What wood for a bass body?

[Woodinblack]

11 hours ago, Cuzzie said:

Paulownia (empress) - eco friendly, lighweight, punchy sound.

Will dent if you breath heavily on it

 

[Cuzzie]

2 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Will dent if you breath heavily on it

 

Don’t mind a dent or two!

Its not going to disintegrate, same with Cedar, they build ships with it, cant be too bad

[Hellzero]

7 minutes ago, itu said:

After studying acoustics and music years back, I think I might have a compromise in mind when people try to argue, sorry, talk about tonewoods. Every part vibrates, when they receive energy. Some parts vibrate more, some less, some have several vibrating modes.

One thing is the material. It absorbs (dampens) certain amount of energy from the strings.

Another is the construction. Chladni patterns, anyone? The shapes absorb something, and the placements of the parts have an effect on the absorption. Bridges can be in very different places of the body. That big paddle with tuners is one tuned construction part of the whole instrument. Thicknesses vary, too.

Wood is so uneven, that if the shape is exact, two parts are still not the same. I discussed this with a luthier (ac. guit.) who has built around 1 000 guitars. He said that when he finds a very good example of wood and makes two guitars out of the same log, they sound different, no matter what.

It would be lovely to do some research on (or read about one) where the bridge should be (take a look at the acoustic instruments), and how the headstock (Steinberger...), or body shapes tune the sound. Come on, structural analysis might reveal some interesting details from our dear instruments. What might the "tuned" instrument look like?

Try this : 

Mémoire sur la Construction des Instruments à Cordes et à Archet suivi du Rapport qui en a été fait aux deux Académies des Sciences et des Beaux-Arts.

SAVART (Félix).

[itu]

Dear @Hellzero,

The issue is that M. Savart died 1841. His studies do not cover the electric bass, although it is nearly as old construction as he is... Yes, I have studied acoustic instruments' acoustics a bit, but those constructions are really old. These modern logs are of interest, here. Structural analysis would be the tool, but who has done such research today?

[Maude]

But how far do you take the resonance angle though when pickup type and placement and strings will have far bigger impact on the sound of a bass. You could have the most resonant bass in the world, and then fit flatwounds, roll off the tone and play over the neck which will alter the sound far more than any wood can. Alternatively have what some would regard as a dead, non resonant bass but fit stainless rounds, crank the treble and play with a pick and it will be bright and more resonant than the previous example. Everything makes a difference, but some so small it's not worth worrying about.

Comparing to acoustic instruments is, in my opinion, pointless as an acoustic relies on it's body to create all of it's amplification, of course it makes a far bigger difference to an electric instrument which relies on, well electrics for it's amplification.

To take it to the extreme, fat bass players will dampen the sound more than skinny players due to the large area of soft bodyfat in contact with the instrument absorbing frequencies compared to a smaller area of denser abdominal muscle and hip bone which will absorb far less of the basses frequencies. If body wood type has a large enough impact on resonance to be of concern then so should the build of the player the bass is strapped to. So all you fatties can stop worrying about tonewoods and either get on with playing bass, or get in shape to improve the resonance of your bass. 

😁

[BigRedX]

1 minute ago, itu said:

Dear @Hellzero,

The issue is that M. Savart died 1841. His studies do not cover the electric bass, although it is nearly as old construction as he is... Yes, I have studied acoustic instruments' acoustics a bit, but those constructions are really old. These modern logs are of interest, here. Structural analysis would be the tool, but who has done such research today?

Very much this. 

There is no denying that the selection of woods and construction of acoustic instruments has a massive effect on the way they sound. When the projection of the sound is produced by a carefully selected single piece of wood, braced as little as possible to withstand the tension in the strings and attached to the rest of the instrument (whose size and shape also have a significant bearing on the tone) with minimal contact points - again just enough for the body to withstand normal playing use and little more.

Compare that with the typical solid electric instrument body. Great thick chunks of timber slavered in glue and cut and joined in a way to maximise the number of bodies obtainable from a single board. The shapes while harking back to acoustic designs are often more to do with what is now visually acceptable based on the original solid instrument designs, and have no bearing on what may or may not sound best. 

[Cuzzie]

@Maude I take exception - my fat is carefully sculpted to be hard, resonant and add harmonics - it rarely farts out

[Cuzzie]

48 minutes ago, Maude said:

But how far do you take the resonance angle though when pickup type and placement and strings will have far bigger impact on the sound of a bass. You could have the most resonant bass in the world, and then fit flatwounds, roll off the tone and play over the neck which will alter the sound far more than any wood can. Alternatively have what some would regard as a dead, non resonant bass but fit stainless rounds, crank the treble and play with a pick and it will be bright and more resonant than the previous example. Everything makes a difference, but some so small it's not worth worrying about.

Comparing to acoustic instruments is, in my opinion, pointless as an acoustic relies on it's body to create all of it's amplification, of course it makes a far bigger difference to an electric instrument which relies on, well electrics for it's amplification.

To take it to the extreme, fat bass players will dampen the sound more than skinny players due to the large area of soft bodyfat in contact with the instrument absorbing frequencies compared to a smaller area of denser abdominal muscle and hip bone which will absorb far less of the basses frequencies. If body wood type has a large enough impact on resonance to be of concern then so should the build of the player the bass is strapped to. So all you fatties can stop worrying about tonewoods and either get on with playing bass, or get in shape to improve the resonance of your bass. 

😁

There is actually a semi serious point in this. I think we have to make it relevant for us as an individual, now we all know what works for us, not just aesthetically, but materials - for example maple, rosewood, ebony, graphite fingerboards etc. And the same with the bodies. Within the spectrum of what’s available we make a choice for us as to what sounds right

[Dan Dare]

1 hour ago, Hellzero said:

Yes, it's again easy to explain, a softer wood will have a tendency to absorb the vibration, when a harder one will tend to increase it.

Could you stop non sense, please.

It's far from easy to explain. This is an extremely complex subject and, as is the case with so many complex subjects, many have opinions about it that are founded not on fact but on their own suppositions. They will also tend to dismiss what others say as "nonsense", or worse, with no evidence to support the assertion. I did point out above that one should apply sensible limits to materials choice (balsa, to quote an extreme example, would obviously not be a good option, because of its lack of structural strength or rigidity).

See itu's post above, in which he makes the (true) observation that two pieces of the same species of timber can behave very differently.

As others point out, the variations between various hardwoods, or other materials such as Masonite, resins and so on for building bodies for solid electric instruments are minimal and tonally insignificant. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see/hear it.

Methods/quality of construction and electronics are the things that make real difference.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Dan Dare

[marcblum]

20 hours ago, Angel said:

So, I'm having a go at making a bass. I'm looking for recommendation for type of wood for the body. Not too heavy, not too light, and it's going to have a painted finish so doesn't need to look fancy. 

Any thoughts?

Not sure if I missed some bits & pieces, but as far as I followed the conversation, that's the only piece of requirements provided.

To meet the OP's needs I like to ask for slightly more specific requirements, i.e. what is too heavy, what is too light? Is weight range the only requirement and sound not at all? What are the neck woods you have in mind? Can you provide some sound examples what you want the bass to sound like? Any youtube link with upfront mixed bass will help tremendously.

Thanks for helping us helping you.

[Angel]

2 minutes ago, marcblum said:

Not sure if I missed some bits & pieces, but as far as I followed the conversation, that's the only piece of requirements provided.

To meet the OP's needs I like to ask for slightly more specific requirements, i.e. what is too heavy, what is too light? Is weight range the only requirement and sound not at all? What are the neck woods you have in mind? Can you provide some sound examples what you want the bass to sound like? Any youtube link with upfront mixed bass will help tremendously.

Thanks for helping us helping you.

The honest truth is I'm not that bothered, I'm very easy going on basses, I get one, I play it. I had a lovely Status years ago, but it weighted a ton and my shoulder would ache after about 20 mins. I don't know what wood it was but I know I don't want something that heavy!

Likewise, an ultra light body, especially with a 5 string neck can give neck dive. I don't like neck dive.

So my description was probably accurate enough for my needs. I'm easy going on everything but I don't want too heavy or too light!

