• 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.

Mahogany vs. Ash

Which would you prefer? Mahogany or Ash?

  • Mahogany

    Votes: 82 48.2%

  • Swamp Ash

    Votes: 88 51.8%
  • Total voters
    170
#64
I don't know about a given year in the '70s but in general, the '70s J basses used ash. I imagine they used both northern and southern/swamp ash.

Eg: Marcus Miller's Fender is a '70s and supposedly is a swamp ash body.

Anyway, I'm sure someone here will take samples of the bass body wood, run a chromotographical electrophoresis, NMR, and DNA analysis to let us all know which part of the land the ash came from.
 
#65
I think the weight problem with the basses and guitars from the 70's was that they were using pretty green wood. Plus they glopped on that rediculous poly paint that musta weighed 5 pounds by itself.

Plus I'm sure that they were buying from anyone to meet a price point.


Does anyone have a spare chromatograph?:)
 
#70
I'm getting a bass made for me by Darrin Huff. It's going to have a mahogany core, rosewood wing facings (front and back), a cocobolo center stripe (front and back), birdseye maple neck w/ ebony fretboard.
It'll have Bartolini P4 quad-coils in a "turbo" configuration (think Zon Sonus Special)...

What do you guys think about tonal qualities of that? I'm thinking that thing is going to cut through a mix like a knife through hot butter... lots of low mids, I'm thinking.
 
#71
I think you're thinking correctly. My fretless has a mahogany body, padauk neck instead of maple, and P4 quads in an almost-'turbo' config, and it's a low-mid machine. I'm thinking of getting a similar fretted but with a maple or wenge neck.
 
#72
I can't vote because both can be good according to what you're looking for. Mahogany will give you a fatter low end with a nice mid growl and a slightly rounded high end while swamp ash will keep the low end but with more highs and more subtle mids. I've found out an ovangol or wenge neck can add some nice midrange to a swamp ash body and a maple neck / ebony board can add a clean high end to mahogany...But ceramic magnet vs (let's say) alnico 2 can make a huge difference between two basses.. But everything being equal , mahogany will sound darker , fatter than swamp ash.

I personnally went for a mahogany body for my custom bass , but I chose a maple/ebony neck to tighten the low end and erase the mud (and it works). But it's still fatter in the low end than all my swamp ash bodied basses(unplugged and same strings I only play rotosound's).
 
Last edited:
#75
slowburnaz said:
I'm getting a bass made for me by Darrin Huff. It's going to have a mahogany core, rosewood wing facings (front and back), a cocobolo center stripe (front and back), birdseye maple neck w/ ebony fretboard.
It'll have Bartolini P4 quad-coils in a "turbo" configuration (think Zon Sonus Special)...

What do you guys think about tonal qualities of that? I'm thinking that thing is going to cut through a mix like a knife through hot butter... lots of low mids, I'm thinking.
Click to expand...

In light of the D. Huff sticky, this is a sad, sad post. :(

bobpond said:
Is this the apocalypse? Zombie threads popping up everywhere.mseems to have gotten worse since the mobile app went belly up.
Click to expand...

On reviving Zombie Threads. | TalkBass.com
 
#76
My fretted bass is swamp ash/maple- snappy yet burnished high end and sits in the mix like nobodies business. She also demand to get played in that she is a very light axe.

Fretless is mahogany w a koa top and wenge/ebony neck- incredibly articulate mids and thick low end. I concur that mahogany really interacts with other woods and focuses the tone. (this bass is also 13# and gets played sitting down or for only a few songs standing)

As mentioned, there are SOO many factors at play and I am fortunate to have huge tonal variation in my double gig-bag!
 
#77
AltGrendel said:
On reviving Zombie Threads. | TalkBass.com
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry I agree with that sentiment as far as an archive and then adding new information perhaps years later.

I didn't mean anything negative to the recent poster, i should have thrown a smiley in there. I am really just wondering if there something different now and people are seeing and replying to threads that maybe before they would not have seen.
 
#78
If you prefer a modern full rounded tone mahogany is the better choice

If you are going for a more 2003 sound, pick the ash

I have a Fodera Imperial 5 fretless - mahogany body, quilted mahogany top, mahogany tone block, 3 piece maple neck with ebony board - 36" scale

It is the baddest fattest fullest sounding EB I have ever heard - so big in the mix that it saturates the wave file and has to be dialed back and compressed - Sonicous Maximus
 
#79
MoltarRocks said:
I like swamp ash because it's so light weight.
Click to expand...

I like swamp ash because it's cheaper! :)

Seriously, for this vote these are my two favorite tonewoods! I voted mahogany because I like the tone just a tiny bit better because it sort just shaves part of the hard edge off of the Swamp ash tone without ruining it. But both float my boat! I do have a couple mahogany basses and really love them. But my ESP LTD 6 string is the Swamp ash version and having played both, I can say the mahogany version sounds a bit better to me, But yikes! It's like three times the price for essentially the same bass! That seemed like a case of diminishing returns to me. So Swamp ash is what I got. Both versions have excellent modern sound. In fact there is a nice used mahogany one like mine over at GC right now that I"m drooling over. But it's over $600 used and I only paid $400 new for my swamp ash/spalted maple one. Seems like a lot of extra cash just to change the tonewood when I really love both woods.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back