• 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 Experiment.

#21
One thing I find interesting is that even though the necks and bridges were not swapped from one body to the next the tonal differences were minimal, if detected at all. This provides evidence to fuel a theory that the electronics overwhelmingly control the tone regardless of the body wood used. Using the tone coloration expectations I have often seen bandied about the maple should be noticeable brighter than the basswood in general if the body wood affects the end results.
 
#22
michaelwayneharwood said:
@Pilgrim - That's a good point. I may have been making assumptions of the content of the test based on the OP's original stated intent.

@KrisWarrington - Can you please provide more detail as to exactly how the tests were performed? What was changed? What woods were represented in the bodies of the blind test?
Click to expand...
He might of edited the OP since you posted but he says he built three identical basses with different woods, and used the exact (1 set for all three) same pickups, cable, and strings on them and they sounded the same to him and his classmates in a blind testand he also tested two "identical" basses and they sounded different.
 
#23
Will_White said:
He might of edited the OP since you posted but he says he built three identical basses with different woods, and used the exact (1 set for all three) same pickups, cable, and strings on them and they sounded the same to him and his classmates in a blind testand he also tested two "identical" basses and they sounded different.
Click to expand...
That's how I read it as well, but it's always safe to ask for clarification. ;)
 
#24
How far do you want to chase this? I mean, we all know strings deteriorate over time correct? Even with the same strings, there could be differences from restringing the same set three times right?

Personally, I don't think "tone wood" will ever give you more than a very broad rough idea of a sound if even that much of an influence on the sound of an electric guitar. I do however know for a fact that changing your string material will produce a huge change in tone. Take a bass with Diaddario Chrome flatwound strings. Take same bass with some Stainless Steel rounds. You will have two very different sounds. I am set in my belief that the strings are the single biggest contributer to tone for any guitar. I would then go with the electronics, and way down the list would be the wood its made out of.

To the OP, thanks for doing this test; thats a lot of work that a lot of people will either defend or deny the results of, but I can appreciate the effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Jayne
#25
I look at it this way:
It's NOT that the "tone" is being processed and influenced by different woods...and thusly yes... would need the pickups to be microphonic to make a lick of difference.

Rather I CAN accept that different woods ARE going to process vibrations differently...to deal with and transmit vibratory frequencies differently....are going to themselves, vibrate differently.
And those differences will in turn affect the vibration of the strings...DIFFERENTLY!
Vibration is not a one way street. The vibration of a plucked string doesn't die when that wave hits the saddle/nut.
It is transmitted to the body and reflected back by the body.
Some will argue that this energy transference only affects the sustain of the strings vibration...but what if...what if the way that DIFFERENT WOOD absorbs, processes, and reflects DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES, can actually have an altering effect on not just THAT the string continues to vibrate but also HOW the string continues to vibrate.
And because this energy transfers to the body and gets reflected back in the blink of an eye....were not just talking about sustain....but attack and decay as well.
In other words: TONE
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Jayne, rwkeating, GBassNorth and 5 others
#26
Yeah no offense but all I can really say about this is that you did an abysmal job DESCRIBING the experiment to us. I have absolutely no idea what you actually did here, you didn't mention any guitars in the OP except the two identical ESPs. So I couldn't possibly tell you if your experiment was well conducted or not, or if the results are meaningful in any way or not....
 
#27
IMO pretty solid (tho limited) study. Keeping the hdwe/elecs variables to a minimum helped as well.
I would've swapped the necks and strings on the LTDs to see if the results still held.
What's amazing is the variable interpretation of the OP- certainly difficult to keep an objective dialog with that...
 
#28
Means2nEnd said:
Wait let me get this together....you did a test of two identical instruments made with the same woods electronics with identical strings, cables, amp, blah blah and they sounded the same for the most part? You and some others couldn't hear a difference? This is a surprise? Maybe I missed your point completely or missed something in the post?

Or were they made of different woods? I guess I am missing something completely I hope someone could shed some light. Maybe it's just late and I have been doing too much paperwork.
Click to expand...
Re-read his post. He says all that.
 
#29
M0ses said:
Yeah no offense but all I can really say about this is that you did an abysmal job DESCRIBING the experiment to us. I have absolutely no idea what you actually did here, you didn't mention any guitars in the OP except the two identical ESPs. So I couldn't possibly tell you if your experiment was well conducted or not, or if the results are meaningful in any way or not....
Click to expand...

