Ash and swamp ash are essentially the same wood. The only difference is the weight. If you have a light ash bass (regardless of whether it came from the 50s, 60s, or 70s) it is essentially swamp ash.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Alder and Ash bodies: Is there a difference?
- Thread starter MOTORHEADBANGER
- Start date
Ash and swamp ash are essentially the same wood. The only difference is the weight. If you have a light ash bass (regardless of whether it came from the 50s, 60s, or 70s) it is essentially swamp ash.
It really depends on the piece of wood - but electronics make a MUCH bigger difference than body wood.
Put cheap electronics in any bass with ash or alder and it will sound cheap and lifeless. I used to think wood made a difference but now I dont. It may account for 20% of the resultant sound, the rest is amplification and onboard selection of pre and pickup. Take a Ken Smith, Spector, and an MTD-USA, swap all the electronics with each other and tell me if the wood makes a difference.
If you want your friends to say "wow, nice looking bass", then pay big $$$ for pretty wood. If you are looking to hear " wow, that bass sounds great", the go for something else. If you want looks and sound then get a quality instrument with the sound you need for the music you do and play it thru quality gear.
Your playing technique will also weigh in heavily on how it sounds....obviously.
If you want your friends to say "wow, nice looking bass", then pay big $$$ for pretty wood. If you are looking to hear " wow, that bass sounds great", the go for something else. If you want looks and sound then get a quality instrument with the sound you need for the music you do and play it thru quality gear.
Your playing technique will also weigh in heavily on how it sounds....obviously.
the difference to me apart from the grain figure, is that alder is a softer wood, screw holes for pickups, pickguards and such tend to strip more often than those in ash. So I coat the screw holes with superglue in alder, or use inserts.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but mine is just about the complete opposite.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
90% of mocha brown '72 p basses were made out of alder. if you post a large clear pic of it, it will be simple to determine exactly what it is.
I used to think that wood didn't make much of a difference. Now I do. Here's why -
1. If you are playing a bass with active pickups, then the wood doesn't used is not as influential in terms of tone. I played active basses for years - my first "pro" bass was a Stingray, and until about three years ago, I primarily played a Stingray. I've also owned Pedulla, Spector and Roscoe basses during this time. Frankly, there was a similar quality to how these basses sounded - they sounded more like the electronics then whatever wood was used.
2. For passive instruments, both guitar and bass, I maintain that wood DOES make a difference - and a huge one - because there isn't an active pre-amp hijacking the tone. Passive instruments sound more organic to me, and I find that tone shaping involves many more variables than active instruments.
With regard to the differences between ash and alder - I prefer alder for the type of music I am doing (classic rock and metal, some punk). I may prefer a swamp ash body if I were doing a funk or slick pop gig.
1. If you are playing a bass with active pickups, then the wood doesn't used is not as influential in terms of tone. I played active basses for years - my first "pro" bass was a Stingray, and until about three years ago, I primarily played a Stingray. I've also owned Pedulla, Spector and Roscoe basses during this time. Frankly, there was a similar quality to how these basses sounded - they sounded more like the electronics then whatever wood was used.
2. For passive instruments, both guitar and bass, I maintain that wood DOES make a difference - and a huge one - because there isn't an active pre-amp hijacking the tone. Passive instruments sound more organic to me, and I find that tone shaping involves many more variables than active instruments.
With regard to the differences between ash and alder - I prefer alder for the type of music I am doing (classic rock and metal, some punk). I may prefer a swamp ash body if I were doing a funk or slick pop gig.
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,638
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
Personally, I hear a difference between my alder bodied and swamp ash bodied basses, both acoustically and electronically. My alder bodied basses sound more 'even' and have stronger low mids. My swamp ash bodied basses have more deep low end and brighter highs, but sound slightly scooped in the low mids.
With a bit of eq, I can boost the low mids on my amp to get the sound I prefer from my swamp ash basses.
I personally prefer the sound of my alder bodied basses.
With a bit of eq, I can boost the low mids on my amp to get the sound I prefer from my swamp ash basses.
I personally prefer the sound of my alder bodied basses.
