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

[M.R. Ogle]

I don't understand. Different species of woods have different characteristics...DENSITY being one of the main differences.

So, in the listening test of one ash bodies bass sample and three alder, 63% heard the difference in the ash bodied bass.

This disproves what?

 

[unclejane]

Sorry, but that just looks like pretzel logic to me.

K let me restate: It looks like you're claiming the tonewood effect is real, but that there's no way to isolate it such that it or its effects can be observed.

That's basically a faith-based argument, rather like saying you have a magical elf on your shoulder that, tho it can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled, it's honest-to-goodness real and really sitting on your shoulder.

Putting it another way, if the effect is real, its manifestation in reality _has_ be definable. If it's not, there's no basis for the claim that it's real.

LS

 

[aborgman]

Density IS the controlling metric, I'd agree with that.
Again, how does that help?

It shows that density, NOT WOOD TYPE is what matters.

Now, wood type CORRELATES with density - but wood type isn't CAUSATIVE in sound.

It also shows that choosing alder because you like the sound of alder makes no sense... because you don't like the sound of alder, you like the sound of a specific density.


Wood densities:

Ash: 40 - 53 lb/cf
Beech: 32-56 lb/cf
Cherry: 43-56 lb/cf
Hickory: 37-58 lb/cf
Mahogany: 31-53 lb/cf
Maple: 39-47 lb/cf
Oak: 37-46 lb/cf
Spruce: 25-44 lb/cf
Teak: 41-55 lb/cf

 

[mongo2]

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

In your own example you're shown that wood of similar species can have very different densities.

The range of density varies for each species and that's where species counts. Not in where, by chance in a small number of cases, they happen to have the same density, rather where they are different in the majority of cases.

Density isn't the only tone related variable there's also cellular structure and how it transmits vibration. Cellular structure is very species specific.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

It shows that density, NOT WOOD TYPE is what matters.

Now, wood type CORRELATES with density - but wood type isn't CAUSATIVE in sound.

It also shows that choosing alder because you like the sound of alder makes no sense... because you don't like the sound of alder, you like the sound of a specific density.


Wood densities:

Ash: 40 - 53 lb/cf
Beech: 32-56 lb/cf
Cherry: 43-56 lb/cf
Hickory: 37-58 lb/cf
Mahogany: 31-53 lb/cf
Maple: 39-47 lb/cf
Oak: 37-46 lb/cf
Spruce: 25-44 lb/cf
Teak: 41-55 lb/cf

Okaaaayyy... but, still, in the real world, I'm more likely to pick out an Alder bodies bass because on the average, this type of wood provides the desired range of density for the sound I like.

So.... what's the point?

 

[Swift713]

Do people really expect the effect of wood species to be scientifically predictable? I think that at best we are looking at tendencies and I don't think that any advocate of the theory of tone wood would say otherwise. There are a lot of ingredients that combine and interact in a bass to make it's voice.

 

[pasco jacorius]

Now this is my last comparison , both have a swamp ash bodies , not the same neck , not the same pu's , not the same electronics.

Now can't you notice they have one thing in common sound wise ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHp1EpyDFNg

 

[aborgman]

In your own example you're shown that wood of similar species can have very different densities.

The range of density varies for each species and that's where species counts.

There is a range for each species - and among guitar tonewoods those density regions MOSTLY OVERLAP.

Not in where, by chance in a small number of cases, they happen to have the same density, rather where they are different in the majority of cases.

Yes, but different in a non-predictable way.

Ash is just as likely to be less dense than alder as it is to be more dense.

Density isn't the only tone related variable there's also cellular structure and how it transmits vibration. Cellular structure is very species specific.

Great... then people will be able to identify species in a blind testing regimen, right? I mean if cell structure is very species dependent and cell structure has an AUDIBLE effect on the tone correct identification should be easy.

 

[mongo2]

Now this is my last comparison , both have a swamp ash bodies , not the same neck , not the same pu's , not the same electronics.

Now can't you notice they have one thing in common sound wise ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHp1EpyDFNg

They sound very different to me.

 

[dvh]

Now this is my last comparison , both have a swamp ash bodies , not the same neck , not the same pu's , not the same electronics.

Now can't you notice they have one thing in common sound wise ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHp1EpyDFNg

Yes. You - the player

 

[aborgman]

Okaaaayyy... but, still, in the real world, I'm more likely to pick out an Alder bodies bass because on the average, this type of wood provides the desired range of density for the sound I like.

So.... what's the point?

So alder provides the desired range of densities, but other tonewoods don't?

