Fretboard Woods

[acidbass]

Hey all

This post is inspired by a Youtube video where a guy said he chose maple fretboards because ‘they sound better for slap bass’

I simply don’t understand this. How can this be true, from a physics perspective? Slapped strings hit off the frets only and don’t actually make contact with the fretboard at all - in fact, do strings ever actually touch the fretboard at all? Surely if the speaking length of the string starts at the bridge and ends at the fret you are playing - the string never touches the fretboard at all.

To my mind, fretboard wood is all smoke and mirrors and doesn’t make a jot of difference to tone (unless on fretless) - change my mind!

Danny

 

[uk_lefty]

A lot will agree with you. Some will say that the vibrations from the string reflect off the board and different board woods and finishes affect the sound. 

My view is worth next to nothing in the matter and I can't get in to the science of it because I'm not qualified to do so, I just hear other people's reasons and a lot sound plausible, even the contradicting ones. But I've had two maple boarded basses and they have a brighter, snappier sound to them. They've both been jazz basses though. I've had a rosewood board jazz bass and it wasn't as bright and snappy. Had different pickups in it though so you can't call it a fair test. 

Best people to ask would be a selection of builders for why they choose different woods. 

[ped]

Yeah they definitely sound different, as does ebony or composite. Neck construction plays a big part too. From a physics perspective, the strings don’t touch the body either but anything that affects how the string vibrates will have an effect. 

[White Cloud]

The only qualification I have with regard this topic is the subjective interpretation of my ears.

I have always found there to be a marked difference in sound/tone between maple, rosewood and any other fretboard material.

Fascinating topic which begs the "Why?" Question.

[Cuzzie]

The yay-sayers (of which I am one) will say it makes a difference, which it does, the nay-sayers will say it makes no difference and then say, well not an appreciable one that most people will be able to tell. To my mind what that actually means is it does make a difference then!

Construction, density, type of wood, ageing of the wood, cellular structure maturity, quality of materials etc all make a difference.

I’ve been round a factory and felt and listened to all types of fingerboard and body woods, and it does make a difference. When you work with a block of wood. The smell and it’s characteristics, how it handles are obvious and do make a difference, even wood of the same genus  doesn’t sound exactly the same each time.

If interested there is research out there to back this up, you just have to have an inspector clueso and find it

[Cuzzie]

5 minutes ago, White Cloud said:

The only qualification I have with regard this topic is the subjective interpretation of my ears.

I have always found there to be a marked difference in sound/tone between maple, rosewood and any other fretboard material.

Fascinating topic which begs the "Why?" Question.

Starting place is structure, cellular alignment, pores, heartwood, sapwood, cambium, phloem, xylem etc and how they are used and Align will all make a difference.

The tiny pockets, maturity, alignment allow vibrations to pass and either deaden or amplify etc.

 

[Guest]

Every time I’ve played or owned a bass with a maple fingerboard, it’s felt and sounded brighter and clankier, with more string noise. It is however very subtle, easy to hear/feel playing solo but almost indistinguishable in a band/recording. The key for me is that it’s noticeable when the bass is played acoustically - it generally sounds a bit brighter and a bit louder. That probably rules out electronics but, as has been said, with the variations in wood from the same tree, let alone between species, it’s hard to pinpoint.

[CameronJ]

When there are so many variables in the construction of an electric bass which contribute to the final sound, it baffles me why some people obsess over the sonic signature of fingerboard wood as though it’s the be-all and end-all. A luthier building a bass is arguably more likely to use a particular section of rosewood because it has a visually appealing grain pattern than for how it sounds. The best looking grain doesn’t necessarily equate to the “best” sound. And there’s no real way of knowing how it’ll sound until you put the damn thing on the bass anyway. 

Since wood is an organic material with natural variances, It’s possible to find a particular sample of rosewood which is sonically brighter than a particular sample of maple. It is something of an imperfect science, given the cocktail of contributing factors.

