Author Topic: The difference of woods  (Read 570 times)

811952

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2507
The difference of woods
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2004, 10:30:19 AM »
I am a layman when it comes to physics, but here goes it as I understand it:  Body resonance plays a huge part in sustain as well.  Resonant frequency can be manipulated by changing stiffness (neck woods, etcetera) and changing mass (heavy body, bridge block).  At the resonant frequency, or one of it's harmonics, the energy of the string is absorbed (by moving the body or neck) very quickly and efficiently.  Try playing the 7th fret on nearly any bass (even most Alembics) and you'll hear a faster decay than on the notes above and below.  Now clamp a C-clamp on the headstock (not of your Alembic though) and you'll find that the dead spot moves and maybe disappears altogether.  It's an old trick to get rid of dead spots on Fenders when recording.  I also seem to recall a company marketing brass plates that went on the back of the head under the tuners in lieu of the unfashionable C-clamp.  With a stiff neck alone, the energy will be quickly used to vibrate the neck because of the neck's low inertia (it is easier to put into motion because it's relatively light).  The big body of the Alembic has a lot of inertia and doesn't soak up the string's energy as quickly.  String tension makes a big difference on resonance, with 35 and 36 inch scales (all other things being equal) having better fundamental sustain.  They make the neck behave as though it's stiffer because of the increased tautness of the string for a given pitch.  It's a lot more critical as the mass of the string increases as well.  I believe the deal with very light basses achieving good sustain is that the resonant frequency has been moved outside of the fundamental range in the other direction.  Resonance is why bolt-ons and set-necks are more mid-rangy than neck throughs, and why we (the royal we, that is) wish we had purpleheart and ebony neck-throughs like Rami...
John

dnburgess

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 674
The difference of woods
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2004, 11:47:55 AM »
Paul TAO - thinking I should order an all Australian wood Alembic.
 
David B.

rami

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 883
The difference of woods
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2004, 11:51:55 AM »
Wow!  
 
John, I couldn't have said it better.
 
Rami

captain_jan

  • club
  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
The difference of woods
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2004, 08:26:06 PM »
Hello all,
I had been planning maybe in an year or so to order a new 5 string fretless from Alembic with the Excel body, and I was wondering if it would be made of teak? Has anyone ever done a bass of it? Teak is a beautiful wood and with a very high density so I suppose it could sound nice? The only instruments some of which are made of teak are Chapmans Sticks. So Mica and Val, would You do a teakwood bass if You had the wood or is it a bad idea?  
Thanks & all the Bass
Jan

bob

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 808
The difference of woods
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2004, 09:17:21 PM »
Captain,
 
Great question. I happen to be a sailor, most of the furniture in my home is teak, and it's a pretty amazing wood. I agree that the density is an important factor for us bassists, although I also understand it's incredibly difficult to work with.
 
Seems like it should have an oiled finish (or maybe varnish...).
-Bob

captain_jan

  • club
  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
The difference of woods
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2004, 12:53:17 AM »
Hi Bob,
 
yes, either oiled or varnished. Both look good. And for us sailors it would be cool to have such a bass! On this cruise ship where I now work on I just finished building a new teak deck (instead of the old Oregon Pine one) and as usual deck planks are not varnished, only kept clean by washing. The railings are also teak but are varnished 8 to 10 times and look very nice as well.
All the Bass
Jan

dela217

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1313
The difference of woods
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2004, 05:06:20 AM »
In the brochures from the early to mid 70's Alembic listed teak as a wood option.  So they must have made basses and guitars of this wood before.  I think teak is really pretty too!

rogertvr

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 378
The difference of woods
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2004, 04:01:56 PM »
I'm catching up here...going back to John's post, part of which says It's a lot more critical as the mass of the string increases as well. How do various string gauges compare against each other in the sustain stakes then when fitted to any given bass?
 
Rog

rogertvr

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 378
The difference of woods
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2004, 04:19:27 PM »
I've re-read John's post about Fenders and C-clamps. I remember many many years ago (I can't remember when this was) when Squire Fenders were brand new out of the box, so to speak (early 80's?). I was playing a Fender Precision in the local music shop and the thing I noticed was that it had a sort of dead sound to it. Also, there were at least two or three dead spots at various places on the neck. It was pretty horrible to play really but not the only Fender Precision I've played that exhibited the same symptoms.
 
I'm not writing to crucify Fenders, I learnt to play on a Jazz. But the store owner came to me and handed me a Fender Squire Precision (about 2/5th of the price of the Fender) and it was fantastic to play for the money and lots better than the Fender! Fender aren't the only basses that suffer dead spots though and they're neither the least nor most expensive from my experience. I'm pleased to say - no dead spots on my 4001 and none on my Westone Thunder 1A Fretless cheapie bass that I've had for nearly 20 years now either!
 
Rog

rogertvr

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 378
The difference of woods
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2004, 04:23:40 PM »
Remove double post
 
(Message edited by rogertvr on March 03, 2004)

rogertvr

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 378
The difference of woods
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2004, 04:23:58 PM »
Remove triple post - system having a bad day is it?
 
(Message edited by rogertvr on March 03, 2004)

henri_lopes

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
The difference of woods
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2004, 04:51:19 PM »
Brother Paul the bad one,
Thanks for the post about the different woods.
Now  I know why my Epic has a different sound ( wich I love ). It has a mahogany body, maple accent, flame walnut top, maple neck and ebony fretboard. I love it.

palembic

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2186
The difference of woods
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2004, 12:24:07 AM »
Brother Roger,
 
piece of advice?
Stop playing those R&R CD's when your posting. Tapping trhe beat with your finger iis a bad idea when on the keyboard! LOL!
 
Brother Henri: you're welcome! As I said: for what it's worth!!! Beware: the Belgian luthier I got the information from was NOT sandwiching wood as the Alembicians do. Also: ALL his basses have graphite set necks with ebony fingerboards. It's why I think he really could compare between woods.
What the Alembicians do is ...oh ...huh ...well ...more alchemy and elfish things ...they kinda breed basses out of woods, electronics, knowledge and craftmanship (see the explanation of the logo on the main page).
 
Paul the bad

811952

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2507
The difference of woods
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2004, 01:24:10 PM »
I am of the opinion that heavier gauge strings will give you more bottom and more sustain.  I know that moving from a .120 on my first 5-string to a .130 made a world of difference.

bkbass

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 246
The difference of woods
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2004, 05:28:02 AM »
Please allow me to further add to the confusion...Back in the early 90's I had Mica build me a 32scale 5 string fretless spoiler made entirely out of purple heart with paduk stringers and accent laminates.The bass is a heavy one weighing in at around 13lbs and change.The thing will make your leg fall asleep after 20 minutes of playing without a strap!Now,I'm in complete agreement with everyones comments on more mass equals more sustain but here's the kicker,the bass is strung with extra light gauge strings a .30 on the G and a .105 on the B AND when playing the B one does not have to change or slightly pamper the B string.The sustain is at least equal to my 34 with a .128 on the B and my 35 1/4 .130 on the B.Except cleaner and quicker sounding but still with sinister sounding lows.So,I offer that unless your stuck with existing conditions I would offer having a more dense bass made.Just another choice in the mass equals sustain arena.