Tonewoods

[BassTractor]

What's the best tonegranite for metal?

[4 Strings]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1379437047' post='2212722']
What's the best tonegranite for metal?
[/quote]

Rock

[kurosawa]

Probably dead spots aren't caused by wood. John K. figured out how to make dead spots go away by increasing the mass of the headstock. Ned Steinberger did it by decreasing same. Hipshot has had some kind of fix on the back burner for a while. However, I discovered poplar makes dead spots worse for me (at least the poplar plank that plagued me), and some guitarists have found poplar makes "chirping" easier (which sounds to me a whole lot like the harmonic that rings on after a dead spot goes dead, seems it's an octave plus a fifth above the dead note). I am in the group that likes wood louder. Seems to give me a wider dynamic range to work with and seems to allow more wallop in the attack. Not saying others' experiences aren't valid. Just relating mine.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='kurosawa' timestamp='1379469475' post='2213106']
Probably dead spots aren't caused by wood. John K. figured out how to make dead spots go away by increasing the mass of the headstock. Ned Steinberger did it by decreasing same. Hipshot has had some kind of fix on the back burner for a while. However, I discovered poplar makes dead spots worse for me (at least the poplar plank that plagued me), and some guitarists have found poplar makes "chirping" easier (which sounds to me a whole lot like the harmonic that rings on after a dead spot goes dead, seems it's an octave plus a fifth above the dead note). I am in the group that likes wood louder. Seems to give me a wider dynamic range to work with and seems to allow more wallop in the attack. Not saying others' experiences aren't valid. Just relating mine.
[/quote]
Deadspots are caused by neck density and mass regardless of the material. I had a Moses graphite Jazz neck which had a deadspot at the 5th fret on the G string. They happen in wooden bass necks when resonance q of the wood shares a sympathetic frequency with a note on the fingerboard and dampens it. Both John K and Ned S solved that problem by changing the mass of the neck in order to shift the resonance q either up or down. Alembic used necks laminated to increase stiffness and lower the q below any fundamentals. Ken Smith mainly relies on a very thick piece of ebony for the fingerboard to create stiffness.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1379487144' post='2213145']
Deadspots are caused by neck density and mass regardless of the material. I had a Moses graphite Jazz neck which had a deadspot at the 5th fret on the G string. They happen in wooden bass necks when resonance q of the wood shares a sympathetic frequency with a note on the fingerboard and dampens it. Both John K and Ned S solved that problem by changing the mass of the neck in order to shift the resonance q either up or down. Alembic used necks laminated to increase stiffness and lower the q below any fundamentals. Ken Smith mainly relies on a very thick piece of ebony for the fingerboard to create stiffness.
[/quote]

This is the whole reason for laminated necks. There are several, smaller resonances which has much less effect than a single large resonance.

[kurosawa]

Interesting. Is it important for the laminations to be made of different woods?

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1379514227' post='2213563']
This is the whole reason for laminated necks. There are several, smaller resonances which has much less effect than a single large resonance.
[/quote]
I'm really not so certain about this. If the neck laminations are solidly bonded together (as they would have to be), surely they'd respond to vibration as a single unit. I'd see it more as a way of increasing the stiffness and stability of the neck.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='kurosawa' timestamp='1379538240' post='2214043']
Interesting. Is it important for the laminations to be made of different woods?
[/quote]

No to bits of wood are going to be the same. If you are laminating the same piece of wood chopped up, you flip them over so any tendency for it to develop a twist will oppose each other. Lots goes on internally in wood, not nearly as simple as all these statements make out.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='kurosawa' timestamp='1379538240' post='2214043']
Interesting. Is it important for the laminations to be made of different woods?
[/quote]
No not at all. It's about stiffness not species and it's possible to have different stiffnesses within the same piece of wood as well as the same tree. Kubicki basses in the 80's had necks from maple laminated necks. Pedulla and Rickenbacker still do through body necks from three pieces of maple. Parker do neck lams too but they're supported by a hard outer shell for stiffness.

