With apologies! Tone from maple board versus tone from rosewood board.....?

[ahpook]

Does it matter if the floorboards are stained or painted ?

[gary mac]

[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1429260811' post='2749702']
I think some sort of test of this is on the cards for the hearts bash.
[/quote]

We did that last year, with a blind testing type set up. Can't remember the outcome now but seem to recall that I got the highest score for guessing which was maple and which was rosewood. Have to be honest though and say, it was probably more luck than judgement

[Chiliwailer]

[quote name='gary mac' timestamp='1429265010' post='2749771']
I got the highest score for guessing which was maple and which was rosewood. Have to be honest though and say, it was probably more luck than judgement
[/quote]

I'd have to agree with that mate, as FinnDave says, they all sound the same in the dark! It's harder to tell when the constants change, like pickups, body, strings etc.

Though to some players, the neck wood does make a difference to the way they get on with the bass or guitar, I've had that experienced many a time myself.

[Beedster]

[quote name='Chiliwailer' timestamp='1429263880' post='2749753']
Hang on..,,,you thinking of moving on either the Pino or 55?????? Gasp...
[/quote]

Possibly Dan, the '55 is THAT good, and I'm really not sure I need it and the Pino (don;t get me wrong, they're both equally good, it's just that I was expecting the Pino to be outstanding so it didn't surprise me, the '55 did). To be honest, I bought the '55 as a stopgap ahead of the Pino arriving thinking I would probably sell it once the Pino came. As is often the way, the Pino came a lot sooner than I thought it would, in fact FCS delivered spot on the original delivery date as opposed to 6 months later that I had anticipated. However, selling the Pino would leave me with only maple boarded basses (well expect an old Jazz, but Jazzes aren't [i]proper [/i]basses are they ), hence in part this thread, the other part being my constant battle with my brain over whether I can actually hear a difference in tone between certain basses or whether I am actually projecting it! Or whether any of it really matters anyway

[Beedster]

[quote name='Chiliwailer' timestamp='1429265222' post='2749774']
I'd have to agree with that mate, as FinnDave says, they all sound the same in the dark! It's harder to tell when the constants change, like pickups, body, strings etc.

Though to some players, the neck wood does make a difference to the way they get on with the bass or guitar, I've had that experienced many a time myself.
[/quote]

Yep, I think preference in feeling leads to projection of tone amongst some of us. I much prefer the feel of a maple board, just feels cleaner and more precise, so I wonder if I'm also hearing a more clean precise tone?

BTW the study I'm planning on running would be in an anechoic chamber with no light at all. When the door closes on you it's a pretty weird feeling!

[Chiliwailer]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1429265349' post='2749778']


Possibly Dan, the '55 is THAT good, and I'm really not sure I need it and the Pino (don;t get me wrong, they're both equally good, it's just that I was expecting the Pino to be outstanding so it didn't surprise me, the '55 did). To be honest, I bought the '55 as a stopgap ahead of the Pino arriving thinking I would probably sell it once the Pino came. As is often the way, the Pino came a lot sooner than I thought it would, in fact FCS delivered spot on the original delivery date as opposed to 6 months later that I had anticipated. However, selling the Pino would leave me with only maple boarded basses (well expect an old Jazz, but Jazzes aren't [i]proper [/i]basses are they ), hence in part this thread, the other part being my constant battle with my brain over whether I can actually hear a difference in tone between certain basses or whether I am actually projecting it! Or whether any of it really matters anyway
[/quote]

i understand that dilemma. I wish I didn't have to of sold the 55, but out of my basses the 55 and my Lull P4 were too similar, though competely different if that makes sense?! (I have a Jazz and a Modulus so they are poles apart from the Lull and 55). I really wish I could have kept the 55 for playing blues, country, southern rock type stuff and then the Lull for soul and RnB. But, either bass could do all those genres anyway so one of them had to go, the Lull being the better suited to my back and neck conditions made the decision for me. I had no say in the matter!

Impossible to compare the 55 and Pino though. Super light ash body (deep subs) versus alder, rosewood versus maple, split pickup versus stacked single..... The Pino would easily be more versatile, but the 55 has that something unique and huge about it. Gutted I couldn't have kept the 55 as it offered so much that other basses don't have and can't do but such is life.

I don't think maple v rosewood comes into this one?

[Chiliwailer]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1429265575' post='2749779']


Yep, I think preference in feeling leads to projection of tone amongst some of us. I much prefer the feel of a maple board, just feels cleaner and more precise, so I wonder if I'm also hearing a more clean precise tone?

[/quote]

That's exactly what I hear, as well as the extra attack on the note, which is why I always loved maple P Bssses but never Jazzes. I recently changed my rosewood Tele for a maple one, got exactly what I was after in the tone dept.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Chiliwailer

[bubinga5]

does anyone think there are too many variables for anyone to make a solid judgment.? even pickups with the same bass, or even body wood density. i could be wrong. i do know pickup winds have a huge effect on the way a bass sounds.

i also think the lacquer on a neck (front and back) on a 70's jazz bass, has more of a difference to tone, than the difference between the un lacquered maple neck and its rosewood counterpart.

i appreciate the views and ears of other members and the OP.. but as always, I'm all ears.

Edited April 17, 2015 by bubinga5

[Chiliwailer]

[quote name='bubinga5' timestamp='1429266274' post='2749787']
does anyone think there are too many variables for anyone to make a solid judgment.?
[/quote]

I hear you.

I'd have to state that each wood has its own characteristic, though the variables create the overall tone so I competely get what you're saying. Keep the variables constant, then maple v rosewood can become more apparent. That's what we did in our tests.

