Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Whats the difference of woods?
- Thread starter OOZMAN
- Start date
I learned years ago you can't argue with an engineer. They consider only hard, quantifiable facts that support their hypothesis. Everyone else in the world's experiences are somehow "flawed" or their perceptions are skewed because of pre-concieved ideas.
A conversation I had with my boss, the engineer/owner of Associated Electrics about my old Precision bass:
"I like it, it feels better and sounds good to me"
"Define Better? What's measureably better about it"
"I don't know, it's more resonant, the notes sound fuller..."
"Compared to what? What evidence do you have to define fuller?"
"It's musically pleasing to the ear."
"Well, that's just subjective, that's not a fact...."
....etc, etc... etc....
Regardless of the hundreds of people such as JohnK who have BUILT dozens of instruments over the years, selected woods, and heard firsthand the differences, all the luthier's experiences don't mean **** because you haven't been able to hook them up to a machine and give a printout or graph showing measured differences.
But then, you would just argue about the calibration of the machine.
A total waste of everyone's time arguing with your mindset.
A conversation I had with my boss, the engineer/owner of Associated Electrics about my old Precision bass:
"I like it, it feels better and sounds good to me"
"Define Better? What's measureably better about it"
"I don't know, it's more resonant, the notes sound fuller..."
"Compared to what? What evidence do you have to define fuller?"
"It's musically pleasing to the ear."
"Well, that's just subjective, that's not a fact...."
....etc, etc... etc....
Regardless of the hundreds of people such as JohnK who have BUILT dozens of instruments over the years, selected woods, and heard firsthand the differences, all the luthier's experiences don't mean **** because you haven't been able to hook them up to a machine and give a printout or graph showing measured differences.
But then, you would just argue about the calibration of the machine.
A total waste of everyone's time arguing with your mindset.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
+100
try making a bass with a rubber neck and body and then tell me that all of its tone comes from the strings and pickups.
Those are all subjective qualities, so of course they cannot be measured. Frequency and other tonal properties are easily measured, so from an scientific stand point it could be tested.
Even though Aspidites says he only follows the facts, he has only presented his personal opinions and preconceptions AFAIK. No one has shown any quantifiable data as far as I have seen.
That is correct.
The onus is on the one making the positive assertion to prove that, if one states that wood effects the tonal properties it is that persons responsibility to prove their assertion.
No one cares about entering a discussion of semantics.
We're all human and life is a grand illusion.... yada, yada, yada....
It's trite. And boring.
We're all human and life is a grand illusion.... yada, yada, yada....
It's trite. And boring.
Yes, I understand this. But some of your posts make it seem as if there is proof beyond qualitative opinions.
I would love to do an experiment with different pieces of wood to see the effects, and hopefully will be able to do this sometime soon.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
IMO, either aspidites doesn't have the ears to hear the difference, has no hands-on experience with the subject, or is just plain unwilling to learn.
i just cannot help someone like that, nor care to. after building 100's of basses, 1000's of guitars and running a successful business doing so for more than 35 years, i will satnd by my observations.
if it was just the pickups and strings, every factory stock les paul standard would sound like every other one, every AV RI strat would sound the same, every AV RI p bass, and so on. and anyone, with even a decent set of ears, that has played more than 10 of them knows that they do not.
if anyone is ever out in southern california, and would like to come to my house and test/compare any of my four split coil p basses, or two single coil p basses, they are more than welcome to come hear the difference playing them thru my Avalon VT737SP preamp, crown xti2000 power amp thru my accugroove whappo jr cab. even my wife, a non-musician, can hear the difference, and that's just thru an amp. in a pro studio, the differences are even more noticeable, as it is even more of an 'aural microscope'.
i just cannot help someone like that, nor care to. after building 100's of basses, 1000's of guitars and running a successful business doing so for more than 35 years, i will satnd by my observations.
if it was just the pickups and strings, every factory stock les paul standard would sound like every other one, every AV RI strat would sound the same, every AV RI p bass, and so on. and anyone, with even a decent set of ears, that has played more than 10 of them knows that they do not.
if anyone is ever out in southern california, and would like to come to my house and test/compare any of my four split coil p basses, or two single coil p basses, they are more than welcome to come hear the difference playing them thru my Avalon VT737SP preamp, crown xti2000 power amp thru my accugroove whappo jr cab. even my wife, a non-musician, can hear the difference, and that's just thru an amp. in a pro studio, the differences are even more noticeable, as it is even more of an 'aural microscope'.
I have very good ears thank you and I have hands on experience and I am willing to learn but I simply refuse to take your personal anecdotes as any form of evidence. You hear a difference and jump to the conclusion it is the wood. I hear a difference and conclude that the the wood is the least logical conclusion and until such time as I have a scientist hand me a printout factually proving it is the wood i will not buy it.
And I do not care what business someone is in it does not make them an expert on it. I had a brewer (of over 30 years) tell me that the glass you serve a beer in has no bearing on how you perceive it, he is completely wrong.
There is simply no way that the electronics in each and every single Les Paul are the same.
Hearing a difference between instruments does not in any way tell you why there is a difference.
I personally believe that the materials and construction of a bass do have a marked effect on the tone, however all of that is really a moot point.
The subtleties in tone that we bass players obsess over can be wiped out in a heartbeat by a lazy twist of an eq knob on a console. Over the last 30 years I've lost count of the number of sound engineers (both live and in the studio) who've mashed my treasured and carefully honed Ric tone into their nearest approximation of a P-bass.
