They are. I am in a conversation with mark right now. I thought back in the spring that he told me the 4’s and the 5’s would be bassier. Hopefully he doesn’t mind, but here is what he explained to me about an hour ago:
"Hi Shane, thank you for the additional information, every bit helps.
Re: bass, we listeners always has this conundrum to resolve: you can have fat (but sloppy) bass, or you can have tight, fast bass.
(Or a compromise between them.)
We can’t have cake and eat it too, big fat bass that is also tight and hard firm in texture.
How this relates to our woods, think of them as a continuum.
Type 1 bleeds into Type 2, bleeds into Type 3 etc.
They get their sonic characteristics depending on physical characteristics of the wood.
Type 1 woods are light, soft and low density, high porosity woods have fattest bass,
By the time you get to Type 5, you have heavy, hard, dense woods with low porosity.
Type 1 gives you fattest bass, with least control. Based on initial feedback, this is where I thought you might be heading, if that is top priority go with that.
A Type 5 gives you tightest, harder, most precise, fastest and tuneful bass, at the cost of some bass volume/fatness.
If that sounds good, and is top priority, go with that.
Type 3 gets you in the middle, and that is where mids are emphasized over top and bottom.
For your vocal priority, Type 3 works great.
To maintain some bass fatness, and open midrange, maybe look at Type 2.
Hope that helps"
I am thinking that maybe a 4 might be perfect for me. I do not want big sloppy bass like an Argon.