Can someone clear up something for me? wood question

[ack1961]

You can hear even unplugged the difference between a mahogany bass and a maple one clearly. The maple one will sound brighter and will be much quicker "there" (attack) while the maho one will be darker, goodnatured and a bit slow.

So, this is the epicenter of my original curiosity.
Unplugged, you can clearly hear the difference that wood has in the tone.  I mean, acoustically, the only source of sound is the undulation of the string off whatever key it was in when struck.

The basis of my question has to do with how much the wood's properties come into play once the bass is electrified and the sound source is no longer acoustic - the sound source becomes mostly the electronic components.  Does the electronic nature of the note now completely overshadow the tonal properties the wood give the sound when unplugged?

I apologize for not phrasing my question in a technically literate fashion, but I think you guys have it surrounded. Your answers make sense, but there's just this last bit that still has me curious.  Thanks.

[uwe]

That comes back to what Dave said then, the wood affects how the strings vibrate and that vibration affects the sound of the bass, otherwise a graphite body bass would sound exactly like its maple counterpart with the same strings and pups. It doesn't.

So hpw mich is wood and how much is electronics? I can't say because you are never gonna hear 100% wood whenn plugged and you are never gonna hear 100% electronics, you always hear a mix. But in that mix the differences in wood are noticeable. Hell, even my masonite Kalamazoo sounds quite different to the otherwise similar Melody Maker EB-0 which is made of maho - and that is with the extremely sound defining mudbucker.

[Barklessdog]

I was surprised at how good my two point nylon saddle bridge works, tone & sustain wise.

[Dave W]

All of the wood's properties and all other properties that affect string vibration will still be there once it's electrified, because it will be part of the signal picked up by the electronics.

It's not just the wood species either. Consider an all-mahogany Les Paul type compared to an SG. You can compare, say, a p-90 LP Special to a P-90 SG, all other specs the same, and the difference will be glaringly obvious whether unplugged or plugged in. Thicker body and neck joint of the Special gives it noticeably more low end.

[SKATE RAT]

wood sounds better in the morning

[patman]

A RIC sounds like a RIC even when its not plugged in...

[ack1961]

All of the wood's properties and all other properties that affect string vibration will still be there once it's electrified, because it will be part of the signal picked up by the electronics.

It's not just the wood species either. Consider an all-mahogany Les Paul type compared to an SG. You can compare, say, a p-90 LP Special to a P-90 SG, all other specs the same, and the difference will be glaringly obvious whether unplugged or plugged in. Thicker body and neck joint of the Special gives it noticeably more low end.

Yeah, it all makes more sense now...thanks.

[Dave W]

When you pluck a string, some of the string's energy is retained in the string, some is transmitted to the body and some is dissipated. If you could find a way to retain 100% of the energy in the string, then you would only have the sound of the electronics and the strings, and the wood wouldn't make a noticeable difference.

Earlier in this thread gweimer mentioned the 2Tek bridge. It's so massive that it keeps most of the energy from being transmitted to the body. That's why you hear people say that it makes most basses sound similar, or I've heard it said that it makes almost any bass sound like a 2Tek. Well, it doesn't make a bass sound like a bridge, but it does keep a lot more energy in the strings.

That's also what happens when you put a massive bridge on a Fender. Not as severe as a 2Tek but still, the inertia keeps more of the string energy from the body. Some people like this, some don't because it sounds less like a traditional Fender.

BP did an Alembic tour years ago, Micah Wickersham explained that reason for the heavy brass bridge attached to a brass plate sunk into the body was to neutralize the tone of the wood as much as possible so an Alembic would sound like an Alembic regardless of top wood. And they chose mahogany for the core wood because they felt it was fairly even across the spectrum.

[ack1961]

When you pluck a string, some of the string's energy is retained in the string, some is transmitted to the body and some is dissipated. If you could find a way to retain 100% of the energy in the string, then you would only have the sound of the electronics and the strings, and the wood wouldn't make a noticeable difference.

Earlier in this thread gweimer mentioned the 2Tek bridge. It's so massive that it keeps most of the energy from being transmitted to the body. That's why you hear people say that it makes most basses sound similar, or I've heard it said that it makes almost any bass sound like a 2Tek. Well, it doesn't make a bass sound like a bridge, but it does keep a lot more energy in the strings.

That's also what happens when you put a massive bridge on a Fender. Not as severe as a 2Tek but still, the inertia keeps more of the string energy from the body. Some people like this, some don't because it sounds less like a traditional Fender.

BP did an Alembic tour years ago, Micah Wickersham explained that reason for the heavy brass bridge attached to a brass plate sunk into the body was to neutralize the tone of the wood as much as possible so an Alembic would sound like an Alembic regardless of top wood. And they chose mahogany for the core wood because they felt it was fairly even across the spectrum.

That's interesting about Alembic, because as an example, Traben had been marketing those massive bridges as a mechanism to enhance sustain and tone.  Sustain, I'd buy...tone? well, I just don't know enough to form a hypothesis (but I'm learning from this thread, that's for sure).  Traben's claim was kind of counter-intuitive to what Wickersham proved. Ironically, Traben doesn't market the values of their high-mass bridges the way they used to.

[Highlander]

Here's a thought... try placing your ear flat against the body of an instrument, and just listen to the unamplified sound, and feel the vibrations; try that with a variety of instruments and woods...

[Freuds_Cat]

Just my experience (opinion): I like and am convinced I can hear quite distinct differences between woods and styles of basses when plugged in (hollow, semi hollow, neck through etc). The main effect besides the sound that you hear is how the strings feel under your fingers.  I hear and dont disagree with Uwe's point regarding dead spots and bridge mass etc but my attitude has been to own 2 types of basses. 1. Those that have a distinct and recognizable sound. These basses have virtually no mods and are chosen specifically for their sound/tone in a given application and 2. More commonly for me, Basses that have a combination of mods designed to get a nice balance between what Uwe calls "sterile" (I call this "consistent"  ) and as close to the natural sound of the wood as possible.

Heavier bridge and active electronics gets you further away from the origins of the natural tone but a bass with too much inconsistancy is a pain in the clacker. 

[uwe]

Agreed, if you have just one bass or that is your main player then consistency is more important than if you have to chose from dozens. I'm relaxed about the idiosyncracies of a lot of my basses because I know I have dozens of others that don't have that particuöar flaw or limitation. I don't need a P-Bass with endless sustain - no bridge on earth will give it the sustain of an off-the-rack TBird and similarly I don't try to enhance the attack of my TBirds either and live with their mellow to sluggish response.

And I do have a full one piece graphite Status Stealth II (which sounds so commanding I tire of it quickly though the first few minutes are always breathtaking), a Parker Fly bass (with the graphite clad maho neck and piezo bridge in addition to DiMarzio active electronics pups), an Epi Goth (with the ebonol board) and a Kramer XKB-10 with the alu neck. None of them is a bad bass, but I generally return to a more wooden sound after a few songs.

[Basvarken]

A dutch luthier made a statement a few years ago with this "pannenrekje bas" (pan rack bass)

No wood involved at all. Not even a fretboard.
It has a piezo bridge and no controls. Just a jackinput; that's it.








http://www.bas-extravaganza.nl/?page=bassen&BassenID=15

But I think I do prefer a more woody tone

[uwe]

Purist. I wonder how it sounds. A radical concept for sure. I'd be concerned that a piezo and no wood at all is perhaps a bit too radical. In my ears, the sound of a piezo is greatly influenced by wood. My basses with a maho body and a pizeo have a much rounder tone than the maple body ones.

BTW: My piezo Q-90 has no controls as well, just an output jack. As does my Super 400 custom shop bass whose piezo is not even active, but passive (and actually sounds better than its active siblings).

[Dave W]

I'd like to hear how the pannenrekje bas sounds.

Maybe 7-8 years ago I saw something along those lines in a Strat-type, it did have a wood fretboard and magnetic pickups on its metal frame. It didn't sound like an all-wood Strat but it did sound good to my ears.