I understand that maple is generally expected to have a relatively bright tone, clear attack and quicker note decay, but in my experience these characteristics are most noticeable in acoustic or hollow body instruments in which solid wood is used. I've also noticed these characteristics in solid body guitars but in a more subtle way. So if there were two Starfire basses that were identical in all ways except tonewoods, I would suspect the main source of any notable tone differences to come from the center block and neck, not the laminated top, back and sides.
As mentioned earlier, there were also differences in how the necks were constructed aside from the tonewoods used. The specific variations I've seen have not been committed to memory in extensive detail, as that's not a factor I ever put great focus on over the years, but I do have general recollection. It seems that the most common method was two main pieces with a thin center strip sandwiched in between (typically mahogany/maple/mahogany on basses with a mahogany body). That said, we've also seen examples where the neck is made up of three equal (or nearly equal) pieces, as well as a few single-piece solid necks. While on the topic of neck structure and tonewoods, Casady's first Starfire was maple/walnut/maple.
Certainly not questioning what mgod has heard in his extensive experience, but I can only report on my own findings. Maybe the maple basses I've owned and played were made of particularly dark-sounding examples of the wood or perhaps my mahogany 1970 Starfire which I've had the most in depth, continuous study-and-play experience with, is made of particularly bright-sounding mahogany. Since every single piece of wood varies in it's resonant properties (even within a particular species of wood), it's hard to rule out unintentional bias and outliers.
