If that's your experience, no problem, that's what you experience. But don't think for a minute that you can discount or denigrate my experience and the experience of others just because it doesn't match yours. That's where the hearing capabilities of the individual come into play.
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
If that's your experience, no problem, that's what you experience. But don't think for a minute that you can discount or denigrate my experience and the experience of others just because it doesn't match yours. That's where the hearing capabilities of the individual come into play.
Be serious! It will never be over - some grounds for challenging the tests would quickly be found, for example.
But neither would a positive result say anything, if there's no way to establish that it's reasonably perceptible. I think I may have used this analogy before: if I jump up in the air, the laws of physics ("equal and opposite reaction") tell us that the earth moves - the whole planet. With careful enough measurements, perhaps we could test that. No doubt, if you change the composition of materials supporting a string, the resonance changes ... a little.
I am in no way denigrating your experience. I am simply saying that your subjective claim to hear a difference can only be taken as objectively true if you can show that you can differentiate blindly and repeatedly. That is all.
I am not denigrating your experience. I understand you believe you hear better than most and can differentiate. I am taking issue with the fact that you have presented a "heads I win, tails you lose" framework for the discussion and declared yourself to be correct. But never mind. Merry Christmas
And yet, there's another attempt at denigration.
From the posts made by yourself and others it's obvious there is a wide range of hearing capability represented on this forum.
Actually I was trying to be serious, we need to first confirm there is an impact. If not, the discussion is over. If so, the discussion can continue on to "can it be perceived by the human ear". Thats the point where all the silliness occurs, read my previous post and I think you'll agree that consensus will probably never happen on what defines a "human ear" in this context. We all have slightly different hearing ability and in some circumstances the differences in our hearing ability can be dramatic. This is well documented.
Yep, I agree. What do you think the threshold should be?
Do you think all TB'ers would agree with you on that threshold?
Do you think all bass players would agree with you on that threshold? Do you think the general population would agree with you on that threshold?
Here's a fun little test you can take to see how your hearing ability stacks up to others...
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/how-your-high-frequency-hearing-1032484/
You'll quickly see from the poll that there is a huge variation.
For something equally fun try the same test at the same time with someone either significantly older or younger than you (i.e. if you're in your teens get some one over 40 to take the test with you at the same time). It can be very humbling to think you have excellent hearing (which I thought I did) but then find that your teenage kid can hear frequencies that you just flat out dont hear and would swear aren't being produced.
There are actually documented cases of high school students cheating on exams using high frequency tones that adults in the room couldn't hear.
So, does a tone difference exist if you can't hear it but someone else can? Likewise does no tone difference exist if you ask a person who is tone deaf to listen and they don't hear a difference?
You believe that's denigration? Sir, we are ALL biased in terms of our sensory perceptions. There are no human exceptions to this. Shedding this is the entire point of blinded evaluation. You believe you can hear a difference, and I believe I cannot. Neither can be certain without a blind test, period. We can believe whatever we want. Providing evidence is another matter.
Do you have to slowly ruin every thread about the influence, or otherwise, of wood over a basses tone? Is this your one mission in life? To whine every time your opinion is crossed, and play the victim whilst passive-aggressively trying to get everybody to agree with your points?
Butt out, troll.
Well, it would not be rocket science to look at the section of the frequency spectrum in the analyzer that corresponds to the human hearing range, even if you allow for variation of the boundaries.
Just saying.
But, again, there aren't any data to look at one way or the other. I learned a long time ago not to prognosticate the results of experiments not done. Can't know what you don't know.
Just saying.
But, again, there aren't any data to look at one way or the other. I learned a long time ago not to prognosticate the results of experiments not done. Can't know what you don't know.
Just chiming in with a bit of stuff.
First of all their is one large fallacy with this. youre expecting wood of the species to be more or less the same. Fact is that there is often quite as much variation of the physical properties of wood inside the species as there is between species. In hardwoods things such as density, hardness and stiffness are known to vary upwards of 50 percent in some cases.
This means that in order for this to work in any practical way a manufacturer would have to measure every single piece of wood entering his shop. There is to my knowledge only a single one who does it, a manufacturer of acoustic guitars (cant quite remember the name), that measure every single top piece in order to sort the wood and decide on top thickness and bracing.
In order for this to work in solid body guitar building you do not need to measure wood species to find their ¨sound¨, thats obsolete. People already know that, through listening. What would be useful would be constructing a mathematical algoritm that could, from a series of standardized tests, measurements on stiffness, shear strength, weight, hardness, grain structure, and from those data and a standardized guitar model (as engineering for obvious reasons affect resonance) predict how a guitar made from say 3 pieces of wood (body, neck, fretboard) would vary in frequency response from industry standards. And another algoritm that could mate the wood blanks in the companys possession to each other in order to produce a consistent result.
This would require (for reasons already discussed, the problems of objective testing, etc), an incredible amount of work, and huge knowledge of the physics of sound, as well as great knowledgs of computer programming.
And since the worlds fine luthiers can practically get there by ear (they tap wood for a reason), and Fender (who has the funds), doesnt care, cause it wouldnt, in all probability, sell them any more guitars, nobody has done it yet.
