Whats the difference of woods?

[Eminor3rd]

The thing that makes me angry about this topic is that those who are arguing that wood type DOESN'T affect the sound of the bass have clearly NEVER heard two similar basses made of different woods compared. They're arguing vehemently based ONLY on what they're brains have concluded as logical. If these people are willing to argue with such passion in favor of something that is not only totally wrong, but something that they don't even have any experience with, I can only wonder at the amount of misinformation that exists on this site for this very reason.

If you don't KNOW something and aren't willing to find out for yourself, please, do us all a favor and concede to the experts... you know, like those who make a living BUILDING guitars.

 

[bigbottomline]

Like I said, clips aren't the way to experience this.

Of course not. After all, why should I expect blatant tonal differences to be captured in a recording?

 

[mongo2]

How about I put it another way that you just may understand, anecdotal evidence is not valid on ANY topic under any circumstances.

Can I hear a difference between almost identical basses, yes, but I would NEVER make a judgement about what actually created the difference until every single variable was independently isolated and tested to determine the EXACT frequency variable from item to item.






This is the crap you keep propagating, you seem to think that not agreeing that wood makes a difference=inability to hear a difference from bass to bass when it actually means that hearing a difference=/=the wood is the culprit.

EVERYTHING I accept as valid on ANY topic has to be shown to me in a scientific method or I simply do not believe it. Personal conjecture means absolutely nothing to me and an appeal to authority even less.

If someone tells me the sky is blue I know that they don't realize that the sky only appears blue because of the way the blue color spectrum is isolated by the atmosphere, that does not mean that the sky is actually blue.


Dark Horse actually posted scientific data, that I understand and accept as valid data, your personal conjecture I do not. I have been working on and building basses and guitars for 20+ years but I would NEVER make a statement as to why there was a tonal variation without hard data to back it up.

You can scream and shout, stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue but none of that will change the fact that the wood effects the tone.

See you at your next meltdown.

 

[bigbottomline]

The thing that makes me angry about this topic is that those who are arguing that wood type DOESN'T affect the sound of the bass have clearly NEVER heard two similar basses made of different woods compared. They're arguing vehemently based ONLY on what they're brains have concluded as logical. If these people are willing to argue with such passion in favor of something that is not only totally wrong, but something that they don't even have any experience with, I can only wonder at the amount of misinformation that exists on this site for this very reason.

If you don't KNOW something and aren't willing to find out for yourself, please, do us all a favor and concede to the experts... you know, like those who make a living BUILDING guitars.

Still doesn't say anything. You can't use your conclusion as support for your conclusion.

And sounds quite elitist, too.

I can only wonder what this place would be if experts successfully shouted down everyone they didn't agree with by claiming to be an expert.

 

[bigbottomline]

You can scream and shout and stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue but none of that will change the fact that the wood effects the tone. See you at your next meltdown.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[Aspidites]

You can scream and shout, stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue but none of that will change the fact that the wood effects the tone.

See you at your next meltdown.

That was not a meltdown, that is how I speak normally, the manner in which I normally speak on here is me being far more polite than is the norm for me.

And again, you can say that wood effects the tone but until there is scientific evidence supporting your hypothesis that is what it will remain, a hypothesis.

 

[mongo2]

That was not a meltdown, that is how I speak normally, the manner in which I normally speak on here is me being far more polite than is the norm for me.

And again, you can say that wood effects the tone but until there is scientific evidence supporting your hypothesis that is what it will remain, a hypothesis.

Is that supposed to impress me?

 

[mongo2]

Still waiting on proof that the material to which a vibrating string is attached has no effect on the vibrational pattern of the string.

C'mon, show me what you got.

 

[bigbottomline]

When you ask someone to back up their claim, and instead of doing that, all they do is claim to be an expert, insult you, and provide no actual evidence... well, let's just say I'm a bit more skeptical than before.

The tonal differences are noticeable (actually blatant according to one poster), yet they can't be captured in sound clips. Scientific tests can't be done. Or they're too lazy to do them. Or they claim that it will be pointless because we won't "hear it anyway."

All diversions to avoid proof. All noise and no substance. Like I said, it really makes me even more skeptical. If the difference was so obvious, there'd be no reason to take insult and create noise. You'd simply show the skeptics the proof to quiet them.

The proof is in the puddin', and Bill Cosby is nowhere to be found.

 

[Aspidites]

The thing that makes me angry about this topic is that those who are arguing that wood type DOESN'T affect the sound of the bass have clearly NEVER heard two similar basses made of different woods compared.

Actually we have, we just don't jump to the conclusion that wood is the culprit for the difference in tone.

They're arguing vehemently based ONLY on what they're brains have concluded as logical. If these people are willing to argue with such passion in favor of something that is not only totally wrong, but something that they don't even have any experience with, I can only wonder at the amount of misinformation that exists on this site for this very reason.

I have experience with it but to change my mind about wood being the difference I require actual research.

If you don't KNOW something and aren't willing to find out for yourself, please, do us all a favor and concede to the experts... you know, like those who make a living BUILDING guitars.

Building guitars does not make one an expert on the actual physics behind it.

 

[Aspidites]

Is that supposed to impress me?

I never attempt to impress, just stating a fact.

 

[Aspidites]

Still waiting on proof that the material to which a vibrating string is attached has no effect on the vibrational pattern of the string.

C'mon, show me what you got.

And in any scientific topic the onus is on the one making the positive claim to back up their assertion, if that cannot be done the assertion is invalid.

 

[interstatejoe]

So here we are, apparently with no hard evidence that wood DOES NOT affect the tone as well as no hard evidence that wood DOES affect the tone....other than Dark Horse's experiment with swapping only the body and keeping all else the same...but no sound clips to prove it... hmmmmm....

 

[mongo2]

All a skeptic has to do is to do their own research as others have done here.

As some of us have seen here sound clips are to subject to accusations of alteration to be really useful.

 

[mongo2]

I never attempt to impress, just stating a fact.

You mean a hypothesis.

 

[Aspidites]

So here we are, apparently with no hard evidence that wood DOES NOT affect the tone as well as no hard evidence that wood DOES affect the tone....other than Dark Horse's experiment with swapping only the body and keeping all else the same...but no sound clips to prove it... hmmmmm....

Dark Horse is definitely on the right track and I would be far more likely to accept his research as valid than any ones opinion regardless of who they are.

 

[mongo2]

And in any scientific topic the onus is on the one making the positive claim to back up their assertion, if that cannot be done the assertion is invalid.

Since you so firmly believe that the wood has no effect it should be very easy for you to demonstrate.

What would you accept as proof?

 

[Aspidites]

You mean a hypothesis.

Actually no, the manner in which I speak is a fact, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is nothing more than personal conjecture.

 

[Aspidites]

That has already been demonstrated several times in this thread.

What would you accept as proof?

Research in a peer reviewed science journal.

 

[johnk_10]

Dark Horse is definitely on the right track and I would be far more likely to accept his research as valid than any ones opinion regardless of who they are.

what a horrible existence. now i'm starting to feel sorry for you.