How about this: Instead of recording muddy sounding and poorly mixed rock clips you record a jazz trio of piano, drums, and bass? Then maybe you'll see how much the wood's effect on the tone matters.
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.
You mean you can't determine all this just by listening?
Those details are irrelevant to the question of whether you can hear the difference between a tonewood bass and a scrap lumber bass.
To help you and Dan and others understand the SHAM you are pulling in this silly "test". How about if I we're to use the exact same two basses and the exact same recordings but instead of posing the question as "which wood is it" how about I ask the question "which bass has the type A string vs the type B string String" or which bass is being played directly between the pickups vs over the neck pickup" or "which bass has the 1 month old strings vs the new strings" or "which bass has the strings bent on the breakover point on the bridge vs not bent" or "which bass has pickups taped on vs screwed on" or "which bass has the pickup pole pieces closer to the string" or "which bass has an active vs passive preamp" or "which bass is connected with a 100ft output cable vs a 10ft output cable" or "which bass uses foil grounding vs no grounding" or you name it.
Each of these things can effect the tone of the bass to varying degrees as does the wood of the body, the wood of the neck and the wood of the Fretboard and many other variables. To imply as Dan continues to do (and apparently you support) that the only difference between these two basses is the body wood is absurd.
Perform a REAL scientific test vs this 4th grade science fair garbage and I'll listen to what you have to say. Until then, junk science is just that - JUNK.
Wrong. Up to this point the idea that wood made a difference in tone had never crossed my mind.
LOL. Yep, good analogy.
Like I said before, as a custom builder, I probably should play up this silly "wood matters" thing. But I just can't bring myself to fraud people that way.
The tone is in your fingers first, then pickups, then strings. That's 95% of it.
So you can't tell the difference between tonewood and scrap lumber because the pickups are mounted differently?
Shouldn't the difference be so blatantly obvious that it's apparent regardless that the bridges aren't identical? I think that's the viewpoint Dan's aiming at.
And I think you make his point: wood matters slightly in isolation, but basses aren't (generally) played in isolation, and the hundred other factors involved in making amplified music with other musicians masks any contribution made by wood to the extent that it becomes irrelevant.
YMMV depending on context: jazz trio via Phil Jones, or Baby Slaughter tribute band via Ampeg.
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.
Hi Dan,
I wont argue with you whether or not wood makes enough of a difference in tone to matter, I believe it does, but I do have a serious question that I think is a legitimate one and may be interesting to hear your honest answer:
What do you think is missing in Tobias's, Furlanetto's, Coppolo's, Sadowsky's and Fodera's ( just to name a few) experience and/or analysis to lead them to believe that wood makes a huge difference in tone? I know these luthiers do feel this way, after making literally thousands of instruments, and want to know why you think they are mistaken.
I DO NOT believe wood makes a difference because these builders say it does, but because it is my personal experience. They just re affirm my findings.
Please dont say " I dont know", because there must be something tangible that is going on to lead them in a wrong direction as (even you must admit) there is a strong concensus amongst numerous luthiers about this subject. Also they do not think this way because their customers tell them what to think, these individuals really do believe personally in tonewood.
Realizing there is not a 100% concensus amongst builders, what do you think is happening to these well respected well experienced luthiers that is leading them astray?
So you can't tell the difference between tonewood and scrap lumber because the pickups are mounted differently?
Shouldn't the difference be so blatantly obvious that it's apparent regardless that the bridges aren't identical? I think that's the viewpoint Dan's aiming at.
And I think you make his point: wood matters slightly in isolation, but basses aren't (generally) played in isolation, and the hundred other factors involved in making amplified music with other musicians masks any contribution made by wood to the extent that it becomes irrelevant.
YMMV depending on context: jazz trio via Phil Jones, or Baby Slaughter tribute band via Ampeg.
Actually Dan's test did not isolate and eliminate any of the variables I mentioned above, plus countless others. So no one can be sure if the wood is a contributing factor or not. That's the point that you for some reason don't seem to be grasping. One is a plank of wood the other a nice traditional body. One also has pickups taped in place vs a nice traditional screw mounting. One also has a completely different bridge than the other. And no one has a clue how Dan was playing the two basses, as he notes and I agree - you can significantly alter the tone of a bass just by changing up on your playing style. Did anyone witness the test being performed - besides Dan, since he has a history of altering the outcome with compression effects and using different basses than he said he used, etc.
So the bottom line remains - the test is SHAM and pure junk science at it's best. Come back with a test protocol that isolates the neck, fb and body wood as the only variable and has it performed with a realistic sampling method vs played thru my $30 2" radio shack computer speakers and we'll talk, until then get back in class - recess is over.
BTW - if you look at one of my earlier posts on this thread you'll see that I did in fact perform a much more realistic test (still no where near scientific - but much more precise than Dan's) of this exact same experiment. Much to my surprise, I found the combination of the body, neck and fretboard wood to have a significant impact on tone. You'll also see where I noted that I am an R&D professional in a very large global scientific community and have been for over 30 years. Trust me, you dont really want to go down the "scientific experiment" path with me on this.
Finally, the name of this tread is "Wood Matters Club" not "Wood only matters a little" or "Wood matters less than pickups" or "Wood matters sometimes" any one of which I wouldn't disagree with, but that's not the purpose of this tread. How much wood matters is something that has so many variables and is so subjective it would take a NASA team and an a fortune to design the experiment to prove.
Good question. Simple answer: MARKETING.
They sell instruments. So it's in their best interest to promote the idea that certain woods offer NOTICEABLE and MEANINGFUL tonal "flavors", to help push their products. Now, I'm not calling all of them liars. After all, wood does influence tone slightly. But they do tend to overstate and exaggerate many of the characteristics of their instruments.
Why would they want to be honest and say "95% of the tone is in your fingers, not the bass" ?
Ok, have it your way. Wood is so irrelevant that a simple bridge change can make scrapwood sound like premium Alder.
Puffery and argumentum ad verecundiam. But given your credentials, you should be able to grasp the distinction between Dan's stated hypothesis, and the straw man you're arguing against.
I said it in the other thread, but bears repeating here: if we were testing anything but perception, we'd be reading temporal frequency graphs, not running a poll based on listening to sound clips. But I think that's right there in Dan's hypothesis to begin with.
In my post above I tried to anticipate the answer that you just gave by saying that I personally know they do believe that tonewood matters, not as a matter of marketing but as a matter of luthiery. You cannot be serious that all the luthiers listed above..or even 2 out of the list are semi- lying as builders and do not believe wood makes much of a difference as a result of a marketing ploy...really?
You DO mean to call them liars..you just did.
Blocking out whats gone on before in this thread lets just have a well- intended discussion on this question I posed;
A well intended and honest builder ( like any one or more off my list) who is very respected and experienced over decades truly believes what he hears in terms of tonewood. What is going wrong? What factor other than deceit is in play?
Ok, have it your way. Wood is so irrelevant that a simple bridge change can make scrapwood sound like premium Alder.
Still trying to twist things to suit you agenda, I see...I answered that same response in your other "test" thread. Did you not understand it?
Ok, have it your way. Wood is so irrelevant that a simple bridge change can make scrapwood sound like premium Alder.
Ok Dan, let's play - please tell me all the exact scientific attributes of each of the two body woods you used. Species, density, grain orientation, grain tightness, moisture content, body thickness, age of the wood, how long it was aged, type and thickness of coating on the traditional body used, coating if any on the plank (looks like it might be treated lumber), mounting torque on neck bolts for each bass, and mounting torque for the screws on the bridge. Of course that's just the wood body discussion, we can still have further discussions on the attributes of each neck, each bridge, each tuner type, and of course the electronics, playing style and recording methods as well as the playback methods and reliable hearing capability of the blind test panel.
As you can see, you continue to imply that the two body woods are very different beacuse they look different - you might be right, then again you might find that they are similar enough in attributes that there's no significant difference in tone, who know's until you've done the experiment correctly. Neither can you discount any of the other variables mentioned above that may be magnifying or covering up the differences in the wood.
So please enlighten us and provide your vast wealth of scientific knowledge of the materials you used to prove your point. Or just admit that the test is aneqdotal junk science at best and really hasn't proven anything about wood impact on tone.
Basstone1 said:
There are tons of very nice, respected people who believe things that aren't true. Just look at Scientology.
And when you go against the flow and dare to challenge assumptions, sometimes the reactions are ugly. As evidenced here.
It startles me to see how emotional tonewood zealots can be about this.
Your logic is flawed. Your argument is self-defeating.
If the only way to really identify tonal differences in wood is to conduct the test at a NASA facility, monitored by teams of scientists in lab coats, with robots playing the basses, and an audience of robots doing the listening....then doesn't that negate 95% of this whole "tonewood" thing??
Man, you guys get emotional about this. It's like telling an Atheist there is a God, or telling a Southern Baptist there is no God.
This is precisely the reaction I experienced over at Gearslutz when I tested a $30 preamp against a $2275 preamp. The $30 won the blind "taste" test, and the high-end audiophiles went bonkers. See for yourself: Invalid Link Removed
And your apparent inability to understand the simpler concepts of testing is astounding.
No one can convince me that a guitar/bass made out of Walnut sounds the same as one made of alder with the same hardware, neck, and pickups.
People believe what they wish to believe. Their PERCEPTION is their REALITY. If they "believe" that wood makes a difference, then absolutely it does....in their mind, and to their ears. If they "don't" believe, then it makes little to no difference ...in their mind, and to their ears.
Altering perception, in most cases, is incredibly difficult ...and quite honestly, way more effort than it is worth. You can take the time to perform a strictly scientific test, using proper controls, blind random listening, etc....and you STILL are unlikely to alter many peoples perception. If you believe wood makes a difference, well then it does to the only person that matters...you. If you believe that it doesn't, well...then it doesn't to you.
So yes, wood matters. And no, it doesn't.
Just depends on which side of the fence your perception lies.
Altering perception, in most cases, is incredibly difficult ...and quite honestly, way more effort than it is worth. You can take the time to perform a strictly scientific test, using proper controls, blind random listening, etc....and you STILL are unlikely to alter many peoples perception. If you believe wood makes a difference, well then it does to the only person that matters...you. If you believe that it doesn't, well...then it doesn't to you.
So yes, wood matters. And no, it doesn't.
Just depends on which side of the fence your perception lies.
