Sire Basses etc - what's the difference in sound of the wood?

[sammybee]

I think any difference in the wood is going to pale in to insignificance once that 18v pre-amp kicks in! It's a true beast

[timhiggins]

I agree with what's been said already regarding the slappy punchyness of ash and the more mellow sound of alder ,i find alder has a naturally more scooped sound

i have 3 jazz'z ..2 of them [ a sire v7 and a fender ] are ash with maple necks ,and have a similar punchy sound 

the other which is my go to bass is also a fender which has alder body with maple neck , i guess thats my favourite combination although i do like the ash ones for recording funky stuff

my v7 although heavy sounds great but that's not the case with all of them as a friend of mine has one the same spec as mine and it's a fair bit lighter probably about the same as my alder fender.. 

[NikNik]

What about the neck/body coupling? Can't blame it on the body wood alone......

 

 

[White Cloud]

22 hours ago, NikNik said:

What about the neck/body coupling? Can't blame it on the body wood alone......

 

 

I'm of the opinion that the body wood is almost irrelevant... it's all in the neck: and mostly the fingerboard.

It's very subjective though.

[NikNik]

47 minutes ago, White Cloud said:

I'm of the opinion that the body wood is almost irrelevant... it's all in the neck: and mostly the fingerboard.

It's very subjective though.

Subjective? Tell me about it! The 'wood' arguments are legion.

 

[BigRedX]

There is just so much rubbish written about "tone wood" for solid bodied instruments with zero scientific proof to back it up. Simply opinion dressed up as facts.

I don't deny that the choice of woods can make a difference to the tone of a solid instrument, although IMO when you factor in all the other things that define the sound of the instrument, their contribution is fairly negligible. What I do dispute is that their properties can be absolutely defined as a constant characteristic.

And here is why.

Just looking at "Ash" as a body wood. For starters there are over 40 different species of Ash, and the density of the wood can vary from 540kg/m3 to 710kg/m3 which is a lot of variation. The distribution of the trees covers much of the northern hemisphere and soil types, climatic conditions and growing season day length will all contribute to different growth characteristics of the trees and consequently the characteristics of the wood produced from those trees.

Do we know exactly which species of Ash is used for guitar bodies? Is it always the same species of Ash? Is a guitar made in the US made from the same species sourced from the same geographical location as one made in Europe, or Asia? I can't see any information from the big manufacturers, and without that information I can only assume that while the manufacturers will have certain specifications for the wood they buy, there is still going to be significant variation from one batch to another.

So having added in a lot of variables, here are a lot more.

Construction.

If solid bodied instruments were made of a single piece of wood for the body, a single piece for the neck and headstock and a single piece for the fingerboard, we might have some consistency between instruments to start making some useful observations about the woods used and the tone of the instrument. But they are not. Most bodies are made from 2 or 3 separate pieces of wood glued together. Glue is not the same as wood. It adds in another variable. If the body is made of 2 equally sized pieces of wood there are 8 different ways they can be glued together, each of which is going to give a potentially different tonal result. 

As soon as you glue two or more pieces of wood together you change the way the wood behaves compare with a single piece of the same total size. If it didn't there would be no point in multi-laminate necks.

And for a two-piece body on a Fender bass is the join always in the same place? From what I have seen the answer is a resounding "no". And on a 3-piece body it is even less consistent. More unaccounted for variables.

And of course a Fender style neck with a maple board will sound different to one with a rosewood board, but not because of the board material, but because they are constructed in completely different ways. The neck with the maple board is a single piece of maple with the truss rod inserted from the back of neck and held in place with the "skunk stripe", while the rosewood board is a separate piece of wood glued onto the maple neck, with the truss rod fitted either from behind or underneath the fingerboard. IMO it is these differences in construction and lamination of woods that is going to have an effect on the tone not the actual wood used for the fingerboard.

And there's the electrics. Even on passive bass there is lots of potential for variation. 

Pickups. Do they have the same DC resistance? Have they been wound with the same gauge of wire with the same number of turns in the same way (scatter winding or even winding)? Are the magnets of the same material and magnetic strength? All these factors can change the characteristic of the pickup and the sound it produces.

Even the humble potentiometers and capacitors in a passive circuit have lots of potential for variation. A good quality potentiometer like CTS will still have ±20% tolerance which means that a pot specified at 500kΩ can be anywhere between 400 and 600kΩ. The same with capacitors. And these components always have an impact on the sound of the instrument, even at maximum settings - full volume, full tone; as can be demonstrated by connecting the pickup directly to the output jack as opposed to going through the passive volume and tone circuit.

