Ash vs. Alder

[TheGuitarist365]

So what are then the differences in sound between and Ash Tele and an Alder Tele? I know that alder is light and ash is heavy (basic knowledge of woods), but what are the tone differeces? I want something with twang, punch, and power. Any suggestions?

[Colt W. Knight]

Swamp Ash can be lighter than Alder. Northern Ash is pretty heavy, that's what they use for baseball bats. Honestly there's not much tonal difference between the two woods. There's probably as much or more tonal differences among a species of wood as there are between those two species. In short, ash and alder both make great teles. You may also find it amusing to know pine makes a good tele as well.

[boris bubbanov]

Hey.

This is a popular question.

But in my opinion you gotta test play one guitar at a time; I would never recommend that someone not play either an ash body or an alder body guitar. You cannot IMO adequately predict which guitar wood will speak to you.

I can tell you ash can look far more spectacular in an "over the top" way. I can tell you ash can be really light or really heavy when an alder body tends to be more middlin'. I can tell you it will take longer to fill the grain pores on an ash body than most folks realize.
But I cannot say based on my ears that "ash sounds like this" and "alder sounds like that".

Maybe there is someone who can. There's always a sommelier who can sip something and announce "Chateau Neuf du Pape, 1997" but that ain't me.

[Bill]

Hi,

You'll probably find that this is a longtime debate. Some don't hear any difference, others say that--all things being equal--ash will accentuate the highs and low with more pop and snap, while alder will be more even in tones and smooth. But you can spend the next 20 years arguing this with folks. The other great tone debate is for maple versus rosewood fingerboards.

Feel free to use the search function to check out all the old threads on this. According to historians, the debate dates back to 30,000-40,000 BC, with cave drawings illustrating the merits of beating on ash versus alder logs.

[nvilletele]

Originally Posted by Bill

According to historians, the debate dates back to 30,000-40,000 BC, with cave drawings illustrating the merits of beating on ash versus alder logs.

Actually, there is only one, somewhat disputable, historian who claims such dates as accurate. The vast majority of historians have agreed on approximate dates of 25,000 ~30,000 BC as being more accurate dating for this debate.

Can't believe every wild claim you hear . . . .especially on this topic

[Sergey]

Personally, I prefer swamp ash, it's nice and light. :)

[cowardm]

I'm increasingly of the school of thought that it has more to wood weight and density than actually species. Once you find a guitar with a weight you like, you can sort of select the species to hone that sound. I'd say the overall build, pickups, and player affect tone more.

Alder has a reputation for being a very balanced wood with a pretty even set of highs, mids, and lows. I always think of Weezer's early stuff, The Edge's Strat tone, SRV, and others.

Ash is known to be a bit heavier, but have more defined highs and tighter lows. Swamp ash is a lot like hard/northern ash in tone, just lighter and a little more "musical". I tend to think that swamp ash isn't so much better because it has particular tonal properties associated with the species so much as it has a great intrinsic EQ due to it's light weight.

My go to sources on this stuff are:
http://www.usacustomguitars.com/bodywoods.html
and
http://www.warmoth.com/Guitar/Bodies...odOptions.aspx

[Ortho]

Originally Posted by boris bubbanov

Hey.

This is a popular question.

But in my opinion you gotta test play one guitar at a time; I would never recommend that someone not play either an ash body or an alder body guitar. You cannot IMO adequately predict which guitar wood will speak to you.

I can tell you ash can look far more spectacular in an "over the top" way. I can tell you ash can be really light or really heavy when an alder body tends to be more middlin'. I can tell you it will take longer to fill the grain pores on an ash body than most folks realize.
But I cannot say based on my ears that "ash sounds like this" and "alder sounds like that".

Maybe there is someone who can. There's always a sommelier who can sip something and announce "Chateau Neuf du Pape, 1997" but that ain't me.

Aim for "sounds really good" not just the name of the wood.

While ash may seem ideal to many, the variations of a so-called ideal ash body Tele esp. in weight may amount to a kind of good, so-so sounding guitar.

Frankly, I think for most people's playing needs I think alder can be too underated with ash a too quick automatic winner...on paper...

[Buckocaster51]

I have painted bodies of ash, alder, mahogany, and poplar.

I have forgotten which is which and certainly can't tell by the sound.

[smokerjoe34]

I really like the swamp ash better myself ???

[Fatmanstratman]

Originally Posted by Buckocaster51

I have painted bodies of ash, alder, mahogany, and poplar.

