Exotic Woods

[ARGH]

[quote name='Lew-Bass' post='435738' date='Mar 16 2009, 03:34 AM']Which ones do you reckon look the best, and provide a nice growly warm tone? And what are your woods of choice? Pics appreciated [/quote]
Sorry Lew....

What do you mean by a warm tone?...Its its looks you want Ive made my suggestions,and posted what I like,sorry you have had to wade through a ton of guff over what constitutes tone...or rather its origin...I hope it made for entertaining reading.

Go with your ears and eyes...theres a lot of instruments out there,and a lot of ways to play them...worry more about the construction,playability and parts and QC over the aesthetics of an instrument,what you like will be one mans love and another mans yuk!!!

The smith Basses site has a whole index and pics on woods,and what Ken believes them to make in affection in regards to tone....

Good luck I hope you find what you want...

[Mr. Foxen]

You know its not sounding amazing that makes basses worht a fortune, its having Fender written on them.

[ARGH]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='436528' date='Mar 16 2009, 07:33 PM']You know its not sounding amazing that makes basses worht a fortune, its having Fender written on them.[/quote]

[BigRedX]

I can see exactly were ARGH is coming from with this and why to a certain extent the OPs question is fairly meaningless.

First off "growly warm tone" is such a subjective thing. Personally I don't even know what "growly" is as regards a bass tone. If there were some sound clips to go with that description that would help for a start.

Also the OP wants woods that "look good". Again totally subjective. One persons idea of a nice looking piece of wood is another's aesthetic nightmare. Lets not also forget that Spalted really means fungus infected and rotten. 20 years ago these pieces would never have been remotely considered as suitable for instrument building.

So matching a wood to a tone. Yes to certain extent it can be done, but these days basses are made out of several pieces of different woods and the important bit is not how each piece sounds but how they all interact. Even traditional F-type designs are rarely made out of a single slab so knowing how all the bits when glued and bolted together are going to react that is the key.

We might get some kind of consensus for some growly tone woods and the OP goes off and has their bass built out of them. Unfortunately the particular pieces used might be the least growly versions - remember wood is from a living thing and every piece is going to be different to some extent and the more figured it is the less predictable. Someone will be disappointed.

Don't worry about the species of wood. Go to your luthier with ideas about the playability, the sound and the look. Its then their job to pick the woods that will (hopefully) give you what you want or gently tell you that what you're after is unlikely to be achievable.

Finally just to throw a complete spanner in the works, here's a picture of a bass that several people have described as having a good woody tone:



It's made almost entirely out of aluminium - the only wood is two pieces on the back of the T section that forms the neck/fingerboard and they might well not even be hard wood and their function is simply to provide something that is easy to shape for the back of the neck.

[Prosebass]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='436577' date='Mar 16 2009, 08:09 PM']Finally just to throw a complete spanner in the works, here's a picture of a bass that several people have described as having a good woody tone:



It's made almost entirely out of aluminium - the only wood is two pieces on the back of the T section that forms the neck/fingerboard and they might well not even be hard wood and their function is simply to provide something that is easy to shape for the back of the neck.[/quote]

As I said earlier , in a blind testing you would never guess this bass was metal !

[doctor_of_the_bass]

[quote name='Lew-Bass' post='435738' date='Mar 16 2009, 03:34 AM']Which ones do you reckon look the best, and provide a nice growly warm tone? And what are your woods of choice? Pics appreciated [/quote]

Just in case anyone wanted to re-read this!!! Hehehe!

I've got a fair bit of experience here through building the E Basses back in the day - Quilted maple facing with a mahogany body core, bolt-on maple neck with rosewood board! Growly but warm. IMO.

[paul h]

+ 1 for mahogany with a maple cap. IME (albeit mainly with guitars) that is a killer combination. I did have one cheap (what a surprise) bass by Mania, which I believe is a brand owned by Shine, that had that wood combo. It definitely had some growl and bite to it.

P.

[rockpig]

heres some I have around the house. left to right top to bottom
indian rosewood, californian redwood x2
spalted maple, flamed ash, alder
macassar ebony, bloodwood, amboyna

[Lew-Bass]

Thanks alot to the guys bringing the thread back on course, and to the others for such an interesting read! I didn't intend to spark a debate..

I've had a look on the smith bass website as suggested, and the woods that best fit my description (I ment a low, heavy-sounding growl if that makes any sense?) are cocobolo, lacewood and ovankol. Does that sound right to you guys? :S

Also, maybe I'm mistaken but I've seen zebrano as a core wood?

[josh3184]

you can have most anything anywhere really. FWIW I've seen Zebrawood as tops for the most part, I'm sure there would be a wood of similar density that's less optically pleasing to chuck in as a core (zebrawood would command a premium due to its aesthetic nature). In terms of growl, woods that spring to mind (rightly or wrongly, I'm not an expert!) are bubinga and mahogany.

[risingson]

I for one hear a massive difference in tonal variation in alder and ash basses specifically, I don't really care so much if there aren't that many people who agree tbh. But I understand also that throwing active electronics and different pickups in a bass will have a huge effect as well. I hear difference in maple and rosewood also, and bolt-on and neck through design. I generally Fender style ash/alder basses with maple fretboards and usually passive electronics, because a. there's less to go wrong, and b. I think that that specific style of bass is completely honest, which I love.

The whole 'exotic top' thing doesn't really excite me massively, although I do love spalted maple, I think it works great as a top.

I've also got to agree with an earlier post... conversation about bass construction on a bass forum? Sacrilege! Come on, if you're not interested in the convo, don't get involved!

Edited March 17, 2009 by liamcapleton

[ARGH]

[quote name='Lew-Bass' post='436807' date='Mar 17 2009, 12:23 AM']Thanks alot to the guys bringing the thread back on course, and to the others for such an interesting read! I didn't intend to spark a debate..

I've had a look on the smith bass website as suggested, and the woods that best fit my description (I ment a low, heavy-sounding growl if that makes any sense?) are cocobolo, lacewood and ovankol. Does that sound right to you guys? :S

Also, maybe I'm mistaken but I've seen zebrano as a core wood?[/quote]
In theory you can have anything as a core or a top,it just depends on if the maker can actually get the stuff...and is willing to work it into what you want,something like Zebrano,is going to be harder to work with,though not impossible,compared to Mahogany,or Maple......weight might be an issue to,but there isnt a hard/fast rule on what is going to be heavy,what is going to be light in weight and ease or difficulty to work with.

If you are trying to recreate that Fender P,low mid thing that takes your guts out,then dont worry too much about the wood,but get the P P/U in the right place and strings through the body,the rest is really aesthetic.

[ARGH]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='436429' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:37 PM']The great thing about this is that ARGH can buy all those basses that sound really hopeless, put nice electronics in them, and sell them for a fortune because they'll sound amazing.

Alex[/quote]
Its what the replacement part industry (Badass,DiMarzio,EMG etc) was founded upon Alex

[4000]

[quote name='ARGH' post='436839' date='Mar 17 2009, 03:17 AM']In theory you can have anything as a core or a top,it just depends on if the maker can actually get the stuff...and is willing to work it into what you want,something like Zebrano,is going to be harder to work with,though not impossible,compared to Mahogany,or Maple......weight might be an issue to,but there isnt a hard/fast rule on what is going to be heavy,what is going to be light in weight and ease or difficulty to work with.[/quote]

My second Sei bass had a zebrano body with a buckeye top. Wasn't especially heavy.

[neepheid]

[quote name='ARGH' post='436839' date='Mar 17 2009, 03:17 AM']In theory you can have anything as a core or a top,it just depends on if the maker can actually get the stuff...and is willing to work it into what you want,[b]something like Zebrano,is going to be harder to work with,though not impossible[/b],compared to Mahogany,or Maple......weight might be an issue to,but there isnt a hard/fast rule on what is going to be heavy,what is going to be light in weight and ease or difficulty to work with.

If you are trying to recreate that Fender P,low mid thing that takes your guts out,then dont worry too much about the wood,but get the P P/U in the right place and strings through the body,the rest is really aesthetic.[/quote]

You're right there, my friend. Zebrano, as well as being a little harder than maple also has an interlocking grain which tools have a tendency to follow. Once when I was routing out some zebrano the router wanted to follow the grain instead of the template and the router bounced right out of the hole - heart stopping stuff. Had to take a few minutes to myself after that

[alexclaber]

[quote name='ARGH' post='436840' date='Mar 17 2009, 03:19 AM']Its what the replacement part industry (Badass,DiMarzio,EMG etc) was founded upon Alex[/quote]

If a bass doesn't sound good unplugged then no amount of electronics will save it.

I would never claim that "wood X sounds like Y" because the system is too complex and interactive. But the tone starts with how you pluck a string and then how that string vibrates due to how it is supported and how energy flows between the string and the instrument. If your bass has a big mudbucker up by the neck and you play through an overdriven valve rig then the wood choices matter very little, save them being of sufficient neck rigidity and body resonance to have some tone. If your bass has reasonably transparent pickups like nice single coils or more fancy ones like Alembic, Wal or Q-Tuners, and you tend to DI through a reasonably transparent preamp/DI when you're recording then the wood choices make a lot more difference.

