Tonewoods

[mr_russ]

When I'm trying to work out a recorded bass tone I'm considering the technique, pickup type / placement and amp settings, not whether or not the bass they're playing is made from ash or alder.

I can tell a jazz bass, a precision, a stingray a mile off...I'm certain most of you can too, but tell me what the fingerboard of said bass is made of.

I'm certain wood makes a difference, but it's one of the more minute variables that only really matter to the person playing the bass, law of diminishing returns, you've got a plank that's properly cut and bolted/glued together then I believe you've already got 90% of what's achievable.

R

[Killerfridge]

Right, I am going to stick my oar in here.

I own a MusicMan Stingray that has a Status Graphite neck. I would be incredibly surprised if [b][i]anyone[/i][/b] could tell the difference between this, and a Stingray with a wooden neck. I got the carbon fibre neck so I could change between fretted (Status) and fretless (original) if I wanted, and because the Status necks are well made. Sound-wise (other than being fretless) they are essentially identical.

So yeah, using the incredibly unscientific method of my ears (as proposed earlier) I cannot 'hear' the difference between Carbon Fibre and Wood.

And also, I am so proud of my fellow musical sceptics - I am so surprised at how many are willing to implement critical thinking (compared to the rest of the world!)

Edited August 2, 2011 by Killerfridge

[Doddy]

[quote name='Thunderpaws' post='1198824' date='Apr 13 2011, 10:30 PM']Paul Reed Smith was talking (a lot) and he basically said he could work with any piece of wood to make it sound good. By sounding good, he explained that he meant if he tapped it he could get the piece of wood to sustain its vibrations for longer.[/quote]
Just a thought here,but the pickups don't pick anything up from the wood,and if they did as soon as you cut it and put lumps of metal
on it it would change the vibrations anyway?

[quote name='mr_russ' post='1323071' date='Aug 1 2011, 01:49 PM']I can tell a jazz bass, a precision, a stingray a mile off...I'm certain most of you can too,[/quote]

I can't,and I reckon that the vast majority of players can't either. There have been many arguments over the years when someone
says that "(whoever) played (this bass) on (this track)" only to be proved wrong. Even on here the other week in the Sandberg vs
Stingray blind test,a lot of people couldn't tell the difference and had to resort to discussing the pickup settings to make themselves
feel better.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1324818' date='Aug 2 2011, 08:29 PM']Just a thought here,but the pickups don't pick anything up from the wood,and if they did as soon as you cut it and put lumps of metal
on it it would change the vibrations anyway?[/quote]

But, the pickups pick up string vibrations, whose properties are determined not only by the string itself but the damping and resonance characteristics of what it's attached to.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1324818' date='Aug 2 2011, 08:29 PM']I can't,and I reckon that the vast majority of players can't either. There have been many arguments over the years when someone
says that "(whoever) played (this bass) on (this track)" only to be proved wrong. Even on here the other week in the Sandberg vs
Stingray blind test,a lot of people couldn't tell the difference and had to resort to discussing the pickup settings to make themselves
feel better.[/quote]

I'm afraid this isn't very scientific either, there are far too many confounding variables - although it does show you that there are lots of ways to skin this particular cat so there's no need to get too fixated on wood species per se.

If someone gives me a nice £50'000 research grant (minimum) I'm quite happy to do a proper controlled scientific study In all seriousness, that probably wouldn't be enough money for more than a couple of pilot studies...

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1324818' date='Aug 2 2011, 12:29 PM']Just a thought here,but the pickups don't pick anything up from the wood,and if they did as soon as you cut it and put lumps of metal
on it it would change the vibrations anyway?[/quote]
Oh ye of little faith

Here's a puzzler, if wood really has a major role in tone why does the bridge and neck pickup on the same bass sound drastically different? More so than any wood difference. Why don't they both have the unmistakable tone of whatever wood or finish is being claimed to have all the tone?

Tapping a block of wood is a party trick for special needs children. First it's a serious bastardization of tapping a violin top as it's being carved completely missing why it's done and what it tells us. And you can tune any kind of wood to any note, even the same piece of wood can be tuned to different notes. That should mean something to a critical thinker.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Vibrating G String

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1324984' date='Aug 2 2011, 02:32 PM']But, the pickups pick up string vibrations, whose properties are determined not only by the string itself but the damping and resonance characteristics of what it's attached to.[/quote]Funny what gets completely discounted, like the player who's belly it's resting on.

[quote]If someone gives me a nice £50'000 research grant (minimum) I'm quite happy to do a proper controlled scientific study In all seriousness, that probably wouldn't be enough money for more than a couple of pilot studies...[/quote]
The research has been done and it's conclusive. It's available on the internet for anyone wanting to search. Just don't search for articles written by musicians and advertisers. Look for science.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1324984' date='Aug 2 2011, 02:32 PM']although it does show you that there are lots of ways to skin this particular cat so there's no need to get too fixated on wood species per se.[/quote]
Another peeve of mine is that in almost all these pseudo science claims the person does not even understand what a species is. Yet we are supposed to believe they can hear the difference in something they can't even define properly.

[Doddy]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1324984' date='Aug 2 2011, 10:32 PM']But, the pickups pick up string vibrations, whose properties are determined not only by the string itself but the damping and resonance characteristics of what it's attached to[/quote]
But,wouldn't the anchor points of the string be more important to the vibration than what it's mounted too? Also,as soon
as you fret a note,you are effectively damping the string so the resonance characteristics have changed again?

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1324984' date='Aug 2 2011, 10:32 PM']I'm afraid this isn't very scientific either, there are far too many confounding variables - although it does show you that there are lots of ways to skin this particular cat so there's no need to get too fixated on wood species per se.[/quote]
It's not scientific at all..... Just pointing out that people are more likely to use guess work (sometimes educated and based on the player)and assumption when identifying an instrument.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1325256' date='Aug 3 2011, 09:46 AM']Funny what gets completely discounted, like the player who's belly it's resting on.
...
The research has been done and it's conclusive. It's available on the internet for anyone wanting to search.[/quote]

I'd be very interested to see it, if you could link. I feel fairly confident in my ability to assess it - I've peer-reviewed papers for publication as part of my job as a research scientist.

The effect of a player's belly - I'm sure resting against something versus free hanging would have a measurable effect under controlled conditions, if not always easily audible in the real world. Different from one person to another? At a guess not enough to be measurable unless you had an exceptionally controlled environment and testing equipment. But different resting against one surface compared to another? You can hear this effect acoustically when you rest a solid body instrument against something like a table and pluck a string - you'll easily hear it amplifying the sound. Since we (hopefully) don't believe it's possible to break the laws of thermodynamics, we assume the energy for this amplification to occur has to come from somewhere, i.e. from the string vibrational energy and will therefore result in altered decay characteristics of the string. These will be picked up and amplified - after all, the pickup is a transducer, not a synthesiser.

[quote name='Doddy' post='1325579' date='Aug 3 2011, 12:54 PM']But,wouldn't the anchor points of the string be more important to the vibration than what it's mounted too? Also,as soon
as you fret a note,you are effectively damping the string so the resonance characteristics have changed again?[/quote]

To address the last point first, remember when you fret a note the anchor point is metal from the fret. The damping characteristics of the anchor point have a large effect on tone - for a clear example, witness the obvious difference between fretless and fretted bass.

So the anchor points make an important contribution to the string vibration. But, considering the vibration you have to look at the system as a whole. This includes not only the anchor points, but what they transmit to and from their mountings - in this case the body of the guitar. Perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate this is to take the example of fretting at a deadspot on the neck played through an amplifier. Clamp a suitably heavy object to a neck to change the mass and the deadspot will shift - proving that the body is contributing to vibrational decay characteristics and this alters the tone through the amp in an easily audible fashion (you will get increased sustain where previously it was dying quickly).

Now I'm going to go ridiculously and pompously over the top, so if you're not a geek then don't bother reading this (but also, please don't lay into me if you don't understand it ). Let's try and turn the rather vague 'does wood contribute to tone?' into a more scientific question that can be meaningfully addressed...

Hopefully the examples I've given between them already demonstrate that the vibration of the system has to be considered as a whole and therefore the body inherently contributes to tone. If not I suggest a read through of the basic principles here [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration[/url]
Don't worry about the maths, just the mass-spring-damper model, the different types of vibration and how the principle of conservation of energy applies.

So, the question. Let's break it into separate parts. For each part we need to define our system of measurement, the other variables which must be controlled and also our method of analysis. This by the way is where the 50 grand I mentioned earlier comes in as doing these experiments properly is expensive and we are going to want to publish this in a nice, free access, international peer-reviewed journal so we have a handy reference next time this argument comes up:

1. Do different pieces of wood have measurably different resonance characteristics from each other within the audio bandwidth?
2a. Under what conditions are these differences audible on an electric instrument? 2b How does that audibility vary between subjects?
3a. Is there statistically significant correlation between these measured differences and wood types (as defined in different ways including species/variety and mass)? 3b If so, what is the nature and the degree of that correlation?

Question 1 is pretty easy to address, just depends with what degree of precision you want to do it. Question 2 is ok but a bit expensive because we need to do randomised blind testing of subjects then try and correlate the results with the measurements in question 1. Question 3 is potentially very expensive, as we'll need a lot of wood and tons of measurements - what if there's a correlation but it's relatively weak? This will require regression analysis. I have made this point before and lots of people don't seem to understand the difference between correlation that is significant and correlation that is 100% equality. (By the way, there is probably a significant association between these people and those who think that the talkbass post with the lumber bass answers the question of whether wood contributes to tone. It's a nice demonstration, but it fails to answer that question).

It's worth noting as well that if we understand and trust in science at all then the answer to question 1 is obviously yes, the answer to question 3a will be yes, and the answer to each of 2a and 2b will be 'lots'. The answer to question 3b is the main issue that's incompletely resolved. We could define a final extension to this question which would be 'what is the degree and pattern of variation observed in commercial instruments?' I expect most of the wood on bog-standard instruments fits into a rather narrow part of the overall possible spectrum of variation, but there will still be some variation as well as a few crazy outliers to keep things interesting.

[Vibrating G String]

I don't think verbosity is a satisfactory proof. Others may disagree. If you're a "research scientist" you may be familiar with the concept of data and not just conjecture leading to a conclusion.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1326376' date='Aug 3 2011, 05:07 PM']It's worth noting as well that if we understand and trust in science at all then the answer to question 1 is obviously yes, the answer to question 3a will be yes, and the answer to each of 2a and 2b will be 'lots'.[/quote]
I think that one line kills any hope of sounding scientific.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Vibrating G String

[Killerfridge]

We must not also forget the null hypothesis - until someone provides data to show that tone-woods have an audible effect on the sound of an electric instrument, we should assume they do not. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not those who don't believe it.

We don't believe in ghosts just because nobody has categorically shown that they don't exist.

And I have to agree with G-string - you can't just assert your way into a conclusion. That's exactly how pseudoscience works (see water fondlers and spine wizards - if you follow what they say to their conclusions, they must be correct, but actual scientific evidence points to the contrary)

Edited August 4, 2011 by Killerfridge

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1326390' date='Aug 4 2011, 01:32 AM']I don't think verbosity is a satisfactory proof. Others may disagree. If you're a "research scientist" you may be familiar with the concept of data and not just conjecture leading to a conclusion.[/quote]

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. The principles behind vibration analysis are very well characterised, with huge amounts of data already in existence for loads of different materials. The maths to describe mass-spring-damper models has been understood since the 18th century!

As for data - despite the fact that it would be completely reinventing the wheel, I outlined a basic overview of the experiments required and gave an estimate of the cost to do pilot studies up to a publishable standard. On the other hand I asked you for a link to evidence that you assert is out there and you didn't provide it. Rather than addressing any point directly (like why mass-spring-damper models are or aren't inappropriate for describing a guitar, or why you think all pieces of wood have identical resonant frequencies, or where the energy magically comes from to maintain the resonance decay characteristics when a guitar is acoustically amplified resting against a table) you choose the route of ridicule.

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1326391' date='Aug 4 2011, 01:35 AM']I think that one line kills any hope of sounding scientific.[/quote]

Err, why? The main reason I said that is because a) If I tap a few different bits of wood I hear different characteristic resonance properties, which will fall into the output bandwidth of a bass guitar and b ) I understand what a transducer (pickup) is.

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1326393' date='Aug 4 2011, 01:40 AM']We must not also forget the null hypothesis - until someone provides data to show that tone-woods have an audible effect on the sound of an electric instrument, we should assume they do not. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not those who don't believe it.
...
And I have to agree with G-string - you can't just assert your way into a conclusion. That's exactly how pseudoscience works (see water fondlers and spine wizards - if you follow what they say to their conclusions, they must be correct, but actual scientific evidence points to the contrary)[/quote]

Not exactly, because this is not new science in that sense...it is an applied model where all the science that describes the system is already defined and tested and there is an awful lot of direct measurement data on vibration analysis as applied to wood. So in this case Occam's razor applies. You expect the model to behave as predicted by it's component parts.

As for making assertions, well, I feel I've backed them up by linking to well-described physical principles, referencing simply verifiable examples and then outlining further experiments that would generate hard data, and made some reference to the appropriate methods for then analysing that data.

Edited August 4, 2011 by LawrenceH

[ficelles]

Clearly there's a DIY opportunity for someone here

Go and build two 100% identical P bodies, making one of oak and one of pine.

Put identical necks and electronics on them.

Now plug them in and see if they sound the same.

Hint: they won't...

ficelles

[bremen]

[quote name='ficelles' post='1326972' date='Aug 4 2011, 02:02 PM']Clearly there's a DIY opportunity for someone here

Go and build two 100% identical P bodies, making one of oak and one of pine.

Put identical necks and electronics on them.

Now plug them in and see if they sound the same.

Hint: they won't...

ficelles[/quote]

Someone on Talkbass did just that - the pine was literally just a lump of scrap timber, no attempt made to make it 'guitar-shaped' and posted sound samples. Result: some folk couldn't tell the difference, some could, but those that could guessed wrong 50% of the time.

[lanark]

[quote name='bremen' post='1326992' date='Aug 4 2011, 02:10 PM']Someone on Talkbass did just that - the pine was literally just a lump of scrap timber, no attempt made to make it 'guitar-shaped' and posted sound samples. Result: some folk couldn't tell the difference, some could, but those that could guessed wrong 50% of the time.[/quote]

True that - and to take another tack - just because they'd sound different doesn't mean that it's the type of wood used.


A better test would be to take a basic body and add new pickups, new strings and a new bridge and see if THAT sounds different - and see if it's MORE different than the difference between the oak / alder bodies with the same equipment attached.

Then ask yourself if you should take wood into account as anything other than i) a solid base on which to attach the things that make the noise and ii) to look nice. Anything else is snake oil.

Edited August 4, 2011 by lanark

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='lanark' post='1327177' date='Aug 4 2011, 03:32 PM']True that - and to take another tack - just because they'd sound different doesn't mean that it's the type of wood used.


A better test would be to take a basic body and add new pickups, new strings and a new bridge and see if THAT sounds different - and see if it's MORE different than the difference between the oak / alder bodies with the same equipment attached.

Then ask yourself if you should take wood into account as anything other than i) a solid base on which to attach the things that make the noise and ii) to look nice. Anything else is snake oil.[/quote]


Hmmm, there is a big difference between the questions 'is wood a contributor to tone?' and 'is wood the most significant factor?' Clearly the answer to the second question is no - pickup position has a demonstrable (and predictable in nature) large effect, it's characteristics as a filter do also, and the mounting wood is only one of several factors contributing to the acoustic resonance of the system as a whole. But basic engineering/physics tells us that it is a contributor.

I am honestly disappointed to see that talkbass experiment still being used to assert that wood has a negligible contribution to tone. It's just not the right experimental design to address that question at all. What it does show is that you don't have to spend a lot of money on body wood for an instrument, and that in a lot of individual cases the tone of two nominally identical instruments (but for the body wood) will be similar or at least neither will be subjectively better than the other. That is in itself a useful conclusion, but it is not an answer to the question 'what contribution does wood make to tone'.

What puzzles me is where people are disagreeing. Is it that it's hard to connect the idea of an electric instrument to the general physical models that describe it's behaviour, or that people actually don't believe Newtonian physics is any good, or that people haven't ever seen any data demonstrating variable acoustic properties of wood (even aural appreciation of the sound a piece of wood being knocked will do for these purposes) ? Or is it that different people are asking different questions? I think that last is the case with lanark's question, but maybe for other people as well.

Edited August 4, 2011 by LawrenceH

[Killerfridge]

[quote name='bremen' post='1326992' date='Aug 4 2011, 02:10 PM']Someone on Talkbass did just that - the pine was literally just a lump of scrap timber, no attempt made to make it 'guitar-shaped' and posted sound samples. Result: some folk couldn't tell the difference, some could, but those that could guessed wrong 50% of the time.[/quote]

That's basically what happened, but I would disagree with the analysis. 50% of people said that they couldn't hear the difference, and of the remaining 50% that said they could, over 2/3 got it wrong. This amounts to the same percentage you would get if everyone just chose an answer at random.

