Hi all

I'd like to start a thread to discuss the use of alternative tonewoods in DB making. We all know that good 'classic' wood is becoming increasingly hard (and expensive!) to find. What experience do some of the TB builders and contributors have with woods we might not have thought about using for various parts of the bass? Here are a few I've been curious about for back/sides/neck:

Ash
Birch
Bubinga
Cocobolo
Cherry
Hickory
Jatoba
Purpleheart
Padauk
Sycamore
Walnut
Willow

And as long as you're heaping ridicule on me (I can take it :spit:), what experience do y'all have with multi-lam necks on the DB? There's one spectacular example on "The Talkbasses" page, but that's the only one I've ever seen.

Thanks -I know that this has been touched on in various TB posts, but I've not found a thread yet that's devoted specificallly to this subject.

Peace,

Kev

Poplar and willow seem to be popular alternatives for back and ribs. I was recently at a luthier's shop and saw a bass he was making from gorgeous claro walnut. I can only imagine the finished bass will be far more beautiful.
We might extend the conversation to include alternative top woods, like red cedar or fir.
Can't offer personal experience...sorry!

I was working on a bass the other day - the back was made of what looked, on the inside, like MDF! The outside was a more presentable veneer.

They may look really beautiful, but don't they have different resonance properties (I'm not even sure if that's what you call it) that makes one type of wood vibrate better or worse than another?

They may look really beautiful, but don't they have different resonance properties (I'm not even sure if that's what you call it) that makes one type of wood vibrate better or worse than another?
Yeah, that's kind of where I'm hoping this will go. For example, my research led me to understand that cherry had poor resonating qualities, therefore was not a good choice for tonewood. Then I ran across this:

http://www.rossdoublebass.com/html/FourStringCherry.html

- a beautiful cherry wood bass that apparently sounds fabulous. Is this as simple as looking at a chart like this http://www.woodbin.com/ref/wood/strength_table.htm and comparing wood density, etc.?

Bubinga, purpleheart, cocobolo, cherry(jatoba and cherry are roughly the same thing) and hickory are all hardwoods that weigh too much and dont have enough resonance to be suitable for double bass making, maybe they could make a nice neck i guess but it would most likely weigh the bass down alot, maple and willow have been used for centuries for a reason, their strong, light(decently) and flexible. the woods listed above are suitable for bass guitar making because the bass is electrified and doesnt depend on resonant properties for tone(for the most part). ash walnut and willow are all woods ive worked with and i guess would work on a db(ive worked with all the hardwoods mentioned as well, purple heart for a neck would be quite expensive) as for sides, good luck bending hardwoods haha they would have to be very thin and it would still be an arduous task. as for backs i guess you could use whatever fancys you but you need to keep in mind cost, weight and resonance. these are all good thoughts though

Yeah, that's kind of where I'm hoping this will go. For example, my research led me to understand that cherry had poor resonating qualities, therefore was not a good choice for tonewood. Then I ran across this:

http://www.rossdoublebass.com/html/FourStringCherry.html

- a beautiful cherry wood bass that apparently sounds fabulous. Is this as simple as looking at a chart like this http://www.woodbin.com/ref/wood/strength_table.htm and comparing wood density, etc.?

That was made by a guy who also put a trap door in one of his basses.

I think that there is evidence of enough variation in woods already used by both new basses and old master basses to indicate that a good maker could probably use just about anything, even slab cut pine with knots in it, and end up with a fine bass. The back of stefano sciascias bass is made of several planks of pine with crossbars screwed in! Looks odd, but sounds lovely!

You work with the wood that you have. if you have a heavy dense wood you might decide to work it thinner to compensate, and brace differently. Conversely if you have very light wood for a top you might build it thicker and heavier to get the sound want. Bob Ross can make a fine cherry bass because he's a fine maker. the same wood in someone else's hands might turn out a dog.

That said, it seems to be a sad fact that basses made of non-traditional woods don't attract the dollars that maple and spruce do.