Even if our treasured tone survives a lazy sound guy, it'll then go out to an audience where only a pitifully small percentage of people will have any idea of what different basses sound like. Most of the audience would neither know nor care whether we were playing a short scale semi-acoustic with a passive humbucker near the neck or a graphite composite bass with single coils and active electronics.
I know that I definitely play better with a tone that inspires me, so I'm still on my search for sonic nirvana, but I'm also pretty sure that I'm the only one who really cares
The subtleties in tone that we bass players obsess over can be wiped out in a heartbeat by a lazy twist of an eq knob on a console. Over the last 30 years I've lost count of the number of sound engineers (both live and in the studio) who've mashed my treasured and carefully honed Ric tone into their nearest approximation of a P-bass.
Even if our treasured tone survives a lazy sound guy, it'll then go out to an audience where only a pitifully small percentage of people will have any idea of what different basses sound like. Most of the audience would neither know nor care whether we were playing a short scale semi-acoustic with a passive humbucker near the neck or a graphite composite bass with single coils and active electronics.
I know that I definitely play better with a tone that inspires me, so I'm still on my search for sonic nirvana, but I'm also pretty sure that I'm the only one who really cares
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
judging by your comments i do not believe you. am i supposed to accept that statement as science? try proving that.
after 35+ years of building instruments, i don't 'jump to' anything, thankyou.
as you are NOW.
the electronics in the instruments (pickup wire, winding machines, magnets and pots) are FAR more consistent than the variance in the woods used.
i'm starting to think that all that beer drinking has impaired your hearing and thought processes.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
i agree with everything that you said Jools. however, i also believe that a bassist that plays an instrument that inspires HIM/HER is the most important part of the equation.
If strings oscillating in the magnet field of the pickup create the analog signal to the amp, would not the small vibrating movements of the pickup bolted to a resonant wooden body also create oscillations in relation to the strings which would add to the overall signal?
In addition, aren't some pickups "potted" to prevent the vibration/mechanical noise of the pickup from adding to the signal?
If the pickup could be held ABSOLUTELY still, then...
=wr=
In addition, aren't some pickups "potted" to prevent the vibration/mechanical noise of the pickup from adding to the signal?
If the pickup could be held ABSOLUTELY still, then...
=wr=
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
the manner of the string's vibration are a direct result of what they are attached to.
many of you may remember an accessory called the 'fat head', which was a heavy brass plate that attached to the back of the headstock, to give it more mass to try and eliminate/minmize dead spots. in the same vein, in 1979, Leo once clamped a very large and heavy c-clamp to the headstock of a p bass and demonstrated the same results for me.
whenever my buddy David Hidalgo (Los Lobos) would buy a guitar that had schallers or grovers on it, he used to always immediately have me remove them and install lightweight Klusons on them because he liked the TONE of the the lighter weight heads.
if what Aspidites claims is true, then Leo Fender, Paul Reed Smith, Seymour Duncan, David Hidalgo, Rusty Anderson, Bernardo Rico, Grover Jackson, Wayne Charvel, Nate Watts, Dee Murray, Rick Turner and Ron Wickersham are all wrong and he's right. I personally have spoken with all of them in the past on this very subject, and every one of us has been in agreement with each other, so its up to you to judge for yourself who you want to believe.
many of you may remember an accessory called the 'fat head', which was a heavy brass plate that attached to the back of the headstock, to give it more mass to try and eliminate/minmize dead spots. in the same vein, in 1979, Leo once clamped a very large and heavy c-clamp to the headstock of a p bass and demonstrated the same results for me.
whenever my buddy David Hidalgo (Los Lobos) would buy a guitar that had schallers or grovers on it, he used to always immediately have me remove them and install lightweight Klusons on them because he liked the TONE of the the lighter weight heads.
if what Aspidites claims is true, then Leo Fender, Paul Reed Smith, Seymour Duncan, David Hidalgo, Rusty Anderson, Bernardo Rico, Grover Jackson, Wayne Charvel, Nate Watts, Dee Murray, Rick Turner and Ron Wickersham are all wrong and he's right. I personally have spoken with all of them in the past on this very subject, and every one of us has been in agreement with each other, so its up to you to judge for yourself who you want to believe.
You can choose to believe it or not.
But all you do have is personal conjecture.
That has yet to be shown.
I highly doubt that.
Seeing as I probably drink less beer than most anyone on here I highly doubt that. I rarely drink more than two ounces of any given beer, with most being dumped after a sip, and there are very few beers I actually enjoy any more because I find the vast majority to be flawed in some way that makes them unpalatable.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
then i'll say it again,
if what you claim is true, then Leo Fender, Paul Reed Smith, Seymour Duncan, David Hidalgo, Rusty Anderson, Bernardo Rico, Grover Jackson, Wayne Charvel, Nate Watts, Dee Murray, Rick Turner and Ron Wickersham are all wrong and your'e right. I personally have spoken with all of them in the past on this very subject, and every one of us has been in agreement with each other, so its up to everyone else to judge for themselves who they want to believe.
if what you claim is true, then Leo Fender, Paul Reed Smith, Seymour Duncan, David Hidalgo, Rusty Anderson, Bernardo Rico, Grover Jackson, Wayne Charvel, Nate Watts, Dee Murray, Rick Turner and Ron Wickersham are all wrong and your'e right. I personally have spoken with all of them in the past on this very subject, and every one of us has been in agreement with each other, so its up to everyone else to judge for themselves who they want to believe.
