Need advice about woods...

[chris_b]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339674152' post='1692392']
....I think what was established was that the influence of materials on tone wasn't as simply predictable as the 'x wood has y tone' that is put about. Wood does affect tone, but the relationship isn't so simple as can be summarised in generalisations....
[/quote]

The main views are that woods can and do make a difference to the tone of an electric bass and that they certainly do not!

Apparently most people know that wood makes no difference at all. I'd call that a generalisation!

As usual on BC one side of the argument is being shouted down by the other.

Michael Tobias states his view very clearly. Break out your biggest megaphone. He can't be shouted down as easily.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339676123' post='1692459']
OK, then, I guess you haven't anything to back up the vague [s]facts[/s] assertions in your post.
[/quote]

Not at all mate. I'm at work. May I respectfully point you in the same direction you did the OP at the start of this thread?
Either that or I could have my dissertation on your desk first thing Monday morning.

Seriously though I would have thought that as you're just as much an active member of the internet bass community as myself, you would have come across the same articles on the subject that I and many others had (for eg. there was a big game changer on TB - pine plank vs Fender bass). The truth is out there my friend... if you're ready to accept it.

[noelk27]

+1 neepheid

Construction techniques have more impact than choice of woods. Elsewhere on the boards there's a thread running where it's being claimed that the slither of touchboard material has a marked impact on the sound produced by a bass (it being stated that rosewood dampens the overall sound). Personally, I think that assertion is nonsense (not least because a fretted string almost never touches the board, but the fret wire, so even accepting transmission and dissipation arguments it's difficult to see how the wire isn't having more of an impact than the touchboard wood).

Anyway, around six months ago I was trying to work out the best pickups to put into a Yamaki constructed Washburn Falcon carcass (a neck-through made with ash and rosewood, featuring a carved rosewood top) and had some pickups from an '83 Yamaha SG2000S (a neck-though made with mahogany, featuring a carved maple top) and a '79 Ibanez Artist 2622 (Super 80s) (a set neck made with mahogany, featuring a carved maple top). Playing the Falcon alongside another Yamaha SG, an '81 SG2000, and another Ibanez Artist, a '78 2619, I could here no differences between the SG pickups in the Falcon or the SG, or between the Falcon and the Artist. Having made some recordings, I also had the guitarist I work with take a listen, and he said the same, that the Super 80s sounded like Super 80s, irrespective of which carcass those were in. Same for the SG pickups. Only went to confirm what I'd believed previously.

Edited June 14, 2012 by noelk27

[Muzz]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339676989' post='1692481']
Michael Tobias states his view very clearly. Break out your biggest megaphone. He can't be shouted down as easily.
[/quote]

You mean a man whose earnings are in part dependent on him using premium, exotic, allegedly tone-changing woods and charging accordingly? Imagine how many more basses he'd sell if he said "Pick a nice colour and pattern guys, the tone's mostly in the electrics"...

Yeah, right: no ulterior motives there...

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339676989' post='1692481']
The main views are that woods can and do make a difference to the tone of an electric bass and that they certainly do not!

Apparently most people know that wood makes no difference at all. I'd call that a generalisation!

As usual on BC one side of the argument is being shouted down by the other.

Michael Tobias states his view very clearly. Break out your biggest megaphone. He can't be shouted down as easily.
[/quote]

I ain't shouting buddy. I'm merely saying what I see because I feel it's relevant to the discussion. (Surly I have that right? )

Perhaps Mr Tobias has a vested interest in siding with this opinion? Especially when (as in that vid) he declares that all his products are built identical except for the woods - it would be financial suicide to say otherwise. He also admits that his method statement or vision is the polar opposite to another very well known and equally respected custom maker. Who's right?

As I said the times they are a changin' and the punters are getting smarter.

[chris_b]

[quote name='noelk27' timestamp='1339677653' post='1692500']
....Only went to confirm what I'd believed previously....
[/quote]


As MT said, you can build basses so that the wood is tonally neutral.