That was made by a guy who also put a trap door in one of his basses.

And that indicates what exactly? :eyebrow:

he likes to hide? he has a pet chupacabra? he puts candy in it and lets the kiddies take a whack? the possibilities are endless haha

And that indicates what exactly? :eyebrow:

Just noting that fact to show that the guy has all kind of alternative ideas not just wood.

A good friend of mine in college bought a Kolstien with cherry back, sides, and neck. The sound was amazing, huge bass tones with all the mid to high complexity that one would expect from a fine carved bass, really one of the finest sounding basses I've ever been around (I have no experience with fine old pedigree basses).

I have always been interested in alternative woods for db, I wish there was an objective way to compare the merits of each species, but it would seem the only evidence is antecdotes like mine.

Does anyone have any experience with sycamore? My luthier seems to think it would work very well, but he has yet to put his money where his mouth is.

my first bass was made out of yellow poplar, we also experomented with alder and American sycamore, all the basses were good. sycamore moved a bit more than I liked, but since it was quartered and loaded with ray grain it was kind of pretty. the next 75 or so will be big leaf maple.

birch is similar to alder, cherry and walnut similar to maple, as far as furniture goes, don't know as far as tonal qualities .

as far as trap doors go, one of my partners had a stand partner in Russia that kept a bottle of vodka in his bass, just in case of long rests.


we have done one cedar top and the rest spruce. I was not fond of how the cedar cuts, and it splits very easily too. probably why they make shingles out of it. the sound of that particular bass is very good.

we have done one cedar top and the rest spruce. I was not fond of how the cedar cuts, and it splits very easily too. probably why they make shingles out of it. the sound of that particular bass is very good.

Anyone just used plain ol' pine for the top? I've encountered some pieces of nice, straight-grained pine over my woodworking years. In my experience it's no harder to work than cedar.

Is walnut difficult to carve and bend?

American Walnut (maybe others as well) is listed as one of the best to bend. Some of it is very pretty, too...and all the instruments I have heard with it sound very good. But I haven't personally heard or seen a walnut/pine bass. Not to say it couldn't be done.

I saw some Peruvian Walnut that was really beautiful, very dark brown wood, and at a reasonable price...but I didn't get it, and I wish I had. I'd like my son to build me a guitar of it, if nothing else.

B(jatoba and cherry are roughly the same thing)

I've worked with both jatoba and American cherry and they are very different. American cherry is a relatively soft hardwood. Jatoba is very hard. Dulls blades in no time.

Bubinga, purpleheart, cocobolo, cherry(jatoba and cherry are roughly the same thing) and hickory are all hardwoods that weigh too much and dont have enough resonance to be suitable for double bass making

Peter Elias has made astoundingly good sounding basses with hickory, heavy varieties of walnut, and other supposedly "unsuited" woods. The Chicago Symphony owns 9 of his basses.

There are no rules.

Pear basses are supposed to sound very nice. They weigh a tonne.

American Walnut (maybe others as well) is listed as one of the best to bend. Some of it is very pretty, too...and all the instruments I have heard with it sound very good. But I haven't personally heard or seen a walnut/pine bass. Not to say it couldn't be done.

I saw some Peruvian Walnut that was really beautiful, very dark brown wood, and at a reasonable price...but I didn't get it, and I wish I had. I'd like my son to build me a guitar of it, if nothing else.

Nick Lloyd in Cinci has made a bass w. walnut back and sides and it is killin!! Check out his website for photo's...He told me he got the wood from Indiana.. .Anything is possible if you know what you are doing...

any thoughts on western larch...(pine family) reportedly the strongest conifer in canada/n.w.us. can get quite large and quite old 500+ yrs , very straight grain,stiff and resilient,does not seem to be too heavy.. the texture was good depending site and elevation...have no idea how it will yield to be bent. my only experience with it was felling large ,well dried standing buckskin snags. seems to me it maybe somewhat overlooked for instrument components.

I asked about Larch some time ago here and on maestronet, and the general opinion was that it was too splintery and brittle.

+1 on that. Years ago we cleared some land in the BC Interior that was mostly big Western Larch. It split even more easily than Red Cedar - it JUMPED apart! Made great split rail fencing. :)

It was really light and resonant but........

85456 MT/JD i suspected as much.. it's been years since i was around them ..guess it's atonement::eyebrow:is in it's beauty. thanks

I recently saw some beautiful straight grained Aniger at a lumber store. Looked kind of like maple. Anybody ever worked with it?

I'm really curious about using quartered Sycamore too.

quartered (only) sycamore good..has a history with instruments. heavy, resist splitting.. has interlocked grain..if green not the most friendly to dry,holds water..polishes and finishes fine..makes for a long day if worked with handtools..should be inexpen$ive. favorable for your purpose..

What about birch for the sides/back? Too soft?

Just FYI, Buginga and Cocobolo, as well as Padauk and Koa, are frequently used for TOPS in high-end acoustic guitars. I'm not sure why they wouldn't work for DB tops as well (though I cannot obviously vouch for their "carvability.")

not so unusual in the olden days, but a bit neglected today is Willow. I haven't even been able to find air dried willow in bass size, in spite of it's outstanding sonic qualities.

I have played quite a few old willow basses. Most of them had pretty thick graduations. They had an amazing organ-like low end, lots of air.

I asked about Larch some time ago here and on maestronet, and the general opinion was that it was too splintery and brittle.

Makes sense. In the lumber industry Larch is in the same family as Douglas Fir.

What about birch for the sides/back? Too soft?
Paul Toenniges made basses from birch. The one I saw and heard played by John Feeney was stunningly good sounding.

Does anyone have any experience with sycamore? My luthier seems to think it would work very well, but he has yet to put his money where his mouth is.
I owned a DeLeone fully restored and regraduated by Arnold Schnitzer. It was made of sycamore, with a pine top. Excellent. I bought it from a bassist with the Metropolitan Opera Orch.
I've seen other DeLeone basses that were sycamore.

Just FYI, Buginga and Cocobolo, as well as Padauk and Koa, are frequently used for TOPS in high-end acoustic guitars. I'm not sure why they wouldn't work for DB tops as well (though I cannot obviously vouch for their "carvability.")

I have never heard of any of those being used for tops. Backs and sides, certainly. But not tops, surely?

No, not guitar tops, except for Koa on some few models.

And the trees are much too small to have anything to offer in DB sizes.

Not to mention that these are the selfsame disappearing tonewoods that are being replaced in guitar building.

I don't think the 'Alternative Tonewoods' topic needs to be raised regarding DB building.

Maple for back & ribs? Plentiful in appropriate sizes, figured and not from New & Old World sources.

Spruce for tops? Still plentiful in Sitka & Engelmann and also available in European Spruces.

Ebony for fingerboards is the one relevant species that is showing signs of harvest pressures, but the market is fairly stable as of yet. We'll know when its getting scarce by the spike in the price.

Jake it's more interesting when the continent you live on doesn't grow either of those species ... the shipping cost to Sydney of a DB spruce or maple billet is considerably more than the wood costs itself.

Maple for back & ribs? Plentiful in appropriate sizes, figured and not from New & Old World sources.

Spruce for tops? Still plentiful in Sitka & Engelmann and also available in European Spruces.

Ebony for fingerboards is the one relevant species that is showing signs of harvest pressures, but the market is fairly stable as of yet. We'll know when its getting scarce by the spike in the price.