So although getting hung up on the tone of exotic woods is futile, it is very important not to forget the importance of construction in the tone of a bass - that's what makes some cheap basses sound fantastic and some sound totally blah. If one has a stiff neck and a resonant body it can sound fantastic even if it costs hardly anything. But then pick up another one where the neck doesn't have that rigidity and the body is just dead sounding when you tap it and the tone will be disastrous. And it's the ability to choose the right pieces of wood and the QC to make sure they result in the right tone that sets apart something like a Sadowsky from a Squier. But try enough Squiers and you will probably get lucky and find one with as good an unplugged tone as a Sadowsky (though it may not feel so nice to play!) and that's when aftermarket electronics prove their worth.

Alex

[tauzero]

[quote name='6stringbassist' post='436410' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:21 PM']I once played two Alembic basses in the Gallery, both the same model, same electronics through the same amp, different woods and both sounded totally different.[/quote]
Same age and brand of strings?

[Kiwi]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='436825' date='Mar 17 2009, 01:19 AM']I for one hear a massive difference in tonal variation in alder and ash basses specifically[/quote]
Just to clarify, do you mean differences between ash and alder? Or do you mean that ash and alder sound different to other woods?

[quote name='ARGH' post='436839' date='Mar 17 2009, 03:17 AM']get the P P/U in the right place and strings through the body,the rest is really aesthetic.[/quote]
I A/B'd two stingrays with different anchoring and they sounded the same to me. I've also made one post where I described at length my experiences of the two systems but someone's deleted the thread from what I can see and not put it on wiki. I really can't be arsed typing it all out again apart from saying the string vibrates between two points - the nut and the saddle. What happens either side of that is largely irrelevant. All IMO of course.

Also on the subject of wood and 'growl' there's this too.
[url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=32715&view=findpost&p=339845"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&sho...st&p=339845[/url]

[ARGH]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='436944' date='Mar 17 2009, 10:01 AM']If a bass doesn't sound good unplugged then no amount of electronics will save it.

I would never claim that "wood X sounds like Y" because the system is too complex and interactive. But the tone starts with how you pluck a string and then how that string vibrates due to how it is supported and how energy flows between the string and the instrument. If your bass has a big mudbucker up by the neck and you play through an overdriven valve rig then the wood choices matter very little, save them being of sufficient neck rigidity and body resonance to have some tone. If your bass has reasonably transparent pickups like nice single coils or more fancy ones like Alembic, Wal or Q-Tuners, and you tend to DI through a reasonably transparent preamp/DI when you're recording then the wood choices make a lot more difference.

So although getting hung up on the tone of exotic woods is futile, it is very important not to forget the importance of construction in the tone of a bass - that's what makes some cheap basses sound fantastic and some sound totally blah. If one has a stiff neck and a resonant body it can sound fantastic even if it costs hardly anything. But then pick up another one where the neck doesn't have that rigidity and the body is just dead sounding when you tap it and the tone will be disastrous. And it's the ability to choose the right pieces of wood and the QC to make sure they result in the right tone that sets apart something like a Sadowsky from a Squier. But try enough Squiers and you will probably get lucky and find one with as good an unplugged tone as a Sadowsky (though it may not feel so nice to play!) and that's when aftermarket electronics prove their worth.

Alex[/quote]
I can hear what you are saying Alex,but a quantity is bunkum....

I have never,or has anyone bought a solidbody instrument,on its acoustic,unplugged sound alone,I know some reviewers of instruments will talk and write about an unplugged instruments 'sound' but its hokum,its opinion,it differs..thats hard truth..its differs......and after market add-ons WILL make any instrument better,if you like the sound they produce...I still cant fathom why single coils are still in existance,due to the inert failure in the design (the hum) yes they have a pleasing sound to some,but the sonic costs make them redundant. (thats my opinion)

'Transparent' is an opinion,as a word,my idea of 'Transparent' will be different to yours,will different to the next guy,will be different to the next person etc etc...take any instrument,change the P/U from a Bart to a Nordy to whatever,each will sound different.

Acoustic properties only matter if you want an acoustic instrument,thats when wood choice matters.....

My point is the who-ha that people get on about a wood is THIS sound,its pish,unlike when you get a P/U you can actually test it and say 'Yes it produces this tone'......How many here have radically upped their guage of string and found a bassier,deeper,heavier sound...thats physics,both in the way the string behaves over the P/U..and its amount of metal doing so...another thing that can be proven by science. You cannot do that with wood.

I would say string construction has,probably,a bigger affection on tone over wood....

Wood,is because there isnt much else to build a Bass with...save polymers and graphite,at least not in any practical reaches of the imagination....

Some makers here,used Graphite rods,in necks,it increases the stiffness,but does it affect tone,hey they've removed wood...can anyone tell the difference....isnt that bad they have removed wood?? Isnt that bad wood choice,because they had to do that? yes/no?

Yes there is an n'th of tone from wood,but it does not rule nor matter as much as a quality P/U and string choice...bridge construction,or where the string is plucked.

A player sounds like the player they are,be it on a J or a Ricky or a Warwick or a P.....A is A regardless of how its produced.

[ARGH]

"I A/B'd two stingrays with different anchoring and they sounded the same to me. I've also made one post where I described at length my experiences of the two systems but someone's deleted the thread from what I can see and not put it on wiki. I really can't be arsed typing it all out again apart from saying the string vibrates between two points - the nut and the saddle. What happens either side of that is largely irrelevant. All IMO of course."

Pretty much correct,although a small amount of vibration will go into the string anchor and beyond the nut,maybe bring wood into the picture a little more,but what matters is metal vibrating over magnet.

Edited March 17, 2009 by ARGH

[alexclaber]

Transparency is not an opinion. It means accurate reproduction of the source. A large hotwound humbucker will filter out so much of the higher harmonics that you hear a blinkered view of the instrument - that is not transparent.

My '87 Warwick wearing tapewounds has more aggressive mids and highs than most Fenders with stainless steel rounds. Unplugged. And plugged in even more so due to the EMGs. If strings are more important than construction how can that be the case?

If you think only a small amount of vibration goes into (and out of) the wood then either you have a problem with the nerves in your hands and abdomen, you've only ever played really bad instruments or you're being deeply unobservant.

Alex

[ARGH]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='437277' date='Mar 17 2009, 01:57 PM']Transparency is not an opinion. It means accurate reproduction of the source. A large hotwound humbucker will filter out so much of the higher harmonics that you hear a blinkered view of the instrument - that is not transparent.

My '87 Warwick wearing tapewounds has more aggressive mids and highs than most Fenders with stainless steel rounds. Unplugged. And plugged in even more so due to the EMGs. If strings are more important than construction how can that be the case?

If you think only a small amount of vibration goes into (and out of) the wood then either you have a problem with the nerves in your hands and abdomen, you've only ever played really bad instruments or you're being deeply unobservant.

Alex[/quote]

I refer to transparent to the context you write it..its hypothetical,its an opinion..if you want to talk about pre-amps..colouring sound,thats not what the convos on about..its about wood affecting tone and that influence...I say its minimal,and P/U's,scale and string choice,and style of play govern that to a far greater extent.

Compared to the actual string,the ratio of body vibration in affection is miniscule. And a magnetic P/U isnt made to pick that up,if you want thump,as in a slap,ok,theres some need for vibration,I can see that but excess vibration would cause feedback. Change the P/u's or the strings brand or guages and everythings different. Played through a different rig,everythings different again,and thats not the wood creating that.

Transmission of vibration from wood to string to what is audible,is pretty much dead once the fret is touched and in reverse clamped to the bridge saddle....wood WILL affect tone if you play fretless,but that then is affected by finish..and thats still not the wood.

If you had mass vibration you would have a deadspot and wolftone crazy instrument that would be near unplayable.


Play an upright,then you learn about vibration,I do....

Edited March 17, 2009 by ARGH

[Kiwi]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='437277' date='Mar 17 2009, 01:57 PM']It means accurate reproduction of the source.[/quote]
Only if you can prove it empirically and persuade other people to accept your assertion. Otherwise its an opinion just like anyone elses.

[quote name='ARGH' post='437016' date='Mar 17 2009, 11:01 AM']"I A/B'd two stingrays with different anchoring and they sounded the same to me. I've also made one post where I described at length my experiences of the two systems but someone's deleted the thread from what I can see and not put it on wiki. I really can't be arsed typing it all out again apart from saying the string vibrates between two points - the nut and the saddle. What happens either side of that is largely irrelevant. All IMO of course."

Pretty much correct,although a small amount of vibration will go into the string anchor and beyond the nut,maybe bring wood into the picture a little more,but what matters is metal vibrating over magnet.[/quote]
Oh good, so for the sake of enjoying this rare moment of consensus, how about we completely forget that the metal is attached to wood which in itself has a resonant frequency that differs to metal and might otherwise influence the way in which the metal vibrates thereby making the whole argument inconveniently messy and complicated?

[ARGH]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='437341' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:47 PM']Oh good, so for the sake of enjoying this rare moment of consensus, how about we completely forget that the metal is attached to wood which in itself has a resonant frequency that differs to metal and might otherwise influence the way in which the metal vibrates thereby making the whole argument inconveniently messy and complicated? [/quote]

Its all in the hands man

[Kiwi]

[quote name='ARGH' post='437351' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:54 PM']Its all in the hands man[/quote]
No its not

It's physics.