[marcblum]

So the second requirement (not too light) isn't really a requirement but an assumed solution.
The real requirement is "no neck dive". I understand currently, that a lightweight instrument without neck dive would be great.

In that case I'd take headless basses into consideration, as they do not tend to neck dive at all.

Edited July 6, 2020 by marcblum

[Maude]

In my furloughed boredom I'm actually quite tempted to screw a set of tuners, a bridge and a P bass pickup  and electrics to the 6"x6" uprights on my carport, record the open EADG and then record the open EADG of my P bass and see if there is a significant difference. 

[fleabag]

I've got a 2 piece slab of African Sapele here that was going to be for a project, but its not going to happen, if anyone's interested.

I'm fully paid up here, by the way

 

[jrixn1]

1 minute ago, Maude said:

In my furloughed boredom I'm actually quite tempted to screw a set of tuners, a bridge and a P bass pickup  and electrics to the 6"x6" uprights on my carport, record the open EADG and then record the open EADG of my P bass and see if there is a significant difference. 

See https://www.talkbass.com/threads/scrap-lumber-bass-vs-alder-bass-can-you-tell-the-difference.743932/

[Maude]

5 minutes ago, jrixn1 said:

See https://www.talkbass.com/threads/scrap-lumber-bass-vs-alder-bass-can-you-tell-the-difference.743932/

I'll have a look at that later 👍

[Hellzero]

2 hours ago, itu said:

Dear @Hellzero,

The issue is that M. Savart died 1841. His studies do not cover the electric bass, although it is nearly as old construction as he is... Yes, I have studied acoustic instruments' acoustics a bit, but those constructions are really old. These modern logs are of interest, here. Structural analysis would be the tool, but who has done such research today?

And Antonio Stradivari died in 1737...

Read Savart mémoire, there are plenty of modern theories in it that have only been applied recently, like Christophe Leduc's free floating top and Christophe is an architect before being a luthier, so if you want to discuss about the fact that electric instruments are before all acoustic instruments, just ask him. He has done intensive research and work about this. Strangely, his instruments are almost the only ones were you can hear the fundamental of each and every note down to a low B... And no, you can't hear the fundamental of a Fodera low B. Sorry.

[itu]

Dear @Hellzero,

I understand that he has done lots of theoretic work (Biot-Savart is one of the most known, even I am aware of it). The difference between theory and practice can be clarified today with modern tools and methodology. The thing is that we should be able to understand the practical differences.

@Dan Dare put it right: most of the things happen in the electronics. Still, there are finesses that can be refined to get the best out of any instrument. Is spruce good in an electric, too (Sadowsky is using it)? Which woods should be mated together in a bolt-on? Do them matter? And so on.

I hate the word magic, because there is no magic in luthierie. There certainly are skilled persons that have found some mixtures through trial and error. Could their work be enhanced further? And this is the point where modern tech could reveal at least some recipes. Now, who wants to have a bad instrument? Hands up, please!

[Cuzzie]

10 minutes ago, itu said:

Dear @Hellzero,

I understand that he has done lots of theoretic work (Biot-Savart is one of the most known, even I am aware of it). The difference between theory and practice can be clarified today with modern tools and methodology. The thing is that we should be able to understand the practical differences.

@Dan Dare put it right: most of the things happen in the electronics. Still, there are finesses that can be refined to get the best out of any instrument. Is spruce good in an electric, too (Sadowsky is using it)? Which woods should be mated together in a bolt-on? Do them matter? And so on.

I hate the word magic, because there is no magic in luthierie. There certainly are skilled persons that have found some mixtures through trial and error. Could their work be enhanced further? And this is the point where modern tech could reveal at least some recipes. Now, who wants to have a bad instrument? Hands up, please!

If anyone did pop their hands up, PM me and I am pretty sure I can make you a bad ‘un

[Bassfinger]

15 hours ago, Maude said:

But how far do you take the resonance angle though when pickup type and placement and strings will have far bigger impact on the sound of a bass. You could have the most resonant bass in the world, and then fit flatwounds, roll off the tone and play over the neck which will alter the sound far more than any wood can. Alternatively have what some would regard as a dead, non resonant bass but fit stainless rounds, crank the treble and play with a pick and it will be bright and more resonant than the previous example. Everything makes a difference, but some so small it's not worth worrying about.

