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

[johnk_10]

to me, recordings and blind testing of the same bass with different body or neck wood types, and the subsequent debate as to if there's a difference in tone, how big it is, or how controlled or honest the test was made are great for those that need some sort of proof that there is or isn't a noticeable/measurable tonal difference. then there are those that say that there is a difference (like Dan) but not to any great effect, which opens up a whole nother can of worms since now we're talking about what percentage of a difference(?), which is even more impossible to answer.

obviously, by the number of posts in the thread, it could go on and on, but i wonder how many people that have posted in this thread have actually picked out the wood and built 100's, (or worked on 10's of thousands) of fender type basses with the two body woods discussed here. my 'feeling' is that i don't think that there are very many (including Dan).

i don't feel the need to prove my opinion of what the differences are, but after building 100's of both types of them i am in the camp that says there is a noticeable difference, as do the people that i've built them for. and i've always said that there are always a few alder bodies that sound close to a swamp ash one and vice versa, but IME, overall the wood's tone does follow a general pattern.

so, i say believe what you want. i don't have the need or desire to convert a non-believer to agreeing with me, let alone trying to prove it to them with some sort of blind test recording.
i think that what bothers me the most in this thread is that Dan thinks that he has proved otherwise.

 

[Marlat]

No, 63% claim they heard a difference.

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

When you say "none existed" were they identical clips posted twice, or were they two clips recorded separately which would allow for possibility of there being difference in tone, however slight (which resulted in the cause of the difference being misattributed)?

 

[Basshappi]

Luthiers rejoice!
Since it has been determined that "tonewood" is a myth and that there are no significant differences between wood types used in the construction of bodies (and I'm reasonably certain that we will soon be informed that the differences we percieve in tonal properties of neck/fingerboard woods is "all in our heads" as well) there is no longer any need to spend vast amounts of money on select grades of wood for guiitar/bass construction.

Think of the expanded profit margins now that we can simply dig through tha dumpsters at the local hardware or grocery stores for old shippng crates and pallets to build instruments from. Just mount the pickups in the proper place for whatever general sonic characteristic one desires, slap a coat of paint over it (those pallets really aren't that pretty to look at) and you're done!

Mr. Sadowsky, Mr. Lull et al...the secret is out at last, your days are numbered!

 

[johnk_10]

When you say "none existed" were they identical clips posted twice, or were they two clips recorded separately which would allow for possibility of there being difference in tone, however slight (which resulted in the cause of the difference being misattributed)?

+1.
that's a very good question.

 

[unclejane]

so, i say believe what you want. i don't have the need or desire to convert a non-believer to agreeing with me, let alone trying to prove it to them with some sort of blind test recording.

If you want to be persuasive, i.e. to a potential customer, then you definitely _would_ have to be able to demonstrate the effect. Boils down to this:

If you simply don't care whether or not your belief about tonewoods is true, then the conversation is basically over. Since you won't be convinced one way or the other, there's no point in continuing with the debate.

But if I you _do_ care whether your beliefs about it are true, you most definitely _do_ need to present something persuasive in support of your position. And you have to be amenable to counterexamples too.

So I should think the truth value of this claim would definitely matter to you, especially if it's a part of the marketing of the product you make. If it's not, it doesn't matter, but if it is......

LS

 

[aborgman]

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.

It's happened multiple times.

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 that's the difference between us, I've had that moment... but I haven't had a preponderance of evidence that the difference in the instrument was caused by the body wood.

In fact, quite a lot of the evidence suggests that the body wood has nothing to do at all with the instruments I've played which "melt into your hands, resonate beautifully, and have a response under your fingers and a voice like no other bass you've ever played".

So at this point, not having a preponderance of evidence for ANY cause as to why a particular instrument is THAT instrument - I'm more than willing to just say "I don't know". It's much better than attributing some cause for which I don't have a preponderance of evidence.

 

[aborgman]

When you say "none existed" were they identical clips posted twice, or were they two clips recorded separately which would allow for possibility of there being difference in tone, however slight (which resulted in the cause of the difference being misattributed)?

Two different clips, which does introduce a source of perceptual error.

Showing again that the difference is small enough to be unable to overcome such a slight biasing.

It isn't a claim that it has NO effect - but that the effect is tiny, easily maskable by other changes in the instrument, and likely completely unhearable to most folks.

 

[aborgman]

so, i say believe what you want. i don't have the need or desire to convert a non-believer to agreeing with me, let alone trying to prove it to them with some sort of blind test recording.
i think that what bothers me the most in this thread is that Dan thinks that he has proved otherwise.

See - that is the thing... I don't want to believe.

I want to know through a preponderance of evidence. Real, repeatable, scientific evidence.

That is why the question interests me. I want to know what I (and the audience) can really HEAR, not what we think we hear.

It's also an economic question - if a wood has no tonal justification then it has to stand on its other merits (looks, durability, etc, etc.) to justify its cost over another choice.

...and again I'm unwilling to believe anyones ears if the tests are sighted. I don't care what the skill level of the person is, they're still susceptible to the exact same psychoacoustic distortions.

 

[pasco jacorius]

Same warwicks , one in ash , the other in bubinga .
There is a clear tonal difference. Put your headphones this time

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Marlat]

Two different clips, which does introduce a source of perceptual error.

Showing again that the difference is small enough to be unable to overcome such a slight biasing.

It isn't a claim that it has NO effect - but that the effect is tiny, easily maskable by other changes in the instrument, and likely completely unhearable to most folks.