With all these variables in play, trying to pin-point tonal characteristics of an instrument to the type of wood used for the body, neck or fingerboard is completely and utterly futile. When people try and do comparisons their methodology is so poor and their sample sizes so small that the results have no means whatsoever.

[chris_b]

11 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Simply opinion dressed up as facts.

 

Yep. Everyone's doing it!

[Geek99]

On 13/04/2019 at 21:29, spencer.b said:

 

Thank you - I liked swamp ash most, the alder sounded weak. 

[Cuzzie]

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

There is just so much rubbish written about "tone wood" for solid bodied instruments with zero scientific proof to back it up. Simply opinion dressed up as facts.

I don't deny that the choice of woods can make a difference to the tone of a solid instrument, although IMO when you factor in all the other things that define the sound of the instrument, their contribution is fairly negligible. What I do dispute is that their properties can be absolutely defined as a constant characteristic.

And here is why.

Just looking at "Ash" as a body wood. For starters there are over 40 different species of Ash, and the density of the wood can vary from 540kg/m3 to 710kg/m3 which is a lot of variation. The distribution of the trees covers much of the northern hemisphere and soil types, climatic conditions and growing season day length will all contribute to different growth characteristics of the trees and consequently the characteristics of the wood produced from those trees.

Do we know exactly which species of Ash is used for guitar bodies? Is it always the same species of Ash? Is a guitar made in the US made from the same species sourced from the same geographical location as one made in Europe, or Asia? I can't see any information from the big manufacturers, and without that information I can only assume that while the manufacturers will have certain specifications for the wood they buy, there is still going to be significant variation from one batch to another.

So having added in a lot of variables, here are a lot more.

Construction.

If solid bodied instruments were made of a single piece of wood for the body, a single piece for the neck and headstock and a single piece for the fingerboard, we might have some consistency between instruments to start making some useful observations about the woods used and the tone of the instrument. But they are not. Most bodies are made from 2 or 3 separate pieces of wood glued together. Glue is not the same as wood. It adds in another variable. If the body is made of 2 equally sized pieces of wood there are 8 different ways they can be glued together, each of which is going to give a potentially different tonal result. 

As soon as you glue two or more pieces of wood together you change the way the wood behaves compare with a single piece of the same total size. If it didn't there would be no point in multi-laminate necks.

And for a two-piece body on a Fender bass is the join always in the same place? From what I have seen the answer is a resounding "no". And on a 3-piece body it is even less consistent. More unaccounted for variables.

And of course a Fender style neck with a maple board will sound different to one with a rosewood board, but not because of the board material, but because they are constructed in completely different ways. The neck with the maple board is a single piece of maple with the truss rod inserted from the back of neck and held in place with the "skunk stripe", while the rosewood board is a separate piece of wood glued onto the maple neck, with the truss rod fitted either from behind or underneath the fingerboard. IMO it is these differences in construction and lamination of woods that is going to have an effect on the tone not the actual wood used for the fingerboard.

And there's the electrics. Even on passive bass there is lots of potential for variation. 

Pickups. Do they have the same DC resistance? Have they been wound with the same gauge of wire with the same number of turns in the same way (scatter winding or even winding)? Are the magnets of the same material and magnetic strength? All these factors can change the characteristic of the pickup and the sound it produces.

Even the humble potentiometers and capacitors in a passive circuit have lots of potential for variation. A good quality potentiometer like CTS will still have ±20% tolerance which means that a pot specified at 500kΩ can be anywhere between 400 and 600kΩ. The same with capacitors. And these components always have an impact on the sound of the instrument, even at maximum settings - full volume, full tone; as can be demonstrated by connecting the pickup directly to the output jack as opposed to going through the passive volume and tone circuit.

With all these variables in play, trying to pin-point tonal characteristics of an instrument to the type of wood used for the body, neck or fingerboard is completely and utterly futile. When people try and do comparisons their methodology is so poor and their sample sizes so small that the results have no means whatsoever.

Massive explanation on the difference that  there is in tone woods even within the same species, and then saying tone woods make little difference...........🧐🤷🏾‍♂️ Aside from other variables.

Glued/laminated or not, those combinations of woods have a difference because the wood makes a difference.

For the record having glued bodies or laminated necks is often preferable and glued parts are often stronger than a single piece.

If a single piece wants to warp, very little to stop it - just scratching the surface

[Chrisbassboy5]

Great post. Isn't it funny how they talk about the woods where it's a waste of time really.... like on Andertons videos!

[Grangur]

Some time back @Lozz196 did a blind tone-test at the Hertfordshire Bass bash. Various basses with either maple or rosewood fretboards were played on stage behind a curtain. There were pairs of different basses; jazz, precision, Musicman etc. one of each pair had a rosewood fretboard and the other was maple. All pairs had the same strings; brand new D'Addarios and all were played by Lozz196.

