Tonewood , Myth?

[mcgraham]

This is indeed an interesting topic; personally I can't make up my mind about it all, about how much of an extent woods make a difference in electric instruments.

Doing a bit of a thought experiment, in a perfect (i.e. ideal) vibrating system, there is no damping of the waves, no absorption of frequencies and no introduction of additional frequencies. However, all systems have some elements that affect these factors. Construction certainly affects damping (i.e. sustain), rigid construction helps to ensure that the energy in the string is reflected back into the string and not damped by flexing of the attachment means (i.e. the bass). A factor that affects absorption is resonant frequencies of the attachment means; as the string vibrates, the attachment means is excited at certain frequencies by the movement of the string, thus absorbing certain frequencies of the vibrating string. In my mind, this affects the tone of the bass.

Moreover, unlike acoustic guitars where the sound is a sum total of the strongest perceived wavelengths of the acoustic sound, magnetic pickups 'witness' but a fraction of the length of the string and amplify what they 'see', so frequencies that would not normally be most dominant can be picked up and amplified. Yet again affecting the tone, perhaps in a significantly more colouring way than the above factors if an instrument is well constructed.

In short, (in my very tentative opinion), wood choice in electric instruments is not as important as in acoustic instruments. I think that tone is most dictated by great construction right, followed by pickups/pickup positioning, and wood choice somewhere after that.

P.S. And one more thing, lest we forget Lenz's law, magnetic induction caused by the magnet's in the strings actually damps the motion of the strings at quite a specific point (the area the pickup 'sees') so there's even more complexity on how that affects the vibration of the string.

[Delberthot]

I read something quite interesting a few months ago but I'll be darned if I can find it.

It was about how some people collect vintage fenders because they sound different due to being played for 40 odd years and the vibrations of the strings through the wood over those years do something to the wood to make it sound different to something that would be made today using identicle parts.

Someone like Stuart Spector had come up with some sort of thermal discombobulator that could theoretically replicate this to make a brand new bass seem like it had been played for 40-50 years.

If true then this could be a factor as well if you were to take 2 identical basses built, say, 5-10 years apart. :brow:

Interesting theory but I don't know enough about the properties of wood to know if this is correct or utter sloblock.

[noisedude]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='254085' date='Aug 4 2008, 08:33 AM']Where was that then? Got a link?[/quote]
[url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=23075&st=20"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=23075&st=20[/url]

Apparently "most of Basschat" believes the only difference between a BO and an NT construction is price and to believe otherwise is to buy into marketing hype!!

In the context of tonewoods, if you made a P-Bass from mahogany and with a mahogany neck it would most certainly sound different to how it would if you made the whole thing from maple. The shades in between are more subtle so I think it'd be very interesting to put a USA G&L and a Tribute in a blind test where the hardware and pickups are identical and the primary difference is in the 'quality' or 'grade' of swamp ash in the body.

[thepurpleblob]

[quote name='Delberthot' post='254265' date='Aug 4 2008, 11:38 AM']I read something quite interesting a few months ago but I'll be darned if I can find it.

It was about how some people collect vintage fenders because they sound different due to being played for 40 odd years and the vibrations of the strings through the wood over those years do something to the wood to make it sound different to something that would be made today using identicle parts.

Someone like Stuart Spector had come up with some sort of thermal discombobulator that could theoretically replicate this to make a brand new bass seem like it had been played for 40-50 years.

If true then this could be a factor as well if you were to take 2 identical basses built, say, 5-10 years apart. :brow:

Interesting theory but I don't know enough about the properties of wood to know if this is correct or utter sloblock. [/quote]

I would be prepared to believe that a 40 year old plank of wood sounds different to a newish one due to all sorts of factors, but vibrartion of the strings?? Sounds like bollox to me

[Wil]

Woods no doubt do make a difference, but whether that difference is good or bad is so subjective its not even worth speculating about. There are probably guitars out there made from 1 year old diseased, soggy basswood that to someones ears sound nicer than the same kind of guitar made from 60 year old beautifully figured cocobolo.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='noisedude' post='254526' date='Aug 4 2008, 03:38 PM']In the context of tonewoods, if you made a P-Bass from mahogany and with a mahogany neck it would most certainly sound different to how it would if you made the whole thing from maple.[/quote]
Thats a really interesting idea and the question in my mind is how different? There are Stingrays now with mahogany bodies and Mike Brooks did a review in BGM of the 20th Ann SR5 with the mahogany tone block. I would have said smoke and mirrors but he was convinced there was something to it.

