• 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.

Wood Matters Club!!!

#81
#85
JimiLL said:
#26 - DanAtkinson

Told you bro.... u play with the bull....
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble (or gore your bull) but unless you devised a mechanical strum and fretting devise to ensure consistancy in hand placement, force, degree of attack, length of pull, etc. all you did was prove that anyone with a degree of talent can impart a level of tone shaping simply through their playing style. How many times have you seen people on TB post that your hands (how you play, where you strum, do you dig in, etc.) play a significant role on your tone and you can simply change that tone by using slightly different playing techniques. The other thing you proved was that no matter what you're testing (looks, smell, sound, feel, etc.) there will always be a % of people that can't distinguish the differences consistantly. Weed out those individuals (I've seen numbers as high as 50% of the test group fit in that category) then run a proper test again with reliable individuals that have a proven track record of being able to hear a difference - you'll see very different results.
So again, your very non scientific 4th grade science class test did nothing to further the tone wood impact discussion but it does support the hand technique discussion with some aneqdotal evidence.
Come back when you've designed a REAL wood tone test and I'd be glad to review your experiment design to help validate it's effectiveness. BTW, I am an R&D professional in a scientific community so I know more than a little bit about proper testing methods.
 
#87
GBassNorth said:
Sorry to burst your bubble (or gore your bull) but unless you devised a mechanical strum and fretting devise to ensure consistancy in hand placement, force, degree of attack, length of pull, etc. all you did was prove that anyone with a degree of talent can impart a level of tone shaping simply through their playing style. How many times have you seen people on TB post that your hands (how you play, where you strum, do you dig in, etc.) play a significant role on your tone and you can simply change that tone by using slightly different playing techniques. The other thing you proved was that no matter what you're testing (looks, smell, sound, feel, etc.) there will always be a % of people that can't distinguish the differences consistantly. Weed out those individuals (I've seen numbers as high as 50% of the test group fit in that category) then run a proper test again with reliable individuals that have a proven track record of being able to hear a difference - you'll see very different results.
So again, your very non scientific 4th grade science class test did nothing to further the tone wood impact discussion but it does support the hand technique discussion with some aneqdotal evidence.
Come back when you've designed a REAL wood tone test and I'd be glad to review your experiment design to help validate it's effectiveness. BTW, I am an R&D professional in a scientific community so I know more than a little bit about proper testing methods.
Click to expand...

For Pete's sake. I feel like a broken record. I've seen this rebuttal over and over and over and over, and I'll give my response again:

If the only way to identify tonal differences between woods is to conduct the experiment at a NASA facility, monitored by teams of scientists in lab coats, with robots playing the basses, and with only audio engineers doing the listening...doesn't that mean that wood really DOESN'T matter in a significant, meaningful, REAL-WORLD way? :eyebrow:
 
#92
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
For Pete's sake. I feel like a broken record. I've seen this rebuttal over and over and over and over, and I'll give my response again:

If the only way to identify tonal differences between woods is to conduct the experiment at a NASA facility, monitored by teams of scientists in lab coats, with robots playing the basses, and with only audio engineers doing the listening...doesn't that mean that wood really DOESN'T matter in a significant, meaningful, REAL-WORLD way? :eyebrow:
Click to expand...

SoonerMatt said:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Click to expand...

Link Removed

I posted this a few days back; you wanted science and numbers, there they are. Given your tenacity I can't say I'm surprised you're ignoring them, though.
 
#93
jasonbraatz said:
Wood matters!



(Just not as much as pickup placement, pickup type, strings, or hands matter.)
Click to expand...

Here's my view on that: ANY component that changes the character of an instrument is important, and any Luthier worth his salt should understand all of the components and how they will ultimately produce an instrument's character. He should definitely understand the basic overall characters of the wood used for an instrument, and then understand how pickup and electronic selection, etc. will enhance, cover up, or change that character.

I'm going to equate building a bass with making wine as a way to exemplify that:

If I was a winemaker, I could use any grape to make a wine, the end product being...well, wine. The thing is though, every grape varietal has a different character. Its this character that the winemaker tries to enhance or bring out in the winemaking process that an experienced wine drinker would appreciate. A good winemaker doesn't make wine for the common guy who just wants to get drunk, he is making a wine for someone who can appreciate its subtleties and nuances. To a casual and inexperienced drinker, these differences aren't apparent. It isn't because they aren't there, its because the drinker just can't appreciate it. You could (erroneously) use their (in)experience of the wine to say "see, the grape varietal doesn't matter, people can't tell the difference. I can use any variety and produce wine, the differences are so small its really only a matter of the additives and alcohol that determines a wine's flavor." To an experienced wine drinker though, the type of grape used is immediately blaringly obvious and important. The argument that the difference between the grape types is small is not the issue, because its precisely that small difference that IS important to one who knows what they are looking for. Therefore, its not really a small difference anymore is it? Do other aspects of the winemaking process effect the end result? Well, duh, of course they do, and its precisely the expert wine maker's job to know what those are, and then to produce the best wine result they can with the grape they start with.

If you are Fender, you don't really care about the wood choice for a bass. You aren't selling to connoisseurs, you're mass producing. If you are a custom builder selling to connoisseurs, you better know and appreciate that EVERY choice you make in a build will add up to the end product...it'll go to your reputation as a builder. A Luthiers' attitude shouldn't be "wood choice is too small of an issue to matter so who cares?", its should be "how can I make that small difference matter even more...how can I work with it and enhance it?"
 
#94
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
For Pete's sake. I feel like a broken record. I've seen this rebuttal over and over and over and over, and I'll give my response again:

If the only way to identify tonal differences between woods is to conduct the experiment at a NASA facility, monitored by teams of scientists in lab coats, with robots playing the basses, and with only audio engineers doing the listening...doesn't that mean that wood really DOESN'T matter in a significant, meaningful, REAL-WORLD way? :eyebrow:
Click to expand...

Hey, this is TB. What the hell are you trying to prove by making sense?

Of course body wood matters, but the REAL question is "how much?".

And the answer is.................................meh.
 
#95
SoonerMatt said:
Link Removed

I posted this a few days back; you wanted science and numbers, there they are. Given your tenacity I can't say I'm surprised you're ignoring them, though.
Click to expand...

This just proves my point further. Thanks! ;)

Again, if we're talking about REAL WORLD, everyday, meaningful tone differences, wood must make a difference that is noticeable by the human ear IN A MIX. That's it. If you must rely on scientists to tell you there is a difference in tone, you've lost the argument.
 
#96
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
This just proves my point further. Thanks! ;)

Again, if we're talking about REAL WORLD, everyday, meaningful tone differences, wood must make a difference that is noticeable by the human ear IN A MIX. That's it. If you must rely on scientists to tell you there is a difference in tone, you've lost the argument.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman.

I don't need the numbers; to me alder and ash sound just as different as walnut and mahogany. You wanted them so I delivered, although I now see it's just a waste of time since the requirements you've laid out are insatiable and you'll spin every response just to make yours appear to come out on top.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back