Tonewoods

[E sharp]

Too many variables , I'd say .
I agree with what was said earlier - paint them all a block colour , and see who can tell .
Martin Booth told my mate once , that the frets are a major part of tone (size ,and materials)
I've played heavy basses with no sustain , and vice versa .
My opinion is that the electics are more important .
Get a crappy made cheap wood bass , fit top of the line actives , and I bet the thing would sound a lot better than the same cheapy electrics welded onto the best supposed tonewoods .
This thing about the unamplified tone , can be true , but also rubbish .
I've got an old battered Status 2000 all graphite bass , that sounds absolutly rubbish acoustically - no tone , no punch or sustain - nothing . Plug it in , and it's a complete monster .

Way too many variables , to say the wood can make a difference , it can , but not as much as other things .

This is just what I've found

[leftybassman392]

There's another element in the equation that nobody's picked up on (including me ) ....... the listener. I don't just mean everybody's got a different opinion about this (although they do - or at least they should if they care about their 'sound').

There's a curious little thing about the way our hearing works - as sounds get quieter our hearing gets progressively less sensitive at either end of the audio spectrum. It's called a loudness contour, and it means that an audio signal played at high volume will sound different to the same audio signal played at a lower volume. For a bass player, that means that your bass will not just sound louder when you turn up - it will also sound fuller, deeper and richer.

The upshot of this is that - as if it weren't hard enough already - anyone trying to show how woods (or anything else for that matter) affect tone needs to offer evidence that their tests were carried out at equal volume as well - not equal amp settings, but equal SPL readings.

[Vibrating G String]

Good points Lefty, our ears are very inconsistent. It seems foolish to argue that we can discern differences in a jam room beyond what our ears can distinguish in a lab setting. But admitting we can't hear something that someone else says they can is very hard to do and I think that explains a lot of the quasi religious claims that I hear.

Personally I find my hearing can change from day to day. I've played through a bass and amp and loved it one day but not liked the exact same setup on another day.

[Brave Sir Robin]

That happens when I use my sansamp. I plug it and it's ear candy, then bypass, and it doesn't sound so good. Then after a while without the sansamp, it's fine again

For me, it's about as much for looks as for tone. I like the look of fancy figured woods, but frankly, maple - ash - mahogany will do a similar job than exotic woods sound-wise.

[LawrenceH]

Tonewood definitely matters. Though by how much will depend on how clean your signal chain and how flat the output from the pickups is. Certainly with my basses the acoustic tone of each instrument is reflected in the amplified sound. Of course it's possible to compensate for or exaggerate various aspects of this sound in the pickups/electronics. And pickup position makes a big difference but the bottom line is a pickup can only amplify what's there.

One thing that is confusing the issue is the issue of uniformity or lack of it within a particular wood type. Different examples of the same species tree may have different resonant properties, Nonetheless each will have an 'average' sonic signature or characteristic tone even though individual basses may differ from this. I expect different wood species will exhibit differing variability as well - e.g. the vastly different densities of ash. I also suspect that multi-ply construction on the necks will make a big difference to tone, having come to the conclusion that a single piece, all-maple (which is quite resonant acoustically) is what I prefer.

One final thing is, although I think tonewood matters I doubt there are any exotic species that could give you a sound you couldn't find within the spectrum of more typical varieties.

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='719534' date='Jan 20 2010, 08:36 PM']Tonewood definitely matters. Though by how much will depend on how clean your signal chain and how flat the output from the pickups is. Certainly with my basses the acoustic tone of each instrument is reflected in the amplified sound. Of course it's possible to compensate for or exaggerate various aspects of this sound in the pickups/electronics. And pickup position makes a big difference but the bottom line is a pickup can only amplify what's there.

One thing that is confusing the issue is the issue of uniformity or lack of it within a particular wood type. Different examples of the same species tree may have different resonant properties, Nonetheless each will have an 'average' sonic signature or characteristic tone even though individual basses may differ from this. I expect different wood species will exhibit differing variability as well - e.g. the vastly different densities of ash. I also suspect that multi-ply construction on the necks will make a big difference to tone, having come to the conclusion that a single piece, all-maple (which is quite resonant acoustically) is what I prefer.

