• 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
#381
What was straightforward again?
Starting with false info winds up with false info.

I'm sorry, but I was trying to play the game as presented. If the idea was to try to "figure out" the rigged test, I failed. But if the idea was to "straightforward" hear the differences... however slight... as presented, MOST did perceive the difference... 63% actually (not 64%, DOH!)
 
#382
aborgman said:
Yes - and that variance is an argument AGAINST tonewoods.

If there is so much variability within species that there is major overlap - it's obviously not the species of wood itself, but some property of the wood (density, etc.) that determines sound.
Click to expand...

IME, there are boundaries to the variability and it's possible to have some overlap in some tonal characteristics but it's not all that common and I've never had two that sound exactly the same, same species or not. Those boundaries would be a characteristic of the species which is where your argument loses traction.

However my points are not species specific, different hunks of wood sound different. As I mentioned earlier I've cut two bodies form the same plank of wood not 6 inches apart in that plank and it resulted in a slight but easily noticable difference tones using the same neck and hardware so even in that case the body wood had a timbral effect.
 
#385
I think (of course IMO) what most of us are trying to say is that due to the variables that come from working with wood, there is no hard, fast "100% certain every time" rule. However, it's more of an "on average" type of deal...i.e. On average, an alder body will be (to varying levels of intensity) 'warmer' than a similarly made ash body, which will (again, on average) have a snappier sound.

It in the same vein as how a doctor can't say with 100% certainty that any surgery will be a success; too many variables within each body to guarantee the same result without fail. If the surgery has a 95% success rate, and 1 patient dies from it out of 20, should this surgeon be labelled as incompetent? Similarly, when bass builders with years of experience tell you that ash is brighter than alder (note: I've never heard one say it's ALWAYS brighter), should we label him/her as incompetent because one person compared two bodies that were outside the typical norms?
 
#388
C.Linton said:
As has been stated, that's not his claim. He said, right up front, that he believes wood DOES make a difference, just not to the degree that the tonewood advocates claim.
Click to expand...

That's a further demonstration that the tonewood claim needs to be clarified then - what exactly is the contribution and what is its magnitude?

Then, whoever it is that's making that claim has to present a case for it with a correctly designed experiment. If that's Dan, then so be it?

LS
 
#389
If Dan had done what he SAID he was going to do... it would be a lot more telling. "Here's an Alder, here's an Ash... who can identify which is which?"

But, instead, it was a "who can figure how out the test is rigged" scenario.
 
#390
dvh said:
She's just avoiding a fight....:D
Click to expand...

My wife can't hear the difference between ANY of my basses. She's a talented singer and listens to all kinds of music so while not "trained" in the classical sense, I think she has a keen ear. And when I ask her how a particular bass sounds, the answer I get is "boom, boom, boom."

Maybe my wife doesn't love me as much as his...
 
#392
unclejane said:
That's a further demonstration that the tonewood claim needs to be clarified then - what exactly is the contribution and what is its magnitude?
Click to expand...

IMO, to uphold the claim of tonewood purists, the following has to be true:

High probability of correct detection in a blind listening test - say 80%+

High probability of differentiation in a blind listening test - say 80%+ ability to differentiate between different body woods, and 80%+ correct matching of bodies of the same wood.

If you can't differentiate between species with a high success rate, and species isn't predictive of finished sound.... sounds like species isn't all that important.

Even better would be a test where all the bodies are density matched to the extent possible - obviously basswood won't match ebony, but in the cases where there is overlap in common densities bodies should be chosen to match density.

If ash (as a species) sounds different than alder - 40 lb/cubic foot ash should sound noticeably different than 40 lb/cubic foot alder should sound noticeably different than 40 lb/cubic foot cherry should sound noticeably different than 40 lb/cubic foot hickory should sound noticeably different from 40 lb/cubic foot mahogany....

...and tonewood folks should not only be able to identify, but wood species should be PREDICTIVE.
 
#394
aborgman said:
wood species should be PREDICTIVE.
Click to expand...

That's not a realistic expectation.

Due to the ranges of variability within individual species and the fact that several species of wood go into any individual instrument in a production environment, there are too many ways those variables can be combined to predict the precise tonal outcome of an individual instrument.

It's called a crapshoot.
 
#395
aborgman said:
...and tonewood folks should not only be able to identify, but wood species should be PREDICTIVE.
Click to expand...

I would actually strengthen this to a requirement that each wood be explicitely associated with a well-defined tonal effect. I.e. species X reliably produces tonal effect Y, where Y is more than just vague statements like "more mellow" or "brighter".

There has to be some criteria by which the tonal effect can be measured, else it's meaningless.

LS
 
#396
mongo2 said:
That's not a realistic expectation.

Due to the ranges of variability within individual species and the fact that several species of wood go into any individual instrument in a production environment, there are too many ways those variables can be combined to predict the precise tonal outcome of an individual instrument.

It's called a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

This is just another way of saying the tonewood effect can't be measured and therefore it can't be examined. It doesn't do to simply declare the effect immune to the process of investigation without also saying it's a myth. In fact, that actually supports the non-tonewood position (that the TW effect has not been demonstrated to have any real basis in reality)

LS
 
#397
M.R. Ogle said:
Proving what?

If you "select" purposely dense pieces of lighter woods to match against selected lighter pieces of dense woods, that's not representative of what you'll find most real-world instruments.
Click to expand...

Shows that DENSITY is the more predictive metric, not species.

If density is the controlling factor -

40lb/cu ft. ash will sound like 40lb/cu. ft. alder

30 lb/cu. ft. ash will sound different from 50lb/cu. ft. ash
 
#398
unclejane said:
This is just another way of saying the tonewood effect can't be measured and therefore it can't be examined. It doesn't do to simply declare the effect immune to the process of investigation without also saying it's a myth. In fact, that actually supports the non-tonewood position (that the TW effect has no real basis in reality)

LS
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that just looks like pretzel logic to me.
 
#400
mongo2 said:
That's not a realistic expectation.

Due to the ranges of variability within individual species and the fact that several species of wood go into any individual instrument in a production environment, there are too many ways those variables can be combined to predict the precise tonal outcome of an individual instrument.

It's called a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

I agree.

That crapshoot shoots the notion of tonewoods right out of the air.

The tonewood notion depends on specific qualities for a wood...

Ash is warmer than alder... not 60% of the time ash is warmer than alder and 40% of the time vice-versa.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back