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

[unclejane]

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.

So any effect the wood type might have on the tone or not doesn't make any difference? I.e. they prefer whatever wood for other reasons - the tonewood thing just never comes up with your customers or ?

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

Sounds like your basses sell for reasons other than the tonewood theory then, correct?

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.

In other words, you _don't_ care if the tonewood theory is actually true or not - you just believe what you want and don't care what others believe. Do I have that right?

LS

 

[Lowbrow]

Ok, we've all seen the recent threads about how wood "matters". ...

My position is that wood indeed DOES matter. However, I believe it matters very little...

So I decided to test the theory.

Now, to my ears, these clips all sound VERY similar. IMO, this is proof that wood type has very little impact on tone.

...Some of you "wood matters" believers might try to find fault in my test methodology.

So, anyway, let's get this started. Let's see those votes!

Ok, drumroll please........... people swore they could hear a noticeable difference in tone FROM THE EXACT SAME BASS. To me, this is more evidence that body wood has minimal impact on tone.[/I]

I think that all this supports is that some people can't tell Ash from Alder. Right?

 

[Spencer!]

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.

Or perhaps those of us who know that tonewood makes a difference are content with others not knowing the difference.

 

[unclejane]

Or perhaps those of us who know that tonewood makes a difference are content with others not knowing the difference.

Obviously not, since the thread is over 20 pages long at this point

LS

 

[Jim C]

Obviously not, since the thread is over 20 pages long at this point

LS

In my view, this thread is 24 pages long because those who disagree with either the testing methodolgy or the implied results will not let it die.

One more time:
those who disagree with either the testing methodolgy or the implied results will not let it die.

I think I've had enough though and I sincerely thank those with constructive thoughts and criticism (regardless of your beliefs) for the education. Need a break from the semantics though.
Here's to hoping the neck testing will lead to some new information for us non-experienced builders; and by that, I'm defining a builder as someone who buys some parts and bolts them together with minor dimensional changes or adjustments.

 

[TRob1293]

The only thing I have to say - coming late to the party - is that the Ash and Alder recordings did sound different.

I do not happen to have a knowledge of either's properties in tone - which means I had no idea which was Ash and which was Alder. They both sounded good, but different in clarity of the notes.

What I do now know, is that I like the sound of Ash a whole lot better than Alder - thanks.

 

[johnk_10]

So any effect the wood type might have on the tone or not doesn't make any difference? I.e. they prefer whatever wood for other reasons - the tonewood thing just never comes up with your customers or ?

are you asking that question seriously? i never said any of that. for example, if they want a 60's p or jazz bass in any color other than trans white, it's going to be alder. if they want an early50's type p bass it's going to be swamp ash.

Sounds like your basses sell for reasons other than the tonewood theory then, correct?

not at all. IME, the wood that i use contributes to the resulting tone of each bass. they buy my basses because of my experience restoring, servicing owning, and playing 1000's of vintage fender basses, my attention to detail and quality of build.

In other words, you _don't_ care if the tonewood theory is actually true or not

no. i KNOW that it is true.

- you just believe what you want........

no. i believe what i KNOW after building 100's and working on 1000's of them. it has absolutely nothing to do with what i 'want'.

......and don't care what others believe. Do I have that right?

YES. for once, you got that right.

 

[nostatic]

Trained scientists would have a tough time designing and carrying out an experiment like this. Given the sources and the presence of humans in so many aspects of the process it is impossible to eliminate bias and variability. The fact that people are willing to accept results of any of the sonic "experiments" on TB says more about the masses than the woods.

I'm with Johnk on this one - the people who have built my instruments all have experience that led them to believe that the wood makes a difference. My limited personal experience reinforces that. I'll take in-the-trenches experience over inherently flawed "objective" tests any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Three times on Super Bowl Sunday. No offense meant to those that carry out such tests. They are amusing, and it is fun to play the game. But they are not "science" and they prove little.

 

[Lowbrow]

The only thing I have to say - coming late to the party - is that the Ash and Alder recordings did sound different.
...
What I do now know, is that I like the sound of Ash a whole lot better than Alder - thanks.

X-actly.

 

[Lorenzini]

If the poll was set up fairly and he would have played two basses on the second set of clips LIKE HE SAID HE DID, this would not have gone 14 pages.

EXACTLY. I was super confused at how this poll was conducted. Definitely confusing, because I, too, couldn't hear a difference between the 2's but felt like I needed to vote for something, so I voted for the option that allowed the most difference between A1-2.

 

[R Baer]

Well, I just found this thread, so I missed the poll, but I found it a very interesting thread indeed. I have some very good studio monitors hooked up to my computer and on my speakers, there is a very audible difference between the ash and alder. The ash to me sounds like it has a bigger low end and less mids, where the alder seems to have a bit less deepness to the lows, resulting in a more even tonal balance across the board. So, IMO, the thread does prove that the wood makes a difference. Sure, some may call it subtle, but I hear it as a very distinct tone from each of these basses.

 

[Lowbrow]

Trained scientists would have a tough time designing and carrying out an experiment like this.

Yup. It's an exercise to support an opinion that's absolutely fine to go into bass selection, but a monument to logic and completeness it ain't.

I don't need a study to tell me that the material a bass is made of affects the instrument's feel or sound. I know it does.

And you never know what that material is going to be. There's lots of them, too. Maybe the sought after bass of the future will be made out of compressed Styrofoam that is both light (or heavy, if that's your preference) and beautiful sounding to many bassists. The foam used would empty vast landfills, and we'd all sit in a circle and sing Cumbaya.

Now go get ready to watch the Super Bowl, scientists.

 

[KingRazor]

I know without a doubt that wood makes a difference in tone.

I also know that the difference is small enough that it won't sway me one way or another about which one I think is better. I've heard basses made of crappy wood that sound amazing. My choice of wood has to do completely with consistency (does it feel solid? hollow?), weight, and appearance if I'm not using a solid color poly finish (which I usually am). Tone is the last thing I think of when choosing body wood, because, again, even basses made out of crap wood can sound great.

 

[65basser]

Some things that I've noticed thoughout my years of obsessing about tone:

The weight makes as much difference as the type of wood. I didn't see any reference to wether both basses weighed the same. In my experience 1/4lb is noticeable to both tone and feel.

New, bright sounding strings tend to mask the subtle wood tones. Old dead roundwounds, flats or halfrounds are much more revealing when it comes to hearing the wood. Also, digging in will reveal more as well. A light touch with new strings as played in the demos will not tell much about the wood.

The louder you play, the more those subtly difference will come out. If there is a 1dB difference in the mids at low volume, there will be an incremental amount of difference at higher volumes.

These are just some of my observations from over 28 years of playing bass, mostly passive Fender basses to be specific. I'm all for getting to the science of tone but there is also a certain magic that happens in nature which is not easily replicated. Every piece of wood sounds slightly different. I generally prefer alder but some ash basses sound better than some alder and vice versa.

Anyway, nice try. Keep chasing your tone!

 

[Lorenzini]

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

LOL

 

[Russell Bergum]

This discussion has descended into a quagmire of pseudoscience. The test itself was as sample size of 1, and not statistically significant. And, if you really wanted to do it right, you would have a third party person play the bass lines, not knowing which one was alder and which was ash, so that both the performer and the listener would be blinded. That said, the one group that actually had an alder and an ash A:B comparison (the first group), was pretty easy to hear the difference between the two basses. Also, I want to commend Dan on taking the time to make sure that both basses were set up the same, etc., and he plays well, and the tracks are recorded well .
I'm just disappointed that he had to pull the "trick" with the last 2 clips, as that puts his motives of the test into question.

This was more a test of psychology and preconditioning and test taking methods than a test of whether ash or alder sound different, due to the "trick" where the last 2 clips were the same, in spite of Dan stating that he recorded both clips with different basses.

I imagine people going through this thought process...

"The first 2 clips are obviously different. 1A sounds like ash, and 1B sounds like alder.
I can't hear much difference between 2A and 2B though.... hmm....but he SAID they were recorded on different basses....
the first 2 are obviously different, and 1A really sounds like ash...well, I'm sure 1A isn't alder so that rules out answer 1, so answer 2 must be it. The clips 2A and 2B sure sound similar, but he SAID they were recorded on different basses. I'm sure 1A is ash, so I guess 2A is ash too".