Speaking of which, the Parker Fly is (in my opinion) a good example of what happens when the instrument is TOO stiff.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1379539592' post='2214074']
No to bits of wood are going to be the same. If you are laminating the same piece of wood chopped up, you flip them over so any tendency for it to develop a twist will oppose each other. Lots goes on internally in wood, not nearly as simple as all these statements make out.
[/quote]
For the sake of clarity, luthiery levels of expert advice were never offered either. However there is a technique of flipping and turning the wood over so that the stresses cancel each other out. But nothing beats letting the wood dry out properly and THEN shaping.

[Greggo]

I always find this kind of topic fascinating! I would like to believe that it's more about the electronics than specifically about the wood but then I do own a tele copy made of plywood. That said the pickups in it originally made it sound crap, but the upgraded pickups I've installed have made a massive difference in tone, and they were only inexpensive Wilkinson alnico tele set as used in the vintage v52 - improving the pickups does help a great deal in improving the sound that comes out.

I just can't help thinking that it's more about the quality of the 'things' the string is attached to (bridge all the way to the tuning pegs) that is more influential on the tone of strings relative to the magnets that pick up the vibrations (if that makes any sense)

Eg if my cheap tele copy, (providing all measurements were correct in terms of scale length, pickup position of a real tele) had the same bridge, pickups, nut and tuners as a real tele there's no reason why through amp it wouldn't sound any different?

I may be wrong and I have no scientific backing but it seems more logical to me personally.

[CHRISDABASS]

[quote name='Greggo' timestamp='1380054732' post='2220303']
I always find this kind of topic fascinating! I would like to believe that it's more about the electronics than specifically about the wood but then I do own a tele copy made of plywood. That said the pickups in it originally made it sound crap, but the upgraded pickups I've installed have made a massive difference in tone, and they were only inexpensive Wilkinson alnico tele set as used in the vintage v52 - improving the pickups does help a great deal in improving the sound that comes out.

I just can't help thinking that it's more about the quality of the 'things' the string is attached to (bridge all the way to the tuning pegs) that is more influential on the tone of strings relative to the magnets that pick up the vibrations (if that makes any sense)

Eg if my cheap tele copy, (providing all measurements were correct in terms of scale length, pickup position of a real tele) had the same bridge, pickups, nut and tuners as a real tele there's no reason why through amp it wouldn't sound any different?

I may be wrong and I have no scientific backing but it seems more logical to me personally.
[/quote]



The last three basses i made all featured the exact same pickups, electronics, bridge, nut, fret wire, tuners etc. the only difference was the wood.

Played side by side using the same amp, lead etc they all sounded very different to each other

[BigRedX]

[quote name='CHRISDABASS' timestamp='1380439363' post='2225125']


The last three basses i made all featured the exact same pickups, electronics, bridge, nut, fret wire, tuners etc. the only difference was the wood.

Played side by side using the same amp, lead etc they all sounded very different to each other
[/quote]

Were they all exactly the same shape, and feature the same construction, just different woods?

And more importantly did they end up sounding like you imagined before building them?

[Greggo]

I saw an interesting YouTube clip of a guy who tried to prove that wood could have an effect on tone of guitar.

He basically had two capos on the middle of the guitar creating a gap of one fret and cloth muting strings between the capos. He theorised that when strings were plucked in front of capo the vibration of strings through the neck / body made the strings after the capo vibrate on sympathy.

All well and good but the guy had to have the gain up to pick up this vibration and the pickups could have been very microphonic for all I know.

Based on this I would think that if the pickups are also picking up body vibrations due being microphonic, the tone the pickups pickup could be a blend of say 95% string sound and 5% body sound.

Which then makes me think that high end guitars probably sound so good because the pickups are better and don't pickup as much body vibration because they are better potted, better made, etc Therefore wood doesn't get a look in.

Just my theory anyway.

