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.
Oh great, another 4th grade science fair project from Dan.
Come on man, you emphatically stated just several posts ago that "Wood DOES effect the tone". Now this pathetic attempt to prove that it doesn't. Are you schizophrenic?
Why anyone would take you up on this completely non scientific test and ultimately provide your argument with some level of anecdotal validity is beyond me.
As I stated before, come back when you have a real scientific test process outlined and I'd be glad to look at your protocol to help validate it's design. Then you can run your test and we can all live with the results.
Until then, you're wasting our time and bandwidth.
Come on man, you emphatically stated just several posts ago that "Wood DOES effect the tone". Now this pathetic attempt to prove that it doesn't. Are you schizophrenic?
Why anyone would take you up on this completely non scientific test and ultimately provide your argument with some level of anecdotal validity is beyond me.
As I stated before, come back when you have a real scientific test process outlined and I'd be glad to look at your protocol to help validate it's design. Then you can run your test and we can all live with the results.
Until then, you're wasting our time and bandwidth.
Oh great, another 4th grade science fair project from Dan.
Come on man, you emphatically stated just several posts ago that "Wood DOES effect the tone". Now this pathetic attempt to prove that it doesn't. Are you schizophrenic?
Why anyone would take you up on this completely non scientific test and ultimately provide your argument with some level of anecdotal validity is beyond me.
As I stated before, come back when you have a real scientific test process outlined and I'd be glad to look at your protocol to help validate it's design. Then you can run your test and we can all live with the results.
Until then, you're wasting our time and bandwidth.
If you bothered to read what he has actually said , that might help. He's not saying that at all. He's saying that it does'nt affect it to the extent that the "wood matters" contingent are saying, it's a matter of degrees, not absolutes.
The reason they are "boomy" is because I ran the bass totally dry, with no EQ adjustments. In a studio, you would normally apply a gentle rolloff of everything below 90Hz to cut the "boom".
But in my previous experiment, you freaked out because I applied a tiny bit of compression. So I thought I would make you happy and remove all studio-standard processing. Just pure raw bass tone.
I just can't win with you, huh John?
Wood matters ...
@Dan Atkinson - why don't you build (assemble 'cause building is a bit more then assembling some parts) some plastic basses dude ...
If guys like Michael Tobias and Vinny Fodera are SO wrong - so am I.
Give me a number please ;-))
@Dan Atkinson - why don't you build (assemble 'cause building is a bit more then assembling some parts) some plastic basses dude ...
If guys like Michael Tobias and Vinny Fodera are SO wrong - so am I.
Give me a number please ;-))
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
The reason they are "boomy" is because I ran the bass totally dry, with no EQ adjustments. In a studio, you would normally apply a gentle rolloff of everything below 90Hz to cut the "boom".
I just can't win with you, huh John?
if any of my basses (and not just the ones that i build) sounded like that totally dry, i'd be very unhappy.
Dan not sure why you insist on your silly test, especially after admitting that Wood Does Impact Tone. So let me see if I can help you fine tune your experiment a bit.
Can you provide us with the exact species of each body, neck and fb wood used on each bass in your experiment. We'll also need the density, moisture content and mass/weight for each body and the finish specs for each bass. Grain structure and orientation of each body will be important to know as well as may the age of the wood and the physical shape of the body and if they are being clamped in place while strumming or held or laying on the bench.
As for the necks - what construction are each quarter sawn? slab fb? What's the fb thickness of each, the fret material, the fret design and mounting method, any coatings or residues on the fb and the types of glues used in each one, what about the nut material and design and mounting method as well as the string groove depths and sizes vs string sizes.
String types on each bass, tension and measured physical amplitude of each one as it's plucked. String oscillation observations (orbital, flat, elliptical etc). Exact plucking location of each string on each bass. Open strum or fretted? Age of each string, break point method at the bridge, wrap method at the tuning peg, break angle at the nut, etc.
Pickups - mounting method for each bass, mounting depth, distance from string to top of each pole piece. Advertised and Measured pickup specs for each pickup.
Preamp - active or passive on each bass? Exact values of each pot at position tested and min/max values, pickup to preamp wiring protocol for each bass, grounding protocol for each bass, type and brand of output jack, type and length of output cable and resistance values.
Hopefully you get the picture, there's a lot more to this than can you tell the difference between A&B then somehow surmising that the wood is the only difference and therefore either is or isn't effecting the tone. Obviously Ive really only touched the surface of a real scientific test, theres a lot more that needs to be in the testing protocol and methods but this gives you a hint at what youre missing.
