How clean are you?

[The Funk]

I do this and you're right - it does slow you down and wear you out more quickly. I do have a certain sound though and a wide dynamic range in my fingers as a result.

I do intend to start practising through an amp though.

[bremen]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='356680' date='Dec 17 2008, 09:43 AM']A big benefit of unplugged practice is learning how to use your hands to get your sound and volume, both things that too many bassists equate with knob positions.[/quote]


Coffee>keyboard :-)

[mcgraham]

[quote]I do have a certain sound though and a wide dynamic range in my fingers as a result.[/quote]
Maybe so, though I would say that such dynamic variation is also perfectly achievable (and even more so but with a lighter touch IME) using amplification. So I commend you for wanting to move to an amplified practice routine.

Your bass is not your instrument, your whole setup is; you should treat it like a total instrument, i.e. think of every component as part of the equation when you practice. Otherwise, when you come to perform, you'll effectively be playing a 'different' instrument as new components that weren't there during your practice will now be affecting your sound.

Mark

[alexclaber]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='360821' date='Dec 22 2008, 11:47 AM']I don't agree with doing this at all. Whilst our instruments may have oscillating strings and have [i]some[/i] limited acoustic volume, they are [i]electric[/i] instruments.[/quote]

They are acoustic instruments before they are electric instruments.

[quote name='mcgraham' post='360821' date='Dec 22 2008, 11:47 AM']Essentially, I consider that by doing this one would be learning to adjust one's playing and sound to be something that is NEVER the sound that would be produced by your amp, at least by a purely electric instrument with magnetic pickups. Even if they are Q-tuners.[/quote]

I've been doing this for enough years to know it works for me. Maybe that's because I prefer to have a higher action and heavier strings on my basses and thus although my dynamic range is very wide I often play relatively hard. I know I'm good at getting the sound I want from almost any bass and I attribute part of that skill to unplugged practice.

[quote name='mcgraham' post='360821' date='Dec 22 2008, 11:47 AM']I apologise if I sound slightly agitated on this point; it gets my heckles up when I see/hear/hear of people doing this (particularly electric guitarists).[/quote]

Electric guitar is an instrument that requires the tone of the amp on 99.9% of recordings (special exemption for Nile Rodgers). Electric bass does not, it's personal preference.

[quote name='mcgraham' post='360969' date='Dec 22 2008, 01:55 PM']Your bass is not your instrument, your whole setup is; you should treat it like a total instrument, i.e. think of every component as part of the equation when you practice.[/quote]

My bass is my instrument, that's why my rig is how it is. When playing live I simply treat my pickup switch as an upright bassist might treat a selection of different mic or pickup positions and the tone knob as a very simplistic filter to mellow things out if need be.

For me tone is a huge part of my playing - the whole sound of my band and our music starts at how I play the notes that form our bedrock. It all starts with me and it all starts back at home with me and my bass, unplugged, writing the music. My lines have to hit the spot even at the very low SPL of an unplugged bass guitar.

If you make a conscious decision to shift the upper and lower points of your dynamic range downwards and thus your unplugged instrument has insufficient acoustic volume then I can understand thinking that you have to practice plugged in - you indeed may need to, but given a louder bass and/or player and a quieter home environment then you may not. But I would contend that any decision to limit your upper limit of manual loudness limits your dynamic range because we all hit the same noise floor at the bottom.

Alex

[mcgraham]

EDIT: I should point out that I'm not saying that there's no good points to practicing unplugged. However I believe there are significantly more bad things than good that will be kicked up by primarily practicing this way.

[quote]They are acoustic instruments before they are electric instruments.[/quote]
I have already acknowledged they have oscillating strings and a resonating body. However, we do not amplify the acoustic resonance of the body, which I would consider to be the true hallmark of an acoustic instrument. Instead we 'image' a narrow aperture of the vibrating aperture and amplify the specific frequencies that occur within that narrow aperture. As such, I have to disagree with this statement.

