Whats the difference of woods?

[bigbottomline]

You claim the anecdotal evidence supporting the effect of the wood isn't valid...now you're going to have to prove it.

That anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything? It's a logical fallacy.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Waste of time... and I do not think in either of these threads on this subject that anyone offered as "hard scientific fact" that the wood makes a difference, it was always IMO and "in my experience" that was offered to the discussion.

However, I did see SEVERAL posts stating flatly that wood made little or NO DIFFERENCE to the tone of an instrument.

There is no "burden of proof" necessary. You ask for input and information on a subject such as this, expect that you'll get MOSTLY personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. That's enough for most reasonable people.

To demand scientific hard evidence in a forum about creative endeavor such as music and luthiery is folly. Learn from those with experience. If that's not good enough, postulate all you want. You get it, or you dont.

 

[mongo2]

I think the problem here is that bigbottomline and you are arguing from different angles. From a purely scientific standpoint, and in an effort to arrive at a conclusion with absolute objective certainty, big is right; it's up to the one making the claim to provide objective, impartial evidence, to prove to a skeptic that their claim is right. It's not the skeptic's responsibility to disprove something when it hasn't been proven in a scientific manner.

Don't need no science, just the ability to hear it is sufficient. Just because someone may not be able to hear it and is therefore skeptical doesn't mean those that can hear it have to prove that they can hear it.

Besides there are actually two claims, one that the wood has an effect and the other that wood doesn't have an effect.

 

[johnk_10]

Waste of time... and I do not think in either of these threads on this subject that anyone offered as "hard scientific fact" that the wood makes a difference, it was always IMO and "in my experience" that was offered to the discussion.

However, I did see SEVERAL posts stating flatly that wood made little or NO DIFFERENCE to the tone of an instrument.

There is no "burden of proof" necessary. You ask for input and information on a subject such as this, expect that you'll get MOSTLY personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. That's enough for most reasonable people.

To demand scientific hard evidence in a forum about creative endeavor such as music and luthiery is folly. Learn from those with experience. If that's not good enough, postulate all you want. You get it, or you dont.

well stated.

 

[peterpalmieri]

So it went like this:

Th original Post:

In particular what is the difference in sound of an alder body, maple or basswood? Is one higher quality than the others? Is stronger? What's the difference in tone? etc.
Obviously I'm a complete newbie to this stuff, I think alder is brighter, is this true? I have an alder bass and it's brighter than another maple one i have, is this the norm?

You Quoted:

In a solidbody eletric instrument the electronics and strings are a mere 95% of the signal. Even "the best" ears can be fooled.

Your Response:

I tend to agree with this. I believe that pre-conceptions can affect our senses greatly.

Similar tests have been done with "expert" wine tasters. None of them could tell that the red wine they raved about was actually white wine dyed red. But they sure loved the tannins.

So you tend to agree that 5% or less comes from the wood. And now in THIS thread we need to provide proof to you. You are the one coming in with an opposing view.

If you haven't noticed I provided audio/video clips on the prior page.

What say you?

 

[mongo2]

That anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything? It's a logical fallacy.

 

[bigbottomline]

yes, but are you not 'claiming' that the wood doesn't make a difference?

No, I'm not claiming that. I'm skeptical about the significance of the difference, about that difference being significant enough to hear.

The barrage of anecdotal evidence only, the lack of sound clips or other direct evidence, and the aggressive tone being expressed to me isn't convincing me, either.

 

[mongo2]

No, I'm not claiming that. I'm skeptical about the significance of the difference, about that difference being significant enough to hear.

The barrage of anecdotal evidence only, the lack of sound clips or other direct evidence, and the aggressive tone being expressed to me isn't convincing me, either.

Whether you heard it or not in a sound clip would only be anecdotal evidence as well.

 

[bigbottomline]

I think the problem here is that bigbottomline and you are arguing from different angles. From a purely scientific standpoint, and in an effort to arrive at a conclusion with absolute objective certainty, big is right; it's up to the one making the claim to provide objective, impartial evidence, to prove to a skeptic that their claim is right. It's not the skeptic's responsibility to disprove something when it hasn't been proven in a scientific manner.

You, john and others are arguing more from the standpoint of your personal experiences, and that is enough to convince you. Which is perfectly fine, and I personally do take your informed opinion as evidence supporting the claim. But I wouldn't say it's objective, absolute proof, and you can't expect someone looking for absolute certainty derived from scientific methodology to believe you. Then again, I'm willing to bet there's a lot of things we take for granted and believe in despite never reading a meticulous scientific journal entry to establish it.

Again, it's just different perspectives, and different people looking for different kinds of proof/evidence.

Well said, and thank you.

This has been an ongoing debate for some time. But I don't think it should be, because I believe that it could be tested, and therefore, proven. Until then, I'll probably remain skeptical, but I'm not saying anyone is wrong.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Here you go:

Ken's YouTube clips: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Ken has a clip of his:

Sadowsky ash/maple single coil pickups with 60s spacing

Alleva Coppolo LG5 alder/rosewood single coil pickups with 60s spacing

They are not the exact same basses but they are pretty close. I am sure this isn't good enough but it's close...

