Tonewood Club

[Snert]

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.

What double standard? The claim has been that tonewood, specifically specific species have audibly detectable characteristics inherent to that species. I did not make this claim, yet those who have have given nothing substantative to back it up except some argument from authority and one poor test. Show me the actual evidence; it's the claimant's job to make the case, not mine to disprove it.

Edit: Added "inherent to that species" to clarify what I meant.

 

[FLStudiobassist]

What double standard? The claim has been that tonewood, specifically specific species have audibly detectable characteristics. I did not make this claim, yet those who have have given nothing substantative to back it up except some argument from authority and one poor test. Show me the actual evidence; it's the claimant's job to make the case, not mine to disprove it.

Claimant: FLStudioBassist
TalkBass v. Snert
Claim Number: 0128940291
Case: Ash has less-even mids and glassier highs than alder

 

[Snert]

Blind-tested soloists unable to tell Stradivarius violins from modern instruments | Article | The Strad

 

[J Wilson]

Wood obviously can and does affect tone.

The problem is that it's a crapshoot in that wood as an engineered material is not uniform or repeatable.

Sure, line up six Precision Basses with ash bodies, and six with alder, and six with poplar, and you'd likely hear a difference in the three groups.

Line up all the ash only, or the alders only, or the poplars only, and they'sound mostly alike . . . . but not identical. One or two may sound muted, one or two may speak loudly, etc.

To me personally, harder always sounds brighter . . . . but not always.

That's the magic, the mystery, and the aggravation of wood.

And it bothers me that while 'conflict diamonds' are avoided by many for the impact on the workers and the govt's they labor under, exotic woods that come from just as many Third World hell holes as diamonds, musicians just look the other way and complain about CITES. Yellawood solid bodies would be fine with me . .

 

[Solarmist]

Blind-tested soloists unable to tell Stradivarius violins from modern instruments | Article | The Strad

I've read that same study a while back, and it never even mentions the woods used - just old violins vs new. Read it guys.

There have been so many threads on this subject (over 250 - I counted) that someone here should build 3 identical basses in every way possible, but with 3 different body woods, and setup a series of blind tests (no peeking). Maybe they should be unplugged like the violin test just to prove some people can tell the difference.

 

[James Collins]

I'm looking forward to your follow up study that demonstrates no difference in some sort of guitar tone wood model. Why is every journal club just a bunch of people who never make studies criticizing the studies that exist.

What double standard? The claim has been that tonewood, specifically specific species have audibly detectable characteristics inherent to that species. I did not make this claim, yet those who have have given nothing substantative to back it up except some argument from authority and one poor test. Show me the actual evidence; it's the claimant's job to make the case, not mine to disprove it.

Edit: Added "inherent to that species" to clarify what I meant.

Either back up your claims with evidence or feel free to continue sharing your opinion as fact. Maybe at least share some credentials. So we can decide which resort opinion to follow. You or Bruce for example.

 

[James Collins]

Blind-tested soloists unable to tell Stradivarius violins from modern instruments | Article | The Strad

What does this have to do with anything? No electric instruments. No comparison of wood. No statistics. No controls. The artists were able to distinguish instruments. And my article i linked is the garbage study?

Hmmm.

 

[Turnaround]

I don't understand why anyone feels the need to reject a spectrum analysis that shows differences. But so be it. I invite anyone who has the means to do such an analysis to do it and publish the results. There must be someone who could do it out there ..... anyone?

Remember why this thread was started - "so we can talk about our theories freely and openly without people getting mad that we have a different opinion than them". I'm just sharing my findings. I'm not trying to prove them.

 

[Snert]

I'm looking forward to your follow up study that demonstrates no difference in some sort of guitar tone wood model.

I'm not the one making the claims, merely asking for actual data to back it up, which I've yet to see, apart from the argument from authority fallacy.

I don't understand why anyone feels the need to reject a spectrum analysis that shows differences.

As I've stated repeatedly, it's easily possible to measure and quantify sensory differences far, far better than anyone can tell. Just because there's a measured difference does not mean it's audible.

Anyway, your tests you say you've lost, so no one can look at them. How is that different from me saying I did tests that didn't show any difference and not present the data, same as you haven't done.

 

[Snert]

that someone here should build 3 identical basses in every way possible, but with 3 different body woods, and setup a series of blind tests (no peeking).

I've posted this before.
Stop listening with your eyes! Tonewood is BULLS*T!!!! - YouTube

 

[Turnaround]

Anyway, your tests you say you've lost, so no one can look at them. How is that different from me saying I did tests that didn't show any difference and not present the data, same as you haven't done.

Did you do some spectrum tests? Care to say what you found? I’m not asking for your test data, just your findings. Then we’re on an even playing field.

If you haven’t done a spectrum analysis, why don’t we just wait and see if someone else does one. Maybe they will be able to share their data.

 

[Snert]

Did you do some spectrum tests?

That's irrelevant. Where are yours and details of the test methodology you used? Otherwise it's just you saying it's so. I have no intent to insult you here, but I don't believe anything that sounds wonky to me without data. You made the claim you had it; until it's seen it's vapour.

In God I trust; everyone else needs data.

 

[Solarmist]

I've posted this before.
Stop listening with your eyes! Tonewood is BULLS*T!!!! - YouTube

I don't think you understood my post - you yourself even mentioned "blind tested" in the article.

There have been sooooo many of these threads, and through the years I've heard people swear they can hear differences of body woods on different basses with different electronics, pu's, old/new strings which I can't swallow. I don't know about "spectrum tests", but I thought this and all the other threads were about "hearing" differences - that's why I mentioned using same basses with different body woods, and same everything else in a series of blindfold tests.

 

[Snert]

I don't think you understood my post - you yourself even mentioned "blind tested" in the article.

I linked it based upon a bookmark I had.

He had 2 guitars made by the same luthier, identical except body woods. Then recorded and and punched them in and out of the recording at non identified junctions so no one had any idea where so the only way they could detect differences was with their ears. I think he's since modified it with the points, but no one got it before then.

I understand DBTs well and this was the closest I'd found to how I would do it. At this time, I don't have the facility to repeat it. I'm in the middle of a house move and am only on my phone with limited data to review. He had a similar video around the same time and I may have got them mixed.

 

[Turnaround]

That's irrelevant. Where are yours and details of the test methodology you used? Otherwise it's just you saying it's so. I have no intent to insult you here, but I don't believe anything that sounds wonky to me without data. You made the claim you had it; until it's seen it's vapour.

In God I trust; everyone else needs data.

You seem to be looking for proof, but I am not trying to prove anything. In the spirit of this thread I am just sharing an experience.

 

[Snert]

In the spirit of this thread I am just sharing an experience.

That's fine, I get that. But how do you, or I know your test was useful as anything more than a fun bit of experimenting? You may have got the method and results completely right, or completely wrong, so it's no more than an anecdote.

I've mentioned before in this thread or the one before it that the codecs we all use every day like red book CD, mp3 and mpeg were determined by actual sensory testing and came out with something useful, not just Joe Smith saying that looks OK according to his, possibly flawed, experiment. However, people here will say that just because you did what you did, that's proof.

 

[Turnaround]

That's fine, I get that. But how do you, or I know your test was useful as anything more than a fun bit of experimenting?

I never claimed that it was. Just sharing some info.

Yesterday I went to the local grocery store. It seemed to me that there were fewer folks in the store than I usually see. No I didn't do an actual count, neither this time nor on previous occasions. No I have no corroborating evidence. I have no independent party to confirm the actual numbers. I might be able to find someone that will attest to the fact that I was actually in the store. But regardless it's pointless to doubt that I felt there were fewer people in the store than I usually see.

I did a test on some pieces of wood. I felt that what I saw supported what others had to say. That's it. That's all. Thought I'd share.

 

[James Collins]

I'm not the one making the claims.

Except you are in fact making the claim that tone wood doesn't matter. Additionally, you are discounting the opinions and experiences of others as inferior to your opinion and experience. And then not backing it up with any evidence other than:

1) A test that showed people liked modern violins more than Stradivarius violins. I still don't understand how you think this is relevant to tone wood.

2) A video with someone saying two guitars sound the same when they sound different. I was surprised that they sound different. I'm not sure what the audio swap accomplished on the clean part.

You're entitled to an opinion. You very may well be right. But no sense being rude about it and then doing exactly what you complain others are doing.

 

[Snert]

I never claimed that it was.

Never said you did, just that without something more than you said so, it offers nothing to me as any sort of evidence beyond that. This would be the same for just about anyone in many fields.

However, people here will say that just because you did what you did, that's proof.

Which was my point.

Except you are in fact making the claim that tone wood doesn't matter.

No, I'm saying I've seen little to no evidence beyond anecdote or hearsay that it does, especially the claims that specific genuses (genii?) have specific tonalities and can be identified as such by ear.

You're entitled to an opinion. You very may well be right. But no sense being rude about it and then doing exactly what you complain others are doing.

I'm not claiming anything myself, just wanting the claims made by others to be backed up. So, please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I'm also happy to admit I'm wrong and learn something, I'm just not seeing the evidence to back up the claims made re tonewood in solidbody instruments.

 

[James Collins]

I mean you can say I'm misrepresenting what you are saying, but it is hard to read your post without seeing you claim something, then say that your not.

I've for example yet to see anything that proved tone wood doesn't matter. I've also yet to see anything that proves tone wood matters in even acoustic instruments.

The reason you will never find a study that shows this is because it's just not simple. Even on a classical guitar, if you paid a luthier to make two identical guitars except for the top wood, they just can't be identical. The top gets planed down to the thickness that the top needs to be. The bracing gets placed where it needs to be and shaved to the thickness that it needs to be. So you end up with two guitars of similar build but not the same. They sound different but is it because of the top or the bracing or the thickness.

And that doesn't even account for the luthier deciding that the second guitar would sound better with extra mass on the bridge. Or adjusting the headstock to avoid dead spots. In practice the actual luthier is trying to make the instrument sound the best that that instrument can. They don't just slap together premeasured pieces of wood.

Most of our knowledge of tone wood in even the acoustic guitar world comes from small tests like turnaround did. Little experiments that luthiers do and share with each other as anecdotes at trade shows. Discounting that in my opinion is rude.

Many things I do at work in my profession are learned through trial and error. Small experiments. Then we share what we learned at conferences and in apprenticeship. Occasionally, people put together enough data to publish results. You don't just start off with an RCT for everything. Most of the time you start off cordially discussing your experience.

So you might come to the conversation and say, "I've never really noticed that my basses sound different based on the woods. I had two near identical basses and recorded them and i couldn't pick them correctly."

Then someone might build on that knowledge with their experience. Ultimately, I think tone wood matters to some degree and a lot of it depends on the construction techniques to allow that difference to be heard.