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

[unclejane]

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

Irrelevant (we're not talking about situations where impairments are involved).

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

Then how is the difference to be discerned? What's the difference between an effect that can't be detected by one or more of the 5 senses and an effect that doesn't exist?

Again, if it's real, it has to be well-defined and detectable in some manner. If it's neither of those two things, there's no basis for the claim that it's real.

LS

 

[drpepper]

This is getting sad

 

[aborgman]

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

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

Absolutely.

This is why blind testing, with a large number of participants, is important.

One person may have a physical inability that confounds the test (in either way), but what we're interested in is what can people in general hear and hear repeatably and consistently.

If you do the ball color test with a randomly selected sample of 1000 people - you'll see very obvious evidence that the color difference is perceivable.

If you do the tonewood test - I don't think you will.

It also enters the realm of the question - a difference that only 1/1,000,000 can hear might be a real difference, but does it matter at all?

...and yes, you can train yourself to hear things which aren't generally evident. I spent about six months doing A/B/X testing on various mp3 encoding bitrates - and at the end of it I was very good at picking out particular artifacts of mp3 encoding, things that weren't at all obvious to casual listeners.

Thing is that if you gave me MP3 vs. non-compressed audio in a A/B/X blind test... I could correctly bin each with about 90% accuracy.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Well, to bring it back to real-world... of course, the differences are small. We all know that.

And in a live band situation, sometimes I can't easily hear the differences between a Jazz and a P, an ash vs a alder, vintage vs. modern or even sometimes a humbucking active vs a passive single coil. Too much other stuff going on. I'm sure that many of us couldn't tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a Yamaha student violin in the middle of a full symphony, either.

And it's NOT a guarantee that just because it's one particular species, it'll sound one particular way, it's TENDENCY we bank on. But, in selecting an instrument, the touch, response and resonance provided by different pieces wood is very real to me.

It's a subtlety, but it's the subtle difference between an instrument that's a "keeper for life" and a piece of trading bait.

 

[unclejane]

This is getting sad

Well, we all got to do our part....

LS

 

[aborgman]

Well, to bring it back to real-world... of course, the differences are small. We all know that.

Well - no, we don't.

A lot of the tonewood folks are claiming the differences AREN'T small.

...and the OP, in the very first post, said: There are differences in wood type, they're just too small to be generally noticeable.

That has been the claim all along of the anti-tonewood folks - that the difference are small/masked and are non-predictive.

But, in selecting an instrument, the touch, response and resonance provided by different pieces wood is very real to me.

Or at least your mind has convinced itself that it's real.

I guess I've just shown myself (through things like blind testing) that the ear-brain interface is subject to being easily fooled, especially by visual evidence and past experience.

I've found it's best to trust ones ears, but never think the evidence you're using ISN'T just a shadow of reality colored by our perceptions and past experiences.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

63% heard the difference.

 

[aborgman]

63% heard the difference.

No, 63% claim they heard a difference.

A good portion of those also claimed to hear a difference where none exited.

One correct coin flip negated by another coin flip that came up incorrect as far as I can tell.

...and a 63% rate (with no false positives) in a blind test is well short of what I would call a good result, in fact I'd call it so close to 50/50 as to be just as likely the result of random guessing as any actual sound differences.

 

[unclejane]

Or at least your mind has convinced itself that it's real.

I guess I've just shown myself (through things like blind testing) that the ear-brain interface is subject to being easily fooled, especially by visual evidence and past experience.

I've found it's best to trust ones ears, but never think the evidence you're using ISN'T just a shadow of reality colored by our perceptions and past experiences.

Well, the more interesting question is, for the plaintiffs like Ogle claiming the effect is "very real to me", what exactly _is_ the effect? In what way does it manifest in reality such that we can examine it? If it's "very real to me", I obviously have some kind of definition of what "it" is.

So, what exactly is it?

LS

 

[mongo2]

One thing nobody has mentioned yet is that mass produced bass bodies are usually made of 2, 3 or more pieces of the same species of wood. Those pieces may or may not be very similar in characteristics.

Then there's the fancier models that use several pieces of differing species of wood.

That adds to number of variables to be considered and the crapshootivity of it all.

 

[bassbenj]

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.

