Tonewoods

[The Penguin]

when I tap wood to hear its 'tap tone', I am listening for acoustic signs that would reveal internal and/or unseen cracks in the wood. a body blank with internal cracks will lack the resonance that a solid piece has. if I am listening for these defects I can save myself from wasting time and expense on reject wood

as for tone ... every block is going to ring differently based on its dimensions and (to a lessor extent) moisture content and density. two pieces of lumber from the same rough board, when cut to differing dimensions will sound with a different pitch and resonance. IMO I could really care less - because I am looking for defects when I thunk on a piece of lumber

all the best,

R

Thank you

 

[BassyBill]

Sorry if I seem to be stating the obvious here...

When you hear a bass, you're hearing (usually) a loudspeaker cone vibrating that's doing so because it's being fed an electrical signal. This electrical signal is generated by vibration of the strings. Anything that affects the vibration of the strings or the way this is is converted to an electrical signal and subsequently amplified and turned back into vibration again can affect what you hear.

Now when a string vibrates, it produces a whole range of frequencies (or it vibrates in a way that makes it produce a fundamental frequency and a number of overtones or harmonics). But in a real instrument, it's not JUST the string that's vibrating - it's the whole instrument. Some energy from the string's vibration is transmitted at the bridge and the nut into the body and neck, and this has to mean that some of the initial energy transferred to the string by plucking it gets transferred in the body and neck, affecting the way the string vibrates and therefore affecting the signal generated by the pickup (and what you end up hearing). The precise effect can vary depending on each and every factor involved in this - the way you play, the type of string, the resonant properties of the bridge/body/neck and so on. Some of these effects will be more noticeable than others, and the degree to which each affects the tone will also vary in complex and unpredictable ways. It's entirely possible that ON A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL INSTRUMENT a change of one of these factors (say, swapping the bridge - I only pick this as it's a relatively easy factor to change, compared to say changing the fingerboard material) will make a difference audible to the player, but the same change on an instrument with different body/neck/pickups/strings/amp/cab etc etc etc would be unnoticeable to that player or to another one.

So yes, tonewoods can affect what you hear, undoubtedly. But they'll most likely do so in fairly unpredictable ways depending on all the other variables (for example, it seems likely to me that two different pieces of alder COULD vary as much in their resonant properties as either of them would vary from a piece of ash). And the degree to which the effect is noticeable will also vary a lot from instrument to instrument. So I think saying "there's a huge difference between maple and rosewood fingerboards" may be an over-generalisation; sometimes this might have a great effect, somtimes a lesser one. I also think that saying "factor Z won't make any difference to your sound" is an over-generalisation for exactly the same reason.

Thanks if you have taken the trouble to read this longish post!

 

[The Penguin]

Temperature has bearing on many things claimed to affect sound, yet it is never described as something you can hear. But if basses came with thermometers people would start hearing the difference immediately.

Bassybill, I agree that the variation amongst a species can be greater than the variation between species. That would negate any signature sound for a species leaving at best a generalization of sound with many examples contrary to common "wisdom". The physical differences between quilt and birdseye maple are extreme yet some claim it will all have a signature maple sound. Doesn't seem too likely.

 

[BassyBill]

Temperature has bearing on many things claimed to affect sound, yet it is never described as something you can hear. But if basses came with thermometers people would start hearing the difference immediately.

Bassybill, I agree that the variation amongst a species can be greater than the variation between species. That would negate any signature sound for a species leaving at best a generalization of sound with many examples contrary to common "wisdom". The physical differences between quilt and birdseye maple are extreme yet some claim it will all have a signature maple sound. Doesn't seem too likely.

Yep.

I think it's likely (though I haven't done enough reading or testing to be sure) that it MAY be possible to generalise about the effects of different woods. To take a very simple example (anybody want to try this? ):

Build ten Warmoth basses, as identical as you can make them (weight, neck, hardware, electrics, strings, and so on) with alder bodies. Then build ten more with ash bodies. Then find some way of double blind testing these with the same player under controlled conditions and get a panel of listeners to rate the instruments for, say, "brightness". I'm prepared to accept that there may be a correlation between the body woods and the tone (say, in the perceived brightest basses, seven were ash and only three were alder). Maybe.