What came out was the maple necks gave a more bass tone and the rosewood gave a brighter tone. This may have been a coincidence, but it was interesting how this coincidence followed across 4-5 pairs of basses.

Regrettably, I don't think any note was taken about which necks had skunk stripes. This too could have an influence, or maybe not.

Maybe all the Rosewood necks also had alder bodies and the maple necks had ash, but this difference in tone was clearly there.

[Cuzzie]

@Grangur what you are forgetting is that probably one tree was grown a metre or so away from the other, and was glued by a different worker using different batches of titebond, and clamped for 33 seconds longer than the other, and of course player fatigue in playing with subjective questionable hearing in the audience.

Of course how an organic material resonates has very little effect....//

[BigRedX]

34 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

Massive explanation on the difference that  there is in tone woods even within the same species, and then saying tone woods make little difference...........🧐🤷🏾‍♂️ Aside from other variables.

Glued/laminated or not, those combinations of woods have a difference because the wood makes a difference.

For the record having glued bodies or laminated necks is often preferable and glued parts are often stronger than a single piece.

If a single piece wants to warp, very little to stop it - just scratching the surface

What I am trying to say is this:

1. Every piece of wood is different and with potentially huge variations between pieces. Therefore trying to apply absolute characteristics to a type of wood is impossible.

2. Every comparison test I have seen uses tiny sample sizes and does not take into account all the other potential variables that I mentioned. 

3. While there are plenty of comparison tests I haven't seen anyone do the opposite test which is to take a handful of supposedly identical specification basses and show that they all sound identical. 

[AndyTravis]

Just now, BigRedX said:

What I am trying to say is this:

1. Every piece of wood is different and with potentially huge variations between pieces. Therefore trying to apply absolute characteristics to a type of wood is impossible.

2. Every comparison test I have seen uses tiny sample sizes and does not take into account all the other potential variables that I mentioned. 

3. While there are plenty of comparison tests I haven't seen anyone do the opposite test which is to take a handful of supposedly identical specification basses and show that they all sound identical. 

Ballpark idea is ok though?

[Grangur]

Thanks @Cuzzie, you're right, of course. 

TBH, taking in the good points from @BigRedX, doesn't this really only point to the fact that there are SO many variables. The points made by BRX mainly point out that it's no good thinking that by having 2 bodies of the same breed of wood, with the rest of the hardware being the same you're ever going to be able to have 2 basses sound in the same.

So, there's really no chance ever of thinking you can buy "X" bass on the internet, no matter the source, and think you're going to know what it sounds like.

[BigRedX]

25 minutes ago, Chrisbassboy5 said:

Great post. Isn't it funny how they talk about the woods where it's a waste of time really.... like on Andertons videos!

I think the idea of "tone woods" being important is an incorrect assumption based on acoustic instruments, where of course it is. 

In acoustic instruments, the body wood is extremely important in producing the tone of the instrument and to this end it will be produced with the smallest number of pieces, bracing/re-inforcement will be the bare minimum to stop the instrument breaking under the tension of the strings and glued with just enough glue to form a useful joint. Similarly with the joints between the sides and the top and back of the instrument. All done to allow thing pieces of wood to resonate sympathetically with the vibrations of the strings.

Now take your typical mass-produced solid bodied instrument where the body is made out of 2 or 3 pieces of wood chosen mostly to get the greatest number of bodies out of the smallest amount of wood, then slathered in glue and joined together in a fashion where getting the correct body shape is the most important factor. 

How can you say that this method of construction allows to type of wood to be important?

[BigRedX]

22 minutes ago, Grangur said:

Some time back @Lozz196 did a blind tone-test at the Hertfordshire Bass bash. Various basses with either maple or rosewood fretboards were played on stage behind a curtain. There were pairs of different basses; jazz, precision, Musicman etc. one of each pair had a rosewood fretboard and the other was maple. All pairs had the same strings; brand new D'Addarios and all were played by Lozz196.

What came out was the maple necks gave a more bass tone and the rosewood gave a brighter tone. This may have been a coincidence, but it was interesting how this coincidence followed across 4-5 pairs of basses.

Regrettably, I don't think any note was taken about which necks had skunk stripes. This too could have an influence, or maybe not.

Maybe all the Rosewood necks also had alder bodies and the maple necks had ash, but this difference in tone was clearly there.

Exactly. Without knowing the other variables it is impossible to say what contribution the fingerboard wood is making. Also your sample size is still far too small. 

Also did Lozz196 know what fingerboard wood was on each bass he way playing? There may have been unconscious bias there to get the expected/desired result.

