Luthiers, please help clarify something. Tonewood question.

[Kavar216]

So, I have the Schecter Loomis NT.
It has an ash body, maple neck/fretboard. Now you'd expect this guitar to be a bright ass axe that cuts and bites like a motherfucker.

BUT it somehow seems to have this really smooth tone, and that really bothers me. It bothers me because my Ibanez GRG170DX (my first ever electric guitar) has more bite and snarl than the Loomis. Of course it may be because of the difference in active/passive pickups, but then the Loomis has this huge, monstrous low end for some reason and the cheapo Ibanez cuts more. Even unplugged, the loomis has a fatter low end.

Is this normal? Why is the ash guitar sounding "warmer" than a cheap basswood guitar?

Can someone explain the tonal characteristics of ash? Lots of highs, right?

Thanks!

 

[Boerboel666]

No two bits of Ash , Alder etc are the same .
They all have slightly different tonal characteristics and some are tonal duds .
This is why cheap guitars can sometimes sound as good or better than their more expensive cousins . Only answer is to try before you buy .

 

[drawnacrol]

Ash is hard to describe tonally. Its a massive sounding tone wood and can be shaped to what you need with pickups and EQ. Its very gritty sounding, big low end and cutting highs. Certainly not as warm as my basswood axe.

Food for taught we compared 2 near identical spec'd Schecter Custom Shop Swamp Ash guitars but one had a much slimmer body and the difference was huge. The slimmer body hard more growl and a grittier sound when distorted. While mine had a bigger low end and smoother highs.

Also the Loomis has 707s which are alnico pickups. They tend to smooth out the highs a lot and beef up the low end compared to ceramic 7s.

 

[xFkx]

I have a C7 Hellraiser and a Loomis NT... the hellraiser is mahogany though, and it's a bit more beefy where'as the loomis has a bit more clarity.

furthermore, that 707's have a really big sonic imprint when it comes to sound.

if you want that snarl and midrange bark, i'd go for a pickup swap. I'm thinking about this myself. Too bad the 707's are a bitch to swap out for a passive pickup

 

[Empathy]

I have a C7 Hellraiser and a Loomis NT... the hellraiser is mahogany though, and it's a bit more beefy where'as the loomis has a bit more clarity.

furthermore, that 707's have a really big sonic imprint when it comes to sound.

if you want that snarl and midrange bark, i'd go for a pickup swap. I'm thinking about this myself. Too bad the 707's are a bitch to swap out for a passive pickup

Why not get an 81-7 for the bridge? Worked a treat for me.

 

[Kavar216]

I'm trying to steer clear of EMGs and for passives I'll have to drill a hole for the ground wire so probably sticking to actives. Looking at Blackouts/EMTY Blackouts, not decided yet.
I was so surprised that even acoustically the Loomis sounds HUGE, when I actually expected it to sound bright and cutting...

 

[FrancescoFiligoi]

I find 707s kinda scooped and with lots of low end. The loomis' ash body is exactly like that: it's made of northern ash which has insane amount of low end and not enough healthy mids to cut thru imho. Plus the guitar's body is thick, and that adds to the low end too.

The loomis does have clarity and sounds brighter than the various Hellraisers, but 707s are generally dark and don't let the guitar "breathe" properly. I think it has the perfect Slam tone (Devourment etc), but nothing that I personally like in a cutting guitar.

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

I own the Loomis and I hear you. It is a great guitar but it is a bit warm. Which is great for some things. But it is not the best for a thrashy tone.

 

[JakeAC5253]

Tonewoods are such a fallacy, and I've spoken with a well known luthier who said the same. Ever notice how no one can agree on what the sound of Alder/Ash/Basswood/Maple is? I've noticed that these woods, being the more common, get the negative words (bright, dark, muddy, hollow etc) but no one can ever keep them straight. Two different people may tell you that Ash is a bright wood, or a dark wood. Huh? While more expensive woods like Mahogany get the positive words (warm, sweet, full, clear etc) Humans are very gullible animals. Every guitar sounds different, but it's not the fucking wood. You could make the case of resonance, oh this guitar sounds different than this one because it's got more wood to resonate, but that's not the same argument. Then you can get into wood quality or condition, again not the same argument.

 

[egan.]

Tonewoods are such a fallacy, and I've spoken with a well known luthier who said the same. Ever notice how no one can agree on what the sound of Alder/Ash/Basswood/Maple is? I've noticed that these woods, being the more common, get the negative words (bright, dark, muddy, hollow etc) while more expensive woods like Mahogany get the positive words (warm, sweet, full etc) Humans are very gullible animals. Every guitar sounds different, but it's not the fucking wood. You could make the case of resonance, oh this guitar sounds different than this one because it's got more wood to resonate, but that's not the same argument.

Wow. I disagree with every part of that statement and have had luthiers push me away from mahogany in pursuit of a specific tone. Every piece of wood sounds different and there are bad pieces of every kind of wood but there are certainly trends in the tones of species. Of the "cheap" woods you listed basswood is literally the only one I've ever heard anyone speak ill of.
What you are describing is more of a symptom of over simplification and the difficulty conveying sounds in terms that are universally understood.

 

[JeffTD]

Tonewoods are such a fallacy, and I've spoken with a well known luthier who said the same. Ever notice how no one can agree on what the sound of Alder/Ash/Basswood/Maple is? I've noticed that these woods, being the more common, get the negative words (bright, dark, muddy, hollow etc) but no one can ever keep them straight. Two different people may tell you that Ash is a bright wood, or a dark wood. Huh? While more expensive woods like Mahogany get the positive words (warm, sweet, full, clear etc) Humans are very gullible animals. Every guitar sounds different, but it's not the fucking wood. You could make the case of resonance, oh this guitar sounds different than this one because it's got more wood to resonate, but that's not the same argument. Then you can get into wood quality or condition, again not the same argument.

None of this is even remotely accurate in my experience owning over 50 guitars/basses from companies small and large, including some from custom luthiers. I can tell you the difference in sound between every wood you listed. Yes, there is a range of what Alder can sound like and it may overlap a bit with say Poplar, Maple, or even Ash to a certain extent, but the average of those ranges is pretty well definable and distinguishable between them all.

You said it yourself - humans are very gullible animals and your posts services as a great example of that.

 

[JakeAC5253]

Wow. I disagree with every part of that statement and have had luthiers push me away from mahogany in pursuit of a specific tone. Every piece of wood sounds different and there are bad pieces of every kind of wood but there are certainly trends in tone. Of the "cheap" woods you listed basswood is literally the only one I've ever heard anyone speak ill of.

Well there are many many other variables to account for that no one seems to mention. For instance, take the example of a stratocaster, which has the pickups mounted to a removable/moddable faceplate. If you swap the faceplate for one which places the bridge pickup 1/8" closer to the bridge, you will notice a marked change in tone. The guitar may shift from bassy with lots of low mid and a lacking of high end clarity, to a much more balanced tone that is midrangey and clear. This actually happened to a guitar that I own.

It can shift from what someone might consider to be one woods' tone to a completely different woods' tone when the guitar tonewood and all other variables stayed the same. Now this is just one variable, and every guitar company can design their guitars with the pickups in any way they like, there is no rule for it, and it doesn't even make marketing spec sheets, but tonewood does. Tonewoods get people excited, bridge pickup distance in mm to the bridge, doesn't. Who is to say that many of the differences we hear to be different woods are in fact this one variable? Or why not one of the many many other variables that go into making a guitar? All I am saying is that I have not found reasonable evidence to believe that there is a certain tone to a wood that decides what a guitar will sound like, there are too many much more powerful variables at stake when building a guitar.

 

[JeffTD]

Well there are many many other variables to account for that no one seems to mention. For instance, take the example of a stratocaster, which has the pickups mounted to a removable/moddable faceplate. If you swap the faceplate for one which places the bridge pickup 1/8" closer to the bridge, you will notice a marked change in tone. The guitar may shift from bassy with lots of low mid and a lacking of high end clarity, to a much more balanced tone that is midrangey and clear. This actually happened to a guitar that I own.

It can shift from what someone might consider to be one woods' tone to a completely different woods' tone when the guitar tonewood and all other variables stayed the same. Now this is just one variable, and every guitar company can design their guitars with the pickups in any way they like, there is no rule for it, and it doesn't even make spec sheets, but tonewood does. Tonewoods get people excited, bridge pickup distance in mm to the bridge, doesn't. Who is to say that many of the differences we hear to be different woods are in fact this one variable? Or why not one of the many many other variables that go into making a guitar? All I am saying is that I have not found reasonable evidence to believe that there is a certain tone to a wood that decides what a guitar will sound like, there are too many much more powerful variables at stake when building a guitar.

Nobody discusses difference in tonewoods in regards to one guitar vs an entirely different one. When saying that "mahogany is darker than alder," you're implying ceteris paribus. It's the same as saying "a Strat made of mahogany is very likely to sound darker than the same Strat made out of alder."

 

[egan.]

Right I totally agree that the scale length, pickup type, pickup placement, pickup mounting, neck mounting, bridge type, bridge material, neck and body thickness, chambering and a host of other things are all important to the tone of a guitar. But I can also tell you that as a rule of thumb mahogany is darker than ash which is darker than maple. I can also tell you that generally ash and alder will be close but ash has a bigger low end and an edgier high end.
Of course you can find exceptions but I think approaching tonewoods with the attitude that it makes no difference is a mistake.

 

[JakeAC5253]

Right I totally agree that the scale length, pickup type, pickup placement, pickup mounting, neck mounting, bridge type, bridge material, neck and body thickness, chambering and a host of other things are all important to the tone of a guitar. But I can also tell you that as a rule of thumb mahogany is darker than ash which is darker than maple. I can also tell you that generally ash and alder will be close but ash has a bigger low end and an edgier high end.
Of course you can find exceptions but I think approaching tonewoods with the attitude that it makes no difference is a mistake.

Thank you. I like that you said rule of thumb, because that's what we're discussing, a very mushy science. No one can build the same guitar twice, it's inhuman, and two machine made Alder Strats in sequential serial numbers can sound very different as well. Believe me, I don't like making an ass of myself for no reason