But of course, that would mean that three of the alder basses were brighter than three of the ash basses. And all those differences might be a lot harder to discern or even negated by a change in another factor.

So, it seems likely to me that statements about characteristics of tonewoods are partially legitimate generalisations, based on the experience of some luthiers and people far more experienced than I am, but also the result of statements like "OMG, dood, you are such a n00b, alder sounds warmer than ash, everyone knows that...."

I also think that it's highly unlikely anyone could listen to a recording of some unspecified basses and say with any certainty what species of woods were used in their construction in a reliably accurate way.

 

[EddieG]

What I don't understand is, if the woods make all the difference, how can we explain Alembic? The bodies of their basses are often made up of around 14 separate pieces of wood! Those glue joins should surely be dulling any sustain-contributing resonance. And still they sound fantastic. Same with the headless Steinbergers, some people on here swear by them and their tone, yet there's hardly enough body to affect the string sustain.

My own personal feeling is, the neck, fretboard material, and the nut and bridge witness points make the biggest difference in tone. The more rigid and hard the neck and fingerboard material are, the snappier the tone, like maple and ebony. The softer the wood, the rounder the tone like rosewood. And the tighter the witness points at either end, the more taut the string is, hence more sustain.

But by far the largest contributor to tone, is the pickups!

 

[The Penguin]

I also think that it's highly unlikely anyone could listen to a recording of some unspecified basses and say with any certainty what species of woods were used in their construction in a reliably accurate way.

Sadowsky said he couldn't, I tend to believe him

 

[The Penguin]

What I don't understand is, if the woods make all the difference, how can we explain Alembic? The bodies of their basses are often made up of around 14 separate pieces of wood! Those glue joins should surely be dulling any sustain-contributing resonance. And still they sound fantastic. Same with the headless Steinbergers, some people on here swear by them and their tone, yet there's hardly enough body to affect the string sustain.

Alembic has claimed the top and back wood on their basses have no effect on sound. Yet there are people here who've never played a gig that claim they can hear the difference that Alembic says doesn't exist.

I also don't see how glue could be thought of as something you can hear either but many disagree and claim they can hear glue joints. If only there was some way to demonstrate this...



Steinbergers are a great example, they should sound like moist poo if all the experts were right. By the way the first ones had balsa wood inside.

 

[BassyBill]

EddieG... resonance in the body will decrease rather than increase sustain (energy absorbed from the strings = energy dissipated more quickly).

I don't see that glue joins should necessarily "dull the resonance" - and if they did, that should in theory make for a brighter tone (and increased sustain) anyway. Body doesn't resonate = less energy absorbed from strings = less attenuation of harmonics in signal generated by pickups. I suppose glue joins could either increase or decrease sympathetic vibration depending on how they are done.

The lack of resonance (strictly speaking, much higher frequency resonance due to increased stiffness and rigidity) is what gives some graphite instruments their characteristic sound. One player's idea of "sterile" is another's "ringing". And one player's "warmth" is another's lack of harmonic content (and, need I add, decreased sustain - not that any bass I've ever played suffered from a lack of sustain at all).

 

[dvh]

i.e. ash is punchy and a bit "midrangy", Spanish cedar is very "open" and warm sounding, mahogany is warm and a bit "compressed" sounding.
QUOTE]

and yet every SR500 I've tried out (solid mahogany body) I've rejected because they have that edgy, trebly, hi-fi tone.

I agree with whoever above put wood responsible for about 10% of the tone.

 

[EddieG]

EddieG... resonance in the body will decrease rather than increase sustain (energy absorbed from the strings = energy dissipated more quickly).

Ahh. You learn something new every day. So, softer material equals less resonance equals more sustain. But that confuses me even further, because people rave about old Fenders, and the thin nitro finish allowing the wood to resonate properly. But if what you say is true (and I've no doubt it is), that should be a bad thing. There seem to be a lot of contradictions, smokescreens and hype out there as far as bass construction goes. If body resonance decreases sustain, then Squier four piece bodies should be more desireable than 2 piece Fenders. And rather than a thin nitro being beneficial to the tone, the thicker the finish the better, to insulate the strings and retain sustain.

If that's the case, then the choice of body and neck woods are merely aesthetic material to anchor the nut and bridge to, and the deciding factors are the density of those materials, and how little they resonate.