One final thing is, although I think tonewood matters I doubt there are any exotic species that could give you a sound you couldn't find within the spectrum of more typical varieties.[/quote]

Well there's another problem right there - pickups aren't linear. In fact it's the nonlinearity of electromagnetic pickups that gives them their different characteristics - at least in part. There is no such thing as a 'flat' guitar pickup - at least not traditional types that work on the principle of electromagnetic induction. Without getting too far into another 'black art' topic, pickup designers make great play of the difference between their design and all the others - in fact it's probably not going too far to say that there's as many opinions about pickups as there are about wood.

I don't doubt your sincerity when you talk about how your amplified tone is a reflection of the natural tone, but I still don't see a connection that can be measured in such a way that the different wood is the only possible reason. (And by the way, I don't buy into the 'differences so subtle they can't be measured' school of thought - if there's a real, audible difference between two sounds then it's measurable... end of story!)

I've owned, played and tinkered with guitars and pickups all my adult life. Whilst I agree that each type of instrument has it's own distinctive type of sound, I'm still not sure how much of that sound is coming from the wood - even tonewood specialists agree that different examples of the same would type can differ dramatically from each other. (Fender, for example, are known to have used wood from a wide variety of sources for their instruments over the years, and yet an old Strat still sounds like an old Strat, and a Jazz still sounds like a Jazz.)

Edited January 21, 2010 by leftybassman392

[henry norton]

[quote name='Prosebass' post='717646' date='Jan 19 2010, 12:34 PM']true, but in the early 17th century he was the pupil of Nicolo Amati of Cremona Italy noted as one of the greatest double bass makers ever to live.

Watch this space for an MDF bodied plywood necked Picobass I am putting together as time permits. Fitted with a top pickup and top electronics courtesy of Silent Fly [SFX] it will be interesting to see how it sounds and maybe put this arguement to rest with some solid (well MDF solid at least) evidence. [/quote]
Nice to see a maker setting out to clarify things instead of shrouding their art in mystery

Thing is, the 'wood is good' argument has already been dis-proven by the likes of Kramer, Steinberger and Status.

[4000]

I don't know whether this helps or hinders but I've owned (I think) 9 Rickenbackers, all made of the same tonewoods, the majority with the same hardware and electronics (I've also done some experiments swapping pickups from bass to bass) and they all sounded different both acoustically and plugged in, with the amplified sound reflecting the unamplified sound pretty accurately.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='719708' date='Jan 21 2010, 12:22 AM']Well there's another problem right there - pickups aren't linear. In fact it's the nonlinearity of electromagnetic pickups that gives them their different characteristics - at least in part. There is no such thing as a 'flat' guitar pickup - at least not traditional types that work on the principle of electromagnetic induction. Without getting too far into another 'black art' topic, pickup designers make great play of the difference between their design and all the others - in fact it's probably not going too far to say that there's as many opinions about pickups as there are about wood.[/quote]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply pickup outputs were flat, that is indeed misleading. A more accurate way of saying what I meant is that the frequency response curve of a pickup is going to make a big difference to the tonal balance, which is going to be altered by the impedence of the preamp input as well making things even more complicated! But while a pickup with a very restricted bandwidth with extreme differences in sensitivity versus frequency is always going to impart a particular character to a bass no matter what it's made of, there are others which are less extreme and with these the tonal contribution of the wood is more obvious. The other point I was trying to make is that wood can contribute a lot to the tone of a bass, and that just because individual species variability may be very high (as in 4000's example) doesn't mean you can't spot certain trends if the sample size is large enough. Make sense? Probably what matters more than focusing on species of tonewood is just getting a decent bit of wood, regardless of species.

FWIW I am not a fan of the Status or Steinberger sound at all. Wood is good for me! Though I'm all for an alternative material if it sounds how I like yet is nice and light and eco friendly. I'm guessing alder is not an environmental disaster...

[Vibrating G String]

Hi Lawrence, I've heard the decent wood, select wood offered many times as an explanation for certain tones. I've never gotten anyone to define how you select decent wood and what luthiers actually do that. What do you mean by decent and do you think if wood doesn't meet those standards it will sound bad? Any one else who wants to give that a shot jump in.

I've seen too many great sounding instruments made out of plywood, old doors and workbenches and other things to think the wood is important at all. Of course it's hard to charge $4000 for a Jazz bass copy made from MDF.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='721918' date='Jan 23 2010, 08:27 AM']Hi Lawrence, I've heard the decent wood, select wood offered many times as an explanation for certain tones. I've never gotten anyone to define how you select decent wood and what luthiers actually do that. What do you mean by decent and do you think if wood doesn't meet those standards it will sound bad? Any one else who wants to give that a shot jump in.

