Tone woods

[herbychimp]

I recently watched an old video of Chappers and the Capt. demoing the properties of swamp ash and mahogany in their ML-1 guitars. I found it quite useful to hear the relative merits of  both woods and despite the limitations of YouTube the differences were pretty clear. Whilst there are lots of alternative materials around in 2015, it seems that the majority of mainstream manufacturers seem to plump for the same woods (mahogany / ash / alder ) you will notice a deliberate omission from the list because I  am a little confused about basswood .. Back in the late 80's (when I first started buying guitars) I am pretty sure that basswood did not have the profile that it has now. I remember that it was used extensively on those early 90's Ibanez models which were less about tone and more about speedy necks and garish colours. These days basswood seems to held in much higher esteem and companies like EBMM among others prefer it on many of their models. I understand that it is seen as quite a neutral wood but can anyone give any light on why it now seems so much more revered? My own experience with basswood is limited but I seem to remember that it had neither the warmth or thunk of mahogany nor the zing and top end of alder. What do people think?

[Alex]

I'm not an expert, but important qualities of instrument wood would appear to be for me uniform growth, slow and even drying, age, the way it is cut etc. I think that is where the real tonal qualities - and the costs! - of instrument wood lie.

Basswood seems to have a bad reputation, which I would guess stems from a large number of budget/entry-level guitars made in the 80s featuring that label. I have no doubts that a high quality piece of basswood would sound good.
Maybe in time the much overused label "mahogany" will start to get a bad rep, as a bad, muffled sounding and not very resonant wood. It seems every second budget guitar now needs to have the label "mahogany" for it to sell. There's no way all of those use proper "legendary Gibson Les Paul sound quality" grade mahogany, I bet they are made of whatever African or Asian wood is particularly cheap and can be passed off to buyers as mahogany after dying it red.

Maple, ash and alder (I think) are more sustainable woods, I think they are the future.

[dave_mc]

^ I'm not an expert either, but I agree- basswood (probably along with some other woods too) gets a bad rep because it's used in cheap guitars. Good basswood sounds good (though obviously that doesn't mean you'll like it, in the same way not everyone likes mahogany). It also suits a certain type of tone well, generally more modern rather than more vintage, as you suggested. The other thing is, a lot of the higher end guitars which use basswood use a maple top. A lot of the manufacturers say that makes the difference.

[BazC]

I have a Basswood bodied Japanese Fender Strat that is lively and rich toned. I'd put it up against any ash or alder bodied instrument. I think the biggest downside to Basswood is it's a little softer than ash or alder so not quite as durable.

It's worth pointing out that many folks would argue that wood and construction method affect sustain but have little to do with tone certainly a lot less than other factors like pickups. My gut tells me the wood is important but I have nothing concrete to base that opinion on.

I believe the early Les Paul's varied a lot, not all had maple caps and I think I read that some used other woods like ash and alder. I bet they all sounded Les Paulish though!

[gwEm]

I only played one basswood guitar I liked the tone of.

Most likely, it needs a different pickup choice and I would need to play around a bit. However, because of my bad experiences, I've never looked into it.

Alder has been somewhat of a surprise to me. Reading descriptions I thought initially I wouldn't like it, but in fact its grown to be my favourite tone wood - for bodies at least.

[fdesalvo]

Alex nailed it. 

I do find that the neck has a bit more influence on the tone of the instrument.

[Slartibartfarst42]

I'd say that the quality of the wood rather than the type of wood makes the biggest difference but it does still have an impact. Of all the guitars I've tried, my main experience is alder, mahogany and maple. I love maple used for necks and top woods but both times I've used maple neck-thru guitars I found them to be relatively dull and tended to stifle pickups. Between alder and mahogany, I like both but having the right pickups helps. I prefer alder if I want a brighter tone or a more modern style whereas I prefer mahogany if I'm after something more rich and vintage. The only basswood body I've ever tried is a Sterling JP100D and 'neutral' might be an accurate description. 'Bland' might be a less charitable alternative but either way, it's not a wood I'm in a rush to try again.

[Dave Sloven]

It's interesting because I have an all-maple Jazz bass and that thing is a bit of a monster, plenty of top end, mids, and a nice tight bottom end.  I suspect though that a maple body  is better suited to a bass.

I've heard a couple of Peavey T-60s live recently and those things have a great tone for hardcore, they cut straight through the mix.  I believe the bodies are Northern Ash.  They weigh a ton

[Telerocker]

The topline of the Suhr-guitars are made from basswood with a maple cap. Quality of the timbers are a big factor.

[gwEm]

i've been thinking about this thread a little.

in fact my recent purchase - a 1966 Fender Musicmaster - has a poplar body. its generally not thought of as a premium wood, but whatever stuff they used back then sounds great i must say. i guess they had access to good stocks.

[Telerocker]

i've been thinking about this thread a little.

in fact my recent purchase - a 1966 Fender Musicmaster - has a poplar body. its generally not thought of as a premium wood, but whatever stuff they used back then sounds great i must say. i guess they had access to good stocks.

I had a Gibson MIII with a poplar body and that didn't sound cheap.