"Wood and tone" experiment

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

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

Did you test each body using the same neck and same set of strings? The neck has far more impact on tone than the body, IME.

 

[mongo2]

The neck has far more impact on tone than the body, IME.

I agree...here's my post on that topic from May 29, 2009:

I've found that the neck is the single most important structural element in determining the tone of a solidbody instrument.

 

[BoogieZK]

Did you test each body using the same neck and same set of strings? The neck has far more impact on tone than the body, IME.

No, it was 3 complete basses. Ritter basses FYI.
We have the same opinion, the neck wood is very important in the sound.

 

[willop]

INteresting topic and it would be interesting to see the results...but does it matter?

So wood A sounds better (by whatever definition) than B. BUT...

In the final instrument the body will be routed (changing the sound I"m sure), finished (paint (what kind, thickness), stain/varnish (again with type and amount). Does sealing the wood change anything, and if so, how?

Now what about laminate tops? Wood type, thickness, glue...again, this is likely to change things yet again.

Necks have been mentioned, and what about set vs bolted neck? Or through neck?

And after all this...what is 'better' is subject to opinion. If it's old or says fender on it it's 'better' regardless.

And and others have stated there are things that trump wood in the sound you get - the player, strings, amp, effects.

 

[mongo2]

It's a crapshoot.

 

[PJRL]

It's always a crap shoot. The whole is the some of it's parts. I'm one of the guys that can hear it.

 

[rumblinbass]

Did you test each body using the same neck and same set of strings? The neck has far more impact on tone than the body, IME.

I would also ask about the pickups; type, location, and distance from strings.
Even pickups of same type and spec have a significant tolerance.

 

[NAVET]

A simple question using logic and reason:
IF string material affects tone and IF string shape (roundwound, flats, etc) affects tone WHY do some folks get all worked up over the assumption that wood species affects tone?
If we know sound propegates differently in SS, Brass or copper, why is it not logical to assume it also propegates differently in Oak, Walnut, Rosewood, etc?
Nearly everybody, except the guy who likes arguing simply to argue, agrees we change strings to affect the tone or sound of the instrument. But mention tone and wood species and suddenly WWIII erupts.

Or is my logic way off base?

 

[donn]

You're asking a couple different questions here. Roughly, "is my reasoning sound, about the acoustics of solid body basses?", and "why do people care as much as they do?"

On the first question, what you need to take into account is the way a musical instrument produces audible tones. With a bell, for example, you strike a thin metal shape to induce some resonance, and that's your sound. A tuba is metal too, and shaped vaguely like a bell, but doesn't sound anything like one - because the sound is generated by a sort of lip buzz and reinforced by the interior shape of that bell. Instruments of the guitar family usually have a soundboard that vibrates a little like a bell and produces an audible tone -- or they don't. A solid body electric bass doesn't have a soundboard.

On the second question - people hate to be wrong, especially when they have a substantial, tangible investment in the matter.

 

[fuzzychaos]

I'd think, like myself and others, that you'd know whether you can or not.

It's always a crap shoot. The whole is the some of it's parts. I'm one of the guys that can hear it.

Not trying to be contentious, but I would like to see a simple double blind trial on this.

Or heck, even letting each person who wants to test themselves, several instruments to try that they can change settings on the instrument etc, but in a dark room so the basses cannot be seen. I would hypothesize that most could not get a statistically significant number correct.

 

[willop]

You're right of course.

But I can change strings - $25ish and 10 minutes. I can change pickups...a bit more time and money but not difficult.

Changing the wood...not possible. need a new guitar for that.

But which is best? Is alder better or some misc random 'tone wood' from the jungle of SE asia? One would ASSUME that a $5000 guitar has the 'best' wood and a $100 one the 'worst' wood.

But can that be empirically proven to be true?

If you were to build a guitar what wood would you choose and why? And other than looks or maybe weight, what is that reason?

A simple question using logic and reason:
IF string material affects tone and IF string shape (roundwound, flats, etc) affects tone WHY do some folks get all worked up over the assumption that wood species affects tone?
If we know sound propegates differently in SS, Brass or copper, why is it not logical to assume it also propegates differently in Oak, Walnut, Rosewood, etc?
Nearly everybody, except the guy who likes arguing simply to argue, agrees we change strings to affect the tone or sound of the instrument. But mention tone and wood species and suddenly WWIII erupts.

Or is my logic way off base?

 

[willop]

Last january my son and I went acoustic guitar shopping.. He had an old old handme down folk size..it wasn't good when it was new let along 50 years later.

So we tried a number of different guitars looking for playability and sound. No measuring devices, just our ears. We're not 'experts' - however one defines that. It sounds good to us or not.

We found a used washburn for $180 that he liked. We went into the high end room and I had him play a number of taylor and martins - $2500+ acoutics while i listened, he listened and well...we saved ourselves $2300. We could not discern any difference...