Does any bass manufacturer make basses with maple necks and maple fingerboards where the fingerboard is a separate piece of wood to the neck? If so are there any comparisons of this to otherwise as close as possible identical basses with a maple neck and rosewood fingerboard, and with a neck and fingerboard made from a single piece of maple?

[Cuzzie]

@AndyTravis is right about ball park.

@Grangur is right in what he is saying.

There is always going to be a counter argument for anything.

Some manufacturers bit 2 pieces of wood that fit together in quality and grain to get the best instrument - Some Hammer together your grans wardrobe.

Solid body colours they are less picky about matching grains etc as it’s being covered over, so a natural finish is the one to look at as they will have been the most carefully selected.

@BigRedX with all these minor differences listed, how much do they stack up and multiply to detract from the inherent tone and resonance of the wood? Is it logarithmic, cumulative, does the slope fall off the curve?

At what point do these variables over take and become the major differentiating factor over and above other things - statistically significant sample size proving of course.....

[jrixn1]

It's hard for me to be convinced so far that there is a signature "rosewood fingerboard" sound. Otherwise all the basses in this video would not sound different to each other.

 

[BigRedX]

On 13/04/2019 at 21:29, spencer.b said:

 

Unfortunately the methodology of the test is very poor. 

For a start the sample size is one of each body, so the bodies could have been hand picked to give the result Warmoth wanted. If they had tested at least 50 of each body type and got consistent similarities between bodies made of the same wood and constant differences between bodies made of different woods with no overlap in tone between any of the bodies of different woods then I might start taking this tone wood  for solid electric instruments seriously.

And while only changing the body each time is a step in the right direction, they really needed to rule out the possibility that simply disassembling and reassembling the guitar was not cause of the tonal changes. I would suggest doing this with each body 50 or more times and being able to get near identical tone from the instrument after each reassembly would be a start.

And while it is all very well making sure that each body weighed the same, in order to do this either they had to hand pick examples of each wood with the same density or the the volume/shape of each body would have to be different. All they are doing there is swapping one variable for another.

Ultimately while there were subtle difference in tone for each body wood type none of them were so significant that they would be noticeable when the guitar heard within a band mix.

[Cuzzie]

@BigRedXAll I seem to read are constant rebuttals as to why the methodology is poor, and hence the results are insignificant.

Have you any samples/evidence to the contrary of what is being suggested no matter how good or bad the methodology is? Or are we just stuck in a loop firing opinions over no man’s land with one camp saying tonewoods make a difference and the others saying, yes there is a slight difference but it doesn’t make enough of a difference?

[Cuzzie]

7 hours ago, BigRedX said:

so the bodies could have been hand picked to give the result Warmoth wanted.

What you are suggesting here is that there is then a difference in tonewoods, but they may have picked the best of one wood against the worst of another to accentuate the difference - but this means that there is still a difference does it not?

Or did warmoth do something like if we wanted to answer the question who in the country are better athletes Northerners or southerners. For the North we pick Jessica Ennis Hill, for the South we pick Boris Johnson - see Northerners are better athletes.....

[Grangur]

21 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Exactly. Without knowing the other variables it is impossible to say what contribution the fingerboard wood is making. Also your sample size is still far too small. 

Also did Lozz196 know what fingerboard wood was on each bass he way playing? There may have been unconscious bias there to get the expected/desired result.

Does any bass manufacturer make basses with maple necks and maple fingerboards where the fingerboard is a separate piece of wood to the neck? If so are there any comparisons of this to otherwise as close as possible identical basses with a maple neck and rosewood fingerboard, and with a neck and fingerboard made from a single piece of maple?

I've played maple neck instruments, but never played one where the fingerboard wasn't another piece if wood stuck on the front; the  same as a rosewood construction. I've also owned rosewood neck basses where there was also a skunk stripe.@Lozz196 was staggered by the result. Before the test he'd made the choice to go to having all maple neck instruments. In the test he found rosewood actually suited the sound he wanted more than maple.

What this demonstrated to me was, there would appear to be a reasonable difference and a consistency in the sound. More than I would have expected from a fingerboard. I would expect the wood of the back of the neck to have a bigger effect as it's the larger mass of wood in the neck.  I'm not so totally convinced about body wood making much difference. If the body was 2 meters long there might be more chance of resonance, but a plank 500mm long doesn't bend a lot.

[Cuzzie]

There is no doubt neck fingerboard makes a massive difference, that is what you press the string against to get the sound you then transmit - basic common. Sense denotes that

[BigRedX]

13 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

There is no doubt neck fingerboard makes a massive difference, that is what you press the string against to get the sound you then transmit - basic common. Sense denotes that

I'd have to have a grip of steel in order for the strings to touch the fingerboard when I fret them.