There is however a SIMPLIFIED way of, from basic mathematics, predicting the sound of certain woods from mean averages of the species physical attributes. Ill use maple and mahogany as an example:
Mahogany (swietenia mahagoni or macrophylla, replacement mahoganies tend to have VERY different physical properties) has a density of approx. 650kg/m3, and maple (acer saccharum, rock maple) one of approx 700kg/m3.
now we can just look at stiffness and hardness. Maples bending strength is approx. 1.25 times again as strong as mahogany, while only weighing less than a tenth more. the result is lower damping of the soundwaves, which in theory at least means retaining more highend. but because it is stronger and heavier sound waves also have a harder time moving the wood. anybody knowing anything about speakers know that high end need significantly less energy, and membrane movement to reproduce high spl levels, and i think this might account for a slimming down of the lows and mids in maple compared with mahogany, lending a ¨tighter¨ sound. the highs will be more pronounced, as the lows are allowed less movement. to me this makes sense anyways xD this would also account for heavier woods being ¨tighter¨ and lighter woods being ¨fuller.
also maple is much harder than mahogany, which again seems to lend more brightness, i have no explanation on that count though. its just an observation.
so what can we use this for ? this method is at its optimum when used for scouting out new woods, or making qualified guesses at how things will sound depending on the woods used in them. poplar? you can find out that its lightweight, very stiff, and quite hard. Should make for a slightly brighter guitar than an alder blank, but still full sounding. Basswood, stiff, light, but quite soft, expect a rolled off highend compared with alder, but a fuller midrange because its stiffer and lighter.
the only true measure is of course to listen, but thisll maybe help every time you see a piece of wood youve never heard about being used before in lutherie. go check wood database. oh ok. these and these physical characteristics are similar to ash, but this is different, and should have approx. this effect.
youll also quickly notice that Alder, Maple, Ash, Mahogany and rosewoods arent really very special. there are tons and tons of woods that have basically the same physical properties, that we might as well use. there are however some woods to watch out for, that have characteristics quite uncommon:
Port Orford Cedar - its light, incredibly strong, and quite hard. Maybe the most resonant wood in the world.
Sitka spruce - bodies really should be made in this, it strong, lightweight and hard. and i think some guitar players may have noticed that already.
Douglas Fir - basically ash but much more resonant.
African Blackwood - ridiculously hard, but very high damping, and very heavy, its used mostly in classical guitars, where it lends incredible fundamental clarity. it is absurdly resonant for a wood that dense (trust me, i have a fretboard blank lieing around i just tap for the heck of it. its impressive).
Wamara and Katalox - to woods closely related that are hugely stiff, while being very heavy. Something very rare among woods. They have all the characteristics of a good acoustic soundboard while being heavier than water. of course the resulting soundboard would have to be 0.6mm thick, so itd probably warp, but it may have uses.
Arctic Birch - a lighter, stiffer, slightly less hard variant of maple, should be a bit fuller, probably not losing much in high end.
Mountain Ash - actually eucalyptus in nature, this tasmanian wood has some incredible claims made about sound speed in it (5600m/s), where a normal hardwood is around 3900m/s. this translates directly into resonance, so if its true its worth enquiring about.
ill just stop here, the post is already ridiculously long, but i hope some people may have found a useful tool in comparing the acoustic properties of different woods.
last tip. Think about loudspeakers. youll want infinate strength, and infinately low weight. go for that. and sometimes... Mahogany... youll want as far from that as possible for personal reasons. Go figure.
cheers.
First of all their is one large fallacy with this. youre expecting wood of the species to be more or less the same. Fact is that there is often quite as much variation of the physical properties of wood inside the species as there is between species. In hardwoods things such as density, hardness and stiffness are known to vary upwards of 50 percent in some cases.
This means that in order for this to work in any practical way a manufacturer would have to measure every single piece of wood entering his shop. There is to my knowledge only a single one who does it, a manufacturer of acoustic guitars (cant quite remember the name), that measure every single top piece in order to sort the wood and decide on top thickness and bracing.
In order for this to work in solid body guitar building you do not need to measure wood species to find their ¨sound¨, thats obsolete. People already know that, through listening. What would be useful would be constructing a mathematical algoritm that could, from a series of standardized tests, measurements on stiffness, shear strength, weight, hardness, grain structure, and from those data and a standardized guitar model (as engineering for obvious reasons affect resonance) predict how a guitar made from say 3 pieces of wood (body, neck, fretboard) would vary in frequency response from industry standards. And another algoritm that could mate the wood blanks in the companys possession to each other in order to produce a consistent result.
This would require (for reasons already discussed, the problems of objective testing, etc), an incredible amount of work, and huge knowledge of the physics of sound, as well as great knowledgs of computer programming.
And since the worlds fine luthiers can practically get there by ear (they tap wood for a reason), and Fender (who has the funds), doesnt care, cause it wouldnt, in all probability, sell them any more guitars, nobody has done it yet.
