2-A is Ash & the 2-B sounds like an alder body. The Alder body is a bit more woody sounding , great for a fretless. Just because my eyes are bad doesn't mean I can't hear ??? RIGHT !
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.
Can You Tell The Difference??? ASH vs. ALDER
- Thread starter -=DanAtkinson=-
- Start date
I'm just picturing some guy driving to work with the radio on, nodding his head to the music and thinking "Cool tune - nice groove - great Jazz bass tone - nice alder body too. This would be a great record if that neck pocket was just a FRACTION tighter fit... "
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,636
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
i don't think so at all. for one, never use heavy ash, and for two, it's never important to me to know the botanical names of every species of wood. i build guitars, i don't grow trees.
" The word "swamp" does not refer to a species of wood but actually to a "zone" where ash grows. There are different ways to describe what is actually the same tree, which by growing in different areas of the USA (north or center or south) develops almost totally different characteristics. So we have "red ash" also known as "pumpkin ash" (fraxinux prufunda) which is what we guitar makers call "swamp ash", a
tree growing in the swamp areas of Mississippi and Alabama, and other heavier species such as green ash (Fraxinus Pennsylvanica, "white ash", Black Ash (Fraxinus Nigra), which are more common in the centre and in the north of the country.
Ash tree.
All the above are actually names which are given to the same tree to distinguish the very different characteristics (weight, colour, density) the tree develops by growing in different areas and environmental conditions.
So is it the place where it grows that makes "swamp" ash so light? Possibly, but not only. Also, how and where the woodworker cutsthe blank from the tree has an importance.
CUTS: Everything else being the same, a cut in the upper part of the tree will result in a heavier blank of wood. Conversely, a piece of wood obtained from the lower part of the tree will be lighter. The rule here is that: the further north the ash tree grows, and the higher and the more internal the cut into the tree, the heavier the wood will be, and vice versa.?
Nobody cares about this but bassists , go on guitarist forums and they don't care guys. They think the tone is in the effect pedals . Of course they only have to play chords and to show off while we have to keep the whole building from falling because the singer started to sing in E flat while the song was in D , and of course he never told us he wanted to sing in E flat (cause during the rehearsal it was D) ; and who has to find the note to prevent a total failure of the whole band ? The bassist and the keyboard player !!!
I'm just picturing some guy driving to work with the radio on, nodding his head to the music and thinking "Cool tune - nice groove - great Jazz bass tone - nice alder body too. This would be a geat record if that neck pocket was just a FRACTION tighter fit... "
Haha Not to mention the color and the type of pickguard.
I like this study. Thank you for doing it.
My pre-results conclusions where.
1A and 1B: "These both sound extremely similar but I think there is a bit of a difference. I don't know which wood is which but I think I like 1B better, slightly smoother."
2A and 2B: "This is really hard... I don't have a preference, maybe on a different song I could tell?"
My pre-results conclusions where.
1A and 1B: "These both sound extremely similar but I think there is a bit of a difference. I don't know which wood is which but I think I like 1B better, slightly smoother."
2A and 2B: "This is really hard... I don't have a preference, maybe on a different song I could tell?"
Man , an macassar ebony pickguard gives so much tone , it brings the overharmonic transparency of the wood up in the mix
.
Great study. I never have put much thought into the ash vs alder tone discussion because I figured pickups, strings, preamp, speakers and technique would overshadow any difference in tonewod. I only listened to the first two clips and really heard a difference and thought A was ash, so I guess that makes me a convert!
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,636
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
i don't think so. i didn't say that the differences 'were completley erased". i said that it would effect (and cloud) the results more than having a 'straight wire' recording test. any time you add more processing than the minimum amount necessary to record something to make a comparison test, that will always happen, and IMO, somewhat 'homogenize' the results.
you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as i am mine. compression usually will often change an instrument's ADSR signature (attack, decay, sustain, release), and two signals may plot out the identical with RTA frequency response tests, but in real life don't usually sound the same.
when i was building a 12126 speaker cabinet, i was trying to duplicate my 2x15 JBL K140 cab's tone. while, after trying several XO points and port tunings, i did get it to plot nearly identical with a frequency sweep test, when you plugged a bass into them, they sounded completely different.
the exact same thing happened when i ran RTA tests with my UA 6176, Focusrite ISA420MKII and my Avalon VT737SP to make them 'simulate' an SVT head, when i got them to plot the same as the Ampeg with a TrueRTA sweep test. i would've actually needed a waterfall RTA test to get them closer if i was doing it 'scientifically', but once i got them in the ballpark, i used my ear to get them alot closer. still, while their tone was pretty similar, the feel and ADSR was different no matter what i tried, but the UA 6176 ended up coming the closest and surprisingly, it also has the least amount of eq controls available.