Right, so when you said people heard a difference when there was none, that may not be correct. As you said it's possible there was a small difference in sound and that was misattributed because of the preconditioning rather than the preconditioning causing a difference to be heard when there was none. Agreed?

 

[brndn123]

The funny thing is, most of the pros out there (who would actually have a legitimate reason to be concerned about "tonewoods") could care less. They tend to associate wood with weight and balance because when you are performing night after night, imaginary sub-tones take a back seat to back problems.

Truth be told, arguing about the difference body woods make on a bass is the equivalent of arguing the difference between name brands and generic brands of soda (or pop).

As its been said earlier, I would bet money that Leo Fender himself could not differ the two body woods in a live setting or even an ensemble recording...probably because its a waste of time. If you want to believe that there is something there, that's your choice. But for most of us, there are great sounding basses and not so great sounding basses. Leave it be.

 

[aborgman]

Right, so when you said people heard a difference when there was none, that may not be correct. As you said it's possible there was a small difference in sound and that was misattributed because of the preconditioning rather than the preconditioning causing a difference to be heard when there was none. Agreed?

Yes.

It's possible to mis-attribute due to preconditioning.

There was no difference attributable to body, therefore the judgements relating to hearing the effect of body wood are suspect.

If your tester gets lots of false positives, they aren't being very successful.

 

[johnk_10]

If you want to be persuasive, i.e. to a potential customer, then you definitely would have to be able to demonstrate the effect.

i dislike the word persuasive, since it sounds like you're trying to talk someone into something. my customers tell me what type of tone they're looking for, and i build their bass accordingly.
(BTW, i love swamp ash and alder bodied basses)

Boils down to this:
If you simply don't care whether or not your belief about tonewoods is true, then the conversation is basically over. Since you won't be convinced one way or the other, there's no point in continuing with the debate.

isn't that what i just said above?

But if I you do care whether your beliefs about it are true, you most definitely do need to present something persuasive in support of your position. And you have to be amenable to counterexamples too.

that's entirely your opinion. not mine.

So I should think the truth value of this claim would definitely matter to you, especially if it's a part of the marketing of the product you make. If it's not, it doesn't matter, but if it is......

LS

the tone, feel and quality of materials and construction instruments speak for themselves, and that's all the 'marketing' that i need.

 

[unclejane]

i dislike the word persuasive, since it sounds like you're trying to talk someone into something.

Yet that would be exactly what you would be doing if you were selling a bass to a customer based on the tonewood claim (i.e. Buy this maple one because maple is a "bright" wood).

my customers tell me what type of tone they're looking for, and i build their bass accordingly.
(BTW, i love swamp ash and alder bodied basses)

Do you do so according to the tonewood claim? If so, how do you demonstrate this to your customers?
If you have a repeatable, reliable method for demonstrating this, I think you could trump the thread!

LS

 

[colcifer]

Wasn't surprised by the trick; the differences between 2a and 2b were very slight but to say that I didn't hear a difference would have been inaccurate and if you really didn't hear a difference there's something wrong.

Let's do chambered v solid next!

 

[leegreenman]

And to think I play bass because I can't reason with this level of complexity.

I'm with you.

 

[johnk_10]

Yet that would be exactly what you would be doing if you were selling a bass to a customer based on the tonewood claim (i.e. Buy this maple one because maple is a "bright" wood).

first of all, i never use maple on a fender type bass body. i don't use heavy northern ash either. my basses are built to custom order, so i don't have to 'sell' them on anything, and 99% of them already have a preference of what type of wood that they want, or what year/model of a bass that they want me to build.

Do you do so according to the tonewood claim? If so, how do you demonstrate this to your customers?

my customers trust me based on my experience with building basses with both types of wood for 35 years, so no demonstration is necessary.

If you have a repeatable, reliable method for demonstrating this, I think you could trump the thread!

LS

sincerely, no offense, but i could care less about 'trumping this thread', and have no desire to go to the trouble of performing repeatable tests to do so.

 

[Jim C]

i think that what bothers me the most in this thread is that Dan thinks that he has proved otherwise.

I think it's all about how one man's truth is different from another. If Dan feels he proved somethning about alder vs. ash vs. tone; may God bless him. Totaly cool if you and I have our own different truths.

What bothers me the most is that many won't listen to, or respect other's opinions. Granted we are all pasionate in our own ways, but some sections in this thread read like the transcript from a hillbilly bar fight.

I'll send a PM John, as I'd like to know what aspects of bass building make the bigger differences in your experience (body wood, neck, pups, etc.).
Would also like to mention that I'm thankful for guys like you, Dan and all the other builders for the education and exposing me to knew and different ideas regarding the elecric bass.

 

[WoodyG3]

Same warwicks , one in ash , the other in bubinga .
There is a clear tonal difference. Put your headphones this time

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Is anyone else having problems getting these files to play?

Edit: okay, now they are working for me.

There is a difference, and while it is not huge, if I were auditioning these two basses, I would most certainly have a preference due to the tonal characteristics.

 

[mouthmw]

I love it how some people get pissed off at this thread and obviously mad because the tone difference in those clips is minimal at best, and act very offended and act all snobbish and point sarcasm at Dan for just providing clips and a poll.

Get over yourselves! Most that matters is wood quality obviously. Crap wood will sound like crap no matter what type it is. But there's no scientific approach as to know what actually makes wood crap in terms of sound quality. You can only pick it based on looks. But pretty looks mostly likely will not warrant a better sound.