Fretboard Woods

[Maude]

2 hours ago, chris_b said:

In the context of a musical instrument, wood does have a sound. It absolutely does on an acoustic instrument so why should that feature of the material be absent on an electric instrument?

On an acoustic there is a balance in shaving body woods down to minimal thickness to enhance resonance against having enough material to be structurally strong. On electrics you take a big slab of wood and cut it to a shape that looks nice. 

That's why so much is spent trying to amplify an acoustic to try and keep as much of the natural acoustic tone as possible. It's much easier to just stick magnetic pickup on a doublebass and not have to worry about feedback, body noise, etc, but it then usually sounds far more like an electric so most don't do it. The fact it sounds more like an electric and you lose the acoustic qualities surely means you have taken the woods qualities and construction out of the equation. 

As an aside, out of all of my solid bodied basses, the one that sounds the brightest and has the longest sustain and clarity when played unplugged is my absolute piece of poo, plywood body and neck 70s Kay Les Paul-a-like. It has a darker wood fretboard (I'm sure it's not rosewood) and is brighter than any maple neck I've got. 

So from those findings, if you want sustain and brightness you need to be looking at plywood body and necks, not fancy woods multi-laminates, just good old cheap ply. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Maude

[Cuzzie]

13 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

Meanwhile, the people who obsess about the details of their basses wonder why others can play them under the table. Hint - they were playing instead of obsessing about stuff that on the whole, doesn't really matter. 

Or it’s a subject that genuinely interests them - no one is saying (yet)that P players are better than MM or jazz players, solid colour bass players are better than natural Finish bass players - we all have our interests

[BigRedX]

The brightest sounding of all my basses is the one with the newest strings on it.

[Doctor J]

19 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

So we all know that pick up placement, type of pick up and Pre-amp make a difference - no one argues that.

The original Stingray produced by Leo did have a P pick up in the position, but was changed to an MM.

So to answer your question - the passive P pick up in that position will sound more like a Fender Elite II without the pre-amp

The Ray Rosewood would sound like a Ray Rosewood and the Ray maple like a Ray maple, as per Sylivia’s excellent blog test results.

Popping a Seymour Duncan or Aggie MM with a Ray pre amp will sound different to the Ray, as it would with an OBP pre-amp.

what you are suggesting is fine, but is then comparing the sounds of different electronics using the bass material as the constant, what I suggested was keep electronics constant and change the wood as that was what was the question.

Both valid tho

If wood were constant then every maple Stingray would sound exactly the same, every rosewood boarded P would sound the same and we're all sure they don't. Applying a blanket statement to the tonal impact of a small slip of organic material is, in my opinion, misguided. If you take a (insert manufacturer here) pickup and replace it with a model from the same line, you know they're going to sound essentially the same. If you replace a maple neck with a maple neck, will it sound the same? It might, but then again it might not. Wood is not a constant. That's partly why people spend big on old instruments. New maple doesn't sound like old maple, apparently, nor old alder like new, but I've yet to find someone who can clearly define how, so how can we say a particular species of wood has a definite and constant characteristic when, being organic, it is prone to variances before we get into age, how dry it is, the effect of vibrations on the cellular structure and all the other stuff which makes people spend money?

How does old maple sound compared to new maple, what are the tonal variances? How does old, unplayed maple sound compared to recent maple which has had a lot of vibrations through it?

It goes on and on. Years ago, when Fender replaced the nice and lively neck on my year old AmSe Strat which had started to crack with a brand new neck of the same woods which sounded dull and lifeless and played like crap, I learned a valuable lesson in getting too caught up in thinking wood types had a predictable characteristic

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, Doctor J said:

Well, copper wire and pickup magnets are built to specific values with controlled tolerances so, yes, there is a level of verifiable consistency with them. DiMarzio and Seymour Duncan issue tonal charts as to what sonic properties you can expect from different pickup models. They are built to produce sound with a particular sonic footprint which the manufacturer will stand over since they're advertising the product as having these specific properties within a specified tolerance. There is no magic or guesswork to it.

Mass-produce pickups made by machines should be reasonably close to identical, but are still dependant upon the tolerances of components from their suppliers. Is every magnet of exactly the same strength? Is the new batch of wire exactly the same diameter and resistance and does it have the same thickness of insulating coating as the last?

And consider that many of those vintage basses would have had pickups that were hand wound and back then no-one would have bothered to check details like the number of turns of wire and the way that those turns were applied (scatter-wound anyone?) let alone the consistency of the magnets and wire used, as long as the items supplied claimed to be the specification ordered.

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, Doctor J said:

Wood is organic. Every piece is different, even if they are of the same species. Does it make a difference? Yes, everything makes a difference, but my ears tell me it doesn't make enough of a difference for me to care signifigcantly about it. Therefore, I have learned not to get to caught up in it and pick what looks pretty.

