Ash Body v Alder Body for a Jazz Bass

[4 Strings]

I find how loud the keyboard player is has way more effect on my sound than what wood is used to support the magnetic pickup and on which the bridge is mounted. Our basses are not acoustic instruments.

I know I've said this before but why isn't there the same mystique about what wood is used to hold up the pickups and support the tone wheels on a Hammond? Or in the wood used for speaker cabinets.

[Schnozzalee]

On a Jazz? Ash.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1354144841' post='1882837']
I know I've said this before but why isn't there the same mystique about what wood is used to hold up the pickups and support the tone wheels on a Hammond? Or in the wood used for speaker cabinets.
[/quote]

The wood used for speaker cabinets is extremely important. If it's not rigid enough then panel resonances mess up the sound. A speaker driver is an electro-acoustic transducer and what it's mounted in is part of that - rigid bracing is required in most cabinets to compensate for inadequate material rigidity. Luthiers do the same thing with acoustic guitars etc. to manipulate resonance frequencies.
A bass guitar is ALSO an electro-acoustic transducer but the other way round. Any in-band resonances affecting string vibration in the system of string/bridge/support system will transfer through the pickup. Construction methods altering body mass/rigidity can be used but there's less options for a solid-body instrument since it's inherently a simpler construction.

On the other hand a hammond tonewheel relies on rotation, not vibration. Wheel shape and rotation speed determine the frequency and tone.

[risingson]

Too many threads on whether or not body wood makes a difference, that's not I'm sure what the OP had in mind. It's getting boring.

Personally I think I hear a difference in body woods, although what do I know!

I prefer ash bodied jazz basses, they do seem to have a bit less of a low-mid that you get with alder IMEO (in my ears's opinion). Prefer alder in P-Basses. I've owned both and both are great.

[The Dark Lord]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1353615290' post='1876681']
........... they have been really fat sounding and heavy basses with a flat thin tone.....
[/quote]

Yeah, fat sounding with a thin tone. Groovy!

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1354172279' post='1882944']
Yeah, fat sounding with a thin tone. Groovy!
[/quote] should have been an oxford comma before "and" there otherwise it makes no sense!

[Dingus]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1354151629' post='1882917']
Too many threads on whether or not body wood makes a difference, that's not I'm sure what the OP had in mind. It's getting boring.

Personally I think I hear a difference in body woods, although what do I know!

I prefer ash bodied jazz basses, they do seem to have a bit less of a low-mid that you get with alder IMEO (in my ears's opinion). Prefer alder in P-Basses. I've owned both and both are great.
[/quote]

My interest is more than just academic in so much as I am looking at buying a Jazz Bass and am weighing up my options regarding body woods . The problem is one of weight as well as tone as I dont like very heavy basses , and if I go for a bass made of swamp ash there is more of a chance of ending up with a bass that is lighter in weight , but alder is what I am most familiar with and I know it gives a good all -round tone , generally speaking . I like my basses to have a bit of heft to the sound , and a lot of modern basses sound a bit too polite for my tastes nowadays , and whereas I know that there are many factors ( pickuops ect . ) that can influence the complexion of the final sound , the wood is surely where it starts . Get that choice right and you have hopefully got half a chance of ending up with a decent sounding bass . So my conservative side says alder , but ash would be lighter and might sound just as good or better . I've got to make my mind up soon , so I welcome anybodys input on what I should choose and why . My main cocnern is whether lightweight ash will sound as powerful and as forthright as alder in the midrange .

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1354198668' post='1883436']
So my conservative side says alder , but ash would be lighter and might sound just as good or better . I've got to make my mind up soon , so I welcome anybodys input on what I should choose and why . My main cocnern is whether lightweight ash will sound as powerful and as forthright as alder in the midrange .
[/quote]
Why not look at the Warmoth in-stock offerings in alder and ash? They go by weight, you can get lightweight for either type, and I've not hear of anyone being disappointed by their sound

[redstriper]

You should play the bass first, otherwise it's a gamble more likely to result in disappointment.
The feel and tone of a bass cannot be specified by mail order whatever the wood used.

[Dingus]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1354199271' post='1883451']
You should play the bass first, otherwise it's a gamble more likely to result in disappointment.
The feel and tone of a bass cannot be specified by mail order whatever the wood used.
[/quote]

Very true , but for one reason or another , I can't get what I want off the shelf , so I have to go custom order .

[Dingus]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1354198896' post='1883443']
Why not look at the Warmoth in-stock offerings in alder and ash? They go by weight, you can get lightweight for either type, and I've not hear of anyone being disappointed by their sound
[/quote]

If I was going to build my own bass they would be my first port of call , but I am leaving this one up to the professionals .

[iiipopes]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1354151629' post='1882917']
Too many threads on whether or not body wood makes a difference, that's not I'm sure what the OP had in mind. It's getting boring. Personally I think I hear a difference in body woods, although what do I know! I prefer ash bodied jazz basses, they do seem to have a bit less of a low-mid that you get with alder IMEO (in my ears's opinion). Prefer alder in P-Basses. I've owned both and both are great.[/quote]
Your ears are right on.