[quote]I've been doing this for enough years to know it works for me. Maybe that's because I prefer to have a higher action and heavier strings on my basses and thus although my dynamic range is very wide I often play relatively hard.[/quote]
If that's your personal preference fair enough

[quote]I know I'm good at getting the sound I want from almost any bass and I attribute part of that skill to unplugged practice.[/quote]
Well, I know I'm good at getting the sound I want from almost any bass and I attribute that to correct practice through an amplified system. Again, personal preference, but I will not concede your way is a good way to practice.

[quote]Electric guitar is an instrument that requires the tone of the amp on 99.9% of recordings (special exemption for Nile Rodgers). Electric bass does not, it's personal preference.[/quote]
Maybe so, but my argument is in respect of developing correct technique. I do not believe you hear an accurate representation of your amplified sound listening to your bass unplugged.

[quote]If you make a conscious decision to shift the upper and lower points of your dynamic range downwards and thus your unplugged instrument has insufficient acoustic volume then I can understand thinking that you have to practice plugged in - you indeed may need to, but given a louder bass and/or player and a quieter home environment then you may not. But I would contend that any decision to limit your upper limit of manual loudness limits your dynamic range because we all hit the same noise floor at the bottom.[/quote]
If you had a bass that was loud enough resonance from its body to be mic'd up, I would say that was an acoustic instrument, and that your amplified sound was going to be (reasonably) fair representation of your acoustic sound, and I would have no issue with that.

However, what you are saying is that a) basses are acoustic instruments first and foremost - I have made my point above;
b ) pickups replicate the sound and you adjust your pickup selection in the way that you would adjust the microphone position on an acoustic instrument - I consider this to be a highly flawed analogy. As I have mentioned above, magnetic/inductive pickups witness a very narrow aperture of the string, mitigate certain frequencies 'witnessed' in that narrow aperture due to their design (although Q-tuners are perhaps a certain exception) etc. To say that they accurately reproduce the primary acoustic nature of the instrument is (IMO) is a flawed assumption.

They effectively sample only a portion of the strings vibration, and therefore transmit and reproduce (a better word would be represent) the 'acoustic' vibrations of your bass [i]differently[/i] through an amplifier, an amplifier being the way you make your instrument audible. As such, to practice without this in mind would be (IMO) an erroneous decision.

Mark

Edited December 22, 2008 by mcgraham

[alexclaber]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='361216' date='Dec 22 2008, 05:22 PM']I have already acknowledged they have oscillating strings and a resonating body. However, we do not amplify the acoustic resonance of the body, which I would consider to be the true hallmark of an acoustic instrument. Instead we 'image' a narrow aperture of the vibrating aperture and amplify the specific frequencies that occur within that narrow aperture. As such, I have to disagree with this statement.[/quote]

Aha, that's where you are oversimplifying the physics of an 'electric' instrument. Firstly the vibration of the strings is tightly linked to the resonance of the body as there is a feedback loop between the strings and the instrument whereby the instrument's neck/body/bridge rigidity and the body resonance interacts with the strings' vibration. Secondly there are no specific frequencies that occur within the narrow aperture that is the pickup's view of the strings - there are certainly nulls and peaks and everything in between but they vary with which string you're playing, which note you're playing and how you're exciting that string. The 'narrow window' that the pickup is seeing is no more narrow than a close mic on an acoustic instrument or a pickup on an acoustic instrument.

I find this leads me to work all the tone from my hands and then when I plug in I'll switch to the pickup or pickup combination (in my case I have neck or bridge or both 50/50 in series or in parallel) whose remarkably broad window gives me the tonal range that best matches my needs. That choice does not stay constant - depending on the venue acoustics and the general vibe I might find myself using the neck pickup in a larger acoustic space but the bridge pickup in a smaller venue with a denser muddier vibe, and then my plucking/muting/etc may shift to fatten up the bridge pickup sound or add burp and growl to the neck pickup. It's all very fluid.

Furthermore for any beginner the biggest weak point in the vast majority of cheap basses tends to be the electronics - and practice amps are usually equally sub-par. Many cheap basses sound pretty decent unplugged and thus using them unplugged is a great route to learning about tone and how your hands can control it - plug that in and the poor response of both both pickups and amp will muffle and cloud what your hands are achieving, leaving many beginners to anchor their thumb on the pickup and always pluck at the same point expecting different sounds to be achieved through their EQ or FX pedals.

