# Basswood vs. Mahogany



## Bulbs (Nov 19, 2008)

What do you think? I just thought this would be a really interesting argument. Let's hear it :]


----------



## Thin_Ice_77 (Nov 19, 2008)

I prefer mahogany. Basswood is lighter and generally cheaper, but it just doesn't have the chunk I want in the low-end.


----------



## Elysian (Nov 19, 2008)

basswood is a very middle of the road wood, somewhat well balanced, but not very resonant, imo. its very soft, sucks to work with from a building perspective, and soaks up tons of finish. some people dig its tone, i personally do not. mahogany on the other hand is great to work with, looks awesome, sound is beefy, huge, and i have been using more of it than any other wood in my replacement body builds


----------



## Elysian (Nov 19, 2008)

Thin_Ice_77 said:


> I prefer mahogany. Basswood is lighter and generally cheaper, but it just doesn't have the chunk I want in the low-end.



depends, basswood might be lighter than honduran mahogany or many other variants, but african mahogany is generally about the same or lighter than basswood...


----------



## sami (Nov 19, 2008)

For some reason, I always end up with at least one basswood guitar for one reason or another. I'm always not liking it because it's too bassy (no pun intended), too trebly, and missing a bunch of upper midrange. I always have to find a way to compensate.


----------



## budda (Nov 19, 2008)

then sell it and get a mahogany or alder one 

i prefer mahogany by a long shot. why exactly did you start a thread with the interest of getting an argument going?

good tone is subjective.


----------



## Scali (Nov 19, 2008)

How is basswood pronounced anyway? I once heard someone (I think Greg Howe in one of his new videos) call it 'behs-wood', you know, bass as in the fish. Not bass as in 'bays'.

Personally I prefer mahogany, which is why I have an S7320 
Then again I've always been a big fan of Les Pauls anyway. I also like alder, but Ibanez doesn't seem to use that much, certainly not on 7-strings.
My Gibson M3 has a poplar body. While it has the same soft, almost spongy feel as basswood, somehow I quite like the sound of it. It has a reasonably bright sound to it, and loads of sustain. The low end is rather dry and perhaps even a tad thin, but that makes for incredibly punchy palmmuted chugging. I'd say it's quite similar to alder in that sense.


----------



## Ishan (Nov 19, 2008)

I find basswood uninspiring. It's pretty cool if you want the tone coming from the neck/finger board and pickups but that's about it, very balanced sounding with no soul or punch.
Most my guitars are mahogany and a few alder (and ash for my main bass). I'm very interested to see what a maple/maple neck through with mahogany wings sounds like, and that's exactly what I'm getting with my custom Agile  I bet it's bright with some chunk added


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Nov 19, 2008)

Basswood doesnt sound bad; Steve Vai, Joe Satriani and my RG2228 never had a hard time getting a good sound, but I prefer Mahogany for the balance, fullness and warmth it has.


----------



## JMP2203 (Nov 19, 2008)

i like basswood more than mahogany if the neck is maple, but mahogany neck and body sounds awesome! like the cow7, i had two of them(red&silverburst)


----------



## Scali (Nov 19, 2008)

Esp Griffyn said:


> Basswood doesnt sound bad; Steve Vai, Joe Satriani and my RG2228 never had a hard time getting a good sound, but I prefer Mahogany for the balance, fullness and warmth it has.


 
Well, Steve Vai's main axe has been Evo for years, which is alder, not basswood.
If I compare his For The Love Of God performed on the first G3 DVD (played on Evo) to the studio version (played on a basswood Jem or UV?), I'd say the live version sounds much warmer and fuller. The studio version has that typical dry, uninspiring basswood tone. The live version has a 'vintage' vibe to the tone in a way. It really sings.

As for Joe Satriani, I've heard someone claim that Satch's own guitars have mahogany bodies, not basswood. I believe he said it was mentioned in "Ibanez - the untold story".


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 19, 2008)

^didnt vai just recently change the bodys from basswood to alder?


----------



## Scali (Nov 19, 2008)

No, Evo has been his main guitar since 1993 or so.
And the production version of it (JEM7VWH) has been around for about that long aswell.
Here it is in the 1993 catalog: Ibanez Catalogs


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Nov 19, 2008)

The Studio version of "For the love of God" was played on a Basswood UV, and the tones on that, and all of "Passion and warfare" are pure win. True, Evo still sounds the best, but then Basswood doesnt get my top vote either, but it is by no means a poor choice.


