• 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
#661
The experiment performed in the OP could let one determine that wood does not matter. But, it cannot let one determine that wood does matter (meaning, the species of wood).

Long version:

If you think all the recordings in the sound the same, then you can conclude that (at least, to you) the species of wood does not matter (when comparing ash to alder).

But, if you think the recordings sound different, and can identify which 2 where Bass Body 1 and which 2 were Bass Body 2, then you cannot conclude that the difference is because of the species of wood.

It could be that 2 different alder bodies would also sound different to you. Or 2 different ash bodies.

As we all know, there are lots of basses made from the same species of wood that are quite different in weight. Compare an early 60s ash Fender to an "identical" late 70s ash Fender. Similarly, compare different EBMM StingRays.

I think we all also know that many different basses that are the same model and wood sound different to each other.

So, getting back to the point, if you can tell a difference between the sound of these two bass bodies (in the OP), how do you know it's because of the different species of wood? You might just as easily hear the same difference between two ash bodies or two alder bodies.
 
#662
StuartV said:
if you can tell a difference between the sound of these two bass bodies (in the OP), how do you know it's because of the different species of wood? You might just as easily hear the same difference between two ash bodies or two alder bodies.
Click to expand...

Yepper. I have owned pairs of basses (even boutiques) that were identical in every respect, yet sounded noticeably different even when freshly strung with identical string sets. The differences in tone weren't night and day -- but as shown in this thread, the difference between ash and alder isn't night and day, either (and likewise for maple/rosewood in the other thread).

So, to reiterate your point: if you have two basses that are identical except for one component, and they sound different, then you cannot assume that the difference in tone must originate from that one component.

Tonal variation even within one wood species can be frustrating, as some who have ordered custom instruments can attest. But it can also be a good thing, and I think it's a good thing overall. Viva les differences!
 
#663
As far as I'm concerned, a good bass is a good bass. The wood is not important. Ash does usually have a better looking grain, so it's more suitable for transparent finishes, or natural finishes, where alder is better with a good solid coat of color.
 
#664
M.R. Ogle said:
You missed it again. I think you're being purposely obtuse.

Dead spots don't exist? Then the wood doesn't matter. But you know that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Andy_Dufresne.png


Sorry I couldn't stop myself.
 
#666
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
EDIT: The answers are revealed in post 79.

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.

Well, I love recording bass. So I decided to test the theory.

Here is what I did: I used two Fender MIM Jazz basses, one Alder and one Ash. I recorded a couple of tracks with one, then took it apart and swapped out the body. Everything else was left the same: pickups, bridge, strings, neck, tuners, etc. I spent time making sure the pickup height was the same, and the string to pickup distance the same.

I play 2 different bass parts on each bass. "Walkabout" by RHCP and "The Lemon Song" by Zeppelin. Here are the files. You can right-click to save them to your desktop:


(It's critical that you listen to these clips with headphones or good speakers!)

I won't say which is which yet. I want to wait at least a couple of days to let people guess and build anticipation. :p Please vote for your picks using the vote box above, and also post a comment with your picks. Share your analysis and prediction!

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. Some of you may be inclined to say, "There's no way you could match the string to pickup spacing exactly" or "Whenever you record different takes they will always sound slightly different because of changes in playing". Well, the problem with this logic is that it backs you into a corner. You see, if tiny variations like those are all it takes to make an Ash body sound more like Alder (or vice versa), then obviously wood doesn't matter as much as you think, and other factors have more impact. :cool:

So, anyway, let's get this started. Let's see those votes!
Click to expand...
 
#667
-=DanAtkinson=- said:
EDIT: The answers are revealed in post 79.

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.

Well, I love recording bass. So I decided to test the theory.

Here is what I did: I used two Fender MIM Jazz basses, one Alder and one Ash. I recorded a couple of tracks with one, then took it apart and swapped out the body. Everything else was left the same: pickups, bridge, strings, neck, tuners, etc. I spent time making sure the pickup height was the same, and the string to pickup distance the same.

I play 2 different bass parts on each bass. "Walkabout" by RHCP and "The Lemon Song" by Zeppelin. Here are the files. You can right-click to save them to your desktop:


(It's critical that you listen to these clips with headphones or good speakers!)

I won't say which is which yet. I want to wait at least a couple of days to let people guess and build anticipation. :p Please vote for your picks using the vote box above, and also post a comment with your picks. Share your analysis and prediction!

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. Some of you may be inclined to say, "There's no way you could match the string to pickup spacing exactly" or "Whenever you record different takes they will always sound slightly different because of changes in playing". Well, the problem with this logic is that it backs you into a corner. You see, if tiny variations like those are all it takes to make an Ash body sound more like Alder (or vice versa), then obviously wood doesn't matter as much as you think, and other factors have more impact. :cool:

So, anyway, let's get this started. Let's see those votes!
Click to expand...
Today I went to a music store, the same Fender MIM Jazz bass with ash wood cost $100 dlls more and I like it better than the alder one,the good thing (the ash is on sale and it will be only $ 50 dlls more and tomorrow I'll buy it ! ) I tried them with a Mark bass combo and also with a GK combo and both are great it is hard to choose but the winner imo is the ash body! the bass is passive and I'll be able to use it with my outboard Sadowsky preamp ( my amp is a 700 RB Gallien-krueger and 1x15" Neo GK cab
 
#668
Looking at this thread in 2017, the clips are no longer available, and it's kind of funny...I just came from reading a long Fender sales pitch, in which they say up front they went from using ash for their guitar bodies to using alder simply because it was a lot cheaper. It grows all along the Pacific, from No Cal to Alaska...They DID start raving about the tonal qualities of both woods- they still do use small amounts of ash on some clear-finish instruments - but really it was an economic move...they made more profit using alder.
But, whatever, I KNOW some people will rave about the tone qualities of what ever wood, and that's OK...enjoy yourself.
Hell, I used to know a guy who SWORE he could hear the gold plating on electrical contacts in his old home made Hi Fi system...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back