Said another way, your continued use of your so called test is a complete sham and not worth the bandwidth it consumes.
And as for the argument that it only effects it to a small degree, define small - we could probably start a whole new thread on that alone.
You already admitted it, just go with it - Wood DOES Impact the tone of a bass. Leave it at that or come up with a real test to prove otherwise.
Can you provide us with the exact species of each body, neck and fb wood used on each bass in your experiment. We'll also need the density, moisture content and mass/weight for each body and the finish specs for each bass. Grain structure and orientation of each body will be important to know as well as may the age of the wood and the physical shape of the body and if they are being clamped in place while strumming or held or laying on the bench.
As for the necks - what construction are each quarter sawn? slab fb? What's the fb thickness of each, the fret material, the fret design and mounting method, any coatings or residues on the fb and the types of glues used in each one, what about the nut material and design and mounting method as well as the string groove depths and sizes vs string sizes.
String types on each bass, tension and measured physical amplitude of each one as it's plucked. String oscillation observations (orbital, flat, elliptical etc). Exact plucking location of each string on each bass. Open strum or fretted? Age of each string, break point method at the bridge, wrap method at the tuning peg, break angle at the nut, etc.
Pickups - mounting method for each bass, mounting depth, distance from string to top of each pole piece. Advertised and Measured pickup specs for each pickup.
Preamp - active or passive on each bass? Exact values of each pot at position tested and min/max values, pickup to preamp wiring protocol for each bass, grounding protocol for each bass, type and brand of output jack, type and length of output cable and resistance values.
Hopefully you get the picture, there's a lot more to this than can you tell the difference between A&B then somehow surmising that the wood is the only difference and therefore either is or isn't effecting the tone. Obviously Ive really only touched the surface of a real scientific test, theres a lot more that needs to be in the testing protocol and methods but this gives you a hint at what youre missing.
Said another way, your continued use of your so called test is a complete sham and not worth the bandwidth it consumes.
And as for the argument that it only effects it to a small degree, define small - we could probably start a whole new thread on that alone.
You already admitted it, just go with it - Wood DOES Impact the tone of a bass. Leave it at that or come up with a real test to prove otherwise.
I really don't know how many more times I can say this. I wish I could find the magic words to help you wrap your head around my simple argument.
Let's try this. I'll copy and paste from a prior post I made:
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.
Now, as a custom bass builder, it really isn't in my best interest to yell this stuff from a rooftop. I'd be better off I perpetuated the myth that "good wood means good tone, and MY basses have the best sounding wood around!" But I'm more interested in sharing useful information and truth than I am in selling basses. Unlike some builders, I won't lie to you and tell you that my basses are sprinkled with magic fairy dust to make them sound glorious. I pay for quality woods from USACG because their stuff is lightweight and the prettiest I've seen. Not because it's more "resonant" or whatever.
Ok John. Take a listen now. I applied typical studio EQ adjustments to cut the "boominess". Let's see what those glorious golden ears can hear now.
HERE ARE THE CLIPS:
Clip X
Clip Y
Clip Z
(Now you can respond with a complaint about how using any EQ masks the subtle tone variations, the basses still sound like garbage, your instruments sound infinitely better, etc.)
- Jun 24, 2006
- 2,560
- 91
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: MTD basses and strings; Bergantino Amps & Cabs
The way you play it, you might as well be playing scrap lumber...
Maybe that says more about your playing technique and sound choice than the actual instrument. You have nothing above about 2.5 K on your bass sound to begin with, so how are you going to hear ANY difference, not to mention you have either both pickups on, or your neck pickup cranked, with nickel strings and your tone control rolled off. How are you expecting to hear anything with a bass that sounds like that?
Hilarious...go John!
If you want to hear what the WOOD sounds like, turn OFF the freaking neck pickup, because the body/neck sound does NOT travel that far up the string, put some new roundwound stainless steel strings on, leave the treble up, and then you'll hear the difference. With both or just the neck pickup on, you won't hear a bloody thing but the metal string on top of the magnet...the unique sound and character of the woods in an electric bass is produced at the bridge, and travel a very short distance up the string. That's where the character of the woods is, and the character of the players is; have you ever noticed pretty much all pre basses sound the same, as well as the players who play them? You get a VERY generic sound with a pickup that far from the bridge. MOST top end pro players have adopted the 'Jaco' style of playing, for sound, dynamics, control, and variety of sounds available; look at a lot of 'signature' basses - Alain Caron - one pickup...Anthony Jackson, one pickup...Gary Willis, ONE PICKUP...is it sinking in yet?
