• 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 tone reference library

#3
Here is another site

Invalid Link Removed

I found this site when I was doing my research on internet about wood and their tones.

Yes ...it's drums site ...but drums are done with wood too and this place have really good information about most of the woods people use to build basses. There are some pictures of the drums too so you can see how the wood is going to look like.
 
#4
Hehehe...that is interesting. But one man's midrange is another man's mud.

I am actually collecting lumber for a future experiment on frequency response. It started with my son as a science fair project, but then he switched to a chemistry project so this one never got off the ground.

Apparently it is more fun to some people to shoot tennis balls with a carbide cannon than do bonk tests on wood. Go figure.
 
#6
eleonn said:
Here is another site

Invalid Link Removed

I found this site when I was doing my research on internet about wood and their tones.

Yes ...it's drums site ...but drums are done with wood too and this place have really good information about most of the woods people use to build basses. There are some pictures of the drums too so you can see how the wood is going to look like.
Click to expand...
I've seen this site before. They've got a pretty solid selection of woods. Not to mention Snares!
I also find it kind of interesting that some of the tendencies they mention also seem to correspond with guitar equivalents, such as walnut being a tad warmer than maple.
 
#8
FBB Custom said:
Please do. I'd love to see something remotely scientific.
Click to expand...
+1

Though it is possible to derive a lot of that info from stiffness and hardness properties, you need a few freq references to do a feasible approximation.

Mr Tobias knows a lot about wood, but he, as all the rest, goes by ear. That is not science, since it is not quantified or related to repeatable empiric methods, nor possible to teach in other way than apprenticeship. I.e. I can't learn from anybody else, because all these 'gurus' are far away...
 
#10
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Tobias. I'd be happy to tilt a beer with him and soak up everything he has to say. But as Suburban says, I don't think there's much scientific about how he has formed his opinions.

I wonder if we could start up another thread to develop a modest attempt at something scientific and actually get people here to work on it.

Here's one of my favorites:
http://www.jemsite.com/jem/wood.htm
 
#11
FBB Custom said:
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Tobias. I'd be happy to tilt a beer with him and soak up everything he has to say. But as Suburban says, I don't think there's much scientific about how he has formed his opinions.

I wonder if we could start up another thread to develop a modest attempt at something scientific and actually get people here to work on it.

Here's one of my favorites:
http://www.jemsite.com/jem/wood.htm
Click to expand...

That's a great idea....The best part, will be tthe differences in theory and application of tests, and the findings of different people.
 
#13
Hmm, gets me to thinking. What if we were to make identical wood "bass xylophones" from each species with an assortment of pitches picked to match our instrument. I wouldn't think we would need no more than 8 though. Then with those and some test equipment, we could compare each different species side by side as well as recorded alone.
 
#14
MIke definately has a thing for
maple, myrtle , redwood and wenge necks!

he very rarely if ever uses real (dense) hard-woods ( for the exception of wenge) for his basses though.
wonder why that is.
with the woods stated above you really have no need for the real (dense) hard-woods though redwood, myrtle and maple are incedible tonewoods and wenge is superb for necks.
 
#15
tribal3140 said:
MIke definately has a thing for
maple, myrtle , redwood and wenge necks!

he very rarely if ever uses real hardwoods ( for the exception of wenge) for his basses though.
wonder why that is.
with the woods stated above you really have no need for the real hardwoods though redwood, myrtle and maple are incedible tonewoods and wenge is superb for necks.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by your post, tribal 3140. Are you saying myrtle and maple are not "real" hardwoods? If so what botanical classifiation are they (in your opinion) and what's a "real" hardwood in your opinion?
 
#16
Hambone said:
Hmm, gets me to thinking. What if we were to make identical wood "bass xylophones" from each species with an assortment of pitches picked to match our instrument. I wouldn't think we would need no more than 8 though. Then with those and some test equipment, we could compare each different species side by side as well as recorded alone.
Click to expand...
There's a complication to this though. You may have noticed that xylophone bars are not simple rectangular box shapes. That's because, even when you suspend a rectangular bar at the proper node points and strike it, it does not produce a fundamental with a harmonic overtone series the way a string or a column of air in a woodwind does. So, xylophone bars are hollowed out on the underside, in a very specific shape, to force some of its overtones to approximate a harmonic overtone series.

So, while you'd still hear some of the qualitative differences in sound that you're looking for, it wouldn't sound like a real xylophone or marimba.

Unless someone learns how to make xylophone keys properly.

BTW, what about that circular Al. chimes thing...
 
#17
pilotjones said:
You may have noticed that xylophone bars are not simple rectangular box shapes. That's because, even when you suspend a rectangular bar at the proper node points and strike it, it does not produce a fundamental with a harmonic overtone series the way a string or a column of air in a woodwind does. So, xylophone bars are hollowed out on the underside, in a very specific shape, to force some of its overtones to approximate a harmonic overtone series.
Click to expand...

:eek:

Learned something new today ...thanks Pilotjones
 
#18
Larry Davis said:
I'm confused by your post, tribal 3140. Are you saying myrtle and maple are not "real" hardwoods? If so what botanical classifiation are they (in your opinion) and what's a "real" hardwood in your opinion?
Click to expand...


no.
I am talking figuratively about the actual density of the woods.
comparitively redwood, myrtle and acer macrophyllum are soft Compared to ebonies, rosewoods
exotic woods. (and yes I know acer sacarrum is quite dense but)
To me they arent FIGUReATIVE really hard woods the inference being dense.

dont read too much into things it was a casual inference.:rolleyes:
 
#19
I'll admit tribal, you have me confused on your 'hardwood' terminology usage as well, as there is an accepted application of the nomenclature designation hardwood. me thinks you may have gone too far out on a limb with this one


but now back on topic ........

one interesting test I'm looking to perform is to take a tuning reading of each of the bodies of a specific model I make. nothing overly complex - they all have the same shape and thickness, and I'm planning to bonk them and see what reading I can get from a handheld tuner. they should all be the same, but it would be interesting if they registered different pitches due to the differences in density.

am I flawed in this test? I did notice a different pitch between the Alder and Black Limba bodies I have in the rough ... this is what got me thinking of this

all the best,

R
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back