Wood Matters Club!!!

[GBassNorth]

Ok gang, here's something to think about:

Had the test results gone the other way, and people had easily identified tonal differences in the woods, would you still be as critical of the tests?

You bet I'd be critical, science is science. It's like being pregnant, you can no easier be somewhat scientific than you can be somewhat pregnant.
Dan, to be clear several years ago I was strongly in the camp of wood makes no significant difference in tone when kept in perspective of all the other things going on with a bass build not to mention playing style and amplification and the rest of the mix. Take a look at one of my earlier posts on this thread.
I spent TONS of money putting together the perfect bass for my tastes and even went so far as to live with it and play it on a daily basis in practice and in a every kind of mix you can think of for months and months. When I was completely positive my test mule had the perfect pickup, preamp, string, bridge combo I took it all apart and put the those EXACT parts in a fresh new body with a fresh new neck. The results were ASTOUNDING - night and day. The test mule had a basswood body and maple neck with rosewood fb the new bass had a mahogany body and Indian rose wood neck and fb. I was shocked when I first plugged in the new build bass and expected to hear one thing but instead heard something completely different, and in many regards even better. I ended up modifying my final build to compensate for the changes the wood imparted on the tone. The 3 biggest changes I made to compensate for the unplanned effect of the wood was to refret the neck with brass frets, replace the tusq nut with a brass nut and replace the DR Black Beauty strings with Optima Golds. This brought the top end back without sacrificing anything on the bottom end.
To validate that something else wasn't at play I even went out of my way to build a 3rd bass with an ultra light swampash body and maple/maple neck, then yanked everything off my mahogany/rosewood bass (#2) and installed it on the new new bass (#3) with close to predictable results - much brighter, more zing on the top end and a degree of "clank" to the notes. Needless to say everything went back into bass #2 and that's my main bass to this day.
So there you have it - 3 basses built, for all intense purposes all were completely identical except the wood (bass #1 did have a different truss rod and maybe stiffining rod arangement than the others). One basswood/maple/rosewood, one mahogany/rosewood/rosewood, and one swampash/maple/maple. All three sounded very different from each other in spite of the fact that I didn't want them to. It cost me a lot of time and money to compensate for the impact to my plans and my tone that the wood made. I would have been much happier and richer had I not noticed a difference. Live and learn. And yes this information is aneqdotal not scientific but I suspect it's largely repeatable. The only thing I didn't attempt was to play a recording of each bass thru my cheap computer speakers. I did play recordings thru my home stereo equipment and directly thru three top notch reference quality bass rigs (which I also purchased specifically for this bass build to ensure I had not only the perfect bass in practice but in gig and studio).
I wanted the perfect bass for me - regardless of cost and got it, along with a lot of unexpected learnings.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Mod note- EVERYONE MUST READ:

This post is going in both this thread, the test threads, and the "Wood Doesn't Matter" club thread and applies to anyone posting in them.

Respect is Rule #1 here. If the premise of this club does not interest you, it would be best to stay out. If you would still like to post in it despite having contrary opinions, you must do so with the utmost respect. Questioning or commenting on anyone's intelligence, skill, etc. is NOT permitted. Any comments on the recent tests must be made tactfully and without any condescending remarks. Continued snarky comments from those posting in threads they don't agree with the premise will be considered trolling and infractions will be handed out.

Remember- people have different experiences and opinions than you do. That does not mean that they are wrong.

There is no reason we can't have respectful, adult conversation here. It would be a shame if all of these threads had to be closed because some of you can't control yourselves.

This is the only warning on the subject.

 

[GBassNorth]

Logistical?

Folks that are good at thinking about the flow of the goods and services between the point of origin and the point of consumption?

That's too funny. Guess that's what happens when you try and multi-task TB responses while working critical import/export issues with China. I assume you figured out that the word should have been "logical".

 

[mongo2]

Ok gang, here's something to think about:

Had the test results gone the other way, and people had easily identified tonal differences in the woods, would you still be as critical of the tests?

Absolutely, a bad test does a disservice to any hypothesis being tested.

 

[thepontif]

For the record, my last Fodera from 2000 is koa with a maple board and the new one is mahogany with an ebony board. Pups and other factors are essentially unchanged. The difference in sound is unmistakeably different.

If you've played a lot of basses that have all been constructed by the same person in the same shop for 25 years using similar construction techniques, I just can't imagine how one could argue that the material that the instrument is made of doesn't affect it's sound. I guess my experience IS anecdotal so I can't offer "proof" one way or the other (good luck trying), but based on every ounce of sense and experience I have, in my mind there is absolutely no question, wood matters.

