Ou7shined

[quote name='alstocko' timestamp='1339702436' post='1693102'] No he is not a luthier, but he does know a lot about basses. I'm going to leave it as it is as it was took in for an adjustment the other week an nothing was mentioned about this... [/quote] It's not Mark D Phillips by any chance is it?

Ooh is all gone a bit University Challenge since this afternoon. I'm about to dumb it down to Grange Hill on a good day so bear with me. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] Hi Ou7shined, hope you don't take umbrage if I reply to your points, I'd like to be clear that I'm bothering to do so because you are actually someone who thinks about how things work and does a good job of implementing it rather than just some numpty on the internet. So I have a lot of respect for both what you do with basses and for your opinion on them![/quote] Noted. Muchos grassy-arse. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] No I don't for three massively fundamental reasons: 1. It was an interesting demo but it did not address the question of whether wood can im impact upon audible tone. It just showed that two different pieces of wood from different species [i]can[/i] be made to sound very similar, itself an interesting thing but not the same at all. 'Can do' is not the same as 'always do, and formal logic spends a lot of time defining these fundamental differences in reasoning process from hypothesis to conclusion. So first up it addresses a different hypothesis to that usually debated.[/quote] Quite a coincidence that a rubbishy bit of crap from a substandard species declared by numerous suposed experts as being out with the acceptable range of consideration for the purpose let alone an experiment, sounded very similar to that of a member of an exclusive sub-sect. No? I think it's a shame to dismiss the guy's experiment because of semantics when our ears (our most fundimental tool as musicians) tell us the experiment was a sucsess. It wasn't "made" to sound like it at all. Apart from anything the material was selected entirely at random. The simple fact remains that it ended up yielding similar tonal results to an established tone species (plus it cost a lot less ... and was more environmentally friendly) which was in direct contravention to what the tonewood guys said it should have been. Seen from the point of view of a non believer the test results weren't about "the same" it was about "the opposite" ie disproving. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] 2. In science controls and controlled conditions are essential. Neither the 'test bed' nor the original body had any characterisation of their physical properties, and there is consequently no means of comparison to general phyiscal properties of wood to see where these examples would fit on the curve. This might seem like a quibble but it's absolutely key. Why is that?... 3. Because the only way to do this even vaguely successfully without actual measurement info on the wood to compare to already know material variation, would be to take more samples using a lot more species of wood and to maintain a consistent plank size each time. You cannot draw any conclusion whatsoever from a total sample size of two. That's why even the ropiest statistical tests require n of at least 3 per comparison group before they can even be employed with validity, let alone accuracy. A methodologically identical analogy to that demo would be to record two bird calls from two different birds we happen to hear. Suppose they sound essentially the same, do you conclude that all birds always sound the same? Of course not, we haven't addressed that question at all. Similarly we can't conclude from a sample size of two that smoking doesn't case cancer. So, we can't test every piece of wood but really we don't need to, as long as we have sufficient information about population distributions of relevant physical properties of woods we can use statistical methods. However, 'relevant physical properties' requires that we have a model of how a note is generated, which itself requires using material vibrational analysis based on very old and well-characterised physics (physical modelling synthesis would be based on exactly this type of approach). [/quote] If a paper were to be written on the subject or a cure was being sought then yes (although I reject your bird analogy on the basis that we all have prior practical knowledge of birds (basses) and would never make such fundamental errors - as with the smoking one in conjunction with your "can do" "always will do" argument [i]"I'm 104 you know... and I've smoked 60 a day since I was 12")... [/i]but this is just a bunch of bass nerds discussing something that most punters can't hear and indeed I'm convinced a fair number of bass nerds can't either. I believe for it's purpose this experiment was fine. I imagine that if the experiment had been performed in front of most [color=#000000]naysayers[/color] and not relayed to them over the internet from some distant corner of the globe that they would be more sympathetic to the outcome. Of course a more definitive and refined result could be found with a greater test base.. but it was by far the most scientific experiment I have seen carried out to date and completely trounced longstanding arguments such as "my eyes tell me rosewood is dark, therefore the tone is dark / maple is light in colour therefore the tone is brighter". [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794']I ncidentally the quality of measurement, ie our ears from a lo-fi clip on the internet assessing someone else's playing rather than any consistent mechanical input, is yet another matter but that is a limitation in execution rather than a flaw in methodology...[/quote] And limitation which can be applied equally to both clips therefore on balance, quite fair. If it were an experiment demoing the reproduction of an isolated sequence instead of a comparison we'd definitely be scaling excremental waters minus a suitable means of propulsion but that's not what this is about. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794'] I just don't understand what you mean by 'another matter'. Tone (timbre actually but we all say tone) is dictated [i]entirely[/i] by the total harmonic content at the beginning of a note and the way these harmonics decay over time. Your ears are fourier analysers, efectively breaking the complex waveform up into component sine wave harmonics and then your brain reassembles that into 'tone'. The 'dead spot' neck resonance is altering decay of particular low harmonics which on other notes have a longer decay curve. This is [i]exactly[/i] the same as tone/timbre it's just a very obvious example because it alters the lower end of the harmonic spectrum and in a way that is position-dependent on the instrument. [/quote] So in conclusion this thread should be entitled "Need advice about timbre timber..." (to be honest I'm awfully tired and my brain hurts trying to workout what you are saying here) [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339689040' post='1692794']Despite everything I've posted I don't actually believe that subtle nuances of 'tonewood' ARE critical [i]at all, [/i]and certainly not by species, because guitar makes have already preselected materials based on certain mechanical constraints and very likely with a high degree of overlap between species. Nonetheless you probably could measure differences and show broad species correlations if you took enough samples, there'd just be a lot of noise ie a high degree of overlap. Eg you might be able to predict maple v rosewood for instance, 55% of the time - so better than chance but not by much. I would agree with the final practical conclusion 'don't worry about it, just make sure it's built properly'! [/quote] Agreed.