[Dood]

[quote name='Chiliwailer' timestamp='1429263777' post='2749749']
Hi Chris,

Whilst working in guitar shops I have done neck swap tests many a time...many a time! The best test is when its the same body with two necks, rather than two different basses entirely. In my experience, and with others around me too, we found there is a definite difference, no placebo, no question of what we heard. As a general rule of thumb, I found rosewood to be warmer or with more low mid range, maple has more attack.

We also did body wood swaps...but let's not even go there as I'm sure there are some that already want to lay into this post
[/quote]

I'd agree with this and the comment about Maple appear to accentuate 'clank'. The good kind of clank that is.

[Drax]

We need to run the official test so we can move the debate on to to strings, finger size, wind direction, etc.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Drax

[Beedster]

[quote name='dood' timestamp='1429266841' post='2749794']
I'd agree with this and the comment about Maple appear to accentuate 'clank'. The good kind of clank that is.
[/quote]

There's something I hear - I wouldn't call it clank, and I wouldn't call it grit - but it's a liveliness and energy in the tone, especially when moving across frets and especially on a Precision - that I just love, and which I seem to hear more on a maple board than rosewood when I'm playing. When I hear that tone on a recording, I can see a maple boarded Precision in my mind's eye, seriously!

I'm in an email chat with an expert in psychoacoustics between posts here, ideas for a controlled study of these questions are taking shape.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Beedster

[Beedster]

[quote name='Drax' timestamp='1429267511' post='2749803']
We need to run the official test so we can move the debate on to to strings, finger size, wind direction, etc.
[/quote]

Don't forget colour

[Chiliwailer]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1429267811' post='2749806']

When I hear that tone on a recording, I can see a maple boarded Precision in my mind's eye, seriously!
[/quote]

70's Pink Floyd does that to me every time!!

[BigRedX]

I would have thought that any difference in sound between a maple and rosewood board neck would be more down to the difference in construction of the two necks then the fact that the fingerboards are different woods.

IIRC Fender necks with maple boards are a single piece whilst the rosewood boards are obviously rosewood glued onto maple.

[Drax]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1429267811' post='2749806']

I'm in an email chat with an expert in psychoacoustics between posts here, ideas for a controlled study of these questions are taking shape.

[/quote]

This is going up a gear now. So what defines 'brightness' for a test - is frequencies / resonance ?

[Chiliwailer]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1429268064' post='2749813']
I would have thought that any difference in sound between a maple and rosewood board neck would be more down to the difference in construction of the two necks then the fact that the fingerboards are different woods.

IIRC Fender necks with maple boards are a single piece whilst the rosewood boards are obviously rosewood glued onto maple.
[/quote]

Indeed, more variables!!! Fender are mostly solid maple, with the odd maple cap reissue from CS if in they are late 60's if im not mistaken?

I think of acoustic guitars and how rosewood and mahogany back and sides sound different, how cedar, mahogany and spruce tops sound different. Demonstrates to me that different woods give off different tones. Back to you with the extra variables!

[Beedster]

[quote name='Drax' timestamp='1429268083' post='2749814']
This is going up a gear now. So what defines 'brightness' for a test - is frequencies / resonance ?
[/quote]

That's to be decided but with spectral analysis of the recorded sound there will be some means of contrasting what a musician perceives as differences in tone between two instruments with any actual differences in tone, and these in the context of what the musician believes they are hearing (vintage/modern, cheap/expensive etc). As Dan suggests above, the challenge is going to be adhering as far as possible to the core tenet of experimentation and holding all variables except that of interest stable (i.e., if we wanted to test maple versus rosewood boards we would have to make sure that both necks had the same mass, both fitted the same body equally well at the same height above the body/PUPs etc). Nothing in these types of studies is perfect!

But don't get confused here, the study I'm talking about doesn't really seek to identify the objective acoustic reality of any tonal difference, but the interaction of what we expect to hear with what we perceive we hear. The acoustic measures would be to ensure that we don't make the mistake of assuming that two different instruments sound different when played by the same player, or that the same instrument sounds the same in the hands of either two different players, or in the hands of the same player on two different occasions (e.g., one in which they believe it's a genuine pre-CBS, and one in which they believe it's a Squier). It won't be perfect of course, but it will provide some validity.

[40hz]

For whatever reason it may be, to my ears all the Maple boarded basses I've owned have definitely sound 'spankier' and more resonant.

[chris_b]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1429256104' post='2749641']
this theory was rejected by clearly quite knowledgable individuals

So if this is the case, why is it that all other things being equal, maple boards always sound brighter to my ears
[/quote]

Maybe they are not as knowledgeable as you or they think.

This is one of those questions that would never occur to me. I prefer rosewood for looks, but I just listen to the sound of the whole bass.

[LayDownThaFunk]

I think your strings would affect the tone more than the wood on the board.

[pfretrock]

[quote name='LayDownThaFunk' timestamp='1429271044' post='2749870']
I think your strings would affect the tone more than the wood on the board.
[/quote]
True, but the test is to use identical strings (and all other things!) on both necks. Let's hope the winding tension is identical (ie both sets are manufactured under identical conditions and are indistinguishable).
I've always assumed a laminated neck would be stiffer and therefore change the way in which it absorbed vibrations in a frequency dependent way. Which may explain why maple sounds brighter.
Thunderbird necks are 9 ply, so presumably very stiff. This may explain their low response, but I suspect the fat inductive humbucker has more influence.

[RandomBass]

[quote name='40hz' timestamp='1429269954' post='2749855']
For whatever reason it may be, to my ears all the Maple boarded basses I've owned have definitely sound 'spankier' and more resonant.
[/quote]
Now that is a description I like

[iamtheelvy]

Clearly, the only sensible solution is to own one of each....

...in every colour.

[CamdenRob]

Wow... a thread about tonal differences between basses on BC and 50 posts in so far noone has trotted out "it's all in the fingers anyway" yet