Two alternative forced choice results are determined by the gross percentages, unless I misunderstand that type of test. They passed the threshold of 74% on all of the samples.
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 Differences Measured: Interesting Study
- Thread starter s_wood
- Start date
I don't agree, because the relevant question (it seems to me) is whether wood makes a predictable influence in the real world (the finished product). The other random differences in construction would be diluted by the large sample number.
Last edited:
I'm not a statistician, but the threshold required to proved significance beyond reasonable doubt depends on sample size....and I didn't see sample sizes for listening, just as I didn't see that >1 sample of each wood was used or that there was anything remotely resembling a control. . Perhaps I missed those details?
Well, let's start by looking at whether it makes a difference itself. Which it appears to. Then move on to other considerations.
The lab setup is interesting . I just don't see how it helps determine whether one species reliably/predictably sounds different from another in an actual bass.
I believe the referenced paragraph is more properly classified as empirical evidence of the triumph of hope over reason...
Whether it determines reliably predictable sounds from different species is one matter. Determining that the different woods showed an audible difference in sound strikes me as significant in addressing that particular corner of this issue.
I hear you. I just don't think anyone really doubts that each piece of wood has "an influence" of some magnitude (I do not), and I admittedly bristle when something gets passed off as "science/ fact" when it lacks basic, fundamental elements ( like controls and complete sample numbers).
In my experience, when i play different basses unpluged, i can hear a difference. I play my 71 p bass, which is alder, sounds different compared to a bass made from ash. Or maple, as the Pedullas.
Well good. Nice to have that settled. (Or not, expect there could be other beliefs on this).
Here's an interesting approach to the age old question. 3 guitar bodies of different materials, same pickups, hardware and the same neck, interchanged with the bodies to produce the sound samples. Then throw the samples out to be judged "by a jury of your peers". Tonewoods v MDF | My Les Paul Forum
I believe that completely. But . . .
Generally you can color the tone with a certain wood recipe (imagine duplicate Fender Precision Basses, one in the traditional alder/maple recipe, and a duplicate axe in heavy African woods like a Warwick, you'd HEAR it) where Fenders have traditionally had a given tone in alder, ash, and maple, or most Les Pauls with the maple cap over mahogany.
Wood varies to the point where a very precise sonic signature isn't repeatable because wood isn't that consistent, both from the individual tree, how it was processed, how and how long it was stored and brought to the right humidity, all the variables possible between tree and a bass on the wall at Guitar Center.
We see this in acoustic instruments more obviously. If you could line up 10 consecutively-serial-numbered new
Martin D28's, and played them over and over carefully, over time, 6 or 7 would sound a lot alike, and then 1 or 2 might just seem a little off those 6, and 2 might just be standouts. Built from the same wood warehouse by the same people around the same time frame. You could do this with SG's or Strats or Jazz Basses or 4003's, compared through the same amp for guitar, and one for the basses.
This is the beauty, the mystery, and often the frustration of wood.
It's even more of a crapshoot in the small builder, multi-laminate basses. In the Alembic community, the standing funny question was, after the considerable pickups and electronics, was the rest of the tone from the unbelievable wood stockpile they're built from, or was it really the sound . . . . of all that glue between the plies !?!
So, I quite believe a given wood recipe will always bring you back to a certain neighborhood tonewise, but as far as always delivering you to the same exact address, if you will, Good Luck.
Archives of Acoustics is a crappy journal with an impact factor less than 1. If the paper’s finding were deemed robust and insightful, it would have been published in a respectful academic journal.
I think the funniest part of this debate is that people are so stuck in their opinion that they don't want to consider changing their stance. "Show me a study where tone is perceivably different between two woods", show them that study and then they complain about how the study was run or that it wasn't published in a respectful journal. I'm not saying that those people are wrong or picking on them, I'm just pointing out how entrenched these beliefs seem to be implanted in some peoples mind. This debate never ends well but please carry on.
Warmth put out a couple videos something along those lines, I could call the difference right each time without fail. That's just me, but it certainly reinforces my belief that there can be a noticeable difference with different woods. People who haven't experienced this will likely feel skepticism. So it goes.
I find it hard to believe that any test requiring two samples is perfectly accurate. If you ever had the joy of overdubbing a bar or two and having it stick out like a sore thumb despite being recorded on the same gear at the same settings a few minutes after the original take, you know that each performance is unique. Using two instruments to record the same tune in order to compare the results is not exactly a foolproof task. Taking that data and explaining it away as a direct result of tonewood is borderline falsehood. I have numerous instruments that sound completely different depending on how they are played. A light touch renders a smooth tone and a hard attack brings out the beast. My observation is that in order to get a true representation of what a particular instrument is capable of you must try it out in a variety of musical situations and get to know it. The wrong strings and a poor setup may be hiding a fantastic bass. Hope this helps and doesn't sound too cynical.
There is the difference of how the instruments are structurally rigid. Softer woods may not hold the bridge and/or neck as firmly as stouter varieties thereby causing a warmer tone and less sustain. Maple is very stout and has the reputation of a snappy high end. How much of that is due to the ability to tighten the bridge down? More than once has a bass been "fixed" by a few turns of a screwdriver.
There is the difference of how the instruments are structurally rigid. Softer woods may not hold the bridge and/or neck as firmly as stouter varieties thereby causing a warmer tone and less sustain. Maple is very stout and has the reputation of a snappy high end. How much of that is due to the ability to tighten the bridge down? More than once has a bass been "fixed" by a few turns of a screwdriver.
Last edited:
I’m thinking along these lines. My though having skimmed the paper is that the next thing to investigate is the sample-to-sample variation. It still might be the case that you’d get differences of a similar magnitude just by using 4 different pieces of sapele (or 4 rosewood, or 4 maple…). In which case there wouldn’t be any systematic difference between one kind of wood and another.
Last edited:
I would reiterate that whether there's a systematic difference between one kind of wood and another, the results in the paper show an audible difference between those pieces of wood. The wood can make a difference in tone. We well know that wood is an organic material with significant variation among different pieces. I wouldn't expect a "tone wood" to universally exhibit particular characteristics. There may be ... tendencies ... in different species, would be my own take on it. Regardless of that, different individual pieces of wood may contribute some difference in amplified tone, as heard by participants.
I have been putting together a parts bass for most of the pandemic, well two actually. One a two-piece alder, the other a single piece of swamp ash with 70's spacing. I studied all the tonewood posts (total exaggeration). I carefully chose my necks (bought what I could afford) and spent endless hours listening to best pickup vids on YT (bought what I could afford again). I then came to this incredibly written view on soap. It's all in the stripes.
Last edited:
