Rosewood or Maple fretboards,is there a sound difference?

Uh-huh.

That's not a relevant test. If you took four guitar players, played the song in one key, then played it again in another key, would they be able to tell? Yes they would. They don't have to tell which key, just that there is a change. That's the argument, everything else remains the same but one thing.

Like I said, we'll just have to disagree on this point.

Well, I'm afraid I'll actually have to agree with you, Nick:
I couldn't disagree with you more!

And we'll leave it at that.... only, that's just half the argument.

I certainly don't appreciate being told that, just because "I" can hear something that you cant,
that I'm crazy....

What really bothers me about your cavalier attitude on this is that it discourages people from thinking that
they just might be able to hear something there.

Call me crazy [again], I thought that we were here to encourage growth and learning.
Seeing as how you CANNOT disprove it - I don't think that you should discourage it in others who might be looking for it.

Ken

Hi,

A quick Google showed me numerous discussions around the net, with fairly widespread support for the notion that the wood used on the fretboard actually does make a difference. Sample quote, from a site that actually makes guitars:
Neck wood lends color to the guitars tonal character which is primarily defined by the body wood.
The most frequent topic in the neck wood debate is Solid Maple vs. Maple with a rosewood fingerboard : Most people who are interested in the sonic influences of wood have heard it said, a maple neck produces a brighter sound than that of maple with a rosewood fingerboard. However, allow us to elaborate. Solid maple doesn't seem to chop off the bottom end of the sound as much as it seems to tighten and control that bottom. So, a maple neck does have a good bottom end but with clarity, definition and control. Rosewood on the other hand has a looser, louder bottom end sound to it. As far as the high end is concerned, maple does the same thing up here. It tightens and controls the high end so you don't really hear the sparkling upper end that the rosewood makes. (Something like the sizzle of the drummer's high hat cymbals) In the midrange, solid maple is clear and present without sounding hard, while rosewood is breathy and scooped in the mid to upper mid range area.
I doubt very much that I could tell the difference myself in a blind test.In fact I'd put money on my failing. However I have no reason to doubt that others can - especially if it's part of their life's work. Just as if you work on engines all day you can develop the ability to diagnose problems using sonic cues that non-engineers can't detect, and so on.

I believe that the overall percentage of wood types involved simply must make a difference of some kind. Few would dispute that the body, being the biggest and most importantly located would surely have the major role (as acknowledged in the quote above). But the wood on the fretboard is still a part of the overall mass, which logically means it plays some part in the final effect, even if it's relatively small. But it also seems likely that there's a bit more too it than that.

With any instrument, whether its a guitar, piano or whatever, there are also numerous small reflections, vibrations, etc going on - some sympathetic and some more or less interferences, so it also seems arguable that over the considerable length of a fretboard that some of these factors may come into play too.

The fact that many people on the internet clearly believe that they can hear a difference probably doesn't mean much either way. But when I see luthiers saying that they think the effects are genuine - and when Ken says he can hear it - then I'm prepared to believe them.

I can be bribed though if it comes to a vote... :wink:

Cheers,

Chris

Oops...I forgot to attribute the quote.

It's from Anderson guitars. Here's a page of folks who use their guitars, and you can follow the links on the left to the Tone Reference section.

Anderson Guitars

Welllllllllllllllllllll, just to be pedantic, discerning the difference between Maple and Rosewood necks, Ash and Alder bodies or brass, plastic or wood pins IS all in your head - whether you can tell a difference or not. Whlst your ear registers the sounds, it is your brain that processes the input - and discerns any difference (or not, as the case may be).

It is my ability to discern all of those differences, in the middle of a working foundry, that allows me to state that the biggest factor in the sound of a guitar is, in fact, the strap pins. Schaller are preferable to Dunlop. 8)

Look, I keep trying to say we just disagree. What is so hard to accept about that? We have two different opinions, yours based upon your observations, mine based on mine. 'nuff said on that topic.

I didn't call you crazy. Where did I say that? I said I think it's all in your head. That just means that I think people often hear what they expect to hear. It's the placebo effect. It's why they have blind and double blind tests in the first place. Preconception and bias creeps in. Surely the scientists aren't calling all the participants crazy, are they?

