Tonewoods

[ggunn]

Good, I am glad you understand that I'm right. (Look! I can play the troll game too)

But classical guitars are no different. The woods effect the tone by restricting or enforcing the vibration/sustain of the srting.. Basses are made of wood, strings are made of metal (not too far off from most acoustic/classical guitars) and if the strings are affected by the woods that they are attached to then the tone that is produced by the string is picked up throught the magnetic pickups.

Its not too complicated.. Really, its not like a leap of faith to beleive something like this.

Acoustic instruments are far different; the wood is literally what you hear in an acoustic instrument. In an electric instrument, the ostensible mechanism is for the wood involved to feed its resonance back into the strings to produce a difference in timbre that the pickup can, er, pick up. It's not nearly as straighforward.

I have never taken a position as to whether and/or how much "tonewoods" shape the sound of a solid body instrument. I will admit to a fair amount of skepticism to both extreme positions, and I don't accept anecdotal evidence as proof of anything. There does not appear to be any unambiguous proof one way or the other on this issue, though opinions abound. Many of these opinions are apparently held by respected luthiers, but they are hardly objective.

But I was not trolling when I said that if you hear a difference than it's real to you. Hearing is the most subjective and suggestible of all the senses, and if you hear a difference that's worth spending your money for, then by all means go for it.

 

[The Penguin]

Look I dont care what you think,

Yes you do, it's very important to you

who gives a flying ****,

Again that would be you. Forgive me for ignoring the rest of your personal attacks. I don't think you can actually prove something by bullying. But good luck with it.

 

[The Penguin]

(Look! I can play the troll game too)

Can you play the science game or do we just trust you as an act of faith?

Its not too complicated.. Really, its not like a leap of faith to beleive something like this.

Yes it is, since you have no evidence there is only faith. You can tell it's faith by how angry people get. Science looks more like a discussion.

 

[jazzy grille]

Can you play the science game or do we just trust you as an act of faith?Yes it is, since you have no evidence there is only faith. You can tell it's faith by how angry people get. Science looks more like a discussion.

This is not a matter of science:

I played two MTDs that were the exact same specs (Ash body, maple neck and burl maple top, with a stain color) Except one had a maple FB and the other had a rose wood FB. Now, mind you I was just like you about this: Skeptical to say the least, but when I plugged them both in one after the other repeatedly into same amp I could not beleive my ears. Proof is in the pudding folks. Not to mention they had consecutive serial numbers made right after eachother.

Theres the proof. Dont like it? too bad. I cant part the seas for you, you would question anything on your plate anyway.

Like I said, (which is cleary illustrated in your reply) You resort to the same rhetoric. Faith has no meaning here (as an attack or a statement) as much as you would like it, it just doesn't.


Sorry.

 

[jazzy grille]

Yes you do, it's very important to you.

Thats so penetratingly insightful of you.

Again that would be you. Forgive me for ignoring the rest of your personal attacks. I don't think you can actually prove something by bullying. But good luck with it.

Dont worry I'll ignore yours as well.

 

[dragon5363]

Can't we all be civil? I mean really, let's all stop this; this thread is starting sound like a discussion between guitarists.

 

[jazzy grille]

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325779&highlight=MTD+ash+clips


I forgot all about these.

There seems to be an audible difference there. Like I have said before in these threads it is not a serious difference and probably would not be discernable to the average ear, but there is a difference.

The Ash and maple/Black limda body has more "thinner" highs, and the Wenge/tulipwood has "fatter" highs.

Thanks to Ari for posting those.

 

[Rodent]

Can't we all be civil? I mean really, let's all stop this; this thread is starting sound like a discussion between guitarists.

agreed - it was nice to have eight full pages of solid discussion before things started getting too personal.

all the best,

R

 

[steve9000gi]

I've tried a total of three different pickup/wiring configurations on each of two different Fender basses: one a Tele (a sort-of-reissue of the original "P" style) and the other a MIM P bass. In both cases each pickup sounded different, but each bass retained an essential sonic signature quality through all the changes, and independent of the kinds of strings, amps, etc.

So what's that leave? Mostly body, bridge, neck, "design" configuration, nut?, tuning pegs? I suspect all contribute (maybe not the nut and tuning pegs so much), but I feel fairly confident that the wood makes a big difference. A good friend of mine who's very bright, experienced, has a good ear for tone and who's switched parts on a lot of different guitars (he plays mostly Strats) believes that the fretboard is the key determinant. I dunno.

In both cases I finally gave up on the bass and ended up getting another to do what I wanted. The first time I replaced the Tele with an early Steinberger; most recently I dumped the MIM P (which had become a P/J with Fralins) for a Sadowsky.

My tentative and not-so-scientific conclusion is that a flawed bass sound won't be rescued by different electronics alone. I used to believe for an electric bass that the sound was all in the electronics (plus strings, amp/speakers, player, and room, of course), but not any more. Experiments with switching bridges and necks would be interesting, but after a while I just want to play, especially now that I've got the sound I need, so you do those and let us know what you find out. Thanks.

-Steve

 

[spade2you]

Bump so bassicaddiction will find it. He's sorta starting this discussion all over again from scratch.

I think if he read this first he would have never asked anyone on this forum.

So would it be fair to say you no longer insist the tone difference is the wood alone?

Not necessarily. I think too many people here are looking for conclusive results either way. Without a full blown scientific type of methodology, it is pointless. My results have shown that wood makes a difference. Others swear it doesn't. Simply put, it would take a lot more than the ideas I have seen proposed to get conclusive data.* Perhaps if someone wants to buy me another bass with the exact same config as what I have, I'll let you know the results.

*I have a background in reading scientific medical journals somewhat routinely with a background in biostats to help interpret methods and results.**

**I do not have enough time to explain everything and further discussions in biostats would require an initial fee and hourly rate because it's NOT a favorite subject of mine.

I still find it amusing that Gard who sees so many different wood combinations of the same basses wasn't taken more seriously. I kinda felt that a few didn't even think he was credible.

 

[Ryan L.]

I still find it amusing that Gard who sees so many different wood combinations of the same basses wasn't taken more seriously. I kinda felt that a few didn't even think he was credible.

Me too.

 

[ggunn]

Me too.

It's not that he wasn't taken seriously, it's just that anecdotal evidence, however extensive, is still anecdotal evidence. It's not proof, in the scientific sense. Granted, proof at that level is not necessary to build basses and to form opinions that direct buying decisions.

So, what were we talking about? ;^)

 

[NineSpine]

Im not taking a side really, but I will say that I think that the "naysayers" want some kind of proof, not personal stories, so it is kind of missing the point when you try to pass off "Well I did it and I noticed a difference so this discussion is over!" as definitive evidence.

Has anyone ever watched Penn and Teller's show? There is an episode where they serve people "gourmet" bottled waters. All of them came from a hose outside the restaurant. People swear they can taste the difference.

Also, I remember a 20/20 special where they did a blind taste test for vodka... and everyone thought the Smirnoff was the Grey Goose, after years of swearing that Grey Goose was the best tasting.

Our senses are very, very subjective and expecting a difference is a surefire way to hear one.

The way I feel is that the tiniest thing involving your pickups, or even your bridge and strings (among other things) can have a dramatic effect on your tone so any stories about "Well I used the same bass with a different wood and it sounded different" are hard to really go by since there are so many variables that we all KNOW make a difference (such as the age of strings, etc.) that it's hard to believe all of those were identical.

After writing this post, I think the wood makes a difference, but I dont see any reason for it to be dramatic or even noticable in many cases, especially when we are talking about people using lots of EQ, effects, preamps, etc. etc. etc..

Only so many things can have a dramatic effect on what is NOT a complex sound, and it's very unreasonable to expect everything everyone says makes a "big" difference to really make one.

If we were expected to believe that EVERYTHING everyone says made a dramatic difference did, we would be able to get any sound under the sun out of the bass by tweaking it, from dogs barking, to alarm clocks.

 

[ggunn]

Listen up, you guys. I have read this whole thread top to bottom and I'm ready to make a decision. Here is the FINAL, DEFINITIVE ANSWER, brooking no contradiction, take it to the bank, gold standard!

Ready? Here it comes....

Wait for it....

<drumrolllllllllllllllll> <cymbal crash!>

================================
>>>>>>> Maybe yes, maybe no. <<<<<<<
================================

Ta daaaaaah!

Feel better now? I know I do. ;^)

 

[jazzy grille]

Listen up, you guys. I have read this whole thread top to bottom and I'm ready to make a decision. Here is the FINAL, DEFINITIVE ANSWER, brooking no contradiction, take it to the bank, gold standard!

Ready? Here it comes....

Wait for it....

<drumrolllllllllllllllll> <cymbal crash!>

================================
>>>>>>> Maybe yes, maybe no. <<<<<<<
================================

Ta daaaaaah!

Feel better now? I know I do. ;^)

Ah, good. I feel so much better.

 

[Ryan L.]

Personally, I could give a poop less if there is scientific evidence.

If my ears can hear a difference between two different basses, and I attribute it to differences in the wood, it's nobody's business but my own--I am entitled to THE OPINION that it is the wood causing the differences in sound.

If someone like Gard or Mike Tobias is telling me that they can also hear differences, and that certain species of wood have certain characteristics in the sound, hell, call me gullible, but I'm gonna take their word for it.

There probably are no hard scientific facts to back any of the claims up. So all we are left with is what we hear, or even think we hear. This argument could go on for another 15 pages--and we'd still be stuck with a few guys saying that there are no facts to back up the claims, and a few guys saying that the claims are true.

In the end, does it really matter?? I'm gonna go on believing that wood does attribute to the sonic differences between basses, as I am sure a few others are as well. Just like others are going to keep on with the belief that since there is no scientific proof, then it simply cannot be. Who cares?? If a bass sounds good, it sounds good--regardless of what components, or combination thereof, are causing it too. Just like if two basses sound different, well, gee, they sound different. Regardless of the components in the basses that cause them to.

 

[jazzy grille]

Im not taking a side really, but I will say that I think that the "naysayers" want some kind of proof, not personal stories, so it is kind of missing the point when you try to pass off "Well I did it and I noticed a difference so this discussion is over!" as definitive evidence.

Hmm.. Than what was I hearing? I already mentioned that I was skeptical of the Idea so I didnt "want" to hear the difference (in reference to your quote below about penn). I already said that what ever I mention will not be proof enough for most of the people that are trying to apply this to a scienctific scale. I dont think there will ever be any scientific research done on this subject. But heres the thing: the people who think "nay" are a minority, and for a good reason, because people have seen/heard a difference.

Has anyone ever watched Penn and Teller's show? There is an episode where they serve people "gourmet" bottled waters. All of them came from a hose outside the restaurant. People swear they can taste the difference.

Also, I remember a 20/20 special where they did a blind taste test for vodka... and everyone thought the Smirnoff was the Grey Goose, after years of swearing that Grey Goose was the best tasting.

Our senses are very, very subjective and expecting a difference is a surefire way to hear one.

This is a two way argument, (and just as invalid either way.). I could say that they didnt want to hear the difference so therefore they didnt.

The way I feel is that the tiniest thing involving your pickups, or even your bridge and strings (among other things) can have a dramatic effect on your tone so any stories about "Well I used the same bass with a different wood and it sounded different" are hard to really go by since there are so many variables that we all KNOW make a difference (such as the age of strings, etc.) that it's hard to believe all of those were identical.

Once again, who is to say that the woods dont have an effect on this "difference" between basses as much as these other variables.

After writing this post, I think the wood makes a difference, but I dont see any reason for it to be dramatic or even noticable in many cases, especially when we are talking about people using lots of EQ, effects, preamps, etc. etc. etc..

What ever floats someones boat.

Only so many things can have a dramatic effect on what is NOT a complex sound, and it's very unreasonable to expect everything everyone says makes a "big" difference to really make one.

If we were expected to believe that EVERYTHING everyone says made a dramatic difference did, we would be able to get any sound under the sun out of the bass by tweaking it, from dogs barking, to alarm clocks.

I am going to count that as an exaggeration...

 

[spade2you]

It's not that he wasn't taken seriously, it's just that anecdotal evidence, however extensive, is still anecdotal evidence. It's not proof, in the scientific sense. Granted, proof at that level is not necessary to build basses and to form opinions that direct buying decisions.

So, what were we talking about? ;^)

I realize that Gard might have potential special interests financially in wood selection, but a lot of the wood options aren't necessarily upcharges. If a builder only suggests woods that are major upgrades, then there may be financially biased opinion.

On the other hand, the luthiers want the bass to sound good. If you're happy with the tone, you're likely to buy another one. If it sounds bad, then you might try to return it, not buy more, or badmouth them to other potential customers. So, they gotta use certain construction techniques, strings, electronics, and woods. All add up to the overall tune.

 

[The Penguin]

Not necessarily. I think too many people here are looking for conclusive results either way. Without a full blown scientific type of methodology, it is pointless. My results have shown that wood makes a difference. Others swear it doesn't. Simply put, it would take a lot more than the ideas I have seen proposed to get conclusive data.* Perhaps if someone wants to buy me another bass with the exact same config as what I have, I'll let you know the results.

I still don't see people swearing it doesn't make a difference, I mostly see people conceding it probably does but challenging the claim that there are those who can always hear the difference. If someone makes a claim and cannot demonstrate it the claim doesn't stand. There is no need to polarize it to a ridiculous extreme to make it easier to argue.

I also don't agree that you have demonstrated anything, you have dismissed the difference between soft and hard maple, others say soft maple sounds like alder. No one is willing to show they can tell the difference without knowing which is which first. If I excepted that as proof I'd have to believe every psychic and palm reader and all the others who can't offer a simple demonstration and definition.

And I do agree with all those claiming this is not scientific It meets none of the requirements of science.

 

[The Penguin]

It's not that he wasn't taken seriously, it's just that anecdotal evidence, however extensive, is still anecdotal evidence. It's not proof, in the scientific sense. Granted, proof at that level is not necessary to build basses and to form opinions that direct buying decisions.

Agreed, in debate it's called an appeal to authority. It's supposed to take the place of evidence. It often does.