Now, had Dan said, "The following 2 groups could be a comparison of ash vs. alder, or they may be me playing the same bass. Let's see what you think. Are the clips different or not? If they are different, which one is ash and which is alder? If they are the same, is it ash or alder?"
That would have yielded more info about whether people can hear the difference between ash and alder, and I'm sure the results would have been different. Instead, it was more of a psychology test on preconceptions, and a test to see who can figure out that the test itself is rigged. Save it for the Psychology 101 class.

The discussion on wood densities is a stretch too. (Dan has nothing to do with this).

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

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

.

There is only a small overlap in the Ash and Alder density ranges. Without distribution density curves for the 2 wood density ranges, you cannot say that "Ash is just as likely to be less dense than alder as it is to be more dense". If you look at the density ranges you posted, the only way that could be true is if the distribution of alder density was skewed way to the right (more dense) and the distribution of ash density was skewed way to the left (less dense). I doubt that's the case.

When all is said and done, after taking neck construction, fingerboard choice, strings, pickups, preamp, amp, speakers, and finger technique into account, body wood has a small impact. To say that body wood has no impact, or a miniscule impact is foolish. Just listen to the clips 1A and 1B. I heard an obvious difference there...and that was listening through my iMac built-in speakers with my 2 year old son crawling on my lap trying to play with the keyboard while I listened. Before this test, I felt that body wood probably had a very small effect on tone, but after listening to clips 1A and 1B, I'm convinced that body wood CAN have a pretty obvious effect. Does it have the largest effect on tone? Nope.
Does it have a discernible effect on tone? Looks like it does.

At least in this sample of 1.

How does that affect me? It really doesn't because I base what I think about a bass on how it sounds (and looks). It would be a consideration if I were having a bass custom made, but I would still realize that there's no guarantee that an alder bass is going to sound "warm" and an ash bass is going to sound "snappier" but there's a good probability that this will be the case to some extent.

 

[GroovinOnFunk]

I know without a doubt that wood makes a difference in tone.

I also know that the difference is small enough that it won't sway me one way or another about which one I think is better. I've heard basses made of crappy wood that sound amazing.

Yeah, the EB Bongo is made of basswood... and I would say it's a pretty decent ax . And I would definitely say that basswood is one of the crappier kinds of wood that is commonly used for basses.

As for me, I'm about to get an Alder body bass with a Maple fingerboard. I foresee this being a great combination of snappy and bright from the maple with a hint of warmth from the alder.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Good observations, Russell.... My thoughts concur.

 

[johnk_10]

Some things that I've noticed thoughout my years of obsessing about tone:

The weight makes as much difference as the type of wood. I didn't see any reference to wether both basses weighed the same. In my experience 1/4lb is noticeable to both tone and feel.

New, bright sounding strings tend to mask the subtle wood tones. Old dead roundwounds, flats or halfrounds are much more revealing when it comes to hearing the wood. Also, digging in will reveal more as well. A light touch with new strings as played in the demos will not tell much about the wood.

The louder you play, the more those subtly difference will come out. If there is a 1dB difference in the mids at low volume, there will be an incremental amount of difference at higher volumes.

These are just some of my observations from over 28 years of playing bass, mostly passive Fender basses to be specific. I'm all for getting to the science of tone but there is also a certain magic that happens in nature which is not easily replicated. Every piece of wood sounds slightly different. I generally prefer alder but some ash basses sound better than some alder and vice versa.

Anyway, nice try. Keep chasing your tone!

all excellent (and in my opinion, TRUE) observations/statements. especially about using new roundwound strings playing with a light touch (as Dan's clips were performed).

 

[unclejane]

no. i KNOW that it is true.

Nice - this is exactly what I was after. Now let me ask _how_ you know this to be true.
- What wood is associated with what tone? I.e. for each wood, what exactly is the effect on the tone?
- Can you demonstrate the tonewood effect with your basses (keeping in mind the forgoing discussion about controlling for other variables that might affect the tone inadvertently, the magnitude of the tone shaping, repeatability, etc).

If the effect is real as you say, this should be a trivial no-brainer for you to demonstrate.

LS