OP - if weight is the primary issue, then you have to play the bass in question, as I've played ash that was heavy and light, and alder that is heavy and light. OK - I live about a half hour from Conklin basses, and I used to hang out there with my own projects.

"Heft." No, lightweight ash has a dip in the midrange. Moderate weight alder with a rosewood fingerboard and a pickup that is stock specs to 5% overwound with the traditional circuit of 250kohm pots and a .047 tone capacitor, along with a standard Fender-style plate bridge, will get you heft. Since you're going the "build" route, use lightweight tuners, such as Hipshot, as they will save about 1/4 kilo in weight overall compared to the traditional large Fender-style tuners. That will help as much as anything.

Edited November 29, 2012 by iiipopes

[Dingus]

[quote name='iiipopes' timestamp='1354201314' post='1883502']
Your ears are right on.

OP - if weight is the primary issue, then you have to play the bass in question, as I've played ash that was heavy and light, and alder that is heavy and light. OK - I live about a half hour from Conklin basses, and I used to hang out there with my own projects.

"Heft." No, lightweight ash has a dip in the midrange. Moderate weight alder with a rosewood fingerboard and a pickup that is stock specs to 5% overwound with the traditional circuit of 250kohm pots and a .047 tone capacitor, along with a standard Fender-style plate bridge, will get you heft. Since you're going the "build" route, use lightweight tuners, such as Hipshot, as they will save about 1/4 kilo in weight overall compared to the traditional large Fender-style tuners. That will help as much as anything.
[/quote]

I am reliably informed that it easier to source lightweight ash than alder , although I too have experience of both heavy and light examples of either wood . I think with ash their is a big difference between Northern ash and genuine southern swamp as , which tends to be lighter .

Edited November 29, 2012 by Dingus

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1354201053' post='1883494']
If I was going to build my own bass they would be my first port of call , but I am leaving this one up to the professionals .
[/quote]

Then why aren't "the professional" helping you with the wood choice. It is their job after all.

When I had my Sei bass made I wasn't really bothered what woods Martin used so long as they looked nice and the bass ended up sounding how I wanted.

[Dingus]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1354203370' post='1883550']
Then why aren't "the professional" helping you with the wood choice. It is their job after all.

When I had my Sei bass made I wasn't really bothered what woods Martin used so long as they looked nice and the bass ended up sounding how I wanted.
[/quote]

They are advising me , but ultimately the final decision rests with me . Alder is a safe bet in terms of sound , but may end up too heavy for my taste . Ash is lighter , but more of a gamble in terms of sound . That is my dilemma . Ultimately , some people are more accepting than others , and I am less accepting than most when ot comes to basses . I like to get everything just right , because small things that don't seem to bother other people so much drive me to distraction . In my own experience , I cannot delegate to others and expect the criteria for other peoples decisions to the same as my own would be .

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1354203966' post='1883565']
They are advising me , but ultimately the final decision rests with me . Alder is a safe bet in terms of sound , but may end up too heavy for my taste . Ash is lighter , but more of a gamble in terms of sound . That is my dilemma . Ultimately , some people are more accepting than others , and I am less accepting than most when ot comes to basses . I like to get everything just right , because small things that don't seem to bother other people so much drive me to distraction . In my own experience , I cannot delegate to others and expect the criteria for other peoples decisions to the same as my own would be .
[/quote]

Easy then. Find a piece of Alder with the correct density for what you want. Any decent luthier with some scales and basic maths can figure this out from the contents of their wood store. Job done.

Edited November 29, 2012 by BigRedX

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1354203966' post='1883565']
They are advising me , but ultimately the final decision rests with me . Alder is a safe bet in terms of sound , but may end up too heavy for my taste . Ash is lighter , but more of a gamble in terms of sound .
[/quote]

I think if you're paying then you can specify how you want it to sound! The builder should get you there, or there's not much point having them build it. Challenge for you is finding a good way to communicate what you're after.

[Dingus]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1354204626' post='1883576']
Easy then. Find a piece of Alder with the correct density for what you want. Any decent luthier with some scales and basic maths can figure this out from the contents of their wood store. Job done.
[/quote]

This is what I requested , but apparently alder light enough for my requirements is relatively scarce , although not unheard of . The builder recommends swamp ash , but I have got a nagging preference for alder as my gut instrinct . It all depends on if I am prepared to gamble on the weight .

Edited November 29, 2012 by Dingus

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1354206026' post='1883619']
This is what I requested , but apparently alder light enough for my requirements is relatively scarce , although not unheard of . The builder recommends swamp ash , but I have got a nagging preference for alder as my gut instrinct . It all depends on if I am prepared to gamble on the weight .
[/quote]

Wood choice is down to personal preference.

Nearly all the basses I've liked have had swamp ash bodies, and the one I've kept is swamp ash too. A lot of what I've got rid of was alder.