Unfortunately, people are proud of their ability to be right, and everyone else wrong, so the ones who happened to guess correctly claimed that this was because [i]only[/i] they could really hear the difference, and the ones that believed they could but guessed wrong must just be worse at hearing.

Saying that, the test itself was flawed, and can't really be claimed to be of any real scientific standard. It was a fun experiment to see how people's preconceptions affected how they posted.

[quote name='"LawrenceH"']Not exactly, because this is not new science in that sense...it is an applied model where all the science that describes the system is already defined and tested and there is an awful lot of direct measurement data on vibration analysis as applied to wood. So in this case Occam's razor applies. You expect the model to behave as predicted by it's component parts.[/quote]

No-one is claiming that the strings do not vibrate the wood; one could reasonably assume that this would in turn affect the string. The problem is when people start making claims that this difference is audible (alder sounds mellower, ash sounds snappier etc) when put up against the plethora of different electronics and hardware that are involved in shaping the sound of an electric instrument.

I understand that acoustic instruments have resonating chambers, and that this has a real effect on the sound of the instrument. What I feel (IMO) you are doing is over-extrapolating from this, and coming to a faulty conclusion.

And as a side note of interest, could you explain how you got to the figure of £50,000 for a pilot study? (not doubting you, I would just like to know where figure came from).

[Lozz196]

[quote name='ficelles' post='1326972' date='Aug 4 2011, 02:02 PM']Clearly there's a DIY opportunity for someone here

Go and build two 100% identical P bodies, making one of oak and one of pine.

Put identical necks and electronics on them.

Now plug them in and see if they sound the same.

Hint: they won't...

ficelles[/quote]

Yep, I played 2 Epiphone Thunderbirds - a regular one, made of alder, and the Gothic, which was made of mahogany. As far as I know, everything else on them is the same. The Gothic was far deeper in tone. I don`t know about at gig volumes, but at trying out a bass in a music shop volume, the difference between the two was very noticeable.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1327328' date='Aug 4 2011, 04:31 PM']No-one is claiming that the strings do not vibrate the wood; one could reasonably assume that this would in turn affect the string. The problem is when people start making claims that this difference is audible (alder sounds mellower, ash sounds snappier etc) when put up against the plethora of different electronics and hardware that are involved in shaping the sound of an electric instrument.

I understand that acoustic instruments have resonating chambers, and that this has a real effect on the sound of the instrument. What I feel (IMO) you are doing is over-extrapolating from this, and coming to a faulty conclusion.

And as a side note of interest, could you explain how you got to the figure of £50,000 for a pilot study? (not doubting you, I would just like to know where figure came from).[/quote]

How is it faulty though? I have never said 'alder sounds mellower' because I think it's likely to be more idiosyncratic than that. In fact I have explicitly said that I think often the tones will be very similar in the real-world. I only stepped in because people appear to be over-extrapolating this to claim that wood has no effect on tonal output of a bass, which would defy the laws of physics. By the way the resonant chamber acoustic is actually in some ways a far more complex model to examine the effect of wood type, because the chamber size, shape and construction will have a really big effect on its properties - a solid body is in that sense much simpler.

There are lots of cases where the basic tone of the instrument is so buried under electronics that of course you can barely even hear what instrument is being played - but a clean tone into a reasonably flat, low distortion system, well it would be astonishing if a change in something that contributes significantly to the vibrational decay characteristics of the string wasn't audible when looking at the extremes of variation in what constitutes 'normal' wood. Whether it's important to you is another matter - a bridge pickup will nearly always sound like a bridge pickup because it has a characteristic comb filter property that is dependent on it's position relative to the string. It can only pick up what the string actually outputs though (which means obviously that strings are very important).

Why is the simple example of a dead-spot shifting with altered neck mass not enough to demonstrate that the properties of the thing the string is mounted to make a significant contribution to the sound? I was pleased with that example because I thought it was so straightforward!