That's fine, but I hope you see my point. If you argue against the validity of these audio tests because a small bit of gentle compression was applied, how can you then argue that wood has a meaningful impact on tone in a real-world scenario with several stages of processing and other instruments playing? I don't get it.
If the audible differences between woods can only be heard during a "straight wire" test, with the bass track solo'd, then how is anyone ever going to hear them??
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,636
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
That's fine, but I hope you see my point. If you argue against the validity of these audio tests because a small bit of gentle compression was applied, how can you then argue that wood has a meaningful impact on tone in a real-world scenario with several stages of processing and other instruments playing? I don't get it.
If the audible differences between woods can only be heard during a "straight wire" test, with the bass track solo'd, then how is anyone ever going to hear them??
like i said earlier in this thread, my wife can instantly hear the difference between two of my identical basses that have different woods while playing thru an amp with a blidfold on. and an amp/speaker setup is pretty cloudy comared to going direct into a console.
it appears that you're missing my point. i was saying that if you want to be more scientific and more accurate, the use of less processing in the signal chain will ALWAYS expose more differences. i never said that they could only be heard with straight wire tests. i can even hear the differences with my two basses running thru an EH Q-balls evelope filter.
Of course if I wanted to be more "scientific" I could have done things differently, including building an android to play the bass parts exactly the same each time.
And of course less processing will expose more differences. But I'm interested in real-world stuff. My signal flow was what would typically be used in a studio situation (actually more conservative than a typical studio situation). And with the bass tracks solo'd, the vast majority of folks (including yourself) could not accurately identify the differences in tone.
If you can hear the differences between basses played through an EH Q-Balls envelope filter, how come you can't hear the difference with a small dose of compression?
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,636
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
Of course if I wanted to be more "scientific" I could have done things differently, including building an android to play the bass parts exactly the same each time.
And of course less processing will expose more differences. But I'm interested in real-world stuff. My signal flow was what would typically be used in a studio situation (actually more conservative than a typical studio situation). And with the bass tracks solo'd, the vast majority of folks (including yourself) could not accurately identify the differences in tone.
If you can hear the differences between basses played through an EH Q-Balls envelope filter, how come you can't hear the difference with a small dose of compression?
we're going in circles now Dan.
just an FYI, but i only listened to the first track to cast my vote and i was correct (BTW, i only listen to it via my computer's speakers).
whad'dya say that you believe what you want, and i'll believe what i want?
- Feb 16, 2008
- 21,240
- 23,636
- Disclosures
- John K Custom Basses
Thanks. This was a fun diversion, and as somebody who got it right, it proves to me 2 things: Body wood does makes a subtle difference, but only if you have good ears and good monitoring (like me
)Wow, I think some people are getting quite defensive with their need to get the answer right, rather than being able to take a step back to see what the poll, scientifically conducted or otherwise, reveals. I hope no one feels diminished because they guessed wrongly.
On the points about subjectivity. I'd have to say that whether the different woods sound different is completely objective. They do or they don't. But on the question of whether the difference is audible in the mix is completely subjective. So people can go ahead and pick their wood of choice based on their own opinion.
This thread revealed more about people than wood.
On the points about subjectivity. I'd have to say that whether the different woods sound different is completely objective. They do or they don't. But on the question of whether the difference is audible in the mix is completely subjective. So people can go ahead and pick their wood of choice based on their own opinion.
This thread revealed more about people than wood.
DUNCAN:
There's no art
To find the mind's construction in the face:
He was a gentleman on whom I built
An absolute trust. - Macbeth
OP, you did expose the weak link in A/B/X testing.
Thank you!
There's no art
To find the mind's construction in the face:
He was a gentleman on whom I built
An absolute trust. - Macbeth
OP, you did expose the weak link in A/B/X testing.
Thank you!
If the poll was set up fairly and he would have played two basses on the second set of clips LIKE HE SAID HE DID, this would not have gone 14 pages.
