Poplar

[BigOldHarry]

Originally Posted by AaronHuff

Is poplar considered a soft wood, like basswood? Compared to alder or swamp ash, that is. I've often heard that the softness of basswood makes it less durable, and I'm wondering if poplar is the same way.
I've also heard that poplar is similar to alder in many respects. I'm trying to find places to cut some costs on an upcoming build without sacrificing quality...

I've done a fair amount of woodworking with poplar, and had a single poplar bass many years ago.

It is very much like alder - soft, but not "pine soft". Okay, "softish". It's not as hard as ash, that's for sure.

The problem with poplar is that it's rather ugly, with a vague green tint to it.

As a "tone wood" goes, it was used to build Fender's cheapest gear back in the day (Musicmaster/Mustang/etc) so that's a hint for ya.

[Lo-E]

Here's another hint: A lot of painted Musicman Stingrays are made of poplar. The entire SUB series was poplar, as well. According to a gentleman I spoke with at Ernie Ball, very few rays were built with alder. They typically used either ash (for clear finishes) or poplar.

I was pretty surprised, myself.

[BigOldHarry]

Originally Posted by Lo-E

Here's another hint: A lot of painted Musicman Stingrays are made of poplar. The entire SUB series was poplar, as well. According to a gentleman I spoke with at Ernie Ball, very few rays were built with alder. They typically used either ash (for clear finishes) or poplar.

I was pretty surprised, myself.

That tells you the value of the whole "Tonewood" debate.

Of course, one could make the case that the tone of a stingray is, at its best, not "ringy and bright" but compressed and punchy, with more mids... which you might expect with a slightly softer wood + hot electronics.

[Jason_A]

I'll agree with what most others have said. Poplar is a nice wood for use in a body. It is very similar to Alder in almost every regard, and under paint you'd never know the difference. In fact, it probably takes paint better than Alder. As others have said, it's not a very pretty wood - I wouldn't call it ugly, just nothing very distinct about it. I used it as a body wood (with a maple cap) on a couple of basses, and will definitely continue to use it in the future. It is readily available and much cheaper than alder (at least where I am). I can make an entire body blank for under $15

For a guitar I'm sure poplar would be an acceptable neck wood, but I'm not sure about on a bass - with graphite you'd probably be ok.

[Mr. Majestic]

Popular that is used in basses is Liriodendron tulipifera, that is yellow poplar/tuliptree/tulip poplar and on and on....... Yellow poplar is the most used poplar in the instrument building business. The Populus deltoides is the most famously used "populus" species in the market and it is basically Cottonwood or Cottonwood poplar. Those two different types of wood work nothing the same. I have built tens of thousands of cabinet doors out of the yellow poplar(which stays nice straight and smooth) and tons of doors out of the Cottonwood(which is very hard to keep straight and is VERY "stringy"). I have also built thousands of doors out of the basswood and it is more like the yellow poplar, but tends to warp and twist more on longer measurements.

[mongo2]

Danelectro used poplar for necks.

[dremy2006]

Originally Posted by gbarcus

For the most part, it is soft, kind of like pine. For the few $$ you would save by going with poplar, it really isn't worth it. IMHO

...... HUH??????... I've used it many times and it's a great wood to work with... I just finish up a build using pop... with a 300.00 buckeye burl top and it's worth it... my client loves the sound... go for it....

[Bruce Johnson]

I switched to using poplar for almost all of my bass bodies a few years ago. I had been using white ash for about 12 years, and really liked it, but I had some ugly problems with boards infested with boring beetles. And, in recent years, the supply of ash has dwindled down to a trickle, at least here in So Cal.

The big reason I chose poplar to switch to is because there's a huge supply. When I go to my lumberyards, they always have piles of boards. That means that I can be very picky on which boards I select for grain pattern, weight, and color. Poplar is about half the price of ash, so I'm more willing to buy extra boards and then more carefully select the portions of the board back at the shop.

As compared to ash (white ash, not "swamp" ash), poplar is softer and lighter. I used to cut some internal chambering in the ash bodies to soften the tone to where I wanted it, but I've found that the poplar gets to the same place without the chambers. The poplar is very easy to cut and rout, although it tends to leave annoying fuzz at the edges. I'm finding that it's actually easier to finish than ash. The grain doesn't require deep filling, which I used to do with epoxy. A couple of good coats of sanding sealer are fine for the poplar.

I'm happy with it, and will probably keep using it for almost all of my bass bodies.

[Musiclogic]

I have been using Poplar for bodies since 1993 in conjunction with other commonly used woods. As Bruce said above, a little fluffy but the nap is tamed by some wash coats of finish or sealer. Nice and light for those with light bass wants, and some pieces can be as nice looking as ash. Basswood is nice for light instruments too, but usually more bland than Poplar in looks.

[Blue Blood]

I've used poplar for a long time as well, mostly as an alder substitute. The lumberyard I get my wood from rarely has alder in the size I need. I find alder and poplar sound very similar and poplar is usually lighter. I've found several pieces that looked nice with a clear finish but I paint a lot of my instruments so appearance doesn't matter much.

[Reticle]

I really like working with it too. A lot of that has to do with me having a TON of it, but it hasn't ever caused me any issues. It's very easy on the tools and never hard to find, which is probably why anytime I'm trying out new ideas I go straight for the Poplar. Of course I always end up painting the Poplar ones..... My two go-to basses now are Poplar bodies that I was just screwing around with some different ideas on.

[Rodent]

I find that 'Poplar' definitely has its place in my building vision. It works nicely on the CNC and with hand tools, and it easily takes a finish.



Add to this, as mentioned previously by others, it's significantly easier to source clear lumber in the dimensions I need for bodies


As a bonus to this discussion, I'll have two as identical as possible basses at my booth the upcoming 2013 Winter NAMM Show ... the woods used were even cut as close to each other as possible. The only difference in the two basses will be that one has a Poplar body and the other one Alder. Body wood density is such that they both weigh in under 3oz apart from each other.

I'll be taking notes at people's tonal impressions without disclosing which wood is which I have a pretty good idea I know which instrument will be the sonic winner, but that will have to wait until the end of Jan

all the best,

R

[crazydave911]

If your going to paint the body, I'd save money and use poplar. There's some really fine grained alder running around these days and I'll be darned if I'd cover it up with paint

[SurferJoe46]

Douglas Fir and Hemloc - both construction grade wood in 2x4, 2x6, 2x8, etc., make great bodies too.



Somewhat in the middle zone for weight, they are decently hard and very workable.









I totally believe the tone wood theory is a myth. Of the 17 basses I've built from everything starting at Indonesian Poplar which is one step below Balsa for weight and hardness to Ash and many different woods in between - I hear no difference in voicing that isn't attributable to the electrical parts and the strings.