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
Bubinga body and wenge neck/fretboard. Played unplugged it sounds way more crisp, the Fenders sound much more mellow.
Last edited:
Now I'm not a 'wood makes no difference' disciple, but you do realize that there are a world of differences with Warwick bass compared to Fender basses, other than the woods they're made from?
I agree the wood types have an effect, but you can't ignore construction methods, hardware differences, active or passive circuitry and distinctly different sounding pickups. Even Warwick Rock Basses, which can have alder bodies and maple necks, don't sound like Fenders made from those same woods.
I just meant to say that what you offered isn't proof by any measure. Several luthiers have added to this thread with their experience and feelings on the subject, drawing the opposite conclusion.
He was talking about the acoustic sound alone. Unplugged.
I was describing how they sound played unplugged, so electronics wouldn't matter. Both are bolt ons. The hardware is different so I guess "tone metals" could sound different. haha
Turnaround
Commercial User
It's fine to add complexity to the equation if you want. But it's fairly easy to establish that different woods will have different effects on a vibrating system, enough to generalize to a practical degree. Just like it doesn't take difficult testing or a large sample to determine that maple is generally harder and heavier than pine.
Agree and you have two very valid points.
Unplugged you will definitely hear the difference in Warwicks vs many others, and I’m referencing Wicks with the denser woods like Bubinga, Wenge, Ovangkol (I own and have owned many).
AND there’s also a big difference in sustain and clear ringing of notes/harmonics with brass bridges and nuts/headpieces. There’s a cool video of someone testing the Warwick composite nut (Tedur) vs the brass nut and there’s a definite tonal difference. I’ve noticed, that on my recent headless builds, with the heavy brass bridge and solid brass headpiece that is mounted into the end of the neck I’m getting amazing sustain and ringing harmonics all over the neck. I’m sold on brass headless bridge and paired end-mounted headpiece from this experience.
To help settle this argument - there was a thread back around 2008-ish where a member took all the parts off a Fender J, and attached the parts to a rectangle piece of thick plywood. Then he did 3 separate sound tests of both to see how well TB could tell the difference between the stock J body or plywood. I think it ran for around 2 weeks before he gave up the answers.
Wanna take a guess?
The results showed that very few got them all 3 right, and several people said they just guessed. Most of the rest got 1-2 right out of 3 (some 0), and a number of them also said they guessed. The conclusion was highly inconclusive according the the TB member. I've tried to find that thread for repost, but can't seem to find it. Personally the only thing about the wood that matters to me is it's aesthetic value & weight.
People also don't seem to understand that if you can hear a difference, there is a difference. It doesn't matter if you can pick out what the bass is made out of. That was the problem with the ad hoc study.
If you want to prove that there is a or isn't a difference in the tone, you would make two samples and then ask: "can you hear a difference?"
You wouldn't ask, "what are bass A and bass B made out of?"
The second question has the problem of not being able to tell if people know what a maple neck sounds like relative to a wenge neck.
If I play a random two notes on my bass and ask what note each is, some percentage will know because they have perfect pitch. Without a reference pitch, the rest will just guess. In that case, concluding that the two pitches sound indistinguishable and there is no such thing as different notes would be incorrect methodology. But that is how most tone wood tests seem to be designed.
If you want to prove that there is a or isn't a difference in the tone, you would make two samples and then ask: "can you hear a difference?"
You wouldn't ask, "what are bass A and bass B made out of?"
The second question has the problem of not being able to tell if people know what a maple neck sounds like relative to a wenge neck.
If I play a random two notes on my bass and ask what note each is, some percentage will know because they have perfect pitch. Without a reference pitch, the rest will just guess. In that case, concluding that the two pitches sound indistinguishable and there is no such thing as different notes would be incorrect methodology. But that is how most tone wood tests seem to be designed.
I don't even think you (you, being the collective you) can do that. As soon as you ask people "is there a difference", you've put the idea that they are in fact looking for a perceived difference, in their heads. You would have suggested that difference exists. Any result from that point, is influenced in favor of 'perceiving a difference' and has compromised the trial results.
If you recorded the same notes being played by by otherwise identical instruments, except for different woods, then just asked people to listen to the recording and comment, without saying anything else and if a significantly high number of responses were that some of the repeated patterns sounded different in timbre/tone to others, then you have a degree of proof that wood does make a difference.
Most of them are solidbody builders. He was explaining the history and why tonewoods is a specious argument and relating it to the way acoustics work and why the woods used in them are chosen for their qualities. Agree or not, he has a solid point and experience. It's a good No datapoint.
I've done a lot of perceptual testing in other fields and most of what people are describing here from personal experience, just bassists or luthiers, would not meet muster in the PT fields; it's just anecdote. Humans are limited in the mechanics of their sensation and their perception of it which is often clouded by lots of biases, known and unknown (consciously) to them. The codecs we all use day to day for video and audio such as MPEG, MP3 etc were not developed by anecdote, but by rigorous testing in controlled circumstances. I've not seen that in tonewood, yet I bet I can find an example for the No case, for every one anyone here supplies for the Yes case. Surely that alone means that neither case is proven to any degree of certainty. My experience in testing leads me to the position of the claims of tonewood having a readily audible, subtle or significant, is not proven. I'm happy to be shown I'm incorrect with data, but am not seeing it. I have changed my mind on many subjects unrelated to music and audio, as well as them, with evidence.
I've been down the rabbit hole of trying to explain this area before to other people, an my experience has shown that by and large, they're not interested in learning, just taking down any contrary position to theirs. I am not an expert in this field (engineer) but have studied it for a long time because it interests me.
I had unsubscribed from this thread, but because I was quoted I got a notification. I'm not sure I'll respond again.
Doesn't surprised me with the results, nor that the thread was disappeared, if it was. I've seen similar sorts of tests in other fields, some very similar such as audio gear. People believe their senses, and memory, are exacting and infallible. Ask Police interviewing witnesses what their experience is of that. Look at optical illusions, Dunning Kruger and that meme from a couple of years back on the colour of a dress posted online or the Yanni/Laurel one.
All I was pointing out is that your evidence was also just expert opinion or anecdote. I've read other acoustic/classical guitar luthiers that believe that wood selection particularly of the neck of a solid body instrument will affect the tone.
But I've also read enough acoustic guitar information to believe the tone wood argument there is a bit specious. Wood on average might have a particular sound, but there are outliers and building techniques probably matter more than the materials. Top that off with the fact that lots of different wood can sound pleasant, so do you really need the sound of Brazilian rosewood? Or would you be just as happy with black locust wood, pear wood, myrtle, sycamore, etc.
The problem in my opinion with seeking a particular tone is you won't know until you try dozens of instruments which is your favorite. If you want to build an instrument for appearance reasons, ethical choices, or ergonomic reasons, choose wood based on that. Then through discussions with a luthier, explain what you want it to sound like and leave it to them. Either the luthier knows how to mold the materials to a sound, or they don't. In either case you will probably be happy. But the best way is to just go somewhere that has a lot of options available and pick the one you like most based on sound and playability.
And I do agree with the video you shared 90%. I think it isn't proof. It is just expert opinion that solid body instruments are designed to minimize the impact materials have on the sound. Someone could easily provide contrary expert opinion and we would be at an impasse.
People don't like the response "personal experience is anecdotal and not statistically significant" but that doesn't make it untrue either.
Well if you have Golden Ears you can pick out the "warmth" of Rosewood and "brightness" of Maple. Aided of course with that $300 instrument cable.
