Alder-Rosewood vs Ash-Maple - Alfik response to DanAtkinson experiment

[Fuzzbass]

Excellent thread, thank you. Nice playing, too.

Using decent headphones, I voted alder/rosewood: I hear more similarity with 2 than with 1.

But even if I am correct, you have demonstrated that there is no significant difference in tone between the three clips.

When it comes to tone of electric basses, electronics trumps wood. If one of those tracks was a P-bass, then few of us would have trouble telling them apart.... unless you soloed the neck pickup on the J-basses.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Fuzzbass

Excellent thread, thank you. Nice playing, too.

Using decent headphones, I voted alder/rosewood: I hear more similarity with 2 than with 1.

But even if I am correct, you have demonstrated that there is no significant difference in tone between the three clips.

When it comes to tone of electric basses, electronics trumps wood. If one of those tracks was a P-bass, then few of us would have trouble telling them apart.... unless you soloed the neck pickup on the J-basses.

Every-time I begin to think that electronics trumps wood, I'll play a buddies MIJ Fender with Sadowsky electronics, and then I play my Sadowsky. They are totally different sounding basses. Both sound good, but this just isn't so.

Construction and wood are just as important. Lets remember something else about this test. These are both Fenders from the same era, roughly wood of the same age, with identical and very good pro set ups and there was probably some compression used in recording the tracks. The set up and the wood are just as important. If you took a new Fender off the wall at GC with the same electronics the differences would be startling.

Something else to keep in mind. Most of us are listening thru mediocre computer speakers. On my MAC their is little difference, on a good set of Genlac studio monitors their is probably quite a bit more difference. Live in the room with air and the same good bass rig probably even more difference.

[Matthijs]

Great song, great playing, great tone. Sorry I can't hear any difference. I'm listening with shure in-ears and al the difference I hear might just as wel be fingerplacement and dynamics.

[Osprey]

With external speakers including an extra bass box (desk size of course) I though I could detect a difference in the higher notes..a bit warmer for number 2. So thought 3 was rosewood, but i wouldn't go to the wall about it.

[Technotitclan]

Point made!

I think the only real impact on tone is the pickups, pup placement, strings and electronics. In that order.

Burk, are you sure the electronics are exactly the same? model and wiring? Also if the pup placement is a little different you will hear that.

I have recently discovered that wood makes almost no difference as long as your using quality product with a good set up.

[Alfik]

Originally Posted by burk48237

Every-time I begin to think that electronics trumps wood, I'll play a buddies MIJ Fender with Sadowsky electronics, and then I play my Sadowsky. They are totally different sounding basses. Both sound good, but this just isn't so.

Construction and wood are just as important. Lets remember something else about this test. These are both Fenders from the same era, roughly wood of the same age, with identical and very good pro set ups and there was probably some compression used in recording the tracks. The set up and the wood are just as important. If you took a new Fender off the wall at GC with the same electronics the differences would be startling.

Something else to keep in mind. Most of us are listening thru mediocre computer speakers. On my MAC their is little difference, on a good set of Genlac studio monitors their is probably quite a bit more difference. Live in the room with air and the same good bass rig probably even more difference.

There was no compression used in recording those bass track. There is just 6 dB limiting on master buss for setting the RMS level of recording to typical internet broadcast level.

I wants to say a lot of words about not only this examples but indigents of bass sound in general from my studio engineer perspective, but this discussion and poll results is very interesting so I wait a little.

How can I make this poll public? Maybe some admin can help.
I think that a lot more people would vote if this poll was public.

[Jazzdogg]

The buzzing of the roundwounds is so annoying that I dislike both with equal fervor.

[Fuzzbass]

Originally Posted by burk48237

Every-time I begin to think that electronics trumps wood, I'll play a buddies MIJ Fender with Sadowsky electronics, and then I play my Sadowsky. They are totally different sounding basses. Both sound good, but this just isn't so.

Well okay, you are adding construction into the mix. Even so, differences are relatively minor -- you have to be looking through a tonal microscope to claim that a Sadowsky J is "totally different" than a Fender J. Same's true with my Sadowsky P-basses versus Fender P-basses: the tones are different, but in the grand scheme of things (think Fender versus Alembic) they are more alike than different.

[tbplayer59]

From my past reading, I remember that fenders were made from from ash or alder not as a tone decision, but a cosmetic one. Ash has nicer grain so is usually finished clear. Alder is painted. Their tone is similar.

[Alfik]

Originally Posted by tbplayer59

From my past reading, I remember that fenders were made from from ash or alder not as a tone decision, but a cosmetic one. Ash has nicer grain so is usually finished clear. Alder is painted. Their tone is similar.

This is not true.
Alder were main material for basses from 60 ties till about 1973. There is a lot of sunburst finishes from that era. They were more variety in solid colors in 60ties also, so a lot of basses from that era is painted solid. In mid seventies fender started to use ash as main material. The color option was reduced to black, white, antigua, natural, sunburst and sienna sunburst. There were some other option but they were rather uncommon.