Even having wood of the same species is fairly meaningless. There are 40+ species of tree that can be called "Ash", and the fabled "swamp ash" isn't even distinct species, but simply refers to "ash" trees that have been grown in swampy conditions. Therefore if you want to make informed choices about wood, not only do you need to know the species, but also the growing conditions, and on top of that: geographical location where the trees come from, age of the trees when cut down, length of time and conditions under which the trees or boards have been in storage for each stage of preparation, and wether or not they have been subjected to any artificial processes in the "seasoning" and probably a whole lot of other factors.

[Cuzzie]

7 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

If wood were constant then every maple Stingray would sound exactly the same, every rosewood boarded P would sound the same and we're all sure they don't. Applying a blanket statement to the tonal impact of a small slip of organic material is, in my opinion, misguided. If you take a (insert manufacturer here) pickup and replace it with a model from the same line, you know they're going to sound essentially the same. If you replace a maple neck with a maple neck, will it sound the same? It might, but then again it might not. Wood is not a constant. That's partly why people spend big on old instruments. New maple doesn't sound like old maple, apparently, nor old alder like new, but I've yet to find someone who can clearly define how, so how can we say a particular species of wood has a definite and constant characteristic when, being organic, it is prone to variances before we get into age, how dry it is, the effect of vibrations on the cellular structure and all the other stuff which makes people spend money?

How does old maple sound compared to new maple, what are the tonal variances? How does old, unplayed maple sound compared to recent maple which has had a lot of vibrations through it?

It goes on and on. Years ago, when Fender replaced the nice and lively neck on my year old AmSe Strat which had started to crack with a brand new neck of the same woods which sounded dull and lifeless and played like crap, I learned a valuable lesson in getting too caught up in thinking wood types had a predictable characteristic

We are actually saying the same thing - I have never said that all maple sounds the same, I fact in my earlier post I alluded to there being a difference between Canadian and Norwegian maple - with your poor replacement you had a crap bit or wood - doesn’t matter the species if it’s crap, it’s crap, However, with a the subset species  of each Wood there will be similarities, compared to a subset of species of another, will there be cross over? Of course there will, it will be like The Olympic Rings symbol.

Good poo t about aged vs new - there is a difference be it natural or artificial and how you go about the process and there is evidence out there From research university studies primarily I think in Braunschweig Uni and also a university in Finland

[Cuzzie]

3 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Even having wood of the same species is fairly meaningless. There are 40+ species of tree that can be called "Ash", and the fabled "swamp ash" isn't even distinct species, but simply refers to "ash" trees that have been grown in swampy conditions. Therefore if you want to make informed choices about wood, not only do you need to know the species, but also the growing conditions, and on top of that: geographical location where the trees come from, age of the trees when cut down, length of time and conditions under which the trees or boards have been in storage for each stage of preparation, and wether or not they have been subjected to any artificial processes in the "seasoning" and probably a whole lot of other factors.

Agreed - but mahogany vs Ash (of some description) vs Alder, vs etc will have characteristics of their own be it weight, grain, structure, sound 

That is the broad structure of the debate, which by pointing out if there is a difference even within the same species, it is then apparent it is different between species, hence strengthening the argument

[BigRedX]

5 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

Agreed - but mahogany vs Ash (of some description) vs Alder, vs etc will have characteristics of their own be it weight, grain, structure, sound 

But do they really? There's still no proper scientific testing that shows that even with the wide variation between woods from the same species there is still more consistency of sound within a species than the overall spectrum of sounds from all "tone woods".

6 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

That is the broad structure of the debate, which by pointing out if there is a difference even within the same species, it is then apparent it is different between species, hence strengthening the argument

My position has always been that for solid electric instruments, wood does make a difference, but that it is basically unpredictable and it's contribution to the overall sound of an instrument is fairly low priority.

[itu]

It seems that most of the fruitful discussion is about tolerances. Electronic components have probably stricter and well analyzed variables compared to wood. Any organic material like wood can have several parameters that we are simply overlooking or just do not see (or hear) and we do not have the tools to make reasonable analyzing what is actually related to the sound. Is the wood hard or soft, heavy or light - I just think these are more related to building a robust instrument than what the final products will sound like.

If a professional instrument maker can not predict the final sound, is it because the material selection process is weak? There are no parameters to follow, measure, or even compare. The luthier may have a hunch, but the exact end product parameters are the sum of so many components that no one has had the power (= money) to do the ultimate research. We have certain heritage, and plenty of beliefs that direct our taste. Come on: tell me what is a good sound, and then how you measure it? Oh, you say "punchy and round", well, thank you...

[Cuzzie]

2 minutes ago, itu said:

 We have certain heritage, and plenty of beliefs that direct our taste. Come on: tell me what is a good sound, and then how you measure it? Oh, you say "punchy and round", well, thank you...

Sounds like we analyse sound  as we do a good wine

[Krysbass]

I prefer rosewood, ebony or any other dark coloured wood on a fretboard - but this has nothing to do with the sound and everything to do with the look.

Then there’s the practical consideration of the frets being more visible in dim lighting. - Something I found more useful in my early years as as bassist.🙂

[CameronJ]

10 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

Sounds like we analyse sound  as we do a good wine

Love me a nice punchy and round glass of Chateauneuf du Pape. 

[ped]

11 minutes ago, CameronJ said:

Love me a nice punchy and round glass of Chateauneuf du Pape. 

Several glasses of it makes me round and punchy 

[Hellzero]

 

[thodrik]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

My position has always been that for solid electric instruments, wood does make a difference, but that it is basically unpredictable and it's contribution to the overall sound of an instrument is fairly low priority.

This is pretty much my view. It makes a difference but that much and not in any predictable way. 

Though I have seen some classic 'comparison' videos between maple and rosewood boards where the treble control has clearly been turned way up in order to demonstrate the 'natural' extra attack and treble response a maple board gives compared to a rosewood board.  

[Maude]

6 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

 

You can 100% hear that that was played on a Warwick Vampyre with a maple board. 

[Bolo]

Really enjoying the confirmation bias, keep it going!

[White Cloud]

8 hours ago, BigRedX said:

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.

That's a reasonable question.

The best that I can offer in reply is this;

I owned a Lakland Skyline 4402 back in 2008 with a rosewood board which developed a crack in the neck. On contacting Lakland they actually offered to ship me a new neck however, I requested a maple board instead. No problem was the reply. They even paid for a luther of my choice to fit it and a new set of strings (Jimmy Moon in Glasgow). Exemplary service all round.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that the maple had a snap and brightness as opposed to the prior mellow response.

I know that this is by no way empirical evidence, but for me this experience was pretty conclusive.. 

Same bass all round with an identical replacement neck other than the board (although I accept no two necks are ever identical given the bespoke material that is wood).

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by White Cloud

[Cuzzie]

24 minutes ago, White Cloud said:

That's a reasonable question.

The best that I can offer in reply is this;

I owned a Lakland Skyline 4402 back in 2008 with a rosewood board which developed a crack in the neck. On contacting Lakland they actually offered to ship me a new neck however, I requested a maple board instead. No problem was the reply. They even paid for a luther of my choice to fit it and a new set of strings (Jimmy Moon in Glasgow). Exemplary service all round.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that the maple had a snap and brightness as opposed to the prior mellow response.

I know that this is by no way empirical evidence, but for me this experience was pretty conclusive.. 

Same bass all round with an identical replacement neck other than the board (although I accept no two necks are ever identical given the bespoke material that is wood).

 

I believe, but someone will say it’s the new strings.....

[White Cloud]

10 minutes ago, Cuzzie said:

I believe, but someone will say it’s the new strings.....

For those that don't believe there can never be enough proof, for those that do no proof is required!

[TheGreek]

 

[Lozz196]

5 hours ago, Krysbass said:

I prefer rosewood, ebony or any other dark coloured wood on a fretboard - but this has nothing to do with the sound and everything to do with the look.

Then there’s the practical consideration of the frets being more visible in dim lighting. - Something I found more useful in my early years as as bassist.🙂

It’s funny as for years I too preferred rosewood boards but swapped to maple when I started playing very brightly lit stages, I found it easier to see where I was on them for some reason.

[Lozz196]

I def think the wood of the body of the instrument has more effect on the sounds of instruments. Years ago I looked at two Epiphone Thunderbirds, one made of alder, one made of mahogany. The specs on each instrument, going by the website were the same, yet the sound most definitely was not.

Even Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers would have heard the difference.

[spacecowboy]

There is a really interesting section of the Wyn Basses documentary where Mr Wyn drops various block of wood on to the floor of his workshop for you to hear the differences in sound... While interesting, it's severely flawed as an example of identifying unique wood tones, the inconsistency in block thickness and overall size renders the argument in my eyes (ears) invalid as it's not universally like for like, shock horror that the massive block of ebony sounded different to the splinter of bubinga...

Regardless, I do believe that denser timbers have unique vibration characteristics and it's this factor that results in a different tone, maple while incredibly hard has a closed grain allowing a smooth and solid surface, Wenge is also very hard but very brittle and prone to splintering, it will never be a solid smooth surface like maple and while yes you can get a smoothish finish with Wenge the grain is still relatively open, undulating and porous and completely different to Maple not just texturally / structurally but audibly. I guess a visual example would be where maple is a pane of glass, Wenge is sandpaper. 

This again in my opinion must affect the sound heard, but the argument around tone is a multi faceted one, after you've debated the pros and cons of the neck timber you can move on to the neck laminates, body woods, scale length, hardware, strings, pickups and electronics they all add and take away sonic characteristics from each other. 

As many others have said when you put the bass in to an audio mix the sound of the instrument changes, once you've tweaked your amp and basses eq and the engineer has tweeked your channel on the mixing desk I wonder how much your maple fretboard is influencing what is heard... Perhaps not alot, but definitely a little.

I'm also several whisky's down so don't listen to me.