Walnut/Maple vs. Maple/Walnut
 

It seems like currently the two most popular wood combinations are a walnut core with maple top/back and a maple core with walnut top/back.

In respect to the neck thru basses, what would the tone differences be between the two? And which contributes more to the tone, the core or the top/back (on the neck thru basses)?

Thanks.

woods..
 

Regardless of the model I feel that the Top (and back plates) contribute most to the sound with the core working with the top woods.

In my experience, the Maple top woods have a tighter, higher treble, less mids and more bottom spread than with a Walnut top which has more mids, wider treble presence and clearer bass tone, easier to EQ. So, the Walnut core brightens up the maple top and the maple core helps to spread the walnut tone in the bottom.

To over simplify, it almost sounds like the two combinations work towards the same tone goals with the maple top emphasizing the highs/lows and the walnut top emphasizing the mids.

So I've recently taken delivery of a 1996 CR6G with quilted Maple top and back, Mahogany core and Bubinga fretboard. How does that compare to the two basses you've described?

??
 

Totally different woods. The fingerboard makes a big difference as well. I think you have to play another bass to compare. Like talking about taste and flavor now. The Finish type also changes the sound.

Before the internet, everybody evaluated basses with their ears. Now, it's all with the eyes. I can tell more about a bass playing it for a few minutes than reading descriptions for hours.

Are the basses on your web site that are designated in stock available to try out at your shop?

stock..
 

The basses listed and describe on the 'STOCK' page are here and can be played by appointment. The basses pictured on the model pages are long gone and only examples to look at. The Stock basses are not pictured on the website.

comparing..
 

I recently played and then packed up back to back a White Tiger (WT) and a Black Tiger (TN). Both were 5-strings and both the same all over except for the body wings which were opposite woods.

Playing them within minutes of each other is a better comparison method than just the memory of what they each do. The TN had more mid-bite and presence while the WT had more warmth, spread and mid-type notch with a tight snap in the top end in the sound between the highs and lows. Both sounded great and with the 3 band EQ I could get one to sound like the other but feel wise, they are more different than the sound you can eq on them.

It is hard to describe in words as I have mentioned before but I did not feel at all that one was better then the other. If I was a full time working player, I would one to have one of each. This way depending on the gig, I could bring the bass that had the core sound and feel of the music for that particular venue.

Maybe we should offer them in pairs as a package? :confused: :cool: :) ;)