[quote name='thepurpleblob' post='254578' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:03 PM']I would be prepared to believe that a 40 year old plank of wood sounds different to a newish one due to all sorts of factors, but vibrartion of the strings?? Sounds like bollox to me [/quote]
The strings ARE connected to the wood! I think there's something to be said for older instruments, it depends on the amount of use they've had. I think the wood loses mass a little bit and becomes less rigid with a bit of sustained thrashing. Thats part of what makes the growl! My PreEB SR is well muntered but is very growly. The neck doesn't feel as stiff to me as a new one.

[alexclaber]

These arguments always fail to separate the two distinct roles of the wood. One is as a rigid support structure for the strings, the other is as a resonant filter system for the strings' vibrations.

The stiffer the string support structure, the less the filtering system gets involved, and vice versa.

Alex

[mcgraham]

There we go Alex, summed up what I was trying to say in a few lines

Re: aging guitars, was browsing the net and came across [url="http://www.acousticguitar.com/Gear/advice/vibration.shtml"]this[/url]

Mark

[Kiwi]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='254669' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:59 PM']There we go Alex, summed up what I was trying to say in a few lines [/quote]

+1

Mr Claber is concise as ever!

[LukeFRC]

Thing is 40 years ago you would fell a tree and leave it for years to dry out.
Nowdays a lot of wood wont be left for that long and/or will be kiln dried to speed the whole process up.

So a ash body made from a tree felled in the 50s will probably be (feel, work, sound) a bit different than one felled around the millennium.

[noisedude]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='254648' date='Aug 4 2008, 04:39 PM']Thats a really interesting idea and the question in my mind is how different? There are Stingrays now with mahogany bodies and Mike Brooks did a review in BGM of the 20th Ann SR5 with the mahogany tone block. I would have said smoke and mirrors but he was convinced there was something to it.[/quote]
Fairly subtle when you're talking about those sorts of things. In electric guitar I reckon I could pick out the difference between a Les Paul with a maple cap to one without, all other things being equal, without too much trouble.

These subtleties are what makes a person's bond with their instrument though ... on one bass with the dials set a certain way, with the compressor set to this and a little bit of overdrive from that, you will know how your bass responds on 'that' one note that you hit a certain way on your way to the next root. Pick up another instrument and it will behave differently in a way that maybe only you will notice. You don't have to be a virtuoso player either, my Ibanez Wimbish sounds rubbish when played with a pick. It just sounds bad. Probably something in the setup but I don't mind because I like everything else about how it sounds, so I'll try a bolt-on or a passive or a mahogany or alder instrument and get a different response.


Finally ........ if people who spend £000000s on hand-crafted basses want to believe that the blob of mahogany in the neck joint or the 2mm slivers of wenge in the neck or the brass block attached to the underside of the bridge makes all the difference to their playing, can't we just let them have their fun??

[LukeFRC]

i just turned my broweser off and picked up a bass and played for a bit. things i cant really play and am not leaning to play just muciking around over CDs and trying to get the feel rather than the actual notes played.... anyway i dont think it matters too much... the funk guys and gals is in the fingers!

[Tait]

this sort of thing is where the idea for my thread a while back about "what makes most of your sound"

ok... wood makes a difference. but nothing you can't fix with your amp or electronics. it seems silly to me to worry about woods and stuff when the amp or effects or, according to the thread i mentioned earlier, your fingers make a much bigger tonal difference.