Now IS there a REAL difference? For all that extra cash I would sure as hell hope so. There is certainly difference in how you'd handle a $2500 guitar vs a $200 one...and resale, 'investment' value would be different. Odds are you'd lose more than $200 if you tried to sell the taylor anytime soon, so the $200 one is a 'no loss' guitar - so smarter financially.

will his friends be as impressed with a washburn as a taylor? Why do we care what they think?

I'd like a rik because the one I played was fantastic. An old guitar might have some nostalgic value. The fenders I've played have not impressed me, nor have the stingrays.

could be I'm not 'good enough' to appreciate the difference. If so, that's fine - then obviously teh 'better' instrument is wasted on me.

To be honest i have no idea what my bass' bodies are made of. No clue. And that's not how I shopped for them. So I guess it doesn't matter. (to me).

You're asking a couple different questions here. Roughly, "is my reasoning sound, about the acoustics of solid body basses?", and "why do people care as much as they do?"

On the first question, what you need to take into account is the way a musical instrument produces audible tones. With a bell, for example, you strike a thin metal shape to induce some resonance, and that's your sound. A tuba is metal too, and shaped vaguely like a bell, but doesn't sound anything like one - because the sound is generated by a sort of lip buzz and reinforced by the interior shape of that bell. Instruments of the guitar family usually have a soundboard that vibrates a little like a bell and produces an audible tone -- or they don't. A solid body electric bass doesn't have a soundboard.

On the second question - people hate to be wrong, especially when they have a substantial, tangible investment in the matter.

 

[PJRL]

Not trying to be contentious, but I would like to see a simple double blind trial on this.

Or heck, even letting each person who wants to test themselves, several instruments to try that they can change settings on the instrument etc, but in a dark room so the basses cannot be seen. I would hypothesize that most could not get a statistically significant number correct.

I think you would get the result you are expecting in that test.It takes a bit of play time to get to know your instrument for one.

Strings, electronics, pickups, and hardware will have an effect on the sound of an instrument. Take two AV62RI Jazz basses, remove everything, electronics, P-ups, strings and hardware.
put everything together on one bass and play it for a day or two. Then make a complete switch to the other body & neck. You will notice they won't sound the same, I'm 100% sure of it.

 

[Jim C]

It's a crapshoot.

(the above was in regards to different pieces of the same exact wood species or section of the same tree can sound different)

Exactly, it's a crapshoot making empirical measurements not particularly useful.
Also, if I can't hear it, I don't really care what is measures.

I went to an NHRA event. The difference between a Funny Car going through the traps from 295 MPH to 325MPH is impossible to see however the difference is nearly 10%.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

I'm a big NHRA fan, too.

BTW, I bet if you were IN the car, you'd feel the difference!

Fuel cars "go to eleven" on the loudness scale.

 

[bucephylus]

The neck has far more impact on tone than the body, IME.

+1 My experience as well.

 

[mongo2]

Exactly, it's a crapshoot making empirical measurements not particularly useful.

Useful to demonstrate that there is in fact a difference for those not able to hear it.

 

[GBassNorth]

Did you test each body using the same neck and same set of strings? The neck has far more impact on tone than the body, IME.

+1 I wouldn't dispute that.
I haven't tested the difference a body swap makes but the blind test I did about 5 years ago with two different necks (one solid rosewood and one solid maple) had dramatic differences in tone. The difference was so obvious that every one I played the sound recordings to was able to pick out the different neck at nearly a 100% accuracy rate. Most surprising was my tone deaf wife who normally can't even pick out a bassline in a typical classic rock mix being able to spot the different neck in every recording.

 

[BoogieZK]

I would also ask about the pickups; type, location, and distance from strings.
Even pickups of same type and spec have a significant tolerance.

Same pickups, same strings, same settings.

This was very high quality basses so the tolerance is less than average basses like Fender.

Every pieces of wood is selected and checked to avoid dead spots or wrong wood vibration.
The manufacturer is a Material Engineer.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

...the blind test I did about 5 years ago with two different necks (one solid rosewood and one solid maple) had dramatic differences in tone.

...every one I played the sound recordings to was able to pick out the different neck at nearly a 100% accuracy rate...

I'm a "wood matters somewhat" guy, and I do think that solid rosewood to solid maple should be enough of a contrast to be noticeable. Still, it shouldn't have been an earth-shattering difference, assuming that the neck contour, neck construction, fret size, truss rod type, etc. were truly identical.

I'm wondering if you used feeler gauges to double-check your setup during the neck swap test.

In my own experiments, I've found that a mm or two difference in geometry (specifically, neck angle and fretboard height, action height and pickup adjustment), can make a big difference: enough to influence the voting patterns of myself and my friends, even when one of the "variations" is actually the same neck.