I don't think one can underestimate the value of weakening that psychological link between gear and tone!

Alex

[Golchen]

Heh! This thread has been really good for me. This is my first year of having a real go at bass after having them knocking around way down the pecking order for many years. I thought that things were going 'OK', but having recorded myself recently I was a bit shocked that timing was poor in a few places and I didn't even realise it whilst playing!?!

Reading through the replies here, it seems that more experienced players have some 'issues' as well!

I think practicing unplugged with any electric instrument is useful, I think that it's much easier to hear what you are and aren't executing cleanly. I don't do it all of the time but I certainly do it some of the time.

[wateroftyne]

IMO this is the important bit:

[quote name='nottswarwick' post='118276' date='Jan 11 2008, 12:14 AM']maybe I am just being a bit over critical - at the end of the day headphones show it up, none of this comes over in the band mix, so is by no means a major concern.[/quote]

Edited December 23, 2008 by wateroftyne

[stingrayfan]

I'm a sloppy player - but play really cleanly alongside a drummer, if that makes sense. What I mean is, I'm not super efficient on the neck but I damp an awful lot, to blend in with the kick.

Nothing's more satisfying than locking with yer drummer.

[mcgraham]

Sorry Alex, I disagree with your interpretation of the physics there.

Re: the acoustic 'nature' of the instrument - Yes, there are resonances that the body introduces into the oscillation of the strings. I consider this is more evident on solid body electric basses than solid body electric guitars for a number of reasons, and I acknowledge that construction affects tone. However, I am of the opinion that types of wood impart much less to the tone than people give it credit for, given a high level of construction (We discussed this in another thread). As such, I consider that such colouration is negligible, particularly (IMO) given the coloured nature (I supposit this) of the way in which we translate the strings movement into amplified sound, i.e. magnetic pickups.

[quote]The 'narrow window' that the pickup is seeing is no more narrow than a close mic on an acoustic instrument or a pickup on an acoustic instrument.[/quote]
I totally disagree. Magnetic pickups have a significantly narrower window than most mics. Moreover, with pickups you are actually detecting the movement of the [i]string [/i]at that exact window via induction and detection of eddy currents in the string, and not the compressions and rarefactions developed by an acoustic body and transmitted through the air to a microphone that actually detects the sound created by the body of the instrument. As such, it is not at all representative of what the overall acoustic sound is/would be. Based on this distinction, how could it be?

Re: your choice of pickups - I behave similarly, I use my pickup selector and my hand position to change my tone. However, I approach this with the additional forethought of developing what I consider to be good practice habits and correct technique; I practice through a headphone amp with some of the bass dialled out to distinguish mistakes and the like, mainly bridge pickup to hear my tone clean, and with a touch more treble so I can weed out issues with fretnoise/clank/fingernoise etc. I effectively eq my bass to get (what I feel) is closer to what would be an acoustic sound.

Re: issues with beginners basses - Whilst I think there are other issues too, I agree that the amplified sound that beginner basses get is poor, and doesn't allow them to develop good tone/sound or even technique. However, practicing unplugged doesn't automatically correct for this. In fact, I would say that if a beginner started doing this they would develop AWFUL technique, their playing ability would suffer, and it could in fact cause them real physical harm. Also, it doesn't attack the root of the problem: their bass. Even IF this allowed them to get good acoustic tone, you've just pointed out that there bass lacks the ability to reproduce good tone. How will practicing unplugged remedy this? Replace the pickups and electronics? buy a better bass?

We ultimately come out of an amplified setup; my point is that to practice any other way and say that this is a better way to practice, or even an equal way to practicing through an amp is being ignorant of a key component of how our instruments make their sound.

Mark

Edited December 23, 2008 by mcgraham

[peted]

My rig has a top end which would threaten to take your face off and therefore shows up any sloppy playing. I like the think that this is the reason that I spend a lot of time making sure that my playing is as exact and articulate as possible.

