AVRI 64 ash vs alder

I can't help you with the neck difference, but I've had ash and alder telecasters. Of course my AVRI is a '52 Hot Rod, but exact models shouldn't make a difference.

To me the ash is far more resonant than alder. Unplugged there is much more sustain. Well that could be the nitro vs poly finish, either way the AVRI is more resonant. I play unplugged often, but if you don't play without an amp don't worry about it. They both pretty much sound the same thru the amp.


Kiss My Shiny Nitro Ash!

 

A few years back when Fender introduced the Pure Vintage line, a thread was posted here as a blind test between the '52, '58 and '64. There was a guy playing the exact same thing on all three. Many members here tried to guess which was which. I don't think anyone identified the guitars correctly.

 

I know it's subjective, but I personally think Ash is more resonant, more responsive to t pick dynamics and sweeter sounding and that you CAN hear it, a bit, through the amp. Nothing wrong with Alder, a little mellower I think. but we can have this debate all year. My Ash and Alder Strats also sound quite different.

 

Hello fender4life, this may or may not help. I have 2013 AV 52 and 64 Teles and to me they are very different. The neck on the 64 is not what I would call thin, but it is nothing like the handful of the 52.
Sound wise they are different too, but again the body woods are different with the 52 being ash and the 64 a much lighter (in weight) alder; the 64 has more ringing depth than the 52 but both have excellent useable sounds. If I'm playing something a bit jazzy or 50s rock'n'roll I use the 52, for instant Steve Cropper or modern pop I use the 64. (And for anything else I'm not sure of, I use a Strat!).
So this may or may not help. But if I had to lose one of them it would be the 52 I think, the alder-bodied 64 is a dream guitar as far as I am concerned.

 

To me there is not much sonic difference between them; it's really a matter of whether you prefer White Blonde (ash) or Lake Placid Blue (alder).

Some Tele traditionalists will always say they prefer ash, just because that is the default wood for a Tele body. But again, I really can't tell the difference having played both.

As for the necks, I really like the neck on these because it's a 60's C-shape neck. It's a nice middle ground for people who feel the traditional blackguard U-shape is too thick and who also think the "modern C" is too thin.

Overall, these are great guitars. They have a nice 60's vibe. You can easily imagine Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, or Mike Bloomfield owning and enjoying one of these.

 

If you play through the amp wood type makes no difference,you MIGHT hear a bit more sustain and treble from the HEAVIEST guitar but that's about it.Unplugged of course the lightest guitar will sound more resonant.

 

There is probably a bigger difference between the individual pieces than between the speicies. The difference you believe you can tell may have nothing at all to do with the specific wood speicies.

 

The only scientific test I've seen on this topic:

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

 

I had the same feelings about ash vs. alder, which is why I went for the aged white blonde '64. However, when I got it I also had a '65 AVRI Strat with an alder body, and, truthfully, I couldn't tell much difference between them. I was playing an '80s Tokai TST-56 at a local shop the other day; it appeared to be an ash body, and it didn't seem very resonant (though that guitar did have a great neck on it).

 

This is an interesting paper as far as it goes and seems to suggest, as others have said on this thread, that the amplified sounds of each wood type are closer to each other. Thanks for putting it up.
My own observation has been different as I have pointed out earlier and really goes to show that there are so many variables when doing these kind of comparisons as to make them meaningless. Just as trying to describe a sound (or taste or colour etc.) in words is meaningless.
The only way to know what is right, or at least acceptable, to an individual, is for that person to play the instruments. At the same time and through the same equipment. Of course it is often, one might even say usual, for that to be difficult to do due to geography or time, but it is in reality the only way. In my humble opinion.

 

Yes.

I'd recommend trying a few examples of both wood types, and buy the one that sounds right to you. The pickups "outrank" all this other stuff and while one ash guitar sounds "XYZ" you may find a couple alder bodied ones that sound precisely the same.

 

Thanks for posting! Interesting research.

The only other paper on a similar subject I've read was done by a Brazilian researcher over 10 years ago. His research is based on comparisons of density, acoustic propagation speed and logarithmic decay between a crapload of Brazilian types of wood vs. whatever is regularly used on the guitar market, like ash, alder, poplar, agathis, basswood, etc.

 

Regarding the body woods you probably already know that you have to play the one you buy, and in your area there must be plenty to sample.

Without getting into ash vs alder too much and knowing your view which is similar to mine, I'd say that I find lightweight swamp ash bodies in the 3.75-4.25lb range to vary less in response than similar weight alder bodies.
I've played more unresponsive dead sounding alder bodies, don't know why, maybe has to do with moisture content, maybe has to do with growing conditions, just my observation.
Maybe swamp ash has a bit less variation because the real stuff is all grown in similar conditions in Southern US swamps, so it exhibits a narrower range of tone and response?
Already said too much, have fun on the hunt!

 

If you can hear more than the average bear, then you don't need these rules of thumb in the first place. Simply test play several examples of the guitar you want to play with an amp you like/intend to use and just make the decision based upon what your ears tell you. Since an ash bodied guitar will not IMO be worth twice that of the alder version in 25 years and since the fasteners in the alder body will be more than adequate and since the alder bodied version will not be factory fresh twice as long or hold the finish a whole lot better than ash, or any of these things, then the sound to you is really all you need to know. And, you don't need help from others, with all due respect, whose hearing is not established as being all that great.

I hear differences, one guitar body to the next, sometimes, as I switch one body for another for another for another. The pattern I see, though, is species can't tell you with sufficient certainty what Body X is going to sound like. So, if you have to test play 4 of them, then why not try some of each species of wood. Sure it has got to be a pain if there's no surplus of this model nearby but there's IMO no substitute for taking the time to shop around place to place - or take a trip to a major USA market and look there I suppose.

 

No one suggested that you can't hear a difference.

Chill!