[quote name='Muzz' timestamp='1339677889' post='1692503']
....You mean a man whose earnings are in part dependent on him using premium, exotic, allegedly tone-changing woods and charging accordingly?....
[/quote]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339678410' post='1692517']
....Perhaps Mr Tobias has a vested interest in siding with this opinion?....
[/quote]


How does that argument stack up? If that is what he believes then he would be stupid to build a bass any other way.

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339678410' post='1692517']
....He also admits that his method statement or vision is the polar opposite to another very well known and equally respected custom maker. Who's right?....
[/quote]


They are both right. They are making their basses the way that gets the sound and instrument they want to build.

But if Alembic has to go through a construction process that specifically makes their basses tonally neutral then that has to mean that wood does affect the tone of a bass.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339673365' post='1692369']
That vid was uploaded 4 years ago. Since then the bass community has forced several controlled and impartial (as good as it can get under the circumstances) tests which have disproved the notion that an electric bass relies on the wood for tone. Most people now accept that the whole maple/rosewood argument holds little credence, a year or two ago that definitely wasn't the case. Pretty soon the truth about tonewood will reach critical mass too.
[/quote]

Hmm, speaking with my scientist hat on, I have never seen anything even vaguely scientific that properly tests whether wood can effect the tone of an electric instrument or not (yup, including that talkbass thread). Seen plenty of papers looking at acoustic instruments which provide convincing evidence that it does, but not solid-body instruments. First principles suggest that it has to, the real question is how much (ie whether it's at all noticeable), and what degree of correlation there is to wood variety and other properties.

I know I can be a bit of a broken record with this particular argument but people often point to this or that as 'proof'/'facts' etc but the objective data simply isn't out there - especially not in that talkbass thread. I always point to dead spots on a neck which is an entirely acoustic phenomenon, dictated by mechanical resonance in the neck and body. I am genuinely baffled as to why that alone doesn't serve as adequate demonstration that wood is a factor in how the string vibrates and therefore the sound of the instrument, and that this can at least under certain circumstances be significantly audible.

Edited June 14, 2012 by LawrenceH

[Commando Jack]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339672393' post='1692337']
What Michael Tobias has to say on the subject.

Snip
[/quote]

Well he does admit that he keeps everything the same except the wood. To me that translates as "if I change anything else the differences caused by the wood are lost". Also he says (quite rightly IMO) that "the only variable is the vibration of the string in the field of the pickup". Many factors can affect that, and I'd expect that the wood is not anywhere near the number one spot.

Bottom line for me is that once the FOH/recording engineer gets their grubby mits all over it, its unlikely that I would be able to tell the difference, so I'd pick the wood for it's weight or looks. Actually scrub that, pick it for the look, because natural finish guitars are gorgeous!

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339672393' post='1692337']
What Michael Tobias has to say on the subject.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQy4jyf-Yps[/media]
[/quote]

Not a comment on the whole tonewood thing, but I found the interviewer's habit of routinely commenting "[i][b]Correct[/b][/i]" to Michael Tobias incredibly irritating, and I'm surprised he was prepared to put up with it.

If someone of that status tells me something, I don't reply "[i][b]Correct[/b][/i]" like I'm telling him he got the answer right!

[scojack]

If the Punters believe it then perhaps its in the Luthiers interest to perpetuate this myth? If it sells instruments then so be it.

After spending a wad of cash for a custom instrument with wood X to do this and wood Y to do this, the customer will hear exactly what they want to hear and not necessarily be entirely objective ......but everyone is a winner.

Edited June 14, 2012 by scojack

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339680220' post='1692555']...They are both right. They are making their basses the way that gets the sound and instrument they want to build.

But if Alembic has to go through a construction process that specifically makes their basses tonally neutral then that has to mean that wood does affect the tone of a bass.
[/quote]

And what of the manufactures, some of whom are the most successful in the world, who pay little heed to this phenomenon (other than the lips service they pay to those who demand attention to the fact that their hearing is better than others) and still produce laudable instruments?


