Wood Matters Club!!!

[johnk_10]

i stated in a 'wood thread' (around 6-8 months ago) that 20 years ago, a guy came into my shop and wanted me to install a jazz bass pickup in the bridge position of his rickenbacker. fortunately, it was a completely reversible mod as i just mounted it to a new mounting plate that used the same mounting system as the original ric pickup.

when he came in and played the bass with the j bass pickup in it, it had a slightly different tone, but remained sounding 99% like a rickenbacker. i ended up doing it for another guy about two years later with the exact same result. in both cases, the bass were later put back to stock since the difference was negligible.

 

[Basstone1]

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.

Nope. I hear a significant difference in the ash Stingrays vs the poplar and alder ones. To me an alder /rosewood P is a different animal than an ash/maple P, all that changed was the wood. They all sound different enough to make a difference..to me. Like Pope said, listening is a skill, some people can hear things with enough sensitivity to make a real difference to them.

 

[GBassNorth]

i stated in a 'wood thread' (around 6-8 months ago) that 20 years ago, a guy came into my shop and wanted me to install a jazz bass pickup in the bridge position of his rickenbacker. fortunately, it was a completely reversible mod as i just mounted it to a new mounting plate that used the same mounting system as the original ric pickup.

when he came in and played the bass with the j bass pickup in it, it had a slightly different tone, but remained sounding 99% like a rickenbacker. i ended up doing it for another guy about two years later with the exact same result. in both cases, the bass were later put back to stock since the difference was negligible.

Very interesting John. Even I would have thought there would have been a significant tone change. Interesting indeed and exactly why we need to do REAL testing if we're going to make wild claims that fly in the face of prevailing opinions. In many cases the "obvious" answer isn't the result you get in a controlled test or in your case with the Ric - a real life experience.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

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.

I guess I could see how my first post in this thread could have been misleading. I was in the mood to be slightly snarky after the waves of snarky posts in my previous threads from folks in this club.

But aside from that one post, my position has been consistent. Let's look at some of my previous posts:

My position is that wood indeed DOES matter. However, I believe it matters very little. Other factors contribute to tone much more than wood choice (like pickups, strings, neck construction, the player, etc).

No, wood DOES matter, to a certain extent. But I believe its impact is way overblown. Other factors matter more: the pickups, the strings, and ABOVE ALL ELSE the player and his/her fingers.

This is the main point of my experiments, to see if my theory is correct. If so, this is important information for all bassists. So much time and money has been collectively wasted on this "tonewood" thing. We spend hours and hours on TB talking about different woods and their tone, trying to figure out which magic combination will give us the sound in our heads. Then we finally make a decision, buy the bass, and sell it within a year to start the process over again. We'd all be better off if we spent that time practicing with whatever bass we had.

If you like the tone of a J bass, buy whatever J bass feels right in your hands and play the heck out of it. If you like the tone of a Stingray, do the same. Get the tone in your head to come out of your fingers, not your bass. Pick the type of wood based on cosmetic reasons. Heck, I have several "exotic" wood basses, but I built them because I liked the way the wood looked, not sounded.

I've never "moved the goal posts". In my Alder Vs. Ash threads, I made it very clear that I believe wood DOES impact tone. But its impact is minimal compared to other factors such as strings, pickups, neck, playing style, etc.

I stand by that statement. I have never wavered from it.

For the record: I've always said that body wood DOES impact tone slightly, but that other factors (like strings, pickups, the player) impact tone more. I think these clips prove that. Only bassists with highly trained ears will hear these differences. 99% of your audience will never notice.

I think both these tests support my original claim: That body wood DOES impact tone, but in a very very subtle way. Other factors have much more impact.

Anyway, hopefully you get the point. Maybe by strict interpretation of the phrase "Wood Matters", I should be a member of this club? Actually, I think I already got a number at one point.

 

[BioDriver]

Link Removed

 

[thepontif]

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!

Yeah I got that. Only the first part of the post was in response directly to you and I didn't make that clear. Sorry.

 

[younggun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by -=DanAtkinson=-
I think both these tests support my original claim: That body wood DOES impact tone, but in a very very subtle way. Other factors have much more impact.


Okay, so I think I'm getting where you're coming from. If we want to have a more accurate debate (and lessen the vitriol on both sides) and start to find some more accurate views, perhaps we can frame the debate into these camps:

Those who believe wood doesn't impact tone significantly enough to make it a worthwhile feature in considering a bass' tonal "character". Therefore Luthiers and consumers should place a very low importance on its selection, or perhaps not worry about the wood at all (insofar as tone is concerned only).

Those who believe that wood is the fundamental factor in determining the tone of a bass, and should be high, if not first, on the list of considerations for a purchase or build.

Caveats:
-These positions are about wood only as a factor in tone consideration (not cosmetics, feel, weight etc.).
-I realize that is only two "camps" and there could be other ways of viewing the debate, but this seems to me to be the views of most after reading through posts.

Now, looking at how you build basses Dan (and this is NOT a slam on your business, I think what you are doing is a fine business and provides a product that people want) my impression is that you are a builder that essentially offers a service of expertly assembling parts made from outside sources into Fender style bass products. In other words you have a pretty thinly defined niche, with a limited number of options compared to other Luthiers out there.
Based on what you build and the style you build them in, I can completely understand why you believe wood has little impact on the tone of what you build and shouldn't be the fundamental consideration in a build. Other factors in your builds override the impact of wood and have a far greater impact on the end tone of your instruments. So essentially, you are correct in consideration of your products and maybe even most Fender style instruments (I'm not really a Fender guy, so my experience is limited in that respect).

I think, however; that when you get to other types of Luthier builds and assemblies of basses...particularly with other body styles and other electronic choices (piezo pickups for example), wood becomes a much bigger factor. My two main axes are semi-hollow bodied basses, custom made from the same Luthier, with set necks and the same single cut-away body style. The bodies, necks, fingerboards (essentially all the wood parts) are completely different on both though, and they have completely different tonal characteristics (which is exactly what I wanted). The wood of those basses make such a difference, brought out through the type of construction and electronic choices, as to be the overall determining factor of their tone. The electronics on board allow me to override those tones to some extent sure, but they also allow me to dial back and pick up more of, and even enhance, the fundamental character of the bass that comes from the wood.


So, essentially I'm correct too...which is what its all about anyway, proving I'm right, right? (just kiddn')

 

[cassius987]

when he came in and played the bass with the j bass pickup in it, it had a slightly different tone, but remained sounding 99% like a rickenbacker. i ended up doing it for another guy about two years later with the exact same result. in both cases, the bass were later put back to stock since the difference was negligible.

Yes. That's largely because you didn't change the pickup position. Jazz Basses don't have the same pickup placement as Rics. This is no proof of anything about wood alone.

I have always found pickup placement >> pickup design as far as impact on tone. Jazz single coils and Ric single coils aren't that different from each other at the end of the day, either.

 

[cassius987]

just as i wonder about those that praise him.

Man, I am seeing a really dark side of you lately.

 

[johnk_10]

Yes. That's largely because you didn't change the pickup position. Jazz Basses don't have the same pickup placement as Rics. This is no proof of anything about wood alone.

no matter where the pickup is located, the bass still had the same harmonic balance, attack and sustain as a ric. a ric sounds like a ric even when its unplugged. same goes for a fender, but if you can't hear the difference, that's just dandy.

i've worked on other rics that were modded (by some other tech) that had a jazz bass pickup in the exact same position as a 60's jazz bass and they still sounded like a ric too, just a little more nasal than the ones that i did.

i also worked on a ric 4001 that had a gibson mudbucker in the neck position, and while that pickup is super boomy, it didn't sound anything like a EB3L. it just sounded like a dark, boomy rickenbacker.

 

[johnk_10]

Man, I am seeing a really dark side of you lately.

sorry, but i have no control of what you're seeing or (obviously) hearing.

 

[Gard]

Everything matters. There's even a hierarchy of "matters" in my experiences:

1) Brain - if you can't HEAR the tone you want, you can't CREATE it.
2) Hands - if you can't EXECUTE what you are thinking, you can't get the tone out.
3) Strings - obvious: dead strings sound DEAD; fresh ones sound bright and snappy; between ones sound...well, some level of between...and you have to get the right variable to work with #1.
4) The instrument itself - with lots of sub-hierarchies: frets, fingerboard woods, neck woods, trussrods, graphite/steel/whatever reinforcement (if applicable), application of construction methods of the neck itself (quartersawn? flatsawn? multilaminate?), body wood/woods, hardware (brass bridge? aluminum? stainless steel?).
5) Electronics - can ONLY reproduce what came before. Important? Heck yeah! But, as a friend of mine always says, "you can't polish a turd", so if all the previous items aren't getting it done, you can't "fix" it here. You have to have a good solid set of tone variables PRIOR to this point, or nothing else matters.
6) Transfer of 1-5 from instrument/electronics to amplification - everything in the signal chain matters to some degree, depending on what it is/does. Cables. Tuners (true bypass? not?). Effects units can totally transform a tone into something unrecognizable, but it still needs to have a TONE to start with.
7) Amplification and equalization - Do we need to go into this rabbit hole? Yeah, you can destroy a tone here, but you can't FIX a bad one.
8) Speakers - Again, a rabbit hole, many variables, but if any link in the chain is weak it won't matter here either.

How much can the wood change your tone? It depends on a few factors. I've said it over and over, I play hundreds of basses a year, all through the same cable, the same amp, the same hands, the same brain, in the same room, with the same pickups and preamp in 80%+ of them. Sometimes, it doesn't make much difference. Sometimes is makes a HUGE difference. It really depends on the wood/woods in question, both the species and the individual specimen.

Ash sounds like ASH - however, "ASH" is a variable tone, it will be within a "tone circle", but not always at a specific point. This is true of ever wood I've worked with...

 

[johnk_10]

Everything matters. There's even a hierarchy of "matters" in my experiences:

1) Brain - if you can't HEAR the tone you want, you can't CREATE it.
2) Hands - if you can't EXECUTE what you are thinking, you can't get the tone out.
3) Strings - obvious: dead strings sound DEAD; fresh ones sound bright and snappy; between ones sound...well, some level of between...and you have to get the right variable to work with #1.
4) The instrument itself - with lots of sub-hierarchies: frets, fingerboard woods, neck woods, trussrods, graphite/steel/whatever reinforcement (if applicable), application of construction methods of the neck itself (quartersawn? flatsawn? multilaminate?), body wood/woods, hardware (brass bridge? aluminum? stainless steel?).
5) Electronics - can ONLY reproduce what came before. Important? Heck yeah! But, as a friend of mine always says, "you can't polish a turd", so if all the previous items aren't getting it done, you can't "fix" it here. You have to have a good solid set of tone variables PRIOR to this point, or nothing else matters.
6) Transfer of 1-5 from instrument/electronics to amplification - everything in the signal chain matters to some degree, depending on what it is/does. Cables. Tuners (true bypass? not?). Effects units can totally transform a tone into something unrecognizable, but it still needs to have a TONE to start with.
7) Amplification and equalization - Do we need to go into this rabbit hole? Yeah, you can destroy a tone here, but you can't FIX a bad one.
8) Speakers - Again, a rabbit hole, many variables, but if any link in the chain is weak it won't matter here either.

How much can the wood change your tone? It depends on a few factors. I've said it over and over, I play hundreds of basses a year, all through the same cable, the same amp, the same hands, the same brain, in the same room, with the same pickups and preamp in 80%+ of them. Sometimes, it doesn't make much difference. Sometimes is makes a HUGE difference. It really depends on the wood/woods in question, both the species and the individual specimen.

Ash sounds like ASH - however, "ASH" is a variable tone, it will be within a "tone circle", but not always at a specific point. This is true of ever wood I've worked with...

+1!

 

[bassbenj]

Probably would sound fine, maybe even great. But sure would neck dive like crazy. No thanks.

Which only goes to prove that "wood matters". We all knew that! the question, however, is does it matter for tone?

My personal view is that wood matters enough for tone that that players if they live with the basses for a while can tell, but the effects are very subtle.

I base this on Jazz clone basses which I own and have played. I find a slight brighter "edge" with Ash and a slight "dullness" with basswood. Of course while basswood is softer it still isn't balsa. I do think that mass or density of the instrument body matters.

But as proof of how slight the effect of wood is, we all know that Bongo basses kill and are basswood. I'm sure one could work up a balsa bass that was killer as well.

So if it's about tone, and the bass is painted, then wood does so little that it's hard to worry about it. On the other hand, weight, looks, resistance to dings and all the rest ARE important characteristics of wood that certainly DO matter and are not subtle. WE all know that. So wood does matter.

But the bottom line to me is a lot like the old hot rod question: Do loud mufflers really make your car go faster?

 

[mongo2]

Everything matters. There's even a hierarchy of "matters" in my experiences:

1) Brain - if you can't HEAR the tone you want, you can't CREATE it.
2) Hands - if you can't EXECUTE what you are thinking, you can't get the tone out.
3) Strings - obvious: dead strings sound DEAD; fresh ones sound bright and snappy; between ones sound...well, some level of between...and you have to get the right variable to work with #1.
4) The instrument itself - with lots of sub-hierarchies: frets, fingerboard woods, neck woods, trussrods, graphite/steel/whatever reinforcement (if applicable), application of construction methods of the neck itself (quartersawn? flatsawn? multilaminate?), body wood/woods, hardware (brass bridge? aluminum? stainless steel?).
5) Electronics - can ONLY reproduce what came before. Important? Heck yeah! But, as a friend of mine always says, "you can't polish a turd", so if all the previous items aren't getting it done, you can't "fix" it here. You have to have a good solid set of tone variables PRIOR to this point, or nothing else matters.
6) Transfer of 1-5 from instrument/electronics to amplification - everything in the signal chain matters to some degree, depending on what it is/does. Cables. Tuners (true bypass? not?). Effects units can totally transform a tone into something unrecognizable, but it still needs to have a TONE to start with.
7) Amplification and equalization - Do we need to go into this rabbit hole? Yeah, you can destroy a tone here, but you can't FIX a bad one.
8) Speakers - Again, a rabbit hole, many variables, but if any link in the chain is weak it won't matter here either.

How much can the wood change your tone? It depends on a few factors. I've said it over and over, I play hundreds of basses a year, all through the same cable, the same amp, the same hands, the same brain, in the same room, with the same pickups and preamp in 80%+ of them. Sometimes, it doesn't make much difference. Sometimes is makes a HUGE difference. It really depends on the wood/woods in question, both the species and the individual specimen.

Ash sounds like ASH - however, "ASH" is a variable tone, it will be within a "tone circle", but not always at a specific point. This is true of ever wood I've worked with...

Exactly, and I'll add two.

9) The venue. It also effects the final outcome.

10) The perception (brain) of the audience member which actually brings us back to #1 but from a different and passive perspective.

 

[xaxxat]

i stated in a 'wood thread' (around 6-8 months ago) that 20 years ago, a guy came into my shop and wanted me to install a jazz bass pickup in the bridge position of his rickenbacker. fortunately, it was a completely reversible mod as i just mounted it to a new mounting plate that used the same mounting system as the original ric pickup.

when he came in and played the bass with the j bass pickup in it, it had a slightly different tone, but remained sounding 99% like a rickenbacker. i ended up doing it for another guy about two years later with the exact same result. in both cases, the bass were later put back to stock since the difference was negligible.

Dave Meros' Ric with Jazz pups:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/what-bass-4-single-coils-596289/

 

[mongo2]

But the bottom line to me is a lot like the old hot rod question: Do loud mufflers really make your car go faster?

No, but they can make the spectators think it can.

 

[Gard]

Exactly, and I'll add two.

9) The venue. It also effects the final outcome.

10) The perception (brain) of the audience member which actually brings us back to #1 but from a different and passive perspective.

Yes, I should/could have added those, and did allude to #9 in my discussion below the list ("same room"). I left #10 off intentionally because we aren't discussing the non-player's perspective here, in my opinion, but the player's opinion. Not discounting the "passive perspective", but I didn't think it was a part of the discussion.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Checking back in on this thread, I also cannot believe that there's any lasting debate on this subject. Of course the wood matters.

One point that I would like to try to clarify, though. I have found that the wood in a bass gives it it's "overriding" fundamental character. Before all the pickup fanboys get their knickers twisted, let me clarify.

It's the fundamental character, the timbre of the instrument, the sustain, the attack, the decay, even the "dead spots". It's there even unamplified, and you can't override that. No matter what pickups, effects, amp you use, you're not going to escape the underlying "foundation" of the wood's effects on the vibrating string. You can color it, distort it, compress it, amplify it to heck, and ALL if these things will have a WAAAY "obvious" impact in the sound that finally comes out of your amp, but the foundation, under it all, is still there.

Overriding does not mean "loudest" or the biggest sound change, or even most noticeable to the listener. It's the fundamental characteristics of the instrument that you can't really get away from, like John-k's Ric with the jazz pickups. Underneath it all, it's Ric-ness still came out.

A fuzzed-out ash bass will still have an underlying sharper attack than a fuzzed-out alder bass. The further out in the sound signal chain, the more buried the nuances of the timbre of the instrument become, probably only easily noticeable to the player, not the listener. A full-on concert-volume distorted, compressed SX would probably sound a lot like a fuzzed-out distorted Sadowsky in row 93-A, I fully admit.

(By the way, the component that has the biggest impact on the overall sound produced by a bass guitar, obviously is the AMP.)

 

[JimiLL]

Which only goes to prove that "wood matters". We all knew that! the question, however, is does it matter for tone?

My personal view is that wood matters enough for tone that that players if they live with the basses for a while can tell, but the effects are very subtle.

I base this on Jazz clone basses which I own and have played. I find a slight brighter "edge" with Ash and a slight "dullness" with basswood. Of course while basswood is softer it still isn't balsa. I do think that mass or density of the instrument body matters.
But as proof of how slight the effect of wood is, we all know that Bongo basses kill and are basswood. I'm sure one could work up a balsa bass that was killer as well.

So if it's about tone, and the bass is painted, then wood does so little that it's hard to worry about it. On the other hand, weight, looks, resistance to dings and all the rest ARE important characteristics of wood that certainly DO matter and are not subtle. WE all know that. So wood does matter.

But the bottom line to me is a lot like the old hot rod question: Do loud mufflers really make your car go faster?

Density of a wood body can be (more or less) directly correlated to the species of wood used