'll dig it out later. But by all means, it's different when you do it than when others do.

Edit: But if you're referring to things like level matching etc, the Dr Toole talks about it in his book on speakers, Sound Reproduction.

I've yet to see any relationship to be proved.

I'm typing on my phone so I'm keeping things short, but there are a ton of holes in the article you linked before that would not pass muster in any engineering journal.

I've yet to see you disprove anything either. Just speaking from a point of authority with no credentials.

Edit: To be clear, I'm just calling out your double standard where everyone else has to provide definitive proof beyond all doubt; and your opinion stands alone as the only thing necessary for your stance.