Jake, point well taken, to a point. :hmm:

One of the reasons I'm really interested in this thread is to find out what non-trad species builders are using besides the 'big three'. Where I live there are a lot of local sawyers who are pulling a lot of types of trees out of their bush lots. Some are very interesting to look at and use in cabinet making, so I was wondering if some of these were practical for use in double bass making. I'm keeping my eyes peeled to get inspired and perhaps dry and season some wood for future projects. As it is now, I've got some lovely maple an poplar ready to go (both locally cut) as well as a big beautiful wedge of WR cedar I got from Peter Chandler for a top.

Cheers, Kev

..any thoughts on White Oak?

Curious, Hemlock for a bass top?

Curious, Hemlock for a bass top?

Well, from http://www.woodbin.com/ref/wood/strength_table.htm I pulled the following stats:

Species: Average Specific Gravity/ Static Bending/ Max Shear Strength (PSI)

E.Spruce: 0.35 / 1.30 / 1,200
WR Cedar: 0.32 / 1.11 / 990
Western Hemlock: 0.45 / 1.63 / 1,290

Which, to me, means pretty much nothing. ;)

Actually, does it mean that Hemlock is heavier, stiffer and slightly stronger along the grain than the other two? So, if the wood is workable (unknown), one might be inclined to use thinner graduations. Or so I guess...

I don't think the 'Alternative Tonewoods' topic needs to be raised regarding DB building.



You are entitled to your opinion, no doubt. The thing is that different woods do sound different.

In construction, hemlock is used frequently, but it is notorious for some extreme warping. I suppose it would eventually stabilize, but I remember going to a local lumber yard, to get a 2 x 8 treated hemlock plank. I wanted a 14' plank, and they only had one left-- the middle was on the ground, and both ends were nearly waist-high in the air. Other builders have told me of hemlock studs twisting so aggressively inside a wall that they eventually broke themselves in two, fighting against the restraining wall fasteners.

(It also rots easily, but you aren't going to expose your bass to the weather, I expect...)

Rod, have you read the initial post? Different sounds wasn't the original question.

Hemlock trees seem to have more twist in them than other large conifers out here and more sap pockets too. They are making trim out of it now and its not very nice.

All the old houses I've worked on in coastal BC have had spruce or fir for structural members, spruce or fir for interior trim and cedar on the outside and I think they did it for a reason. God knows there's enough big hemlock around..........

Rod, have you read the initial post? Different sounds wasn't the original question.



I understood it as a general comment. I have nothing against your opinions on hemlock.

Alternative tonewoods for sound is what this thread is becoming, perhaps. :)

Bruce Harvie has some poplar or willow (I forget) in DB sizes and I'm thinking of getting some for a bass. I love the huge open sound that willow appears to bring to the table.

I notice that most of the responces about hemlock as by people on the west coast. My limited experience working with hemlock lumber is that it is not any more twisty, warped or full of sap than any other connifer in the lumber yards around here. Perhaps this is a difference between eastern and western hemlock?

85599 e.hemlock different from w.hemlock..workability,drying,grain,etc. and as for availibility..better act fast if you want eastern canadian...as the picture will attest... we are losing hundreds of thousands to an unwelcome guest..woolly adelgid..things don't look better for the upcoming season...:eyebrow:
now with that said..any thoughts on..catalpa,paulownia,american chestnut(no worm holes).. two natives one import

Alternative tonewoods for sound is what this thread is becoming, perhaps.

Are tonewoods used for something other than sound? Am I missing something?:confused:

The original poster asked specifically about alternate Tonewoods, because of increased cost and scarcity of the traditional woods. Depending on where one is, that can be a real problem, as Mr. Tucker has stated.

Here in Oregon, where Big Leaf Maple and both Sitka and Englemann Spruces abound, it still is expensive to get them--I just paid $1500 each for two full bass sets, including ONLY the wood, and not even bassbar, block and lining wood included. Fittings, fingerboards, strings, and varnish etc. are all on top of that. Pushing $2500, say, for materials, and maybe a decent bag, before the labor begins. So it IS an issue, if one can find other, less traditional woods for, say, half that cost...you'd save $750, even here at the source.

