Sue Ryder Bass Arrived

[LawrenceH]

Going off-topic and rambling more than slightly - I know what you're saying - but at the same time I find these types of debates a bit baffling, with one camp tending to establish themselves as 'scientific' and requesting 'proof' but with a lack of understanding of both how to formulate a hypothesis clearly, how one goes about non-ideal empirical testing, what 'significance' means and how you measure it statistically, and then how you modify and develop an initial hypothesis based on subsequent results. People tend to talk in very black and white terms, forcing the hypothesis to be eg 'does maple have a completely consistent sound that is completely consistently different from rosewood (and vice-versa)'. Clearly that's a pretty simplistic approach to the problem and the answer is invariably no, and this then is taken as proof that there is no tonal difference between maple and rosewood. I find that frustrating. A more realistic hypothesis, and one that matches subjective reports more fairly, would be that there is a set of common 'average' characteristics that represent the archetypal maple sound, and a different set of 'average' characteristics that represent the rosewood sound. The standard deviation of any particular element of that (eg HF decay time) will probably allow for significant overlap between the two 'average' sonic signatures from any individual pair of wood pieces. But, nevertheless, this hypothesis would predict that a (perhaps relatively small) sample of maple necks will have significantly different (statistically speaking) tonal characteristics to a sample of rosewood necks. This means a) you could never predict with absolute certainty the wood type from the sound alone, but b ) you could get it right x many times better than chance alone would predict. Testing this using measurement equipment under controlled conditions would be time-consuming and expensive, and personally I don't really care enough - I know what I like, I hear what I hear and since I spend all day in the lab, as well as many evenings, I don't feel the need to prove anything more rigorously for my hobby

FWIW every maple-board bass I have ever played has sounded somehow maple-y to my ears, the rosewood instruments being more variable. Trying to think about describing that difference, it's something in the way the upper-mid/HF decays after the initial attack, rosewood seems to damp these frequencies faster and playing-wise I sometimes get an impression almost of a compression effect in action on maple-board necks.

Back (nearly!) on-topic - my friend has just bought a set of Bareknuckle pickups for her Ryder tele - be interested to see how it sounds!

EDIT: Oh btw - definitely not saying you have no idea there, just that it's the way these things often end up, so it makes sensible discussion tricky after a bit! (talkbass? )

Edited April 13, 2011 by LawrenceH

[setekh]

LawrenceH - you might have been on to something, but the fact is the "average" characteristics cannot really be defined. You have variation in species of maple/rosewood, the area where they were grown, the age of the tree, how long it dried for, the type of cut, and these are just a few of the top of my head. Not only that, but you'd also have a really hard time defining (and validating!) the parameters of analysis and eliminating every other potentially interfering variable.

Yes, I know, I'm nitpicky, I'm sorry. It just comes with the territory.

[apa]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1197105' date='Apr 12 2011, 05:59 PM']I'm pretty sure I can, but to tell for sure would require swapping fretboards on a single neck and installing frets of the exact same profile/spec which is a lot of work! Especially as to do it properly would require multiple examples of each board and to set up blind tests and/or measurements.
Of course I couldn't tell for sure on a recording because you can make one sound like the other, always more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, but for a given bass I'd say if all else stays equal, maple will tend to make it sound 'snappier' compared to rosewood - I've tried enough basses to be confident that there's a trend there.[u][b] I don't know if lacquering a rosewood board would give the equivalent change though.[/b][/u][/quote]

I can verify that you do get a 'snappy' 'twang' with laquered rosewood. Did it on my fretless Ryder. In fact its a Rosewood board with a Rosewood veneer on top Dont know if it would be 'twangier' or 'snappier' with a maple but I doubte it very much. The slightest tweek on the treble pot would negate any difference between a maple and rosewood in my view. 90% difference in any sound is in the pickup.

Besides, arent all maple boards laquered in some way where as rosewood is oiled? Theres probably more of a trend there than any were else.

