• 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 vs. Swamp Ash

#44
I've always been of the opinion that wood didn't affect tone and so I gravitated towards swamp ash basses because I like they way they look natural or with a trans finish.

And yet, of all the basses I've loved the tone of, not a single one was swamp ash. Could be a coincidence or it could be that the mid scoop that everyone attributes to swamp ash does exist and I don't care for it. I don't know.

What I DO know is that I've always associated ebony fingerboards with this bright sounding attack and a bit of a "ping" to the notes. I'd chalk that up to bias except that I recently played an ebony boarded bass that DIDN'T have that tone. I was expecting it and for whatever reason it wasn't there.

If I was "hearing with my eyes" I would have heard that sound I was looking for with that bass but I didn't even when I was expecting to.

I'm not necessarily sold on "tone woods" but I DO believe the wood affects the tone to some extent. And while it may be plain marketing hype I think it's interesting that most boutique builders (who have built countless instruments) also subscribe to the notion that the wood matters.
 
#45
I think wood affects the tone much more with passive instruments. To me, alder has a much more "mid present" tone. I always had trouble bonding with ash instruments unless they were active. The tone just seemed to get lost more in the mix, especially with jazz basses. P basses not as much since they have more low mids to start with.
 
#47
I'm not here to argue.


Any one here, if you can take two basses that are pretty much the same but with different body woods you will indeed hear a difference. But I'm not surprised when bass players say there is no difference in sound in body woods when some can't even hear the different textures of bass itself.
 
#50
Solarmist said:
I'm not going to argue either - if you can hear the wood over the electronics, settings, and amp/cab ... more power to ya.
Click to expand...



I have a 4 string Xotic J bass with a maple fb and a ash body and a 5 string Xotic J with a rosewood fb and alder body. These two basses have the same exact pickups and pre's and the 4 string is overall brighter and the 5 string is always darker more rounded sounding.

Can you explain why they sound so different? and the difference in tone is huge.























Xotic endorser.
 
#53
I have been through countless basses in the last 44 years and I don't have a single ash one, and I've owned them. I also think the Alder speaks better. I love Marcus but don't dig his pizzacato tone nearly as much as his slap tone. He uses ash as we know. Still a monster player but I'd like to hear him play Alder just to see if the difference would be there with proper EQing of course.
 
#54
In my experience with these two woods, I find alder to be a bit rounder and more even sounding across the entire frequency range. I'm not surprised to find players that can't tell a difference though. Not every player has an ear trained enough to hear subtle differences in frequencies. That's not a bad thing, it just comes down to experience picking out slight frequency shifts in tone. I've done A/B test with two identical test cabs, with only a slight difference in tuning and a good majority of players can't hear the difference, while it's quite obvious to others. Same thing as one player who can hear the difference between two brands of tubes and another player that can't. And by the way. being able to, or not be able to pick out these difference has zero to do with your abilities as a player. I've met some amazing players who can't tell the different between 50Hz and 80Hz and who quite frankly, couldn't care less.
 
#55
I don't think the tonal differences are huge, but the density in ash seems like it's a lot more variable. All of the alder basses I played at the last GC visit seemed pretty much the same weight (at least for fender-type bodies). The ash basses on the other hand were either super light (a CS jazz and one of the oil finish FSR precisions) or super heavy (a Marcus miller and a classic stingray).
 
#56
seang15 said:
Acoustically, swamp ash with maple neck and alder with rosewood neck are sonically very different.

However, amplified, I just don't hear a difference. I mean, wood is wood, and a pickup is a magnet. Only the strings make a difference. Ymmv etc.
Click to expand...

Nah. Wire is wire. All basses sound exactly alike live. That's why I gave away my Alembic, Ken Smith, Modulus, Carvin and all the rest. Why bother? My SX bar bass collection gives all the sonic tone anyone needs. When I play a lined fretless people can't even tell it's a fretless bass! They never count the strings (so long as it's not over 5) So that makes no differnce either. I think it's pretty clear that a nice entry level Reynolds or similar bass is all that ANY pro needs to play live. It's all in the fingers and not in the wood. YMMV.

Just one thing, though. My SX basses have great live tone, but some are ash and some are alder and I swear I can hear a difference between them! Perhaps I need counseling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blastoff
#58
R Baer said:
And by the way. being able to, or not be able to pick out these difference has zero to do with your abilities as a player. I've met some amazing players who can't tell the different between 50Hz and 80Hz and who quite frankly, couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

I can see how that, as a bassist, such nuances of tone might seem fairly unimportant...or that at least one could easily get away without perceiving or appreciating them all that much.

For a producer, arranger and/or composer, however, that's not nearly so likely. In any of those roles, you have a responsibility for the total sound - not just the low frequencies. I would think that, the more sensitive and refined ones sense of hearing - and sense of music - the more advanced one's overall sense of musicianship...and the more effective one is likely to be in creating music... :hmm:

MM
 
#59
MysticMichael said:
I can see how that, as a bassist, such nuances of tone might seem fairly unimportant...or that at least one could easily get away without perceiving or appreciating them all that much.

For a producer, arranger and/or composer, however, that's not nearly so likely. In any of those roles, you have a responsibility for the total sound - not just the low frequencies. I would think that, the more sensitive and refined ones sense of hearing - and sense of music - the more advanced one's overall sense of musicianship...and the more effective one is likely to be in creating music... :hmm:

MM
Click to expand...

Well put, but I was really surprised at my first couple NAMM shows, how many great players just aren't gear heads. I had always assumed that anyone who played long enough would develop an ear for these kinds of things, but what I found was that quite a few players are just simply more into the playing, than the gear. These guys want to plug in, turn up the volume and play. While these guys can appreciate picking up a great sounding instrument and playing it, they are not so much into why the instrument sounds the way it does. Ash, alder, rosewood, maple.... doesn't matter as long as the instrument appeals to them.

I actually quite admire these guys for their ability to only really care about their playing. I sometimes get to hung up on the gear, or my tone to always just appreciate the shear act of playing.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back