• 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.

Can You Tell The Difference??? ASH vs. ALDER

WHICH IS ALDER? WHICH IS ASH?

  • 1-A and 2-A are Alder, 1-B and 2-B are Ash.

    Votes: 17 15.7%

  • 1-A and 2-A are Ash, 1-B and 2-B are Alder.

    Votes: 48 44.4%

  • I can hear a difference between the "1" recordings, but not the "2" recordings

    Votes: 16 14.8%

  • I can hear a difference between the "2" recordings, but not the "1" recordings

    Votes: 3 2.8%

  • I can't hear a difference between any of them!

    Votes: 24 22.2%
  • Total voters
    108
#201
bassybill said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought swamp ash and ash are two different species? And just as likely to be different as say, maple and walnut?

Just asking for clarification.
Click to expand...

IMO, maple and walnut sound pretty darn close to each other.

swamp ash (very lightweight) and hard ash (the dense heavy stuff) sound completely different. IIRC technically,they are of the same species, but grown in different environments (different growth rates and moisture content).

IME, heavy ash has much less resonance and makes for a much brighter sounding instrument with more sustain.
 
#202
dan you like to stir the pot quite a bit.
i predict one day you will be banned from this site
when one of your games back fires on you.

I have read several things and several times where you take the bait offered
by posters trying to get under your skin. Your need to not stand above that
makes me not consider ordering any products from you.
 
#203
The only ones being unpleasant about the whole thing are some of those who disagree with Dan and his results. He presented a test that some people didn't like those results, and those people are calling his methods and intent into question. No games here, at least not on Dan's part.
 
#204
johnk_10 said:
IMO, it's more like pesky experience.




well, i have not found that to be the case at all, and i've been building soild body guitars and basses since 1973. and Leo Fender thought that different body woods made a substantial and noticeable difference too. i talked with him at great length about it when i worked with him in '79-'80, and
i really hate to break it to you, but our discussion about it had NOTHING to do with ego, so sling all the BS that you want.
Click to expand...

OBKB, I mean no disrespect but I could care less about Leo and just the mention of you working with him as your qualification to trump others implies ego. Your experience is yours and that's fine. I'm just not buying into it. I'll spend my dollar on what I find true and not what I view as "marketing".
 
#205
C.Linton said:
The only ones being unpleasant about the whole thing are some of those who disagree with Dan and his results. He presented a test that some people didn't like those results, and those people are calling his methods and intent into question. No games here, at least not on Dan's part.
Click to expand...

I think there was a game played a trick
in the order of results. I dont really care.
I just think he did that intentionally knowing the unpleasantness would result.
 
#207
PastorofMuppets said:
dan you like to stir the pot quite a bit.
i predict one day you will be banned from this site
when one of your games back fires on you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I think you're over reacting a little here. I don't see that Dan has done anything at all contrary to site rules here and I'm sure my fellow moderators would agree with me. If you have an issue with anyone's contributions, please use the post report function. Thanks.
 
#208
C.Linton said:
The only ones being unpleasant about the whole thing are some of those who disagree with Dan and his results. He presented a test that some people didn't like those results, and those people are calling his methods and intent into question. No games here, at least not on Dan's part.
Click to expand...
I didn't listen to the clips until after I knew the results, but it was fairly obvious to anyone with an even basic understanding of testing methods that the testing methodology was flawed. That's fine, this isn't a scientific journal, but the testing method used created variable that could account for the results rather than the differences (or not) in the wood itself. If someone does something demonstrably wrongly, isn't it better that they are told where the error is?
 
#209
Mark Latimour said:
I didn't listen to the clips until after I knew the results, but it was fairly obvious to anyone with an even basic understanding of testing methods that the testing methodology was flawed. That's fine, this isn't a scientific journal, but the testing method used created variable that could account for the results rather than the differences (or not) in the wood itself. If someone does something demonstrably wrongly, isn't it better that they are told where the error is?
Click to expand...
Mark, discussing the validity of the comparisons is of course fine and very healthy for the thread. But some people do seem to have put a personal slant on this and that is completely unnecessary.
 
#210
bassybill said:
Sorry, I think you're over reacting a little here. I don't see that Dan has done anything at all contrary to site rules here and I'm sure my fellow moderators would agree with me. If you have an issue with anyone's contributions, please use the post report function. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I agree ive not seen anything in this thread.
In other threads things got nasty.
I dont care either way. Just stating my opinion.
 
#211
I have not listened to the clips yet. I have to get my headphones out. I'm looking forward to listening tho! Also thanks for the time you took to do this! Great Idea!

I have not read the entire thread so sorry if this has been mentioned already. From what I have read, it is very important to what the quality of the wood is. For example, maybe a crap piece of ash will sound very much like a crap piece of alder. Especially with active electronics! If I recall both basses were fender basses and I think we all know how consistent that company can be. :D

Im not trying to take sides on this post. I just want to point out some more (possible) variables.

All in all. Thanks again for taking the time to do this!
 
#212
bassybill said:
Mark, discussing the validity of the comparisons is of course fine and very healthy for the thread. But some people do seem to have put a personal slant on this and that is completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...
What did you think of the testing method? Do you think the results were improved by the OP's statement that two different bass bodies were used for each clip or could that have prompted false positives?
 
#215
Hmmmm, just listened to all 4 about twice each then looked for the answers...you know, I definitely felt that 1B was ash, ans 1A was alder, that was a slam dunk.
But I felt that 2A&B sounded too much alike...and 1A sounded like Alder, but I didn't think you'd put a twist to it and play the same bass twice. So I think that if you played it straight by playing the 2nd melody with the ash bass and didn't make it a trick question, I'd have gotten it all correct.
I happen to like Ash bodied basses over Alder, and it's not just a gimmick. There is a tonal difference. Some may hear it, others don't. I do.
 
#216
Mark Latimour said:
I didn't listen to the clips until after I knew the results, but it was fairly obvious to anyone with an even basic understanding of testing methods that the testing methodology was flawed. That's fine, this isn't a scientific journal, but the testing method used created variable that could account for the results rather than the differences (or not) in the wood itself. If someone does something demonstrably wrongly, isn't it better that they are told where the error is?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it was flawed. At least it wasn't nearly as flawed as someone stating flat out, without ANY kind of testing, "I can hear a difference, because I've been doing this X number of years, and my ears are better that those who disagree with me."
 
#217
Mark Latimour said:
What did you think of the testing method? Do you think the results were improved by the OP's statement that two different bass bodies were used for each clip or could that have prompted false positives?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know what I think of that - one line in the OP was unambiguously misleading (the bit about recording two clips each with two different basses - see below) and must have influenced several votes in the poll. But I still think that it's been interesting nonetheless.

naughty said:
I play 2 different bass parts on each bass.
Click to expand...
 
#220
bassybill said:
I'm sure you know what I think of that - one line in the OP was unambiguously misleading (the bit about recording two clips each with two different basses - see below) and must have influenced several votes in the poll. But I still think that it's been interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I think, more importantly it influenced what people were expecting to hear an I think there is an interesting "split" in the thread between those who understand why that is significant and those who don't.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back