A

[mcnach]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1197716' date='Apr 13 2011, 02:20 AM']Going off-topic and rambling more than slightly - I know what you're saying - but at the same time I find these types of debates a bit baffling, with one camp tending to establish themselves as 'scientific' and requesting 'proof' but with a lack of understanding of both how to formulate a hypothesis clearly, how one goes about non-ideal empirical testing, what 'significance' means and how you measure it statistically, and then how you modify and develop an initial hypothesis based on subsequent results. People tend to talk in very black and white terms, forcing the hypothesis to be eg 'does maple have a completely consistent sound that is completely consistently different from rosewood (and vice-versa)'. Clearly that's a pretty simplistic approach to the problem and the answer is invariably no, and this then is taken as proof that there is no tonal difference between maple and rosewood. I find that frustrating. A more realistic hypothesis, and one that matches subjective reports more fairly, would be that there is a set of common 'average' characteristics that represent the archetypal maple sound, and a different set of 'average' characteristics that represent the rosewood sound. The standard deviation of any particular element of that (eg HF decay time) will probably allow for significant overlap between the two 'average' sonic signatures from any individual pair of wood pieces. But, nevertheless, this hypothesis would predict that a (perhaps relatively small) sample of maple necks will have significantly different (statistically speaking) tonal characteristics to a sample of rosewood necks. This means a) you could never predict with absolute certainty the wood type from the sound alone, but b ) you could get it right x many times better than chance alone would predict. Testing this using measurement equipment under controlled conditions would be time-consuming and expensive, and personally I don't really care enough - I know what I like, I hear what I hear and since I spend all day in the lab, as well as many evenings, I don't feel the need to prove anything more rigorously for my hobby

FWIW every maple-board bass I have ever played has sounded somehow maple-y to my ears, the rosewood instruments being more variable. Trying to think about describing that difference, it's something in the way the upper-mid/HF decays after the initial attack, rosewood seems to damp these frequencies faster and playing-wise I sometimes get an impression almost of a compression effect in action on maple-board necks.

Back (nearly!) on-topic - my friend has just bought a set of Bareknuckle pickups for her Ryder tele - be interested to see how it sounds!

EDIT: Oh btw - definitely not saying you have no idea there, just that it's the way these things often end up, so it makes sensible discussion tricky after a bit! (talkbass? )[/quote]


As a fellow lab worker, although pretty much office based for the last 2 years (bioinformatics & statistics), I may have a tendency to try to devise an experiment to test a hypothesis and think of parameters to measure etc...
I think it's perfectly doable, once we establish how we measure "brightness", whether it is by a frequency spectrum measurement, or even using an empirical tester (a guy or a bunch of them simply making (blindly) decisions: A is brighter than reference R, B isn't, C is, D is, E isn't... etc). Through something like that, and a good supply of guitars, we could get something. We could even calculate the probability that a player will detect a different or not. Even find a correlation with age and/or gigging experience (how age-related or high volume-induced partial hearing loss affects it).
If I thought I could convince someone to fund this work, I'd be happy to design the experiments, write the grant proposal, etc. Sadly, I don't think there's a lot of hope (it'd be sweet 'though... "add £1300 to lab supplies costs this week, we need another rosewood 'board Stingray" ) and like you, quite frankly, it's not a subject that makes me lose any sleep

That's why I said I'm happy to accept others have noticed a difference between rosewood/maple. I haven't, but that's just me, and in my own personal universe there is no difference, but that's all
What gets to me is seeing some (very heated, sometimes [1]) discussions and tests that try to prove/disprove something... but they're (so far) badly designed, executed, and are utterly pointless. Someone can give me anecdotal evidence if they like, cool, interesting even, but they should call it that. That's what I argue, not so much whethe there is a difference or not.

On teh subject of wood affecting tone... my favourite luthier (all acoustic until I started pulling him towards the dark side ) and I had a conversation early on where I expressed my incredulity that wood mattered so much on electric instruments. He said he believe teh differences would not be as marked as on acoustics, but that they will be there as the whole thing vibrates etc and depending on what vibrations get dampened, and where, you get different tonal characteristics.
Then he told me about how he selects woods for different instruments he builds, and has various grades of rosewood and cedar and this and the other, and how he chooses what to use according to what he wants the guitar to sound like... and demo'd some of teh woods for me, so to speak.
It was a big eye opener. So, I may remain skeptical that there is a substantial *consistent* difference between rosewood and maple, larger than the variation among maple alone or rosewood alone... but it's not unconceivable that there *is* a difference, and that someone else (not me) can hear it, either through a sharper hearing, or maybe just experience... hey, I remember when I got my first electric guitar, I had no idea what the pickup switch did as I barely noticed any difference (the strings were very very very old, in my defense)... sounds crazy now, but I am reminded of it every time I try to convince my gf why the new bass addition was absolutely required because it sounds so different from the others



[1] (since you mention TB, have you checked the "wood matters" thread? and the one where a guy posted clips with a bass made from alder -I think- and another made from some cheap undefined timber? some people's reactions are truly amazing... using the word "people" in the broadest sense of the word)

[apa]

"Through something like that, and a good supply of guitars, we could get something"

Hmmm if only we could get hold of some idential basses that some one is selling off cheap with both Rosewood and Maple boards. Stock they dont want anymore at half price. Damn, if only that opertunity would come along!!!

A

[Monckyman]

Hi all Ryderites.
I noticed a lot of you have fitted Rotosound Trubass nylons.
I mention this because I don`t have a SR but do have a Stagg P-bass copy, which sounds ok, that I intend to fit trubass nylons to and go for that dubby dull james jamerson old string vibe.
Is this what some of you intend for the Ryders, and is it because you feel it will suit this role more than a bright zingy stringed snapping machine?
MM

[edstraker123]

[quote name='Monckyman' post='1197980' date='Apr 13 2011, 11:56 AM']Hi all Ryderites.
I noticed a lot of you have fitted Rotosound Trubass nylons.
I mention this because I don`t have a SR but do have a Stagg P-bass copy, which sounds ok, that I intend to fit trubass nylons to and go for that dubby dull james jamerson old string vibe.
Is this what some of you intend for the Ryders, and is it because you feel it will suit this role more than a bright zingy stringed snapping machine?
MM[/quote]


Hi Monckyman,
That's why I fitted the nylons to one of mine (the other has Ernie's) - however I found I liked D'addario black nylon tapewounds much better than the Trubass nylons, obviously down to individual preference but if you are in the market for some I'd check these out.
Ed

[mcnach]

[quote name='Monckyman' post='1197980' date='Apr 13 2011, 11:56 AM']Hi all Ryderites.
I noticed a lot of you have fitted Rotosound Trubass nylons.
I mention this because I don`t have a SR but do have a Stagg P-bass copy, which sounds ok, that I intend to fit trubass nylons to and go for that dubby dull james jamerson old string vibe.
Is this what some of you intend for the Ryders, and is it because you feel it will suit this role more than a bright zingy stringed snapping machine?
MM[/quote]

Personally, I wanted a more "double bassy" type of sound, dull but deep, woody...

I have one with roundwounds, bright. Another with flatwounds, dull. And a third with the TruBass tapewounds, more so (and I converted it to fretless too, which adds to the vibe I was after).

[Monckyman]

Trubass arrived this a.m! ta for the replies, chimes with my thinking.

[apa]

[quote name='Monckyman' post='1199308' date='Apr 14 2011, 12:44 PM']Trubass arrived this a.m! ta for the replies, chimes with my thinking.[/quote]

Hope youve got your nut slot files handy, thier thick buggers

[Monckyman]

<Ulp> nut files??
I noticed the E came in at 115!
Kinell I could tow me car with that!
Think I`ve got a rusty bastard file in the back, t`will have to do

[mcnach]

[quote name='Monckyman' post='1199603' date='Apr 14 2011, 04:49 PM']<Ulp> nut files??
I noticed the E came in at 115!
Kinell I could tow me car with that!
Think I`ve got a rusty bastard file in the back, t`will have to do [/quote]

Yeah, they're thick.

But I installed a set in my first SR P-bass without bothering to cut the slots wider... Not ideal, but workable. Eventually I had the nut done properly (got it replaced in fact, it was very poorly cut on that bass), but don't let the lack of files stop you from trying them. I love the fretless P iwth those strings.

[mcnach]

Enough Sue Ryder basses with postmarket pickguards!

Here is a Squier CV series with a Sue Rydr pickguard

if my name started with R I would leave it!

Edited April 18, 2011 by mcnach

[jimmyb625]

As of yesterday morning, there were still 3 in my local SR store. Red, Dark blue and light blue, or whatever the proper names are.

