ASH vs. ALDER - PART II

[fish slapper]

How can you not like Zep???!!!

I know. It's one of my many character flaws. We play "Rock and Roll" in our current rotation and I have to grit my teeth every time.

 

[honeyiscool]

Well I always joke around that Vox amps with brown grill cloth sound better than Vox amps with black grill cloth.

AND IT'S TRUE.

 

[nostatic]

why is the methodology flawed? how would it be fixed? I teach research methods and while this isn't as thorough as it could be, for a web experiment it really seems pretty good.

Count up the variables between the instruments. Then look at variability within samples of a certain type of wood. Then consider if the same person is playing, do they know which is which? Also, what is the sample size in this particular experiment?

Beyond being a drinking game, there aren't a whole lot of conclusions that can be drawn from this type of experiment. Other than the willingness of people to generalize from n=1 when it supports their belief.

 

[Alper Yilmaz]

Thanks again Dan. Just like on the neck test, I got both options correct, but I am not sure if I would come up with the same result if I were tested again! I could have been easily in the other group.

These listening tests are really fun. However, it might be best to re-state the null hypothesis a bit. I do not think this particular test proves (or disproves) that there is little difference in ash and alder as body woods (I am not saying there is or there is not). It rather is a test about two specific bodies used in the experiment, which might not be representing the typical alder/ash characteristics, if any such characteristics exist. Here, Ken's (kjung) "degrees of freedom" (not having enough number of bodies in hand to yield statistically significant results) comment comes into play. In other words, these two pieces of wood used in the experiment might have extremely similar characteristics, but establishing a theory based on only one sample from each group (alder and ash) and stating that these two types of wood are not significantly different when used as body wood would not be fair.

Furthermore, it is an experiment testing people's hearing abilities under uncontrolled environments. In that respect, the test is more about people's hearing than sonic characteristics of two specific bodies. Of course, under the assumption that all other things remain constant during the conduct of the experiment...

Again, I am not claiming the experiment is flawed or anything; as we are not at a surgical operation. Who cares, at the end of the day, apart from some bassists? But, defining the null hypothesis can be quite challenging...

Clip C matches Clip B (They were both Ash)
Ramble On was recorded with a different bass on each verse (Alder in the first verse, Ash in the second)

The votes were VERY close. 56% got the first test right, and 53% got the second test right.

So yet again, definitely not indicative of any significant tone differences. I probably should have listed "I can't tell" as an option, since many people indicated they couldn't hear any difference.

I really think it would take drastic wood pairings (like Maple vs. Mahogany) to produce a real meaningful tone difference. Otherwise it would be impossible to hear the tonal variations in a mix.

Thanks for playing!

P.S. Since the results of this test went narrowly in favor of the "wood matters" crew, I wonder if they will scream about it being "flawed" like they did the last test.

 

[jaibot]

Count up the variables between the instruments. Then look at variability within samples of a certain type of wood. Then consider if the same person is playing, do they know which is which? Also, what is the sample size in this particular experiment?

Beyond being a drinking game, there aren't a whole lot of conclusions that can be drawn from this type of experiment. Other than the willingness of people to generalize from n=1 when it supports their belief.

not an experiment, its an observational study

 

[funkythumb]

On a personal note, I'm happy I got the B=C, Ash correct. I didn't vote on Ramble On.
I could hear the difference with B and C having a clearer, and more aggressive/ raspy sound.
Alder sounds warmer sound whereas ash seems tighter and more present.
I'd love to hear a comparison between mahogany and alder.
I have dug and currently do dig my mahogany sounding basses. They have a very full and rich sound.
Thanks for the test

 

[Blues Cat]

How do you switch the necks out that fast?

EDIT:

The "Ramble On" clip was recorded with either one bass for both verses, or a different bass on each verse. Your second job is to figure out which it is.

(Please use good headphones or monitors for these tests)

DOES CLIP "C" MATCH "A" OR "B"?
Clip A
Clip B
Clip C

THERE ARE 2 VERSES ON THIS "RAMBLE ON" TRACK. WAS THE BASS RECORDED WITH THE SAME BODY WOOD FOR BOTH VERSES, OR A DIFFERENT WOOD FOR EACH VERSE?
Ramble On​

For the record: I've always said that body wood DOES impact tone slightly, but that other factors (like strings, pickups, the player) impact tone more. I think these clips prove that. Only bassists with highly trained ears will hear these differences. 99% of your audience will never notice.

