ARGH

Maybe everyone should read the whole interview with Thunes (in Wictors book)...before painting him as bitter... Thing is,how many of us are fulltime workers...a ton less that 'Casual hobbyists' (I love AJ) on here... And if we actually gave as much as classical musicians do to study and practise,we would all be a hell of a lot better. Yeah I know we dont play Wagner,or Mozart,but if we approached our instrument with the same dilligent mindset,I dont think we'd be having time to post on here,navally dissing something so few of us can actually do.

[quote name='Rich' post='437674' date='Mar 17 2009, 06:57 PM']No, you missed my point. What I was getting at was that with the viewpoint Jeff B appears to have, re: playing an instrument if you're not a reader or learning to read, means that Messrs. Karn and Palladino should not be playing at all. Which of course they can, and should be. It's not a case of "if it's good enough for [i]X[/i] it's good enough for me" at all.[/quote] Read a bit more JB Rich and you will realise that is utter crap.... And Thunes and Berlin are right,and I dont read well either.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdcrjTMNuCI&feature=channel_page"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdcrjTMNuCI...re=channel_page[/url]

Just been searching around..and Ive found out how little and biased the interview actually is in its edited form...In Wictors book it is practically half the book. A late night discussion with a buddy (at 3AM,it was lunch for him) and a root about reveals that Scott,is a man of many talents,and is still available...but dont try to add him on Facebook. This is him and a mate,and the kids.... [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcwbb_-yR4o&eurl=http://www.geoscott.com/index.shtml"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcwbb_-yR4o...com/index.shtml[/url] This man is an incredible musician,that has found happiness.

It still does not have that great an effect upon tone though....wood is so minimal.

Oh its alright.... Its ok to be wrong,good construction is a good thing,just dont think it actually is the greatest influence upon tone.

Look Alex...this is,like most things,going nowhere...just agree that Im right,you're wrong and all is good,yes?

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='437357' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:57 PM']No its not It's physics.[/quote] I was being a git I wonder what the equation of a Bass note being created is...

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='437341' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:47 PM']Oh good, so for the sake of enjoying this rare moment of consensus, how about we completely forget that the metal is attached to wood which in itself has a resonant frequency that differs to metal and might otherwise influence the way in which the metal vibrates thereby making the whole argument inconveniently messy and complicated? [/quote] Its all in the hands man

[quote name='alexclaber' post='437277' date='Mar 17 2009, 01:57 PM']Transparency is not an opinion. It means accurate reproduction of the source. A large hotwound humbucker will filter out so much of the higher harmonics that you hear a blinkered view of the instrument - that is not transparent. My '87 Warwick wearing tapewounds has more aggressive mids and highs than most Fenders with stainless steel rounds. Unplugged. And plugged in even more so due to the EMGs. If strings are more important than construction how can that be the case? If you think only a small amount of vibration goes into (and out of) the wood then either you have a problem with the nerves in your hands and abdomen, you've only ever played really bad instruments or you're being deeply unobservant. Alex[/quote] I refer to transparent to the context you write it..its hypothetical,its an opinion..if you want to talk about pre-amps..colouring sound,thats not what the convos on about..its about wood affecting tone and that influence...I say its minimal,and P/U's,scale and string choice,and style of play govern that to a far greater extent. Compared to the actual string,the ratio of body vibration in affection is miniscule. And a magnetic P/U isnt made to pick that up,if you want thump,as in a slap,ok,theres some need for vibration,I can see that but excess vibration would cause feedback. Change the P/u's or the strings brand or guages and everythings different. Played through a different rig,everythings different again,and thats not the wood creating that. Transmission of vibration from wood to string to what is audible,is pretty much dead once the fret is touched and in reverse clamped to the bridge saddle....wood WILL affect tone if you play fretless,but that then is affected by finish..and thats still not the wood. If you had mass vibration you would have a deadspot and wolftone crazy instrument that would be near unplayable. Play an upright,then you learn about vibration,I do....