I have had a jazz setup on an alder and Ash, and definably preferred the Ash.

[TRBboy]

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1354207410' post='1883654']
Wood choice is down to personal preference.

Nearly all the basses I've liked have had swamp ash bodies, and the one I've kept is swamp ash too. A lot of what I've got rid of was alder.

I have had a jazz setup on an alder and Ash, and definably preferred the Ash.
[/quote]

Sorry to butt in , but your Basic is European Ash. They do offer Swamp Ash for an upcharge though, it's apparently lighter (about the same weight as their Alder equivalent) and sounds somewhere in between Ash and Alder.

[TRBboy]

I've only had experience of this with Sandbergs, but I found that the European Ash was a little more focused with a more accentuated top and bottom end and a bit less presence in the lower mid ranges, whereas the Alder had a less extreme top and bottom end response, but had much more low-mid growl. Both had bags of punch and cut through a mix beautifully, but in the end my preference was for the Alder (it was quite a bit lighter too).

[redstriper]

[quote name='TRBboy' timestamp='1354209433' post='1883681']
I've only had experience of this with Sandbergs, but I found that the European Ash was a little more focused with a more accentuated top and bottom end and a bit less presence in the lower mid ranges, whereas the Alder had a less extreme top and bottom end response, but had much more low-mid growl. Both had bags of punch and cut through a mix beautifully, but in the end my preference was for the Alder (it was quite a bit lighter too).
[/quote]

How do you know it was the body wood type causing the tonal differences?

Were all the basses otherwise identical - ie. you swapped pick ups, necks, strings etc. so the only difference was the body wood?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm genuinely interested.

[risingson]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1354198668' post='1883436']
My interest is more than just academic in so much as I am looking at buying a Jazz Bass and am weighing up my options regarding body woods . The problem is one of weight as well as tone as I dont like very heavy basses , and if I go for a bass made of swamp ash there is more of a chance of ending up with a bass that is lighter in weight , but alder is what I am most familiar with and I know it gives a good all -round tone , generally speaking . I like my basses to have a bit of heft to the sound , and a lot of modern basses sound a bit too polite for my tastes nowadays , and whereas I know that there are many factors ( pickuops ect . ) that can influence the complexion of the final sound , the wood is surely where it starts . Get that choice right and you have hopefully got half a chance of ending up with a decent sounding bass . So my conservative side says alder , but ash would be lighter and might sound just as good or better . I've got to make my mind up soon , so I welcome anybodys input on what I should choose and why . My main cocnern is whether lightweight ash will sound as powerful and as forthright as alder in the midrange .
[/quote]

I'm not sure about ash being the lighter option. My old Lakland DJ 4 had an ash body and was nice and light, but my current bass (a Stingray 5) is weighty. Very weighty, and whilst I'm aware that this is a Stingray trait I've also owned another ash P-Bass that again had a very heavy body. It might well be luck of the draw, a case of trying out a few instruments.

Whilst I'm saying that ash sounds like this and that, I'm more keen on just using my ears to judge what sounds good. Fairly certain I've played alder basses that sound aggressive as well as ones that sounded mellow, pickups, preamps, build quality, a lot of stuff to take on board.

One thing I am confident about is that the weight of an instrument to my ears indicates little if anything at all to with what it's going to sound like.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1354203370' post='1883550']
When I had my Sei bass made I wasn't really bothered what woods Martin used so long as they looked nice and the bass ended up sounding how I wanted.
[/quote]

+1, this is the framework I'd work to when getting a new instrument.

Edited November 29, 2012 by risingson

[TRBboy]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1354214759' post='1883778']


How do you know it was the body wood type causing the tonal differences?

Were all the basses otherwise identical - ie. you swapped pick ups, necks, strings etc. so the only difference was the body wood?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm genuinely interested.
[/quote]

Well, yes and no.

I've had two ash-bodied Basics with a rosewood fretboard, MM humbucker and 3-band eq, an ash-bodied California PM with a rosewood fretboard and P/MM pickups with 2-band eq, and now an alder-bodied Basic Ken Taylor with a rosewood fretboard, 2x MM humbuckers and a 3-band eq.

I was using the same brand/gauge of strings on all, and even though the Cali and Basics had different body size and weight and different pup config and eq, there definitely seems to be a difference in the fundamental tonal character of the Ken Taylor (the body shape and size etc is exactly the same as the Basics). Don't get me wrong, it's not massively different, but enough for me to notice.

I know there are loads of other factors affecting the tone of a bass, but I just really feel that (knowing Sandbergs intimately by now) there is a difference in the core tone and response of the bass between these two woods, and certainly when I was specing my new Ken Taylor (yet to arrive) earlier this year, the way Sandberg described the tonal differences lined up exactly with my own experiences.

Hope this helps!

[risingson]

Interesting, cheers although I'm sure I've played basses that were swamp ash that very very heavy, but who knows! It's easy to get lost in semantics with instrument specs, what's important at the end of it is how good the thing sounds and plays.