Comparing to acoustic instruments is, in my opinion, pointless as an acoustic relies on it's body to create all of it's amplification, of course it makes a far bigger difference to an electric instrument which relies on, well electrics for it's amplification.

To take it to the extreme, fat bass players will dampen the sound more than skinny players due to the large area of soft bodyfat in contact with the instrument absorbing frequencies compared to a smaller area of denser abdominal muscle and hip bone which will absorb far less of the basses frequencies. If body wood type has a large enough impact on resonance to be of concern then so should the build of the player the bass is strapped to. So all you fatties can stop worrying about tonewoods and either get on with playing bass, or get in shape to improve the resonance of your bass. 

😁

Indeed.  I'm also inclined to ignore resonance as irrelevant in an electric instrument.  The pickups detect the strings vibrating above them, and nothing else.  How well and how long they vibrate is a function of the rigidity of the structure upon which they are mounted. How well the rest of the structure may resonate doesn't  matter, because the pickups have no means of detecting that.

On an acoustic instrument, however, it's a big deal.

I quite like Paulownia. Light, easy to work, looks great. It can be soft and mark easily, but that's an irrelevance with a suitably hard painted or varnished finish. My Jazz is Paulownia and did pick up dents easily, but once I'd had it pro refinished in a 2 pack satin enamel it's as robust as anything else.

[Cuzzie]

To be honest I don’t think anyone is entirely right or wrong on this.

Wood, even after being felled being a cellular structure will change over time. Water content, cellular realignment, maturation etc.

When you take an older bass with ‘mojo’ vs a new bass they will sound different and that is not just because of the electronics ageing it’s the whole structure, even if you swapped the pick ups, loom etc. either bass would  still not sound like it’s counterpart, and that’s because the whole structure makes a difference.

If it was purely the electronics a metal, plastic, graphite and wood bass would all sound the same if the components were moved across.

If that is accepted (it may not be) then different structured wood would logically sound different - even within the same trunk log.

Grapes from a vineyard do not all bring the same wine taste, to the closer to the road and bottom of the hill make a different wine to those at the top.

The next point will inevitably be, how much difference, 80-90% of people don’t know/care - that’s irrelevant l, I can barely tell the difference between a red admiral and a cabbage white butterfly but it's there

[Bassfinger]

How does softer wood absorb vibration more than a harder one?  The opposite is true in most other forms of mechanical damping. Not being difficult, just genuinely interested in the physics behind that claim.

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bassfinger

[Maude]

4 minutes ago, Bassfinger said:

How does softer wood absorb vibration more than a harder one?  The opposite is true in most other forms of mechanical damping. Not being difficult, just genuinely interested in the physics behind that claim.

 

Is the opposite true though. Surely anything softer absorbs more energy than solid objects?

I'd rather be hit with a foam tube than a steel tube. 

[Cuzzie]

So - I dunno if this plays a part - hardwoods are more porous on a cellular level because of the water and nutrient transportation systems and take longer to grow, they are also more dense compared to softwoods - does not mean hardwood is ‘harder’

May-haps this porous structure Allows the vibrations to travel as opposed to being absorbed

[Hellzero]

On 06/07/2020 at 14:02, Hellzero said:

Simple and effective answer : the way a string vibrates, and therefore is sensed by the pickup(s), is directly linked to the construction of the instrument.

Funny as everything in this thread is just summarised over, but not correctly understood. Construction includes material, shape and anything "making" the instrument. Maybe I should stop summarising too much ... sometimes.

The pure scientific approach has always lead to a tonal catastrophe when building instruments and you all know that. That's why real luthiers (even the very few making electric instruments) always tune their woods and use multi secular knowledge to achieve their building, and rarely inovate... There is no magic in this. The wheel has already been invented.

If you rely on science only, you'll end up totally assisted, not even knowing how to breathe. And the process is well engaged...