ash vs mahogany

[Brad Johnson]

Well, I own a bunch of acoustic guitars and a couple of hollow body basses of a couple woods and types. I don't think there is anyone here that is true-believer religious enough to claim that those woods make no difference whatever. (Remember these are ELECTRIC instruments with pickups and things) The various resonances of hollow body instruments (just thump on the body for crying out loud) are so so obvious and pronounced and show up so strongly in the final sound that to argue you can build a violin out of silly putty and it will sound just like a Strad is as silly as it sounds.

So now who is going to argue against Turnaround and say that when you have a SOLID piece of wood that somehow physics no longer applies. And all the resonances and couplings that give character and tone to a hollow acoustic instrument are somehow no longer there as if it had suddenly become a saxophone or something? Obviously THAT is nonsense too and same physics still applies. It still has strings, and frets and nut and bridge and wood still has resonances. In other words it the SAME just different in matter of DEGREE.

So now we get to the crux. And that is in a solid body instrument does wood "make no difference"? Well now we've gone from physics (are there resonances that color sound...Answer yes there are) to the totally subjective: Do those wood colorations make ANY difference to ME? Now there is no one answer. The answer depends on which person is playing the instrument! Notice too that not making any difference, is not quite the same thing as "I can't hear/feel any difference". You may feel the difference but don't care. Another person may feel/hear a difference and VALUE that difference. Then like Brad Johnson wood DOES make a difference TO YOU.

This argument over tonewood is NOT unique to bass and guitar forums. I recall HUGE discussions in Drum forums over whether wood matters. If you're interested, where that discussion evolved (devolved?) to was discussions of building a concrete drumset for a final determination if tonewood matters. And interestingly enough there is an urban legend floating around that Leo once build a STONE guitar body to try to answer the question if tonewood matters! Unfortunately if the question was answered, it seems Leo took the answer with him when he left! As I recall a long time ago I think I remember a thread of someone who built a concrete bass...

And hey! Someone was listening! Check this out: DW Concrete Snare Drum

That is the crux of this issue... the idea that physics no longer implies.

I've gotten into flat out silly tangents about this before but I'll still offer this: electric bass is not an electronic instrument (like a synthesizer). It is first and foremost an acoustic instrument. It is not designed to be primarily used as an acoustic instrument but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.

Does anyone seriously disagree with that? Does anyone have an electric bass they can only hear* when amplified?


*I fully expect something silly/pointless like "what about playing unplugged on a gig?". During a moment of silence...

 

[el_Bajo_Verde]

It's just about looks. Which wood looks better to you? Go with that one

 

[Yahboy]

OP, don't be panic with the woods.

I have play the SR505, 605, workshop sr 5 string fretless and 305 at GC few weeks ago when I looking for new combo to replace current rumble V3 200 combo.

The honest word is, sr305 sound much nicer than 505 605 come with MK 1 pup.

I play those sr through EBS classic session 120 combo.

sr 305 maple neck feel buttery smooth too.

 

[el_Bajo_Verde]

The electronics/pickup/preamp vary widely and have more impact on tone than the wood...too many variables.

 

[MojoPenguin]

 

[Apolicious]

jfc, I can't believe how petty this thread has become. ad hominem attacks, hypothetical arguments... oof. Way off track.

Here's my take. Pickups "pick up" the vibration of the string. The strings don't vibrate in a vacuum - they are attached to a solid piece of material. Several, in fact. The involved materials will change how the string vibrates. The string doesn't produce a single sine wave - it creates many others, which we call harmonics. (If there were no harmonics, the plucked string would sound like a synthesizer.) The combination of these sine waves create what we call "tone." The more sensitive the pickup, the more harmonics can be captured. As such, the woods/materials/finish involved in the construction of the bass have an impact on the tone, as they change how the string vibrates - assuming we have the proper equipment/ears to perceive said impact.

Now, given the level of equipment the OP is talking about, there may not be much of a noticeable difference between the instruments, tone-wise. The electronics are just not sensitive enough to capture the nuances between the different woods. So, the ultimate answer might just be "what feels best?" or "which do I connect to more?"

All that being said, we tend to forget that trees are living things, and are organic in nature. They continue to develop and change - even in death - developing and exposing their unique personality. In Aspen groves - which are essentially a giant super-organism where each tree is physically linked to another - no two trees are exactly alike. As a practical example, look at swamp ash. Some pieces are extremely light, while others are incredibly heavy. Same wood, same source, two radically different outcomes.

What truly enlightened me was dealing with high-end (and some VERY) high end acoustic guitars. I've heard maple instruments with a deep growl. I've heard rosewood instruments that sounded choked and tinny. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears...in...rain, as the instrument continues to change.