AGAIN

 

[mongo2]

Well said, and thank you.

This has been an ongoing debate for some time. But I don't think it should be, because I believe that it could be tested, and therefore, proven. Until then, I'll probably remain skeptical, but I'm not saying anyone is wrong.

What would you accept as proof?

 

[odin70]

AGAIN

im silent because i cant listen right now. At work actually.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Maple vs. Rosewood fingerboard

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6108668

 

[bigbottomline]

could it be that you have very little hands-on experience, and you're arguing about something that you don't know what you're talking about?

So, I wonder why people are insulting me, and you respond to that by... insulting me?

Not to mention trying to pidgeonhole and put words in my mouth.

Again, why?

 

[mongo2]

So, I wonder why people are insulting me, and you respond to that by... insulting me?

Not to mention trying to pidgeonhole and put words in my mouth.

Again, why?

What would you accept as proof?

 

[Dark Horse]

Waste of time... and I do not think in either of these threads on this subject that anyone offered as "hard scientific fact" that the wood makes a difference, it was always IMO and "in my experience" that was offered to the discussion.

Some interesting research that shows that the shape of a electric guitar body affects the resonant frequency of the guitar -


[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]


If the "physical shape" of the body affects the sound of the guitar, so must the "physical composition" of the body.

The asymmetric shape and the "wings" of the Explorer contribute to more motion of this guitar body. The frequencies of these modes may be problematic because several of them are very close to string frequencies. We will be measuring the input mechanical impedance at the bridge to determine how much string energy is lost to vibration of the body. This is bad, because if the body vibrates the strings cannot sustain as long as they should.

 

[Muaguana]

AGAIN

I hate to take sides in this, but by your own words, it's not good enough. Two different basses. That's not proof. Also, it's a Youtube clip with terrible audio quality.

If I had the capital right now, I'd go out and have four basses made for me, all of the exact same physical dimensions, hardware, and electronics setup (even down to using wire from the same spool), just with different wood used for the bodies. Neck and fingerboard wood would be constant. I would record one sound clip into Pro Tools from each, playing the exact same line, with my hand at the same position, with the same pickup blend and volume setting, and use that as an example. Then I would record ten different sound clips each, post them unlabeled on TB in a random order, and ask people to identify which body woods made which tone. The numbers would give us a rough idea of how distinct a difference wood makes on tone.

That, I believe, would be the kind of solid evidence that could possibly convince some of the skeptics, as long as every detail and step of the process is documented. I would then sell all those basses since I'm not made of money, then make four more nearly-identical instruments with different neck woods, and repeat the process. Then, lastly, repeat the experiment with different fretboard woods.

If only I had that kind of cash...

 

[Brad Johnson]

Sometimes in life you have to get off your butt and do your own legwork. If others need to call your experiences anectdotal, so what?

I've gotten to the point where I know this subject is another electronic version of banging your head against a brick wall. Maybe it will feel better when you stop, then again maybe not

We're talking about sound here, in case the folly of that hasn't really sunk in yet. IRL I know what I could easily prove to all but the hearing imparied in very short order. Here, going up against those who need scientific internet-based proof...


Life's too short IMO. Let others think what they need to think. It's always more fun when a revelation hits them years down the road after fighting the good fight. happens quite frequently.


Bottom line, is it really that important to convince someone else of something you know? I know it can be fun arguing the point but it's not worth getting heated over.

I really like the idea that the luthiers listed and participants in this thread are all operating under some sort of mass expected results-based perception cloud.

 

[mongo2]

I hate to take sides in this, but by your own words, it's not good enough. Two different basses. That's not proof. Also, it's a Youtube clip with terrible audio quality.

If I had the capital right now, I'd go out and have four basses made for me, all of the exact same physical dimensions, hardware, and electronics setup (even down to using wire from the same spool), just with different wood used for the bodies. Neck and fingerboard wood would be constant.

That wouldn't prove anything either since you're using different necks. Even though they're the same type of wood, each piece has different characteristics.

It would be best to use the same neck, hardware, and electronics for each body under test.

BTW, I've done this precise test several times keeping necks constant and changing bodies for one series and then keeping the body constant and changing necks for another. That's where I got my IMEs/IMOs you mentioned.

 

[bigbottomline]

So you tend to agree that 5% or less comes from the wood. And now in THIS thread we need to provide proof to you. You are the one coming in with an opposing view.

If you haven't noticed I provided audio/video clips on the prior page.

What say you?

True, I did say "I tend to agree with this." Not a hard stance on the subject, but yes, a stance, a conclusion nonetheless. I respectfully retract my "I haven't concluded" claim and apologize.

But I really don't know. I'm skeptical. I tend to agree that wood type doesn't make a noticeable difference because I haven't heard/been shown otherwise, but I must always keep an open mind. Everyone has preconceptions, including me.

So I do have a burden here. I will listen to your clips. I'll see what else I can find, too.

I think it's a fascinating subject, and I'm not trying to insult anyone here.