Got that right! I just happened on this thread so didn't guess. But since I own a bunch of ash and alder basses I'm convinced that there IS a difference in tone. But it's REALLY subtle. I mean just changing string brands, let alone type, is a HUGE difference in comparison! I've long doubted you could actually hear the wood differences in samples. This poll more or less confirms it.

To me the "tone wood" thing is a lot like wine "connoisseurs". You know. Where wines are all described by words without any real meaning, like "having a sense of humor" or has a "sheen". So when I test a tone wood, I don't listen to recordings. I first remove the control cavity cover and gently waft the aroma of the tonewood into my nose! I note it's personality. Then I pull the pups and run my tongue around the pickup cavities. I examine the taste in great detail! Then I etc. etc. etc.

 

[fish slapper]

And in a live band situation, sometimes I can't easily hear the differences between a Jazz and a P, an ash vs a alder, vintage vs. modern or even sometimes a humbucking active vs a passive single coil. Too much other stuff going on. I'm sure that many of us couldn't tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a Yamaha student violin in the middle of a full symphony, either.

Uh, I made this point about 12 pages ago.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

If you can't tell... you don't need to tell, son.

 

[aborgman]

If you can't tell... you don't need to tell, son.

If 999/1000 can't tell... it don't matter.

 

[narud]

No, 63% claim they heard a difference.

A good portion of those also claimed to hear a difference where none exited.

One correct coin flip negated by another coin flip that came up incorrect as far as I can tell.

...and a 63% rate (with no false positives) in a blind test is well short of what I would call a good result, in fact I'd call it so close to 50/50 as to be just as likely the result of random guessing as any actual sound differences.

a claim that actually identified the correct body wood. had the b.s. clips been posted first the results might have been very different. people had no reason to question the conditions of test and having the first set of clips clearly have a tone difference gives you a reasonable expectation that what you heard is going to carry over into the next set of clips. this would be a much bigger gotcha moment if that 63% would have got it wrong all together. only a small percentage said A was alder and B was ash.

 

[Lowbrow]

Suggestion for next tonewood test: Post clips of Walnut and Padauk-body basses so we can judge if Padauk is 'slightly more warm.'

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Someday, I hope you have this awakening happen to you:

You'll find an otherwise ordinary bass, some mid-pack production model that has ordinary electronics, non-exceptional hardware, nothing to suggest it's anything special... but it will melt into your hands, resonate beautifully, and have a response under your fingers and a voice like no other bass you've ever played.

And the difference will be... the wood it's made from. And you will realize that's the difference, and you will look for that quality in all intruments from that time forward.

I wish this for you. It happens, it's real.

 

[mongo2]

Someday, I hope you have this awakening happen to you:

You'll find an otherwise ordinary bass, some mid-pack production model that has ordinary electronics, non-exceptional hardware, nothing to suggest it's anything special... but it will melt into your hands, resonate beautifully, and have a response under your fingers and a voice like no other bass you've ever played.

And the difference will be... the wood it's made from. And you will realize that's the difference, and you will look for that quality in all intruments from that time forward.

I wish this for you. It happens, it's real.

Amen.

 

[unclejane]

And the difference will be... the wood it's made from. And you will realize that's the difference, and you will look for that quality in all intruments from that time forward.

I wish this for you. It happens, it's real.

And yet you can't seem to define exactly what this difference imparted by the type of wood is.

Consider this set of circumstances that determine whether you "bond" with a bass or not:
- body is the right shape.
- has the desired pickup type
- pickups are in the right positions
- has good balance
- gives a desireable tone with a particular frequency profile and initial attack, etc.
- is within a desired weight range.
- has hardware on it that you like because <...>

what would be the difference between this set of metrics and an "undefinable something" that's imparted in the tone by a particular type of wood?

LS

 

[kenfxj]

Ok, we've all seen the recent threads about how wood "matters". This has been a heated debate around here for ages, and I'm sure it always will be.

My position is that wood indeed DOES matter. However, I believe it matters very little. Other factors contribute to tone much more than wood choice (like pickups, strings, neck construction, the player, etc).

But many folks wholeheartedly believe that wood has a HUGE impact on tone, and some even defend the premise almost like they're defending a religion...

I now have MUCH more respect for Dan Atkinson. Not that I didn't respect him before...