I think that's too strong. I think the OP made a good faith effort to describe the experiment, but made an error or two. It's really difficult to be fully descriptive in cases like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Jayne
#30
i am fascinated - great try at an experiment

what i find most interesting is that the necks were not swapped, and therefore not identical, but the tone nonetheless seemed to be. for the neck to make a significant difference in tone the situation here would have to be that the generic neck on the basswood body had just the right effect to make that body sound like the ash, the ash body's neck just the right difference to sound like the alder, the alder body's neck just the right difference to make it sound like the basswood. that seems like alot of luck/coincidence.

seems to me that perhaps you have given some evidence that the neck does not make much of a difference, and nor does body wood.

i would have said that pups, pots, strings, amp - and of course age and condition of all of the above outranked wood on the tone effect scale - perhaps those outrank wood by so much wood does not matter

you know i've always wondered about the kramer aluminums - if neck was a big deal, wouldnt we expect these to sound RADICALLY different? but does not seem to me they do - at least via recorded evidence, never played one myself
 
Last edited:
#31
I believe this persons experiment & work (bravo by the way) was spot on, and it (more or less) proves & debunks the myth that exotic woods, non-exotic woods, woods from Europe, America, Mars, Venus etc. etc. really doesn't matter in the end of the day - which is a boon to the camp that's been prophesizing that for years.

Now as I see it, the onus is in the other camp to prove this experiment wrong, and that different woods really do make tonal differences.

To the victor go the spoils.....................good luck to all:thumbsup:

I'll be the guy in the back eating popcorn...:laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Jayne
#33
I agree the experiment should be redone by changing only the body. Further; however, having humans listen tells you only their preference.
I suggest you analyze the the signals on a scope and look for differences in the wave forms.
I wouldn't know how to do this, but it would add to the results if you could attach some sort of instument that would analyze the vibrations of the wood seperate from the electronic readings.

I will have to say I doubt there is any real difference between woods, nor have I encountered a person who could identify an instument's wood by listening to the instrument. We are discussing electric instruments here. Wood is very important in acoustical instruments.
Since pickups (not piezo, of course) pick up only the string vibrations, it is difficult to believe the body wood would have any effect on the tone.
Interestingly, one of the problems with the early piezo pickups was they reproduced only wood sound and ignored the string sound. I think it bas Barcus-Berry that introduced a newer design in the 70s(?) that could detect both.

So, maybe adding a piezo pickup to the test will satisfy my previous suggestion to analyze the wood separately.

Thanks for doing this work. It is something I have been thinking about for some time now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: static0verdrive
#35
Skeptismo said:
we are going far enough to say that there isn't *any* consistency in tone based on wood
Click to expand...

Isn't that why you should play it to decide if you want to buy it, rather than buy it for the type of wood alone? I was told that "tone wood" wasn't alder vs another type, but a resonant piece of wood that registered as resonant with proper measurement (spectrograph I think?) so let's just say for alder - a piece of alder that passes as tone wood would go into the MIA pile, any alder piece that didn't pass would go to the MIM/Squier pile. Just what I heard... Love my Squier I'm not trying to pick a fight here.

EDIT: To return to what I'd quoted, if what I was told is correct, there is no consistency. Any breed of tree / type of wood could end up different thanks to a very different season (more/less rain? humidity levels? etc etc etc)
 
#37
1. For those who expect the tester to swap necks, bridges, etc. to me misses the point. Some say an ash Fender Jazz sounds different than an alder Fender Jazz. To say that the bridge on its own, manufactured of the same material to the same specs, makes so much of a difference that it impacts the test between the two woods kills your argument as to the importance of the woods.

2. However, OP, how can you come in and make the argument, saying you did such a specific test, and refuse to produce the audio? Failing to do that is more damning to your argument than saying if you did, we would accuse you of doctoring them. Sorry, an argument supposedly based on evidence, when you refuse to produce said evidence, means nothing (hey - I took a photo of a pink elephant - you gotta believe me. If I produced the photo, everyone would just say I doctored it - you gotta believe me).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matthew_84
#38
IF tonewoods have an effect, you will most likely find it matters on the part with the smallest cross-sectional area that is subjected to the stresses and vibrations of the instrument.

In other words, the neck.
 
#40
Nev375 said:
IF tonewoods have an effect, you will most likely find it matters on the part with the smallest cross-sectional area that is subjected to the stresses and vibrations of the instrument.

In other words, the neck.
Click to expand...

i see your point - but then i wonder again, why do kramers with aluminum not sound radically different than maple necks, or why don't carbon necks sound radically different? (plugged in of course)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back