Turnaround
Commercial User
I think @Snert is looking for proof and no one is offering it here. We are only sharing theories and observations.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Tonewood Club
- Thread starter GodPlayedBass
- Start date
Research the source of the wood. Another good reason to know your builder. Taylor is choosing wood responsibly.
While you’re doing that be aware of “blood batteries” while we think we are doing the right thing.
Recreational drug users are partially funding the Taliban and Cartels.
A good position is to realize we have impact. Then do your best. Avoid the righteous stories. “Meat eating is bad for the planet.” I see that’s partially true. Learned that the soy growers are cutting down parts of the Brazilian Rainforest.
While you’re doing that be aware of “blood batteries” while we think we are doing the right thing.
Recreational drug users are partially funding the Taliban and Cartels.
A good position is to realize we have impact. Then do your best. Avoid the righteous stories. “Meat eating is bad for the planet.” I see that’s partially true. Learned that the soy growers are cutting down parts of the Brazilian Rainforest.
Strings with the right tension have a sound by themselves. Pickups pick the sound up according to how they are made. Frets have a sound, pickups positio and so on. Wood choice is basically "seasoning" , or pre-equalizing. As far as I'm concerned I went to a luthier, chose the woods got exactly what I wanted soundwise though this very good luthier missed it this time as the instrument had some little flaws that shouldn't be there at 4k $...
Went to Sire basses now, played an ash body/maple fingerboard for months which I found too aggressive for studio recording purposes (imo), and for the music I generally have to record here as a session musician , decided to go to the alder body (ebony) for a more balanced yet focused sound (I don't slap as much as I did in my 20's), less "loud" sound. I knew it would be subtle but enough to make the difference. And I got exactly what I wanted.
Turning the mids or trebles or lows from 0 to -1 or to +1 in a mix, live or studio can make enough difference, not perceptible to the average guy, but enough for a sound engineers to make this choice. Woods, or any surface where the strings are anchored will affect how they vibrate. And you'll find there is a bit more growl, compression , a little bit more mids "not enough to make a difference "... well at full volume in a live setting any difference matters, even when you change the way you play (softer or harder) it is heard and felt and when mixing recordings with guitars, keys, strings, winds +voices...man it does make a difference! So yep, tonewoods are important...if you know what you're looking for.
But also, according to the music you play, you'll recognize how important are those subtle differences.
If you solo and so on and so, if you play gospel music with big choirs and all those licks...a good Amp isn't just enough, sometimes you have to switch between you Warwick corvette ash and your corvette bubinga because the other don't fit well in that setting, too loud or doesn't sit in the mix like you wanted, too much or not enough sustain and so on.
And...active eq won't eq something that's not there..If you know what I mean.
My two cts.
Went to Sire basses now, played an ash body/maple fingerboard for months which I found too aggressive for studio recording purposes (imo), and for the music I generally have to record here as a session musician , decided to go to the alder body (ebony) for a more balanced yet focused sound (I don't slap as much as I did in my 20's), less "loud" sound. I knew it would be subtle but enough to make the difference. And I got exactly what I wanted.
Turning the mids or trebles or lows from 0 to -1 or to +1 in a mix, live or studio can make enough difference, not perceptible to the average guy, but enough for a sound engineers to make this choice. Woods, or any surface where the strings are anchored will affect how they vibrate. And you'll find there is a bit more growl, compression , a little bit more mids "not enough to make a difference "... well at full volume in a live setting any difference matters, even when you change the way you play (softer or harder) it is heard and felt and when mixing recordings with guitars, keys, strings, winds +voices...man it does make a difference! So yep, tonewoods are important...if you know what you're looking for.
But also, according to the music you play, you'll recognize how important are those subtle differences.
If you solo and so on and so, if you play gospel music with big choirs and all those licks...a good Amp isn't just enough, sometimes you have to switch between you Warwick corvette ash and your corvette bubinga because the other don't fit well in that setting, too loud or doesn't sit in the mix like you wanted, too much or not enough sustain and so on.
And...active eq won't eq something that's not there..If you know what I mean.
My two cts.
Last edited:
Just so you know, the speed of vibrations through a material are faster when the material is stiff. Mass (aka density) actually slows the propagation velocity.
I super agree - I think players in most genres benefit from better clarity/articulation. It's relatively easy to take some away via eq and tone controls if that's your goal, but putting it in if it isn't there in the bass to start with is much tougher.
This is an unfortunate thread, because people are debating two pretty much unrelated aspects of bass guitar construction.
What do I mean?
There are two somewhat thinly related aspects of what gets referred to as “tone.” Debating both at the same time as though they were one just leads to conflict.
There is the aspect of “tone” that relates to what goes into a recording or what the audience hears. Most of us can not significantly differentiate materials of construction from a blind listening test. The electronics packages pretty clearly dominate that characteristic.
There is at the same time the aspect of “tone” that relates to the way the player and instrument interact in fairly complex ways during performance. This aspect is strongly dependent on materials of construction. Call it “feel,” “vibe,” or whatever. I am keenly sensitive to construction aspects of individual instruments during performance. I can make most of them work, presuming reasonable setup; but, there is also a “thing” happening that is distinct for each instrument.
