Tonewoods

[cytania]

"I've met a number of acoustic builders who have said to me that wood doesn't matter in acoustics either"

The most obvious difference is playing any mahogany acoustic versus a normal pine top, the mahogany is instant delta blues and no maker can seem to mess it up.

There are maker differences though Taylors have a trebley voice, not sure what part of their construction does this but even my cheap one has it. Oh and if you have £5K spare try a McPherson, their curvy bracing system gives their guitars something extra.

I think this maker's tone thing holds more water than woods. Ibanez always has a clean, clinical (in a good way) sound to my ear no matter what style bass they do. Then there's the mystery of the Rickenbacker clank; huge bridge? metal clad pickup? or dual truss rod? but it's there waiting for a pick to unleash it.

I think the moral of today's thread is yes wood is important but simply looking for the tag 'alder body' or 'maple' in the spec is not going to guarrantee a particular tone in a bass. I now resolve to ignore the body wood and try everything out in a store.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Mikeg' post='1318658' date='Jul 27 2011, 12:41 PM']Thats realy nice man, great work. Where'd you get the wood from?[/quote]Thanks, the wood came from a many wood stores around Los Angeles.[quote]Also if you dont mind me asking, what machinery was required for this build?[/quote]
I would have the wood stores do any ripping on a table saw I needed and the rest of the surfacing and dimensioning would be done with a router and some clever jigs. I also had a bandsaw and a drill press and that was it for machinery.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='cytania' post='1318701' date='Jul 27 2011, 01:11 PM']The most obvious difference is playing any mahogany acoustic versus a normal pine top, the mahogany is instant delta blues and no maker can seem to mess it up.[/quote]
Many different woods from all over the world are sold as mahogany even though they aren't. They sound different if you don't call them mahogany. What you may not be considering is that guitars built for certain tones use woods that have those reputation because they are in the business of selling guitars. But it's not the wood giving those tones.

Most Ferraris are red but it's not the color that makes them go fast, they are red because that's what fast car owners like to see.

Pickups and preamps can be scoped and tonal differences can be measured to the specific frequency and builds can be predicted and repeated. These are real differences. You will never see someone saying rosewood has a notch around 2.4k, that would be real and the tone differences are imagined. All the things that really shape tone can be measured, amps cabs, effects etc... This is not possible for wood as there are no tones specific to certain genus' or species. But like santa claus it has a lot of firm believers who won't have it any other way.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='cytania' post='1318701' date='Jul 27 2011, 01:11 PM']Then there's the mystery of the Rickenbacker clank; huge bridge? metal clad pickup? or dual truss rod? but it's there waiting for a pick to unleash it.[/quote]
Sounds like the pick is the tone source

[dc2009]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1318629' date='Jul 27 2011, 08:25 PM']So what does it mean when you say regarding tone "but IME wood quality is infinitely more important than the actual wood you use!"?[/quote]

ime = in my estimation = subjective no? :s

[lanark]

[quote name='cytania' post='1318701' date='Jul 27 2011, 09:11 PM']"I've met a number of acoustic builders who have said to me that wood doesn't matter in acoustics either"[/quote]

Well, it's accepted that Stradivarius used crap wood that instrument makers would nowadays rather burn than make an instrument from. Guess what, the explanation for the tone moves from wood, to the "special" glue or varnish or something, whatever. It can't just be that he was exceptionally good at making instruments and that the magic comes from a) the maker's skill and b ) the listener's brain *after* being told it's a Strad.

Edited July 28, 2011 by lanark

[xilddx]

[quote name='cytania' post='1318701' date='Jul 27 2011, 09:11 PM']"I've met a number of acoustic builders who have said to me that wood doesn't matter in acoustics either"

The most obvious difference is playing any mahogany acoustic versus a normal pine top, the mahogany is instant delta blues and no maker can seem to mess it up.

There are maker differences though Taylors have a trebley voice, not sure what part of their construction does this but even my cheap one has it. Oh and if you have £5K spare try a McPherson, their curvy bracing system gives their guitars something extra.

I think this maker's tone thing holds more water than woods. Ibanez always has a clean, clinical (in a good way) sound to my ear no matter what style bass they do. Then there's the mystery of the Rickenbacker clank; huge bridge? metal clad pickup? or dual truss rod? but it's there waiting for a pick to unleash it.

I think the moral of today's thread is yes wood is important but simply looking for the tag 'alder body' or 'maple' in the spec is not going to guarrantee a particular tone in a bass. I now resolve to ignore the body wood and try everything out in a store.[/quote]
Bracing type, glue, the ratio of stability to vibrational qualities, the way the wood is sawn, etc, is much more important than the type of wood as far as I'm aware.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='lanark' post='1319071' date='Jul 28 2011, 10:18 AM']Well, it's accepted that Stradivarius used crap wood that instrument makers would nowadays rather burn than make an instrument from. Guess what, the explanation for the tone moves from wood, to the "special" glue or varnish or something, whatever. It can't just be that he was exceptionally good at making instruments and that the magic comes from a) the maker's skill and b ) the listener's brain *after* being told it's a Strad.[/quote]

Well no, the magic can't come from the maker's skill because it's not actual magic, the skill has to have resulted in some physical property of the instrument. Psychological effects are almost definitely involved as well, but it's not like all Stradivari sound brilliant and every other violin total arse, its just that good violins sound incredibly different from bad ones. But a braced hollow structure like a violin is incredibly different to a solid body guitar. People often misinterpret that to mean that wood is more important for the acoustic instrument, but actually what it means is the structure as a whole is more important - of which wood type is just a part, hence the importance of bracing. Shape of a solid body instrument within reasonable boundaries is by comparison much less critical.

As far as I can see, this discussion always goes on and on for 3 reasons (not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, just an observation of what always happens). First, insufficient grasp of the physics involves. Second, insufficient understanding of how to formulate a scientific hypothesis and test it. Third, insufficient understanding of statistical analysis to interpret results. The second reason is the most insidious IMO, because people often end up at loggerheads when really they'd probably agree on the evidence, just interpret the question differently.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='silddx' post='1319088' date='Jul 28 2011, 10:33 AM']Bracing type, glue, the ratio of stability to vibrational qualities, the way the wood is sawn, etc, is much more important than the type of wood as far as I'm aware.[/quote]
Totally.

But this thread will be forgotten by next week and the next gathering of [s]Googlers[/s] experts will be here extolling the extraordinary tonal properties of the hyper elite and unsustainable Peruvian Ymabitovahtwat wood.

[Happy Jack]

The best wood is carbon.

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1317879' date='Jul 27 2011, 01:34 AM']I absolutely love the many sensible answers in this thread. A year ago it would have been full of pseudo elitists spouting as many exotic sounding names as your keyboard could handle. Well done Basschat you are learning to think for yourselves.[/quote]
But everyone (Mpingo) is (Paduak) arriving (Wenge) at (Ziricote) the (Afzelia) same (Zebrano) conclusion (Macassar Ebony)
Is (Honduran Rosewood) this (Rock Maple) really (Walnut) the (Mahogany) result (Alder) of (Maple) independent (Ash) thought (Ovangkol) or (Basswood) the (Pau Ferro) result (Swamp Ash) of (Lacewood) a (Spalted Maple) change (Poplar) in (Cherry) consensus?

And HJ, I revisited my Streamline after a long absence. To say it is annoying me (both ergonomically, tonally and in other respects) would be an understatement. I was looking forward to it, too. Seriously, I could've reduced it to splinters, so I went back to my [insert deeply unfashionable German Manufacturer, known for a feud with Status] Fortress, and all was well again. And it had a B string, too.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Lfalex v1.1

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='1319620' date='Jul 28 2011, 06:41 PM']But everyone (Mpingo) is (Paduak) arriving (Wenge) at (Ziricote) the (Afzelia) same (Zebrano) conclusion (Macassar Ebony)
Is (Honduran Rosewood) this (Rock Maple) really (Walnut) the (Mahogany) result (Alder) of (Maple) independent (Ash) thought (Ovangkol) or (Basswood) the (Pau Ferro) result (Swamp Ash) of (Lacewood) a (Spalted Maple) change (Poplar) in (Cherry) consensus?...[/quote]
10 out of 10 for effort writing that up.

I think it may be as a result of countless threads bigging up exotic woods (and justifiably so for many reasons) without clarification or actual proof of the alleged tonal super-propeties.... and a bit of common sense.

[BigRedX]

In the two customs builds I've had made where the wood was visible they were picked first and foremost because I thought that they looked nice.

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1319690' date='Jul 28 2011, 08:03 PM']10 out of 10 for effort writing that up.

I think it may be as a result of countless threads bigging up exotic woods (and justifiably so for many reasons) without clarification or actual proof of the alleged tonal super-propeties.... and a bit of common sense.[/quote]

Thanks, it was a royal pain!

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='dc2009' post='1319034' date='Jul 28 2011, 01:39 AM']ime = in my estimation = subjective no? :s[/quote]
I was hoping you'd actually try to back up your statement and not just give the definition for IME which is not what you're writing about. What is this wood quality you are making these grand claims for? I think you don't know yourself and are just repeating things you've heard but I thought I'd ask to see if you know what you're saying instead of knowing you're saying the right things.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='lanark' post='1319071' date='Jul 28 2011, 02:18 AM']Well, it's accepted that Stradivarius used crap wood that instrument makers would nowadays rather burn than make an instrument from. Guess what, the explanation for the tone moves from wood, to the "special" glue or varnish or something, whatever. It can't just be that he was exceptionally good at making instruments and that the magic comes from a) the maker's skill and b ) the listener's brain *after* being told it's a Strad.[/quote]
It could also be that they just aren't as great as they are hyped to be but are often played by great musicians. There have been blind tests with Strads where experts could not identify them by tone alone but as usual once they were told which is which they offered new judgements that reaffirmed their expertise. But you're right, for many years the varnish was the alchemists secret that brought magical powers to the favored golden calf.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page

It's like arguing religion, even simple logic is so quickly dismissed. Strads are great because they have aged for hundreds of years. So then they weren't the result of expert wood selection and skill. NO!!! It's both mutually exclusive ideas and stop persecuting me hater!!!

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1319101' date='Jul 28 2011, 02:40 AM']Second, insufficient understanding of how to formulate a scientific hypothesis and test it.[/quote]
Coupled with a powerful ego unable to consider they may be wrong once they have publicly stated an opinion. It's a religious type argument. I thought I'd point a few fingers

When people quote advertising as scientific proof it reminds me of the circular logic of many religious arguments. In the guitar world advertising seems to be almost the exclusive source of "science". That's so American

[ThomBassmonkey]

"tone wood" is a bit like saying "colour paint", all wood gives a tone, what you think of it is opinion.

IME (which I think of as experience, not estimation ) and IMO different woods can sound different but I wouldn't buy a bass because it was made of a specific wood, the pup configuration, preamp and other factors would be far more meaningful.

Trying out two basses that are identical apart from woods might show some difference but when I'm thinking of tone, wood is the least of my worries.