If you want to bring that characteristic out, play at the back, by the bridge, with the bridge pickup on, new strings with some treble to them, treble up full (on passive basses - on active, leave them flat), and have a decent enough amp with some top end that you'l be able to reproduce it.
The people that CAN'T hear the difference are the ones that think electric bass should only make sound from 2khz and below...both pickups, fluffy, flabby muffled sound, nickel strings...you won't even hear that much difference on a Pre, you really need a jazz bass to do this, or at least something with two pickups or a single pickup further back.
Sheesh...
Cheers
Cameron
Ok you tonewood lovers, I've posted a new audio clip poll. This time it's Alder vs. Scrap Lumber! I can't wait to see the results. Here's the thread: Alder vs. Scrap Lumber
Head on over and make your guess. Put your money where your mouth is!
Maybe that says more about your playing technique and sound choice than the actual instrument. You have nothing above about 2.5 K on your bass sound to begin with, so how are you going to hear ANY difference, not to mention you have either both pickups on, or your neck pickup cranked, with nickel strings and your tone control rolled off. How are you expecting to hear anything with a bass that sounds like that?
Hilarious...go John!
If you want to hear what the WOOD sounds like, turn OFF the freaking neck pickup, because the body/neck sound does NOT travel that far up the string, put some new roundwound stainless steel strings on, leave the treble up, and then you'll hear the difference. With both or just the neck pickup on, you won't hear a bloody thing but the metal string on top of the magnet...the unique sound and character of the woods in an electric bass is produced at the bridge, and travel a very short distance up the string. That's where the character of the woods is, and the character of the players is; have you ever noticed pretty much all pre basses sound the same, as well as the players who play them? You get a VERY generic sound with a pickup that far from the bridge. MOST top end pro players have adopted the 'Jaco' style of playing, for sound, dynamics, control, and variety of sounds available; look at a lot of 'signature' basses - Alain Caron - one pickup...Anthony Jackson, one pickup...Gary Willis, ONE PICKUP...is it sinking in yet?
If you want to bring that characteristic out, play at the back, by the bridge, with the bridge pickup on, new strings with some treble to them, treble up full (on passive basses - on active, leave them flat), and have a decent enough amp with some top end that you'l be able to reproduce it.
The people that CAN'T hear the difference are the ones that think electric bass should only make sound from 2khz and below...both pickups, fluffy, flabby muffled sound, nickel strings...you won't even hear that much difference on a Pre, you really need a jazz bass to do this, or at least something with two pickups or a single pickup further back.
Sheesh...
Cheers
Cameron
Wood matters. See post this page for referenced photos.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/we-need-one-volunteer-ash-alder-p-bass-743689/index2.html
I had the "everything else being equal" experience back in the 80's. I had on loan to me a prototype for the soon to be introduced Precision Special with active preamp. It's the blue one in the photo. It was a stout ash body. It kicked ass. I said I want one of these when they come out. When I got it (the red one in the background) I noticed immediately it was lighter. It was alder. I plugged it in and it did not have the solid sound that the other ash body had. The difference was dramatic. I sent it back, they weighed every red body they had, and put the heaviest one on my bass. Since then I changed to a passive pickup. I still have it. It still kicks ass. People ask for this bass.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/we-need-one-volunteer-ash-alder-p-bass-743689/index2.html
I had the "everything else being equal" experience back in the 80's. I had on loan to me a prototype for the soon to be introduced Precision Special with active preamp. It's the blue one in the photo. It was a stout ash body. It kicked ass. I said I want one of these when they come out. When I got it (the red one in the background) I noticed immediately it was lighter. It was alder. I plugged it in and it did not have the solid sound that the other ash body had. The difference was dramatic. I sent it back, they weighed every red body they had, and put the heaviest one on my bass. Since then I changed to a passive pickup. I still have it. It still kicks ass. People ask for this bass.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
If you want to hear what the WOOD sounds like, turn OFF the freaking neck pickup, because the body/neck sound does NOT travel that far up the string, put some new roundwound stainless steel strings on, leave the treble up, and then you'll hear the difference. With both or just the neck pickup on, you won't hear a bloody thing but the metal string on top of the magnet...the unique sound and character of the woods in an electric bass is produced at the bridge, and travel a very short distance up the string. That's where the character of the woods is, and the character of the players is; have you ever noticed pretty much all pre basses sound the same, as well as the players who play them? You get a VERY generic sound with a pickup that far from the bridge. MOST top end pro players have adopted the 'Jaco' style of playing, for sound, dynamics, control, and variety of sounds available; look at a lot of 'signature' basses - Alain Caron - one pickup...Anthony Jackson, one pickup...Gary Willis, ONE PICKUP...is it sinking in yet?
If you want to bring that characteristic out, play at the back, by the bridge, with the bridge pickup on, new strings with some treble to them, treble up full (on passive basses - on active, leave them flat), and have a decent enough amp with some top end that you'l be able to reproduce it.
The people that CAN'T hear the difference are the ones that think electric bass should only make sound from 2khz and below...both pickups, fluffy, flabby muffled sound, nickel strings...you won't even hear that much difference on a Pre, you really need a jazz bass to do this, or at least something with two pickups or a single pickup further back.
Sheesh...
Cheers
Cameron
Dear God. Just when I thought the "tonewood" zealots couldn't get any more absurd.
- Jun 24, 2006
- 2,560
- 91
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: MTD basses and strings; Bergantino Amps & Cabs
Dear God. Just when I thought the "tonewood" zealots couldn't get any more absurd.
I know it's a difficult concept for you to grasp...
:scowl:
guess that's why I play MTD's, with some of the most beautiful and carefully selected tonewood on earth, and you think that scrapwood sounds just as good...
You should call up Mike Tobias and tell him his whole career has been a lie...and Vinnie, and Mike Pedulla, and...
Cameron
What I glean is... The first thing you noticed is the bass was lighter, therefore your mind was already dead set on noticing a change before you ever heard it...
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
Hmm. so i guess that after personally talking with Ron Wickersham, Rick Turner, Leo Fender, Bernardo Rico, Paul Reed Smith, Roger Sadowsky, and Wayne Charvel, they are all wrong an Dan is right. okay Dan, you win.
it makes me wonder if Dan has ever selected the wood for a jazz or p bass bass body and built lots of them completely from scratch (besides the 'scrap wood body bass'), or if he has just used pre-made warmoth, allparts or USAG ones. of course it's not necessary to build a body from scratch to determine the differences, but hearing a piece of wood's resonance when it's in it's plank form can often tell you whether it's going to end up being a bright, middy or a dark sounding instrument.
IME, every piece of wood has had a distinct voice of it's own, and when a bass is in your hands, and you're playing it, it can become pretty obvious, rather than listening to recordings over the internet.
i'm completely fine with those that do not believe it makes a difference, and i'm not trying to 'convert' anyone one way or the other. i'm simply stating my own opinion that it does dictate its harmonic balance (timbre), attack, decay, sustain or for a lack of a better word 'fingerprint' of it's tonal response, and evidently there are quite a few highly respected builders that feel the same way.
it makes me wonder if Dan has ever selected the wood for a jazz or p bass bass body and built lots of them completely from scratch (besides the 'scrap wood body bass'), or if he has just used pre-made warmoth, allparts or USAG ones. of course it's not necessary to build a body from scratch to determine the differences, but hearing a piece of wood's resonance when it's in it's plank form can often tell you whether it's going to end up being a bright, middy or a dark sounding instrument.
IME, every piece of wood has had a distinct voice of it's own, and when a bass is in your hands, and you're playing it, it can become pretty obvious, rather than listening to recordings over the internet.
i'm completely fine with those that do not believe it makes a difference, and i'm not trying to 'convert' anyone one way or the other. i'm simply stating my own opinion that it does dictate its harmonic balance (timbre), attack, decay, sustain or for a lack of a better word 'fingerprint' of it's tonal response, and evidently there are quite a few highly respected builders that feel the same way.
Dear God. Just when I thought the "tonewood" zealots couldn't get any more absurd.
Yes, its really absurd that someone would use their settings, pickups, electronics and playing style to bring out the individual characteristics of their instrument. I mean really, what are these artists thinking? Pretty silly that someone would actually try to OPTIMIZE the difference of the body wood's tonal character, instead of covering it up, right?
:scowl::scowl:Next time I drink a premium 18 year old Scotch from Isle, I think I'll just throw it into a glass of Coke. I mean, its just whiskey right, and it would all taste the same if I just put it in Coke? So really, there is no need to worry about where the malt came from, what it was aged in, and how it was distilled. Basses are like that too...wood is whiskey and pickups are Coke. Who cares what the body wood is? I'll just buy the proper electronics and the tone will be perfect.
.
.
.
Since there's no sarcasm font, I'll just use this:
