Tonewoods

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1317831601' post='1395158']

>>I have a Harkte amp that sounds scooped, that must be "plywood" too.
[/quote]
See how silly that sounds? Just like all these other tone myths.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' timestamp='1317841436' post='1395341']
See how silly that sounds? Just like all these other tone myths.
[/quote]


Yep, you're right and everyone else is wrong, the wood makes no difference and I was lying. Why wood, indeed? I lose.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1317914631' post='1396197']


Yep, you're right and everyone else is wrong, the wood makes no difference and I was lying. Why wood, indeed? I lose.
[/quote]
The sarcasm seems childish but the conclusion is correct

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' timestamp='1317937274' post='1396554']
The sarcasm seems childish but the conclusion is correct
[/quote]
Thanks for your wise and valuable contribution to what would have been an interesting discussion.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1317995552' post='1397095']
Thanks for your wise and valuable contribution to what would have been an interesting discussion.
[/quote]
Arguing with faith always ends like this, someone has to cry.

[4 Strings]

You're right, the number of people bothered to argue with your faith in your own limited experience and wisdom is reducing.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1318230247' post='1399311']
You're right, the number of people bothered to argue with your faith in your own limited experience and wisdom is reducing.
[/quote]
Good argument

[B.Flat]

I have just read all 11 pages of this thread and would like to add my 2p.
It is a simple anecdote. Many years ago whilst in a residency in the south of England I went into London on my day off and went to Ronnie Scotts club in the evening. One of the bands featured that evening had an electric bassist that I particularly wanted to hear after reading reviws of his work.
When the band commenced their set I was set back by what, to me, was the awful tone of the bass!
Within a few minutes I was transported to a wonderful place by the melodic lines and musical ideas the bassist was creating.
And, guess what, by then I thought the bass sounded great, which came as a great surprise to me and was something of a lesson learnt. A great idea is a great idea regardless of tone and a dull idea is dull no matter what equipment you have.
So ends the first reading, let us pray.

[shizznit]

I have owned a lot of Warwicks and a couple of privately made basses that have had all kinds of exotic woods and each bass has had it's own tonal characteristic. Most of the time I have blind purchased these basses without really taking into consideration if I would actually like the tone. Some were nice to my ears and others not so nice, but after several years playing a variety of basses with exotic woods I realised that my favorite is the non-exotic and ever trusty Ash! My Lakland is Ash (very rare for a 55-02) and the MTD 535 has an Ash body with a very thin Buckeye Burl top. Thats when I realised that Ash is my fav wood on a bass (thanks to Mike Tobias for educating me!). Both basses have Bartolini pickups and pre-amps.

Because there are so many wood breeds that are good tone woods for basses you can spend your life searching for 'the one' for you. Experienced and reputable luthiers will help you in the right direction and the ones I have met over the years are quite insistent that they want to consult with you first before parting with your cash. They do want to make sure you are 100% happy with what you get at the end of the build.

[shizznit]

[quote name='B.Flat' timestamp='1319362631' post='1412977']
I have just read all 11 pages of this thread and would like to add my 2p.
It is a simple anecdote. Many years ago whilst in a residency in the south of England I went into London on my day off and went to Ronnie Scotts club in the evening. One of the bands featured that evening had an electric bassist that I particularly wanted to hear after reading reviws of his work.
When the band commenced their set I was set back by what, to me, was the awful tone of the bass!
Within a few minutes I was transported to a wonderful place by the melodic lines and musical ideas the bassist was creating.
And, guess what, by then I thought the bass sounded great, which came as a great surprise to me and was something of a lesson learnt. A great idea is a great idea regardless of tone and a dull idea is dull no matter what equipment you have.
So ends the first reading, let us pray.
[/quote]

That's a good point. My first built to order bass was a Warwick Dolphin Pro 1 which cost me in excess of £3k 10 years ago. It had a Zebrawood body and a 3 piece Wenge neck and fingerboard. I thought it was the mutt's nuts, but my sound engineer hated how it sounded front of house and insisted that I would go back to my off the rack Thumb BO. He said it was easier to work with and had more punch. That wasn't the end of it though. I used it for a couple of days whilst recording my first album and the producer also took a disliking to it! So, the Dolphin didn't get much use and I certainly didn't see a return on my investment as I sold it after only 10 months after it left the factory in Germany!

[oggiesnr]

Couple of thoughts -

Plywood IS NOT consistent in either quality or tonally. Even parts of the same sheet of plywood will have inconsistencies, voids, knotholes, excess resin etc on the inner sheets. I've worked with the dam stuff for over twenty years and it can be a right pain.

I wonder how much of the "tonewood effect" on solid bodies is down to the fact that if the buyer is going to splash out extra (quite often a lot) for exotics then the luthier ain't going to skimp on the rest of the guitar or the set up? The devil is in all the little details that make the whole and maybe the details are just that bit better when tonewoods are being paid for.

Steve

[clarkpegasus4001]

I've always preferred lightweight Alder myself. The feel of the neck (and set up) matters more to me to be honest. There's nowt wrong with exotic timbers if that's your bag though.

[4 Strings]

Funny how its the more expensive and nicer looking woods sound better.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1317833590' post='1395192']
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.
[/quote]
Structurally consistent but not resonant. Plywood is adequate as a bass building material but lacking in character.

Alder is a pretty damn fine wood for character. Sycamore is a fine wood also and it grows like a weed in Europe. Don't see sycamore being specified very often though.

