Pot calling the kettle black.
Guilty and a means, see below. And thanks for ignoring the rest of my post
All I did was conduct some simple wood tone tests. The results didn't jive with what you guys believed. As a result, I've been impugned, attacked, and insulted by the condescending tonewood faithful.
Your first test was a trick and made invalid since you flat out lied and said that there were 2 different woods in each sample. Even then a lot of people were right despite what the poll said: More than xteen percent said there was a difference between the first pair (it's irrelevant if they guessed the right species, they could still hear the difference) and almost everyone said the second group sounded extremely similar and they were right: they were the same wood. It's hard not to be "faithful" when many people can hear differences between woods and when there are numbers (that for the fourth time
you asked to see) that back it up. Again, see the part of my last post.
All the while, I've presented one simple argument: That wood tone is not as significant as some make it out to be, and that other factors are far more important (such as fingers, pickups, and strings). My goal is to enlighten other bassists on the realities of what makes "tone", to save people time, money, and frustration.
You still seem to ignore that there
are people who can hear the difference. Again, not being able to identify species X as alder and species Y as ash, maple, mahogany, walnut, or Madagascarian plywood is irrelevant if you can hear that they sound different. Just being able to hear the differences is how you learn the differences between woods.
Besides, if wood tone doesn't matter then why do you offer to assemble basses made of different body woods?
And somehow, you guys have made this into a flame war.
That you ignited, fueled, and fanned by sticking around and biting your thumb in this thread. I think Gene Simmons is a ******nozzle conman but I keep out of the "We Love Gene Simmons" thread. I see there's a "Tone Wood Doesn't Matter" club and you can be damned sure I won't post in there, either. Hence my last sentence: Please just stay out if all you're going to do is stir the pot.
As a botanist you should recognize that you've completely mis-stated the hypothesis under test and built your own straw man in its place.
Human, aren't we?
How is stating facts setting up a straw man? The original hypothesis was that you can't hear the difference between 2 different woods. I said I could hear the difference and later (as in after his second test) gave an explanation as to why different woods sound different. I even posted an article in this thread showing that there were formulas and measurable, significant differences between woods that give them their voice. Then Dan pops into this thread and said that we weren't actually hearing different timbres because needed science to prove there was a difference means there isn't a "real" one (despite constantly saying he wanted numbers) and that it was irrelevant in a mix.
