Tonewoods

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1327322' date='Aug 4 2011, 08:29 AM']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.[/quote]
I think it's people with a minimal grasp of science thinking they can create natural law by typing with big words and condescension. You criticize an actual experiment yet you try to back up your case by simply saying you know more than we do and you're a real scientist. By the way, what are your degrees and actual job title & employer? And I only challenge that since you're using it as your proof.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1327328' date='Aug 4 2011, 08:31 AM']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]
I think you just have to take that on faith

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='1327395' date='Aug 4 2011, 08:49 AM']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]
Could you tell us the brand and age of the strings on each one?

[ficelles]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328167' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:07 AM']If you can hear woods I would be happy to have you demonstrate this.[/quote]

Not only can I hear woods, I can talk to them. They tell me they are unhappy with your aura and you should only play brass instruments. You do play a musical instrument of some sort, don't you?

[quote]If you just want to boast and not demonstrate I'm going to assume you're arguing from ego only.[/quote]

Ego? Moi??? You must be confusing me with someone from California...

ficelles

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='ficelles' post='1327717' date='Aug 4 2011, 12:05 PM']Thank you Lozz

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


2 - they relied on hearing tests of observers, not the hearing-and-feeling test of players.[/quote]
In other words they did not know the answers ahead of time. It's easy when you know in advance.

[ficelles]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328167' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:07 AM']No one has ever shown the ability to identify wood by listening. Ever.[/quote]

And another thing...

I'd like you to prove this ludicrous statement. Please relate everything that has ever happened, ever, to prove you are right.

ficelles

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1327747' date='Aug 4 2011, 12:34 PM']I am pretty confident you could pick up the differences out between different pieces of wood with scientific equipment[/quote]
I'll bet you can't, mainly because none of these gifted golden ears even specifically defines what the difference they are hearing is. It's always some vague easily modified touchy feely nebulous term like rounder or more friendly to cats.

I would dare anyone who feels they can perform auditory taxonomy (and that has to be true, just look at the size of those words and how confidently they were written) to put their neck out and give anything of a scientific definition to these wondrous things they can hear. Like a frequency response that would identify a species, or genus as most don't even know what a species is.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='ficelles' post='1328172' date='Aug 4 2011, 06:14 PM']Not only can I hear woods, I can talk to them. They tell me they are unhappy with your aura and you should only play brass instruments. You do play a musical instrument of some sort, don't you?



Ego? Moi??? You must be confusing me with someone from California...

ficelles[/quote]
My prediction of taking offense as the next step seems to have proven true. Shame, I would love to see one of these gods one day...

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='ficelles' post='1328174' date='Aug 4 2011, 06:17 PM']And another thing...

I'd like you to prove this ludicrous statement. Please relate everything that has ever happened, ever, to prove you are right.

ficelles[/quote]
Thank you for sharing your understanding of the scientific method

Thank god for the internet huh?

[Killerfridge]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328177' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:25 AM']Thank you for sharing your understanding of the scientific method

Thank god for the internet huh?[/quote]

I'm amazed that you're even attempting to reason with the people who say "I played these two different things, and ignoring the fact that I knew the differences between them, I also totally heard the difference...and it was me playing".

I really didn't want to get into this with those who don't understand the scientific method, years arguing with homeopaths has made me a little weary of it.

Basically, of course they sounded different - you were playing them and thought that they were going to be different. Ignoring the obvious question of the strings etc. you also have to take into account the problem of you playing it differently.

This is exactly the same point that came up with people testing the ESP Power Cable - when the players knew which cable was which, they could totally hear the difference, and so could independent observers - they were unconsciously playing differently. When someone changes the cable, and doesn't tell either which one it is, suddenly they lose this uncanny ability to hear the differences.

The problem with the TB experiment was [i]not[/i] that they were relying on players 'hearing' rather than 'playing'. It is necessary that the people being tested are blind to them, so that they can't be influenced on anything other than the sound. This experiment didn't prove anything, but it was interesting.

[Killerfridge]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328175' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:21 AM']I'll bet you can't, mainly because none of these gifted golden ears even specifically defines what the difference they are hearing is. It's always some vague easily modified touchy feely nebulous term like rounder or more friendly to cats.

I would dare anyone who feels they can perform auditory taxonomy (and that has to be true, just look at the size of those words and how confidently they were written) to put their neck out and give anything of a scientific definition to these wondrous things they can hear. Like a frequency response that would identify a species, or genus as most don't even know what a species is.[/quote]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the differences would be predictable in the sense that they are currently used. Just that if you attached 1 string to a length of plywood, with a nut/fret/bridge at each end, with a pickup in a determined position, and plucked it with a mechanical finger providing a designated amount of force - you would potentially see a difference in the recorded wavelength to one attached to a board made of ebony.

Whether or not that would be significant enough to hear, or to even bother to take into account once to add the squishy unreliability of humans playing, or tone shaping etc is up for discussion. I personally don't think it does (see previous post about susceptibility to auditory illusions).

I think that people who claim to be able to 'hear' things that science cannot detect are suffering from standard auditory illusions (like how a healthy human brain should), but refuse to accept that they can be fooled by such illusions. If you want a great example of this, please go and read the TB ESP Power Cord thread.

[bremen]

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1328357' date='Aug 5 2011, 10:08 AM']the squishy unreliability of humans[/quote]

I love this phrase!

Look forward to hearing Robert Peston using it.

