• 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.

maple vs. rosewood vs. ash vs. alder etc

P

parksung

Sep 2, 2007
41
0
#1
I'd swear I'd find the differences between these woods on fretboards and bodies but I can't, so I'll ask hopefully a not too redundant question: what are the sonic differences between an ash vs. alder body (or whatever other usual woods bodies are made from)? what about maple vs. rosewood fretboards (or whatever other usual woods)?

Thanks, brand new to basses so I've gotta start somewhere before I buy
 
#2
Some people don't hear any difference, some do.

Me, e.g., I hear a difference between a maple fretboard and a rosewood fretboard. Maple strikes me as more percussive with a faster attack of the notes. Rosewood is softer and rounder sounding.

I hear less of a difference with body woods or, at least, the difference is more subtle than with the fretboard woods unless you are comparing bodies made from woods that are extreme opposites in terms of density, etc, and you generally don't see that extreme unless you are having a bass custom built with exotic wood.

You'll get 100's of opinions on this. The moderator may as well close this thread now. :)
 
#3
parksung said:
I'd swear I'd find the differences between these woods on fretboards and bodies but I can't, so I'll ask hopefully a not too redundant question: what are the sonic differences between an ash vs. alder body (or whatever other usual woods bodies are made from)? what about maple vs. rosewood fretboards (or whatever other usual woods)?

Thanks, brand new to basses so I've gotta start somewhere before I buy
Click to expand...

Alder is warmer and smoother than ash, which has more punch and growl. I am talking about swamp ash, which is what I am familiar with. Some people say they dont hear a difference in the sound of a maple or rosewood board. To my ears rosewood is darker, warmer and less defined while maple is brighter and has greater definition.
thats my opinion, others will surely differ.
 
#5
I think dead strings on a maple board make a distinctive clacking sound when they hit the frets. Past that, I always end up attached to basses that are alder/rosewood (ash/maple love comes and goes), but I won't make any claims about tone differences.
 
#7
parksung said:
I'd swear I'd find the differences between these woods on fretboards and bodies but I can't, so I'll ask hopefully a not too redundant question: what are the sonic differences between an ash vs. alder body (or whatever other usual woods bodies are made from)? what about maple vs. rosewood fretboards (or whatever other usual woods)?

Thanks, brand new to basses so I've gotta start somewhere before I buy
Click to expand...

Hi I am like you I cant tell so its down to looks to me
 
#9
Shhhhhh...this is a secret--

99% of your sound comes from your amp, pick ups, and strings. If everyone learns that wood's only real contribution in solid bodiy guitars is looks that will cause a serious let down in sales.:hiding:
 
#10
In my opinion, I'd say the maple fretboard sounds brighter. Best bet is to go to your local shop, find 2 basses exactly the same (settings, strings p'ups etc) except the fret board, plug into the same amp, and test one then the other. I would suggest trying the rosewood first, as I feel you would notice more of a difference going from warm to bright rather than the other way around...
 
#11
If you leave strings and pups out of the equation the amp is much greater variable than the lumber IMO. In fact I would bet that in a double blind listening test, 2 identical amps would have a greater difference in tone (when set at the same settings) than neck or body wood.

I really want to hear the difference but can not.
The accurate test would be to use the same body and switch necks, and then the same neck and switch bodies, strings, and pups.
 
#12
Jim C said:
If you leave strings and pups out of the equation the amp is much greater variable than the lumber IMO. In fact I would bet that in a double blind listening test, 2 identical amps would have a greater difference in tone (when set at the same settings) than neck or body wood.

I really want to hear the difference but can not.
The accurate test would be to use the same body and switch necks, and then the same neck and switch bodies, strings, and pups.
Click to expand...

yep, and since people have a sound in their mind that they associate with some woods, the tests will have to be done blindfolded also :)
 
#14
mikeyswood said:
Shhhhhh...this is a secret--

99% of your sound comes from your amp, pick ups, and strings. If everyone learns that wood's only real contribution in solid bodiy guitars is looks that will cause a serious let down in sales.:hiding:
Click to expand...

I've changed everything in my Squier Precision to make it brighter and more aggressive, and I've owned a swamp ash Aria Pro with EMG P/J pickups and BQC preamp, as well as an alder-bodied J bass.

None of those guitars will touch a Gibson ripper or a Rickenbacker's hard maple tone and harmonics, and that's for both of Ric's bolt on neck(2000 series) or neck through basses(4000 series) - it's different when that high-end comes from the wood rather than boosted active electronics.

Many of the other woods commonly used in bass-building, to my ears, are missing the very hard high-end harmonics that non-oily hardwoods such as hard maple and hard ash produce.

As a whole, significantly different woods(and neck pocket tightness) makes a hell of a lot of difference to my ears. Obviously, it is harder to tell alder from basswood, or swamp ash from poplar, than it is to tell maple from soft pinewood.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back