[quote name='scojack' timestamp='1339680911' post='1692579']... the customer will hear exactly what they want to hear and not necessarily be entirely objective ...... [/quote] Yup been guilty of that too. Then I did my own experiments (non of which will be scientific enough to be open for debate on an internet forum) and proved myself wrong.

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339680220' post='1692555']...They are both right. They are making their basses the way that gets the sound and instrument they want to build. But if Alembic has to go through a construction process that specifically makes their basses tonally neutral then that has to mean that wood does affect the tone of a bass. [/quote] And what of the manufactures, some of whom are the most successful in the world, who pay little heed to this phenomenon (other than the lips service they pay to those who demand attention to the fact that their hearing is better than others) and still produce laudable instruments? [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339680268' post='1692558'] Hmm, speaking with my scientist hat on, I have never seen anything even vaguely scientific that properly tests whether wood can effect the tone of an electric instrument or not (yup, including that talkbass thread).[/quote] So as a scientist, you find nothing "vaguely scientific" about taking specific components from a control bass, putting them on a test bed subject (in this case a pine plank body), recording the resultant output, then returning said components to the control bass, recording the resultant output under identical conditions, then allowing a random selection of the general bass playing public an opportunity to identify which bass is which? Right. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339680268' post='1692558']....Seen plenty of papers looking at acoustic instruments which provide convincing evidence that it does, but not solid-body instruments. [/quote] I wonder why. I doubt there is a player or builder alive who would dispute that the choice of woods are essential for acoustic instruments. Electric instruments however "read" and reproduce the string vibrations in a different way. [quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339680268' post='1692558'].... I know I can be a bit of a broken record with this particular argument but people often point to this or that as 'proof'/'facts' etc but the objective data simply isn't out there - especially not in that talkbass thread. I always point to dead spots on a neck which is an entirely acoustic phenomenon, dictated by mechanical resonance in the neck and body. I am genuinely baffled as to why that alone doesn't serve as adequate demonstration that wood is a factor in how the string vibrates and therefore the sound of the instrument, and that this can at least under certain circumstances be significantly audible. [/quote] Dead spots are a different matter to tone. They are concerned with inherent physical, inaudible vibrations of the base material. Tone is what carries the music. If you can produce some empirical evidence to the contrary of that which I am being pressed to argue then that's the thread over. A conclusion I'd gladly welcome. edited for clarification and syntax errors... been huffing nitro today and missed a proof read.

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339676989' post='1692481'] The main views are that woods can and do make a difference to the tone of an electric bass and that they certainly do not! Apparently most people know that wood makes no difference at all. I'd call that a generalisation! As usual on BC one side of the argument is being shouted down by the other. Michael Tobias states his view very clearly. Break out your biggest megaphone. He can't be shouted down as easily. [/quote] I ain't shouting buddy. I'm merely saying what I see because I feel it's relevant to the discussion. (Surly I have that right? ) Perhaps Mr Tobias has a vested interest in siding with this opinion? Especially when (as in that vid) he declares that all his products are built identical except for the woods - it would be financial suicide to say otherwise. He also admits that his method statement or vision is the polar opposite to another very well known and equally respected custom maker. Who's right? As I said the times they are a changin' and the punters are getting smarter.

