Alembic neck laminates. I laughed till I cried....

[durhamboy]

"Unfortunately its a sample of one of each type of wood, so scientifically the result is meaningless. Give a sample size of 100+ of each type of body wood and get consistent results from the majority of each sample and I will concede that you can make absolute statements about the effect of a particular type of wood."  BigRedX.

Of course you're right, for any test to provide results that could be considered in any way valid, multiple tests would need to be undertaken under strict scientific conditions. Probably including identically sized lengths of wood with the stings mounted to each piece (like on a through neck build) via fixed points at the same scale length. Quality sound recording and sound wave, sustain and decay readings would probably be needed and the whole process would take hundreds of hours and a fair bit of expense, which is why it hasn't been done.( Added to the probability, that whatever the result, many musicians would still say that they can, or can't, hear differences, regardless of any findings... )

 

[itu]

Actually, mp3 (MPEG-1 audio layer 3) tests were done in a bit similar way. There were several countries and studios (listening rooms) and quite some people involved. As an example, two studio listening chairs in Japan (@ NHK) were disqualified because of bad results.

Instrument wood qualification would cost a lot. This is the biggest reason for not conducting any scientific tests. We get only opinions. We can listen to our dear fellow players' talk, luthiers' opinions, marketing people jargon, or our own ears. Who do you trust?

[jazzyvee]

This is an interesting thread. That said, I am  long time alembic playing bassist and have a had a few over my time. I've read the alembic pages, basschat and talkbass threads for many years and this idea of "does wood make a noticeable difference to the sound/tone of an electric bass or guitar?" comes up quite often.
I was never in a position to buy a new custom alembic bass so the idea of choosing woods for a particular claimed benefit to tone or sustain, attack etc etc has never been a consideration for regardless of the scientific facts or the opinions that surrounds it. I have chosen mine based on the fact that:

a) I have confidence in them as bass builders to be assured of getting a bass that will have the ability to give me the sounds I want regardless of what the wood it is made of, and it will be a easy to play and be ergonomically sound too.

b) Because of "a" I can choose a bass for the aesthetic appearance of the wood it's made from without compromising anything else and I've never owned one I have disliked the sound of.

There are so many variables that work either for or against a note developing once you pluck a string that it's hard to isolate those that may have marginal effects on what you hear because they may be swamped by the things that make the biggest impact making them negligible.

We read similar discussions regarding the tonal difference of rosewood compared to maple fretboards. I don't know what the difference is practically but the only reason I don't buy instruments with rosewood fingerboards is purely aesthetic. I prefer the look of maple or ebony.

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by jazzyvee

[durhamboy]

9 hours ago, jazzyvee said:

This is an interesting thread. That said, I am  long time alembic playing bassist and have a had a few over my time. I've read the alembic pages, basschat and talkbass threads for many years and this idea of "does wood make a noticeable difference to the sound/tone of an electric bass or guitar?" comes up quite often.
I was never in a position to buy a new custom alembic bass so the idea of choosing woods for a particular claimed benefit to tone or sustain, attack etc etc has never been a consideration for regardless of the scientific facts or the opinions that surrounds it. I have chosen mine based on the fact that:

a) I have confidence in them as bass builders to be assured of getting a bass that will have the ability to give me the sounds I want regardless of what the wood it is made of, and it will be a easy to play and be ergonomically sound too.

b) Because of "a" I can choose a bass for the aesthetic appearance of the wood it's made from without compromising anything else and I've never owned one I have disliked the sound of.

There are so many variables that work either for or against a note developing once you pluck a string that it's hard to isolate those that may have marginal effects on what you hear because they may be swamped by the things that make the biggest impact making them negligible.

We read similar discussions regarding the tonal difference of rosewood compared to maple fretboards. I don't know what the difference is practically but the only reason I don't buy instruments with rosewood fingerboards is purely aesthetic. I prefer the look of maple or ebony.

 

"There are so many variables that work either for or against a note developing once you pluck a string that it's hard to isolate those that may have marginal effects on what you hear because they may be swamped by the things that make the biggest impact making them negligible."

