Ash Body v Alder Body for a Jazz Bass

[Dingus]

I would be very interested to hear peoples experiences and impressions of the respective tonal merits of these two woods for a Jazz Bass style instrument .

I know that alder is supposed to be a bit more midrange-focused like a pre-CBS Fender and ash a bit more bright and compressed , but in practise does anyone hear much of a significant difference when comparing the two ? One thing to consider is that ash is a bit of a broad category when it comes to wood . North American ash varies hugely in density and weight , hence the disparity in sound between genuine Southern swamp ash ( think Mike Lull , Nordstrand, U.S Lakland ) and Northern ash ( think Musicman , 70s Fender and serious lumbago ) . I was wondering if basses made of lightweight ash would have enough weight to the sound compared to alder, especially after casting a longing gaze over some of the very lightweight Mike Lull basses currently in Bass Direct . If anyone has first hand experiences of a good quality Jazz Bass with a very lightweight ash body I would love to hear what they think .

Edited November 22, 2012 by Dingus

[redstriper]

I don't think the choice of body wood contributes much to the tone.

[LukeFRC]

I don't think heavy wood = heavy tone works in real life. I've played ash basses that weigh nout and they have been really fat sounding and heavy basses with a flat thin tone. Even if it did make a massive difference then you could make up for it with how you designed your pickups.
My guess is that if you go and play a Lull or something, for the price they sell for, I think they will have built a light bass that sounds good so you don't need to worry!

[3below]

Natural finish.. which has best / prettiest grain / joins to your taste Solid finish... which is lightest. Now pickups.... let the debate begin? On a guitard thing I have two USA strats, the ash one is gorgeous to look at, furniture grade piece. weighs a ton . the other (alder/popla IDK) light, responsive, not pretty though, paint sinkage. Tone differences? they are both strats.

[iiipopes]

Alder is not "midrange focused." It is a very neutral wood. Swamp, or light ash, can have the "pop" or "scooped" tone. In the early '80's I had a '75 Jazz bass in light ash and it was great. Very responsive. Unfortunately, at the time, I lived in an area you couldn't get good repairs, so when a pickup died and the frets wore down, I had to get rid of it. I know where it is if I ever want to play it again. Today, there are good luthiers where I live, and if it were the same situation now, I'd refret it, get a new pickup from Fender, and keep playing. It sounded, felt and played great. I would usually go full on with the neck pickup and roll off the bridge pickup just slightly to get a really broad versatile tone.

Edited November 22, 2012 by iiipopes

[Lozz196]

Yes, the swamp-ash Precisions I`ve had have had a more scooped sound to them. Not massively, but enough to notice. I did think this could be the pickups, but having had the same actual pickups in alder bodied Precisions, the sound was then fuller across the whole range. I did think it could just be the difference in the individual basses, but across the whole lot that I`ve had, ash ones seem to have less full mids.

So I reckon ash would be really nice for a Jazz.

[chris_b]

Tom Bowlus's Bass Gear magazine, issue #9, page 56, Luthier's Roundtable has a relevant article.

[url="http://btpub.boyd-printing.com/publication/?i=135014"]http://btpub.boyd-pr...ation/?i=135014[/url]


It appears that alder IS mid range focused and wood CAN affect tone. So there you go.

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1353614161' post='1876670']
I don't think the choice of body wood contributes much to the tone.
[/quote]GRRRRR

[BassPimp66]

My bass is made of ash and weights nothing. It sounds big and full, acoustically and plugged. I don't think going for a lighter wood will give you a lesser tone. I have seen a video of Brian Beller where he recommends highly his Mike Lull over what he calls "coffee table basses" in reference to these heavy exotic wood basses.

[Dingus]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1353625111' post='1876842']
Tom Bowlus's Bass Gear magazine, issue #9, page 56, Luthier's Roundtable has a relevant article.

[url="http://btpub.boyd-printing.com/publication/?i=135014"]http://btpub.boyd-pr...ation/?i=135014[/url]


It appears that alder IS mid range focused and wood CAN affect tone. So there you go.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link to this article . Could I just take this oppotunity to say that whoever designed the website for this magazine has just managed to win my annual award for the most infuriatingly awkward piece of interactive technology .

[chris_b]

I'd agree with that.

[Adrenochrome]

That article was interesting. There were opposing views on whether through-necks emphasise the fundamental or the mids, and disagreement over whether the type of wood makes [i]much[/i] difference, also good to read their general thoughts on building basses.

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1353627475' post='1876863']
My bass is made of ash and weights nothing. It sounds big and full, acoustically and plugged. I don't think going for a lighter wood will give you a lesser tone. I have seen a video of Brian Beller where he recommends highly his Mike Lull over what he calls "coffee table basses" in reference to these heavy exotic wood basses.
[/quote]It isn't so much the choice of timbers which makes for a heavy bass, but the size of the body and headstock. Fender basses are needlessly fat and bulky with very little contouring. The big ungainly square heel alone must weigh more than most modern basses (probably). Guitars in general suffer greatly from traditional ideas which are hard to break. If fender suddenly started making fodera style basses they would fold in a second. Most people want the same bass as such and such plays (flea, geddy lee, marcus miller etc), which doesn't bode well for change.
Wood is good! It affects resonance, and does not need to be back breaking or have stupid 4 in line tuners.

[Conan]

[quote name='Adrenochrome' timestamp='1353667176' post='1877100']
That article was interesting. There were opposing views on whether through-necks emphasise the fundamental or the mids, and disagreement over whether the type of wood makes [i]much[/i] difference, also good to read their general thoughts on building basses.
[/quote]

Yes. I wouldn't say that there was anything resembling a consensus there...!

[BassPimp66]

[quote name='lettsguitars' timestamp='1353667972' post='1877109']
It isn't so much the choice of timbers which makes for a heavy bass, but the size of the body and headstock. Fender basses are needlessly fat and bulky with very little contouring. The big ungainly square heel alone must weigh more than most modern basses (probably). Guitars in general suffer greatly from traditional ideas which are hard to break. If fender suddenly started making fodera style basses they would fold in a second. Most people want the same bass as such and such plays (flea, geddy lee, marcus miller etc), which doesn't bode well for change.
Wood is good! It affects resonance, and does not need to be back breaking or have stupid 4 in line tuners.
[/quote]

I believe the craftsmanship that goes into building the bass is more important than the choice of tone woods.
If the luthery is perfect... the bass will resonate beautifully.
If not, you can spend an arm and a leg on coco-bolo or mahogany, and it will still sound like rubbish.
So, on ash vs. alder, light vs heavy, just pick something that is properly built in the first place.

[LawrenceH]

That's a really interesting article! I actually thought it was pretty consistent once you take into account the woolliness of the language used to describe sound and their emphasis that overall construction method plays a defining role. They were all clear that they believe wood plays a role along with how it is used.

[Dingus]

[quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1353677396' post='1877291']
I believe the craftsmanship that goes into building the bass is more important than the choice of tone woods.
If the luthery is perfect... the bass will resonate beautifully.
If not, you can spend an arm and a leg on coco-bolo or mahogany, and it will still sound like rubbish.
So, on ash vs. alder, light vs heavy, just pick something that is properly built in the first place.
[/quote]
[quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1353677396' post='1877291']
I believe the craftsmanship that goes into building the bass is more important than the choice of tone woods.
If the luthery is perfect... the bass will resonate beautifully.
If not, you can spend an arm and a leg on coco-bolo or mahogany, and it will still sound like rubbish.
So, on ash vs. alder, light vs heavy, just pick something that is properly built in the first place.
[/quote]
[quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1353677396' post='1877291']
I believe the craftsmanship that goes into building the bass is more important than the choice of tone woods.
If the luthery is perfect... the bass will resonate beautifully.
If not, you can spend an arm and a leg on coco-bolo or mahogany, and it will still sound like rubbish.
So, on ash vs. alder, light vs heavy, just pick something that is properly built in the first place.
[/quote]

I agree entirely that any bass has to be built properly before you can get on to the finer points of what materials are best suited to particular sounds and styles ect. But , assuming that both basses are built the same and pass muster in terms of basic construction , I think the ash v alder is a very common question , and one that I am interested in myself at the moment . My personal opinion is that both will sound fine , and you probably would notice more of a difference between genuine swamp ash and Northern ash than you would between ash and alder . The basic problem is that It's so hard to make genuine comparisons without having two otherwise identical basses with differing body woods .