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339676123' post='1692459'] OK, then, I guess you haven't anything to back up the vague [s]facts[/s] assertions in your post. [/quote] Not at all mate. I'm at work. May I respectfully point you in the same direction you did the OP at the start of this thread? Either that or I could have my dissertation on your desk first thing Monday morning. Seriously though I would have thought that as you're just as much an active member of the internet bass community as myself, you would have come across the same articles on the subject that I and many others had (for eg. there was a big game changer on TB - pine plank vs Fender bass). The truth is out there my friend... if you're ready to accept it.

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339674034' post='1692387'] That's all very vague. References and evidence please. [/quote] yeah ok.

[quote name='apa' timestamp='1339659543' post='1691993'] But are you talking about the necks as well or just their emmental hardware? Because I would say the two are like chalk and............. well you know the rest A [/quote] I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of one of their necks, so it wouldn't be fair to comment... however anything I have bought through them has at best been ... how best to say it ... adequate? Hey they sell budget parts. I have used Dr Parts ones in the past - some were good, some bad but once I'd done a bit of remedial on them they came out fine. Maybe that'll be the case with these.

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1339583476' post='1690834'] That's for cleaning the fretboard, right? [/quote] [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1339672393' post='1692337'] What Michael Tobias has to say on the subject. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQy4jyf-Yps[/media] [/quote] That vid was uploaded 4 years ago. Since then the bass community has forced several controlled and impartial (as good as it can get under the circumstances) tests which have disproved the notion that an electric bass relies on the wood for tone. Most people now accept that the whole maple/rosewood argument holds little credence, a year or two ago that definitely wasn't the case. Pretty soon the truth about tonewood will reach critical mass too. There are no reasons not to select woods for aesthetic or practical reasons though.

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339598773' post='1691221'] Do they not remind you of the ones Fender used to use maybe even Ibanez . [/quote] Haha aye. Actually I'd pay the extra for genuine Fenders over theirs any day.

All round cheap and cheerful. You get what you pay for. I've vowed never to by any crumbly screws off them ever again... they seem to make them out of silver coated cheese.

Kettle's on min.

Also Google snake oil

[quote name='Hamster' timestamp='1339577518' post='1690683'] It's always a judgement call about closing a thread, and I'm not saying my judgement is always spot on (I once bought an Ashdown cab ffs!) The thread in question was about gear not selling, so several pages of Tim jokes was far enough off-topic ...[/quote] I'll defend against censorship or when the right to choose is taken away from the individual... but I also stand by the fact that the site rules are paramount, and it was definitely 100% off topic (I think the topic was actually questioning the validity of a classified section on this site). Maybe a cautionary nudge back on topic would have felt less reactionary. However, it would be hard to deny that the thread had become TIM based and there was no debate at all as only one person from thousands (depite having the majority of his posts there) felt that a classified section on this forum was a waste of TI... er sorry ... time, therefore the asinine rant and the thread itself was, as we all knew moot. I can live with it's demise. The thread is dead. Long live TIM.

I personally felt at the time that the censorship of that thread was a tad unnecessary (couldn't care one way or another now like) as the TIM joke has evolved beyond bashing a particularly silly rant, into an established BC meme. I could understand if the OP had pulled the plug on it as we don't all have the same ability to laugh at ourselves. But if there are some Mary Whitehouses out there that feel the need to report such things just because they don't get the joke then yeah on that basis it was unnecessary.

[quote name='Mr Fretbuzz' timestamp='1339530065' post='1690088'] An hour ago with my new P Bass ...and a photo of one of my Harleys..its all part of the Rock n Roll image but since I took up Bass in January I've only done about 100 miles [/quote] Sweet 70's inspired hardtail chop.

Cool, although I hoped a moment that we might get to see one of those ultra rare ones... still it's good that you got the original in the sale too. I use them on many of my basses - set up correctly they are a godsend.

Mmmm. Very nice. Is that a MM extender or a Hipshot one?

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1339499278' post='1689260'] Almost there... [/quote] I think you got a green one going to the wrong spot.

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1339497728' post='1689219'] Nothing to tell, you know of all my recent and in-progress transactions [/quote] And you know mine. We still on for a wee A/B sesh tha morn?

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1339253237' post='1685943'] I'd be tempted to try and rescue that if I wasn't about to buy other stuff. [/quote] Oh aye? Spill the beans. .... or is it the one I already know about?

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339166485' post='1684755'] Mr Phillips got a new Ebay ID [/quote] It's hard to say... can't quite see the nut from that angle.

Re-listed with a 100 bucks off [url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230807117908&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:GB:1123"]http://cgi.ebay.co.u...ME:B:SS:GB:1123[/url]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1339495550' post='1689170'] And check that the Moog electronics haven't been removed. That seems to have been a popular mod on these instruments. [/quote] You could knock one up if it was missing

Needless to say but... Sha-wing! Pricey like. The gold straplocks are a bit meh too.