The £50,000 figure for initial studies: a typical post-doc researcher wage is over £30,000. You will need a budget for materials, test equipment and an appropriate space to do it in, which would involve among other things an acoustically treated listening room. Then at the end you have publication costs of several thousand (yes, even though the journals are expensive to buy, scientists have to pay to publish their data). Basically, most of the money would just get eaten up by overheads and set-up costs. You could do it for a lot less if you already had a university department or similar to do the work in, and just gave it to a hapless PhD student! But I honestly can't see anyone supporting this because the data on wood properties is undoubtedly out there commercially and the rest is reinventing the wheel. It's too much of a school 'science project'

A final point - why are people so focused on the contribution or not of the body wood (eg in that talkbass video) when the neck makes up such a notable proportion of the total vibrating length?

Edited August 4, 2011 by LawrenceH

[ficelles]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='1327395' date='Aug 4 2011, 04:49 PM']Yep, I played 2 Epiphone Thunderbirds - a regular one, made of alder, and the Gothic, which was made of mahogany. As far as I know, everything else on them is the same. The Gothic was far deeper in tone. I don`t know about at gig volumes, but at trying out a bass in a music shop volume, the difference between the two was very noticeable.[/quote]

Thank you Lozz

Re the Talkbass experiment, it was clearly flawed in 2 major ways:

1 - they didn't make 100% identical instruments with just the body wood different.

2 - they relied on hearing tests of observers, not the hearing-and-feeling test of players.

Having played those "carolena" (i.e. pine) Rockbass Streamers and then a friend's early German-made Streamer (not sure what the wood is, probably Wenge?) they sound and feel different, and there is far more sustain and better tone in the Wenge one acoustically so you can discount the electronics.

ficelles

Edited August 4, 2011 by ficelles

[ficelles]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1327675' date='Aug 4 2011, 07:38 PM']The £50,000 figure for initial studies: a typical post-doc researcher wage is over £30,000. You will need a budget for materials, test equipment and an appropriate space to do it in, which would involve among other things an acoustically treated listening room. Then at the end you have publication costs of several thousand (yes, even though the journals are expensive to buy, scientists have to pay to publish their data). Basically, most of the money would just get eaten up by overheads and set-up costs.[/quote]

I used to work for one of the Research Councils - £50k is cheap!

ficelles

[Killerfridge]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1327675' date='Aug 4 2011, 07:38 PM']How is it faulty though? I have never said 'alder sounds mellower' because I think it's likely to be more idiosyncratic than that. In fact I have explicitly said that I think often the tones will be very similar in the real-world. I only stepped in because people appear to be over-extrapolating this to claim that wood has no effect on tonal output of a bass, which would defy the laws of physics. By the way the resonant chamber acoustic is actually in some ways a far more complex model to examine the effect of wood type, because the chamber size, shape and construction will have a really big effect on its properties - a solid body is in that sense much simpler.[/quote]

I can agree with that.
[quote name='LawrenceH']There are lots of cases where the basic tone of the instrument is so buried under electronics that of course you can barely even hear what instrument is being played - but a clean tone into a reasonably flat, low distortion system, well it would be astonishing if a change in something that contributes significantly to the vibrational decay characteristics of the string wasn't audible when looking at the extremes of variation in what constitutes 'normal' wood. Whether it's important to you is another matter - a bridge pickup will nearly always sound like a bridge pickup because it has a characteristic comb filter property that is dependent on it's position relative to the string. It can only pick up what the string actually outputs though (which means obviously that strings are very important).[/quote]

I am pretty confident you could pick up the differences out between different pieces of wood with scientific equipment - I just question how audible it would be when you take into account the pickup placement, windings etc (not even getting into tone shaping with amps and preamps). I accept that with extreme wood variations, there should be an audible difference (say, between ebony and pine - I could be wrong though, my knowledge of wood is a bit poor).

[quote name='LawrenceH']Why is the simple example of a dead-spot shifting with altered neck mass not enough to demonstrate that the properties of the thing the string is mounted to make a significant contribution to the sound? I was pleased with that example because I thought it was so straightforward! [/quote]

I'm not saying this to be difficult, I've just never really experienced the problem of deadspots! I'll have to take your word for that.
[quote name='LawrenceH']The £50,000 figure for initial studies: a typical post-doc researcher wage is over £30,000. You will need a budget for materials, test equipment and an appropriate space to do it in, which would involve among other things an acoustically treated listening room. Then at the end you have publication costs of several thousand (yes, even though the journals are expensive to buy, scientists have to pay to publish their data). Basically, most of the money would just get eaten up by overheads and set-up costs. You could do it for a lot less if you already had a university department or similar to do the work in, and just gave it to a hapless PhD student! But I honestly can't see anyone supporting this because the data on wood properties is undoubtedly out there commercially and the rest is reinventing the wheel. It's too much of a school 'science project'[/quote]

That sounds reasonable - when doing my mini calculations I didn't think to include the salary of the researcher. I was going from an assumption of myself having access to university equipment. Thinking about it, I clearly didn't think it very far through!