I've seen too many great sounding instruments made out of plywood, old doors and workbenches and other things to think the wood is important at all. Of course it's hard to charge $4000 for a Jazz bass copy made from MDF.[/quote]

Well, for ME I find a correlation between a nice resonant unplugged tone with lots of prominent string overtones when you put your ear against the upper horn of the bass, and a good plugged-in sound. But I imagine there is a trade-off with sustain so that might be the complete opposite of what you want. And I know relatively cheap woods like alder or ash are perfectly capable of giving that tone, just for some reason not all of them do. I don't know what contribution size of the body makes either, I guess a bigger fender-type body will contribute more to the sound than a small jap-type.
As for selecting the wood, I've no idea but I suppose giving it a few sturdy taps and listening might be a good way!

[henry norton]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='722169' date='Jan 23 2010, 02:57 PM']Well, for ME I find a correlation between a nice resonant unplugged tone with lots of prominent string overtones when you put your ear against the upper horn of the bass, and a good plugged-in sound. But I imagine there is a trade-off with sustain so that might be the complete opposite of what you want. And I know relatively cheap woods like alder or ash are perfectly capable of giving that tone, just for some reason not all of them do. I don't know what contribution size of the body makes either, I guess a bigger fender-type body will contribute more to the sound than a small jap-type.
As for selecting the wood, I've no idea but I suppose giving it a few sturdy taps and listening might be a good way![/quote]

A 'cheapo' 2 piece alder body is no less likely to sound 'good' than an exotic sandwich of brazilian mahogany with quilted maple facings and wenge centre stripes. It needs to be carefully dried to about 6 percent moisture content and then kept in a relatively dry indoor climate 'til it's used. There's really not that much more to it except for allot of smoke and mirrors from some luthiers.

[tarcher]

Wonder what difference if any woods would make to a Lightwave bass.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='tarcher' post='722671' date='Jan 23 2010, 02:20 PM']Wonder what difference if any woods would make to a Lightwave bass.[/quote]
I would expect in a Lightwave wood would make about the same difference it does on a bass with magnetic pickups as both get their tonal info solely from the vibrating string and don't produce useable sound acoustically.

Any one else notice musicians rarely say they can't hear a difference? It's usually something like "the difference is barely noticeable".

[chris_b]

[quote name='henry norton' post='722287' date='Jan 23 2010, 04:22 PM']....A 'cheapo' 2 piece alder body is no less likely to sound 'good' than an exotic sandwich of brazilian mahogany with quilted maple facings and wenge centre stripes. It needs to be carefully dried to about 6 percent moisture content and then kept in a relatively dry indoor climate 'til it's used. There's really not that much more to it except for allot of smoke and mirrors from some luthiers....[/quote]
Good grief!!!!

[Gwilym]

my 2 cents. tonewoods (or just woods) make a distinct difference.

I've 2 identical basses, apart from woods. both strung with nickel strings. One ash/maple, the other poplar/wenge

Tonally, they sound very different.

Whilst I don't dispute that hardwear and electronics are all part of the equation (to a greater or lesser extent), but to my ears woods make a difference.

[tarcher]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='726050' date='Jan 27 2010, 09:11 AM']I would expect in a Lightwave wood would make about the same difference it does on a bass with magnetic pickups as both get their tonal info solely from the vibrating string and don't produce useable sound acoustically.[/quote]


Must do really,the mechanics of it remain the same only the method of conversion differs.
Put my last comment down to the musings of a middle aged fart.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Gwilym' post='726983' date='Jan 27 2010, 02:18 PM']my 2 cents. tonewoods (or just woods) make a distinct difference.

I've 2 identical basses, apart from woods. both strung with nickel strings. One ash/maple, the other poplar/wenge

Tonally, they sound very different.

Whilst I don't dispute that hardwear and electronics are all part of the equation (to a greater or lesser extent), but to my ears woods make a difference.[/quote]
Have you swapped electronics between the two to see what happens? One problem with most of these anecdotes is people often assume electronics are identical and that's far from the truth. It's easy to see wood is different but electronics look the same so we assume they are identical.

Another way to test this is find 2 basses with the same woods and notice they don't sound identical. If the wood was responsible for the tone that would not be true.