Unless of course it's not made of wood.

 

[Faderoktopus]

I have actually rather enjoyed Dans tests. They show only, and exactly, that 14% guessed (or heard) correctly in this very specific test. Nothing else. While I agree with most of those who question his method's scientific validity, how can it be that so many just ignore how profound that result really is? I mean, only 14% of what is most likely the ideal audience to this test could single out the bass made for something never intended for a musical instrument. Even if you hate the sound, there is no denying that it passed for a bass! However little this result might mean to some, I certainly can't help thinking that it might be indicative for a less ideal audience's response to some of our geeky tinkering and tiny tone tweaking endeavours.

My own experience tells me that basses generally sound different from each other, especially when you actually play them for a while and get to know them. I also attribute some of this to the wood, especially neckwood, though I definitely believe that other factors are greater. I really don't doubt the massive difference between my L1500 and my L2500, I can hear it. These basses have different pickup settings and should provide a poor example, but even when I tap the wood UNPLUGGED I hear different frequencies that match the differences in the amplified sound very well. Mind you, these basses have similar body wood, only the tops are different (swamp ash and flamed maple), and the L1500 has a rosewood fretboard. No clips, no snide or emotional punchline, take my word for it or don't. I'm not playing for your sakes anyway.

Though I enjoy the busting of myths, especially sacred ones, I guess the above statement makes me a believer. I agree that the sound on the three clips of alder vs lumber might have been more useful with a fuller frequency range, and the tone is definitely far from what I would use myself. However, it is very sad that so many of the, surprisingly few, attempts to meet his challenge in this thread have been based almost entirely on insulting his playing, tone, mixing, thinking, even bass building and eventually the fact that he breathes.

Honestly, the controversial "wood doesn't matter" club have managed a far more decent "tone" of conversation in their thread, but that really isn't saying a lot anyway.

Enough of the rant, I am a believer to some extent and don't feel like I need to prove anything, my bass sounds great wherever the sound is coming from.

As for numbers, I'll pass. Too much dirt being thrown here for my taste.

 

[JimiLL]

You bet I'd be critical, science is science. It's like being pregnant, you can no easier be somewhat scientific than you can be somewhat pregnant.
Dan, to be clear several years ago I was strongly in the camp of wood makes no significant difference in tone when kept in perspective of all the other things going on with a bass build not to mention playing style and amplification and the rest of the mix. Take a look at one of my earlier posts on this thread.
I spent TONS of money putting together the perfect bass for my tastes and even went so far as to live with it and play it on a daily basis in practice and in a every kind of mix you can think of for months and months. When I was completely positive my test mule had the perfect pickup, preamp, string, bridge combo I took it all apart and put the those EXACT parts in a fresh new body with a fresh new neck. The results were ASTOUNDING - night and day. The test mule had a basswood body and maple neck with rosewood fb the new bass had a mahogany body and Indian rose wood neck and fb. I was shocked when I first plugged in the new build bass and expected to hear one thing but instead heard something completely different, and in many regards even better. I ended up modifying my final build to compensate for the changes the wood imparted on the tone. The 3 biggest changes I made to compensate for the unplanned effect of the wood was to refret the neck with brass frets, replace the tusq nut with a brass nut and replace the DR Black Beauty strings with Optima Golds. This brought the top end back without sacrificing anything on the bottom end.
To validate that something else wasn't at play I even went out of my way to build a 3rd bass with an ultra light swampash body and maple/maple neck, then yanked everything off my mahogany/rosewood bass (#2) and installed it on the new new bass (#3) with close to predictable results - much brighter, more zing on the top end and a degree of "clank" to the notes. Needless to say everything went back into bass #2 and that's my main bass to this day.
So there you have it - 3 basses built, for all intense purposes all were completely identical except the wood (bass #1 did have a different truss rod and maybe stiffining rod arangement than the others). One basswood/maple/rosewood, one mahogany/rosewood/rosewood, and one swampash/maple/maple. All three sounded very different from each other in spite of the fact that I didn't want them to. It cost me a lot of time and money to compensate for the impact to my plans and my tone that the wood made. I would have been much happier and richer had I not noticed a difference. Live and learn. And yes this information is aneqdotal not scientific but I suspect it's largely repeatable. The only thing I didn't attempt was to play a recording of each bass thru my cheap computer speakers. I did play recordings thru my home stereo equipment and directly thru three top notch reference quality bass rigs (which I also purchased specifically for this bass build to ensure I had not only the perfect bass in practice but in gig and studio).
I wanted the perfect bass for me - regardless of cost and got it, along with a lot of unexpected learnings.