So, no. We can't definitively say X wood will produce Y tone. But we can say X wood tend towards producing Y tone. It's not perfect, but considering how many factors are involved in creating a unique sound, generalizing the qualities of different tonewoods is a decent place to start.

Or you can just throw your life away and buy a Line6 amp. In the end, it's all about finding what makes us happy, innit?

[edited for typos.]

 

[MAJOR METAL]

Here's a great article on the impact of wood on tone Wood and Sound in Amplified Guitars and Basses – Sadowsky Guitars

 

[Gorn]

Hypothetically, if someone was to take 100 identical mahogany bodied basses and 100 identical ash bodied basses.

All with the same components and strings and played through the same rig by the same player.

Record 30 second samples of fingerstyle, slap, and picked C major scales wkth each of the 200 basses.

Shuffle the 200 samples (somehow labeled for the tester only so he knows what sample correspond with what bass).

A dozen expert bass builders and luthiers sit down with good headphones and listen to all 200 samples with a sheet of paper in front of them. Two columns. One for ash. One for mahogany. Have them check off each side indicating what they believe the wood is of each sample.

How accurate would their answers be?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Here's a great article on the impact of wood on tone Wood and Sound in Amplified Guitars and Basses – Sadowsky Guitars

It's already been stated on TB that folks like Sadowsky and Mike Tobias only offer tonewood as a scam.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I believe in physics. I believe different woods have different properties and can affect tone in different ways.

And that those effects don't matter? Okay.

Hypothetically, if someone was to take 100 identical mahogany bodied basses and 100 identical ash bodied basses.

All with the same components and strings and played through the same rig by the same player.

Record 30 second samples of fingerstyle, slap, and picked C major scales.

Shuffle the 200 samples.

A dozen expert bass builders and luthiers sit down with good headphones and listen to all 200 samples with a sheet of paper in front of them. Two columns. One for ash. One for mahogany. Have them check off each side indicating what they believe the wood is of each sample.

How accurate would their answers be?

With a human playing the samples? Who knows. If OTOH you take a design I'm familiar with, like a Fender Jazz and give me several variants with the only difference being Mahogany and Ash bodies, with relatively neutral pickups like Bartolinis and let ME play them, I feel confident that I would have a very high hit rate. Because IME how you play can easily highlight the effect the wood has on the tone with all else being equal.

I know that many folks would like to simplify this to the point where you can just choose from column 1 or row B, it just isn't that simple.

 

[Gorn]

And that those effects don't matter? Okay.

They do. Not in a way that's discernible according to the experiment I layed out, in my opinion, if I'm guessing at the outcome.

I get that you strongly believe in the effects of tone wood and your ability to discern the differences if you're playing them. That's cool. I'd bet against you if the experiment ever happened. That's all I'm saying. We can live peacefully with our differing opinions.

 

[Brad Johnson]

jfc, I can't believe how petty this thread has become. ad hominem attacks, hypothetical arguments... oof. Way off track.

Here's my take. Pickups "pick up" the vibration of the string. The strings don't vibrate in a vacuum - they are attached to a solid piece of material. Several, in fact. The involved materials will change how the string vibrates. The string doesn't produce a single sine wave - it creates many others, which we call harmonics. (If there were no harmonics, the plucked string would sound like a synthesizer.) The combination of these sine waves create what we call "tone." The more sensitive the pickup, the more harmonics can be captured. As such, the woods/materials/finish involved in the construction of the bass have an impact on the tone, as they change how the string vibrates - assuming we have the proper equipment/ears to perceive said impact.

Now, given the level of equipment the OP is talking about, there may not be much of a noticeable difference between the instruments, tone-wise. The electronics are just not sensitive enough to capture the nuances between the different woods. So, the ultimate answer might just be "what feels best?" or "which do I connect to more?"

All that being said, we tend to forget that trees are living things, and are organic in nature. They continue to develop and change - even in death - developing and exposing their unique personality. In Aspen groves - which are essentially a giant super-organism where each tree is physically linked to another - no two trees are exactly alike. As a practical example, look at swamp ash. Some pieces are extremely light, while others are incredibly heavy. Same wood, same source, two radically different outcomes.

What truly enlightened me was dealing with high-end (and some VERY) high end acoustic guitars. I've heard maple instruments with a deep growl. I've heard rosewood instruments that sounded choked and tinny. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears...in...rain, as the instrument continues to change.

So, no. We can't definitively say X wood will produce Y tone. But we can say X wood tend towards producing Y tone. It's not perfect, but considering how many factors are involved in creating a unique sound, generalizing the qualities of different tonewoods is a decent place to start.

Or you can just throw your life away and buy a Line6 amp. In the end, it's all about finding what makes us happy, innit?

[edited for typos.]

And that is, I think, what most of us tonewood proponents are saying. Not that x WILL yield y results... rather that they tend towards those results. And not that there are no exceptions.

