The heretic thread approved by Roger Sadowsky or For those who pretend tone doesn't come from wood...

[EBS_freak]

1 hour ago, Hellzero said:

Because as I wrote, but as usual people comment without reading, the only variable in this experiment is the wood, but even with the evidences before their eyes or between their ears, people keep denying. Same old Galileo syndrome.

No - it's because you haven't grasped the fact no piece of wood is the same as the next.  So whilst there are subtle differences in the tones that demonstrated in that video, if you built those same basses again, using the same type of woods, they could still sound different again to the ones in the video - because wood, even of the same species, aren't identical.

So in short, this video doesn't teach us anything - the sample size would have to be much larger to be able to start drawing any observations of scientific significance.

Besides, even the electronics aren't consistent - there are tolerances in the electronic components - and the pickups are likely to be scatter wound... which obviously means they aren't going to be same, even if manufactured to the same spec.

  

[EBS_freak]

11 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

I discovered today that the earth is almost flat, but I'm not sure if the it's the center of the universe. Wood some body tale E ?

and that marks the point where the thread has just gone beyond ridiculous.

[EBS_freak]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

Unfortunately it's just a marketing slogan.

"The sound of active electronics" doesn't have quite same ring to it

It's like all those ridiculous multi-laminate boutique basses...

"The sound of glue"

 

 

 

[binky_bass]

14 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

No - it's because you haven't grasped the fact no piece of wood is the same as the next.  So whilst there are subtle differences in the tones that demonstrated in that video, if you built those same basses again, using the same type of woods, they could still sound different again to the ones in the video - because wood, even of the same species, aren't identical.

So in short, this video doesn't teach us anything - the sample size would have to be much larger to be able to start drawing any observations of scientific significance.

Besides, even the electronics aren't consistent - there are tolerances in the electronic components - and the pickups are likely to be scatter wound... which obviously means they aren't going to be same, even if manufactured to the same spec.

  

In summary, only buy a bass if you like the way it looks as everything else is a crapshoot!

[EBS_freak]

Just now, binky_bass said:

In summary, only buy a bass if you like the way it looks as everything else is a crapshoot!

Well... that, or just buy one that has already been made and you can see if you like the sound (and everything else about it)!

[drTStingray]

You won't find many guitarists saying all guitars sound the same and it won't make any difference in the band mix. Arguably they would have a bigger reason than bass players for having impaired hearing (owing to exposure to higher frequencies) such that they wouldn't hear any difference.

Different sounds in different musical instruments, be they saxophones, clarinets or bass guitars are all relatively marginal - however they obviously exist.

In the case of the instruments being compared here there are obvious differences - particularly in the upper register. I'm surprised so few people in this thread can actually hear it, unless some are not letting on that they do.

For me the following basses all have fundamentally differing sounds, one way or another:-

Warwick Thumb; Wal Mk1; Musicman Stingray 5; Ibanez Musician; Fender Precision; Sadowsky NYC; Lakland 55/94

Electronics are only one element - the construction (including wood) are also a major component. You can also get any of those basses to sound 'generic' such that they all sound the same in a mix if you want to. 

 

[sammybee]

Fender P with flats - thats all you need

[Vin Venal]

I thought this was an interesting video.

Before people start straw manning me, just wanna say, I know this isn't real science, despite the sciency-ness. And it's qualitative rather than quantitative. But its still interesting.

The only real observation was that having more material of any kind surrounding the bridge and pickups seemed to give better volume and sustain. No other real tonal differences were particularly apparent, even between chipboard and mahogany.

I'd like to see someone do the same thing, but play a single note rather than a chord, and do it 100 times with each body, and 10 different bodies of each wood, then look at the average waveforms in more detail, including isolating volume and sustain at specific frequency ranges.

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Vin Venal

[binky_bass]

3 minutes ago, Vin Venal said:

I thought this was an interesting video.

Before people start straw manning me, just wanna say, I know this isn't real science, despite the sciency-ness. And it's qualitative rather than quantitative. But its still interesting.

The only real observation was that having more material of any kind surrounding the bridge and pickups seemed to give better volume and sustain. No other real tonal differences were particularly apparent, even between chipboard and mahogany.

I'd like to see someone do the same thing, but play a single note rather than a chord, and do it 100 times with each body, and 10 different bodies of each wood, then look at the average waveforms in more detail, including isolating volume and sustain at specific frequency ranges.

 

Bring in the Mythbusters!

[Hellzero]

32 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

No - it's because you haven't grasped the fact no piece of wood is the same as the next.

Wow, it's exactly what I'm saying since the beginning : I'm speaking of WOOD and it's the WOOD that is making the difference and the WOOD is, here, the only variable and because WOOD is not really predictable (won't enter another debate that has been around for so long), it's, strangely, the WOOD which makes the difference, not the rest of the instrument, but WOOD as a generic term, not a particular WOOD, but simply WOOD whatever species it may be.

And to be complete, Le Fay pickups are not scattered wound, sorry for you.

@drTStingray they do obviously hear a difference and say it, but simply refuse to admit it, because it's all their previous beliefs that are becoming questionable...

[Supernaut]

14 minutes ago, sammybee said:

Fender P with flats - thats all you need

Not today - I've got a banging headache. 😎

[sammybee]

"... its all in the fingers"

[drTStingray]

23 minutes ago, sammybee said:

Fender P with flats - thats all you need

That's definitely one of several generic bass sounds!! V popular in US studios in the 60s leading to popular resurgence around the millennium - no doubt if they were the Dan Armstrong plexiglass version rather than the traditional alder/rosewood combination used in Motown they'd also sound identical  😬😉😂

Edited April 16, 2021 by drTStingray

[Mykesbass]

2 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Because as I wrote, but as usual people comment without reading, the only variable in this experiment is the wood, but even with the evidences before their eyes or between their ears, people keep denying. Same old Galileo syndrome.

Two problems here. First, it isn't the only variable. The amount of variance in the player would probably be outside of the tolerances of a good scientific experiment. Secondly, 'evidences before their eyes' - remember the blue/gold - black/white dress a couple of years back? We don't all see things the same, perhaps we don't hear things the same, and get some bias in our hearing from what we see?

To do this properly, the room would need to be atmospherically strable, a mechanical device used for plucking of the strings, and, most importantly, should be done blind. When someone does this I'll start paying attention.

[BigRedX]

And with significantly larger sample sizes.

[Bass Culture]

I've been a member of Basschat for nearly 14 years.  Now, I know I'm knocking on a bit but I'm pretty certain this isn't the first time this subject has been discussed.  To save me the time and trouble of reading this whole thread, can someone tell me if anything's changed since the last time?

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

4 minutes ago, Bass Culture said:

I've been a member of Basschat for nearly 14 years.  Now, I know I'm knocking on a bit but I'm pretty certain this isn't the first time this subject has been discussed.  To save me the time and trouble of reading this whole thread, can someone tell me if anything's changed since the last time?

Yes, the laws of physics have been re-written. Miss out at your peril 😜

[tauzero]

3 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Because as I wrote, but as usual people comment without reading, the only variable in this experiment is the wood, but even with the evidences before their eyes or between their ears, people keep denying. Same old Galileo syndrome.

It's not the only variable. The player is also a variable. Do an experiment using a test rig which will hold a bass in a fixed position and pluck the strings in an identical position with identical force, altering the note played with a capo. That would be an experiment.

I could hear some difference, except when he played slap when all four basses sounded identical. So tone is all about how you slap your wood.

[ubit]

1 minute ago, tauzero said:

So tone is all about how you slap your wood.

Oooer missus!

[tauzero]

2 hours ago, Killed_by_Death said:

Re: Conservation of Energy

Is there really though?

I mean, it's losing energy immediately after being plucked.

How can we discern a standing wave that increases amplitude of frequency X from just the attenuation of adjacent frequency Y?

Yes, the energy is conserved. However, it's changed to a different form as the energy from string vibration is absorbed by making the wood flex, which in turn heats the wood up, thus converting vibratory energy to heat. The string is also vibrating in a magnetic field (as you have pointed out several times) and some of the energy in the string is transferred to the pickup windings in the form of electrical energy.

[ped]

I thought they all sounded quite different. But then of course they do. Wasn’t a surprise to me in the slightest. 

[ped]

Wanted to add how much I hate YouTube videos where the bass isn’t DI’d or recorded properly so you get the sound of an amplifier into a phone mic and acoustic sound over the top. Horrible. 

[Killed_by_Death]

 

I'm out having a day before the weekend, but I thought maybe some misunderstood my musings, I accepted the fact that the woods make a difference in the sound a long time ago, but my assertion is that it doesn't happen as an addition, which is what people think about 'tone' Capacitors, as well.

[TrevorR]

3 hours ago, Killed_by_Death said:

Re: Conservation of Energy

Is there really though?

I mean, it's losing energy immediately after being plucked.

How can we discern a standing wave that increases amplitude of frequency X from just the attenuation of adjacent frequency Y?

Sigh... no one is saying that the volume of the output is increased. The reference was to constructive and destructive interference between sound waves in the body and string. The references were to relative changes in the intensity of different frequencies within the vibrations of the string and hence subtle changes in the spectrum of frequencies in the sound sensed and outputted by the pickups. Irrespective of the overall volume output of the instrument which, of course, decreases after initial plucking of the string as dampening effects occur.
 

As to how two waves of the same or different frequencies interacting can increase or decrease the amplitude of either frequency (or indeed, interact to create other frequencies)... I’ll just leave this infographic here. 
 

 

[Killed_by_Death]

No need for the sighing, I wasn't implying that anyone commented there would be a volume increase & I'm not sure why anyone would think it.