Funny how the other camp disregards such well thought out and executed responces like this one

 

[JimiLL]

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to JimiLL's comment in my thread "Help Me Design My Next Test":



I don't even know where to begin. This comment is the final crescendo of insults and attacks from you guys. Yet supposedly, I am the troll, insecure jerk, etc.

Furthermore, my new thread is the perfect place for you guys to voice your suggestions on how to make my next test more to your liking. To better fit your standards of what could be considered a "useful" test. But the first comment from the "Wood Matters" crew is to tell me to die??

Yep.... if trolling threads was a competition... your side of the fence would be champs.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Ok I do admit, it was a little out of line. Maybe a "get lost" or just stayin on this side of the fence would have been more appropriate response. I apologize.

But.... if trolling threads was a competition... your side of the fence would be champs.

Dude, just let it go. Jeez.

 

[JimiLL]

Dude, just let it go. Jeez.

Should I pull my apology? A word Ive NEVER heard murmered here?

Maybe u should let it go too.......

 

[Baron Von Vik]

Jazz hands?

 

[younggun]

"My personal philosophy on bass is simple. I believe a bass should speak for itself with a natural woody tone, deep lows, punchy mids, and clear highs."


After all this squabbling and "debate", mostly stirred up by one guy here, I decided to check out Atkinson's web page advertising his bass assemblies. The above quote is from his own web page describing his work (link). I put the bold in. Now I'm really confused...if the guy's opinion is that wood has virtually no bearing on the tone of an electric bass, then how can a "woody" tone even exist by his standards?

 

[mongo2]

"My personal philosophy on bass is simple. I believe a bass should speak for itself with a natural woody tone, deep lows, punchy mids, and clear highs."


After all this squabbling and "debate", mostly stirred up by one guy here, I decided to check out Atkinson's web page advertising his bass assemblies. The above quote is from his own web page describing his work (link). I put the bold in. Now I'm really confused...if the guy's opinion is that wood has virtually no bearing on the tone of an electric bass, then how can a "woody" tone even exist by his standards?

Marketing?

 

[johnk_10]

After all this squabbling and "debate", mostly stirred up by one guy here, I decided to check out Atkinson's web page advertising his bass assemblies. The above quote is from his own web page describing his work (link). I put the bold in. Now I'm really confused...if the guy's opinion is that wood has virtually no bearing on the tone of an electric bass, then how can a "woody" tone even exist by his standards?

no only that, but his supplier (the people that make the bodies and necks for him) have an entire page on the tonal properties of each type of body wood.

here's the [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] to their 'body wood' page.

 

[jasonbraatz]

Forget the few "pickup placement, strings, and scale length" propagandists. Although they do make a difference in the tone of a bass, the fundamental overall character of the instrument is in the wood selection.

No debate , sorry.

Heh, nope.

If the *completely indisputable* fundamental overall character of the instrument was the wood choice, an ash / maple strat would sound like an ash / maple precision bass, wouldn't it?

Why does an ash/maple P-bass sound DRASTICALLY different when plugged in than an ash / maple jazz? Why does everything with a P pickup in the proper spot sound like a P-bass, every time?

The vibrations of the wood itself (as well as the hardware and construction method) affect the ability of the string to vibrate, so of course it plays a role in the acoustic sound of the instrument - but the bass guitar isn't really an acoustic instrument, is it? The pickup of an instrument with magnetic pickups only picks up the vibrations of the string above it, which makes a drastic difference in the harmonics you hear.

Think about this - is there any combination of woods that would make the front pickup of a Jazz bass sound like the back pickup?

A Stingray sounds like a Stingray and a P sounds like a P and a J sounds like a J because of THE PICKUPS. PERIOD. Everything matters, but nothing matters more.

 

[Tonegasm]

Everything has a tonal property, wood included. My life is metals. I deal with and machine them on a daily basis and they, too, have tonal properties. Grab identically sized pieces of aluminum and stainless, give them a whack with another piece of material and they'll make a different sound. Density, weight, composition, etc. all contribute to the tonal properties of something. Wood is no different and, in my opinion, indefinitely affects the sound of an instrument.

 

[mongo2]

IME, pickup position is a critical consideration.

 

[johnk_10]

Heh, nope.

If the *completely indisputable* fundamental overall character of the instrument was the wood choice, an ash / maple strat would sound like an ash / maple precision bass, wouldn't it?

Why does an ash/maple P-bass sound DRASTICALLY different when plugged in than an ash / maple jazz? Why does everything with a P pickup in the proper spot sound like a P-bass, every time?

The vibrations of the wood itself (as well as the hardware and construction method) affect the ability of the string to vibrate, so of course it plays a role in the acoustic sound of the instrument - but the bass guitar isn't really an acoustic instrument, is it? The pickup of an instrument with magnetic pickups only picks up the vibrations of the string above it, which makes a drastic difference in the harmonics you hear.



Think about this - is there any combination of woods that would make the front pickup of a Jazz bass sound like the back pickup?

A Stingray sounds like a Stingray and a P sounds like a P and a J sounds like a J because of THE PICKUPS. PERIOD. Everything matters, but nothing matters more.

IMO, you're missing ALOT of what's going on with a solid body bass, and i completely disagree with you. ALL solid body basses ARE acoustic unitl you plug them in. and the way that they resonate with hot and dead spots and their harmonic balance dictates the way that the string vibrates. this has nothing to do with the pickup or the location of it. and after owning 100's (and servicing/restoring 1000's of p and jazz basses), no two p's or j's have ever sounded the same to me, and this had more to do with the acoustical properties than the electronics in them.

and BTW, the body shape also contributes to a solid body instrument's tone. a good example is that my custom jazzmaster basses don't sound acoustically like my jazz or p basses, and a telecaster guitar with three strat pickups in it doesn't sound like a hardtail strat. nor does a hardtail strat with tele pickups sound like a tele.

 

[mongo2]

BTW, the body shape also contributes to a solid body instrument's tone.

Personally, I've just recently started to look at that but from the direction of minimizing the size of the body. I've built a few EUBs using small maple bodies and Mustang or a Warmoth neck. I'm very impressed with how they sound.

My most recent players are essentially necks being shortscale neckthroughs with minimal bodies by Kevin Siebold at Krappy Guitars. Last year I asked him to build me a shorts scale for use as an EUB and I was so impressed with how it sounded I ordered another. After re-profiling the backs of the necks and dressing the frets to suit my requirements, they're my favorite players right now. I really like their rustic/ratrod look. I've gotten more positive comments on them that on any other bass I've ever played.

Here's a pic he sent me of my second one:

Link Removed

 

[thepontif]

Heh, nope.

If the *completely indisputable* fundamental overall character of the instrument was the wood choice, an ash / maple strat would sound like an ash / maple precision bass, wouldn't it?

Why does an ash/maple P-bass sound DRASTICALLY different when plugged in than an ash / maple jazz? Why does everything with a P pickup in the proper spot sound like a P-bass, every time?

The vibrations of the wood itself (as well as the hardware and construction method) affect the ability of the string to vibrate, so of course it plays a role in the acoustic sound of the instrument - but the bass guitar isn't really an acoustic instrument, is it? The pickup of an instrument with magnetic pickups only picks up the vibrations of the string above it, which makes a drastic difference in the harmonics you hear.

Think about this - is there any combination of woods that would make the front pickup of a Jazz bass sound like the back pickup?

A Stingray sounds like a Stingray and a P sounds like a P and a J sounds like a J because of THE PICKUPS. PERIOD. Everything matters, but nothing matters more.

Dude, your analogy is very much like asking, "why does a 12 foor pipe on a pipe organ always sound an octave lower than a 6 foot pipe"? Striking the string over the neck pup vs. over the bridge pup changes thw sound just as much. And changing the STRINGS changes the sound a ton. What does any of that have to do with the effect of wood. Putting a pup in the appropriate place on a p bass gets you a p bass-ish sound with a capital ISH. There's more to it.

Honestly, and with all due respect to you as a moderator, if you can't hear the difference between an ash/maple p bass and an alder/rosewood p bass with all the same components then the equipment you're using to listen is TERRIBLE or you just don't know what you're listening for. These kinds of differences are enormous when compared a to b. Identifiable in a vacuum without a reference, that would be tough but not at all impossible. As a correlary, the primary difference between a really great digital front end in an audiophile stereo is not tonal, but a matter of image. Some people simply can't hear it. But LOTS can because they know how to listen critically. If I switch my upsampler back and forth between 96k and 48k without telling people, some can nail which is which right away, and others are TOTALLY unaware that anything has changed at all. Listening is a skill.

As hard as I try, I simply can't see how anyone could possibly argue that the wood used in the construction of an instrument that vibrates is a non issue. It is honestly a totally ridiculous notion.