Actually I probably could, assuming you don't try pulling a fast one along the lines of "HAHA THEY WERE BOTH ASH! JOKE'S ON YOU!" Just because you can't hear the difference doesn't mean we can't either.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Actually I probably could, assuming you don't try pulling a fast one along the lines of "HAHA THEY WERE BOTH ASH! JOKE'S ON YOU!" Just because you can't hear the difference doesn't mean we can't either.
Actually I don't see the "how much" factor was ever an issue.
Doesn't the fact that you ask "how much" mean it does matter?
The effect of any component in an instrument has always been a question of degree...and the perceptive abilities of the listener.
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.
I don't think so.
The question is "Does Tonewood make any difference at all?"
If we have to look for proof in tests done by scientists (as long as both the tests and the scientists are legitimate), then they are more likely to be able to single out properties of the wood that may or may not make a difference. If there is even a bit of difference found in those woods, then the vibrations of the wood itself are affected by those qualities and will vibrate differently.
Considering that Electric Basses are instruments that get their sound from vibrations, wouldn't it make sense that the wood itself contributes to the tone of the instrument?
I'm not saying that changing one wood is the be-all-and-end-all and will make a world of difference to everyone, but that if the person who is playing the instrument finds an audibly common character in the basses he plays due to wood choices mostly, wouldn't it make sense to consider that it may be the wood after all?
I think it really comes down to: If it matters to you, cool. If not, that's cool too. I think it matters and I've noticed that, even with a paint job, I can usually tell when I'm playing an ash bass and that it generally doesn't do it for me. (I saw this also knowing, ironically, that the bass I'm playing in my avatar is a Marcus Miller Signature
)
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.
Nice game Dan, but your actions tell how desperate you are to grasp at some little corner of this argument that's defensible enough to win. First it's Wood makes no difference in tone, then the argument is reduced to just Alder sounds no different than Swamp Ash, then its further reduced to Body Wood has no meaningful difference, then it's further reduced to The difference isn't noticable in a mix. Come on, is that the best you can do, can't you move the goal posts at least a few more times.
Let me see if I can help your argument and give you some chance at coming out of this with at least a little dignity - Let's just say maybe we can all agree that Wood makes no noticable difference as long as its Swamp Ash vs Alder bodys and they're being under amped in the mix along with an overly dominant kick drum and a baritone guitar blaring thru a Marshall full stack and played back on your computer speaker system with 2" speakers.
With all those qualifiers I might even agree with you.Now, do like I said and outline a REAL experiment if you want to prove your theory that wood makes no difference in tone. By the way, just the fact that you set out to prove a negative also tells me alot about your inability to design a real informative test.
- Jun 24, 2006
- 2,560
- 91
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: MTD basses and strings; Bergantino Amps & Cabs
Probably the most eloquent analogy I've ever seen on this topic. Outstanding and spot on!
Nice game Dan, but your actions tell how desperate you are to grasp at some little corner of this argument that's defensible enough to win. First it's Wood makes no difference in tone, then the argument is reduced to just Alder sounds no different than Swamp Ash, then its further reduced to Body Wood has no meaningful difference, then it's further reduced to The difference isn't noticable in a mix. Come on, is that the best you can do, can't you move the goal posts at least a few more times.
Let me see if I can help your argument and give you some chance at coming out of this with at least a little dignity - Let's just say maybe we can all agree that Wood makes no noticable difference as long as its Swamp Ash vs Alder bodys and they're being under amped in the mix along with an overly dominant kick drum and a baritone guitar blaring thru a Marshall full stack and played back on your computer speaker system with 2" speakers.
Now, do like I said and outline a REAL experiment if you want to prove your theory that wood makes no difference in tone. By the way, just the fact that you set out to prove a negative also tells me alot about your inability to design a real informative test.
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.
Personally, as much as those threads revealed about the tonal differences between Alder and Ash, they were far more revealing about the psychological elements at play in this debate. The emotional reactions on display were startling. As I've said before, you would think we were discussing politics or religion. People have their beliefs, many times based on nothing of substance, and they have a very hard time processing any information that challenges those beliefs.
They should use these threads in a Psychology class somewhere.
I started that sentence with "Of course body wood matters...".
And now I'm going to start a new thread on the topic requesting a volunteer. I'd do it myself, but I don't have an ash and alder P Bass. I hope someone takes the initiative, the results would be interesting.
I know, the "you" was generic. But that's what made me realize how illogical the arguments against "body wood matters" are; when the real question is, "Who can perceive the difference?"
The first step to recovery is always admitting the truth and not trying to qualify your actions. Welcome to the Wood Does Matter Club!
Great to have you here and we'll always be ready to help you on your road to recovery if you should ever slip into that nasty habit of trying to justify how little difference wood makes. The sheer fact that "wood does impact tone" is important to me and most others on this thread. We could probably all argue to no end on how much wood impacts tone but that's such a subjective and personal discussion it really isn't even productive. What's important is what you've stated and still stand by - "Wood does impact tone". Again, welcome to the club, now get your number.
You have yourself to blame for posting such silliness.
Edit: I find it interesting that you seem to be more interested in attempting to trip people up (like in your ash/alder test...using the same bass twice deception) and insulting those who hold different opinons rather than actually defending your point.
Dan, since wood choices don't make much difference in tone, I think you should come out with some high quality basses made out of balsa wood. Should really help those of us that are tired of lugging around 13 pound basses. I'm sure a balsa wood Atkinson will compare favorably with an alder or ash bodied Fender or Sadowsky, hell with the same components it would take NASA scientists to find any meaningful differences. Apart from the featherweight aspect, which would be a huge plus mark on your side and should see droves of top players and hobbyists alike buying your instrument.
Probably would sound fine, maybe even great. But sure would neck dive like crazy. No thanks.
Just use some Hipshot Ultralites and throw a high mass bridge on there. C'mon Dan, this is an opportunity for you to revolutionize everything we currently think about how much bass guitars need to weigh! OH and the neck should be of balsa too, to maximize the weight savings. This will make it balance just as well as any other instrument.
Balsa is too weak to handle the string tension.
There are lots of reasons besides "tone" that certain woods are commonly used: looks, availability, strength, ease of finishing, etc.
If you can deal with having only 2 strings, this cardboard upright bass sounds pretty darn good to my ears: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9u27zQUYo
How about yours?