----------



## Inazone (Nov 19, 2008)

I have several basswood guitars and only one mahogany, simply because I find more basswood guitars that appeal to me. My mahogany guitar, a USA Hamer Californian Elite with transparent wine red finish over mahogany, is however the nicest guitar I own. There just haven't been any others that have done much for me in terms of features and playability.


----------



## jymellis (Nov 19, 2008)

i like both for their own reasons.


----------



## Randy (Nov 19, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, Steve Vai's main axe has been Evo for years, which is alder, not basswood.
> If I compare his For The Love Of God performed on the first G3 DVD (played on Evo) to the studio version (played on a basswood Jem or UV?), I'd say the live version sounds much warmer and fuller. The studio version has that typical dry, uninspiring basswood tone. The live version has a 'vintage' vibe to the tone in a way. It really sings.
> 
> As for Joe Satriani, I've heard someone claim that Satch's own guitars have mahogany bodies, not basswood. I believe he said it was mentioned in "Ibanez - the untold story".



I don't doubt most or all of that is true, but a lot of the Basswood vs. *insert a different body wood* argument I've heard sounds like conjecture. 

Well, I'll rephrase that... It just sounds like a lot of the argument (not yours, just what I've seen circulating on teh internetz) is "ZOMG ASSwood" or just that guitar companies only use it because it's the cheapest body wood they can get away with. 

That in mind, I actually kinda like the tonality of basswood. Over mahogany even.  The basswood guitars I've played are reasonably tight or focused, but a bit "thin" at times or lacking in some resonance. 

The mahogany guitars I've played were thick, rich, and "lush" sounding, but could sound "bell-like" or a little "flubby" *both technical terms* on the low end. I'd imagine that's why a lot of mahogany guitars (or at least, in my experience) are coupled with a maple top; to give it back some of that "snap".

As far as price goes, I haven't noticed a huge difference in the price of basswood vs. alder, (cheap) mahogany, (cheap) ash, or maple but that might just be the way prices are here. The guitar companies obviously get a much better price on lumber than the individual consumer, but I just haven't seen enough of a disparity to warrant the conclusion that basswood is the cheap way out and nothing else. 

Just having some trouble processing all the hate, when I've actually really dug the tonality of most basswood guitars I've played, and the fact a few reasonably high end production guitars use it. Might be a preference thing over everything else, though.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Nov 19, 2008)

I like basswood better than mahogany.. I dunno why, mahogany just sounds too warm and dull to me. I have had lots of mahogany guitars though, and they are alright. Its just not my wood of choice.

Same with basswood, I find it sounds abit thin at times, and its just Missing something. But I love the lead tones I get out of it. 

My favorites are Alder and Swamp ash by far =] Alder is the perfect medium of the chunkiness you get from Mahogany, with the great lead sound from basswood.. least in my opinion.

It probably goes back to most of my fav artists have played Alder bodied guitars, like Marty Friedman and im assuming Tony MacAlpine's Carvins are alder too.. so thats just the tone I yearn for. Playing jacksons are usually such an orgasm of sound, Duncans and alder = yum.


----------



## Scali (Nov 19, 2008)

Thing is that brands like Ibanez made basswood a high-end option.
Before the days of high-end basswood guitars like the Jem and JS, basswood was used on cheap Asian clones of classic guitars, including Fender's own Squier series.
Basswood was in the same league as poplar, agathis or nato: cheaper substitute for 'real' tonewood.
So on the one hand it's historically been associated with 'budget', and on the other hand, the classic recorded guitar sounds were all done with classic woods like ash, alder or mahogany, and basswood/poplar/agathis/nato simply don't deliver a classic sound.

Fast-forward 20 years, and the 'classic' guitar albums of today (like Satriani, Vai, Gilbert, Petrucci) were recorded with basswood guitars, so the younger generation probably doesn't experience basswood as a non-classic guitar sound. They grew up with it.

And indeed, one of the first (if not THE first) mahogany solidbody guitars was the Les Paul, and Gibson figured out the added value of a maple top quickly. Basically the classic *is* mahogany with a maple top, and mahogany guitars without the maple are just 'budget' guitars like the Gibson SG, Les Paul Junior and such.
My S7320 is borderline muddy aswell. But that mega-fat tone is something I wanted. If I want a thinner, tighter sound, I have plenty of other guitars to choose from.


----------



## JerkyChid (Nov 19, 2008)

if I did not need the money, I wouldn't have sold my only mahogany guitar. But soon I'm gonna have a 7 with Blackouts so


----------



## gunshow86de (Nov 19, 2008)

I used to only buy mahogany guitars, but then I got my RG1527 and my attitude toward basswood changed. I really like the tone I get from basswood, but only for metal tones. For stuff like classic rock, basswood is missing that mid-range punch that mahogany gives.


----------



## Randy (Nov 19, 2008)

Scali said:


> Thing is that brands like Ibanez made basswood a high-end option.
> Before the days of high-end basswood guitars like the Jem and JS, basswood was used on cheap Asian clones of classic guitars, including Fender's own Squier series.
> Basswood was in the same league as poplar, agathis or nato: cheaper substitute for 'real' tonewood.
> So on the one hand it's historically been associated with 'budget', and on the other hand, the classic recorded guitar sounds were all done with classic woods like ash, alder or mahogany, and basswood/poplar/agathis/nato simply don't deliver a classic sound.
> ...



Good points. All of them.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the nature of recording/mixing/tone (meaning live, distortion, etc.) has changed drastically in the last 20 years, as well.


----------



## zimbloth (Nov 19, 2008)

Basswood is fine if you pair it up with the right pickup, but I vastly prefer mahogany in every way. It just has "it", something about basswood seems relatively hollow to me.


----------



## leonardo7 (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder why Ibanez makes Mahogany 8 strings for Meshuggah then when they put the RG2228 into production, they use Basswood? In the mid nineties there simply werent any Mahogany 7 strings and thats why Korn used Basswood UVs on the first two albums then they switched to Mahogany guitars and have used them ever since! Lets not let Ibanez talk us into thinking Basswood is better than Mahogany. Listen to the Luthiers and pros but dont under any circumstances listen to Ibanez. Listen to the people who have driven and owned the car, not the guy selling it to you. Know what I mean?


----------



## Xaios (Nov 19, 2008)

I like them both for what they are, and they're both suitable for different things. There are times when I want my rhythm sound to be taught and to cut through, I go basswood. If I want it to be darker and more foreboding, mahogany. Same with lead, basswood just screams if you use the right pickups, whereas mahogany gives them a darker edge if that's what you're looking for. Generally, it'll be basswood for the shrederiffic stuff, and mahogany for the slower, more contemplative solos.



gunshow86de said:


> I used to only buy mahogany guitars, but then I got my RG1527 and my attitude toward basswood changed. I really like the tone I get from basswood, but only for metal tones. For stuff like classic rock, basswood is missing that mid-range punch that mahogany gives.



I find my 1527 can give me a great classic rock tone, but I have to dial it into the amp quite a bit differently that I do my metal tone, and I occasionally have to make use of my tone knob to get the right sound, but the guitar itself does the job.


----------



## leonardo7 (Nov 19, 2008)

Look, lets just take a company like Carvin as an example. Carvin makes customs guitars. They cater to the lead shredder as well as all other types of players out there when considering the options they provide in woods. They dont even offer basswood and dont tell me they dont cater to the lead shredder. They use alder, swamp ash, mahogany, koa, walnut, maple etc, but no Basswood. Ibanez seems to be the company pushing Basswood. Its like Ibanez is trying to sell us a Ford that only looks like a BMW and Im not buying it anymore. Im telling you, Ibanez is the salesman and we need to start listening to the Luthiers and pros, not the salesman. If you listen to the salesman and dont think for yourself or do your homework then you will go through life thinking you have the best product but know in the back of your mind that there must be a reason why you have a feeling there might be better. In addition, Ibanez is a Japanese company who when they make a line of guitars that are not to be sold to the US they use Mahogany so fuck Ibanez and fuck Basswood.


----------



## Uncle Remus (Nov 19, 2008)

So does anyone have any legit theories as to why Ibanez are so loyal to basswood? 

Cheap?
Easy to get hold of in japan/korea?

I doubt so many proffessional luthiers can be wrong in saying mahogany > basswood. So why do Ibanez insist on using it so much?

Im guessing cos its cheapo


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 19, 2008)

BTW, basswood is pronounced bass, like the fish. Not "base."

Basswood isn't specifically a single tree, but is the wood obtained from the Linden family of trees (genus _Tilia_). There _is_ however an American Basswood tree (but which is generally called American Linden).