[mcnach]

[quote name='jimmyb625' post='1204856' date='Apr 19 2011, 03:15 PM']As of yesterday morning, there were still 3 in my local SR store. Red, Dark blue and light blue, or whatever the proper names are.[/quote]

oh, that will be Sue, Betty and Jane.

[mcnach]

Well, it's starting for SR#2.

Originally dark blue translucent finish body and maple fingerboard.
The neck went on to SR#3, and became fretless.
For SR#2 I got another maple fingerboard neck, which was much prettier, from another SR pikeman had (thank you!). But I'm not there yet.

First it will be stripped.
It'll then be oil-finished.
Then it'll be routed for a MM pickup and a P-type pickup... but that's not happening yet.

Today I bought a can of Nitromors.

It didn't smell as bad as I was led to believe. Bathroom with open window was more than enough.
But it did take a while to work. The can says 5-10min for paint to bubble, then apply another layer, wait 40min and remove with paint stripper spatula.
It barely did anything by that time, I guess the lacquer is really tough. I left it on while I watched a movie, while I had dinner, and then i went away for 2h. When I returned, nothing much had happened. I started working with the spatula, and happily the paint had been softened quite a bit. So I removed most of the paint of the back.

The grain of the body is not the most beautiful, but it's not bad.

Here's after the first application of Nitromors and 5min of spatula, followed by a quick rinse with white spirit.

[Ancient Mariner]

Is that body a 3 piece? I think mine is, and not too carefully matched.

[mcnach]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1205775' date='Apr 20 2011, 01:13 PM']Is that body a 3 piece? I think mine is, and not too carefully matched.[/quote]

It is at least a 3 piece yes, and not very carefully matched either. Funny that it matches better at the back than on the front... at least I think so, I haven't stripped the front yet, so it's what i can tell through the blue tint.

[apa]

Those holes for the through body stringing look a bit 'off centre'. Going to re aline them and make them bigger so 'real' strings can go though?

The one I sanded back was 3 piece to. Nice wood but not matched.

A

[mcnach]

[quote name='apa' post='1206007' date='Apr 20 2011, 03:49 PM']Those holes for the through body stringing look a bit 'off centre'. Going to re aline them and make them bigger so 'real' strings can go though?

The one I sanded back was 3 piece to. Nice wood but not matched.

A[/quote]

They are.
It's a possibility. I have to look at what ferrules I should get. I'm not bothered about string-through, but since they are going to be there, I might as well make them functional. If you know which ferrules I should get, I'm all ears. But I probably won't use them.

[mcnach]

[quote name='pikeman' post='1123200' date='Feb 10 2011, 09:59 PM']Just face facts Jose, Sue Ryder has been responsible for your further education.
You'll be looking at Squiers next, a slippery slope. [/quote]


Funny that... I ended up with a Squier Classic Vibe P-bass too
I'm so suggestionable

[mcnach]

To those with fretless Sue Ryders (or any P-bass, really):

*nylon tapewounds*

which ones have you tried?
I first tried Rotosound TruBass (hefty 65-115 gauge). They were great. Massive. Deep. A bit plasticky with the tone opened up. Cool and double-bassy.
Now I tried D'Addario tapewounds (50-105 gauge). Lower tension, a bit brighter, more sustain, less double bassy and lots of mwah (perhaps due to resulting lower action, as I didn't touch the truss rod after the string change). These seem more versatile to me, and teh sound with tone control open is nicer, in my opinion. If I wanted more double-bass-like tones, I'd use a mute.

any other types? how would you describe them?

[Evil Undead]

So, does anyone wanna part with theirs yet?

I need a cheap P copy, and one of these would be perfect! Unfortunately it seems that Sue Ryder don't sell them any more

PM me if interested!

[burray]

[quote name='Evil Undead' post='1211776' date='Apr 26 2011, 04:17 PM']So, does anyone wanna part with theirs yet?

I need a cheap P copy, and one of these would be perfect! Unfortunately it seems that Sue Ryder don't sell them any more

PM me if interested![/quote]

I'm pretty sure tom1946 still has a couple for sale.

[Evil Undead]

[quote name='burray' post='1211803' date='Apr 26 2011, 04:47 PM']I'm pretty sure tom1946 still has a couple for sale.[/quote]


Thanks, I've shot a PM over to him

Anyone else has one, please let me know. Ideally I'm looking for a white one, doesn't matter if the FB is maple or rosewood