Arguments against the influence of wood on tonal character are a bit like Nelson sticking that telescope to his eye. Fine if someone doesn't hear a difference but just because an individual doesn't hear differences doesn't necessarily mean other people shouldn't.

[Mr. Foxen]

Resonance is down to its structure. Its consistency is pretty much what allows such generalisation to be made. But you can laminate even more different things into ply than you can make solid bodies from.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Mr. Foxen

[leftybassman392]

I have a SeiBass Original with a Mahogany core,and what look like thin Ebony shims and Walnut facings front and back. It also has a neck made up of alternate layers of Maple and a dark wood whose identity I'm not sure of but could be a different kind of Mahogany in the body - 7 pieces in all. Oh, and a piece of Ebony at the front.

Can somebody please tell me whether this is ply?

[Mr. Foxen]

Is the grain going in the same direction, or opposing?

[leftybassman392]

Actually (and, hand on heart, I'm not having a go at anyone) it was a rhetorical question. I know very well what it is, and have met it's maker on a number of occasions.

I started this thread a couple of years ago because I was considering getting a bass made for me, and wanted to know the extent to which the wood dictated the sound. The mods in their wisdom pinned it so that everyone who wanted to could have a say. For some time I read every post assiduously, no matter how leftfield or counterintuitive they seemed. Eventually I stopped reading because it became clear to me that it had stopped being a discussion of the issues and had become a battle to win - almost at any cost - an argument between two polarised views.

As luck would have it I sustained quite a serious back injury and had to give up playing for some considerable time so the purchase never materialised (at least not in the way I'd planned). I hardly looked at the thread again until a week or two ago. Lo and behold, people are still 'debating' tonewoods vs. plywood.

As the original poster of this thread, may I respectfully suggest that we allow it to die a peaceful death (or at least a period of repose). I happily concede the detailed knowledge the various protagonists have brought to bear and the passion of the various convictions on display, and I do understand people's reluctance to wade through 11 pages and well over 200 posts (some very long and closely argued) before posting; but guys, really, are we saying anything now that hasn't been well covered already? I say this with no malice toward anyone currently posting, but enough, surely, is enough?

If you think you're still conveying new and useful information then by all means carry on, but I have my doubts as to who else is still listening.

[Mr. Foxen]

So when you asked, and then after being asked a question that will determine the answer, declared that you already know the answer but aren't telling, you were just trolling?

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1330292466' post='1555392']
So when you asked, and then after being asked a question that will determine the answer, declared that you already know the answer but aren't telling, you were just trolling?
[/quote]

Ah. I see. You're asking about the plywood thing and have elected not to respond at all to the main thrust of the post. What a surprise.

However, to answer you directly, surely the whole point of a rhetorical question is that it is reasonable to assume the the 'questioner' knows the answer. But of course you didn't. You just assumed I was too stupid or too naive to know what plywood is.

I'll ask the question again and see if I can get a response this time. Don't you think enough is enough on this topic?

[4 Strings]

No. I think you make an interesting point about your Sei bass. Even if the wood had an audible effect with so many layers and sandwiches they would surely have been all but cancelled out, just as sandwich necks reduce 'dead spots'. Doesn't this sort of construction render the wood to aesthetic purposes only?

[Roland Rock]

I've asked this question before on this thread, but made a hash of it, so I'll try again:

I have query directed towards those who believe that the type of wood makes a difference to tone:

They say that the denser the wood, the brighter the tone - makes sense to me.
People tend to say that a maple board is brighter sounding than a rosewood one, even though I'm quite certain that maple is softer/less dense than rosewood.
Why is this?

[tauzero]

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1330615549' post='1560441']
They say that the denser the wood, the brighter the tone - makes sense to me.
People tend to say that a maple board is brighter sounding than a rosewood one, even though I'm quite certain that maple is softer/less dense than rosewood.
Why is this?
[/quote]

Because mucky strings show up more on a maple fretboard, so people change them earlier than if they're using a rosewood fretboard.

[Mr. Foxen]

Plywood is defined by being made layers of wood with the grain in different directions. So the factor that will tell you if something is ply is whether or not that definition is applicable. When it comes to comparing material properties, knowing what materials you are dealing with is a necessary first step. The fact that it seems to be a point of contention about the difference between ply and laminate shows that this information is not yet sufficiently transparent.

Density is probably not so much of a factor as stiffness, although there is a degree of relationship between the two when applied to wood commonly used in instrument construction. Stiffness only really matters in one direction since all the strings go in a single direction, so a construction with all the laminates in the same direction is going to provide superior stiffness and consistency to alternating plys.

As to maple vs rosewood, they both vary greatly in density, since there are loads of species, and variation according to position in a tree. Rosewood boards are going to be laminated into a maple neck whereas a maple board might not be, additionally a maple board will be lacquered and a rosewood one probably won't be. But Rickenbackers use a lacquered dark woo board, might be rosewood or related, and are known for bright tone, so maybe you are entirely looking at the wrong factors.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1330615549' post='1560441']
I've asked this question before on this thread, but made a hash of it, so I'll try again:

I have query directed towards those who believe that the type of wood makes a difference to tone:

They say that the denser the wood, the brighter the tone - makes sense to me.
People tend to say that a maple board is brighter sounding than a rosewood one, even though I'm quite certain that maple is softer/less dense than rosewood.
Why is this?
[/quote]

Because maple is lighter in colour and so looks brighter and is expected to sound so. The string bears on the frets so the sonic difference of metal on metal set in dense wood or metal on metal set in slightly more dense wood is not going to be something I can notice.