So if you're interested in tweaking your tone, your body wood should probably be the last thing you worry about.

Anyway, let's see those votes!

 

[aborgman]

Count up the variables between the instruments.

Ummm.. theonly variable is the body.

The neck, pickups, strings, etc. were all the same (not same model - identical).

Beyond being a drinking game, there aren't a whole lot of conclusions that can be drawn from this type of experiment. Other than the willingness of people to generalize from n=1 when it supports their belief.

I disagree - it's evidence, that at least in this one case, the differences are subtle and not of large enough magnitude to overcome any inherent bias/pre-conditioning.

 

[Jim C]

Feeling a whole lot better about myself after getting this test and the fingerboard test correct

Anybody want to bet real money that a true blind test with 10 of each variable could do no better than say 60% correct with a live band at a gig?

For that matter, how about picking ash vs alder or which fingerboard wood from the same song recorded 10 times without a control group?

3 reasonably famous vintage guitar dealers told me 25 years ago, the amp matters much more than the guitar for tone assuming half way decent Fenders; think this applies to bass as well

 

[One Drop]

I really think it would take drastic wood pairings (like Maple vs. Mahogany) to produce a real meaningful tone difference. Otherwise it would be impossible to hear the tonal variations in a mix.

Thanks for playing!

P.S. Since the results of this test went narrowly in favor of the "wood matters" crew, I wonder if they will scream about it being "flawed" like they did the last test.

So you mean wood matters. Nice.

 

[One Drop]

For the record: I've always said that body wood DOES impact tone slightly, but that other factors (like strings, pickups, the player) impact tone more. I think these clips prove that. Only bassists with highly trained ears will hear these differences. 99% of your audience will never notice.

So there is enough difference to be audible to a trained ear? Nice. (Neither of these quotes was taken out of context in any way)

So let's say a luthier with a trained ear wants to use his trained ear to choose what wood to use in a bass. He wants a bright instrument with a snappy attack. His ears (and maybe his eyes a bit and maybe his pre-conceptions a bit, maybe a lot of both) tell him that often ash was a bit more scooped sounding and a bit brighter, or alder was a bit darker and less scooped sounding. he would probably choose the ash, let's say, and PAIR it with a neck that had what he believed was a snappy or bright tone, because of the type of wood and the construction, or what-have-you. He'll use a PUP that can capture those eyes, heck, he'll use every SMALL BUT SUBTLE material and technique to wring the desired tone out of that bass. As there are so many variables, and each has a more or less important contribution to the final over-all tone (some factors become more important due to a cumulative effect, some might be negated, etc).

He believes that wood tone matters ENOUGH to be worth considering, but he doesn't believe it will be the definitive factor in deciding the final tone. maybe he taps each piece of wood to help his decision, believing that density and hardness are important, and maybe not consistent with wood types in general.

So he ends up building an instrument that is fairly bright. Next instrument he wants to build a dark, less crisp sounding bass (excuse my wooly tonal adjectives, you get the idea), so he uses mahogany for the body, rosewood for the fretboard, and puts a PUP in with less extended highs and a strong middy voice, etc. etc. At the end he might end up with a bass that is identical or close in construction, but that has enough of a distinct tonal character that differs from the first bass to be very audibly different IN A MIX. Yeah!!!!

Is he a naysayer? is he a 'wood matters guy'? Is he making outrageous claims that reduce an argument to absurdity? No, he believes wood can affect the sound of a bass enough to try and generalize his experiences to make this fact useful to him and useful to his consumer, whom he should really consider to have trained ears if he respects him enough to build a bass to his tonal preferences.

Was that so bad? Maybe our opinions aren't that far apart, once we remove the name-calling, side-taking, absolutism, and ridicule from the equation. It seems you are really only arguing to what degree wood matters, and that is a whole other kettle of fish, one each bassist and luthier who cares about this have to decide to count or discount as they see fit. Personally, as I said earlier, I choose each bass based on how that particular one sounds, but my limited experience has led me to believe that wood matters because I've played so many nearly identically made and spec'ed basses that something has to explain the huge differences in tone between them. The only thing I can think of is the combination of each piece of wood used in the construction, as wood is an extremely variable material in it's properties of density, hardness, and cellular structure, while most other components are these days are fairly consistent due to modern manufacturing techniques.

