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.
Woods explained
- Thread starter kevindahl
- Start date
- Status
I guess I had no idea tone and wood was such a contentious topic here.
Maybe we can move on from yes it does and no it doesn't to cosmetics and way the wood feels in your hand and under your fingers.
I placed an email to Dingwall asking for clarification on their options. They wouldn't have options if they're weren't differences, no?
Maybe we can move on from yes it does and no it doesn't to cosmetics and way the wood feels in your hand and under your fingers.
I placed an email to Dingwall asking for clarification on their options. They wouldn't have options if they're weren't differences, no?
I would only offer this observation:
When it comes to five-string basses, the 'loosey-goosey B-string' complaint goes right by me. It is what it is, I play it and don't think about it, and admittedly some string / bass combinations can feel tighter, but it was never any concern to me: You play what ya got.
But as for wood:
My Alembic Elan Five was Swamp Ash body wings with a rock maple neckthrough center section, with a 1/4" ebony fingerboard riding on top.
My current Squier Contemporary Active Jazz Bass HHV (the damn bass needs to be 35" scale to have enough room to print out that l-o-n-g name) is an ash body, a rock maple neck / fingerboard.
They're both hard, stiff instruments from those woods. And surprisingly they share one quality virtually identically: Both have the best low C's and D's (I can hear those 'beats' in the 2nd or 3rd harmonics, almost sounds like a slightly grinding quality), although the Alembic was a bit better.
All brass bridge, tailpiece, and nut on the Alembic, the Squier a plastic nut and off-the-shelf 'hi-mass' bridge, but that sound is still down there in each, as well as notes speaking quite clearly the length of the fingerboard(s).
I can only assume the hardness, stiffness, and weight of these two (both 10-pounders) must have something to do with this, even with vastly different pickups and electronics.
When it comes to five-string basses, the 'loosey-goosey B-string' complaint goes right by me. It is what it is, I play it and don't think about it, and admittedly some string / bass combinations can feel tighter, but it was never any concern to me: You play what ya got.
But as for wood:
My Alembic Elan Five was Swamp Ash body wings with a rock maple neckthrough center section, with a 1/4" ebony fingerboard riding on top.
My current Squier Contemporary Active Jazz Bass HHV (the damn bass needs to be 35" scale to have enough room to print out that l-o-n-g name) is an ash body, a rock maple neck / fingerboard.
They're both hard, stiff instruments from those woods. And surprisingly they share one quality virtually identically: Both have the best low C's and D's (I can hear those 'beats' in the 2nd or 3rd harmonics, almost sounds like a slightly grinding quality), although the Alembic was a bit better.
All brass bridge, tailpiece, and nut on the Alembic, the Squier a plastic nut and off-the-shelf 'hi-mass' bridge, but that sound is still down there in each, as well as notes speaking quite clearly the length of the fingerboard(s).
I can only assume the hardness, stiffness, and weight of these two (both 10-pounders) must have something to do with this, even with vastly different pickups and electronics.
I like wood. I've never had the opportunity or desire to select woods for a bespoke instrument; I've always just taken them as the come. I've acquired a pretty broad variety in the midrange. Nothing looks like a coffee table, but most have stained or burst with decent looking (but not flamed) grain. And they all sound like me when I play them. My advice is to choose based on looks and weight/balance.
Ah, the never-ending fount of ignorance that erupts at any mention of the idea that different wood species actually have characteristic sounds.
Yes, of course they obviously do, and if you can't hear the differences, you have a tin ear and should not bother calling yourself a musician, and please don't ever go into business as a luthier.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here's the thing: different pieces of wood from the same species will sound different. Sometimes those differences will be small, sometimes they will be great. And the difference between species is often subtle and in many cases undetectable outside of direct, immediate A/B comparison. That does not mean that if you were measure a large sample, you would not find that each species has distinct characteristics, it simply means that the variables can be (and usually are) minor, and easily corrected for with the twist of a knob on your amp.