"I A/B'd two stingrays with different anchoring and they sounded the same to me. I've also made one post where I described at length my experiences of the two systems but someone's deleted the thread from what I can see and not put it on wiki. I really can't be arsed typing it all out again apart from saying the string vibrates between two points - the nut and the saddle. What happens either side of that is largely irrelevant. All IMO of course." Pretty much correct,although a small amount of vibration will go into the string anchor and beyond the nut,maybe bring wood into the picture a little more,but what matters is metal vibrating over magnet.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='436944' date='Mar 17 2009, 10:01 AM']If a bass doesn't sound good unplugged then no amount of electronics will save it. I would never claim that "wood X sounds like Y" because the system is too complex and interactive. But the tone starts with how you pluck a string and then how that string vibrates due to how it is supported and how energy flows between the string and the instrument. If your bass has a big mudbucker up by the neck and you play through an overdriven valve rig then the wood choices matter very little, save them being of sufficient neck rigidity and body resonance to have some tone. If your bass has reasonably transparent pickups like nice single coils or more fancy ones like Alembic, Wal or Q-Tuners, and you tend to DI through a reasonably transparent preamp/DI when you're recording then the wood choices make a lot more difference. So although getting hung up on the tone of exotic woods is futile, it is very important not to forget the importance of construction in the tone of a bass - that's what makes some cheap basses sound fantastic and some sound totally blah. If one has a stiff neck and a resonant body it can sound fantastic even if it costs hardly anything. But then pick up another one where the neck doesn't have that rigidity and the body is just dead sounding when you tap it and the tone will be disastrous. And it's the ability to choose the right pieces of wood and the QC to make sure they result in the right tone that sets apart something like a Sadowsky from a Squier. But try enough Squiers and you will probably get lucky and find one with as good an unplugged tone as a Sadowsky (though it may not feel so nice to play!) and that's when aftermarket electronics prove their worth. Alex[/quote] I can hear what you are saying Alex,but a quantity is bunkum.... I have never,or has anyone bought a solidbody instrument,on its acoustic,unplugged sound alone,I know some reviewers of instruments will talk and write about an unplugged instruments 'sound' but its hokum,its opinion,it differs..thats hard truth..its differs......and after market add-ons WILL make any instrument better,if you like the sound they produce...I still cant fathom why single coils are still in existance,due to the inert failure in the design (the hum) yes they have a pleasing sound to some,but the sonic costs make them redundant. (thats my opinion) 'Transparent' is an opinion,as a word,my idea of 'Transparent' will be different to yours,will different to the next guy,will be different to the next person etc etc...take any instrument,change the P/U from a Bart to a Nordy to whatever,each will sound different. Acoustic properties only matter if you want an acoustic instrument,thats when wood choice matters..... My point is the who-ha that people get on about a wood is THIS sound,its pish,unlike when you get a P/U you can actually test it and say 'Yes it produces this tone'......How many here have radically upped their guage of string and found a bassier,deeper,heavier sound...thats physics,both in the way the string behaves over the P/U..and its amount of metal doing so...another thing that can be proven by science. You cannot do that with wood. I would say string construction has,probably,a bigger affection on tone over wood.... Wood,is because there isnt much else to build a Bass with...save polymers and graphite,at least not in any practical reaches of the imagination.... Some makers here,used Graphite rods,in necks,it increases the stiffness,but does it affect tone,hey they've removed wood...can anyone tell the difference....isnt that bad they have removed wood?? Isnt that bad wood choice,because they had to do that? yes/no? Yes there is an n'th of tone from wood,but it does not rule nor matter as much as a quality P/U and string choice...bridge construction,or where the string is plucked. A player sounds like the player they are,be it on a J or a Ricky or a Warwick or a P.....A is A regardless of how its produced.

One word lads..and its a love or hate em affair..... BURNS

[quote name='alexclaber' post='436429' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:37 PM']The great thing about this is that ARGH can buy all those basses that sound really hopeless, put nice electronics in them, and sell them for a fortune because they'll sound amazing. Alex[/quote] Its what the replacement part industry (Badass,DiMarzio,EMG etc) was founded upon Alex