[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339680268' post='1692558']
Hmm, speaking with my scientist hat on, I have never seen anything even vaguely scientific that properly tests whether wood can effect the tone of an electric instrument or not (yup, including that talkbass thread).[/quote]

So as a scientist, you find nothing "vaguely scientific" about taking specific components from a control bass, putting them on a test bed subject (in this case a pine plank body), recording the resultant output, then returning said components to the control bass, recording the resultant output under identical conditions, then allowing a random selection of the general bass playing public an opportunity to identify which bass is which? Right.

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339680268' post='1692558']....Seen plenty of papers looking at acoustic instruments which provide convincing evidence that it does, but not solid-body instruments. [/quote]

I wonder why.
I doubt there is a player or builder alive who would dispute that the choice of woods are essential for acoustic instruments. Electric instruments however "read" and reproduce the string vibrations in a different way.

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339680268' post='1692558']....

I know I can be a bit of a broken record with this particular argument but people often point to this or that as 'proof'/'facts' etc but the objective data simply isn't out there - especially not in that talkbass thread. I always point to dead spots on a neck which is an entirely acoustic phenomenon, dictated by mechanical resonance in the neck and body. I am genuinely baffled as to why that alone doesn't serve as adequate demonstration that wood is a factor in how the string vibrates and therefore the sound of the instrument, and that this can at least under certain circumstances be significantly audible.
[/quote]

Dead spots are a different matter to tone. They are concerned with inherent physical, inaudible vibrations of the base material. Tone is what carries the music.
If you can produce some empirical evidence to the contrary of that which I am being pressed to argue then that's the thread over. A conclusion I'd gladly welcome.

edited for clarification and syntax errors... been huffing nitro today and missed a proof read.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Ou7shined

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='scojack' timestamp='1339680911' post='1692579']... the customer will hear exactly what they want to hear and not necessarily be entirely objective ......
[/quote]

Yup been guilty of that too.
Then I did my own experiments (non of which will be scientific enough to be open for debate on an internet forum) and proved myself wrong.

[Coilte]

No scientific facts in this post, I'm afraid, just a general observation, from your average Joe.

[b]If[/b] indeed the wood used, makes a difference to the tone, the in my humble opinion, this difference is minimal. There are too many other components in the sound chain from fingers/pick to what comes out of the cab, for it to be otherwise. IMO, strings, pre amp, active/passive, amp, cab, and the players technique, play a far bigger role in the tone, than the wood used in construction.

[Mr. Foxen]

I'm making an acoustic instrument out of plywood right now. The tone of it is going to blow minds.

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339687667' post='1692748']
I'm making an acoustic instrument out of plywood right now. The tone of it is going to blow minds.
[/quote]

Like this one?

[LawrenceH]

Hi Ou7shined, hope you don't take umbrage if I reply to your points, I'd like to be clear that I'm bothering to do so because you are actually someone who thinks about how things work and does a good job of implementing it rather than just some numpty on the internet. So I have a lot of respect for both what you do with basses and for your opinion on them!

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339682997' post='1692636']
So as a scientist, you see nothing "vaguely scientific" about taking specific components from a control bass, putting them on a test bed subject, recording the resultant output, then returning said components to the control bass, recording the resultant output under identical conditions, then allowing a random selection of the general bass playing public an opportunity to identify which bass is which? Right.
[/quote]

No I don't for three massively fundamental reasons:

1. It was an interesting demo but it did not address the question of whether wood can im impact upon audible tone. It just showed that two different pieces of wood from different species [i]can[/i] be made to sound very similar, itself an interesting thing but not the same at all. 'Can do' is not the same as 'always do, and formal logic spends a lot of time defining these fundamental differences in reasoning process from hypothesis to conclusion. So first up it addresses a different hypothesis to that usually debated.