The only other thing I said is I thought your example wasn't relevant. And don't ask me to prove the negative, I'd have to compare every type of fretboard wood. Aren't you are supposed to prove the positive? You'd only have to find one exception to my rule.

As far as me being cavalier, I don't see that either. I posted my opinion. The fact it is contrary to yours doesn't make it any less my opinion nor does it make it cavalier.

But if any of my posts came across as being snippy or condescending or cavalier, I sincerely apologize.

Right...in my opinion any guitar is a sum of all of it's parts and the craftsmanship of it's maker. The sound that guitar produces is a combination of that and the skill of the player. So whatever the material, find one you enjoy playing and play well.

....and Ken, just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I don't respect it. So, people, you've got a couple of different opinions here. Go out and listen for yourself. It's what you think that matters, and hey....I could be wrong. :D

Slightly off topic, but still very much interesting to me. Can you imagine the A/B testing parameters and the electronic sound wave measuring devices that would be required to satisfy the scientific community? Just a few touch points, with apologies for the lack of nouns. :)

#1: Bodies would need to be cut by CNC machine from the same plank at the same time.
#2: Pickups machine wound and measured to the exact same output. Probably more aspects to this part than I can think of.
#3: Every piece of metal would have to come from the same "batch" at the factory. Probably some additional testing.
#4: Same fret wires.
#5: The strum or picking as well as the fretting must be mechanical. Even lowly beginners like me make subconcious adjustments while playing to get a pleasing sound.
#6: The most plain amp output you can come up with?

And then after all of that, the recording and subsequent diagnosis of sound waves would surely provide some difference that you'd be able to see on paper. Then the arguments would start about what humans can hear and not hear sonically. Subsequent hearing tests reproducing the waves charactaristics and conducted by Audiologists that would eliminate most of us here because of aging ears and reduction in extreme frequencies, etc, etc. The results of which would then be cross analysed with the guitar output data to determine if humans can hear the difference or not.

And even after all of that, One mans "subtle difference" is another's "sound explosion". My son can whistle in a low volume pitch that can cause my bum ear to go bonkers and send me into a Migraine instantly. I guess you'd also have to have a barometer pressure controlled room for the listeners because that pressure can have an an effect on hearing sensitivity. Admittedly stronger in some people that others. :cry:

Back to the fighting we would go. :x

Hah, no such luck.

Ken and I have respectfully agreed to disagree on this one.

Roy --

you've only scratched the surface with your test design. suggested improvements:

1. use the same guitar or guitar-like device and change out only that one critical piece being tested: fingerboard/neck, or even better only the fingerboard. if swapping necks, make the necks out of a uniform material such as aluminum or resin/graphite (maybe not uniform enough). this minimizes the contribution from other organically variable parts of the guitar, because Nick is correct: it is a system, so every variable of non-interest needs to be controlled.

2. build numerous test fretboards of each material to also test for the natural variation in like-material fretboards (e.g., rosewood A to rosewood B, esp important to those who get rosewoodies). I'd call that gauging the "organic factor."

3. for consistency, use a machine fret and "strum" the test "guitars". use various set ups (different mechanical finger type, different fretting positions, dif forces, dif locations on fretboard, dif strums types: plectra, angles, force ...

4. record the sounds produced and use the recorded samples in the tests. (now someone will object to the dimensions of sound captured by the recording system -- no matter how sophisticated.)

5.assemble sample population of different caliber/talent listeners. pre-test them. train them in the dimension you wish to examine (can be done as part of listening tests.) determine which are expert listeners and in what aural dimensions (test them, don't ask -- they lie or don't know. people who have certain hearing disabilities often are more discerning in other dimensions!)

6. run listening trials (tests) probably something like

*6a.double-blind ABX groups -- play one, then second (randomized order), then repeat one of the samples and have the listener identify if it was A or B. (repeat this many, many, many times in terms of audio samples across many listeners) this will identify differences in the sample audio, but not tell you what those differences are. this is the fundamental BS detector. there are other versions of this testing. beware testing fatigue. people will die of boredom.

*6b MUSHRA (MUlti Stimulus Hidden Reference and Anchor) tests (search the web on this). this will help determine superiority of fretboard's tone as judged by the test subject -- assuming our bionic/robotic test guitar has any preferable tones.

*6c multidimensional assessments. this is "fuzzy" testing that allows users to judge a couple of dimensions and prefs. of course, if 6a shows no one can tell the difference, don't bother.

there's a lot more to consider, such as the test listening environment (realistic? ideal?), reproduction equipment for the audio, the electronic comparos you suggest -- nice idea, but the mapping electronic measurements to perceivable deltas and significance usually requires a test study in itself ... that is once the correct dimensions are identified. test automation. analyses of ?????

and more I've no doubt forgotten...

and more I'm too lazy to mention ...

you will need a lot of money, time, pools of people who will not die or go insane.

===> seems easier to just buy the guitars we like and let Nick and Ken disagree. <===

pedantically (and keyboard challenged) yours,

-=Greg

===> seems easier to just buy the guitars we like and let Nick and Ken disagree. <===
:)

Not only that, we should prod them a bit if they look like losing interest... :twisted: If the debate about the tone of violins made by Stradivari can still be going strong after several hundred years, we can't let Ken and Nick run out of steam after only a few minutes... :wink:

So do Stradivari's violins sound better than others from the same era, and if so why? Is the woods, the seasoning, the construction, the secret preparations they finished them with..... or.... what? Or do violins made by Amati or Guarneri sound better anyway??.. Or can you just buy a new one for a couple of grand and save yourself a few million for no real benefit??

Here's just a small Googled sample:
The instrument by Stradivari is like a finely tuned sports car. Just a little touch is needed to spark a reaction.

Science has not invented an instrument that could measure or quantify the beauty of a sound yet. Only the metaphysical investigation could possibly tackle the phenomenon.

Thousands of hours and millions of dollars were spent in the search for the secret formula of the old master stringed instruments made by Stradivari and Guarneri, but no clear all-explaining answer was found. Neither using x-rays or the wood of specially grown trees nor anything else has helped to re-create their excellent characteristics.

Many imitations of Stradivari violins have been made, but none of them could successfully duplicate the creations of the master luthier from Cremona.

Similar discussions already take place about early electric guitars. We probably shouldn't spoil the fun by trying too hard to resolve them. But it might be fun to try and design a metaphysical test rig... :wink:

Cheers,

Chris

... So do Stradivari's violins sound better than others from the same era, and if so why? Is the woods, the seasoning, the construction, the secret preparations they finished them with..... or.... what? Or do violins made by Amati or Guarneri sound better anyway??.. Or can you just buy a new one for a couple of grand and save yourself a few million for no real benefit?? ...

GN's moving upmarket! So innovative after all the Fender vs Gibson arguments that I've endured on countless forums for years now. :P

Pretty much goes for all music and any music topic. No one can be wrong as opinions are based on knowledge gained empirically rather than derrived from systematic logic or formula. Based on that assumption, it's impossible for anyone ever to be wrong, which makes music so daggone right.

gnease, independent studies will have to be done to determine if any form of stress occurs by swapping fret boards on necks. Then we'll need a clean room. Can't have dust affecting tone. If we're going to control humidity, then we'll need to study which humidity level least affects tone and how long an item needs to be in that environment for the bulk of the changes to take place. We'll have to calibrate the playing machine each time through the tests. Oh, and if we train people to hear the dimension we want to test, then we are assuming that the tonal differences are of the same dimension.....

Damnitall. My head just spun off.

OK, now that that horse has been beaten to death . . . let's go back to that bridge pin thing . . .

Ash or elm bridge pins . . . is there a sound difference?

OK, now that that horse has been beaten to death . . . let's go back to that bridge pin thing . . .

Ash or elm bridge pins . . . is there a sound difference?

You mean while playing, or as they hit the ceiling when changing strings? :mrgreen:

OK, now that that horse has been beaten to death . . . let's go back to that bridge pin thing . . .

Ash or elm bridge pins . . . is there a sound difference?

Or bone or brass ... there are countless arguments on acousticguitarforum.com about this. However, I did learn one good thing from them: if you lose a bridge pin and don't have a spare, a golf tee works in an emergency.