There is however a SIMPLIFIED way of, from basic mathematics, predicting the sound of certain woods from mean averages of the species physical attributes. Ill use maple and mahogany as an example:
Mahogany (swietenia mahagoni or macrophylla, replacement mahoganies tend to have VERY different physical properties) has a density of approx. 650kg/m3, and maple (acer saccharum, rock maple) one of approx 700kg/m3.
now we can just look at stiffness and hardness. Maples bending strength is approx. 1.25 times again as strong as mahogany, while only weighing less than a tenth more. the result is lower damping of the soundwaves, which in theory at least means retaining more highend. but because it is stronger and heavier sound waves also have a harder time moving the wood. anybody knowing anything about speakers know that high end need significantly less energy, and membrane movement to reproduce high spl levels, and i think this might account for a slimming down of the lows and mids in maple compared with mahogany, lending a ¨tighter¨ sound. the highs will be more pronounced, as the lows are allowed less movement. to me this makes sense anyways xD this would also account for heavier woods being ¨tighter¨ and lighter woods being ¨fuller.
also maple is much harder than mahogany, which again seems to lend more brightness, i have no explanation on that count though. its just an observation.
so what can we use this for ? this method is at its optimum when used for scouting out new woods, or making qualified guesses at how things will sound depending on the woods used in them. poplar? you can find out that its lightweight, very stiff, and quite hard. Should make for a slightly brighter guitar than an alder blank, but still full sounding. Basswood, stiff, light, but quite soft, expect a rolled off highend compared with alder, but a fuller midrange because its stiffer and lighter.
the only true measure is of course to listen, but thisll maybe help every time you see a piece of wood youve never heard about being used before in lutherie. go check wood database. oh ok. these and these physical characteristics are similar to ash, but this is different, and should have approx. this effect.
youll also quickly notice that Alder, Maple, Ash, Mahogany and rosewoods arent really very special. there are tons and tons of woods that have basically the same physical properties, that we might as well use. there are however some woods to watch out for, that have characteristics quite uncommon:
Port Orford Cedar - its light, incredibly strong, and quite hard. Maybe the most resonant wood in the world.
Sitka spruce - bodies really should be made in this, it strong, lightweight and hard. and i think some guitar players may have noticed that already.
Douglas Fir - basically ash but much more resonant.
African Blackwood - ridiculously hard, but very high damping, and very heavy, its used mostly in classical guitars, where it lends incredible fundamental clarity. it is absurdly resonant for a wood that dense (trust me, i have a fretboard blank lieing around i just tap for the heck of it. its impressive).
Wamara and Katalox - to woods closely related that are hugely stiff, while being very heavy. Something very rare among woods. They have all the characteristics of a good acoustic soundboard while being heavier than water. of course the resulting soundboard would have to be 0.6mm thick, so itd probably warp, but it may have uses.
Arctic Birch - a lighter, stiffer, slightly less hard variant of maple, should be a bit fuller, probably not losing much in high end.
Mountain Ash - actually eucalyptus in nature, this tasmanian wood has some incredible claims made about sound speed in it (5600m/s), where a normal hardwood is around 3900m/s. this translates directly into resonance, so if its true its worth enquiring about.
ill just stop here, the post is already ridiculously long, but i hope some people may have found a useful tool in comparing the acoustic properties of different woods.
last tip. Think about loudspeakers. youll want infinate strength, and infinately low weight. go for that. and sometimes... Mahogany... youll want as far from that as possible for personal reasons. Go figure.
cheers.
Excellent and informative post, unfortunately there is a large contingent in TB that feel different woods have absolutely no different acoustic properties regardless of which woods are used. I've personally experienced otherwise first hand but even that experience has been dismissed as psychoacoustic bias by tone wood doubters. The OPs first post was a very valid one and I wish it were easy to remove doubt on the topic but unfortunately it's not.
Thanks again for the informative post.
I have an idea that's been going around. First from what I understand the tone from identical guitars can be vastly different. If you could quantify the wood better it may go in small part to explain the differences. An idea. Is to take many small samples of the same species of wood at the approximately same moisture content and size (approximately one inch square) then check the weight. If this is done with different species it may come up with some interesting results
It looks like you're talking about density. The density of wood can vary in samples taken from different parts of the same plank.
Hey, i just give you my experience:
I tested last week 3 basses with 3 wood types. All basses have the same body and construction.
Swamp Ash: Sounds boomy in low end, lot of low mids.
Mahogany: Deep bass and lot of high mids but less high ends.
Maple: Very balanced tone, tight basses, singing mids and crisp high ends.
All basses were tested in 1h, same amp, same cab, same cable same position in the room.
head: Merlin bass amp
Cab: Accugroove El Whappo
I tested last week 3 basses with 3 wood types. All basses have the same body and construction.
Swamp Ash: Sounds boomy in low end, lot of low mids.
Mahogany: Deep bass and lot of high mids but less high ends.
Maple: Very balanced tone, tight basses, singing mids and crisp high ends.
All basses were tested in 1h, same amp, same cab, same cable same position in the room.
head: Merlin bass amp
Cab: Accugroove El Whappo