I have forgotten which is which and certainly can't tell by the sound.

TheGuitarist365, there is a man who speaks the truth. Couldn't have put it better myself!

Don't get caught up in all these popular myths that have been created by the cork snifers over the years - take boris bubbanov's excellent advice and test play one guitar at a time until you find one that makes you go "Wow! That feels, plays and sounds amazing!".

Then, once you have taken it home with you, and your fingers are sore 'cos you just don't want to stop playing it, take a little break. That is the time to start letting your mind wander, and start thinking "Hmmm - out of interest, I wonder what sort of wood that body is made out of?".

Find a guitar you like and enjoy - don't worry what is under that pretty painted finish - because NOBODY else will be............

[Kornelius]

When i bought my tele i didn't even know if it was ash or alder, i've just played a few guitar and say to the seller "this one" then he told me "good choice, and it's a ash body" i guess he would have say the same if it was alder! Anyway, i believe i prefer the ash if i pick this one, but i couldn't tell you in a blind test if i hear ash or alder. So, just listen, and ask after about the wood

[Telemarkman]

Like Fatman, I'm with Boris and Bucko on this.

If it wasn't for the fact that most ash bodies were finished in transparent colors while most alder bodies have opaque finishes, it would be difficult to tell them apart with any amount of certainty.

There may be individual differences, but not necessarily due to wood species.

My two first Teles, a red alder and a blond ash, both 1965 models and otherwise identical, were impossible to tell apart with your eyes closed. They felt and sounded the same.

My current Teles, a '52 RI (swamp ash) and a 60's Classic (alder) sound a bit different, both unplugged and plugged in, though.
But besides different body woods, they also have different saddles (brass vs. threaded steel), different fretboard material (maple vs. rosewood) and different pickups.

My personal guess is that the difference in acoustic tone is mainly due to the body wood (not necessarily species, though), mass of the neck and (maybe) the saddles, while the difference in amplified tone is mainly due to the pickups/electronics and (maybe again) the saddles.

[Guitartom_ca]

I just made a pine tele and i must say that i was pleasantly surprised. Sounds as good as any guitar i had. I don't think we can compare woods against other woods in terms of sound, because two bodies with the same wood can have two different sounds.
Just my opinion.

[Ortho]

Another way of putting it: don't make the top wood (in your mind) a substitute for patience and trying out A LOT of guitars...

[Colt W. Knight]

Practice makes better guitars than better quality parts.

[IdahoPicker]

All it really boils down to is which one looks better to you (and weight, I suppose, but I play a '70s Les Paul, so....). Ash serves but one purpose for me, I LOVE the grain!

[XKnight]

I don't know about the tone, but I definitely prefer the look of a nice piece of assh.

[sonny wolf]

Weights can vary immensely for both woods.I have played guitars made of both varieties and they ranged from very light to very heavy.Tonally,ash is a little clearer in the highs with a tighter bass response.Alder is a little thicker in the low mids and is balanced evenly throughout the eq spectrum.I personally like both woods but for a Tele,I prefer ash with a maple neck...the original 50s tone.I do also like Tele customs though which feature a rosewood neck with alder body...they are somewhat warmer in the mids.

[Mr_Martin]

Originally Posted by TheGuitarist365

I want something with twang, punch, and power. Any suggestions?

Buy a Quarter-Sawn Maple Neck!

Here some info:

https://www.musikraft.com/store.php?pg1-cid47.html

I have one on my Esquire and it really has twang +punch.
You will hear more difference when you change the Neck than when you change the Body (my opinion).


Greets

[woodman]

with any species of wood, you could cut three body blanks from the same log and come up with three different tonal characteristics. the ash/alder debate is based on huge generalities that will never prove 100% consistent.

the main advantage to ash IMO is the beautiful grain patterning (i'm a natural finish devotee.)

[Fatmanstratman]

Originally Posted by woodman

with any species of wood, you could cut three body blanks from the same log and come up with three different tonal characteristics. the ash/alder debate is based on huge generalities that will never prove 100% consistent.

Well said, sir. I agree 100%....

[surfco]

I prefer the Ash wood grain, that's it.

[Hiker]

I have no 'natural' axes, yet!

If ash was 'it' for sound, ALL my guitars and basses would all be that. The current lineup is alder, and poplar in Midnight Blue, Midnight Wine, and Artic White (Fender guitars/basses).