BUT, and this is a bigger issue, if you are going to spend 500 hours building the bass, and the wood you use will either make it unsalable, unplayable, or in some other way a total waste of time, the money saved on the wood, even if it was free, is small compared to the money lost in labor on a bass that is no good.

So, all the discussion about the relative merits in terms of sound are spot-on topic. That is exactly the issue.

While we are at it, I have tried Ipé as fingerboard, saddle, nut and tailpiece material, and it seems OK, but it does not look the same, and, of course is not quite as hard. Has anyone else experimented with it? It is way cheaper, and plentiful, but again, if it turns out to simply not be hard enough, or make it sound funny, it is pointless.

Chet

"Am I missing something?"

Maybe you are, if you drop in in the middle of a thread and only have sarcastic comments to add to the discussion.

If you want to understand my remark, or the thread as a whole, you'll need to read from the beginning. The OP asked about alternative tonewoods for DB and suggested several woods that are actually endangered and not used/suitable for DB.

Since neither Maple nor Spruce are in short supply, I really don't see the need for replacements except, as Rod pointed out, if you wanted to alter the sound.

Every time someone says you can't use X for a bass tonewood, you find an exception to the rule. The thing about maple and spruce is that they are known quantities and proven to last centuries. That's where "saleable" is a factor. But that doesn't mean there aren't many fine functional alternatives. Look at what guitar makers are using, and selling!

I think it's also as much the way the wood is worked which has a huge bearing on the effect on sound. Its often hard to predict what any organic raw material will do before you start working with it. As the instrument grows in front of you, you discover what the wood wants to give you.

My hunch is that, grosso modo, a rigid instrument would tend to be naturally bright and a flexible instrument dark. But how you achieve the flexibility or lack of is very variable. an inherently flexible wood such as willow might bring something to a bass compared with a maple bass, all other things being equal. But then I think maple carved thinner and braced differently could be equally flexible.

I don't think its as simple as X wood sounds like THIS and Y wood sounds like THAT.

I'm prepared to try anything that looks good and is big enough.

So many variables ... so little time.

My hunch is that, grosso modo, a rigid instrument would tend to be naturally bright and a flexible instrument dark.

Matthew, I am no professional luthier, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

More flexibility and especially less weight are usually sought after by luthiers at all cost. But I have seen so many basses made with rigid and heavy materials that sound great and dark !

As a matter of fact, my experience with heavy/rigid necks for example is fantastic, as far as darkness and fullness of sound.

Al Laszlo in Cincinnati has a magnificent Ruggeri with a poplar back that is so incredibly thick that I can't think you could get any flexibility from it. And somehow that bass is so deep and dark you don't actually know where the sound comes from because it just envelops you. It's also incredibly loud.

I have never heard a good bass with a heavy top though. Or with a top that was thick around the edges which is where it needs to flex.

Perhaps heavy and stiff woods can work in certain areas or with the right treatment (graduations, etc...).

For tops there seems to be very little room to play, but I know someone might have evidence to the contrary.

I am not (yet) a professional luthier either. My hunches may be correct or they may be way off the mark. (So far - I think - I'm fairly close to the mark.)

I was talking only about rigidity/flexibility. That's only one parameter. Other parameters are weight and density and i agree, a heavy softwood back you would think would be darker (absorb HF??). And it would of course be more rigid, everything else being equal. But a heavy hardwood back might be brighter (reflect HF??)

In the world of guitars, they say a rigid, heavy instrument will often project sound better in a large venue. But a light and flexible instrument will envelop the player in the sound ...

But what about a lightly built but rigid instrument? Or a heavy but flexible instrument? what are the limits of what wood will do?

So many variables ...

I know this could take this thread in a completely different direction... but I was wondering if anyone has ever used recycled wood, for instance from an old church that is being demolished or from a soundboard from a no longer/unrepairable piano?
This solves both problems, 1. Cheap, the stuff is going to get thrown away anyways, 2. doesn't cut any new wood, 3. Sounds good its old well aged wood (this might not necessarily be true, but it seems like it would at least help the sound).

Well i have some nicely flamed drawer sides taken from junked office desks and some WRC shelving that i intend one day to make into a cello or small bass. But so far, its just planks in my woodstack!

The problem for basses is getting the wood big enough. Yeah you can make up multi-piece tops and backs and they can work fine, but it's extra work.

The problem with grand piano soundboards is that they are only 1/4" or so thick. I hang out at the local piano restorers once in a while, but they send their frames to Seattle to have the soundboards replaced. Yes, I'd like some of that 100 year old wood for guitar tops!

Michael Heiden ( http://www.heideninstruments.ca/ ) has been building terrific mandolins from 100 year old Red Spruce beams from a grain mill in Ohio. The sound is breathtaking from Day One, with a depth and maturity not usual in a new instrument.

I bet the beams are big enough for bass tops but would be fiercely expensive.

[QUOTE=Jake deVilliers;5467762

If you want to understand my remark, or the thread as a whole, you'll need to read from the beginning. Since neither Maple nor Spruce are in short supply, I really don't see the need for replacements except, as Rod pointed out, if you wanted to alter the sound.[/QUOTE]

I have read the entire thread from the beginning. You are the only poster suggesting that one should not investigate alternative woods because there is plenty of spruce and maple around. First of all, as I am constantly seeking out and buying bass wood, I find that statement erroneous. I personally don't care for big leaf maple (neither does Dan Hachez), so I concentrate on Eastern maples, European and English Sycamore-maple. These woods are very expensive, quality has deteriorated and size can be a problem. Spruces are available though expensive, and quality has also deteriorated.

Secondly, spruce/maple construction is not the only, nor clearly the best, way to go with double bass construction. Of the last 10 Italian basses in my shop, perhaps two or three were built this way. Others had backs and ribs of walnut, poplar, pear, chestnut and willow. Tops were pine, spruce and fir. Most of these instruments have fabulous tone.

The idea that one should stick to the traditional violin-family woods was rejected hundreds of years ago. I personally have built basses with sycamore, poplar, cottonwood, aspen and walnut, (as well as maple) with excellent results. There are certain woods I don't think are suitable, such as the heavy, stringy woods like hickory, elm and oak. And I agree that heavy tropical woods like cocobolo are also unsuitable.

I applaud those aspiring and active luthiers who are exploring the non-traditional wood choices. They are walking a path the great Italian bass-makers have taken for centuries.

e.hemlock different from w.hemlock..workability,drying,grain,etc.

Now that we've established the difference between eastern and western hemlock, does anyone know if e. hemlock is suitable for basses? The wooly adelgid has pretty much wiped them out in the southern appalachians as well, so what ever is harvested right now will be the last of these giant straight connifers.:crying: Since there are so many ancient trees dying, it seems like you could cut down an old tree that you would never think of cutting if it were healthy, therefore creating the opprotunity for some truely huge billets.

e.hemlock although long lived tends to be weaker and succumbs to defect earlier than most conifers. when you find the tree your looking for: healthy crown, 50-80yrs, clear bole,etc,etc..you have a 70% chance of getting what you want...very old and there is little chance..standing dead=cull..dry rot,heart rot, stain, the list goes on...but TRY

luthiers/luthiers to be: if you are in this for the long run you have to be creative in how you get your materials Recycled wood or (figuratively go out on a limb).it's really not that difficult to knock on farmer browns door (or whomever) and buy (trees/timber for a nominal price)many of the species disscussed...even some imports in urban settings. arrange your own milling..on site band? what ever it takes..buy,mill,dry(works the same on the westcoast as it does on the east)..beats the wood boutique. nothing like building a little sweat equity in your own trade..all things being equal,piss fir,pussywillow,or the shithouse door off a tuna boat(now thats tonewood) you'll manage to build;)