2. In science controls and controlled conditions are essential. Neither the 'test bed' nor the original body had any characterisation of their physical properties, and there is consequently no means of comparison to general phyiscal properties of wood to see where these examples would fit on the curve. This might seem like a quibble but it's absolutely key. Why is that?...

3. Because the only way to do this even vaguely successfully without actual measurement info on the wood to compare to already know material variation, would be to take more samples using a lot more species of wood and to maintain a consistent plank size each time. You cannot draw any conclusion whatsoever from a total sample size of two. That's why even the ropiest statistical tests require n of at least 3 per comparison group before they can even be employed with validity, let alone accuracy.

A methodologically identical analogy to that demo would be to record two bird calls from two different birds we happen to hear. Suppose they sound essentially the same, do you conclude that all birds always sound the same? Of course not, we haven't addressed that question at all. Similarly we can't conclude from a sample size of two that smoking doesn't case cancer.

So, we can't test every piece of wood but really we don't need to, as long as we have sufficient information about population distributions of relevant physical properties of woods we can use statistical methods. However, 'relevant physical properties' requires that we have a model of how a note is generated, which itself requires using material vibrational analysis based on very old and well-characterised physics (physical modelling synthesis would be based on exactly this type of approach).

Incidentally the quality of measurement, ie our ears from a lo-fi clip on the internet assessing someone else's playing rather than any consistent mechanical input, is yet another matter but that is a limitation in execution rather than a flaw in methodology. As is the fact that a big thick piece of lumber joined to a relatively thin neck might well result in tonal properties dictated by the neck! Drop the mass of the body and change its distribution and see what happens then - if you make it obviously too thin you'll DEFINITELY hear the impact! That's a silly extreme of course but consider that the neck vibrations on a typical Fender are easily visible to the naked eye and are visibly in the audio spectrum (20Hz-20k). That energy has to come from somewhere!

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339682997' post='1692636']
Dead spots is another matter to tone. These are connected to inherent physical inaudible vibrations of the base material. Tone is what carries the music.
If you can produce some empirical evidence to the contrary of that which I am being pushed upon then that's the thread over. A conclusion I'd welcome.
[/quote]

I just don't understand what you mean by 'another matter'. Tone (timbre actually but we all say tone) is dictated [i]entirely[/i] by the total harmonic content at the beginning of a note and the way these harmonics decay over time. Your ears are fourier analysers, efectively breaking the complex waveform up into component sine wave harmonics and then your brain reassembles that into 'tone'. The 'dead spot' neck resonance is altering decay of particular low harmonics which on other notes have a longer decay curve. This is [i]exactly[/i] the same as tone/timbre it's just a very obvious example because it alters the lower end of the harmonic spectrum and in a way that is position-dependent on the instrument.

Despite everything I've posted I don't actually believe that subtle nuances of 'tonewood' ARE critical [i]at all, [/i]and certainly not by species, because guitar makes have already preselected materials based on certain mechanical constraints and very likely with a high degree of overlap between species. Nonetheless you probably could measure differences and show broad species correlations if you took enough samples, there'd just be a lot of noise ie a high degree of overlap. Eg you might be able to predict maple v rosewood for instance, 55% of the time - so better than chance but not by much. I would agree with the final practical conclusion 'don't worry about it, just make sure it's built properly'!

[Lozz196]

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1339669846' post='1692253']
Having had a go on two Epiphone Thunderbirds, one made of alder, the other of mahogany, with, from the specs, everything else being the same, I could have told, blindfolded, which was which, by the sound through an amp with the same settings.
[/quote]
[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339670911' post='1692295']
Same set of strings?
[/quote]

Yes, as far as I know, they were both new, in a music shop. Can`t see Epi putting different strings on different models.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339682997' post='1692636']
I wonder why.
I doubt there is a player or builder alive who would dispute that the choice of woods are essential for acoustic instruments. Electric instruments however "read" and reproduce the string vibrations in a different way.
[/quote]

Sorry, I missed this bit! Despite positive publication bias, a paper demonstrating that wood has no impact on tone would definitely be considered publishable - I'd assume a lack of publications indicates a lack of non-proprietary interest rather than because it's a crazy theory. Actually a model of how electric instruments work is essentially the same as an acoustic one, it's just that after a certain point the transforming functions are done electrically. Before that point still matters or we wouldn't hear the difference between one string type and the next or indeed one note and the next.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Muzz' timestamp='1339677889' post='1692503']
"Pick a nice colour and pattern guys, the tone's mostly in the electrics"
[/quote]

Pretty much what John Birch said, told me himself - said most of the sound was in the pickups (his vested interest and obsession) and developed them constantly throughout his life; whereas maple was his wood of choice - mainly because it was cheap, strong & not bad to work with, the birds-eye etc came later. He also had a thing about Gibson guitars - which maybe (my thoughts) shied him away from using mahogany unless he was asked to.
"colours and patterns"?? check out his early 70s glam creations.

[Musky]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1339680864' post='1692577']
Not a comment on the whole tonewood thing, but I found the interviewer's habit of routinely commenting "[i][b]Correct[/b][/i]" to Michael Tobias incredibly irritating, and I'm surprised he was prepared to put up with it.

If someone of that status tells me something, I don't reply "[i][b]Correct[/b][/i]" like I'm telling him he got the answer right!
[/quote]
Now that's something we an agree on!

Anyway, I thought the tone was all in the fingers?

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339688007' post='1692755']
Acoustics as I think ou7shined pointed out are a whole different thing.
[/quote]

If I stick a pickup to it, how are they different?

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339704839' post='1693176']
If I stick a pickup to it, how are they different?
[/quote]

A hollow-bodied acoustic instrument's tone is really heavily dominated by the construction - the body plus soundholes act like a Helmholtz resonator, analogous to a tuned reflex speaker cab. The top is very thin and usually braced to give a particular stiffness-weight ratio which itself (with the shape) gives particular modal resonance properties, then this interacts with the back/sides... it's a pretty complicated system! A solid body doesn't have the chamber resonance to contend with, and the greater weight and thickness means resonances will be shifted higher and amplified far less.

Edited June 14, 2012 by LawrenceH

[Bassman Rich]

I have a selection of P type basses, a 1983 maple neck one and 2003 rosewood neck one (both solid colour bodies and stock fender usa pups) that are identical in sound to my battered 47 year old ears, and a home made one with birds eye maple neck, european ash body, and I expected to sound a bit more brittle and trebly, actually is aquite a bit more warm and rounded, maybe its the bartolini precision type pup? Whatever anyone else says, you try a bass, and either like it compared to your current favourite, or not, going thru the same amp/cab etc, and so make a judgement there and then.


And then decide that a 1963 Pre cbs custom colour (gold sparkle) P bass with a c width neck and ohsc is what you want, whatever it sounds like, however much it costs (over £10k, eek!!)
cos you're in love.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339705278' post='1693187']
A hollow-bodied acoustic instrument's tone is really heavily dominated by the construction - the body plus soundholes act like a Helmholtz resonator, analogous to a tuned reflex speaker cab. The top is very thin and usually braced to give a particular stiffness-weight ratio which itself (with the shape) gives particular modal resonance properties, then this interacts with the back/sides... it's a pretty complicated system! A solid body doesn't have the chamber resonance to contend with, and the greater weight and thickness means resonances will be shifted higher and amplified far less.
[/quote]

Whole bunch of incorrect assumptions there.
[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339705309' post='1693188']
good question.

But are you talking a pick up (Which I always thought was a little odd thing to do) or a Piezo system?
[/quote]

Both are pickups. Either applies, since I have both options, will probably do both. But I'm mostly about the acoustic output. Same with my electric basses, play unplugged for vast majority of time, best way to ensure my fingers make sounds I want come out of my bass.

[Mr. Foxen]

Hold the string still, vibrate the wood the magnetic is attached too, sound comes out. Even in a solid body the wood vibrates, you can feel it, its an additional thing to the string vibrating.