I think that observation gets pretty close to the essence of this , 'does wood make a noticeable difference' conundrum. Whatever difference there is, will probably be more apparent where a large amount of a wood is present, as in a 4 or 5 lb.ash body, as opposed to say a 5 oz. strip of rosewood in a laminated neck. Going back to the OP's original comments, Alembic may well be right that the addition of small amounts of different wood (based on their hardness, density and ability to transmit vibrations) could colour the 'tone', the reality may be that any small effect might well be lost in the 'mix'.

"I have confidence in them as bass builders to be assured of getting a bass that will have the ability to give me the sounds I want regardless of what the wood it is made of, and it will be a easy to play and be ergonomically sound too."

Which sort of indicates that Alembics approach probably was/is to develop a construction approach based around their pickups and circuitry, combined with hardware, construction techniques, quality control and the uses of particular 'core woods' to provide the base tone palette. That allows them to use the feature decorative woods that they are famous for, while still delivering versatile and consistent instruments?

[4000]

On 21/07/2019 at 19:55, Christine said:

You can't hear the difference? I think it's quite dramatic, I can hear the changes with my eyes shut quite distinctly

They sound very different to me too. 

Unfortunately it doesn’t really mean anything. In my time playing Rickenbackers (I’ve had about 20 now) no two have ever really sounded the same. I’ve switched pickups, wiring etc, and the sound hasn’t transferred, although it has changed to a degree, obviously. They’ve all essentially sounded like amplified versions of their acoustic sound, which has been different in every instance. But they’ve all been maple. I even recently had a bass made which is essentially a replica of my main bass, partly as an experiment to see how it came out. Result? Sounds nothing like it. 😉

Edited July 26, 2019 by 4000

[durhamboy]

"They’ve all essentially sounded like amplified versions of their acoustic sound, which has been different in every instance. But they’ve all been maple. I even recently had a bass made which is essentially a replica of my main bass, partly as an experiment to see how it came out. Result? Sounds nothing like it. 😉"

Yes, the variation in sound/tone between different samples of the same wood can often be as great as the differences between species. (within reason of course, not comparing maple to say balsa wood.... )

Because wood is derived from a living thing, it is variable to some degree, but generalizations are made, such as mahogany sounds 'warmer', maple sounds 'bright' and alder is the 'even' all rounder, because those descriptions are close enough, without making the whole subject too complex. It is basically true, maple is fairly hard, reasonably heavy, tight grained and it's transmission of upper frequencies is more pronounced than for lower ones. Mahogany might roughly be characterized as the reverse. The generalizations are an acceptable guide, though reality might vary a bit.  

[4000]

19 hours ago, durhamboy said:

"They’ve all essentially sounded like amplified versions of their acoustic sound, which has been different in every instance. But they’ve all been maple. I even recently had a bass made which is essentially a replica of my main bass, partly as an experiment to see how it came out. Result? Sounds nothing like it. 😉"

Yes, the variation in sound/tone between different samples of the same wood can often be as great as the differences between species. (within reason of course, not comparing maple to say balsa wood.... )

Because wood is derived from a living thing, it is variable to some degree, but generalizations are made, such as mahogany sounds 'warmer', maple sounds 'bright' and alder is the 'even' all rounder, because those descriptions are close enough, without making the whole subject too complex. It is basically true, maple is fairly hard, reasonably heavy, tight grained and it's transmission of upper frequencies is more pronounced than for lower ones. Mahogany might roughly be characterized as the reverse. The generalizations are an acceptable guide, though reality might vary a bit.  

I do tend to favour all-maple basses (Rics and Pedulla MVP spring to mind) so there may be something about maple that I like. Or it could just be coincidence. Difficult to say without a proper scientific test!

[thebadgerman]

On 22/07/2019 at 00:24, Jimothey said:

They can impregnate the body wood with unicorn sweat

I don't think unicorns sweat. I think it's actually unicorn p*ss.