We can keep cycling this debate until the end of time; but, it fundamentally is a flawed debate, due to being two different aspects.
Just sayin.
What do I mean?
There are two somewhat thinly related aspects of what gets referred to as “tone.” Debating both at the same time as though they were one just leads to conflict.
There is the aspect of “tone” that relates to what goes into a recording or what the audience hears. Most of us can not significantly differentiate materials of construction from a blind listening test. The electronics packages pretty clearly dominate that characteristic.
There is at the same time the aspect of “tone” that relates to the way the player and instrument interact in fairly complex ways during performance. This aspect is strongly dependent on materials of construction. Call it “feel,” “vibe,” or whatever. I am keenly sensitive to construction aspects of individual instruments during performance. I can make most of them work, presuming reasonable setup; but, there is also a “thing” happening that is distinct for each instrument.
We can keep cycling this debate until the end of time; but, it fundamentally is a flawed debate, due to being two different aspects.
Just sayin.
Only one side of this debate is technically flawed, but that's not important.
This topic isn't about the topic. It's about debating. It's a people/psychology thing, not a "tonewood" thing. I could replace "tonewood" with any one of a dozen different subjects and the arguments would all be identical to this conversation. Same cast of characters, same logic, same lack of logic, same anecdotes, same arguments, same everything.
This debate is no more unfortunate than all the others just like it. A group of people who believe in something and another group that don't buy it and ask for proof, or at least a logical explanation. The responses from both sides are always the same. So, it's not a bass thing, or a tonewood thing. It's a people thing.
Side X vs side Y.
And there's people that stand to make an extra $ by selling side X what they believe.
Those are the people I take exception to and have an actual problem with. Not that I want to take food off anyone's table, but if you can't sell a product on its own merits without a sprinkle of snake oil, shame on you. That's lazy, not to mention dishonest. But, I don't lie or BS and I've made more enemies than friends in my life. People like BS. So, I'm not the model for diplomacy or making money.
Yes, the side Y people are usually scientific-minded, are sticklers for accuracy, are more literal (possibly somewhere in the spectrum,...I know I am), but I think that deep down, the intent is to help people understand how things actually work, so they can make more informed decisions and not be taken advantage of. It's coming from a good place, but you know the saying about what the road to hell is paved with.
So, these conversations are always destined for the trash. And everyone walks away thinking/believing the same things they thought at the beginning,....only,...now everyone is just mad at each other.
Is it unfortunate? I dunno, I think it's kinda funny, actually.
All this debate proves is that people have no idea what they're talking about,...but they'll still believe it, still talk about it and even argue about it.
People are people. It is what it is.
When I become president, I'm banning the word "tonewood".
This topic isn't about the topic. It's about debating. It's a people/psychology thing, not a "tonewood" thing. I could replace "tonewood" with any one of a dozen different subjects and the arguments would all be identical to this conversation. Same cast of characters, same logic, same lack of logic, same anecdotes, same arguments, same everything.
This debate is no more unfortunate than all the others just like it. A group of people who believe in something and another group that don't buy it and ask for proof, or at least a logical explanation. The responses from both sides are always the same. So, it's not a bass thing, or a tonewood thing. It's a people thing.
Side X vs side Y.
And there's people that stand to make an extra $ by selling side X what they believe.
Those are the people I take exception to and have an actual problem with. Not that I want to take food off anyone's table, but if you can't sell a product on its own merits without a sprinkle of snake oil, shame on you. That's lazy, not to mention dishonest. But, I don't lie or BS and I've made more enemies than friends in my life. People like BS. So, I'm not the model for diplomacy or making money.
Yes, the side Y people are usually scientific-minded, are sticklers for accuracy, are more literal (possibly somewhere in the spectrum,...I know I am), but I think that deep down, the intent is to help people understand how things actually work, so they can make more informed decisions and not be taken advantage of. It's coming from a good place, but you know the saying about what the road to hell is paved with.
So, these conversations are always destined for the trash. And everyone walks away thinking/believing the same things they thought at the beginning,....only,...now everyone is just mad at each other.
Is it unfortunate? I dunno, I think it's kinda funny, actually.
All this debate proves is that people have no idea what they're talking about,...but they'll still believe it, still talk about it and even argue about it.
People are people. It is what it is.
When I become president, I'm banning the word "tonewood".
I'm with the OP. Wood matters. Not as much as in an acoustic instrument, tonally, but would I want a really heavy bass made of some very dense wood? No. How about a balsawood bass? No. Rosewood fretboard vs maple fretboard? Why offer these choices? Looks?
That’s exactly why Leo Fender went from maple fretboards to rosewood: looks. After 3 sets a night, 6 nights a week, the maple fretboards began to look a bit grubby and he changed to rosewood. Some people preferred the look of maple so Fender, post-Leo, began offering a choice in some models.
Last edited:
