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.
You really do seem hung up on that old school classical logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".
This must be the third or fourth time, in 3-4 different threads, I've seen you pull out that nugget.
Erm, perhaps not. It might sustain a little longer and have a bit more of a "bongy" bell-like decay, but pretty much not.
Lying requires an intent to deceive.
Believing you're hearing something that isn't actually there, does not. It's also amazingly common.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
sorry if it offends you. again, just stating a fact the i spoke with them about it. it has nothing to do with being 'old school' or an 'appeal to authority', but i am pleased to find that my take on tonewoods aligns with luthiers that i respect and hold in high regard. if their opinion was different, i'd have really been be surprised, and would've asked them to explain why.
and BTW, they weren't 'selling' or 'marketing' anything to me.
I don't think many players have ever had a true "everything else being equal" experience.So yes, wood matters. And no, it doesn't.
Just depends on which side of the fence your perception lies.
Doesn't offend me at all, it's just a useless logical fallacy - like a red herring, or "no true scotsman", or argumentum ad nauseam, etc.
It is, by definition, an appeal to authority.
John, I'm sure many of them honestly believe, just like you do. But if they were subjected to blind audio tests -- even a mongo2 utopian test conducted by scientists -- they probably wouldn't do much better than the folks here on TB. And if you made them try to identify tone differences in a mix, the results would be even worse.
And chances are, as nice and respected as they might be, some of them might react the same way you have when confronted with information/evidence that doesn't "jive" with their beliefs.
(These tests are perhaps equally as enlightening about human psychology as they are about woods & tone.)
An opinion based on decades of real luthiery experience and an opinion based on just assembling a few basses over a year or so are very different in the credibility arena.
I'll take "Luthiers With Real Experience" for $1000, Alex.
Man, you just don't get it, do you. The purpose of a scientific test is to remove all doubt and build a solid case that withstands challenges and critics. Your thought process says, if I'm being requested to do a true scientific test then I've somehow validated my point because you should be able to easily tell with out it. ***?
Yeah lets use that logic in Universities around the globe, think of all the money we'll save avoiding unnecessary testing that only proves we really didn't need to do the test in the first place
You sir, have a major logical thought process flaw and probably will never understand the importance of validating your theory through rigorus testing.
As for the challenge I gave you, I got what I expected.... crickets.....
no data, no specifics, nothing tangible - you can't even tell us what wood types you used much less any thing about the wood types. I wasn't even necessarily disagreeing with your theory but simply asking you to perform a real test or at least share your test controls so we could understand how you removed some of the variables that could impact the results.
Obviously you don't have any intention to provide acutal proof or even a basic protocol for a real tonewood test. You insist on pure speculation and continue to pass your 4th grade logic off as solid scientific evidence to cover your very weak position that wood type has no impact on tone (or was that body wood has no impact) (or was that body wood has very little impact) (or was that body wood has very little impact on tone in a mix) - an evolving theory, nice.
Any fool with an ounce of logistical thinking should be able to see thru this test. Unfortunately there's a fool born every minute so your customer base is ensured, not only here but apparently on Gearslutz as well.
I wish you the best of luck in your little world where your ideas, contrary to all the collective professional experience in the entire industry, can be supported with false and misleading data and validated with nothing but cricket chirps. Wow, what a world you live in sir.
Man, you just don't get it, do you. The purpose of a scientific test is to remove all doubt and build a solid case that withstands challenges and critics. Your thought process says, if I'm being requested to do a true scientific test then I've somehow validated my point because you should be able to easily tell with out it. ***?
Yeah lets use that logic in Universities around the globe, think of all the money we'll save avoiding unnecessary testing that only proves we really didn't need to do the test in the first place
You sir, have a major logical thought process flaw and probably will never understand the importance of validating your theory through rigorus testing.
As for the challenge I gave you, I got what I expected.... crickets.....
no data, no specifics, nothing tangible - you can't even tell us what wood types you used much less any thing about the wood types. I wasn't even necessarily disagreeing with your theory but simply asking you to perform a real test or at least share your test controls so we could understand how you removed some of the variables that could impact the results.
Obviously you don't have any intention to provide acutal proof or even a basic protocol for a real tonewood test. You insist on pure speculation and continue to pass your 4th grade logic off as solid scientific evidence to cover your very weak position that wood type has no impact on tone (or was that body wood has no impact) (or was that body wood has very little impact) (or was that body wood has very little impact on tone in a mix) - an evolving theory, nice.
Any fool with an ounce of logistical thinking should be able to see thru this test. Unfortunately there's a fool born every minute so your customer base is ensured, not only here but apparently on Gearslutz as well.
I wish you the best of luck in your little world where your ideas, contrary to all the collective professional experience in the entire industry, can be supported with false and misleading data and validated with nothing but cricket chirps. Wow, what a world you live in sir.
mongo2 said:
I'm curious where your emotional attachment to this tonewood thing comes from?
Anyway, let's say you're right. So what if a tiny handful of seasoned luthiers can hear these tone differences? I'm more interested in the rest of the musician masses, and whether wood tone is a factor for them. Folks around here needlessly obsess over this stuff. I'm hoping to save them time, money, and frustration.
Another way of looking at this - if the only way to hear differences in wood tone is to work for decades as a premiere luthier, what does that say for the significance of wood tone???
You just don't get it....It doesn't take a lot of time at all, they all did it very early in their careers, that's why they've all had real careers at it.
Your efforts to twist everything anyone says to suit your agenda is very telling.
GBassNorth said:Man, you just don't get it, do you. The purpose of a scientific test is to remove all doubt and build a solid case that withstands challenges and critics. Your thought process says, if I'm being requested to do a true scientific test then I've somehow validated my point because you should be able to easily tell with out it. ***?
Yeah lets use that logic in Universities around the globe, think of all the money we'll save avoiding unnecessary testing that only proves we really didn't need to do the test in the first place
You sir, have a major logical thought process flaw and probably will never understand the importance of validating your theory through rigorus testing.
As for the challenge I gave you, I got what I expected.... crickets.....
no data, no specifics, nothing tangible - you can't even tell us what wood types you used much less any thing about the wood types. I wasn't even necessarily disagreeing with your theory but simply asking you to perform a real test or at least share your test controls so we could understand how you removed some of the variables that could impact the results.
Obviously you don't have any intention to provide acutal proof or even a basic protocol for a real tonewood test. You insist on pure speculation and continue to pass your 4th grade logic off as solid scientific evidence to cover your very weak position that wood type has no impact on tone (or was that body wood has no impact) (or was that body wood has very little impact) (or was that body wood has very little impact on tone in a mix) - an evolving theory, nice.
Any fool with an ounce of logistical thinking should be able to see thru this test. Unfortunately there's a fool born every minute so your customer base is ensured, not only here but apparently on Gearslutz as well.
I wish you the best of luck in your little world where your ideas, contrary to all the collective professional experience in the entire industry, can be supported with false and misleading data and validated with nothing but cricket chirps. Wow, what a world you live in sir.
You're even more emotional about this than mongo2. Weird.
I have to ask, is this opinion from the respected luthiers exactly the same as every other respected luthier in the world? You mean there is no luthier anywhere who disagrees with this? Funny. I could have sworn someone posted a quote from the president of the American Guild of Luthiers stating his doubts about tonewood as regards solid body guitars and basses just the other day here on TB.
Regardless, I bet you dollars to donuts, for every resepected luthier who says tonewood is important, you can find another who will disagree. That's why "appealing to authority" is useless as a proof.
Regardless, I bet you dollars to donuts, for every resepected luthier who says tonewood is important, you can find another who will disagree. That's why "appealing to authority" is useless as a proof.
Hey, I respect your right to differ with Dan's opinion BUT, no need for personal insults (i.e. guy who has put together basses for a few years, or whatever you said..). Insults don't further the rich conversation of this thread. Beneath you I would hope.
Either way, I love the dialogue almost as much as I love both my basses: Spector Spalted Maple USA NS-2J (over $2100) and my Atkinson P-bass ($500 used). Whatever the woods of each, lately I've been sporting wood at the rich "old school" tone of the Atkinson P bass.
Marc
Either way, I love the dialogue almost as much as I love both my basses: Spector Spalted Maple USA NS-2J (over $2100) and my Atkinson P-bass ($500 used). Whatever the woods of each, lately I've been sporting wood at the rich "old school" tone of the Atkinson P bass.
Marc
That article may not have been about what you think it was...it was about the use of alternative woods not traditionally thought of as tonewoods.
Dan, why are you even bothering? More than anything you're coming off as a stubborn and pompous jerk who thinks his opinion is 100% correct and that we're all wrong for hearing the differences between woods.
As a botanist I can say with complete confidence that 2 species of wood will have different properties that affect their acoustics and make them sound different - the abundance of schlereids and the presence/absence of trachieds and vessels in hard and soft woods should be enough to show that different woods give different sounds. These structures affect the vibration and resonance that occur through the wood, giving each species its own voice. Hell, you even asked for numbers and when they were given you completely changed your argument and threw up a straw man.
You're not changing anyone's mind and if anything you're hurting your own credibility. Your tests, while amusing, hold no real weight, are not viable or representative in any means, and don't prove anything (Yes, only 16% guessed the correct woods, but a lot of others could still hear the difference between the 2 basses), especially when you try to pass a horribly mixed rock clip as the everyman mixing situation. As I mentioned, use a jazz trio where the bass will be much more noticeable and you'll see your little mix argument is dead wrong.
My advice, for what that's worth, is to just leave this thread alone.
As a botanist I can say with complete confidence that 2 species of wood will have different properties that affect their acoustics and make them sound different - the abundance of schlereids and the presence/absence of trachieds and vessels in hard and soft woods should be enough to show that different woods give different sounds. These structures affect the vibration and resonance that occur through the wood, giving each species its own voice. Hell, you even asked for numbers and when they were given you completely changed your argument and threw up a straw man.
You're not changing anyone's mind and if anything you're hurting your own credibility. Your tests, while amusing, hold no real weight, are not viable or representative in any means, and don't prove anything (Yes, only 16% guessed the correct woods, but a lot of others could still hear the difference between the 2 basses), especially when you try to pass a horribly mixed rock clip as the everyman mixing situation. As I mentioned, use a jazz trio where the bass will be much more noticeable and you'll see your little mix argument is dead wrong.
My advice, for what that's worth, is to just leave this thread alone.