Have I got that right or am I back to front

 

[Big String]

two cents. Yes woods affect the tone imo.
Every instrument I've ever had or played that sounded good accoustically sounded good amplified. That's as much as I know on the subject. I believe Peter mentioned this already.

The best sounding bass I ever played was a Lakland Joe Osborn USA. Alder body rosewood neck. Passive Lindy Fralin's.

I was always amazed how great this bass sounded in a quite room played accoustically. Every single note was clear and even and spoke musically. Just beautiful. Sounded wonderful amplified of course. What a dope... I sold it to try other basses I actually tried to find it, tracked it down to NYC at a Guitar Center... lost it from there.

 

[spade2you]

I also think that it's highly unlikely anyone could listen to a recording of some unspecified basses and say with any certainty what species of woods were used in their construction in a reliably accurate way.

That's true...but if you a/b different basses you may be able to tell that they are different basses. There was a TB member who did an a/b recording with 2 different Peavey Cirrus basses. One was alder with a flame top, the other was walnut with a bubinga top. You could easily hear the difference, although it could be tricky picking which bass was which in a recording.

I think Gard knows his stuff. He's working with a lot of the same basses that often are similar, but 1-2 different custom options ordered. Similarly, I have a bunch o' Cirrus basses with slightly different options that I can compare.

 

[Bassflute]

What I don't understand is, if the woods make all the difference, how can we explain Alembic? The bodies of their basses are often made up of around 14 separate pieces of wood! Those glue joins should surely be dulling any sustain-contributing resonance. And still they sound fantastic. Same with the headless Steinbergers, some people on here swear by them and their tone, yet there's hardly enough body to affect the string sustain.

My own personal feeling is, the neck, fretboard material, and the nut and bridge witness points make the biggest difference in tone. The more rigid and hard the neck and fingerboard material are, the snappier the tone, like maple and ebony. The softer the wood, the rounder the tone like rosewood. And the tighter the witness points at either end, the more taut the string is, hence more sustain.

But by far the largest contributor to tone, is the pickups!

Neck-through construction negates a most of the woody tone from the sound; the neck plays some part in it, the topwoods on the body next to nothing because they are just glued-on wings. Also, the Alembic bridge system has a large block of brass in the back of the bass bolted to the actual bridge, sandwiching the neckwoods at very high pressure; they torque this down to a specific tension to get the sound they are after. With an Alembic, the brass in the bridge and the toneblock is what you hear mostly, as well as the brass nut and the extremely stiff multi-laminate neck-through construction; on the plus side: tons of sustain, clarity, brightness, even response, no dead spots. The bad side: zero punch, no 'character', very little woody organic tone like what you would get from a modern MTD. They are polar opposites, those two basses (having owned both).

Cheers,
Cameron

 

[BassyBill]

Ahh. You learn something new every day. So, softer material equals less resonance equals more sustain. But that confuses me even further, because people rave about old Fenders, and the thin nitro finish allowing the wood to resonate properly. But if what you say is true (and I've no doubt it is), that should be a bad thing. There seem to be a lot of contradictions, smokescreens and hype out there as far as bass construction goes. If body resonance decreases sustain, then Squier four piece bodies should be more desireable than 2 piece Fenders. And rather than a thin nitro being beneficial to the tone, the thicker the finish the better, to insulate the strings and retain sustain.

If that's the case, then the choice of body and neck woods are merely aesthetic material to anchor the nut and bridge to, and the deciding factors are the density of those materials, and how little they resonate.

Have I got that right or am I back to front

Generally, less body and neck resonance will soak up less vibrations from the string, meaning more harmonic content (and more sustain, but I doubt whether that would be noticeable enough to matter).

But it's not that softer material = less resonance. As a generalisation, the stiffer/more rigid the body and neck, then the higher frequency will be the resonance.

As I understood it, back in the eighties when instruments like the Steinberger and Status were first introduced, the blurb was that their resonant frequency was so much higher than wooden instruments (because of the extra stiffness), their resonant frequency was way higher, meaning less of the audible harmonics from the string would get "soaked up" by vibration of the body and neck. This would seem to fit in with the general consensus that such instruments have more harmonic content or a less warm/brighter/more "sterile" tone (take your pick).

I don't know about nitro finishes allowing wood to resonate "properly" - sounds like guff to me. Maybe people are thinking that a more porous surface will allow the wood to "breathe" and are confusing this with vibration? I can't see this making a scrap of difference myself. But anything that did actually increase the amount of sympathetic vibration in the body and neck means more energy transferred in that process and less energy going down your cable. The effect that would have on your tone would depend on what frequencies were being absorbed, I suppose.

And I don't see why a four piece body should necessarily be "more or less resonant" than a two piece, although it might affect the resonant frequency. Anybody else who can say more about this?

 

[BassyBill]

That's true...but if you a/b different basses you may be able to tell that they are different basses. There was a TB member who did an a/b recording with 2 different Peavey Cirrus basses. One was alder with a flame top, the other was walnut with a bubinga top. You could easily hear the difference, although it could be tricky picking which bass was which in a recording.

I think Gard knows his stuff. He's working with a lot of the same basses that often are similar, but 1-2 different custom options ordered. Similarly, I have a bunch o' Cirrus basses with slightly different options that I can compare.

I wouldn't disagree with you. It could well be that in some instruments you would notice a difference, as I said. But in other circumstances it might be less noticeable.

 

[peterpalmieri]

two cents. Yes woods affect the tone imo.
Every instrument I've ever had or played that sounded good accoustically sounded good amplified. That's as much as I know on the subject. I believe Peter mentioned this already.

The best sounding bass I ever played was a Lakland Joe Osborn USA. Alder body rosewood neck. Passive Lindy Fralin's.

I was always amazed how great this bass sounded in a quite room played accoustically. Every single note was clear and even and spoke musically. Just beautiful. Sounded wonderful amplified of course. What a dope... I sold it to try other basses I actually tried to find it, tracked it down to NYC at a Guitar Center... lost it from there.

I own the extact same bass (maybe), I purchased mine used from the Guitar Center in Carle Place, NY....It has the passive Fralins but the back is routed to accomodate an active pre if you so desired. Send me a PM and I'll give you the serial number if you'd like.

I would doubt they are the same I thought "Joey Squid" traded this in to the GC right before I purchased it. It is however the best bass I've ever played, so much so that I sold all my others. I would have to be offered a huge amount over the new selling prices of these instruments to even consider ever getting rid of her. I'm not teasing you but just want to illustrate how important she is to me!

 

[Stu Rose]

I don't find that to be funny or even remotely accurate. I don't have a great ear but I can tell the difference between different basses real easily.

If wood doesn't matter why don't we all have plywood instruments? You can debate the severity to which it changes the sound but it does.

Greetings

Maybe it's just my perception???

I can hear a P or J bass ussually recorded flat in old school rock or pop, but in rock with any effects you can't tell one from bass from the next.

Also on smooth jazz where there's a more modern tone and popping etc...I don't think anyone can pick out the bass being used.

 

[Rodent]

With an Alembic, the brass in the bridge and the toneblock is what you hear mostly, as well as the brass nut and the extremely stiff multi-laminate neck-through construction

How do I hear that brass nut when I play anything but an open string? The brass nut imparts tone to fretted notes?

sorry ... try again

all the best,

R

 

[peterpalmieri]

in rock with any effects you can't tell one from bass from the next.

I would agree in a circumstance that you are changing the sound of the instrument via effects, compression or significant amounts of EQ it would be next to impossible to tell the difference.

 

[Stu Rose]

I see a lot of reference here to the resonant powers of a piece of wood, but I think the entire point is that an electronic instrument does not sound by resonating. A pickup uses magnets, not a microphone, to pick up the sound. Since this is the case, the point in question is how can the resonant properties of a piece of wood dramatically change the way the string itself vibrates? Im afraid I just cant see the logic behind this. I know the string is vibrating against the bridge and nut which are attached to the wood but again, this is not really about whether it has any effect whatsoever, but if it is a truly noticeable and dramatic change in tone. I just dont see how it is possible.

I havent really made up my mind where I stand on this, but Im leaning toward that side of the debate because it seems like when someone asks for some kind of serious explanation for how this works, the person being questioned gets offended and refuses.

Greetings

I'm with you!

I think woods do have slightly different tones or overtones and a trained ear can detect this but at trhe end of the day it's the pick-ups, preamp color, that makes the main difference along with the finger boards.

The small overtone variations are not audible enough to make a significant difference.