• 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.

Does Alder or Ash Matter?

#121
Its the total build that influences the tone. The quality of each piece including the hardware and pickups. It is no coincidence that a good handmade bass made by a quality builder -percentage wise - is going to sound and play better than a mass produced one.

This is why with Fenders some people have an Ash that sounds incredible and others may have the opposite experience. I also question when people say something sounds identical if they are playing and listening through monitoring headphones or just live through their rigs. Its really the little nuances that matter with a bass when you record a clean tone. It also matters how close you listen and how much you care. If you are a studio guy you will care more and listen closer, and these little things matter more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MobileHolmes
#123
Binary1 said:
I'm not disagreeing but do you have some links? I'd like to do some reading on that (specifically the physical world being constructed instantaneously by our perceptions and the altering of same). Thanks.
Click to expand...

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Time, Reality and Quantum Physics

10 Mind-Blowing Theories That Will Change Your Perception of the World

Some of these are very "layman-ized" (which is a good thing--the actual papers these articles are derived from are enough to scramble my brain permanently) and some border on the spiritual implications more than the "meat and potatoes" of it, but you can also reference the famous "double slit" experiment, perhaps look into Schrodinger's Cat and check out current theories on the nature of time, as well as the construct of light.

Some current theories regarding time seem to indicate that there is no such thing as linear time (i e. a past-present-future) but rather that everything in the universe has/is happened/happening in one big NOW and that it is strictly our perception that causes us to experience time as a flow. Stephen Hawking has said "It should be just as easy for us to remember the future as it is for us to remember the past" but our brains seem to prevent us from seeing "reality" the way it truly is, perhaps as a method of aiding us in retaining our sanity. In fact, it could be that people we consider "crazy" are actually seeing and experiencing more of what's "real" than we actually do, as humans do typically.

These theories suggest that what we think of as time is more like little packets or pockets of events that gather around probabilities which are then codified into segments of time as they are taken in by our consciousness.

Fun stuff!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobpond, Imaginary Pony, BeeTL and 1 other person
#124
The difference is insignificant, and even then you'll find more variation among the same types of wood. Meaning out lets say out of a tone scale between 0 to 1000, 0 being one end of the spectrum, 1000 being the other, Ash could contribute +5 to +10, Alder might be +4 to +9.

In other words -- Doesn't really matter, find one that weighs appropriate and sounds good and enjoy. Bridge, pickups, string, even fingerboard will make more of a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWBass, FlatwoundFunk, lomo and 1 other person
#125
Binary1 said:
This. ^^^^

1557146_zpsfxtujtx2.jpg
Click to expand...
I let out quite the audible chuckle when I heard this. The most applicable and appropriate way I can imagine this word being used would be the fingerboard for a fretless instrument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony
#127
I had a repairman who secretly builds guitars and basses tell me that bass guitars are 85 to 95 percent electronics and placement. And yes, he is a trained Luither. I didn't want to believe him but 12 years after his statement, I'm starting to see and hear what he was saying. I sarcastically asked him if that's true then why do companies continuously state that it does. He said it's all about the sales to make profit. If you can convince people there is a big difference, they'll keep buying.

Not comforting words. But the truth has never been.
FF
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fjadams, Imaginary Pony, DWBass and 1 other person
#128
Caca de Kick said:
key words: 'used to be'
EBMM has reported several times that since Y2K they changed to doing everything ash (save for mahog on some LE's).
Click to expand...
Interesting. You've done more Musicman homework than most people on this forum, so I hold your opinion in very high regard, but my 2004 Musician SUB is, I'm almost certain, poplar.
I spoke to someone at EB not long after I bought it (maybe 2010 or so?), and I wish I remembered his name, but it was he who told me that MM was using poplar on solid colors and all SUB basses. It's very possible that I just misunderstood him and that he was referring only to the older Rays. He also mentioned that they did occasionally use alder whenever they happened to find it cheaply, but that it was very uncommon. He was a nice guy and we had a nice chat.

Regradless, I tend to agree with your later post: buy and play what you like and don't worry too much about what it's made of. If it sounds good, it is good.
 