I'm a woodworker as well as a musician. I've studied quite a lot about wood and even worked for a time for a lumber company. Certain woods are commonly used for musical instruments because they have particular characteristics that make them more desirable for musical instruments. Sometimes, those are mechanical properties, sometime aesthetic properties, and most often, it is because of their sonic qualities.
Put simply, if you think "the concept of tonewood is nonsense", you have just immediately demonstrated your incompetence on this field of study.
Yes, of course they obviously do, and if you can't hear the differences, you have a tin ear and should not bother calling yourself a musician, and please don't ever go into business as a luthier.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here's the thing: different pieces of wood from the same species will sound different. Sometimes those differences will be small, sometimes they will be great. And the difference between species is often subtle and in many cases undetectable outside of direct, immediate A/B comparison. That does not mean that if you were measure a large sample, you would not find that each species has distinct characteristics, it simply means that the variables can be (and usually are) minor, and easily corrected for with the twist of a knob on your amp.
I'm a woodworker as well as a musician. I've studied quite a lot about wood and even worked for a time for a lumber company. Certain woods are commonly used for musical instruments because they have particular characteristics that make them more desirable for musical instruments. Sometimes, those are mechanical properties, sometime aesthetic properties, and most often, it is because of their sonic qualities.
Put simply, if you think "the concept of tonewood is nonsense", you have just immediately demonstrated your incompetence on this field of study.
Here's a take by someone who has built 1000s of guitars and gets paid for it.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
People who didn't think the qualities of the wood mattered in electric instruments is how we got the 1970s.
Characteristics of good wood can be impactful, highly desirable, and also predictable, to a degree, according to those who know. So, over time, patterns evidently emerge, among the various traditions. It's not guess work — it's a filtration process. All the variability in the world won't stop this from happening. And there are many reasons governing outcomes.
I found out a little while ago that one of my acoustics — a '68 EKO Ranger XII electro — has Brazilian rosewood onboard. Back then rosewood was more practical, more cost effective. There may be tonal drivers, too. It does sound good
This is a supremely sought-after and most traditional material. Easily the default choice, for many. But, as time marched on, the supply dried up. The desire then, with luthiers, was to get as close as possible to that Brazilian character with any and all available, more practical materials. Essentially, not a haphazard exercise.
All my other rosewoods are of the Indian or Madagascar variety. We players, who like to use rosewood, do so for any number of reasons but those who know how to build a good, sound, traditional instrument, have one particular reason. Tone
All the rest is secondary — the whims of the market, economics, personal preferences, ethics, etc., and there's a lot of wriggle room.
I happen to love rosewood, maple, mahogany, nara, alder, ash, hickory, cedar, oak, and walnut because I'm more used to these woods. There's a whole lot more that fits the purpose. I don't need to know why but they all have a feel and a character that's recognizable and appreciated. So I'm happy enough to let the alchemy materialize, in the hands of those in-the-know. The patterns are worth noting, whenever there's a ready need for discernment
I'm coming to terms today with a drummer's perspective. There, also, differing woods will have a huge amount of character variation, especially, where I'm most concerned at present, stick-wise. This may help one to further flesh out some of these more empowering awarenesses surrounding arguments for the most desirable characteristics in a wood, relating to the most fruitful possibilities for making good music and beautiful coffee tables.
Last edited:
Alder v. Ash: Ash (Fraxinus spp.) has more prominent grain, and I prefer the sound of Ash to Alder, but Alder can be pretty, too, if it's a high quality piece, and has a nice middle-of-the-road, all-purpose tone. Ash tends to be slightly more "open" sounding that Alder. You can think of the difference being something like the difference between a Fender tweed amp (Alder) and a Fender black panel amp (Ash). Ash can vary very widely in density, and for musical instruments the "Swamp Ash" type tends to be lighter in weight and more desirable. "Swamp Ash" is not a distinct species of Ash, but Ash trees that grow in wetter conditions tend to be less dense than Ash tress that grow in drier conditions (often called "hard" Ash).