Still fascinating stuff!

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Greggo' timestamp='1380475035' post='2225864']
I saw an interesting YouTube clip of a guy who tried to prove that wood could have an effect on tone of guitar.

He basically had two capos on the middle of the guitar creating a gap of one fret and cloth muting strings between the capos. He theorised that when strings were plucked in front of capo the vibration of strings through the neck / body made the strings after the capo vibrate on sympathy.

All well and good but the guy had to have the gain up to pick up this vibration and the pickups could have been very microphonic for all I know.

Based on this I would think that if the pickups are also picking up body vibrations due being microphonic, the tone the pickups pickup could be a blend of say 95% string sound and 5% body sound.

Which then makes me think that high end guitars probably sound so good because the pickups are better and don't pickup as much body vibration because they are better potted, better made, etc Therefore wood doesn't get a look in.

Just my theory anyway.

Still fascinating stuff!
[/quote]

If the pickups are that microphonic, they'd feed back crazily with any amplification.

[CHRISDABASS]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1380448047' post='2225276']


Were they all exactly the same shape, and feature the same construction, just different woods?

And more importantly did they end up sounding like you imagined before building them?
[/quote]

Yep, all exactly the same design, shape, body thickness and 6 bolt neck joint etc. (we only build one bass style)


And yes, they turned out very close to what we imagined

[Pasco Jacorius]

I think wood gives a "voice" to the instrument. Pickups, preamp , amp , room and so and so are will just bear how this voice will be transfered , and how it will be perceived. But even when on the phone with a friend , they still recognise your voice even through the smallest unit. If you speak in a stadium people who know you will recognise your voice , even with that huge reverb , and with any mic , they still will be able to say who's talking. That's what tonewood is about , giving a "vocal identity" to the instrument.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Pasco Jacorius

[CHRISDABASS]

[quote name='Pasco Jacorius' timestamp='1383090986' post='2260216']
I think wood gives a "voice" to the instrument. Pickups, preamp , amp , room and so and so are will just bear how this voice will be transfered , and how it will be perceived. But even when on the phone with a friend , they still recognise your voice even through the smallest unit. If you speak in a stadium people who know you will recognise your voice , even with that huge reverb , and with any mic , they still will be able to say who's talking. That's what tonewood is about , giving a "vocal identity" to the instrument.
[/quote]

That's a great way to explain it

[4 Strings]

Yes, interesting way of looking at it, and, I'm sure, a good one.

However, comparing to the voice, the wood of a guitar is rather like the flesh that holds the vocal chords. Not recognisable on its own, but then neither are the strings (or vocal chords) recognisable on their own. The whole voice, the sum of these and other parts, is though, as you say. Rather like recognising a Telecaster, or a Precision down the telephone or in a stadium. Perhaps not just the wood.

[Thunderpaws]

Anyone got a picture of sycamore on a bass?

[EssentialTension]

[url="https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=sycamore+bass&sa=Search&tbm=isch#imgdii=_"]https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=sycamore+bass&sa=Search&tbm=isch#imgdii=_[/url]

[subrob]

[quote name='kurosawa' timestamp='1351249549' post='1849194']
I have seen the 2x4 vs. alder "test." And what struck me right off was that the sound was compressed (the added tracks didn't get in the way). Yeah I ID'd the wood correctly by ear, but it's stupid to think all there is to sound is the filtration provided by a particular plank. A note has an envelope. It has a certain kind of attack, that is, it responds eagerly, or tops out. It has a swell, a duration, and decay. Many times I've seen it said "the difference in the wood is in the playing." Exactly. Playing is dynamic. Squishing all the expression out of music doesn't leave the most interesting components, especially not the ones we need to play dynamically and musically.