[mikhay77]

For my ears,more tonal woods are heard at there best acoustically.I have seen a certain guitar maker tapping on prospective woods to hear the tone or note of the timber.Now this might sound nerdy but this must work for him.Pick ups and electronics may mask or enhance these basic "sound of wood" which incidentally I thought was Warwick promotional jargon,but the best stringed instruments the best tonal woods surely should be used,and no doubt each has its own characteristic,but the Luthier's secret is which one does what and were,for thick,thin,warmer or hi-fi sound,sustain etc.My brother has just bought some very expensive woods for a guitar build,will let you know how it sounds,but then it may take a while,(2,000 years to age lol)

Edited January 27, 2010 by mikhay77

[Vibrating G String]

I think tapping on raw lumber is a big misunderstand of the use of tap tones. Historically at least tapping was used to decide when to stop carving a top, not to "taste" the quality of wood. I feel this is just an example of a cool sounding term becoming part of the purchasing ritual.

Something to consider, some instruments can be made from s single piece of wood that can play a scale of tones by tapping in different locations. So then that raises the question of what qualities they are looking for in a tapping of raw lumber. That question should not be answered with hypotheticals conceived after the question was asked.

[leftybassman392]

Don't luthiers tap wood to check for defects? A flawless piece of wood will have a strong resonance, whereas internal and/or invisible cracks will inhibit the resonance. Same principle as you use with porcelain. In fact isn't it the quality of the wood stock that you pay for (at least in part)?

Edited January 28, 2010 by leftybassman392

[Gwilym]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='727044' date='Jan 27 2010, 10:55 PM']Have you swapped electronics between the two to see what happens? One problem with most of these anecdotes is people often assume electronics are identical and that's far from the truth. It's easy to see wood is different but electronics look the same so we assume they are identical.

Another way to test this is find 2 basses with the same woods and notice they don't sound identical. If the wood was responsible for the tone that would not be true.[/quote]
hi,
the electronics are identical, but the same tonal differences are apparent acoustically when I hold my ear up to the bass bodies, so I still don't believe it's the electonics - not in this case anyway.
cheers
G

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='Gwilym' post='728058' date='Jan 28 2010, 08:20 PM']hi,
the electronics are identical, but the same tonal differences are apparent acoustically when I hold my ear up to the bass bodies, so I still don't believe it's the electonics - not in this case anyway.
cheers
G[/quote]

I'm sure VGS can speak for himself, but I've got a feeling that's not really what he means. The various components used in preamp circuits are made within certain tolerences, which means that different examples of the same circuit can vary slightly in their 'sound'. This makes it hard to call them identical to the point that you can eliminate them as a factor.

Not saying you're wrong about the sound of your basses - just that it isn't quite as simple as it looks. And with great respect, I'm still not so sure about the 'acoustic tone translating to amplified sound' argument.

Edited January 28, 2010 by leftybassman392

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='728095' date='Jan 28 2010, 08:47 PM']I'm sure VGS can speak for himself, but I've got a feeling that's not really what he means. The various components used in preamp circuits are made within certain tolerences, which means that different examples of the same circuit can vary slightly in their 'sound'. This makes it hard to call them identical to the point that you can eliminate them as a factor.

Not saying you're wrong about the sound of your basses - just that it isn't quite as simple as it looks. And with great respect, I'm still not so sure about the 'acoustic tone translating to amplified sound' argument.[/quote]

It strikes me as a bit weird to imagine that an obvious difference acoustically in one particular case is not largely responsible for the obvious difference plugged in - especially if there is a good correlation between the character of the different acoustic and electric tones. Like I said before, pickups can only amplify what's there. The string dictates the initial harmonics of a note but their relative volume and how they decay is very much affected by how the thing it's anchored to resonates.

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='729596' date='Jan 30 2010, 12:37 PM']Like I said before, pickups can only amplify what's there. The string dictates the initial harmonics of a note but their relative volume and how they decay is very much affected by how the thing it's anchored to resonates.[/quote]

Don't think that's quite right. First of all, pickups don't just amplify what's there. In fact standard guitar pickups are inherently non-linear, and definitely add their own character to the mix. Secondly, the strings are vibrating in a magnetic field, which affects how they vibrate. The electromagnetics is a little above my pay grade - any electronics engineers out there? - but it definitely happens.

[url="http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys199pom/Labs/Electric_Guitar_Pickup_Measurements.pdf"]Measuring pickup characteristics[/url]

[url="http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys498pom/498emi_guitar_pickup_results.html"]Results of the above analysis[/url]