Wenge: has a very open grain, but a nice feel. Traditionally the first choice of fretboard wood for fretted Warwick basses, and also used by Warwick for necks. I personally happen to like the way Wenge feels, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it.
Maple: One of the best all-around tonewoods, used for virtually every part of a stringed instrument. Its light color means that it shows accumulated dirt very easily, which is why I dislike instruments with maple fingerboards. Others often prefer Rock Maple/Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), because it tends to be one of the brightest tonewoods, due to its hardness and stiffness. Most of the quilted and flamed maple you see is Western Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), a softer species which is not quite as bright. Most of the Birdseye Maple is Sugar Maple.
Maple vs. Ash: You may have noticed that baseball bats made from Rock Maple tend to shatter into extremely dangerous shards, while Ash bats break less frequently and less dangerously. This is caused by the same differences in wood properties that give woods different sounds.
Pau Ferro: gets a really bad rap with people who hate that Fender stopped using Rosewood for a time due to the CITES regulations, but Fender has used Pau Ferro going back to at least 1990, and many, many companies use Pau Ferro as a fretboard or fingerboard wood. Of the 5 basses I've owned, 4 have had Pau Ferro fretboards or fingerboards, and the 5th is black Ebony.
Macassar Ebony: tends to be variegated brown/black, and cheaper than black (often called Gaboon) Ebony, but is otherwise similar.
Ebony and Rosewood tend to be very long-wearing, which is why they are used for the parts of musical instruments for which those long-wearing properties are an advantage: fingerboards, bridges, tailpieces, etc. Ebony and Rosewood are both a little "warmer" than Rock Maple. Supplies of black ebony are becoming restricted due to overharvesting, so expect to pay a premium for it.
Ziricote: I am not personally familiar with the properties of this wood.
Richlite: a composite made of paper and resin molded under high heat and pressure, this makes excellent cutting boards for the kitchen, and oddly enough, is used by Gibson for fretboards. It is very easily machined and extremely stable. The major downside of Richlite is that is is extremely dense, and therefore heavy. The Richlite company actually made a Strat and a Tele out of all Richlite components, and I can't even begin to imagine how heavy they must be, probably 20 lbs or more.
Last edited:
I think it's a pity that so many companies are using some truly horrible-looking Pau Ferro fretboards on basses when far better material is available...and I'm not talking about hard-to-find wood, but hey, maybe they've never heard of Reverend.
(Yes, I know some basses have nice Pau Ferro but they're easily in the minority.)
Last edited:
Turnaround
Commercial User
Yes - you have it. Any vibrating string coupled to a "body" of any sort will be affected by what is is attached to. Here's a simple explanation.
Pluck a string and put your ear right against the headstock. You can hear the string vibration. That's because the string has imparted some of its vibration to the neck and headstock. But what you hear doesn't sound like the string on its own, and that's because the wood of the neck is transmitting some frequencies from the string and not others. If the neck is transmitting some frequencies, that means it has taken the energies of those frequencies from the string: the same energy can't be present in both the string and the headstock at the same time. Any vibrations taken from the string are no longer present in the string - i.e. it is vibrating differently. The pickups can only see the vibrations the string is providing, and if they have been modified by the substrate they are connected to, the resulting signal will reflect that.
A hollow body will actually absorb significantly more of the string vibration. Tha's why generally howwobodies don't have as much sustain. They also absorb different frequencies at different levels thgan solid bodies, thus affecting the tone produced.
Turnaround
Commercial User
I like her to have beautiful maple neck and a really nice ash.....
Fender Limited Edition Lightweight Ash American Professional Jazz Bass Sienna Sunburst:
Fender Limited Edition Lightweight Ash American Professional Jazz Bass Sienna Sunburst:
Last edited:
Richard:
So when you're trying out new basses in a store, before they're plugged in, and some of them can be obviously louder than others, is this what's at work, and how do you infer it doing that to a plugged in performance ? Of course, pickups and hardware play into it, but would it being more 'live' translate to a more sophisticated blend of tone ?
Again, Thanks !
JW
- Status