Also, there are problem woods. I almost bought a body because of its weight. The maker offered aspen or Western red cedar, over a century old, capped with walnut or spalted maple. But having had problems with poplar (a poplar body I once owned gave every neck put on it horrible dead spots), I shied off aspen, which is related. Then when I learned that Western red cypress not only has a limited fundamental, but hits a ceiling where no matter how much harder you play, it doesn't get any louder, I found it misfit my style. I like a bass capable of letting me spit notes off the strings like little sling stones.

I think whatever note I'm playing has to be the most important thing on the planet for me. The bass is a voice. I'm saying something. And so I end up finding most of the wood I like is alder. It doesn't limit me in any way. It produces an interesting sound, an involving sound. I can just let that one note ring out. I don't feel any need to ornament it, noodle around or anything, because it speaks so well. It has something to say of interest to my ear. I am not drawn to the mahoganies and their sound-alikes, nor maple. But according to sales, they are someone else's perfect voice. I have played compelling instruments made of hard ash and of walnut. Black korina is nice. I am about to try my first swamp ash body.

I have always been drawn to maple necks, whatever the fretboard material, above mahogany. I have one all-wenge neck that is very authoritative, perhaps not as versatile as maple. I am very tempted to try it on hard ash with a single-coil P pickup, or maybe a pair of wide-aperture SGDs. It would probably be a one-trick pony, but what a trick!
[/quote]

I wanted to pick up on this post, and having digested this thread over the last couple of hours while also mooching through much of the complete works of Faith No More (I have the most awesome Friday nights!), this is the only post which seems to go anywhere near a point that sprang to mind a while back, while the topic seemed largely talking in charactersitics of timbre.

In full honesty I know a bit more about the mechanics of drums than I do of bass. But, the bigger reason of that is because I was party to the distribution of drums, for a time, and towards the end of that time I got a little bit into product development ideas, which included gathering knowledge of tonewoods. While I was there, the manufacturer introduced a range of drums which were identical, several kit configurations, several lacquered finishes, but in two tone woods i.e maple and birch. All made in the same factory, all the same lugs, heads, hardware, paint finishes, all turned up in the same shipping container.

We got a container load of those kits. I personally assembled (drum sets ship in russian doll format) and tuned up probably 10 to 15 of those, and I recall being surprised at the consistent differences between the quality of the attack and the percieved different EQ of maple vs birch sets.

Now I get it that drums are an acoustic instrument, and when you come along with a pick up (i.e. a dynamic mic) the perceived tone changes radically as a result of that pick up and the electronics (especially mic distortion and compression treatments).

However, i'm of the opinion there are totally transferable physical mechanisms at work here, in terms of resonance. Maple is a realtively hard wood, as a rule, birch being softer. This has significance in the attack of the note as the speed of energy transfer, the speed of sound, if you like, is faster in a harder, denser hardwood. A stringed instrument is clearly played in a different manner to a percussion instrument, but do they not have some similarity? A great drum sound has an an attack and a consistent musical decay; a complex and dynamic sound, full of harmonics. A bass note, especially a finger pluck and most especially a slap or pop (fire proof overalls are on at this point) is highly percussive. Perhaps variation in the quality of attack is where we ought to be looking if we want to understand the implication of tonewoods in our basses?

I for one am pretty convinced, despite some excellent counter arguements, that there is a clear means of mechanical feedback from string to the 'chassis' and back into the strings, through the nodal points at the bridge, fret and nut.

One other thing, I thought the 'blind test' experiments described were maybe a little unfair, as saying which is 'A' and which is 'B' is a hard thing for a brain to do, unless you already know what A and B sound like in the context of recording compression and the tonal response of your monitoring device. You could say both sounds are treated equally, but that doesn't mean to say that any given listener can do much more than guesstimate at how a recording might react to his/ her playback set up.

