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.
"Wood and tone" experiment
- Thread starter Josh Emmons
- Start date
To much veriation in things like the very same type of PUP can be different. Even if you swapped the same parts between basses the set ups would be different.
Only way to do this is to eliminate all other variables which means all you will have to experiment with is most likely the wood body itself. Then figure out how to add a stimulus to it and how to "record" and measure results.
I will say this though... the concept of density is not a new one. I would not waste time on the experiment and just ask the naysayers if they can come up with a good reason why guitars do not follow laws of physics (how could wood type not have an effect?)
Only way to do this is to eliminate all other variables which means all you will have to experiment with is most likely the wood body itself. Then figure out how to add a stimulus to it and how to "record" and measure results.
I will say this though... the concept of density is not a new one. I would not waste time on the experiment and just ask the naysayers if they can come up with a good reason why guitars do not follow laws of physics (how could wood type not have an effect?)
Based on my own experiences as researcher in psychology, I would put money down that a double blinded randomized controlled trial would show that they could not. That said, if it showed that they could, I would forever be an advocate.
It's utterly illogical to assume that if a machine can detect a difference, then some humans must be able to as well. So, Beej is correct that the spectral difference could well be moot. Sure, the spectral result would be interesting, but all that really matters is whether any human -- "experts" and audiophiles included -- could detect that difference.
+1. Using a machine to analyze the sound defeats the purpose, assuming that the purpose is to test whether the difference between woods is audible by a human and therefore meaningful. I have never seen anyone post that wood makes NO difference, only that that the differences are insignificant compared to other factors. Proving that a scope can detect a difference is irrelevant IMHO. Those who believe wood matters frequently state they can hear it and that they trust their ears. I fully agree. Let ears be the judge!
IMHO this is needless overcomplication. Use the same hardware, pickup and as transparent an amplification system as is feasible and see if different woods can be repeatedly discerned by a blind observer. For eg, record the setup with 3 wood types. Enlist the help of 3 blinded subjects. 1st, have them all listen and tell them which is sample 1,2 and 3. Then play the 3 recordings randomly and see how many times each of the observers can correctly differentiate.
It might be that you'd be comparing the recording ability of the engineer as much as the sound of the bass.
Based on my own experiences as researcher in psychology, I would put money down that a double blinded randomized controlled trial would show that they could not. That said, if it showed that they could, I would forever be an advocate.
Spectral analysis could be moot if we are looking at evaluation of a person's perceptual capacity to determine differences. There is no point in determining that a machine can tell the difference, when what we want to know is "can a human tell the difference?"
I had a pinched nerve in my neck. The C-6 C-7 thing.
You could see it on an MRI. The quacks wanted to further "testing" involving driving pointed objects into my skin to measure current.
According to their test I was not feeling pain.
I have a lot of faith in organoleptic testing.
Here ya go, click on a wood then scroll down to Timbre/Tonal Color. Invalid Link Removed I use this as a reference when carving musical wood blocks. A bass strings vibrates a certain way dependent on the type of wood, bridge, nut & or zero fret it's attached to. That vibration of the strings is then translated through the pickups.
Add up how much she's spent on shoes. If it's close got for it. If not buy used.
While not perfect these are incredible basses.
...if the point is to figure out if one can tell the difference in wood material outside of the electronics and hardware then you do have to remove the later as a variable. Otherwise somebody is going to say "the strings were worn by example 3 and changed the tone" or "the hardware was torqued different on example 2" ...
Josh
You might want to search for the thread by Dan Atkinson (sp) that was an audio test to see if one could make some determinations on tone.
It caused a real divide here and no matter which position you take, produced some interesting, boring, and mean spirited posts.
I follow dumb guy engineering on this one:
If 2 bases with the exact same everything except bodies sound differently acoustically, the wood must make some difference.
* Can you hear this difference in a mix with all your mates making racket (either recorded or live)?
* Can you make a determination that you like one over the other for all types of music?
* Does one tone inspire you to play differently that the other?
No matter what the test plan, how can you accurately measure something that is purely subjective and not quantitate with any degree of repeatability or accuracy?
You might want to search for the thread by Dan Atkinson (sp) that was an audio test to see if one could make some determinations on tone.
It caused a real divide here and no matter which position you take, produced some interesting, boring, and mean spirited posts.
I follow dumb guy engineering on this one:
If 2 bases with the exact same everything except bodies sound differently acoustically, the wood must make some difference.
* Can you hear this difference in a mix with all your mates making racket (either recorded or live)?
* Can you make a determination that you like one over the other for all types of music?
* Does one tone inspire you to play differently that the other?
No matter what the test plan, how can you accurately measure something that is purely subjective and not quantitate with any degree of repeatability or accuracy?
Then they cannot tell the difference. Others may easily be able to tell the difference.
