xgsjx Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Would one of these sound plasticy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer of the Bass Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339706534' post='1693233'] Whole bunch of incorrect assumptions there. [/quote] Which assumptions, and in what way do you consider them incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssentialTension Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1339707756' post='1693262'] Would one of these sound plasticy? [/quote] I can see through that easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xgsjx Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1339707914' post='1693266'] I can see through that easily. [/quote] I played one of these naked once.... The guitarist said "I can clearly see your nuts!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1339707902' post='1693265'] Which assumptions, and in what way do you consider them incorrect? [/quote] The assumptions made about acoustic instruments. I know they are incorrect because I know what I'm making and the acoustic principles it is built around, and the assumptions don't apply. Also, there mere fact electric basses make sound when not plugged in shows there is relevance to the physical properties, that is a major thing to eliminate. Edited June 14, 2012 by Mr. Foxen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339708294' post='1693276'] Yes but in a solid body is it a defining thing and does the species of wood make the difference over and above everything else? Or as I think, you cannot accurately say what influence any piece of wood will have. Therefore picking it for it's tone is a bit silly. [/quote] I already said about that earlier. But not being able to predict something isn't the same as that thing not existing. Edit: Here: [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] Edited June 14, 2012 by Mr. Foxen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339683146' post='1692640'] 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. [/quote] Rich.... genuine question, to you with your luthier's hat on. Say I wanted a bass, and imagine we've got past the tone wood issue. Hmm so say I know I want Nordy pickups on the bass cos I like them. What else makes a good bass a god bass? Or, say you are making one, what extra do you, (or Shuker, or ACG, or RIM or Sei or whoever) that makes a bass 'better' than something I could bolt together from Warmoth or someone? What's the difference between a great great bass and a half good one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceH Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339706534' post='1693233'] Whole bunch of incorrect assumptions there. [/quote] Sorry I don't follow - incorrect about how acoustic instruments with hollow bodies work or my assumption that you were talking about hollow body instruments? Just to be clear i wasn't saying that the mechano-acoustic properties of an electric instrument aren't important, just that the dominant factors that govern what you hear in an hollow body acoustic relate to construction and specifically chamber resonance Edited June 14, 2012 by LawrenceH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer of the Bass Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339708224' post='1693273'] The assumptions made about acoustic instruments. I know they are incorrect because I know what I'm making and the acoustic principles it is built around, and the assumptions don't apply. [/quote] Unless you can explain [i]why[/i] you consider each specific statement incorrect, that looks an awful lot like lazy condescension to the casual observer. Can you do that? I'm not trying to stir things here, I'm genuinely curious to see where you're coming from with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssentialTension Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [size=3][quote] First of all (and speaking from a steel string guitar perspective), let's discard the notion that some species of wood make good instruments and that others don't. The concept of tonewood is a hoax. Of the few things that we can do to a guitar and still call it a guitar, changing the wood it is made of will have the least impact upon the quality of the sound that it produces. The tonal difference between a mahogany guitar and a rosewood guitar is exactly the same as the difference between two mahogany guitars or two rosewood guitars. Can you tell what a guitar is made of while listening to an unfamiliar recording? No one I know claims they can. No one at the blind listening sessions I've attended could reliably distinguish between mahogany and rosewood guitars, or maple and koa guitars for that matter.[/quote][/size] [url="http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm"]http://www.guitarnat...cles/calkin.htm[/url] ... also: [url="http://www.cycfi.com/2009/10/tuning-the-wood-on-tonewoods-and-other-myths/"]http://www.cycfi.com...nd-other-myths/[/url] Edited June 14, 2012 by EssentialTension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339708671' post='1693289'] Sorry I don't follow - incorrect about how acoustic instruments with hollow bodies work or my assumption that you were talking about hollow body instruments? Just to be clear i wasn't saying that the mechano-acoustic properties of an electric instrument aren't important, just that the dominant factors that govern what you hear in an hollow body acoustic relate to construction and specifically chamber resonance [/quote] The hollow body bit mostly, which disapplies all the following statements as their significance are specific to hollow bodies. If my electric bass isn't plugged in, its an acoustic instrument, just a fairly quiet one, but I can play a tune to someone in the same room and they can hear it fine. Also, with all the examples of wood bodied