Interesting learning with you, gents. That is all. Dont flame me ;P

[ParrotDye]

[quote name='subrob' timestamp='1393036400' post='2375586']
In full honesty I know a bit more about the mechanics of drums than I do of bass. But, the bigger reason of that is because I was party to the distribution of drums, for a time, and towards the end of that time I got a little bit into product development ideas, which included gathering knowledge of tonewoods. While I was there, the manufacturer introduced a range of drums which were identical, several kit configurations, several lacquered finishes, but in two tone woods i.e maple and birch. All made in the same factory, all the same lugs, heads, hardware, paint finishes, all turned up in the same shipping container.

We got a container load of those kits. I personally assembled (drum sets ship in russian doll format) and tuned up probably 10 to 15 of those, and I recall being surprised at the consistent differences between the quality of the attack and the percieved different EQ of maple vs birch sets.

Now I get it that drums are an acoustic instrument, and when you come along with a pick up (i.e. a dynamic mic) the perceived tone changes radically as a result of that pick up and the electronics (especially mic distortion and compression treatments).

However, i'm of the opinion there are totally transferable physical mechanisms at work here, in terms of resonance. Maple is a realtively hard wood, as a rule, birch being softer. This has significance in the attack of the note as the speed of energy transfer, the speed of sound, if you like, is faster in a harder, denser hardwood. A stringed instrument is clearly played in a different manner to a percussion instrument, but do they not have some similarity? A great drum sound has an an attack and a consistent musical decay; a complex and dynamic sound, full of harmonics. A bass note, especially a finger pluck and most especially a slap or pop (fire proof overalls are on at this point) is highly percussive. Perhaps variation in the quality of attack is where we ought to be looking if we want to understand the implication of tonewoods in our basses?

I for one am pretty convinced, despite some excellent counter arguements, that there is a clear means of mechanical feedback from string to the 'chassis' and back into the strings, through the nodal points at the bridge, fret and nut.

One other thing, I thought the 'blind test' experiments described were maybe a little unfair, as saying which is 'A' and which is 'B' is a hard thing for a brain to do, unless you already know what A and B sound like in the context of recording compression and the tonal response of your monitoring device. You could say both sounds are treated equally, but that doesn't mean to say that any given listener can do much more than guesstimate at how a recording might react to his/ her playback set up.

Interesting learning with you, gents. That is all. Dont flame me ;P
[/quote]

That's a fascinating insight. You need controls in place when doing comparisons and having the same man perform the same task to a good sample of identical kits save for the wood is exactly the way to test stuff. Do you recall if there was any variance between individual kits of the same composition?

Also, see [url="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-speed-solids-d_713.html"]this[/url] for some general speed of sound through materials figures. They can be used for rough guides as to how energy is propagated through different materials but without taking account of sample specifics like material composition or impurities. The figures are close enough to see that a hardwood rated at around 4000m/s would resonate quicker than a softwood at around 3500m/s.

I thought to check Wikipedia for tonewoods and the site is pretty vague. There are a few things related to materials properties which are worth consideration. Snell's Law governs relative speed and direction of waves between two mediums. There are also several materials properties and many engineering moduli that can be used to model how sound travels through materials. For solids there are two separate speeds of propagation to account for, compression waves and shear waves. Compression waves are proportional to the square root of Bulk + 4/3 Shear moduli over density while Shear waves are proportional to square root of Shear over density.

Anyone wishing to melt their brains should check out Wikipedia's Speed of Sound page, and for a bonus tempering of any remaining grey matter check bulk modulus.

Edited March 15, 2014 by ParrotDye

[Thunderpaws]

Cheers. Suppose I could''ve done that myself!

[Kiwi]

[url="http://janartsguitars.com/index.php/methodology/tonewood.html"]http://janartsguitars.com/index.php/methodology/tonewood.html[/url]

Not sure if this has been posted already but it's fascinating reading.

[Muzz]

Fascinating reading, inasmuch as there's some huge assumptions being made about what are at the end of the day organic substances with large variations in consistency and makeup. All Indian Rosewood is 797kg/m3, then? Really? That's 'A Scientific Approach'? By that 'science', all Ash Precision bodies (for example) weigh the same...as they do...

More Marketing than Science, methinks...