This is a great question. My 6 year old and I would like to know how she stacks up against the newborns....

I've now been able to test-drive a new walnut ABII, but it was only for 15 mins through an unfamiliar rig and had a higher action that my older one. Hard to be sure what the specific differences are, until I get the new one, but I think the general sound of the bass was a little smoother/classier and less barky in the top-end. Will come back with a full report after I've paid it off in a month or so and spent some time with it. Cheers, EG

IMO/IME it's extremely hard to get a safe impression without comparing two basses A/B with the same rig. Especially if they're so similar. Actually, there are differences even between dingwalls with the same woods, pups, electronics etc. FRB should be able to say what the differences in general [i:32krfmb6]should[/i:32krfmb6] be, but there are always exceptions to rules.

[quote="Dragonlord":1h2c3ryv]IMO/IME it's extremely hard to get a safe impression without comparing two basses A/B with the same rig. Especially if they're so similar. Actually, there are differences even between dingwalls with the same woods, pups, electronics etc. FRB should be able to say what the differences in general [i:1h2c3ryv]should[/i:1h2c3ryv] be, but there are always exceptions to rules.[/quote:1h2c3ryv] Comparing the tones of 2 similar basses is fun, but unless it's done blindly and can be shown to have a consistent, reproducable result, it cannot be deemed real. That's not opinion, just logic. It applies to anything that relates to human perception. That obstacle is over and above the virtual impossibility of keeping other variables (string type and degree of wear, for example) constant. I do it for fun, but it sure ain't truth.

[quote="lomo":1bvjkmde]Comparing the tones of 2 similar basses is fun, but unless it's done blindly and can be shown to have a consistent, reproducable result, it cannot be deemed real. That's not opinion, just logic. It applies to anything that relates to human perception. That obstacle is over and above the virtual impossibility of keeping other variables (string type and degree of wear, for example) constant. I do it for fun, but it sure ain't truth.[/quote:1bvjkmde] It's more a question of mahogany versus walnut, I guess. I sure like the color and sound of mine, just wondering why it changed.

[quote="nastyn8c":3i7luyp1][quote="lomo":3i7luyp1]Comparing the tones of 2 similar basses is fun, but unless it's done blindly and can be shown to have a consistent, reproducable result, it cannot be deemed real. That's not opinion, just logic. It applies to anything that relates to human perception. That obstacle is over and above the virtual impossibility of keeping other variables (string type and degree of wear, for example) constant. I do it for fun, but it sure ain't truth.[/quote:3i7luyp1] It's more a question of mahogany versus walnut, I guess. I sure like the color and sound of mine, just wondering why it changed.[/quote:3i7luyp1] I'll wager (really) a grand and give 2:1 odds that if 4 basses which differ only in type of body wood (same pups. new strings, setup, etc) are blindly auditioned with the same player playing the same riff through the same rig, the listener will be unable to differentiate between the 2 wood types. I am willing to bet that if each bass is played (in random order) 25 times, for a total of 100 samples, the listener will be correct (in determining whether a bass is made of wood #1 or wood #2) no more than the number of times statistically expected based on random guessing. If someone can put together this laboratory, I'll put my $$ where my post is!

Maybe so, but don't we notice?

[quote="TheGrandEnigma":2gt81y3z]Maybe so, but don't we notice? [/quote:2gt81y3z] I dunno, but we certainly enjoy trying

Pretty sure Sheldon said consistent stocks of mahogany started to get harder to find, so it made sense to switch to walnut. IMO, I don't think I'd have any problems identifying which of 4 basses had which of 2 woods, they all sound different enough to me! The riff being played would need to cover the full range of the instrument though, as each wood has different characteristics at different frequencies. EG

[quote="evilgus":1dx3iub5]Pretty sure Sheldon said consistent stocks of mahogany started to get harder to find, so it made sense to switch to walnut. IMO, I don't think I'd have any problems identifying which of 4 basses had which of 2 woods, they all sound different enough to me! The riff being played would need to cover the full range of the instrument though, as each wood has different characteristics at different frequencies. EG[/quote:1dx3iub5] Too bad we're on opposite end of this flying orb, it sounds like a good excuse to GTG and throw back some bourbon and suds! One day I will make it down under, but I'm waiting until I can muster at least 3 weeks offf in a row......which will be a few more years.

[quote="lomo":1g9omxgp][quote="nastyn8c":1g9omxgp][quote="lomo":1g9omxgp]Comparing the tones of 2 similar basses is fun, but unless it's done blindly and can be shown to have a consistent, reproducable result, it cannot be deemed real. That's not opinion, just logic. It applies to anything that relates to human perception. That obstacle is over and above the virtual impossibility of keeping other variables (string type and degree of wear, for example) constant. I do it for fun, but it sure ain't truth.[/quote:1g9omxgp] It's more a question of mahogany versus walnut, I guess. I sure like the color and sound of mine, just wondering why it changed.[/quote:1g9omxgp] I'll wager (really) a grand and give 2:1 odds that if 4 basses which differ only in type of body wood (same pups. new strings, setup, etc) are blindly auditioned with the same player playing the same riff through the same rig, the listener will be unable to differentiate between the 2 wood types. I am willing to bet that if each bass is played (in random order) 25 times, for a total of 100 samples, the listener will be correct (in determining whether a bass is made of wood #1 or wood #2) no more than the number of times statistically expected based on random guessing. If someone can put together this laboratory, I'll put my $$ where my post is![/quote:1g9omxgp] I agree to a point that a person listening would probably not be able to pick out the specific wood used. However, I believe the person would still be able to hear a difference in sound between the two woods.

[quote="RichC123":3va0bqe3][I agree to a point that a person listening would probably not be able to pick out the specific wood used. However, I believe the person would still be able to hear a difference in sound between the two woods.[/quote:3va0bqe3] That's why I'd like to test it empirically. Many people feel they can differentiate, and it would not be hard to find out for certain. All one would need is, say, 4 basses that are the same except for body wood type (say, 2 ash and 2 alder or whatever), a rig and 3 people. If I find someone locally who thinks he can do it I just may try.