[alexclaber]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='361770' date='Dec 23 2008, 10:31 AM']Sorry Alex, I disagree with your interpretation of the physics there.[/quote]

In that case I'd be interested to hear your analysis of the physics of an electric bass from first principles. Very few people seem to actually get down to the nuts and bolts of what is actually going on, which is understandable because it is a very complex subject which is unlikely to be analysed accurately unless you have a good background in the relevant sciences and are willing to throw aside the numerous misconceptions and hearsay surrounding 'tone'...

Alex

[Veils]

I don't have any choice but to be tight since my band is a bit of a tech widdlefest at times

[mcgraham]

Right, lets see if I can explain what I consider to be the physics of magnetic pickups properly without missing too much out. Apologies for the length and for any 'needless' repetition. Also, these thoughts are all from thought experiments and musings on this, rather than actual experiments I have done, so that's my disclaimer right there.

[u]Construction[/u]
You have a permanent magnet surrounded by lengths of coiled wire. The magnet provides a magnetic field that the string sits in. The shape of the field is not entirely dissimilar geometrically to a cardioid sensitivity pattern of a microphone, but do not confuse the two (Note: I am not an expert on microphones, but I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that they work in a physically different way, albeit on the same principle of electromagnetic induction).

[u]Physics[/u]
When the string is plucked, it moves relative to the magnetic field and through it. You can also view it from the frame of reference of the string, i.e. the string is stationary and the magnetic field moves relative to the string.

According to Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction, this causes small eddy currents to occur within the string. These are small, localised loops of current that are proportional to the change in magnetic field causing them, i.e. they are representative of the movement/frequency that is experienced by the string in that magnetic field.

These representative currents in turn create magnetic fields. These magnetic fields (by the same principle stated above) induce currents in each of the coils surrounding the magnetic field. Each coil picks up a given amount of induced current, so the greater the number of coils the larger the total induced current.

From there, your cable connects your pickups to the amplifier that amplifies this signal to a point that it can drive your speaker, an area which I'm confident you know more about than I do

Sounds ok yes? There are some drawbacks and limitations to transparency of this method of picking up string vibrations.

[u]Issues/Limitations[/u]
Faraday's law is only half the story. The physically correct law is Lenz's Law of electromagnetic induction. This is Faraday's law but with a negative sign on the right hand side. This is in order to satisfy the law of conservation of energy. This physically means that the currents induced in a moving conductor by a magnetic field (or vice versa, both are valid) must flow in a direction that opposes the motion causing them. Essentially, this sets up a feedback system that effectively damps the vibrations of the string. As the currents are highly localised, and the relative position of the fields change based on the fret that is depressed, this makes for quite a complex feedback system. I haven't tried any thought experiments on this, but at the very least I feel it is justified to say that it actually affects the oscillation of the string and not in a uniform way. This is a major reason I think it's incorrect to compare it with a microphone.

The coils are responsible for picking up the magnetic fields created by the eddy currents. However, it is a long length of wire that is firstly an inductor, but it is also inherently a resistor. As some of you may be aware, higher resistance pickups (longer wire length, typically more coils) have a hotter output, but they also lose top end. My understanding is that this is due to the higher resistance and the higher frequency signals are attenuated by such pickups. Equally so, I believe that a number of active pickups have fewer windings (= less resistance) and preamplify the signal onboard the bass. The higher frequencies are not attenuated to the same extent as they are in passive hotter wound pickups. You could call this the 'character' of the pickup, and sometimes this is desirable, as it is with microphones (personal choice), but the frequency response is immensely more variable, as Alex has already pointed out previously (e.g. poor electronics and pickups in basses).

Furthermore, and this is an afterthought, it is both a resistor and an inductor. I believe this would introduce additional issues with resonant peaks (RLC circuits etc), but I haven't put much thought into this yet. I'll get back to you on that.

If you've managed to get through all that, well done! And I'm sure you can see already that there are some real physical flaws in likening these to microphones, and that magnetic pickups do have their limitations.

I want to contrast this with microphones, particularly with the physics of extended range capacitor microphones as well as normal dynamic mics and piezo pickups, but I'll stop here for now. Again, sorry for the length. Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense.

Mark

[M4L666]

My technique is noticeably balls. My right hand just isn't disciplined enough (four fingers and I play metal!). My left hand can keep up with anything I care to put my (rubbish) right hand to very easily, so isn't challenged. So until my right hand improves I try to make a 2nd-12th fret stretch comfortable... Going well so far! Any good finger exercises for four fingers? (By the way, I use my little finger not my thumb. Anyone else?)

[tombboy]

To me its all about the groove/timing etc.
Apart from the tone, As long as timing is bang on every time I play, then all the rest is instrumental (pardon the pun!). All the little finger scrapes, fluffs, dead notes, bumps etc are part of me and my (lack of) technique. It's what makes bassists sounds themselves. If I wanted to sound so perfect I'd call myself Roland VB and marry a MIDI interface!!

Have a listen to the isolated bass tracks thread and you'll hear that REAL bassists rule..... which includes all the sloppy sh*t!

[tombboy]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='361963' date='Dec 23 2008, 01:34 PM']it is a very complex subject which is unlikely to be analysed accurately unless you have a good background in the relevant sciences and are willing to throw aside the numerous misconceptions and hearsay surrounding 'tone'...

Alex[/quote]

God..... you sound just like BF!!!

[velvetkevorkian]

[quote name='M4L666' post='362245' date='Dec 23 2008, 07:04 PM']My technique is noticeably balls. My right hand just isn't disciplined enough (four fingers and I play metal!). My left hand can keep up with anything I care to put my (rubbish) right hand to very easily, so isn't challenged. So until my right hand improves I try to make a 2nd-12th fret stretch comfortable... Going well so far! Any good finger exercises for four fingers? (By the way, I use my little finger not my thumb. Anyone else?)[/quote]

I use 3 fingers normally and have experimented with 4, using both the thumb and the pinky- IME and IMO using 3+thumb is good for certain feels (it's quite easy to get a bouncy funk line for example), but the RH pinky I found almost completely useless. I play metal as well and would advise working on 3 finger technique and get that down nice and smooth (a lot of work in itself) before trting to add the pinky as its going to take much longer to train the 4th finger than it did the other 3. As ever, YMMV.

Back on topic, I'm nowhere near clean enough, especially since I've moved to 7 strings. My floating thumb is improving but anything fancy leaves strings ringing all over the shop

[alexclaber]

Good post, well thought through. However, you've missed the first half of the system which is the instrument itself and the string/neck/body system! How does that work?

Alex

[mcgraham]

Ugh, you expect me to settle the debate of how much wood affects tone in a solid body bass? In one post?

... ok, give me a little more time

Mark

[urb]

Really interesting discussion and loads of good points well made - all I'll add is two things - firstly I practice everyday and within that I always work on some aspect of my technique - so when it comes to actually playing in a LIVE situation I don't have to. Secondly I was at the recent Manchester Bass Day and sitting with my good buddy Jon Thorne (ex-Lamb bassist, now solo artist and all round top muso and lovely bloke). He and I were talking to another chap sitting in front of us in the theatre waiting for Richard Bona's masterclass to start. The other chap - who we'd struck up conversation with was talking about nice basses, and lots of technical playing, I was chipping in with some enthusiastic comments on both subjects - when Jon stopped us both and said something rather profound - pointing at my chest - saying: "this is the real instrument here, you the individual, the bass is just a piece of wood, I want to listen to the musician, not just the instrument..."

The point is obvious I guess. I will say though I've just been away for a couple of days, took my bass with me but forgot a lead to plug it into my Tascam MPBT1 unit - so I ended up practicing unplugged. The bass did sound fine and I had a good thirty minute practice session - but I agree with Mark's point about these being electric instruments... or as Gary Willis puts it - 'finesse instruments' - which if you have as incredible plucking control as him you'd have to have developed that by being plugged in - and personally that's the way I try and approach bass guitar. I have recorded going direct as well recently and got superb results if that counts as well.

Your sound is the first thing people notice when they listen to you play so my advice is work on that sound and the music you play as thoroughly as you can - experience with lots of different amps also helps as in a pro situation you could find yourself using almost any kind of rig on stage - it's good to know how to get the sound you want in a short space of time - because with a crap sound you feel like crap and that defnitely affects you're playing.

M

[tombboy]

[quote name='urb' post='362341' date='Dec 23 2008, 08:51 PM']Really interesting discussion and loads of good points well made - all I'll add is two things - firstly I practice everyday and within that I always work on some aspect of my technique - so when it comes to actually playing in a LIVE situation I don't have to. Secondly I was at the recent Manchester Bass Day and sitting with my good buddy Jon Thorne (ex-Lamb bassist, now solo artist and all round top muso and lovely bloke). He and I were talking to another chap sitting in front of us in the theatre waiting for Richard Bona's masterclass to start. The other chap - who we'd struck up conversation with was talking about nice basses, and lots of technical playing, I was chipping in with some enthusiastic comments on both subjects - when Jon stopped us both and said something rather profound - pointing at my chest - saying: "this is the real instrument here, you the individual, the bass is just a piece of wood, I want to listen to the musician, not just the instrument..."

The point is obvious I guess. I will say though I've just been away for a couple of days, took my bass with me but forgot a lead to plug it into my Tascam MPBT1 unit - so I ended up practicing unplugged. The bass did sound fine and I had a good thirty minute practice session - but I agree with Mark's point about these being electric instruments... or as Gary Willis puts it - 'finesse instruments' - which if you have as incredible plucking control as him you'd have to have developed that by being plugged in - and personally that's the way I try and approach bass guitar. I have recorded going direct as well recently and got superb results if that counts as well.

Your sound is the first thing people notice when they listen to you play so my advice is work on that sound and the music you play as thoroughly as you can - experience with lots of different amps also helps as in a pro situation you could find yourself using almost any kind of rig on stage - it's good to know how to get the sound you want in a short space of time - because with a crap sound you feel like crap and that defnitely affects you're playing.

M[/quote]

Probably the best post I've read all year.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='urb' post='362341' date='Dec 23 2008, 08:51 PM']have to. Secondly I was at the recent Manchester Bass Day and sitting with my good buddy Jon Thorne (ex-Lamb bassist, now solo artist and all round top muso and lovely bloke). He and I were talking to another chap sitting in front of us in the theatre waiting for Richard Bona's masterclass to start. The other chap - who we'd struck up conversation with was talking about nice basses, and lots of technical playing, I was chipping in with some enthusiastic comments on both subjects - when Jon stopped us both and said something rather profound - pointing at my chest - saying: "this is the real instrument here, you the individual, the bass is just a piece of wood, I want to listen to the musician, not just the instrument..."[/quote]

Hi Mike,
interesting post, I would like to point out that while Jon was making a very astute observation, he is himself in search of tone through woods and electronics, I've known Jon since he started out as a player on the Manchester scene and just yesterday I had a facebook message from him recommending some double bass gear he'd come across. I don't seek to reduce the validity of the point you were making, more to expand on it as, of all the bass players I know, Jon is certainly one of the ones who has swapped lots of gear and basses in search of the perfect set up, and I mean LOTS.

To respond to Mark, I really feel you are underestimating the effect that woods have on the sound an instrument makes, why do luthiers use ebony for fingerboards on string instruments? well, it's very hard and it carries fundamentals very well. The same principles apply to electric instruments, ask Mica Wickersham at Alembic....

Jake

[mcgraham]

Jake, I disagree. I don't feel I am underestimating the effect that wood has on the tone of the instrument. I consider that the opposite is true of most musicians, and that this is erroneous thinking with little to no scientific basis. Experience is valid yes, but often experiences are linked with certain attributes with little to no sound reasoning.

An instrument is constructed from solid materials, these solid materials will naturally have at least one resonant frequency. As such, I do not dispute that a given instrument made from given materials will have given resonant frequencies that affect the oscillation of the strings to impart a particular tone. This is logical and totally sound.

However, we must give regard to the mechanism by which the physical instrument affects the vibration of the string. Not only this, but we must also look at the exactly what resonant peaks exist and how they manifest themselves.

Firstly, in a physically ideal string system, an (open) string would be anchored at one end and another end 34" apart (or pick your scale length). The string would be light, but not inextendible as it needs to be able to extend its length to oscillate. The anchor/witness points would be 100% stable and immobile, i.e. they do not move in reaction to the strings motion.

When we pluck a string, the simplest thing that happens is a standing wave is set up (there is more complex motion than this but for the purpose of explanation a standing wave will be sufficient). This is a wave that does not actually propagate (or travel) along the string, but is bounded (contained/located) between the two anchor points. As a result of this bounding, it can ONLY oscillate at frequencies where the corresponding wavelength can by multiplied by an integer number to sum to the total oscillating string length (ignoring the extension of the string due to oscillating)

Therefore: 34" or 0.864m = n x (wavelength)/2 where n=1, 2, 3 ...

So, shove in the integer numbers and you find that you have a large number of possible wavelengths that the string can take.

The first integer number that defines an adoptable wavelength is the fundamental, the rest are harmonic overtones. As they are all valid solutions, a string can adopt all of these in a given oscillation in given proportions. These proportions are restricted by string mass, materials, stiffness, energy introduced into the string, where it was plucked etc, i.e. they are not all equally present for all time in a given oscillation, higher frequencies tend to drop off due to overall stiffness, some were damped anyway due to the string being plucked at a point where a given frequency/set of frequencies could not develop (nodes and anti-nodes, I've not discussed these).

Going back to the anchor points, this is in a physically ideal system; this is never the case in the real world. With Newton's laws of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. the anchor points are responsible for the string motion being 'bounded' between them (I don't want to take up more space with a more complex explanation). As such they experience forces of the strings movement effectively trying to continue beyond the anchor point. If they were not secure they would move with the string and the string motion would not be bounded (imagine infinite number of 34" lengths of string joined together and witness points every 34", but where each anchor is just a bit of fluff tied to the string at such points). If they are totally secure they will return the exact amount of force necessary to keep the string motion bounded in the 34" length. In reality they are somewhere between these two extremes.

Going back to the resonance of an instrument, if the anchor points move at all, they will naturally do so at their natural resonant frequencies (or similarly at a distribution of frequencies around these peaks). If they do this, they will absorb energy from the oscillations of the string, but PRIMARILY at these resonant peaks/distribution around these peaks. They CANNOT introduce new energy, they can ONLY remove it. This would be the primary mechanism by which the physical instrument affects the frequencies of an oscillating string.

Again, sounds fairly favourable for instruments imparting tone yes? Well, we are trying to marry objective science with subjective hearing. What I hear from an instrument is not what the average joe listener hears, which is not what another bassist/saxophonist/guitarist/drummer/trianglist hears. As such, to obtain an objective understanding we cannot start with the 'this wood gets this sound, so why is that?'. Instead we have to ask the question 'how would a given piece of wood/material affect the bass, and to what extent?' Furthermore, as with magnetic pickups, there are certain points to consider.

I mentioned that real physical systems are never totally secure at their anchor points. However, the question remains: how secure are the anchor points in solid body electric basses? Well, other than the answer 'variable' as each instrument is different, it's quite hard to say. Alex summed it up in another thread (which I concur with and paraphrase here): the materials in an instrument serve two purposes - to impart/affect tone and to provide a rigid constructed system, and the better the rigid system, the less the materials used affect the strings motion/tone. In essence, the closer to an ideal system the instrument is the less it affects the tone. So in fact, all these companies/luthiers striving for super rigid necks and systems are reducing the individual effect of wood on tone, i.e. the influence on tone that a wood's resonance has decreases.

Sometimes different tone is discernable between two radically different basses, and sometimes different tone is discernable between two remarkable similar basses. I have experienced both of these to varying degrees. However from a scientific perspective my subjective experience is neither here nor there, and as such cannot be used as a starting point, merely a suggestion that can and should be thrown away if it disagrees with the science. I feel that there is an awful lot of poor quality assertions going on about how much wood affects tone. One property of a wood is, again, neither here nor there for imparting tone. Super dense wood? So what about its strength? Or its resilience? Or hardness? A dense wood is useless if it isn't strong or sufficiently hard (at least in neck construction); a good hardness of fingerboard for secure anchoring of the frets would (in theory) be more than enough to provide for secure anchorage of the string, does it really need to be dense? Do some factors overtake each other? I'm not saying luthiers haven't looked beyond such scientific terms to simply 'knowing' what works and doesn't on a qualitative level, and I definitely don't have all the answers on this point, but I do want to encourage scientific thought and skepticism in the interest of finding out some real answers, and stop it with the wild assertions and bold conjecture based on subjective experience that is contradicted by science. I think I've made it clear that I consider certain held beliefs about solid body instruments to be in contradiction of the science. I'm happy to be proved wrong though! I'm just interested in the truth.

If you want yet another confusing factor, our bodies are part of this complex oscillating system. We are big fleshy sacs of flesh and blood. We have quite complex resonances that change based on our how fat/fluid filled/bony/muscle-y we are, whether it rests on a beer belly or it is firmly anchored to our hip. We are anchored to our instrument when using them, and as such, we affect the resonance of the instrument. In fact, we (in general) damp the oscillations of the physical instrument. I have not fully considered how this affects tone, but needless to say it introduces further ambiguity as to what imparts what to the tone of an instrument.

Also, engineers will recognise that cars, planes, trains, bridges etc, need to be built from a number of materials in varying proportions to try and spread resonant peaks out to have as even a resonance response as possible. This is to ensure that when they undergo movement they do not experience excessive sympathetic vibrations that cause wear, tear and damage. This is accomplished by using widely varying materials to create a much more complex oscillating system than just one piece of one uniform material. Electric basses are often like this, and wood is also subject to this as it is organic and rarely uniform. As such, I consider it to be fair to refer to it as a complex oscillating system in which resonances are spread out and the peaks are quite low in comparison to just a beam of uniform material. This is a further point which leads me to believe that the very nature of construction of a wooden bass doesn't affect tone by resonance to the extent that is touted.

So, in a nutshell, the better the construction the less the resonance affects tone. I am of the opinion that such systems are excellent oscillating string systems (i.e. 'close' to ideal) and that claiming that wood so radically affects tone (ignoring other factors) puts forward the stance that they are closer to non-ideal. This would be in direct contradiction to luthiers strivances for a better made instrument.

There's more I want to say, but I need to get to the office...

EDIT: I posted in a rush and have just read this through again, there's a few points I consider to be slightly woolly in their explanation so I'll tidy them up soon. --- DONE!

Mark

Edited December 24, 2008 by mcgraham

[alexclaber]

Close but not quite there!

Energy does indeed leave the string via the witness points and anchor points and this energy resonates the body. As with any resonating system this energy does not need to be at the resonant frequency, just near it, to be absorbed and set the body resonating. A bass body has numerous resonant frequencies so this absorbtion occurs all over the frequency spectrum. However, this energy does also return to the string, further exciting it and giving sustain. The energy returned to the string depends upon the Q (or inverse of self-damping) of the resonator at the relevant frequency.

If we look at an Alembic Series II, we have an incredibly stiff 'string-support-system' which causes minimal losses of energy from the string (though there will certainly be energy moving between the string and thru-neck) and then a chambered body which acts as the resonant feedback and filtering system that further shapes the tone of the instrument. If you were to use a graphite thru-neck and hard maple wings on an instrument then you would be nearing the point where you just hear the tone of a string which is suffering very little loss of energy to the resonators, or likewise with a small-bodied Steinberger.

Many thru-neck basses are somewhat lacking in warmth or fatness because they have a stiff thru-neck and then body wings which do not get sufficiently involved in the feedback loop of energy. The reason the classic bolt-on approach works so well is because you combine a nice stiff maple neck with a body that by virtue of its cross-sectional-area is also rather stiff but is fully involved in the resonant system by virtue of almost all the energy having to pass through it.

So when considering the effect of material upon tone you have quite a few different factors - stiffness, characteristic frequencies, Q at all points across the frequency spectrum, mass, etc, and no two pieces of wood are going to be identical, let alone two pieces from completely different species.

Alex