I just choose whichever wood looks best on that particular model of bass and get on with it. After all, you can’t exactly change the fingerboard on your bass once it’s built (well, you can, but at great effort and expense.)

Call me a heathen but I’m of the opinion that simply changing your strings has way more of an audible effect on tone than whether your bass has a maple or rosewood fingerboard - or any other wood for that matter. And then you get into pickups and circuitry, active preamp characteristics, capacitor values, VVT vs VBT on a 2 pickup bass, selector switches vs blend pots in terms of how they load the pickups, high mass vs lower mass bridges, nut material, nut only vs zero fret, fret material, headless vs headed. The list goes on.

For what it’s worth, I used to prefer the “clean” look of maple boards but now much prefer my basses to have darker fingerboard woods like rosewood/wenge/ebony, simply because I prefer the visual contrast against the strings and frets - makes it easier for me to glance down and know where I am faster, especially in certain lighting conditions. Might sound weird to some but hey, it gives me some degree of comfort! 

 

 

[Cuzzie]

11 minutes ago, CameronJ said:

When there are so many variables in the construction of an electric bass which contribute to the final sound, it baffles me why some people obsess over the sonic signature of fingerboard wood as though it’s the be-all and end-all. A luthier building a bass is arguably more likely to use a particular section of rosewood because it has a visually appealing grain pattern than for how it sounds. The best looking grain doesn’t necessarily equate to the “best” sound. And there’s no real way of knowing how it’ll sound until you put the damn thing on the bass anyway. 

Since wood is an organic material with natural variances, It’s possible to find a particular sample of rosewood which is sonically brighter than a particular sample of maple. It is something of an imperfect science, given the cocktail of contributing factors.

I just choose whichever wood looks best on that particular model of bass and get on with it. After all, you can’t exactly change the fingerboard on your bass once it’s built (well, you can, but at great effort and expense.)

Call me a heathen but I’m of the opinion that simply changing your strings has way more of an audible effect on tone than whether your bass has a maple or rosewood fingerboard - or any other wood for that matter. And then you get into pickups and circuitry, active preamp characteristics, capacitor values, VVT vs VBT on a 2 pickup bass, selector switches vs blend pots in terms of how they load the pickups, high mass vs lower mass bridges, nut material, nut only vs zero fret, fret material, headless vs headed. The list goes on.

For what it’s worth, I used to prefer the “clean” look of maple boards but now much prefer my basses to have darker fingerboard woods like rosewood/wenge/ebony, simply because I prefer the visual contrast against the strings and frets - makes it easier for me to glance down and know where I am faster, especially in certain lighting conditions. Might sound weird to some but hey, it gives me some degree of comfort! 

 

 

Heathen 

[Drax]

Ahh woods debate. Normal service is resuming. 

Isn't the accepted wisdom that whilst under lab conditions there is a difference, once you add all the other variables, studio or live, the ear can't tell. Not seen a conclusive blind test. 

[Cuzzie]

@CameronJ I gets what you is saying and also @Drax but it’s all in the recipe - a pinch here and a pinch there will give the overall flavour, Change an element - the end result will change

[Silvia Bluejay]

The Basschat Herts Bash 2015 had a maple v. rosewood shootout.

The blog I wrote at the time is HERE.

[Cuzzie]

12 minutes ago, Silvia Bluejay said:

The Basschat Herts Bash 2015 had a maple v. rosewood shootout.

The blog I wrote at the time is HERE.

Great blog

 

bravo

[Hellzero]

Same old song... Before saying anything about how an instrument sounds, may we see your hearing curve ? That is the most important part and nobody pretending this or that has ever shown it. If you have hearing deficiency, you won't be able to hear the differences between this and that. On the other end, a well trained hear (I'm not talking about perfect pitch, here) will hear the differences.

Then there are the scientific facts.

Then come the true luthiers who tune their woods.

Then there is your personal taste.

[fretmeister]

Different body woods and different neck woods

 

 

 

[Dan Dare]

It's worth noting that maple boards have a hard lacquer/varnish coating to prevent wear. So you are not hearing the "sound" of the wood (if there is any such thing).

[fretmeister]

And here is an article by Roger Sadowsky where he states in his (very long) experience, fretboard wood is the most important factor between wood and tone.

 

https://www.sadowsky.com/wood-and-sound-in-amplified-guitars-and-basses/

 

I tend to agree - I've been playing for about 33 years now and in that time I've had many basses, and sometimes I've had almost identical ones aside from the fretboard.

Maple and Ebony are brighter than rosewood. 

 

I wouldn't not try a bass because of the fretboard wood, but I know what to expect on average.

[fretmeister]

6 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

It's worth noting that maple boards have a hard lacquer/varnish coating to prevent wear. So you are not hearing the "sound" of the wood (if there is any such thing).

I don't think that argument works.

Otherwise the same would apply to the body - you'd not be hearing the "sound" of the wood - you'd be hearing the sound of the paint.

 

A tiny layer of lacquer (not on every make) doesn't change the resonances as much as a species change does.

[fretmeister]

That video is particularly interesting to me as all the rosewood board basses sound very similar even with different body woods of Alder and Basswood.

The Swamp Ash and Maple one is far brighter than the others.

 

I would have loved to have heard that one with rosewood board neck from one of the others too.

[Dad3353]

I wonder what glue is used on various basses..? Presumably no more fish or hide glue. Aliphatic resin..? Epoxy..? Casein..? The list could be long. Surely this would have some effect on tone, no..? 

[CameronJ]

13 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Different body woods and different neck woods

 

 

 

The maple boarded ‘77p is definitely the brightest of the bunch here, but what often annoys me about these videos is that they almost never state whether the basses are all wearing the same strings or not! I’d like to hear the test with the same strings and same pickups in every bass. 

[Cuzzie]

10 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

And here is an article by Roger Sadowsky where he states in his (very long) experience, fretboard wood is the most important factor between wood and tone.

 

https://www.sadowsky.com/wood-and-sound-in-amplified-guitars-and-basses/

 

I tend to agree - I've been playing for about 33 years now and in that time I've had many basses, and sometimes I've had almost identical ones aside from the fretboard.

Maple and Ebony are brighter than rosewood. 

 

I wouldn't not try a bass because of the fretboard wood, but I know what to expect on average.

Think I have read that article and will do so again just now, but I have also had a long chat with Hölger (Sandberg owner) I reckon he knows his onions, same conclusion about fretboard woods and the difference and we looked at the usual crew plus Oak, fumed/steamed oak, Canadian maple, Norwegian maple etc.

I’m signed up to the difference

[fretmeister]

Just now, CameronJ said:

The maple boarded ‘77p is definitely the brightest of the bunch here, but what often annoys me about these videos is that they almost never state whether the basses are all wearing the same strings or not! I’d like to hear the test with the same strings and same pickups in every bass. 

 

That one does say it's the same strings.

No mention of pickups though. I agree - would be good if they were all the same. 

In my experience of jazz pickups (the ones I have more experience with) is that the USA ones have loads more high articulation than the cheaper ones.

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, White Cloud said:

The only qualification I have with regard this topic is the subjective interpretation of my ears.

I have always found there to be a marked difference in sound/tone between maple, rosewood and any other fretboard material.

Fascinating topic which begs the "Why?" Question.

How could you tell? Was every other part of all the basses in question absolutely identical? If not how do you know for sure it was the fretboard wood alone that was contributing to difference in sound/tone.

[Guest]

The gist of this is that there are a lot of variables, and when you’re talking about organic materials it’s hard to pin down empirical evidence. Even the most voracious collector has probably limited experience. I would listen to bass luthiers more, as if they’re building thousands of instruments with some constants (same electronics and hardware) then they are better-placed to tell whether ash/maple/maple (or insert your flavour of softwoods) is definitely different to, say, mahogany/wenge/ebony (again, insert your choice of hardwoods).