Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Just as an aside, there have been those who claim that Fender originally chose Alder for it's tonal qualities, as a sort of proof that the wood type matters. The problem with that is, in a interview with George Fullerton (Leo Fender's partner) he once said that the reason that Leo went with Alder in the first place was solely because it was cheaper and locally available (lower shipping costs)
Folks, the bottom line is that no, body wood isn't what really matters.
I've been doing this since I was a little kid. Umm... 45+ years now.
Often price doesn't even matter. I have a couple $200.00 guitars that whomp $2000.00 guitars. What matters is if a particular instrument speaks to you.
You have to get to the point of being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. On your own. ...And often in a hurry.
That's all, nothing more, nothing less.
I've been doing this since I was a little kid. Umm... 45+ years now.
Often price doesn't even matter. I have a couple $200.00 guitars that whomp $2000.00 guitars. What matters is if a particular instrument speaks to you.
You have to get to the point of being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. On your own. ...And often in a hurry.
That's all, nothing more, nothing less.
The very best arguments are ones that people get tired of and then simply attempt to win by declaration and perhaps a little appeal to authority.
I've heard that story pretty consistently (in fact the Sadowsky/Tobias video above reiterates it). Thing is, that basically sets our expectation of what an instrument is supposed to sound like, so even if there is nothing inherently special about alder/maple, that's what we grew up expecting
I'll just post same thing I always do and people can agree or disagree (or most likely not read it):
A bass is a system with lots of components that affect tone. Wood is probably somewhere in that mix, but is one component among many. Pickups probably matter more, but even the best pickups in a dead sounding instrument can only fix so much. I've had a couple instruments (guitars), both plywood/masonite that were just beyond help getting a decent tone out of. But I wouldn't obsess over wood too much if you are in a position to actually play instruments before you buy one. At the tend of the day, you evaluate tone with your ears, not a spec sheet. I find that certain woods have certain tendencies, but in the end, there isn't some mystery. Play the damn thing and see if it makes noises you like.
Playing with an overbearing drummer and guitarist who thinks he needs a full stack to play a coffehouse gig, none of the people who wonder why one of the guitars has 4 strings on it are going to know the difference.
A bass is a system with lots of components that affect tone. Wood is probably somewhere in that mix, but is one component among many. Pickups probably matter more, but even the best pickups in a dead sounding instrument can only fix so much. I've had a couple instruments (guitars), both plywood/masonite that were just beyond help getting a decent tone out of. But I wouldn't obsess over wood too much if you are in a position to actually play instruments before you buy one. At the tend of the day, you evaluate tone with your ears, not a spec sheet. I find that certain woods have certain tendencies, but in the end, there isn't some mystery. Play the damn thing and see if it makes noises you like.
Playing with an overbearing drummer and guitarist who thinks he needs a full stack to play a coffehouse gig, none of the people who wonder why one of the guitars has 4 strings on it are going to know the difference.
Well the point was to point out that those who say Leo chose alder for it's tonality as an appeal to authority were wrong, that it was just an economic consideration. Whether or not Alder eventually became responsible for the Fender sound is a little irrelevant.
So, did Leo choose Alder because it was actually the cheapest wood available? IIRC, pine is cheaper.
I doubt that categorical statements are going to capture his decision points. He most likely had a few boxes to check off. No doubt the relatively low cost of alder was one important aspect. That doesn't mean that was all that was going on.
Wood matters to some players and not to others. Why can't we just leave it at that?
The monetary or aesthetic value of wood, or the financial reason why someone chooses to use it to build a bass has no bearing on if or what effect the wood has on the tone of the bass.
Huh ? You're Digital mistaken.
Methinks.
I have a G&L USA L2500 in Swamp ash and a G&L USA L2500 in Alder, and I can testify that there is a difference. Subtle, but different.
Methinks.
I have a G&L USA L2500 in Swamp ash and a G&L USA L2500 in Alder, and I can testify that there is a difference. Subtle, but different.
This was , to me, the better of the two videos. The first has a bunch of baggage and ad hominem , but the second is a good explanation. What is most interesting to me is where the physics demonstration, and the testimonies of Sadowsky and Tobias , are in agreement. The famous luthiers make no claims of understanding or studying the physics involved, and yet the reality of their statements are not in disagreement with the science. It is the wording that makes it seem different. Much like the waves passing through each other.
In a sense, everyone gets to be right, to some extent. All you have to do is drop a few different pieces of wood on a hard surface to hear the difference. But, where the solidbody electric with magnetic pickup is concerned, the frequency that goes in is the same that comes back. That is the point of the demonstration. The only effect is the sustain. This is nothing like the clear timbre change from having different soundboard material on an acoustic guitar.
Take for instance, a bassist with hearing loss at 2000hz. Playing a mahogany bass will tend to reduce amplitude faster than a maple bass, so that bassist may hear less 2000hz in a shorter amount of time. The reduction in sustain may make the maple bass sound brighter, but the frequencies are not changed by the wood. Tobias correlates this when he says "you hear the body later" than the fingerboard/fret material. He's referring to sustain, and hearing it as timbre. He has golden ears to be able to detect it at all.
I've learned a lot from this round of the question. The maple veneer on many electrics makes a lot of sense, not only is it beautiful, but it should send more energy back to the string than something like basswood alone. A lot of this comes down to how one wants to define tone - technically sustain is not a component of tone, but can be perceived as such, and this is also inspiring in terms of alternatives. What about microphones embedded in a solidbody instrument? Now we're talking about compression waves, like the unplugged electric tone, where the wood does change the tone in the amplified signal. Or the resonant acoustic chamber of a hollowbody electric.
I think it's important, for me anyway, to avoid falling into a "camp", which I think most of us are avoiding also. We can hear there's something going on, and understanding the "why" of that is what makes these repetitive threads worthwhile.
I didn't say there was or wasn't a difference. I was pointing out there are a number of factors that people bring up in this conversation that are totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is.
I agree with that. I was simply commenting the the cost argument that was going on.
Totally understood. I didn't quote anyone on purpose because this conversation spawns so many tangents and they get woven into the fabric of the conversation. Hopefully it didn't appear like I was picking you out even though my post followed your chronologically. If that was the case it was unintentional.
Not specifically a wood tone demo but certainly an excellent example of how phenomenal some peoples hearing can be as it relates to identifying (while blindfolded) which bass is being played. There's no way I could do this blindfolded with any accuracy. I'd bet he could hear a tone difference in varying wood basses if it existed.
As to the video, that guys ears are amazing IF it wasn't fixed. But really the most amazing thing is that all those people sat through the show and not only watched and listened but clapped. I think the crowd must have gotten paid for their attendance. Haha
As a retired engineer, my answer is, yes it does. But then, so does everything about the bass; as well as the temperature; humidity ... you get the idea. Does body wood matter to You? If you believe it matters, then it does; and I doubt that anybody can persuade you otherwise (or should even try). Personally? I really don't much care one way or the other. As long as the wood isn't so soft that it won't hold screws (like, say, balsawood), I'm usually happy. My basses are what they are, and with the exception of my aluminum-necked Kramers, and a Warmoth Mini-P Bass, I didn't buy them because of what they were made of. I bought them because I wanted them, and didn't obsess over what the things were made of. I did have the Warmoth made with an ash body and a maple neck - but only because I wanted it to resemble my '78 P-Bass as much as possible. Otherwise, who knows what body (and neck) wood I would have chosen? Whatever amused me at the time, I imagine...
Last edited:
