Whats the difference of woods?

[bigbottomline]

What would you accept as proof?

What would you accept as proof?

What would you accept as proof?

What would you accept as proof?

If this isn't badgering, I don't know what is.

And I've already asked for sound clips. I'm skeptical and I'd like to hear it.

You don't have to provide them, just so you know. I won't tell you you're wrong. I just won't be convinced. I don't understand why that has caused you to badger me like this.

 

[mongo2]

If someone wants to find something out, then yes, they would be more of a lab tech in that situation. That's the whole point. If I weren't interested in being a tech when trying to find something out, I wouldn't try to find it out. Go figure, right?

Being the "lab rat" that I am I performed my improved version of your test and that's where my "anecdotes" came from. I even used amps, scopes and all kinds of stuff like that there.

 

[bigbottomline]

Yep.

Is it wrong that I find these threads so entertaining?

Me, too. It's fascinating.

 

[Muaguana]

If the body "shape" actually changes the way stings vibrate over the pickups, so MUST the body composition.

That's an assumption, not a fact. If you posted a series of papers on the resonant properties of a guitar in regards to the composition of the body, then you would have a point. My assumption is that people are ignoring that because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Now, if you were to make an argument for weight, that would be a different story, since woods have different densities. But shape alone has no direct correlation to the type of wood used.

Being the "lab rat" that I am I performed my improved version of your test and that's where my "anecdotes" came from. I even used amps, scopes and all kinds of stuff like that there.

Then post the results so this discussion can end already.

 

[mongo2]

If this isn't badgering, I don't know what is.

And I've already asked for sound clips. I'm skeptical and I'd like to hear it.

You don't have to provide them, just so you know. I won't tell you you're wrong. I just won't be convinced. I don't understand why that has caused you to badger me like this.

Your persistent claim that anecdotal evidence isn't valid is also badgering.

It's already been established that for various reasons sound clips aren't really proof...so I'll ask again, what you you accept as proof?

 

[bigbottomline]

Sorry, I don't believe that. Do you have a clip?

Well played, sir. Well played.

 

[bigbottomline]

If the body "shape" actually changes the way stings vibrate over the pickups, so MUST the body composition.

By what logic? Composition and shape aren't the same.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Well, I'll be damned. No difference. Case closed.

 

[bigbottomline]

Then post the results so this discussion can end already.

+ a gazillion

 

[bigbottomline]

Your persistent claim that anecdotal evidence isn't valid is also badgering.

I think you have displayed a serious lack of understanding of logic, as well as a lack of understanding of the definition of "badgering."

It's already been established that for various reasons sound clips aren't really proof...so I'll ask again, what you you accept as proof?

Let's just say I'd be ticked pink to hear those sound clips!

It really appears that you don't want to provide anything and you're just picking a fight here.

 

[mongo2]

That's an assumption, not a fact. If you posted a series of papers on the resonant properties of a guitar in regards to the composition of the body, then you would have a point. My assumption is that people are ignoring that because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Now, if you were to make an argument for weight, that would be a different story, since woods have different densities. But shape alone has no direct correlation to the type of wood used.



Then post the results so this discussion can end already.

Some of my findings:

1) The wood effects the tone.

2) Wood is so variable that predicting the precise effect is not possible.

3) Necks have more influence on the tone than the body.

4) Pickups and eq can be adjusted to negate the effect of the wood, and sound like ca-ca (ca-ca is just a subjective term).

5) The density of the wood (judged by relative weights) shouldn't be used to predict performance.

 

[mongo2]

Well, I'll be damned. No difference. Case closed.

What size barrel??

 

[mongo2]

[

I think you have displayed a serious lack of understanding of logic, as well as a lack of understanding of the definition of "badgering."

So much for you not wanting to go "ad hominem"

It really appears that you don't want to provide anything and you're just picking a fight here.

I was just thinking the same about you.

I guess you don't have any real criteria for proof then?

Seems there's no way to prove it to you.

 

[Brad Johnson]

If someone wants to find something out, then yes, they would be more of a lab tech in that situation. That's the whole point. If I weren't interested in being a tech when trying to find something out, I wouldn't try to find it out. Go figure, right?

No, if someone were really interested in finding out they would play as many basses as they could put their hands on and pay attention to what they're experiencing... not rely on some lab result with a ton of variables.

Not that there's anything wrong with soeone else killing time in a pursuit that could better be determined through actual experience. IME getting the real life experience is way more fun than trying to rule out ever variable.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Well played, sir. Well played.

See? It's all in good fun.

 

[bigbottomline]

See??/ You can't win....

What are you talking about?

Are you assuming that I'm going to ignore valid evidence? Why assume that?

 

[M.R. Ogle]

I was referring to the caliber of the monkey-barrel....

 

[mongo2]

No, if someone were really interested in finding out they would play as many basses as they could put their hands on and pay attention to what they're experiencing... not rely on some lab result with a ton of variables.

Not that there's anything wrong with soeone else killing time in a pursuit that could better be determined through actual experience. IME getting the real life experience is way more fun than trying to rule out ever variable.

Hey, we were snowed in during a blizzard and I was bored.

 

[bigbottomline]

So much for you not wanting to go "ad hominem."

I didn't. There's a difference between ad hominem and what I said.

I guess you don't have any real criteria for proof then?

Seems there's no way to prove it to you.

OK, mongo2.

 

[Dark Horse]

That's an assumption, not a fact. If you posted a series of papers on the resonant properties of a guitar in regards to the composition of the body, then you would have a point. My assumption is that people are ignoring that because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Now, if you were to make an argument for weight, that would be a different story, since woods have different densities. But shape alone has no direct correlation to the type of wood used.

Actually, the argument was that wood itself has no affect on the sound, because the only things that supposedly "mattered" were strings, pickups/electronics, bridge, nut, and frets. The tests I linked PROVE that the body does indeed affect the overall sound, so it is VERY relevant to the discussion.

Also, it is a fact that different types of wood have different resonant frequencies. Each type of wood has different cellular construction, which results in different porosity/density and transmission of waves. Sure, no two pieces of wood are EXACTLY alike - however - it is safe to say that all Indian Rosewood, for instance, will have a similar cellular makeup - that is what makes it "Indian Rosewood". This cellular makeup is vastly different than Engelmann Spruce, and thus results in a different sound, because it transmits vibrations differently.


Link Removed