Annoying Twit Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1413671309' post='2580872'] The one fly in the ointment is the mahogany Stingray 30th anniversary model, everyone has agreed that it sounds different to every other Stingray made of the more usual,ash,alder or poplar. More punchy comes up everytime? [/quote] 1st - Is the only difference in the instrument exactly the same except for the body wood? Or, are there other differences in the design/implementation? 2nd - It's quite easy for 'everyone' to think something, and for it be wrong. Look at the history of science, it is full of examples. Edited October 18, 2014 by Annoying Twit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 [quote name='waynepunkdude' timestamp='1413669441' post='2580846'] My body wood made a baby. [/quote] Are you sure you could tell the difference if your baby had actually been made by a different body wood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1413667977' post='2580832'] But what I am saying here is that there is no proper research done to see whether the wood used or the construction have the most impact on the changes in sound (or even if both are equally important or irrelevant). [/quote] There is a whole lot of research that hasn't been done. This thread was specifically started to ask the question of whether body wood species alone can significantly change the tone of a solid body electric bass. If you're interested in other questions as well, then there's nothing wrong with that. But it isn't necessary to address those questions in order to answer the question that is the central topic of this thread. [quote] When people say that wood species X has more "growl" in the tone than species Y what we don't know is all the other characteristics of the basses that are being compared. It might just happen that it is possible to get blanks of species X that allow the bodies to be made in two parts whereas species Y blanks are narrower and the bodies need three parts and what people are actually hearing is the difference between a two piece and three piece body. That's why we need to go right back to basics and start with single piece bodies and work from there [b]CHANGING ONE THING, AND ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME[/b]. And do it with a decent sized sample group. Until then I'll have to maintain that everything is simply personal opinion, and there is no conclusive evidence for any of the claims being made. [/quote] The bit in bold is exactly what I've been saying to you all along. Same for the concept of a 'decent sized sample group'. Hence, you're agreeing with me. But, the way you write your followups to my posts make it look as if you are constructing a straw man argument (e.g. that I'm "introducing variables" that I never did), and then disagreeing with that straw man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neepheid Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Well this took longer than I thought it would to get all haughty. Well done Basschat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doddy Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 The problem with all these ideas for testing if wood makes a difference are neglecting one major factor-the player. One player can play 3 distinctly different basses and sound pretty similar, if not the same, on all of them. Another player would sound totally different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlungerModerno Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Doddy' timestamp='1413678050' post='2580903'] The problem with all these ideas for testing if wood makes a difference are neglecting one major factor-the player. One player can play 3 distinctly different basses and sound pretty similar, if not the same, on all of them. Another player would sound totally different. [/quote] Aye - You'd need to account for playing mechanics just as you'd have to account for setup e.g. pickup height. A mechanical solution might be consistent enough. Plectrum stuck on a sliding "hand" that moves across the strings completely consistently. Could probably rig an inkjet printer arm or something to do it. The real challenge is getting the dosh together to do the 100's of tests needed in controlled circumstances. It's no harm to hash out the details of a potential experiment here. My suggestion would be: (i) Consistent playing & setup ( as well as the same pick, same strings, same pickups, same hardware, same place (electronically shielded space with controlled temperature & humidity). (ii) Testing for wood type: Use bodies / necks / fretboards / etc. (the component you want to test for influence) of exactly the same dimensions or weight - and finish if any. 30+ examples of each for statistical reasons - better make it 50. I'm sure there's room for improvement in this experiment. If it's a simple proof of concept ( that wood species / type influences the tonal characteristics of a solid body instrument in an audible manner ) it could be done simpler... Custom rig with space for readily interchangeable body blanks. I suppose the pickups & the bridge would have to be connected solidly to the body, as would the neck. some sort of clamp system should be doable - depending on your definition of consistency it might be pretty simple. I'd imagine the differences would be very hard to measure & analyze accurately - and how to conclusively decide if it's wood type without lots of good data I have no Idea. What I do know is that it needs to be replicated several times, and it needs to include a double blind standard - at least for the listening component. For the actual testing, as long as the rig(s) are totally consistent it shouldn't need too much planning. Just careful recording & recording (audio & notes!). EDIT: had to change a & b to i & ii ... coz it went all Edited October 19, 2014 by PlungerModerno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassmachine2112 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 French bell end wood sounds floppy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1413674995' post='2580890'] Well this took longer than I thought it would to get all haughty. Well done Basschat. [/quote] Who is being haughty? I