[lettsguitars]

The real bottom line is that I doubt many people would hear the difference. One of my suppliers once said to me that if the electric guitar had been invented in the uk the woods that we use would be very different but the guitars would still sound like guitars. The type of finish has a massive impact too. When you smother a piece of wood in plastic (polyurethane) you kill the natural response anyhow.
[url="http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/all-about-tonewoods/6502"]This article[/url] is really as good as anyone elses opinion.

[chris_b]

[quote name='lettsguitars' timestamp='1353679096' post='1877323']
....[url="http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/all-about-tonewoods/6502"]This article[/url] is really as good as anyone elses opinion....
[/quote]

Really? Anyone else?

World renowned luthiers opinions verses the opinions of people who do not make musical instruments?

I know which opinions I give more weight to.

[Lozz196]

Whenever the subject of tonewoods comes up, my immediate thoughts - aside from my opinions on the ash v alder as questioned - are to Epiphone, and the alder/mahogany Les Pauls I`ve had, and the alder/mahogany Thunderbirds I`ve had/played.

Such a difference between them, so noticeable. Mahogany being much deeper and richer, in comparison to the more toppy sounds of the alder ones. In fact the easiest way to describe the difference would be to liken it "flats/roundwounds".

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1353681330' post='1877359']
Whenever the subject of tonewoods comes up, my immediate thoughts - aside from my opinions on the ash v alder as questioned - are to Epiphone, and the alder/mahogany Les Pauls I`ve had, and the alder/mahogany Thunderbirds I`ve had/played.

Such a difference between them, so noticeable. Mahogany being much deeper and richer, in comparison to the more toppy sounds of the alder ones. In fact the easiest way to describe the difference would be to liken it "flats/roundwounds".
[/quote]

I don't know about the Les Pauls, but IIRC the Alder and Mahogany Thunderbirds are constructed differently, which probably makes as much difference to the sound as the change in wood.

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1353679819' post='1877333']
Really? Anyone else?

World renowned luthiers opinions verses the opinions of people who do not make musical instruments?

I know which opinions I give more weight to.
[/quote]They really are only opinions. You cannot truly determine how an instrument will sound until you plug it in for the first time. There is a basic understanding of the tonal nature of the stuff that doesn't always ring true as every pice of wood is different. Let's not forget, these are electric bass guitars and the word luthier is bandied around willynilly. Stradivari was a luthier. Some guy who makes basses for a living, in my opinion is something very different. They still do not know why a Strad sounds like a Strad and a lot is put down to the type of varnish he used.

[Adrenochrome]

[quote name='lettsguitars' timestamp='1353679096' post='1877323']
The type of finish has a massive impact too.
[/quote]

Is this[i] really[/i] true for solid bodied electric guitars and basses?

[chris_b]

[quote name='lettsguitars' timestamp='1353682323' post='1877390']
....Let's not forget, these are electric bass guitars and the word luthier is bandied around willynilly. Stradivari was a luthier. Some guy who makes basses for a living, in my opinion is something very different....
[/quote]

So you're dissing the combined abilities and talents of Roger Sadowsky, Michael Tobias, Ken Lawrence, Cary Nordstrand and the others?

It's late. I can't be bothered with this.

[iiipopes]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1353625111' post='1876842']
Tom Bowlus's Bass Gear magazine, issue #9, page 56, Luthier's Roundtable has a relevant article.
[url="http://btpub.boyd-printing.com/publication/?i=135014"]http://btpub.boyd-pr...ation/?i=135014[/url]
It appears that alder IS mid range focused and wood CAN affect tone. So there you go.[/quote]

Alder does have more midrange than the other popular wood for bass guitar bodies, swamp ash. But it has nowhere near the midrange that honduran mahogany has. So it's all relative. With all due respect to the luthiers in the article, Warmoth have made more bodies than all the guys in the article put together, and so I'm more inclined to go with their wood descriptions, as it is closer to my experience with the hundreds of guitars and basses I've played and worked on since 1975:
[url="http://www.warmoth.com/Bass/Options/WoodDescriptions.aspx"]http://www.warmoth.c...scriptions.aspx[/url]

Edited November 24, 2012 by iiipopes