[JimmyM]

If I had a gun to my head and had to pick the right one or die, I'm dead.

Playing was brilliant, BTW, and nertz to Jazzdogg's hate of the rounds

[tbplayer59]

Sunburst is painted.

[tbplayer59]

Originally Posted by Alfik

This is not true.
Alder were main material for basses from 60 ties till about 1973. There is a lot of sunburst finishes from that era. They were more variety in solid colors in 60ties also, so a lot of basses from that era is painted solid. In mid seventies fender started to use ash as main material. The color option was reduced to black, white, antigua, natural, sunburst and sienna sunburst. There were some other option but they were rather uncommon.

Sunburst is painted.

[Webtroll]

My main issue with fingerboards is I don't like thick shiny finishes on them

[Dragan]

I don't see the point or purpose of threads like these. If someone doesn't hear or care the difference,ok,if somebody loves and is crazy about particular woods combination,that's good either. I may be don't hear the difference when you (or anyone else) record particular bass,especially in the mix of the rest of music,but I hear MY bass when I play and I know the details I like about the sound lays in wood too,not only pick ups and bla bla.
wood combination plays a big role in the sound, but it doesn't has to be transparent so the listener is able to tell it for a quiz answer. it is important for a player himself.

[Fuzzbass]

Originally Posted by Dragan

I don't see the point or purpose of threads like these. If someone doesn't hear or care the difference,ok,if somebody loves and is crazy about particular woods combination,that's good either. I may be don't hear the difference when you (or anyone else) record particular bass,especially in the mix of the rest of music,but I hear MY bass when I play and I know the details I like about the sound lays in wood too,not only pick ups and bla bla.
wood combination plays a big role in the sound, but it doesn't has to be transparent so the listener is able to tell it for a quiz answer. it is important for a player himself.

Some people get waaaaay too carried away with the effect of wood, as if the difference between ash/maple and alder/rosewood were night and day. These blind test threads prove otherwise.

In general, I agree with you. I happen to prefer alder basses to ash. When gigging and recording nobody notices the difference except me, and maybe it's only in my mind (the human brain tends to hear what it expects to hear, even if reality is different), but it's important for me to be happy.

[Bassmunnky]

^^^

Threads like this go on and on cuz it's easier than practicing.

[AMJBASS]

Very true

Agreed that both clips sound great(playing, and sound). I am not sure that in a live situation you would be able to tell the difference. The darkest sounding bass I have ever owned was an ash maple '76 Precision. The brightest was an alder/rosewood MIA 5 string Jazz. I think its more important to just find the best sounding bass rather than worry about construction. Both of those Jazz basses are killer by the way

[tbplayer59]

Originally Posted by Alfik

This is not true.
Alder were main material for basses from 60 ties till about 1973. There is a lot of sunburst finishes from that era. They were more variety in solid colors in 60ties also, so a lot of basses from that era is painted solid. In mid seventies fender started to use ash as main material. The color option was reduced to black, white, antigua, natural, sunburst and sienna sunburst. There were some other option but they were rather uncommon.

I think you have it backwards. Ash, specifically swamp ash, was used early on. Fender migrated to alder over the years.

Here's what I found to respond to this.
From the May/Jun 1994 issue of Bass Player, "The standard Fender bass is made of a bolt-on maple neck - one piece maple or maple with a maple fingerboard - and an alder body. Fender has tried many combinations over the years, but this one has proven the most popular."

Unfortunately, I can't find the article or book where I learned that it's generally just the clear coated bodies that are ash, but I'm going to stand by that statement. You can see the difference in the grain. Ash grain is more clearly defined. These days, ash is generally used for cosmetic purposes.

This statement comes from Fender's website about one of their J-basses, the American Vintage: "Other authentic features include a urethane-finished alder body (ash on Natural-finish model)..."

I'm not saying that this is 100% for every bass out there. I'm sure Fender finishes some alder in clear, especially lower end models.

[Belka]

Originally Posted by tbplayer59

I think you have it backwards. Ash, specifically swamp ash, was used early on. Fender migrated to alder over the years.

Here's what I found to respond to this.
From the May/Jun 1994 issue of Bass Player, "The standard Fender bass is made of a bolt-on maple neck - one piece maple or maple with a maple fingerboard - and an alder body. Fender has tried many combinations over the years, but this one has proven the most popular."

Unfortunately, I can't find the article or book where I learned that it's generally just the clear coated bodies that are ash, but I'm going to stand by that statement. You can see the difference in the grain. Ash grain is more clearly defined. These days, ash is generally used for cosmetic purposes.

This statement comes from Fender's website about one of their J-basses, the American Vintage: "Other authentic features include a urethane-finished alder body (ash on Natural-finish model)..."

I'm not saying that this is 100% for every bass out there. I'm sure Fender finishes some alder in clear, especially lower end models.

The early P basses (1952-?) were ash and then went to alder but as far as I know all jazz basses were alder until something like 1973.
does anyone know if Fender ever used poplar as a body wood?