And to those that just want to name-call and vilify those who disagree with them, I say grow up and engage the argument instead of the person behind it.

 

[marmadaddy]

I got them both wrong and I was totally confident in my answers. So much for my "highly trained ear" and years of experience. A worthwhile experiment, thanks for posting it.

I'm sticking with my theory of: "It" isn't the wood, "It" isn't the pickups, "It" isn't the neck, "It" isn't the bridge, and "It" isn't the fretboard. "It" is the combination of all of these things mixed in with one's own physique, technique and ears plus a sprinkling of something unknowable yet vital.

Seemingly completely identical instruments sometimes don't have "It" yet wildly different instruments sometimes do.

Now I just pick up an instrument, plug it in, play for 20 seconds and I know if it has "It" or not.

 

[Jim C]

I'm sticking with my theory of: "It" isn't the wood, "It" isn't the pickups, "It" isn't the neck, "It" isn't the bridge, and "It" isn't the fretboard. "It" is the combination of all of these things mixed in with one's own physique, technique and ears plus a sprinkling of something unknowable yet vital.

Seemingly completely identical instruments sometimes don't have "It" yet wildly different instruments sometimes do.

Now I just pick up an instrument, plug it in, play for 20 seconds and I know if it has "It" or not.

Well said, and for me, demonstrated in these threads

 

[Swift713]

Is instrument building an art or a science?

 

[BuffaloBass]

Welp, I do have me some senitive ears for a scarred up, ugly, blunt looking creature. And I love me some warm ash. ( with a hard maple board - go figure!)

Thank you for the test sir, it was truly fun. Actaully, I dug the groove there, esp in the middle with the whispy slides.

BTW, I could tell the diff in the higher registers and less so when the bass went to its lowest notes in the piece.

 

[metron]

my limited experience has led me to believe that wood matters because I've played so many nearly identically made and spec'ed basses that something has to explain the huge differences in tone between them.

I think that personal perception accounts for a lot of the differences people have on either side of the wood debate. Most hear some kind of difference. Some will say that the exact same difference is subtle and some say its "huge".

For some of us (me included) a huge difference in tone between two basses is something on the order of a Stingray vs a Jazz bass. Others (perhaps youself included) can try out ten similar Jazz basses with different woods and say there are huge differences between them while someone like me might say they all sound different but the differences are subtle, not huge, because all 10 still sound like Jazz basses. Who is wrong?

In these comparison threads there are some that say the difference is obvious and maybe even huge. Others say subtle. Yet we are all listening to the same differences. Im struggling to resolve my post here.

I think really that the answer is somewhere in the middle of the extreme opinions of "none" and "huge". The clips illustrate a definite difference in sound. It's not a difference I would refer to as huge or even drastic nor would I refer to it an non-existant. To many it may not hold any meaning at all when choosing which instrument to play. To others it could be the deciding factor once all else has been decided on. Can't we all be right?

I think one thing is for certain... those with the strongest opinions need to bring it down to a simmer.

 

[BuffaloBass]

I tell you how HUGE it is. Dan , or I could play those basses and with our right hands only make one sound more like the other. HUGE is a lie. I can clearly hear the subtlies and they "aint" HUGE.

You know what they say in the Army ( or did in the last century) opinions are like ice holes.......

The only thing HUGE with some folks is their ego, eh?

Geewillikers, one flip of the switch on the Audere ( installed in the not as warm aldrer bass), and its as warm as ash, and more.

So preamp TRUMPS wood.

 

[Batmensch]

The only thing that bothers me about this whole debate, is this attitude of " I hear a HUGE difference, if you don't, then there's something wrong with you and/or your hearing." and it's reverse, "I don't hear a difference at all, if you do, then you must be mental."
I mean, how arrogant is that?

 

[Daede]

I don't really care much, either way. Mostly, this has made me curious about what other materials sound like...
...and I plan to start experimenting

 

[BuffaloBass]

The only thing that bothers me about this whole debate, is this attitude of " I hear a HUGE difference, if you don't, then there's something wrong with you and/or your hearing." and it's reverse, "I don't hear a difference at all, if you do, then you must be mental."
I mean, how arrogant is that?

Totally. Which brings me to another appropos saying, " Never let an ice hole ruin your day. "