markdavid Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Tonewood , Myth? , this person certainly seems to think so , what do you think? [url="http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm"]http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6stringbassist Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Rubbish, I played two Alembics a couple of years ago in a shop, both were the same model, same electronics etc, through the same amp, with the same settings. Both sounded totally different, the only difference between the two construction wise was the body woods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 I'd be inclined to agree it makes less difference than anyone thinks. Some woods are certainly deader when you feel them vibrating. Harware, and neck joint have far more effect. No-one pimps a plywood instrument though, so they never really appreciate it. I through strung and heavey bridged my plywood first bass, made a hell of a difference. Not ebough to make me play it over my pimped second, cheap by solid wood bass though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 [quote name='6stringbassist' post='253923' date='Aug 3 2008, 09:01 PM']Rubbish, I played two Alembics a couple of years ago in a shop, both were the same model, same electronics etc, through the same amp, with the same settings. Both sounded totally different, the only difference between the two construction wise was the body woods.[/quote] I think its important to remember that wood is from a liviong thing and therefore inconsistent. You can't have two guitars made of the same wood, only the same species. Also, where does it stop becomeing a topwood, bodywood and accent layer and become plywood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutToPlayJazz Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) Interesting thread, this one... I'm inclined to think that you'll hear more of a difference in a single piece body as opposed to a multi-part laminate. Perhaps my examples will be a little extreme, but here goes... 1. Comparing my 1990 Status S2 in cherry with a cocobolo top with my 2007 S2-Classic which has a mahogany body and a walnut top. Perhaps it's mainly because they're both similar construction (graphite neck/spine set into a multi-part laminate body), but they both sound pretty much the same, with similar preamps, highly resonant graphite necks & very similar soapbar pickups. 2. But then consider an alder bodied jazz bass against an ash bodied jazz bass. The difference from both my old Geddy Lee/S1 American series (both alder with maple boards) to my current Marcus Miller is huge. The ash bodied Miller (even when run passive) is much brighter & sharper tone-wise. So perhaps that's the answer. Different woods will make a much bigger difference with a single piece body. Laminates of the same breeding will generally sound the same. Purely un-scientific, so I may be totally wrong! Edited August 3, 2008 by OutToPlayJazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budget bassist Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 I think with passive basses woods seem to make more difference than actives, for example my alder bodied SUB bass with the same electronics, pickups and hardware as a stingray, sounds almost exactly the same, if not exactly the same as an ash bodied ray. [quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='253929' date='Aug 3 2008, 09:16 PM']Also, where does it stop becomeing a topwood, bodywood and accent layer and become plywood?[/quote] Plywood is cheap nasty stuff made of softwoods such as pine etc. All decent electric guitars are made from hardwoods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 I think wood is fundamental to the tonal character of an instrument. Listen for yourself. [url="http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/musicmanstingray.htm"]http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/musicmanstingray.htm[/url] [url="http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/musicmancutlass.htm"]http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/musicmancutlass.htm[/url] One has a graphite neck. If materials didn't make a difference, the two basses would sound the same. Maybe some people can't appreciate the differences, in the same way that some people can't appreciate the difference between red plonk and a half decent merlot. However I've played enough instruments (and buggered around with them) to feel pretty comfortable in knowing how much of a contribution the wood makes. The rules aren't hard and fast for tonewoods because wood varies in density and mass, and the sound of an instrument can even vary with humidity so its always possible that a piece of alder and a piece of ash could sound similar if they share similar characteristics. However if you've played enough 70's Fender Jazz basses you'll notice the good 'uns from the bad 'uns despite the materials being the same. The other thing that hasn't been addressed in article is the way in which tonewoods contribute to the feel of an instrument. The flexibility of the neck has an impact on characteristics such as sustain, attack and decay and on the tension in the strings. Its this characteristic of planned flexibility which is key to the warm growly sound of Smith basses, Ken Smith deliberately designs some flexibility into the instrument. Alembic, by contrast, designs out as much flexibility as possible. By way of further demonstration, have a listen to samples here: [url="http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/alembicseries1.htm"]http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/alembicseries1.htm[/url] [url="http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/smithbsr5gn.htm"]http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/smithbsr5gn.htm[/url] Do you think the writer of that article would retain any credibility by arguing that these instruments sound the same? If he's arguing for not needing to use exotic woods, fair enough. I think he has a point. But to make that point by completely dismissing the idea of tonewoods is remarkably ill-considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor_of_the_bass Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Totally agree Steve. From my experience of many many hours building basses with Ian Hancock over 6 years or so, the body core wood plays an important part of the overall tonality of an instrument. The construction (i.e. through neck, set or bolt-on) also plays a big part and obviously, the pickups, pickup placement and EQ. However, even two basses that are identical in build etc can sound totally different, due to the cellular makeup of the wood/s used - even wood from the same tree can sound different depending on its `location' within the tree trunk, the base of the tree = heavier, more compressed cells due to the weight acting on it. When you think about it, we're dealing with organic structures which are subject to nature's forces! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutToPlayJazz Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Crazy Kiwi: Hey Steve, just listened to all your basses Love your 'rhythmic' right hand damping - I do that a lot as well. That Cellinder jazz sounds amazing! Rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 [quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='253991' date='Aug 3 2008, 11:09 PM']Crazy Kiwi: Hey Steve, just listened to all your basses Love your 'rhythmic' right hand damping - I do that a lot as well. That Cellinder jazz sounds amazing! Rich.[/quote] thanks Rich , I literally plugged the instruments and bashed stuff out. Which reminds me, I should really upload clips of the Cutlass II as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warwickhunt Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Ask yourself this! Most of us (would like to think) that we could spot the difference in tone between a Fender P bass and a Jazz agreed... so what is the main difference between the 2 basses? Body wood? Construction? ...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayfan Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 [quote name='warwickhunt' post='254028' date='Aug 4 2008, 12:20 AM']Ask yourself this! Most of us (would like to think) that we could spot the difference in tone between a Fender P bass and a Jazz agreed... so what is the main difference between the 2 basses? Body wood? Construction? ...?[/quote] Brilliant - I love a quiz. A: pickups. What do I win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 [quote name='budget bassist' post='253958' date='Aug 3 2008, 10:03 PM']Plywood is cheap nasty stuff made of softwoods such as pine etc. All decent electric guitars are made from hardwoods.[/quote] balsa is a hard wood. go make a balsa bass! I would love to hear what a body made out of pitchpine sounded like, i guess not good. ANd you would wreck all your tools cos its so hard.... good question warwickhunt. I am safe in the knowledge that if i pretended i could tell the difference i would get it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Foxen Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='budget bassist' post='253958' date='Aug 3 2008, 10:03 PM']All decent electric guitars are made from hardwoods.[/quote] Agathis is a softwood though, low end guitars granted. And the top of semi acoustics is often spruce laminate, so softwood and ply. Probably a horses for courses thing. Stability, durability and workability I suspect are the most important characteristics, second only to availability (and therefore price). Pretty sure thats why Leo Fender used alder and ash. I always read 'laminated hardwood construction' as plywood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budget bassist Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='LukeFRC' post='254042' date='Aug 4 2008, 12:52 AM']balsa is a hard wood. go make a balsa bass! I would love to hear what a body made out of pitchpine sounded like, i guess not good. ANd you would wreck all your tools cos its so hard.... good question warwickhunt. I am safe in the knowledge that if i pretended i could tell the difference i would get it wrong.[/quote] Balsa isn't ply wood Also softer woods (like balsa) tend to blunt tools much faster than really hard woods like maybe bubinga etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noisedude Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='253924' date='Aug 3 2008, 09:02 PM']I'd be inclined to agree it makes less difference than anyone thinks. Some woods are certainly deader when you feel them vibrating. Harware, and neck joint have far more effect.[/quote] I got shot down in flames a while back on this forum for having the temerity to claim that neck joints make any difference to how a bass sounds...... ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 I think if you read his article you'll see that he doesn't say that the wood doesn't make any difference - he says that it doesn't make as much difference as (some) think it does. Firstly, I'm inclined to think that he knows what he is talking about. I also, suspect that I haven't played enough instruments and really thought about it to know any better. The type of hardware, pickup choice and location etc., could *easily* make much more difference than the choice of wood and I'd find it hard to refute if someone claimed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutToPlayJazz Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='thepurpleblob' post='254069' date='Aug 4 2008, 06:58 AM']I think if you read his article you'll see that he doesn't say that the wood doesn't make any difference - he says that it doesn't make as much difference as (some) think it does. Firstly, I'm inclined to think that he knows what he is talking about. I also, suspect that I haven't played enough instruments and really thought about it to know any better. The type of hardware, pickup choice and location etc., could *easily* make much more difference than the choice of wood and I'd find it hard to refute if someone claimed that.[/quote] Don't forget guys that the author of the article only mentions solid body electrics once in relation to wood choices. It sounds as though he's talking about making classical/accoustic guitars, which by their very nature would be less susceptible to different wood choices, as the wood used in the body would be so thin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenochrome Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 ...be careful with your mythbusting - a lot of people get upset. Next you'll be telling us that tube watts aren't really much more powerful than solid-state watts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='Adrenochrome' post='254078' date='Aug 4 2008, 08:11 AM']...be careful with your mythbusting - a lot of people get upset. Next you'll be telling us that tube watts aren't really much more powerful than solid-state watts![/quote] They're not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machines Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Woods definitely do make a difference. This all mahogany Fret-King I have at the moment sounds very unique.. and is a passive P/J bass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='noisedude' post='254061' date='Aug 4 2008, 02:23 AM']I got shot down in flames a while back on this forum for having the temerity to claim that neck joints make any difference to how a bass sounds...... ![/quote] Where was that then? Got a link? [quote name='thepurpleblob' post='254069' date='Aug 4 2008, 06:58 AM']I think if you read his article you'll see that he doesn't say that the wood doesn't make any difference - he says that it doesn't make as much difference as (some) think it does. Firstly, I'm inclined to think that he knows what he is talking about. I also, suspect that I haven't played enough instruments and really thought about it to know any better. The type of hardware, pickup choice and location etc., could *easily* make much more difference than the choice of wood and I'd find it hard to refute if someone claimed that.[/quote] In principle, fair point but my experience differs from his. I don't think he has a very well structured argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverfoxnik Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='Crazykiwi' post='254085' date='Aug 4 2008, 08:33 AM']Where was that then? Got a link? In principle, fair point but my experience differs from his. I don't think he has a very well structured argument.[/quote] This is a fascinating thread! CK; I think I'm in agreement with you and the doctor_of_the_bass on this one. All of the successful and respected luthiers out there have used the different methods - solid body, ,multi-laminates, neck-through, bolt-on etc, etc - when constructing their basses over the years to try to make the best instruments they possibly can. If they all 'buy-in' to the idea of 'tonewoods, then who are we to disagree? When I had my first Wal Custon built in 1983, Pete 'the fish' Stevens who founded the company with Ian Waller, told me how they would spend considerable time matching up different bodies with different necks until they got a match where the bass would literally 'sing'. Given that the Wal necks were all made the same but the bodies had a mahogany core with different tonewood facings, then as far as Wal Basses were concerned, there was definitely a value in the mixing and matching of different woods.. Having said that, I'm not a fan of multi-laminate basses but I definitely think the principles of using 'tonewoods' is 'sound' (no pun intended ). Ultimately, isn't the debate all a bit academic; especially when we get so ultra-analytical over an issue like this because we all hear things so differently anyway?? So even if was possible to absolutely prove the merits of one method of bass construction over another, chances are we'd all disagee on which sounds the best!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexclaber Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 If it is then why do different basses sound different when unplugged? Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 [quote name='Crazykiwi' post='254085' date='Aug 4 2008, 08:33 AM']Where was that then? Got a link? In principle, fair point but my experience differs from his. I don't think he has a very well structured argument.[/quote] Well, I must admit that I went through two Stingrays last year - the first one had a faulty paint finish. The replacement sounded noticeably different, and that's the same sort of wood made around the same time. Of course, maybe the finish makes a difference too. At the end of the day, wood is a living thing and no two bits are the same. How much of a difference it makes in the whole scheme of things is another matter. There's an article on the web somewhere, that has a big list of wood types and (independent of any other factor) what quality of sound you can expect. I think *that* kind of thing is taking it a bit far. Not the one I was thinking of but... [url="http://www.jemsite.com/jem/wood.htm"]http://www.jemsite.com/jem/wood.htm[/url] 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.