The biggest variable by far is the ability of the listener to detect a difference. The use of an analyzer will show that there is a difference so that will be settled and then it's down to individuals hearing capability.
+1
This would be important for me to believe the results.
Also, I'm not sure I'd trust any human response (even if it's a blindfold test) other than my own. And I'm not sure I'd trust that either. I've learned from years of recording that it's easy to be influenced by visual factors or preconceived factors. For example, it's not uncommon that the first example gets considered the baseline that others must prove they are better than. And I've learned not to look through the window in the recording booth because sometimes beautiful women sound great until they leave the studio and you hear the track without seeing them. Yikes! What was I thinking?
I see, Mongo, that unless you and others officially sanctioned with "the golden ear" do the test, it will be meaningless.....the ultimate closing of the goalposts.....
later
Tone is subjective. I guarantee if you run a control expiriment running identical sound vibrations through different tonewood planks of identical size, the wave patterns on an oscilloscope will vary because wood density varies from species to species.
This does not guarantee that the "tin ear crowd" can HEAR the difference!
Reference Dan Atkinsons TB "wood doesnt matter" club.
Nothing personal, they simply can't hear the tonal differences between wood species.
This does not guarantee that the "tin ear crowd" can HEAR the difference!
Reference Dan Atkinsons TB "wood doesnt matter" club.
Nothing personal, they simply can't hear the tonal differences between wood species.
I agree, but there's no need to bother with evidence. The goalposts are now closer together than the width of the ball.
No matter what test you do, apparently there's someone out there who can tell, even if the subjects cannot. Unless all humans who are not deaf participate, the test is useless, LOL.
Using a machine to measure tone differences would be good as far as proving if different woods react differently with a vibrating string and if that unique interaction can be amplified by the pickups to provide a range of tones unique to that wood. I would assume that extreme wood density differences (i.e. basswood vs rosewood) would in fact provide measurable tone differences. Of course, you would need to define the specific density of the actual plank being tested and not just take some generic typical density value for that wood species. This is due to the huge variation in wood density from one plank of wood to the next even within the same species and from the same tree.
All that said, you still would not be able to answer the question of "can you hear a difference in woods". To answer that to the satisfaction of the tone wood naysayers is MUCH more difficult due to the hearing ability differences from listener to listener. Fact - some people are tone deaf and can't easily tell the difference between different tones. Fact - some people are hearing impaired and don't even know it. Fact - some age groups are able to hear frequencies that others can't hear. There are scientific ways to account for all of that but it involves large numbers of listeners, pre-screening and essentially qualifying your subjects before you can even start the tone wood tests.
All that said, you still would not be able to answer the question of "can you hear the wood tone difference in a mix". To answer that question to the satisfaction of tone wood naysayers you'd have to first get consensus on what the heck a "mix" is. Is it a soft jazz trio in a studio or a mostly acoustic band In a coffee shop or a classic rock band in a loud crowded bar setting or a headbanging heavy metal group in a stadium? Because there will never be true consensus on the definition of a "mix". Your results will never satisfy a large portion of the tone wood naysayers.
So the best you can do is run what you think are reasonable tests and then understand that your observation on the outcome of those tests is anecdotal at best and like other tests frequently referenced on TB (i.e. Scrap Lumber test) is completely unscientific and only adds fuel to one side or the other in an on going debate that will never be resolved to the complete satisfaction of either side.
All that said, you still would not be able to answer the question of "can you hear a difference in woods". To answer that to the satisfaction of the tone wood naysayers is MUCH more difficult due to the hearing ability differences from listener to listener. Fact - some people are tone deaf and can't easily tell the difference between different tones. Fact - some people are hearing impaired and don't even know it. Fact - some age groups are able to hear frequencies that others can't hear. There are scientific ways to account for all of that but it involves large numbers of listeners, pre-screening and essentially qualifying your subjects before you can even start the tone wood tests.
All that said, you still would not be able to answer the question of "can you hear the wood tone difference in a mix". To answer that question to the satisfaction of tone wood naysayers you'd have to first get consensus on what the heck a "mix" is. Is it a soft jazz trio in a studio or a mostly acoustic band In a coffee shop or a classic rock band in a loud crowded bar setting or a headbanging heavy metal group in a stadium? Because there will never be true consensus on the definition of a "mix". Your results will never satisfy a large portion of the tone wood naysayers.
So the best you can do is run what you think are reasonable tests and then understand that your observation on the outcome of those tests is anecdotal at best and like other tests frequently referenced on TB (i.e. Scrap Lumber test) is completely unscientific and only adds fuel to one side or the other in an on going debate that will never be resolved to the complete satisfaction of either side.
The analyzer settles nothing. It is laughably illogical to assume that a listener (i.e. any/all listeners) will hear a difference even if one shows up on a scope.
Ionizing radiation cannot be sensed by humans: machines are required to detect it. And no human has perfect absolute pitch detection -- a good tuner will always be superior.