Alder: 26-42 lb/cf

Other tonewoods that fall in the same density range:

Ash: 40 - 53 lb/cf
Beech: 32-56 lb/cf
Hickory: 37-58 lb/cf
Mahogany: 31-53 lb/cf
Maple: 39-47 lb/cf
Oak: 37-46 lb/cf
Spruce: 25-44 lb/cf
Teak: 41-55 lb/cf

 

[mongo2]

Great... then people will be able to identify species in a blind testing regimen, right? I mean if cell structure is very species dependent and cell structure has an AUDIBLE effect on the tone correct identification should be easy.

No, it means nothing of the sort.

First of all people will differentiate according to their individual perceptual skills.

Secondly, the cellular structure of a piece of wood will vary somewhat even in the same tree. That's why there can be such things such as straight grained and figured maple in the same plank.

I realize you'd like a simple conclusion to prove your point but it's more complicated than you make out.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

I did not say that.

I said that alder (for example) has a tendency...ON AVERAGE... to be in a desired ballpark. No guarantees, but it's a starting point.

 

[aborgman]

No, it means nothing of the sort.

First of all people will differentiate according to their individual perceptual skills.

Secondly, the cellular structure of a piece of wood will vary somewhat even in the same tree. That's why there can be such things such as straight grained and figured maple in the same plank.

I realize you'd like a simple conclusion to prove your point but it's more complicated than you make out.

No, you keep proving my point for me.

Species is not causative, nor identifiable.

There is no doubt in my mind that different species have different density distributions.

There is no doubt in my mind that those density differences cause differences in resonance of the instrument body.


There is a lot of doubt that:

1) The differences are audible, especially when not extreme, and not masked by numerous other factors
2) The overlap in density distributions doesn't cause such a wide range of differences as to disallow any binning by species.

 

[unclejane]

No, it means nothing of the sort.

No, borgman is right - if the effect you claim cellular structure to have on tone is real, it _should_ be detectable in the manner he describes. That's a critical requirement for calling the effect real.

First of all people will differentiate according to their individual perceptual skills.

No - this is critical also. If the effect is real, it should overcome individual perceptual variations, just like red vs. blue objects do. I.e. we know which is which because, regardless of individual variation or "opinion" on the matter of color, there will be widespread/repeatable agreement on which is which by all observers. Reality is not open to individual interpretation.

Secondly, the cellular structure of a piece of wood will vary somewhat even in the same tree. That's why there can be such things such as straight grained and figured maple in the same plank.

I realize you'd like a simple conclusion to prove your point but it's more complicated than you make out.

No it's actually not. The issue is pretty circumscribed - cellular structure X should induce tonal effect Y if the claim "cellular structure X produces tonal effect Y" has any basis in reality.

LS

 

[aborgman]

I did not say that.

I said that alder (for example) has a tendency...ON AVERAGE... to be in a desired ballpark. No guarantees, but it's a starting point.

I won't disagree with that. That is quite a different claim than the tonewood espousing folks hold out...

You want to argue that if you take 100 ash basses, and 100 alder basses that some small subset of people would identify more more ash basses as "warm" than alder basses... sure, it might happen. That is a pretty weak claim relative to what most tonewood proponents are making.

 

[dvh]

Now this is my last comparison , both have a swamp ash bodies , not the same neck , not the same pu's , not the same electronics.

Now can't you notice they have one thing in common sound wise ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHp1EpyDFNg

If this is what tonewood advocates hear as "similar" then it's no wonder we can't agree. Define "similar"

 

[mongo2]

No - this is critical also. If the effect is real, it should overcome individual perceptual variations, just like red vs. blue objects do. I.e. we know which is which because, regardless of individual variation or "opinion" on the matter of color, there will be widespread/repeatable agreement on which is which by all observers.

Bad example. Those who are color blind would actually see things differently.

Some simply can't detect the difference in tonality be it due to lack of training or lack of attention that particular detail or physical inability.

No it's actually not. The issue is pretty circumscribed - cellular structure X should induce tonal effect Y if the claim "cellular structure X produces tonal effect Y" has any basis in reality.

Except woods are not homogenous so there's no basis for that conclusion.

 

[aborgman]

No, borgman is right - if the effect you claim cellular structure to have on tone is real, it _should_ be detectable in the manner he describes. That's a critical requirement for calling the effect real.

The effect could be non-detectable and real.

...but if it's not-detectable, it's reality is irrelevant. Real or not, it don't matter a whit if no one can detect it.

 

[pasco jacorius]

Now this is my last comparison , both have a swamp ash bodies , not the same neck , not the same pu's , not the same electronics.

Now can't you notice they have one thing in common sound wise ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHp1EpyDFNg

If this is what tonewood advocates hear as "similar" then it's no wonder we can't agree. Define "similar"

The only thing they have in common is my fingers guys ! The pu's , neck woods , electronics, makes a big tonal difference between the two basses . But even without the video I'm pretty sure you would know it's the same person playing.