durhamboy

Tonewood. A wood that produces a pleasing tone, (that being dependent on what tone profile is/was wanted) generally accepted to be more relevant to acoustic instruments, for example, rosewood back and sides to produce a dense sound reflective surface and spruce for the top to create a vibrating soundboard. A classic Martin might be Mahogany neck, ebony fretboard, rosewood back and sides and a spruce top. Pre about 1930ish it would be finished with shellac, later with nitrocellulose. In electric guitars and basses many of the same woods are used, plus a number that would not be traditional (at least to American big name makers). Ash, alder poplar, basswood and a few others aren't commonly used in acoustics. Leo Fender made his first guitar prototypes with pine bodies, but switched to ash because pine got damaged too easily, (though pine bodies, especially for Tele type guitars has become popular in recent years) his necks were always maple in the early years, added rosewood fret boards appeared after several years of production. So generally guitar and bass tonewoods will be timbers which produce a defined tap tone and a degree of sustain. The thump of damp cardboard wouldn't be the sort of sound we're after. While some woods, ash, mahogany etcetera, are regarded as "standards", in reality any well dried/seasoned wood with a decent tap tone will work, whether they all provide a tone we might want, or have become accustomed to, will only be apparent once the instrument is made. Does any of that mean that a vintage instrument will be better than a new one? Possibly not, wood is a natural product, trees grow under different conditions, one piece of a particular species may be denser, lighter, harder grown, younger or older than another when it goes into an instrument. Years won't change that, though the wood may be exposed to various environmental conditions which might have an effect. (Years of temperature fluctuation, changing humidity levels and climatic conditions, which may add up to degrees of cellular change, for better or worse.) Is an old piece of mediocre wood going to be better for being old, or better than a top grade piece of newly seasoned and dried wood? My first electric guitars and basses were made from Tasmanian native timbers, myrtle, mountain ash and blackwood, because I was in Tasmania at the time and it was in the 1970's, no internet or ebay and sourcing mahogany, maple, rosewood etcetera was very difficult. These days many guitar and bass builders use a variety of timbers, that Leo and the old Gibson builders would never have considered, yet good to great sounding instruments are produced from them. There are other factors to be consider besides tone, when selecting suitable timbers for instruments, the stability of the wood once cut and dried, it's resistance or otherwise to splitting, checking, or the degree of shrinkage which might occur are all factors along with weight and durability. (eg. A dense hard wood for a fretless base fingerboard, as opposed to an easily worn and gouged soft wood.) Mahogany is considered to have a "warmer" tone than ash, and alder is described as a good all round, sort of middle compromise, (poplar, likewise sort of middle range) while maple is very bright. Warmoth used to have a list of the woods they offered necks and bodies in with a tone rating from warm to bright. I don't know if it is still on their website, but it might be worth a look. Regardless of how we hear or don't hear tonal differences, the debate about whether different timbers and finishes actual make much difference to the sound an amplified instrument makes will go on as long as there are musicians to hear, or think they hear, them. For me, given pickups, strings, bridges, electric, all the same I believe I can hear differences at low volume, in a close environment between distinctly different timbers, (home recording or practicing) listening to a band at high volume, with effects, ambient room acoustics etcetera, I doubt it. As I only apply finishes as thinly as possible to provide a protective coating, I don't think there is much difference between them. My personal preference is for shellac and oil finishes, but that has as much to do with the feel I prefer, plus a consideration for years of accumulated exposure to environmental and industrial pollution as well as carcinogenic compounds in paints and varnishes, particularly in nitrocellulose. I hope at least some of my rambling thoughts add something to your information base.

When I started building and repairing guitars back in the late '70's brass nuts and bridges were all the go and I used to make my own from brass rod. They are relatively time consuming to cut, shape and file, but all nuts made from scratch require some time, brass just takes a bit longer. These days for electric guitars and basses I use Graphtec nuts unless someone requests bone, or some other material. I don't think I've ever seen a Graphtec nut that's broken under normal conditions, they are pretty tough.

Great work. Love your inventiveness.

Thanks for the welcome guys. I'm sure I'll enjoy it here. Seems like a nice atmosphere with lots of helpful discussion. 6feet7, I hope you enjoy your visit next year, I'm sure you will. I've been here since I was 16 and while I have fond memories of Britain, but guess nearly 50 years here makes me an Aussie.

I bought my first bass in the early 70's and built my first one in 1981, though haven't played bass since '82. Though I've built and repaired/customised guitars ever since, it's only now at retirement I'm getting back into playing bass and building basses. I feel like I have some huge gaps to fill in terms o bass playing an modern bass technology, so having checked out Basschat several times, here I am saying hello.