1 Piece Vs 4 Piece bodies?

[Sibob]

So I'm just interested in what difference (sound, structural etc etc) it makes when a bass body is made up from a number of different pieces of wood!?

What would the characteristic differences be between say a 4 piece body and a 1 piece body?

Cheers
Si

Edited October 23, 2007 by Sibob

[silverfoxnik]

[quote name='Sibob' post='78394' date='Oct 23 2007, 04:37 PM']So I'm just interested in what difference (sound, structural etc etc) it makes when a bass body is made up from a number of different pieces of wood!?

What would the characteristic differences be between say a 4 piece body and a 1 piece body?

Cheers
Si[/quote]
Hi Si,

Really interesting question this and it's not one that I think will get you a definitive answer...

Personally, I prefer the sound of basses where the body is not made up of lots of different woods (..sometimes called multi-laminate, I think). With Wal basses which I've used for years, I have always preferred the sound of the old Pro models as opposed to the Custom models and that's because the Pros were made of Ash and the Customs were made of a mahogony core with different laminates on top. Though the Ash bodies were made of 3 pieces glued together, I think that the use of one tonewood made for a more resonant body. Fans of the Custom models will say differently of course, and point to the fact that the electronics were radically different between the two models so a straight comparison can't be made, which may well be true. But having owned and used both designs, I think the Pro models were better for being one wood.

Dave Wild, a very good luthier based in North London always argued the case for simplicity in designing and building basses and pointed to Fenders as being the best example of that. His point was something like (a) in the body of a bass, it is better to have good wood resonating than lots of glue and that ( different woods resonate differently, therefore they may not work well together tonally.. How true that is is part of the debate I suppose and something for others to add too. For my part, over the years that I've been playing, my preference has definitely swung back towards simpler design in basses.

Sorry if I've strayed off the point a bit, but you've got me thinking with this one, which is always a good thing!

Nik

[Sibob]

So an early conclusion might be that a single piece body will resonate much better then 3 piece glued body (ignoring laminates & veneers etc), but a 3 piece body may sound better then a laminated body that uses badly matched woods!?

Hmmm
Si

[Kiwi]

[quote name='Sibob' post='78583' date='Oct 23 2007, 11:47 PM']So an early conclusion might be that a single piece body will resonate much better then 3 piece glued body (ignoring laminates & veneers etc), but a 3 piece body may sound better then a laminated body that uses badly matched woods!?[/quote]
My experience would tend to support this as well. My Alembic Elan 6 had an 11 piece neck and a 3 piece body and it felt very dead and heavy. Since then I've not been really comfortable with Alembic levels of lamination. Where do the laminations stop and plywood begin? I don't like the sound of plywood bodies at all.

But what is also important is to make sure that the resonance peaks/troughs of the neck and body woods [i]at least[/i] don't dampen each other out and there's less chance of this happening if the neck is very rigid, at least with a bolt on design bass. The peaks should be quite pronounced and narrow in Q (frequency range), if they overlap with one another in the midrange its likely the bass will sound growlier. I think this is why the hard maple/light ash or hard maple/soft alder combo has proven so consistently attractive.

If the bass is too rigid then the tone of the bass can lack pleasant character in the treble end. I like soft, heavy body woods with very rigid necks for this reason as both my Cutlass basses sounded phenomenal and I think Ped's Vigiers sound good for the same reasons. My Modulus Quantum basses didn't sound as nice because they came with relatively light ash bodies which didn't tame the treble or help preserve bass. The body wood was very much underrated as a tone shaping element in those basses and I think this generally continues to be the case in many graphite necked instruments.

With neck throughs I think a little give has to be built into the neck of the bass through the selection of neck woods and the fingerboard plays a greater role in providing stiffness (assuming no graphite reinforcement). Additional stiffness might be why upright basses have such massive chunks of ebony for fingerboards. I think the consistency in a neck through design does create more consistent tonal character, but thats not attractive to everyone.

I think Ken Smith has been successful in designing in a little give into his neck-through basses which helps them sound warmer than most. That doesn't mean to say neck throughs are better than bolt ons, but what I've become aware of is just how very different they are as approaches not only in design and construction but also as far as wood selection goes.

The other thing is that the neck on an old (or at least well gigged) bass can tend to relax a little. An older neck can sort of bend into a slight permanent relief which means less string tension as the neck isn't pulling the strings as hard as it was when it was new. The lower string tension helps with getting more growl and I think that helps part-explain why older basses sound better and feel more supple. Again this can be designed into the neck and I think Ernie Ball do this when shaping their Stingray necks..

I would like to try a graphite necked bass with a body from softer, heavier wood like bubinga as I suspect the bubinga's tonal characteristics would help dampen a little of the graphite's brittleness while preserving mids and lows. But that also depends on how rigid the graphite neck is as well and the design of those is a dark art in itself from what I've been told and have read.

So, going back to body woods to finish off. My Smith 5s are nearly identical in construction APART from their body woods. Yet there are distinct if subtle differences in how they feel and sound. The maple core fretless 5 is less boomy than the mahogany cored fretted 5. The mahogany cored fretted 5 also has fatter lower mids too, but most of these differences aren't apparent at live performance volumes. The other thing is that some luthiers maintain that the species of wood matters less than factors such as its density, grain and moisture content. Its possible, so I've been told, to get a piece of soft ash that sounds similar to a piece of mahogany. But the problem for us as players and customers is finding a luthier who can specify wood according to a predictable tonal response. Until that happens (if ever) specifying a custom bass is always going to involve a leap of faith to some degree.

[Lfalex v1.1]

CK's definitely on the right track with his thoughts on the Vigiers
(I own one, too, y'know!)

I also agree with the comments about Hard Maple necks on Alder or Ash bodies. These are common choices on many production instruments.
It goes further still though;

Maple Body (longitudinal 2 piece) / Wenge Neck (Warwick Streamer LX 6 - Bolt on)
Zebrano Body (horizontal 2 piece. chambered) / Ovangkol neck (Warwick Infinity 4 - Glued Neck)
Maple Body (3 piece) / Hard Maple Neck (Squier 70's VMJ - Bolt on)

Are all great.

My latest acquisition is an Ibanez Ergodyne. That has a one piece body in PLASTIC. (Maple neck, Rosewood fretboard)
It lacks the warmth of a wooden instrument, but has excellent tonal definition. It does sound oddly strangled above about the 14th fret on the E and A strings, though. Chuck in a good pair of pick-ups and a good EQ (which they did), and the result is a super instrument for what they used to cost (about £350)
I got mine 2nd-hand for £80. Would be brutal with a Graphite neck/Phenolic board!

Similarly, the Infinity would be Hardcore personified with a Wenge neck in place of the Ovangkol one!

[Beedster]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='78664' date='Oct 24 2007, 09:04 AM']My latest acquisition is an Ibanez Ergodyne. That has a one piece body in PLASTIC.[/quote]

Interesting stuff above guys, thanks.
Re the plastic bass, I recently picked up a Precision body routed for P and J PUPs on the bay, the intention being to build a practice fretless. It arrived and pretty much floated out of the box, so I assumed it was plastic (it's extremely tough so not a cheap light wood). I put on a BADASS and a fretless maple/rosewood neck and, even unplugged, it sang, beautiful resonance. I was going to put cheap PUPs in but will be using SDs. Given that weight is so often an issue for bass player, I'm surprised more basses aren't plastic.
Chris

[MB1]

[quote name='Sibob' date='Oct 23 2007, 04:37 PM' post='78394']
So I'm just interested in what difference (sound, structural etc etc) it makes when a bass body is made up from a number of different pieces of wood!?

What would the characteristic differences be between say a 4 piece body and a 1 piece body?

Cheers
Si

MB1.

nothing more resonant than a good dollop of wood glue?.......Larrrrrrrrrrrvely!.........Milky,Milky!

[chris_b]

I know someone who has a real, working bass made out of leggo (it has a steel frame), so I guess that makes it a 2000 piece body. Mind you, it plays, feels and sounds crap!!

[Sibob]

Weren't the Ergodynes made from Luthite? Remember picking a couple up a few years ago and them being far from light!?

Si

[MB1]

[quote name='Sibob' date='Oct 24 2007, 02:39 PM' post='78861']
Weren't the Ergodynes made from Luthite? Remember picking a couple up a few years ago and them being far from light!?

Si

MB1.

Is luthite not used for kitchen unit tops?

[Sibob]

Maybe it is

But the Ergodynes were definitely made from it!

Si

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='MB1' post='79446' date='Oct 25 2007, 04:47 PM'][quote name='Sibob' post='78861' date='Oct 24 2007, 02:39 PM']
Weren't the Ergodynes made from Luthite? Remember picking a couple up a few years ago and them being far from light!?

Si

MB1.

Is luthite not used for kitchen unit tops?[/quote]
[/quote]
That'd be [i]Medite[/i]! (which is similar to MDF)
Luthite is a plastic not a million miles removed from the resin from which bowling balls are manufactured.

Yup, it's quite hefty for its size, but the balance is good, and it sounds good but "different". Like it's been put through a mixing desk before it actually has... Very "Hifi" but a bit sterile.
A set of DR FatBeams fixed the lack of character!
I can't help but think a graphite-necked one would be killer, if a bit extreme!

[Kiwi]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='79698' date='Oct 26 2007, 10:24 AM']That'd be [i]Medite[/i]! (which is similar to MDF)
Luthite is a plastic not a million miles removed from the resin from which bowling balls are manufactured.[/quote]
Bowling balls are manufactured from polycarbonate, so I understand. Really tough plastic that is also used on vandal resistant exterior light fittings. I've seen tests where someone's fired a shotgun at one of those lights and it took some pellets but never shattered or cracked.

[Beedster]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='79703' date='Oct 26 2007, 10:39 AM']Bowling balls are manufactured from polycarbonate, so I understand. Really tough plastic that is also used on vandal resistant exterior light fittings. I've seen tests where someone's fired a shotgun at one of those lights and it took some pellets but never shattered or cracked.[/quote]

So, let me get this thread straight, an Ibanez Ergodyne is potentialy useful if you're band's gigging in Baghdad?

[Sibob]

Man, we're giving those 'Home-Relic' enthusiasts some real dangerous ideas!!



Si

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='Beedster' post='79844' date='Oct 26 2007, 03:49 PM']So, let me get this thread straight, an Ibanez Ergodyne is potentialy useful if you're band's gigging in Baghdad? [/quote]

It is heavy enough to bludgeon people effectively with, yes.
Not that I've tried!

[Musky]

I read something somewhere on the net about this in relation to vintage Fender guitars (it might have been the provide.net site), and it concluded that the number of pieces of wood used didn't make any difference to the sound.

My own view is that the quality of the wood used is likely to play a far greater part in the tone of an instrument, and that it's probably much easier to find two (or three) smaller pieces of quality timber than one big piece. I tend to think the whole "one piece' thing falls into the 'mojo' category.