[quote name='Lew-Bass' post='436807' date='Mar 17 2009, 12:23 AM']Thanks alot to the guys bringing the thread back on course, and to the others for such an interesting read! I didn't intend to spark a debate.. I've had a look on the smith bass website as suggested, and the woods that best fit my description (I ment a low, heavy-sounding growl if that makes any sense?) are cocobolo, lacewood and ovankol. Does that sound right to you guys? :S Also, maybe I'm mistaken but I've seen zebrano as a core wood?[/quote] In theory you can have anything as a core or a top,it just depends on if the maker can actually get the stuff...and is willing to work it into what you want,something like Zebrano,is going to be harder to work with,though not impossible,compared to Mahogany,or Maple......weight might be an issue to,but there isnt a hard/fast rule on what is going to be heavy,what is going to be light in weight and ease or difficulty to work with. If you are trying to recreate that Fender P,low mid thing that takes your guts out,then dont worry too much about the wood,but get the P P/U in the right place and strings through the body,the rest is really aesthetic.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='436528' date='Mar 16 2009, 07:33 PM']You know its not sounding amazing that makes basses worht a fortune, its having Fender written on them.[/quote]

[quote name='Lew-Bass' post='435738' date='Mar 16 2009, 03:34 AM']Which ones do you reckon look the best, and provide a nice growly warm tone? And what are your woods of choice? Pics appreciated [/quote] Sorry Lew.... What do you mean by a warm tone?...Its its looks you want Ive made my suggestions,and posted what I like,sorry you have had to wade through a ton of guff over what constitutes tone...or rather its origin...I hope it made for entertaining reading. Go with your ears and eyes...theres a lot of instruments out there,and a lot of ways to play them...worry more about the construction,playability and parts and QC over the aesthetics of an instrument,what you like will be one mans love and another mans yuk!!! The smith Basses site has a whole index and pics on woods,and what Ken believes them to make in affection in regards to tone.... Good luck I hope you find what you want...

Peter please stop posting that pic,one day I swear Im gonna see it sans coaster....

[quote name='mathewsanchez' post='436444' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:47 PM']I remember there was a test on EB forums where they recorded two sound samples of the same bass with different necks (both necks were EBMM sterling necks though), one maple fingerboard the other rosewood. People guessed which was which and as I remember, when the answer was announced, most people got it right (including me). The difference was very subtle but definately there. I think it's stupid to say woods have no impact on tone as that's clearly not true, but I think wood differences can be very subtle or very apparent. After all a basses sound is just the sum of all the materials used and how they're put together. Different materials have different resonant qualities - fact.[/quote] Totally,but you cant just whitewash wood with a statement like Maple is THIS type of tone,It might be,it could be,but can you be sure,...and thats when taste comes in.

[quote name='GreeneKing' post='436434' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:43 PM']I think that's a very fair comment but, the two luthiers I've spoken to on the subject give the wood about a 10 to 15% influence on the 'tone' as a maximum. So maybe it does have a small effect, and if you're shelling out for a custom instrument then 15% would be significant. When combined with wood mass, neck construction, pickups, strings and pre-amp it will become considerably significant. Then going back to the argument that most punters don't know their 4 string P from their 6 string Yamaha it's only likely to be us who care anyway. As I've said before, coffee table woods have their uses: [/quote] Come 10:30pm..if you could mic up a fart in a pint glass and it was roughly in tune,punters wouldnt notice...But some bassists on here would argue over the pints construction,and the type of fart bred....

[quote name='alexclaber' post='436422' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:33 PM']I think the only person that believes that wood is the be all and end all of tone is the mythical creature that ARGH is arguing with. The rest of us have enough sense to realise that everything contributes to varying degrees. Alex[/quote] Re read..I agree it is in there...but its not to the extent you think it is...

[quote name='Rich' post='436427' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:35 PM']So if I played three basses all strung with DRs and all fitted with EMGs, they'd sound the same whether they were made of mahogany, ebony or balsa. Hell, why does it have to be wood if it has so little impact? So they'd sound the same if they were made of mahogany, ebony, balsa, concrete, fibreglass or jelly babies. Rrrrrright. Finally I see.[/quote] No Rich....Its about saying 'THIS' WOOD MAKES 'THIS' TONE!!

[quote name='alexclaber' post='436426' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:35 PM']Did you ever do any of those things called 'comprehensions' at school? Where you learn to read something and comprehend what it's actually saying... Alex[/quote] read the op

[quote name='chris_b' post='436420' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:32 PM']Quite possibly, but to ARGH that's not proof enough![/quote] Because it isnt,its about 'A' wood makes 'A' type of sound.....quit nitpicking Alex,you are wrong.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='436401' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:13 PM']So you're saying it's not the wood?[/quote] Not to the amount some people want to believe.