• 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.

while I think wood matters, sometimes you never know...

#41
Firstly, no one ever has or will spend the resources to conduct the scientific experiments required to resolve the question. Having said that, my view is that it is complex enough a problem that computer modeling is from a practical standpoint the only way to accurately and quantitatively measue the differences if any changing from one type of wood to another would make leaving all other things equal. The key there is to build an accurate model which gets back to the first sentence.

So let's continue with the layperson armchair science because if we keep going around in the same circles for the next decade as we have for the prior decade I am sure we will get to the bottom of this eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novarocker, AlexanderB and Dean N
#42
pacojas said:
i'm reporting everyone in this thread for ignoring weather! the same bass will sound different on a rainy day regardless of the wood spec's, ime.
we need to explore this topic in the vacuum of space, imo!
:D
Click to expand...

You know what, this is the best place for the experiment. Ash necks/maple fingerboards vs maple necks/ rosewood fingerboards:
Orion constellation (it's only 17.5 lightyears away):

Orion-Constellation.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wisebass and pacojas
#43
I don't see why so much debate goes on about "tone" wood, especially on a bass guitar. It seems to me that once you plug into an amplifier and dial in your preferred settings, the particular wood species slides right down to the lower end of the scale (pardon my pun).

Plus, I think there are a few other, less dramatic variables that have a higher impact on the sound, such as players touch, type of strings and strumming preference (pick, thumbs, fingers, etc.). I could be wrong, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novarocker and blindrabbit
#44
Flaked Beans said:
You know what, this is the best place for the experiment. Ash necks/maple fingerboards vs maple necks/ rosewood fingerboards:
Orion constellation (it's only 17.5 lightyears away):

Orion-Constellation.jpg
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Orion constellation is a so-called "star nursery". One would need to alter the conditions such that they replicate both the level and mix of radiation seen on Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pacojas and Flaked Beans
#46
I would have expected #2 to be brighter and more mid scooped as well.

Bass #1 is mostly all mellower sounding tone woods, minus the maple board, which probably adds some definition.

Bass #2 is mostly all bright sounding tone woods, minus the rosewood board.
 
#47
Richie Se7en said:
I don't see why so much debate goes on about "tone" wood, especially on a bass guitar. It seems to me that once you plug into an amplifier and dial in your preferred settings, the particular wood species slides right down to the lower end of the scale (pardon my pun).

Plus, I think there are a few other, less dramatic variables that have a higher impact on the sound, such as players touch, type of strings and strumming preference (pick, thumbs, fingers, etc.). I could be wrong, though.
Click to expand...
I don't think the question is really geared toward the most significant differences. I think the question is around where the subtle difference lie.

If we compare hearing bass tone to tasting wine, we are all Neanderthals relatively speaking. We dismiss the attempt to define or quantify tone by saying pedantic things like it's all subjective, or it's all in the hands. I don't suggest we need a lexicon of bass tone or formally trained bass sommeliers to tell us how different tones compare. But tone to the ears like flavor to the palette is experienced differently by different people.

There is virtue in both attempting to explore the great depths of those things we don't understand very well, along with attempting to simplify matters down to what is most pragmatic. To me, that is really what this argument has become.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monsterthompson
#48
pacojas said:
:p
isn't that where the Grey aliens are from?
Click to expand...

Exactly! Greys will help us for this experiment and finally we will have the opportunity to compare our famous american rock maple to that special (weird looking) alien figured maple from orion. I've heard some people say their maple (from orion const.) is not very bright at all, but you never know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pacojas
#50
M.R. Ogle said:
You know, If I have a bass that has an "X" wood body, and I switch to a "Y" wood body, and it sounds different, I don't NEED any statistical analysis or larger sample to tell me that the wood makes a difference. It just did.
Click to expand...

Right, except you can go from a bass with an "x" wood to another bass with "x" wood and they will sound different as well.

No two basses will ever sound exactly the same, wether it be audible to the human ear or not.

No two pieces of wood are the same, even if the same species....as is with strings, bridge etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wisebass
#53
Since in the OP it is said to be "significantly brighter", I wonder two things (which I did not see in scanning other responses) - one, is the tonal difference noticed, and as significant, unplugged? If not, then I think what you have is a difference in pickup windings, or other electronics anomaly, regardless of being the same make/model.
 
#54
Another variable to add to the equation: open strings vs fretted strings.

On an open string, the effect of the fingerboard is minimal on a vibrating string compared to one pressed to the board.
 
#55
IF wood matters, it will matter most in the area with the smallest cross section that is bearing the stress of the strings. (i.e. the neck especially near the nut. The body would have negligible effect in comparison.

Of course this assumes everything else like hardware and neck joint are mechanically sound and no vibrational energy is being lost there. In such cases THEN body wood might make a difference after all if the wood is too soft to ensure good mechanical coupling.
 
#56
Caca de Kick said:
As you said yourself: a tale of two, no. but 200 and you got yourself a consistancy.

The perfect example for this would be the simple and plentiful StingRay 4 string. Since 2000, Musicman has made them from all ash bodies. In 2006 as an anniversary they made 783 with solid mahogany bodies...the only thing changed here is the body, the neck and electronics all the same. And among these two basses with hundreds of examples everywhere, the ash bodied ones "tend to" sound one way and the mahogany body ones again "tend to" sound another way. Its a very good example given the quantity out there.

But at the same time, I'm also of the belief that when building small runs of custom basses with sandwich woods where few are built the same, expecting a result is a total crapshoot.
Click to expand...
What about the weights of the MM Stingray basses?
 
Last edited:
#57
Wood does matter. There should be no debate about it. Is it the MOST IMPORTANT THING? No. I think the discussion gets shortchanged by shorthand speak, as it were. When someone says that alder sounds this way and swamp ash sounds that way, they are wrong. What they should add is "tends to sound.." That is correct. There are no absolutes in how a piece of wood will behave. But, there are probabilities. Like it or not, probabilities are all we have to work with.
I do agree that pickups, strings and hardware have a more pronounced influence on tone. But that said, if you move all of those things to different wood, you WILL get a different sound. That seems inescapable to me.
 
#59
Wood matters; the ways in which it matters can be very broadly generalized; individual pieces of wood can and will vary highly from general expectations. It can be described but not predicted. There are some very good posts here weighing in on the matter. All of it becomes 100x more true on acoustic instruments.

Attempting to draw all these conclusions in the presence of so many confounding variables is a fool's errand. It's very easy to mis-attribute some quality to a species of wood... or a type of string or pickup... etc etc. Probably best to describe individual basses specifically; models of bass generally; and components and wood species most vaguely and general of all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctmullins
#60
tbz said:
I would have expected #2 to be brighter and more mid scooped as well.

Bass #1 is mostly all mellower sounding tone woods, minus the maple board, which probably adds some definition.

Bass #2 is mostly all bright sounding tone woods, minus the rosewood board.
Click to expand...
Why is the universal assumption of rosewood that it's mellow sounding? It's harder than maple, and "should be" brighter sounding.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back