#129
Nephilymbass said:
With a couple exceptions for example I've never played a basswood body bass I liked. I really don't think the body wood is as big a deal as the neck . My stringray is ash, had a warwick corvette FNA that was ash with a maple top. I've had two fenders with alder. But none of them had matching electronics and the the necks were different. I think the body woods impact on the instrument is debatable. But it has to have some impact as basses I don't like tend to be made out of the same materials like basswood and agithis.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. Basswood is very popular with a lot of players and I'm not going to tell people not to like something just because I don't like it, but I've never played a basswood bass that did it for me.
That's just my experience, though....
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatwoundFunk and Nephilymbass
#130
Binary1 said:
I'm not even sure it matters then. Remember, these are classically-trained orchestral professionals.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Binary1 said:
I'm not even sure it matters then. Remember, these are classically-trained orchestral professionals.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Except the people who own the Strad's can tell. Owners of any instrument have better ears than the people who don't own that instrument.
 
Last edited:
#131
Lo-E said:
I have to agree. Basswood is very popular with a lot of players and I'm not going to tell people not to like something just because I don't like it, but I've never played a basswood bass that did it for me.
That's just my experience, though....
Click to expand...

The only reason I don't like basswood is because it dings way too easy, at least on the basswood instruments I've tried.
 
#132
I have owned instruments over the years that were made of nearly every possible combination of body wood, neck wood, fingerboard wood, and finishes, and I honestly couldn't for the life of me say that there was any difference as far as I could hear. Other than maybe minor minuscule variations when playing the bass unplugged in a really quiet room. But that isn't how I usually play them. Playing with a live band, at volume through an amp, all I care is about how it feels because, to me, other than pick-ups, EQ and the amp, variations in wood and construction all sound the same to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jim nolte, Imaginary Pony, FlatwoundFunk and 1 other person
#133
I know 2 world class luthiers who both plainly say that in the context of a solid-bodied electric instrument, wood species has no predictable effect on tone. Basswood, mahogany....who cares, as long as it's been properly dried and is resonant. I've heard basses with gorgeous tone made from graphite, basswood, ash, alder, composite....you name it......but I have NEVER seen someone listen to a bass blindly and determine what the body wood is.......I would love to watch someone listen to a dozen Am Fender J basses and blindly differentiate the ash from the alder....ain't ever gonna happen because no one can...the other factors (aka 'lectronix and pickup location) dwarf any pico-contribution of wood species to tone such that it becomes as irrelevant as bugs on the windshield.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony, FlatwoundFunk, DWBass and 1 other person
#134
FlatwoundFunk said:
I had a repairman who secretly builds guitars and bassed tell me that bass guitars are 85 to 95 percent electronics and placement. And yes, he is a trained Luither. I didn't want to believe him but 12 years after his statement, I'm starting to see and hear what he was saying. I sarcastically asked him if that's true then why do companies continuously state that it does. He said it all about the sales to make profit. If you can convince people there is a big difference, they'll keep buying.

Not comforting words. But the truth has never been.
FF
Click to expand...

Its not the truth though. It's one guys opinion. Many known and respected builders who are honest people and not into making up hype to sell a bass will tell you the exact opposite thing.

I do agree that it is not a big difference (alder or ash). But see my prior post - a bass is the sum of it's parts.
 
#136
My ears and style prefer a heavy, dense body wood. That being said, no two pieced of wood have the same characteristics. I've owned many basses over the years, and I have always preferred swamp ash bodies over alder. They inherently have had a more scooped tone, which is what I like.
 
#137
Muddslide said:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Time, Reality and Quantum Physics

10 Mind-Blowing Theories That Will Change Your Perception of the World

Some of these are very "layman-ized" (which is a good thing--the actual papers these articles are derived from are enough to scramble my brain permanently) and some border on the spiritual implications more than the "meat and potatoes" of it, but you can also reference the famous "double slit" experiment, perhaps look into Schrodinger's Cat and check out current theories on the nature of time, as well as the construct of light.

Some current theories regarding time seem to indicate that there is no such thing as linear time (i e. a past-present-future) but rather that everything in the universe has/is happened/happening in one big NOW and that it is strictly our perception that causes us to experience time as a flow. Stephen Hawking has said "It should be just as easy for us to remember the future as it is for us to remember the past" but our brains seem to prevent us from seeing "reality" the way it truly is, perhaps as a method of aiding us in retaining our sanity. In fact, it could be that people we consider "crazy" are actually seeing and experiencing more of what's "real" than we actually do, as humans do typically.

These theories suggest that what we think of as time is more like little packets or pockets of events that gather around probabilities which are then codified into segments of time as they are taken in by our consciousness.

Fun stuff!
Click to expand...


Sweet. Thanks!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back