Wood Matters Club!!!

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

"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?

Wow, you guys just can't let it go, can you? Good lord.

Saying that I like basses that sound "woody" does not mean that I believe various woods have drastic difference in tone. "Woody" is an esoteric term that can mean different things to different people. For me it means a natural, organic, vintage, passive tone that does not sound hi-fi. It sounds like an electric bass made of wood.

You guys have repeatedly twisted my words. Never, not once, have I said wood doesn't impact tone. It does.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

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.

Man, your memory is short.

Recently I told you that I was chatting with Tommy at USACG and the subject of wood tone came up. He agreed with me that the whole thing is overblown, and really doesn't amount to much difference between wood species. But he said he is forced to "play the game" somewhat because most people think that wood is a huge deal, hence the wood descriptions on his web page.

Your response to me was something condescending like "I've been building instruments longer than the two of you have been alive". Something to that effect.

 

[johnk_10]

Man, your memory is short.

Recently I told you that I was chatting with Tommy at USACG and the subject of wood tone came up. He agreed with me that the whole thing is overblown, and really doesn't amount to much difference between wood species. But he said he is forced to "play the game" somewhat because most people think that wood is a huge deal, hence the wood descriptions on his web page.

Your response to me was something condescending like "I've been building instruments longer than the two of you have been alive". Something to that effect.

it appears that YOU either have a short memory, or just like to twist my words. i said that i've been building basses longer than the two of you combined. which, BTW is an absolutely true statement.

IMO, 'playing the game' seems to be exactly what you're doing now, as well as with your little 'tests'.

sometimes you say that wood does matter, and then other times you attempt to prove that it doesn't. sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
i also noticed that you never replied to my question if you ever actually selected your own wood and built a bass completely from scratch (other than the scrap wood bass).

 

[GBassNorth]

Ya know, I find it interesting that the name of this club is "Wood Matters" - which I completely agree with and am proud member #13). However, for some reason people pop in and out of this thread putting different levels of qualifiers on it and ultimately implying that it really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.

I think JimiLL had it right - wood matters. He didn't call it the "wood matters up to a point" club or the "wood matters less than pickups club" or the "wood matters unless you play in a mix" club. Maybe someone else can start one of those clubs. The vast majority of disagreement I see on here and other threads seems to hover around which matters more on tone - woods, pickups, preamps, strings, etc. and there's a lot of feverent adherence by individuals to their theory based on their experiences - most of which can't be proven right or wrong because of all the variables.

Again, hats off to JimiLL for setting this thread up with the perfect title "Wood Matters". The more you think about it the more profound it is. If all the wood on a bass were replaced with something else it would matter that it was no longer wood, and likewise if everything on a bass not made out of wood was somehow made out of wood (good luck with the strings) if would matter just as much.

Bottom line, no matter what anyone really thinks about where wood falls in the impact on tone debate, it's indisputable - Wood Matters! How much it matters is what's disputable.

 

[cassius987]

Dan, you are awesome, and the way people are treating you sure makes me wonder about them.

 

[johnk_10]

Dan, you are awesome, and the way people are treating you sure makes me wonder about them.

just as i wonder about those that praise him.

 

[BioDriver]

And just as I wonder why people from the "Wood doesn't matter" side are still posting in this thread after a mod warning.

 

[AntekStalich]

After reading this thread, I must say I liked the post of younggun comparing the nuances of the tonewood to the nuances of good wine/grape very much. Dan Atkinson tries to say that most of blind test participants would fail. Right, this is why wine tasters are not common wine drinkers and they are only given blind test samples.

I simply cannot understand one thing. Every aware electric guitarist knows that exactly the same electric guitar model built from different wood will sound very differently, and the only difference is the wood used. Every aware electric guitarist also knows that strong active electronics will override the wood effect (you can put EMG81 into virtually any instrument to get almost the same tone). Why should electric bass be different? Because human ear is weaker with low frequencies? But the principle is not any different!

 

[mongo2]

Why should electric bass be different? Because human ear is weaker with low frequencies? But the principle is not any different!

The upper partials is what gives the bass it's timbre so insensitivity to lows doesn't really matter all that much.

I think that one thing in play that isn't mentioned is that some have damaged hearing due to listening to loud music which has it's largest effect in the upper frequencies and those with that kind of damage may very well not notice a difference in timbre.

 

[JimiLL]

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.

True the pick up only "picks up" the vibrations in the string... but the nuances of the vibrations come from what everything is attatched to. Nut, strings, fret wire, bridge and most importantly, WOOD

Cant you feel a bass vibrate in your hands when you play it?

 

[JimiLL]

And just as I wonder why people from the "Wood doesn't matter" side are still posting in this thread after a mod warning.

Posting on both sides is allowed, as long as it remains civil.

With that said, some people just have an attention complex, I guess

 

[younggun]

You guys have repeatedly twisted my words. Never, not once, have I said wood doesn't impact tone. It does.

Yet this is your first post in this thread:

Please do NOT include me in this club.

...you know, the thread called "Wood Matters". Just what conclusion is anyone supposed to derive from that statement?

Dan, I'm not trying to be insulting or condescending to you. In some way I appreciate what I think you are trying to do. I don't know you or have any idea what your motivations are, I just see what you are posting up on TB, and its very conflicting. You set up "experiments" in which your supposition is that wood doesn't effect tone in any meaningful way that a listener can discern. Yet, when others legitimately refute your position and methods, you then say that they are misrepresenting your position.

So, here is my question to you: does body wood matter in any way significant enough for the human ear to discern or not (in your opinion of course ).

Take a definite position, then maybe we can all debate something meaningfully instead what seems to me to be a lot of flip-flopping.

For the record let me state: I have my opinions about tone woods which I have made abundantly clear, and have absolutely no problem with the debate going on. I haven't stooped to any personal insults, nor do I plan to. I'm interested in what Dan and others have to say (I just don't think that the "wood is insignificant camp" has presented a well planned or argued position...yet). I also think the best practice when folks fall to the level of personal insults, is to just ignore them and continue on.

 

[JimiLL]

Dan, you are awesome, and the way people are treating you sure makes me wonder about them.

You may have posted that in the wrong thread bud

 

[jasonbraatz]

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.

I never said it was a non-issue, though! Of course it makes a difference, absolutely everything makes a difference! As you certainly know, two basses that are built exactly the same way will sound different. The wood makes a difference, the age of the wood, the finish, the hardware, the construction method, the body shape, and the phase of the moon all change the sound.

All I'm saying is that wood makes up a pretty small portion of what makes any particular bass sound like what it sounds like. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter!

 

[JimiLL]

Ya know, I find it interesting that the name of this club is "Wood Matters" - which I completely agree with and am proud member #13). However, for some reason people pop in and out of this thread putting different levels of qualifiers on it and ultimately implying that it really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.

I think JimiLL had it right - wood matters. He didn't call it the "wood matters up to a point" club or the "wood matters less than pickups club" or the "wood matters unless you play in a mix" club. Maybe someone else can start one of those clubs. The vast majority of disagreement I see on here and other threads seems to hover around which matters more on tone - woods, pickups, preamps, strings, etc. and there's a lot of feverent adherence by individuals to their theory based on their experiences - most of which can't be proven right or wrong because of all the variables.

Again, hats off to JimiLL for setting this thread up with the perfect title "Wood Matters". The more you think about it the more profound it is. If all the wood on a bass were replaced with something else it would matter that it was no longer wood, and likewise if everything on a bass not made out of wood was somehow made out of wood (good luck with the strings) if would matter just as much.

Bottom line, no matter what anyone really thinks about where wood falls in the impact on tone debate, it's indisputable - Wood Matters! How much it matters is what's disputable.

Thanks man.

I never said wood was the end all be all factor in tone. If you take identical basses, one with a p pickup right at the neck and one with a single coil right at the bridge, the two basses will sound vastly different.

Just as if they were the same basses with same pickups in the same spot, but one was alder and one was walnut. Vastly different sounding.

 

[GBassNorth]

Much earlier in this thread (post #68) there was a link to a "professional luthier" article shared by a Wood Doesn't Matter believer claiming the article as "proof" that wood has no impact on tone.

As noted in post #68 in this thread:
"This is a great article about the whole "tonewood" myth. Great read, and makes logical sense: http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm "


So....
I did a little digging and found this interesting observation posted on a guitar forum about the "tonewood" myth link written by John Calkin...

"The author takes a reasonable claim that the builder is most of the sound, and runs away with it to ridiculous claims such as there being no difference in sound between guitars made from mahogany and those made from rosewood.

Well, it's what my father would call "the last honest man syndrome." He's insisting that all is falseness and flim flam when it comes to claims about tonewood, and that he alone has the boldness and backbone to stand up and utter the truth.

And who is this guy, anyway? How many of you have Calkin guitars in your musical instrument collections, or know anyone who has? So far as I can tell the man's main claim to fame is this article where he poses as a speaker of truth to power, but I've never seen him display instruments at the Healdsburg Guitar Festival or seen any Calkin guitars listed for sale at Elderly or Mandolin Brothers.

I did a Google search on "John Calkin guitars" and most of what came up were discussions of this article. He did get hired by Huss & Dalton to work in their shop installing binding on their guitars during the 1990's, but there doesn't seem to be anything online more recent than 2003 in connection with him and guitars.

So my suggestion is that all of us take this man's opinions with a grain of salt, just as we'd take anybody else's. My own automatic reaction whenever I see someone arguing as though he's got "the last honest man syndrome" is to ask: "So why are you the one guy smart enough to figure this stuff out, and everybody else is so dumb that we just can't grasp it?"

Short version: my own opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. Tonewoods do have a significant influence on the tone of instruments made from them, but not to the extent that some of the more overly enthused online tonewood fanatics would have you believe. And the instruments' designs and the skill and techniques of the builders have an enormous influence on the tone, but not quite to the extent that people like Mr. Calkin would have you believe.

There are always a combination of factors that come into play.

Hope that makes sense.


Once again, more snake oil than fact when you start to dig a little.

 

[JimiLL]

Much earlier in this thread (post #68) there was a link to a "professional luthier" article shared by a Wood Doesn't Matter believer claiming the article as "proof" that wood has no impact on tone.

As noted in post #68 in this thread:
"This is a great article about the whole "tonewood" myth. Great read, and makes logical sense: http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm "


So....
I did a little digging and found this interesting observation posted on a guitar forum about the "tonewood" myth link written by John Calkin...

"The author takes a reasonable claim that the builder is most of the sound, and runs away with it to ridiculous claims such as there being no difference in sound between guitars made from mahogany and those made from rosewood.

Well, it's what my father would call "the last honest man syndrome." He's insisting that all is falseness and flim flam when it comes to claims about tonewood, and that he alone has the boldness and backbone to stand up and utter the truth.

And who is this guy, anyway? How many of you have Calkin guitars in your musical instrument collections, or know anyone who has? So far as I can tell the man's main claim to fame is this article where he poses as a speaker of truth to power, but I've never seen him display instruments at the Healdsburg Guitar Festival or seen any Calkin guitars listed for sale at Elderly or Mandolin Brothers.

I did a Google search on "John Calkin guitars" and most of what came up were discussions of this article. He did get hired by Huss & Dalton to work in their shop installing binding on their guitars during the 1990's, but there doesn't seem to be anything online more recent than 2003 in connection with him and guitars.

So my suggestion is that all of us take this man's opinions with a grain of salt, just as we'd take anybody else's. My own automatic reaction whenever I see someone arguing as though he's got "the last honest man syndrome" is to ask: "So why are you the one guy smart enough to figure this stuff out, and everybody else is so dumb that we just can't grasp it?"
Short version: my own opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. Tonewoods do have a significant influence on the tone of instruments made from them, but not to the extent that some of the more overly enthused online tonewood fanatics would have you believe. And the instruments' designs and the skill and techniques of the builders have an enormous influence on the tone, but not quite to the extent that people like Mr. Calkin would have you believe.

There are always a combination of factors that come into play.

Hope that makes sense.


Once again, more snake oil than fact when you start to dig a little.

Now that was funny

 

[GBassNorth]

Now that was funny

Yep, I thought it really resonated (pun intended) with what's going on in this discussion.

 

[JimiLL]

Yep, I thought it really resonated (pun intended) with what's going on in this discussion.

Now thats a knee slapper... get it?? Slapper?

 

[Basstone1]

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.

Thank you, well said.