So to me that is nowhere near the mindset that wood simply can't matter. That makes no sense unless the caveats previously stated are in place (heavily effected sound, colored electronics or amplification, player's technique, laws of physics suspended, etc.).

 

[Brad Johnson]

They do. Not in a way that's discernible according to the experiment I layed out, in my opinion, if I'm guessing at the outcome.

That's believing what you want to believe based on an assumption. I have no problem with that working for you.

I get that you strongly believe in the effects of tone wood and your ability to discern the differences if you're playing them. That's cool. I'd bet against you if the experiment ever happened. That's all I'm saying. We can live peacefully with our differing opinions.

It's a belief based on personal experience, not an assumption. If you'd heard a Mahogany Jazz bass and heard how different it sounds from Ash and Alder maybe you'd come to a different conclusion. In your test you're assuming others are limited to hearing no more critically than you do. I know that there are people who can hear more critically than me.

I'd definitely take that bet with ME doing the testing. Because I know that the differences don't show as much if at all with regular fingerstyle playing but can really jump out with more percussive techniques. And even if you're 100 experts can't consistently prove that they can hear a difference but I can, so what? This was about tone woods don't matter. Now even you are saying they can.




We are living peacefully... do you feel some sort of tension over this? I don't.

 

[Brad Johnson]

It ends when you stop watching it. No offense.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Until somebody performs a true blind test as Gorn suggests, it's all opinion and no proveable fact either way, though the idea that amplified strings are part of a system of materials acting in concert, resulting in what we call Tone, is hard to refute. That variation in the parts of this system will affect string vibration IS irrefutable, the average human ear being able to hear that variation is what's left to question. Who wants to volunteer to get the hundred basses, and a robot to pluck them? Finding absolutely identical strings might be a challenge, probably better an electronically induced tone that never touches the strings, like an e-bow. Science!

 

[Gorn]

That's believing what you want to believe based on an assumption. I have no problem with that working for you.

It's withholding belief without evidence.

It's a belief based on personal experience, not an assumption. If you'd heard a Mahogany Jazz bass and heard how different it sounds from Ash and Alder maybe you'd come to a different conclusion. In your test you're assuming others are limited to hearing no more critically than you do. I know that there are people who can hear more critically than me.

Hearing a mahogany or an ash or an alder would convince me of nothing. Large sample sizes might. In my test I'm challenging the critical hearing ability of experts and anyone who claims they can hear the difference.

Now even you are saying they can.

They can matter. Maybe. I don't know. I'm betting they don't.

Emoticon.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Hearing is a funny thing. We don't all listen for the same things so even if our fundamental hearing capabilities were identical I doubt that we'd all notice the same things.

I was at a NAMM show with a drummer friend of mine and he went around testing dozens of cymbals, commenting on each one. What I heard were different cymbals but none of them sounded bad, just different. He heard some that he loved, most that were okay and a few that he hated.

I'm that way about bass. And I seriously doubt that I fool myself into thinking something sounds like it doesn't sound. I don't look at a Mahogany body and tell myself I won't like it, despite the fact that I have a history of things working out that way. I've played plenty of Ash basses that displayed the same sonic tendencies I've heard before but something about them didn't click. I listen and then determine if I like it. I have no vested interested in fooling myself into liking something that I don't. By the same token I have zero interest in just shooting things down either. I can only imagine how much cool stuff I would've missed out on.

 

[Brad Johnson]

It's withholding belief without evidence.

Hearing a mahogany or an ash or an alder would convince me of nothing. Large sample sizes might. In my test I'm challenging the critical hearing ability of experts and anyone who claims they can hear the difference.

I've played lots of Mahogany and Ash basses over the years. Didn't think I needed to spell that out. My mistake.

They can matter. Maybe. I don't know. I'm betting they don't.

Emoticon.

Cool. Enjoy the lab coat, I'll enjoy my variety of basses that seem to sound different. To me.
Decepticon

 

[kkaarrll]

ok, I don't want to dive into the tonewood debate, I like certain woods for my own reasons

however

how stable would a 4 piece laminate ash neck through be? I am thinking of getting one

 

[bass12]

It seems there is rarely a distinction made between wood making a difference to tone and wood making a predictable difference to tone. They are not the same thing. There's also a difference between what is heard listening back to a recording and what is heard when playing a bass. I have little doubt that my ear would be less sensitive when not coupled with the tactile aspects of playing a bass. The responsiveness of a bass (when I'm playing it) affects how I play - and how much I enjoy playing a bass. For me it's not so much about wood type, it's about the specific bass. From my experience the wood makes a difference, but I've also found it difficult to reliably predict the finer aspects of tone (including evenness from note to note) based on wood type. For this reason I no longer order basses to spec - I want to play the bass first.