instruments mad of random wood, the wood isn't that random, they are all woods chosen for properties similar to those that make desirable electric guitar wood, mostly predictable and consistent strength and workability, pallets and popsicle sticks, need to be stiff, work under load and be rapidly shaped by machine into consistent shapes. So its all about comparing similar woods to establish a difference. Pick woods with wildly different properties, and you might hear something easier. Edit: also with regards to guitars specifically, the electric output of a guitar sounds dreadful for starters, so the tone of the amp is a much bigger deal, the bass is usually covered by other instruments, so the hearing on record thing isn't that useful a statement. Very few people have spent the time listening to instruments outside of those conditions to be able to say whether a broad wood group is a recogniseable variable. But varying wood does have an effect on tone, as stated, even within a species. Edited June 14, 2012 by Mr. Foxen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer of the Bass Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339709188' post='1693301'] The hollow body bit mostly, which disapplies all the following statements as their significance are specific to hollow bodies. If my electric bass isn't plugged in, its an acoustic instrument, just a fairly quiet one, but I can play a tune to someone in the same room and they can hear it fine. [/quote] Ah, so it's a matter of semantics rather than actual disagreement. That could have been made somewhat clearer. Personally I feel that calling a solid bodied electric bass an acoustic instrument is a bit of a stretch, as they are seldom (I would say never, but there may be exceptions I am unaware of) used this way in public performance or recorded applications. I'd prefer to borrow a term from the keyboard world and call the electric bass an electro-mechanical instrument. I would agree however that the line between acoustic and electric instruments has been blurred by the prevalence of amplification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 If it isn't plugged in, there isn't an electric bit. There is still a tone though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceH Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339709188' post='1693301'] The hollow body bit mostly, which disapplies all the following statements as their significance are specific to hollow bodies. If my electric bass isn't plugged in, its an acoustic instrument, just a fairly quiet one, but I can play a tune to someone in the same room and they can hear it fine. [/quote] Ah right, I did misunderstand, With that double bass pic I thought it was a question about that sort of thing. If you'd read my previous posts, we're pretty much coming from the same place wrt electrics and I definitely agree you can't dismiss everything that comes before the pickup. EDIT: and about wood choice, pretty sure I've made that same point myself. Edited June 14, 2012 by LawrenceH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339708357' post='1693280'] I already said about that earlier. But not being able to predict something isn't the same as that thing not existing. Edit: Here: [/quote] "Mr Foxen finds God" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ou7shined Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) Ooh is all gone a bit University Challenge since this afternoon. I'm about to dumb it down to Grange Hill on a good day so bear with me. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] 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] Noted. Muchos grassy-arse. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] 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.[/quote] Quite a coincidence that a rubbishy bit of crap from a substandard species declared by numerous suposed experts as being out with the acceptable range of consideration for the purpose let alone an experiment, sounded very similar to that of a member of an exclusive sub-sect. No? I think it's a shame to dismiss the guy's experiment because of semantics when our ears (our most fundimental tool as musicians) tell us the experiment was a sucsess. It wasn't "made" to sound like it at all. Apart from anything the material was selected entirely at random. The simple fact remains that it ended up yielding similar tonal results to an established tone species (plus it cost a lot less ... and was more environmentally friendly) which was in direct contravention to what the tonewood guys said it should have been. Seen from the point of view of a non believer the test results weren't about "the same" it was about "the opposite" ie disproving. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] 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). [/quote] If a paper were to be written on the subject or a cure was being sought then yes (although I reject your bird analogy on the basis that we all have prior practical knowledge of birds (basses) and would never make such fundamental errors - as with the smoking one in conjunction with your "can do" "always will do" argument [i]"I'm 104 you know... and I've smoked 60 a day since I was 12")... [/i]but this is just a bunch of bass nerds discussing something that most punters can't hear and indeed I'm convinced a fair number of bass nerds can't either. I believe for it's purpose this experiment was fine. I imagine that if the experiment had been performed in front of most [color=#000000]naysayers[/color] and not relayed to them over the internet from some distant corner of the globe that they would be more sympathetic to the outcome. Of course a more definitive and refined result could be found with a greater test base.. but it was by far the most scientific experiment I have seen carried out to date and completely trounced longstanding arguments such as "my eyes tell me rosewood is dark, therefore the tone is dark / maple is light in colour therefore the tone is brighter". [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794']I ncidentally 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...[/quote] And limitation which can be applied equally to both clips therefore on balance, quite fair. If it were an experiment demoing the reproduction of an isolated sequence instead of a comparison we'd definitely be scaling excremental waters minus a suitable means of propulsion but that's not what this is about. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] 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. [/quote] So in conclusion this thread should be entitled "Need advice about timbre timber..." (to be honest I'm awfully tired and my brain hurts trying to workout what you are saying here) [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794']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'! [/quote] Agreed. Edited June 15, 2012 by Ou7shined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceH Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Cheers for taking my response in good spirit! To go on even more interminably (sorry everyone, skip to the end if you like) [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] Quite a coincidence that a rubbishy bit of crap from a substandard species declared by numerous suposed experts as being out with the acceptable range of consideration for the purpose let alone an experiment, sounded very similar to that of a member of an exclusive sub-sect. No? [/quote] Actually I don't think it's very suprising - it's pine, a wood with decent strength-weight ratio, structurally sound and a quite thick bit to provide good overall stiffness. Being compared to bog-standard alder or ash, again just middle-of-the-road woods in terms of structural properties. And the neck, by far the longest bit of wood, stays the same IIRC (a long time since I watched/listened to it!). You might hear an effect if one of the bits of wood had a resonant frequency in the upper bass/low mids, but probably neither did. Mahogony versus spruce? Those woods are structurally quite different. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] I think it's a shame to dismiss the guy's experiment because of semantics when our ears (our most fundimental tool as musicians) tell us the experiment was a sucsess. [/quote] I don't want to dismiss what he did, I thought it was a nice little experiment, but just to point out that it doesn't directly address the question of whether wood can be important for tone. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] It wasn't "made" to sound like it at all. Apart from anything the material was selected entirely at random. The simple fact remains that it ended up yielding similar tonal results to an established tone species (plus it cost a lot less ... and was more environmentally friendly) which was in direct contravention to what the tonewood guys said it should have been. Seen from the point of view of a non believer the test results weren't about "the same" it was about "the opposite" ie disproving. [/quote] Agreed about the 'made to' poor choice of words on my part! Perhaps I should have said 'can and often will given what basses are usually made from'. Personally I'd say if you accept deadspots' existence and that they're caused by mechanical resonance of the wood, that is a robust and conclusive counter in terms of 'can' wood affect tone for reasons already outlined. The more interesting question to me is 'when, how, how much' and I'm really on the fence with that one. 'Not in this instance' is the answer from his experiment. But nothing more about wood can be said from it with any validity. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] If a paper were to be written on the subject or a cure was being sought then yes (although I reject your bird analogy on the basis that we all have prior practical knowledge of birds (basses) and would never make such fundamental errors - as with the smoking one in conjunction with your "can do" "always will do" argument [i]"I'm 104 you know... and I've smoked 60 a day since I was 12")... [/i]but this is just a bunch of bass nerds discussing something that most punters can't hear and indeed I'm convinced a fair number of bass nerds can't either. I believe for it's purpose this experiment was fine. [/quote] This is where I disagree absolutely. Methodology is key for something to be considered science at all, and there is a flaw in the logical argument wrt conclusions about tone woods in general (that was the point of the birds bit). To argue that we all have prior knowledge isn't valid here because there is clear disagreement amongst people's subjective experience. To dismiss or favour either side of the argument here would be bias, there's no a priori reason to support one side or the other (if there was the experiment would be unnecessary!). The cancer bit was to point out an absolute need for statistical context in this type of correlative proof (classic mathematical-type proofs are different in that they require no statistics as the system is totally described). Those two things mean it's not science done in a slap-dash way but still following scientific method - it's just not science. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] And limitation which can be applied equally to both clips therefore on balance, quite fair. [/quote] 'Fair' but not useful. To use another of my oddball analogies, if you test two people's sight through a blurry screen you can't conclude much about their eyesight if they both do equally badly. More accurately it's about resolution versus variance in the data. Low resolution data is no good for looking at details and sadly that's just that, nothing much you can do. [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] So in conclusion this thread should be entitled "Need advice about timbre timber..." (to be honest I'm awfully tired and my brain hurts trying to workout what you are saying here) [/quote] Yeah I don't think I convey my points well always! Hmmm [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339718740' post='1693412'] Agreed. [/quote] I think probably most of the apparent disagreement on this thread disappears at the practical end of things - I'd agree with a lot of what you say but I'd also go with what Mr Foxen has said which I think has a lot of validity - an electric instrument is ultimately, as Mr Beer called it 'electro-mechanical'. Dismissing all the mechanical bit is extreme and makes no logical sense given what we already know about the system. As someone who makes guitars with a high standard of workmanship, have you considered doing a test yourself? It'd be really useful experience for a luthier plus it'd be relatively easy to do with a lot more general validity than that talkbass thread. I've idly thought about doing it myself but really I'm happy tinkering (no ambition be a proper luthier) and am already confident enough in the validity of laws of simple harmonic motion and my own subjective experience that I already 'know' enough for my very lowly purposes. I wonder if you'd find it more personally worthwhile? Probably not I guess so until someone does the argument will roll on and on and on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skej21 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339674034' post='1692387'] That's all very vague. References and evidence please. [/quote] Yeah, we want correctly documented sources to back up such claims! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) So I want a bass. a bolt on bass. If woods used are negligible, and looks aren't that important...(for this example) I want a great playing and sounding bass.... imagine I'm already able to swap out pickups/preamps what would be the difference between an off the shelf fender jazz bass a custom built jazz bass type or a few bit's of wood from warmoth I've bolted together myself? What does make an awesome bass? or more what does a custom bass builder do, that me and my warmoth parts wouldn't Edited June 15, 2012 by LukeFRC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssentialTension Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1339744276' post='1693504'] What does make an awesome bass? [/quote] Your fingers. Edited June 15, 2012 by EssentialTension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1339745371' post='1693518'] Your fingers. [/quote] So why do Mr sadowskys fingers basses cost a lot and my bits bolted together would not? Edited June 15, 2012 by LukeFRC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charic Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Just a thought: String vibrates over a magnetic which sends a signal... Now here's were I just had a rather major thought, the wood the pickup is housed in vibrates when you play aswell, when this happens both the string and the pickup are moving so you get a different sound coming out. Different woods would vibrate in different ways/amounts surely. /UtterBollocks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssentialTension Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1339745657' post='1693525'] So why do Mr sadowskys fingers basses cost a lot and my bits bolted together would not? [/quote] Because our wallets are bigger than our ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xgsjx Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1339744276' post='1693504'] So I want a bass. a bolt on bass. If woods used are negligible, and looks aren't that important...(for this example) I want a great playing and sounding bass.... imagine I'm already able to swap out pickups/preamps what would be the difference between an off the shelf fender jazz bass a custom built jazz bass type or a few bit's of wood from warmoth I've bolted together myself? What does make an awesome bass? or more what does a custom bass builder do, that me and my warmoth parts wouldn't [/quote] I can answer this one... The first wouldn't cost you a lot as is made with low cost labour, the second would cost you considerably more as is made by someone who needs to cover their overheads (& they might use better electronics ) and the third would cost even more due to shipping & customs & Warmoth parts actually work out pretty dear! Edited as I misread the 2nd Q. Edited June 15, 2012 by xgsjx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssentialTension Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='charic' timestamp='1339746339' post='1693534'] Just a thought: String vibrates over a magnetic which sends a signal... Now here's were I just had a rather major thought, the wood the pickup is housed in vibrates when you play aswell, when this happens both the string and the pickup are moving so you get a different sound coming out. Different woods would vibrate in different ways/amounts surely. /UtterBollocks? [/quote] Let's assume, for a moment, that what you say about vibrations is correct. It may not be correct or, even if it is correct, the influence might be extremely small or even irrelevant compared to a host of other factors but nonetheless, we'll assume it is correct and of more than minimal relevance. It still doesn't follow that certain species of wood are so-called 'tonewoods' and other species of wood are not so-called 'tonewoods'. Your term 'different woods' will apply to different pieces of wood of the same species just as it might apply to different species. It's also extremely odd that looking like a coffee table and being a great so-called 'tonewood' so often appear to be in correlation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.