Two basses with alder bodies and everything else the same can sound more different than an alder bodied bass and an ash bodied bass.
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.
Ash or Alder does it matter to tone?
- Thread starter bassplayerwanab
- Start date
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
D
Things like pickups, position of pickups, pots/cap, choice of strings or even neck wood matters more in my experience.
But when everything else is as equal as possible, YES it still definitely matters.
In my experience the difference is more pronounced when using strings at the extreme ends of the tonal spectrum. I tend to prefer the open clarity and fast response of ash with dark sounding old school flatwounds (which can be sluggish/muddy on the wrong bass) and the warmer mids + softer highs of alder with bright sounding roundwounds (which can be harsh on some basses). When I use "middle or the road" types of strings, like mellow roundwounds or modern sounding flats I can go either way.
These are generalizations though. I'm sure I can find two basses made of alder/ash where the opposite would sound best to me. Two pieces of wood are never the same. Different density will make a HUGE difference.
Plus a bass is the sum of all it's parts, not just the body or the pickup or whatever.
But when everything else is as equal as possible, YES it still definitely matters.
In my experience the difference is more pronounced when using strings at the extreme ends of the tonal spectrum. I tend to prefer the open clarity and fast response of ash with dark sounding old school flatwounds (which can be sluggish/muddy on the wrong bass) and the warmer mids + softer highs of alder with bright sounding roundwounds (which can be harsh on some basses). When I use "middle or the road" types of strings, like mellow roundwounds or modern sounding flats I can go either way.
These are generalizations though. I'm sure I can find two basses made of alder/ash where the opposite would sound best to me. Two pieces of wood are never the same. Different density will make a HUGE difference.
Plus a bass is the sum of all it's parts, not just the body or the pickup or whatever.
in my case, yes, there's kind of a difference.
both basses have the same bridge, maple neck with rosewood fretboard, dual-coil barts, and coco top. preamps are different (bart on the right and aggie on the left). the left has an ash body and the right has an alder body. the alder one has a 'sweeter' and more 'open' tone to it. the ash has a 'darker' and more 'focused' tone to it. the ash one is about 12oz. heavier.
my $.02...
Totally unscientific, but observed over the years with most of my basses having alder or ash bodies ( . . . except for that basswood Peavey . . . . don't ask), and bearing in mind that the variability of wood can shift this a bit one way or the other:
For me, alder was the smoother of the two, generally lighter, and almost the 'white' wood equivalent in some cases of mahogany.
Ash was always brighter, spikey-er if you will, sort of like maple with a bad atitude, and generally a bit heavier.
I never sensed the difference as obviously in fours as I do fives: I'm utterly convinced that the harder the woods involved (and I have no real clue as what percentage would be neck and what percentage would be body in terms of the tone), the better and clearer the notes on the B will speak.
I owned two Alembic fives: One was their laminated neck with maple, purpleheart and their standard 1/4" ebony fingerboard with quil-maple capped mahogany body wings. It was just fine, all the way down.
But . . . . . I had a second with a maple, walnut veneer stripes, and the ebony fingerboard, with Ash body wing topped with flame maple. THAT one had the best low C's and D's I ever heard, if you had the ears for it, you could hear the 'beats' of the first several hamonics, almost a low grind sensation. Ash instead of mahogany? Hmmm . . . . .
Fast Forward: So I bought one of those Squier Contemporary Active Jazz fives (killer axe, a real sleeper), with guess what, a two-piece ash body and a big maple neck and the B-string . . . . . speaks in a very similar fashion to the 2nd Alembic.
I'm no tech, this isn't scientific, but it's what I've observed and heard over quite a few years. I'd have to say harder is brighter.
For me, alder was the smoother of the two, generally lighter, and almost the 'white' wood equivalent in some cases of mahogany.
Ash was always brighter, spikey-er if you will, sort of like maple with a bad atitude, and generally a bit heavier.
I never sensed the difference as obviously in fours as I do fives: I'm utterly convinced that the harder the woods involved (and I have no real clue as what percentage would be neck and what percentage would be body in terms of the tone), the better and clearer the notes on the B will speak.
I owned two Alembic fives: One was their laminated neck with maple, purpleheart and their standard 1/4" ebony fingerboard with quil-maple capped mahogany body wings. It was just fine, all the way down.
But . . . . . I had a second with a maple, walnut veneer stripes, and the ebony fingerboard, with Ash body wing topped with flame maple. THAT one had the best low C's and D's I ever heard, if you had the ears for it, you could hear the 'beats' of the first several hamonics, almost a low grind sensation. Ash instead of mahogany? Hmmm . . . . .
Fast Forward: So I bought one of those Squier Contemporary Active Jazz fives (killer axe, a real sleeper), with guess what, a two-piece ash body and a big maple neck and the B-string . . . . . speaks in a very similar fashion to the 2nd Alembic.
I'm no tech, this isn't scientific, but it's what I've observed and heard over quite a few years. I'd have to say harder is brighter.
I have 2 Jazz Basses. Plywood and Ash. I moved the pickups, electronic and and even the neck. It sounds the same. The Ash is heavier but beautiful
I read "tastes like chicken". Accurate or not, that's how my warped mind read that.
As others have said, it's hard to make a blanket statement of alder sounds like this or ash sounds like that. Wood is a living thing and even two pieces of lumber from the same tree will have different tonal properties.
Along with neck wood, electronics, and everything else, doesn't finish makes a difference too, if I'm not mistaken? I heard that if a gloss finish is applied too thick, it doesn't allow the wood to "breathe" leading to a choked out tone.
The big difference, I think, is in aesthetics. Swamp ash tends to have more dramatic "open" grain patterns that looks sexy under transparent finishes. Alder's tighter grain patterns tend to be more subdued, but I think there's a sexiness in that too. Oh, and if you're doing a project bass of your own, it's said that alder's tighter grain pattern makes it easier to finish than the more open-grained swamp ash.
Along with neck wood, electronics, and everything else, doesn't finish makes a difference too, if I'm not mistaken? I heard that if a gloss finish is applied too thick, it doesn't allow the wood to "breathe" leading to a choked out tone.
The big difference, I think, is in aesthetics. Swamp ash tends to have more dramatic "open" grain patterns that looks sexy under transparent finishes. Alder's tighter grain patterns tend to be more subdued, but I think there's a sexiness in that too. Oh, and if you're doing a project bass of your own, it's said that alder's tighter grain pattern makes it easier to finish than the more open-grained swamp ash.
Last edited:
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,122
- 16,793
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
In my experience, yes it absolutely does. I prefer the punchier tone of alder. Ash tends to produce a more snappy, scooped tone. Although this can be offset by the choice of pickups, amps, preamp, etc.
I'd go with whichever is lighter. I've abandoned the chase-for-tone in favor of my personal comfort.
Riis
Riis
Yes, everything matters including the wood, but, it's a crapshoot what each component will contribute and how it will interact with the other components.
I find it's best for me to try an instrument before buying to see if I like it.
I find it's best for me to try an instrument before buying to see if I like it.
Everyone has a different opinion on this but there is so many variables that going down that rabbit hole will confuse you more or put you in a box in the future and leave you close minded. Just play the bass before you buy it and try many and find what sounds best to your ears. Than when you buy your next bass do the same and soon you will end up with 10 different basses of all different wood types.
there is most definitely a difference, ash maple combo is my jam. I have the same bass in alder and rosewood, not even in the same ballpark. Another combo I have is alder and maple, still not the same. ymmv 
Both my P basses are alder. I believe that alder has a warmer, more "solid" sound, which is what you want for a P bass. My jazz is ash.