[quote name='LawrenceH']A final point - why are people so focused on the contribution or not of the body wood (eg in that talkbass video) when the neck makes up such a notable proportion of the total vibrating length?[/quote]

Because necks aren't as pretty, and it goes counter to peoples view of the biggest bit of something makes the most difference? I honestly don't know. I would have thought the fretwire would have a fair impact on the sound, but most people don't seem to care at all about it. They would rather worry about what power cable is powering their amp, and whether it makes them sound 'fatter' (this is something at least that is demonstrably false).

TBH, I think we have fairly similar views, that are potentially polarised by the sides of the fence that we land on! I can agree that the wood probably has some effect on the string vibration, but if I gave someone an Alder Jazz bass, and told them that it was Ash, I am sure that they would 'hear' the Ash rather than the Alder (if that makes any sense, I have a feeling I am not being very clear).

I would also like to add that I am just a very sceptical person. The amount of crap people try to sell me on a day to day basis, has sort of bred in a "don't believe you until you can show me a study" mentality! There is a very real chance I am just being over sceptical.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Killerfridge

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1326949' date='Aug 4 2011, 05:50 AM']I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. The principles behind vibration analysis are very well characterised, with huge amounts of data already in existence for loads of different materials. The maths to describe mass-spring-damper models has been understood since the 18th century!

As for data - despite the fact that it would be completely reinventing the wheel, I outlined a basic overview of the experiments required and gave an estimate of the cost to do pilot studies up to a publishable standard. On the other hand I asked you for a link to evidence that you assert is out there and you didn't provide it. Rather than addressing any point directly (like why mass-spring-damper models are or aren't inappropriate for describing a guitar, or why you think all pieces of wood have identical resonant frequencies, or where the energy magically comes from to maintain the resonance decay characteristics when a guitar is acoustically amplified resting against a table) you choose the route of ridicule.



Err, why? The main reason I said that is because a) If I tap a few different bits of wood I hear different characteristic resonance properties, which will fall into the output bandwidth of a bass guitar and b ) I understand what a transducer (pickup) is.



Not exactly, because this is not new science in that sense...it is an applied model where all the science that describes the system is already defined and tested and there is an awful lot of direct measurement data on vibration analysis as applied to wood. So in this case Occam's razor applies. You expect the model to behave as predicted by it's component parts.

As for making assertions, well, I feel I've backed them up by linking to well-described physical principles, referencing simply verifiable examples and then outlining further experiments that would generate hard data, and made some reference to the appropriate methods for then analysing that data.[/quote]
You've have provided nothing to back up your claims except your appeal to authority fallacy. You claim to be a research scientist, which I really doubt you are, yet seem unable to use google when told data is on the internet. I'm sorry but I don't do free research for every charlatan who feels they are the first one to make a ridiculous claim. The burden of proof is on you. Not me to make the faithful see reality. I understand that you may be able to baffle most people with your springs from the 18th century line but for I need to see something remotely scientific and not just internet posturing. Any real research scientist would know this.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='ficelles' post='1326972' date='Aug 4 2011, 06:02 AM']Clearly there's a DIY opportunity for someone here

Go and build two 100% identical P bodies, making one of oak and one of pine.

Put identical necks and electronics on them.

Now plug them in and see if they sound the same.

Hint: they won't...

ficelles[/quote]
Make 2 identical basses and see if they sound the same, hint, they won't.

No one has ever shown the ability to identify wood by listening. Ever. And this has been going on for decades with the faithful always saying this should be tested and you have to prove their faith wrong in a way they will never accept as that's the definition of faith. It has been tested, it doesn't work.

If you can hear woods I would be happy to have you demonstrate this. If you just want to boast and not demonstrate I'm going to assume you're arguing from ego only. Usually at this point taking offense is the next step.