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

[Munjibunga]

Wow
Are we still debating whether the test was fair or not? Lol
Come on guys!

I posted this thread to a friend, and he asked what the consensus was, as he didn't have the time to read through. I responded "Consensus? On talkbass? Are you joking?"

The point to me is obvious. Dan set us up a little and we took the bait. He illustrated to us that wood snobbery between alder and ash doesn't really affect the tone as much as we - me included -likes to think. Lesson learned for me. I will maybe value other criteria than the ash/ alder body wood choice next time.
Does it prove something? No, not really. The test doesn't provide enough information to say that body wood doesn't matter. I can list twenty reasons why.

A Roscoe made of mahogany sounds completely different than a Pedulla made out of maple. This test sheds no light on what extent the body wood's impact on those differences.

Still, i think Dan illustrated how subtle one of the major fender issues can be. I was led on and i can laugh at it, see the point, smile at how i heard differences that have to have other cause, still have the opinion that wood matters, and be able to trust Dan to the degree of buying a bass from him.

And the man plays the bass very well, too!

Looking forward to the neck test! I will read a little more carefully then, too. Sneaky Dan won't get me twice!

I have two Sadowsky Modern 5-24s. Both have identical electronics and both have ebony fretboards. One has a mahogany body with a koa top, and the other has an alder body. There is a significant difference in tone between the two basses. The mahogany is much more aggressive sounding, while the alder is softer and warmer.

As you probably know, I am one of the forum's biggest skeptics of snake oil and outrageous claims. I am least likely to hear a difference in sound between two cables, two neck woods, two body woods, two string types. But there is no doubt about the difference of sound between the two tone woods of my Sadowskys.

That is all.

 

[Joe_K]

Well, I'm going to ridiculed for that post, I just feel it. 50% of me feels I probably deserve it.

 

[Chris K]

I have two Sadowsky Modern 5-24s. Both have identical electronics and both have ebony fretboards. One has a mahogany body with a koa top, and the other has an alder body. There is a significant difference in tone between the two basses. The mahogany is much more aggressive sounding, while the alder is softer and warmer.

As you probably know, I am one of the forum's biggest skeptics of snake oil and outrageous claims. I am least likely to hear a difference in sound between two cables, two neck woods, two body woods, two string types. But there is no doubt about the difference of sound between the two tone woods of my Sadowskys.

That is all.

After some experience taking basses apart and reassembling them, my opinion is that no two serial production basses of the same wood, electronics etc. etc. are the same. So two identical alder basses may sound differently. On the other hand: the slightly more rugged tone of sample 2A wasn't wasted on me - which still doensn't mean it was caused by the ash body.

Muji's different Sadowsky's built with similar craftmanship: that's another story altogether...

Dan's experiment was very funny, but proves nothing. To rule out the production issues, you would need to listen to a hundred basses at least.

 

[MrWalker]

Well, I'm going to ridiculed for that post, I just feel it. 50% of me feels I probably deserve it.

i think your analysis is very good, Sir I fully agree with you that you have to take into account the preconditions stated in the description of the test. And I fully agree, there are better ways to word the test to get easier results to analyse. And I believe Dan didn't deliberately misguide us... apart from one sentence, it is apparent to me that the intention was to NOT be too specific about the basses used where. But one sentence is what it takes.

I see no reason why you should be ridiculed more for your excellent analysis than Dan should be for concluding that we are a group of monkeys.

Now, while the test itself obviously doesn't prove that we are a group of monkeys, the following discussion might have given some evidence of this....

 

[MrWalker]

I have two Sadowsky Modern 5-24s. Both have identical electronics and both have ebony fretboards. One has a mahogany body with a koa top, and the other has an alder body. There is a significant difference in tone between the two basses. The mahogany is much more aggressive sounding, while the alder is softer and warmer.

As you probably know, I am one of the forum's biggest skeptics of snake oil and outrageous claims. I am least likely to hear a difference in sound between two cables, two neck woods, two body woods, two string types. But there is no doubt about the difference of sound between the two tone woods of my Sadowskys.

That is all.

hmmmmm strange I would have thought the mahogany would be softer but what do I know!

Interesting observations And I don't doubt it by any means!!!!

 

[mongo2]

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's exactly the test I'll be posting tomorrow night. Rosewood vs. Maple. Why? Because Maple/Rosewood and Maple/Maple account for about 80% of the necks on the market, I would guess.

And by the way, to my ears the fretboard wood has MUCH more impact on the tone than the body wood. But we'll see what the consensus is.

That test is doomed from the start for the simple reason the fingerboards are attached to two different pieces of maple which invalidates the results since the parameter you want to test can not be isolated.

Any differences in tone heard could just as easily be attributed to the differing characteristics between the pieces of maple.

Not only that, if the maple fingerboard is part of a one piece neck (not a glued on fingerboard) there's the glue joint on the neck with the rosewood fingerboard to be considered as well.

 

[KJung]

Don't care much about the 'wood' discussion, but care very much about experimental design, which is basically my formal training and is a large part of my consulting business.

Just FYI, the OP did a great job isolating as many confounding variables as possible. One of the keys of 'correct' experimental design is to isolate the variable of interest by holding as much of everything else constant. So, an 'A' there... same strings, same player, same everything other than the body.

That is the good news. The bad news is, we have a sample size of 1 (actually could be considered 1 or 2, depending on how you think of the design... within or between instrument(s). As we all know, just like human beings, wood is 'organic' and there is a lot of variation among different pieces of ash and different pieces of alder (this is a HUGE point, by the way).

The only way to really determine the 'answer' is to do the same experiment the OP did, with a larger sample (lets say 50 pieces of randomly selected ash and 50 pieces of randomly selected alder) cut into the identical body shape. Then, you would statistically control (covary) for weight differences, and have another reasonably large panel of 'blind listeners' do what is called a 'triangle test'... which basically is a task for choosing which 'sample' is different among three executions (e.g., ash, ash, alder), rotated randomly. The outcome of interest is if there is a non chance identification difference between the 'different' versus 'same' correct and incorrect rates.

Most probably don't care about this, but unfortunately, a poorly designed or executed experiment often leads to worse conclusions than just 'qualitative judgement' (i.e., the opinion of luthiers who have informally compared hundreds if not thousands of similar executions of, in this case, ash versus maple bodies).

My guess is, over many many samples, there would be a small but statistically significant difference in the 'perceived tone' of ash versus alder bodies, controlled for weight, everything else being constant. However, the problem is, there will likely be individual alder bodies that sound more like the ash average than the alder average, and vice versa.

Complicated stuff

 

[mongo2]

Interesting post Ken, my day gig over the last 25 years has involved validating and verifying experimental and formal test plans, procedures, methodologies, and results.

Just FYI, the OP did a great job isolating as many confounding variables as possible. One of the keys of 'correct' experimental design is to isolate the variable of interest by holding as much of everything else constant. So, an 'A' there... same strings, same player, same everything other than the body.

Agreed.

That is the good news. The bad news is, we have a sample size of 1 (actually could be considered 1 or 2, depending on how you think of the design... within or between instrument(s). As we all know, just like human beings, wood is 'organic' and there is a lot of variation among different pieces of ash and different pieces of alder (this is a HUGE point, by the way).

The only way to really determine the 'answer' is to do the same experiment the OP did, with a larger sample (lets say 50 pieces of randomly selected ash and 50 pieces of randomly selected alder) cut into the identical body shape. Then, you would statistically control (covary) for weight differences, and have another reasonably large panel of 'blind listeners' do what is called a 'triangle test'... which basically is a task for choosing which 'sample' is different among three executions (e.g., ash, ash, alder), rotated randomly. The outcome of interest is if there is a non chance identification difference between the 'different' versus 'same' correct and incorrect rates.

Agreed.

Most probably don't care about this, but unfortunately, a poorly designed or executed experiment often leads to worse conclusions than just 'qualitative judgement' (i.e., the opinion of luthiers who have informally compared hundreds if not thousands of similar executions of, in this case, ash versus maple bodies).

Agreed. It seems that many want the instant gratification of a simple test result-to-axiom conversion.

Complicated stuff

Agreed.

 

[BassyBill]

Don't care much about the 'wood' discussion, but care very much about experimental design, which is basically my formal training and is a large part of my consulting business.

Just FYI, the OP did a great job isolating as many confounding variables as possible. One of the keys of 'correct' experimental design is to isolate the variable of interest by holding as much of everything else constant. So, an 'A' there... same strings, same player, same everything other than the body.

That is the good news. The bad news is, we have a sample size of 1 (actually could be considered 1 or 2, depending on how you think of the design... within or between instrument(s). As we all know, just like human beings, wood is 'organic' and there is a lot of variation among different pieces of ash and different pieces of alder (this is a HUGE point, by the way).

The only way to really determine the 'answer' is to do the same experiment the OP did, with a larger sample (lets say 50 pieces of randomly selected ash and 50 pieces of randomly selected alder) cut into the identical body shape. Then, you would statistically control (covary) for weight differences, and have another reasonably large panel of 'blind listeners' do what is called a 'triangle test'... which basically is a task for choosing which 'sample' is different among three executions (e.g., ash, ash, alder), rotated randomly. The outcome of interest is if there is a non chance identification difference between the 'different' versus 'same' correct and incorrect rates.

Most probably don't care about this, but unfortunately, a poorly designed or executed experiment often leads to worse conclusions than just 'qualitative judgement' (i.e., the opinion of luthiers who have informally compared hundreds if not thousands of similar executions of, in this case, ash versus maple bodies).

My guess is, over many many samples, there would be a small but statistically significant difference in the 'perceived tone' of ash versus alder bodies, controlled for weight, everything else being constant. However, the problem is, there will likely be individual alder bodies that sound more like the ash average than the alder average, and vice versa.

Complicated stuff

Hey, Ken, I never knew you were a fellow scientist! I always thought you were just some likeable schmuck with a video camera, too many cabs, too much time on your hands and an over-active cat!

Great post, btw. Apart from the random "maple" that crept in, but we all know what you meant.

 

[DylanB]

That test is doomed from the start for the simple reason the fingerboards are attached to two different pieces of maple which invalidates the results since the parameter you want to test can not be isolated.

Any differences in tone heard could just as easily be attributed to the differing characteristics between the pieces of maple.

.....That's exactly his point.

 

[DylanB]

The only way to really determine the 'answer' is to do the same experiment the OP did, with a larger sample (lets say 50 pieces of randomly selected ash and 50 pieces of randomly selected alder) cut into the identical body shape. Then, you would statistically control (covary) for weight differences, and have another reasonably large panel of 'blind listeners' do what is called a 'triangle test'... which basically is a task for choosing which 'sample' is different among three executions (e.g., ash, ash, alder), rotated randomly. The outcome of interest is if there is a non chance identification difference between the 'different' versus 'same' correct and incorrect rates.

I think the OP is talking about real world situations. I agree, those measures are what you would need to do to get a definitive answer, but his entire point is that if you have to get that many basses and people together to decide what the differences are between alder and ash, how is that any help to the poor kid in the shop who's trying to decide which bass to buy when the alder and ash ones sound the same? It doesn't.

This test wasn't about isolating the differences between alder and ash, it was about stating that the differences between them are so minute no-one should worry about them.

 

[mongo2]

.....That's exactly his point.

No, his point is:

And by the way, to my ears the fretboard wood has MUCH more impact on the tone than the body wood.

Which is where his test is doomed for the reasons I posted earlier, that is, the effect of the fingerboard on tone cannot be isolated from the effect of the whole neck.

 

[xaxxat]

I love the sound of popping egos in the morning...

 

[KJung]

This test wasn't about isolating the differences between alder and ash, it was about stating that the differences between them are so minute no-one should worry about them.

There is no way to reach the conclusion you did based on the OP's experiment. What if the particular piece of ash the OP happened to use sounded TOTALLY different from the alder (which we know could easily happen with the huge variation in wood due to its organic nature). A totally different 'real world' conclusion would have been drawn, and it would have been equally wrong (or at least equally unsupported in any meaningful way).

That being said, from the zillions of more qualitative evaluations over many years from players, luthiers etc., I think a pretty safe conclusion is that you cannot predict what a given bass will sound like very accurately by just knowing the specs. The organic/variable nature of wood, combined with the many unique interactions of weight, electronics, and other components, results in each individual bass having its own 'surprises' (e.g., I've played very dark, dull 70's ash/maple J's, and some alder/RW 60's J's that are bright and crunchy as heck... go figure!).

So, while I actually agree with you that the only way to figure out if you like a bass is to play it, regardless of components, the OP's experiment really didn't add anything to support that conclusion (no offense to the OP.... valiant attempt and a fun discussion).

 

[mongo2]

This test wasn't about isolating the differences between alder and ash, it was about stating that the differences between them are so minute no-one should worry about them.

Except that conclusion is impossible to reach from the test of precisely one sample of each wood. Especially since empricial evidence from much larger samples several here are very familiar with through decades of experience indicates the contrary in that there is a wide range of results not just "so minute no-one should worry about them."

In fact the results clips posted as 1A/1B supports results I've noticed many times in my building experience and that is that the tone will follow the neck to a different body with the body adding a bit of a timbral difference, all else being equal.

 

[danclaro]

What about age? It would be great to hear some sound samples juxtaposing alder and ash bodies from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s...

 

[mongo2]

What about age? It would be great to hear some sound samples juxtaposing alder and ash bodies from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s...

Well, that'd be nice but I doubt that's ever going to happen in sufficient numbers to prove anything.

IMO, the best thing to do is to get out there and try as many basses from as many manufacturers and eras of production as possible, and find the ones that float your boat for whatever reason.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

Excuse me if you've already addressed this, but what was 1-B? Maybe you could edit your reveal post, eh?

Oops, typo on my part. Fixed. 1-B is Alder, just like 2-B.

 

[-=DanAtkinson=-]

That test is doomed from the start for the simple reason the fingerboards are attached to two different pieces of maple which invalidates the results since the parameter you want to test can not be isolated.

Any differences in tone heard could just as easily be attributed to the differing characteristics between the pieces of maple.

Not only that, if the maple fingerboard is part of a one piece neck (not a glued on fingerboard) there's the glue joint on the neck with the rosewood fingerboard to be considered as well.

Ok, so then doesn't this shatter the entire premise that Rosewood fretboard necks are more "mellow" than Maple fretboard necks?

 

[joeyl]

It's funny how most threads from Dan descend into hell. As far as I can tell, that was a cool demo, from a guy who always contributes something to TB. Hey Dan, maybe you can do one with the Warmoth and USACG necks since you mentioned the difference in tone before