[Killerfridge]

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1328357' date='Aug 5 2011, 10:08 AM']Whether or not that would be significant enough to hear, or to even bother to take into account once to add the squishy unreliability of humans playing, or tone shaping etc is up for discussion.[/quote]

Wait...what? What the hell did I write there?

Wow, I am actually embarrassed now I read that back!

That should have read -

"Whether or not that would be significant enough to hear, or even bother to take into account once [i][b]you[/b][/i] factor in the squishy unreliability of humans..."

There, that makes more sense...doesn't it?

[ficelles]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328176' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:24 AM']My prediction of taking offense as the next step seems to have proven true. Shame, I would love to see one of these gods one day...[/quote]

I didn't take offense, I just insulted you.

What are these gods of which you speak? Are they talking to you now?

ficelles

[tauzero]

Isn't it nice to know that, whatever the variability of wood, all strings will always sound exactly the same, regardless of who they were made by, how they are constructed, how much they've been used, and how many grams of human detritus are lodged in their windings?

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1328357' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:08 AM']Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the differences would be predictable in the sense that they are currently used. Just that if you attached 1 string to a length of plywood, with a nut/fret/bridge at each end, with a pickup in a determined position, and plucked it with a mechanical finger providing a designated amount of force - you would potentially see a difference in the recorded wavelength to one attached to a board made of ebony.[/quote]
I'd agree with that as a probability. It's when people pretend to be able to discern which wood makes which sounds that I want to slam the door and tell them I don't need to be saved by jesus or whatever they're selling.

You could also do the above experiment with not just different woods but different size boards of the same wood and likely get the same amount of unpredictable variance.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='ficelles' post='1329145' date='Aug 5 2011, 11:32 AM']I didn't take offense, I just insulted you.[/quote]
You're truly a great human and make the earth a better place. God bless you for your sacrifice.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='tauzero' post='1333361' date='Aug 9 2011, 03:04 AM']Isn't it nice to know that, whatever the variability of wood, all strings will always sound exactly the same, regardless of who they were made by, how they are constructed, how much they've been used, and how many grams of human detritus are lodged in their windings?[/quote]
Don't forget that truss rods and large amounts of steel in the neck never influence tone, because you can't see it.

[4 Strings]

I can tell the difference between extremes and I wonder, if I trained myself with lots of experience, whether this could be developed.

In my life there are two guitars I have played (one a bass the other a 6 string) which I thought sounded dreadful, without plugging in, and it later turned out they both had plywood bodies. Plugged in they sounded middly. Could have been the cheap pickups but that same middly sort of sound prevailed unplugged as an acoustic instrument. I feel confident I could do it again. I don't feel I have special powers as the sound seemed quite obvious so I believe I can identify guitars with a in a blind test. (Would love to test it further, just don't have access to many plywood guitars)

So, if I spent years listening to many instruments made from all sorts of materials and noting any differences could I train my ears to identify more closely related materials? After all, we all thought the Kramers with ally necks sounded horrible in the 80s. And they did.

[Vibrating G String]

So plywood sounds middly, Jaco played a plywood bass.

Ever notice how important wood species is but how irrelevant it is in plywood? No one ever discusses the species of wood in plywood. Is it because they don't know what it is and therefore can't claim to be able to hear it?

Kramers with aluminum necks sounded great, if the player is any good.

Foderas sound middly, is that the plywood? Or is it setting the amp for mids?

The only way you can demonstrate you can hear wood without knowing what it is is by telling us what it is by listening only before you know the answer. Knowing what it is first and then deciding what you hear is not science it's religion.

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1316853217' post='1383618']
After all, we all thought the Kramers with ally necks sounded horrible in the 80s. And they did.
[/quote]

Mick Karn might disagree...
And I quite like Mids, they are useful, plywood for me then.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' timestamp='1317160550' post='1387619']
So plywood sounds middly, Jaco played a plywood bass.

>Did he really? First I've heard of that, thought it was a Fender.


Foderas sound middly, is that the plywood? Or is it setting the amp for mids?

>I'm not saying all middly sounds result from a plywood body, but that the couple of guitars I've played which turned out had a plywood bodies sounded middly without plugging in. Why would you suggest that all middly sounds result from a plywood body?

The only way you can demonstrate you can hear wood without knowing what it is is by telling us what it is by listening only before you know the answer. Knowing what it is first and then deciding what you hear is not science it's religion.

>That was my point, didn't know beforehand. I'm sure you would have heard them the same way as me.
[/quote]

Edited October 4, 2011 by 4 Strings

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1317769731' post='1394492']Why would you suggest that all middly sounds result from a plywood body?[/quote]I was mocking the plywood sounds middly comment

Is that your Jaydee in your avatar? They're often plywood.

I have one "plywood" bass. It sounds scooped

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' timestamp='1317808072' post='1394719']
I was mocking the plywood sounds middly comment

>>Just saying how it was, can't do much else. Perhaps you could mock the way I see blue too.

Is that your Jaydee in your avatar? They're often plywood.

>>Mines an early one, they hadn't got onto wood at that point. Mdf with heavy lacquer so there are no resonances.

I have one "plywood" bass. It sounds scooped
[/quote]

>>I have a Harkte amp that sounds scooped, that must be "plywood" too.

[Mr. Foxen]

The point of plywood is that it renders an inconsistent material consistent. You can take wood with all its flaws and inconsistency, and laminate it to provide some consistency in the end product.