see a reasonable discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) [quote name='PlungerModerno' timestamp='1413681042' post='2580913'] Aye - You'd need to account for playing mechanics just as you'd have to account for setup e.g. pickup height. A mechanical solution might be consistent enough. Plectrum stuck on a sliding "hand" that moves across the strings completely consistently. Could probably rig an inkjet printer arm or something to do it. The real challenge is getting the dosh together to do the 100's of tests needed in controlled circumstances. It's no harm to hash out the details of a potential experiment here. My suggestion would be: (i) Consistent playing & setup ( as well as the same pick, same strings, same pickups, same hardware, same place (electronically shielded space with controlled temperature & humidity). (ii) Testing for wood type: Use bodies / necks / fretboards / etc. (the component you want to test for influence) of exactly the same dimensions or weight - and finish if any. 30+ examples of each for statistical reasons - better make it 50. I'm sure there's room for improvement in this experiment. If it's a simple proof of concept ( that wood species / type influences the tonal characteristics of a solid body instrument in an audible manner ) it could be done simpler... Custom rig with space for readily interchangeable body blanks. I suppose the pickups & the bridge would have to be connected solidly to the body, as would the neck. some sort of clamp system should be doable - depending on your definition of consistency it might be pretty simple. I'd imagine the differences would be very hard to measure & analyze accurately - and how to conclusively decide if it's wood type without lots of good data I have no Idea. What I do know is that it needs to be replicated several times, and it needs to include a double blind standard - at least for the listening component. For the actual testing, as long as the rig(s) are totally consistent it shouldn't need too much planning. Just careful recording & recording (audio & notes!). EDIT: had to change a & b to i & ii ... coz it went all [/quote] Any experiment can always be improved, no matter how many details are accounted for. Science is officially never finished with any question we ask, all we can say is that the most robust experiment we've yet performed to answer any question has given us a certain result. Until someone performs a more sophisticated experiment, we go with what we have. That's the whole history of science. For this experiment, a mechanical plucking device could be used. E.g. see those robots created the the Japanese team who worked with Squarepusher. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkUq4sO4LQM"]https://www.youtube....h?v=VkUq4sO4LQM[/url] However, I personally think that a professional musician or musicians asked to play the instruments identically would probably be sufficient to produce a sufficiently robust experiment. I had a look through the experiments that found no statistical difference between different body woods, and there was no mention of mechanical plucking in research that I could find this morning. E.g. [url="http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf"]http://www.stormride...guitar_wood.pdf[/url] However, if someone now did an experiment with mechanical plucking devices, that would certainly help. Furthermore, I would say that even imperfect experiments such as having a human play the guitar (introducing further variation) should easily provide the result that the guitars sound different if the difference is as much as people claim it is. If we're thinking that small shortcuts in the experimental technique might be enough to invalidate the results, then we're already talking about very small differences that can be lost in too much noise. As a reductio ad absurdum argument, consider if we were asking the question 'can humans tell the sound of a tuba from a piccolo?'. How bad would the experiment have to be before the results would be unreliable? If we're talking tiny, tiny, differences between the sound of different body wood species, then that difference could be lost in the noise of experimental design. But, if the differences are that tiny, particularly if the difference in wood tone on average between two species is small compared to the variation of tone within those species, then there is little practical significance (as opposed to statistical significance) in the difference between species. Finally we need to consider whether experiments might lead to a false positive or false negative result. Looking at the research linked to above, which I don't think was all that well performed, they only had two guitar bodies. This would mean that even if there is no real tone difference due to different species, there might be a detectable tone difference due to variations within a species. I.e. even if there is no real difference between the tone of alder and ash, if there is variation within these species then it could be that one body is randomly 'bright' while the other is randomly 'mellow' for example. If these differences are detectable, then we get a false positive, where other variation is incorrectly attributed to be an effect of body wood species. In the experiments that have been performed, the results seem to be negative. Hence, we don't need to be so concerned about limitations in current experimental protocols that could lead to a false positive, as we aren't getting positives. We only need to look at experimental limitations that could lead to a false negative. This could be, for example, too small an experimental sample. Or perhaps that variations in human playing or variation between pieces of wood are drowning out a tiny average differences due to wood species. In those cases, I'd ask the question of whether that puported difference in tone due to wood is of any practical significance. As either you still would need to test for the desired tonal qualities (if drowned out by variation between pieces of wood) or you could simply get whatever tone you wanted out of any wood species body by adjusting your playing style. There comes a point where the difference due to wood species is so small that the correct conclusion is 'who cares?' Edited October 19, 2014 by Annoying Twit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='waynepunkdude' timestamp='1413669441' post='2580846'] My body wood made a baby. [/quote] BigRedX has already suggested that the way the glue is spread could be a factor! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1413673424' post='2580883'] 1st - Is the only difference in the instrument exactly the same except for the body wood? Or, are there other differences in the design/implementation? 2nd - It's quite easy for 'everyone' to think something, and for it be wrong. Look at the history of science, it is full of examples. [/quote] 1-Afaik they are no different to a 3 eq ray with a RW board but with a mahogany body instead of ash. 2- that is true but they made 783 of them and the punchy comments have come from lovers and haters of the brand rather than fan bois only. They are however strung through which is a whole fresh debate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1413711409' post='2581008'] 1-Afaik they are no different to a 3 eq ray with a RW board but with a mahogany body instead of ash. 2- that is true but they made 783 of them and the punchy comments have come from lovers and haters of the brand rather than fan bois only. They are however strung through which is a whole fresh debate! [/quote] 1 and 2. I presume that these are not blinded comments. Hence, the spectre of placebo effect has not been extinguished. One thing we do know is that the placebo effect is very strong. [url="http://pharmacology.ucsd.edu/graduate/courseinfo/placebarticle.pdf"]http://pharmacology....acebarticle.pdf[/url] I'm surprised I can't find an article on the placebo effect in audio domains, but the abstract of this looks VERY interesting: [url="http://sss.sagepub.com/content/34/5/783.short"]http://sss.sagepub.c.../34/5/783.short[/url] In short, we'd need to know if the differences between these basses are still detectable once a double blind experiment is performed. If there are other differences, which could be as small as different components, slightly different pickups, through stringing as you mention, etc., then there are other plausible explanations for potential sound differences, and it would be a poor experiment to compare body woods that way. Furthermore to the numbers of basses, number of people claiming a difference in sound, etc., that again is far from proof. In the audio mastering world many claims are made for different dithering techniques. See the following page [url="http://ethanwiner.com/dither.html"]http://ethanwiner.com/dither.html[/url] which discusses dither, including this relevant quote: [quote] Some engineers even argue over which type of dither is best, claiming this algorithm is more airy sounding that that one, and so forth. [b]But just because everyone believes this, does that make it true?[/b] [/quote] (my emphasis) Summary of this post: We still need experimental evidence even if many people, even experts, believe something to be true. Edited October 19, 2014 by Annoying Twit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OliverBlackman Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) It is my opinion that the; age, treatment, and origins (humidity/ weather) of the wood makes more of a difference to the tone than the wood type. Edited October 19, 2014 by OliverBlackman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSiberian Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Now I know from where IKEA is recruting its staff. Best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 If IKEA hires science geeks as workers, that raises them in my estimation. Given the nature of this thread, a certain degree of geekery is necessary. Imagine if we were discussing this topic in 'stoner' mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1413671309' post='2580872'] The one fly in the ointment is the mahogany Stingray 30th anniversary model, everyone has agreed that it sounds different to every other Stingray made of the more usual,ash,alder or poplar. More punchy comes up everytime? [/quote] I have a brand new MM Sabre with a mahogany body and roasted maple neck. As it may be the only one in existence there's unlikely to be anyone to back up my view on the sound. I'm told by gig listeners who are bass players it sounds very focussed (more so than the ash bodied variant), nicely bassy sounding, but still sounds recognisably Musicman. It has phenomenal sustain - probably the best of all my Musicman basses. I've also noticed it can be more bassy. And another thing, in a hot, sweaty gig, the neck gives off a fine maple syrup smell. So yes, I believe the wood of both the neck and body makes more than an aesthetic difference. Pete, you could email EBMM for details of your solid coloured MMs. However unless trans red, they're likely to be ash if post late 90s. People always say good things about the 2003-2005 ish USA Sub Rays - these have poplar bodies. I have a 93 blueburst Ray which is either poplar or alder but most likely poplar. It sounds different from the ash bodied ones also. And particularly in the upper register. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1413719128' post='2581128'] Imagine if we were discussing this topic in 'stoner' mode. [/quote] Uh... what..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolo Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1413723133' post='2581195'] I have a brand new MM Sabre with a mahogany body and roasted maple neck. As it may be the only one in existence there's unlikely to be anyone to back up my view on the sound. I'm told by gig listeners who are bass players it sounds very focussed (more so than the ash bodied variant), nicely bassy sounding, but still sounds recognisably Musicman. It has phenomenal sustain - probably the best of all my Musicman basses. I've also noticed it can be more bassy. And another thing, in a hot, sweaty gig, the neck gives off a fine maple syrup smell. So yes, I believe the wood of both the neck and body makes more than an aesthetic difference. Pete, you could email EBMM for details of your solid coloured MMs. However unless trans red, they're likely to be ash if post late 90s. People always say good things about the 2003-2005 ish USA Sub Rays - these have poplar bodies. I have a 93 blueburst Ray which is either poplar or alder but most likely poplar. It sounds different from the ash bodied ones also. And particularly in the upper register. [/quote] IF bodywood matters in this way, the finish and treatment of parts matter too. Your example can in no way be connected to solely the wood genus. You may believe what you want ofcourse, but feedback from punters at a live band situation on a limited run specimen is unscientific. Cool to get positive comments on a collector's item like that though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='Bolo' timestamp='1413729009' post='2581278'] IF bodywood matters in this way, the finish and treatment of parts matter too. Your example can in no way be connected to solely the wood genus. You may believe what you want ofcourse, but feedback from punters at a live band situation on a limited run specimen is unscientific. Cool to get positive comments on a collector's item like that though [/quote] Cheers Bolo. I wasn't suggesting anything I was saying bore any relation to a scientific approach - it's purely an anecdotal view of someone who has a few MM instruments and gigs them all regularly (including the rare Sabre)! But this really is the point - I don't buy the scientific arguments - I don't know if any of the rest of you have been around long enough to remember the early 70s tele ads claiming 9 out of 10 people couldn't taste the difference between xyz margarine and butter in a blind taste test!!! That was allegedly a scientific result (although they probably didn't tell you the sample had all been treated to a vesta curry (remember them bwahahaha) not long before - or perhaps they all had colds. I haven't concluded or articulated what I think the difference between my sabre and an ash one is but the wood looks denser - it's also one piece - suffice it to say it is quite different sounding to my ears - all I'll say for now is it sounds less compressed and has more sustain - aesthetics and playability are top notch - it's s beautiful bass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1413724405' post='2581215'] Uh... what..? [/quote] We could see what, if anything, Edward Van Halen has said about body wood. At least we could for middle aged stoner dudes. For younger stoners we'd have to substitute a 'guitar god' from the next generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1413733094' post='2581326'] Cheers Bolo. I wasn't suggesting anything I was saying bore any relation to a scientific approach - it's purely an anecdotal view of someone who has a few MM instruments and gigs them all regularly (including the rare Sabre)! But this really is the point - I don't buy the scientific arguments - I don't know if any of the rest of you have been around long enough to remember the early 70s tele ads claiming 9 out of 10 people couldn't taste the difference between xyz margarine and butter in a blind taste test!!! That was allegedly a scientific result (although they probably didn't tell you the sample had all been treated to a vesta curry (remember them bwahahaha) not long before - or perhaps they all had colds. I haven't concluded or articulated what I think the difference between my sabre and an ash one is but the wood looks denser - it's also one piece - suffice it to say it is quite different sounding to my ears - all I'll say for now is it sounds less compressed and has more sustain - aesthetics and playability are top notch - it's s beautiful bass. [/quote] Science is certainly widely misused for advertising purposes. E.g. you mention giving the participants a vesta curry. I wouldn't be surprised if the trial used very, very, thinly spread margarine and butter, with strong flavours to mask the spread's flavours. That doesn't mean that science, [b]properly applied[/b], isn't the best way we have for knowing what is, and isn't, true. The alternatives are far, far, worse. And, also, science is self-correcting. If you don't believe the margarine taste-test, there's nothing to stop you repeating their experiment and seeing if you get the same results once everything is properly blinded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='waynepunkdude' timestamp='1413669441' post='2580846'] My body wood made a baby. [/quote] [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1413710700' post='2580993'] BigRedX has already suggested that the way the glue is spread could be a factor! [/quote] That's right - a messy application can leave glue under the bridge or even on the neck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlungerModerno Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1413709645' post='2580984'] Any experiment can always be improved, no matter how many details are accounted for. Science is officially never finished with any question we ask, all we can say is that the most robust experiment we've yet performed to answer any question has given us a certain result. Until someone performs a more sophisticated experiment, we go with what we have. That's the whole history of science. For this experiment .... the correct conclusion is 'who cares?' [/quote] +1. I concur with the omitted text - the experiments should show clear trends between wood species if there are significant differences as many claim. As it is the evidence shows wood being partly responsible for deadspots and nothing much else on solid body instruments. I think a simpler proof of concept experiment with a reasonable sample size would be interesting to say the least. It would need to be a labour of love however, as alluded to before, no real scientific or industry body would be terribly interested in the conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1413745830' post='2581518'] That's right - a messy application can leave glue under the bridge or even on the neck. [/quote] my 2010 Stingray5 has a 'Pearl finish' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1413751716' post='2581596'] my 2010 Stingray5 has a 'Pearl finish' [/quote] It can be worse with orchestral instruments. You have to be careful of the 'f'-holes. 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.