Mahogany is the same thing. No 'mahogany' trees, per se. Just trees that produce wood we call 'mahogany,' generally from the genus _Swietenia_. (Although not always.)


----------



## killiansguitar (Nov 19, 2008)

Scali said:


> Basically the classic *is* mahogany with a maple top, and mahogany guitars without the maple are just 'budget' guitars like the Gibson SG, Les Paul Junior and such.



That isnt always true. A good example of this is the Les Paul Custom. The very first ones and for a good many years after the first ones, the Customs came with a Mahogany body and a Mahogany top, and the Les Paul Custom wasnt, isnt, and will never be a "budget" guitar as you put it. But, i do agree with you to an extent, most of the all mahogany bodied LPs are lower-end LP's. However, there are MANY exceptions to this.
Now if your talking about SG's, your TOTALLY wrong. Theres a plethora of Gibson SG's that are the farthest thing from a "budget" guitar, and 99&#37; of them are all mahogany-bodied guitars, without a maple top.


Personally, i'm a ginormous fan of Mahogany bodied guitars. Whether they be maple capped or full bodied mahogany guitars. I love the sweet, fat, warm, musical tone you get from Mahogany. I love the low end, i love the accentuated mids, and i even love the slightly muted or dull highs on certain guitars. I'm also a huge fan of throwing Seymour Duncan JB's into all mahogany bodied guitars. It really helps bring out the highs that mahogany lacks, and helps neutralize the thunderous lows mahogany offers. Mahogany + SD JB = Pure Sex.

I also think that it really doesnt matter what wood the guitar body is, with the right pickup choice, you can balance out whatever frequencies you do or dont like.

...and Basswood is pronounced just like the fish. [Edit: Dark Wolf beat me to it]


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 19, 2008)

killiansguitar said:


> ...and Basswood is pronounced just like the fish.



Beat you to it. 

And agreed on JBs...except on 7's.  The 7-string JB is just waaaay too muddy. It's not the 6 version, that's for damn sure. (Apparently the Wolfetone rewind fixes t hat, however.)


----------



## Variant (Nov 19, 2008)

leonardo7 said:


> I wonder why Ibanez makes Mahogany 8 strings for Meshuggah then when they put the RG2228 into production, they use Basswood? In the mid nineties there simply werent any Mahogany 7 strings and thats why Korn used Basswood UVs on the first two albums then they switched to Mahogany guitars and have used them ever since! Lets not let Ibanez talk us into thinking Basswood is better than Mahogany. Listen to the Luthiers and pros but dont under any circumstances listen to Ibanez. Listen to the people who have driven and owned the car, not the guy selling it to you. Know what I mean?



The first run of Meshuggah eigthers were, indeed, mahogany, but also neck-through. Their current ones are alder (and also, neck-through construction).


----------



## Scali (Nov 19, 2008)

killiansguitar said:


> That isnt always true. A good example of this is the Les Paul Custom. The very first ones and for a good many years after the first ones, the Customs came with a Mahogany body and a Mahogany top, and the Les Paul Custom wasnt, isnt, and will never be a "budget" guitar as you put it.


 
Perhaps, but the Custom is not the classic, archetypal Les Paul anyway. It wasn't very popular. Most early Les Paul players used a goldtop or flametop (now known as Standard). That defined the classic Les Paul tone, and might actually be the reason why the Custom got a maple top in the end. It's what people want when they buy a Les Paul.



killiansguitar said:


> Now if your talking about SG's, your TOTALLY wrong. Theres a plethora of Gibson SG's that are the farthest thing from a "budget" guitar, and 99&#37; of them are all mahogany-bodied guitars.


 
No I'm quite right. Gibson originally introduced the SG as a new-and-improved Les Paul, which addressed what they thought were the main reasons why the Les Paul sold so poorly: the weight and price (they needed something that could compete with the Fender Stratocaster).
The SG was to replace the regular Les Paul line. The original Les Paul was taken out of production in 1961, and replaced with the new Les Paul which we now know as the SG.
It's just that Les Paul himself didn't like the SG at all (obviously, it didn't look as classy and it lacked the key ingredient to the famous Les Paul tone: the maple top), so he told Gibson he didn't want his name on it. That's why it was renamed to SG (it was already in production by the time Les Paul got them to take his name off them, and they had a large supply of Les Paul nametags still, which they used up before going to the SG name).

Eventually the original Les Paul was made popular again by artists that used it, and it was put back into production.
But there's no denying that the SG was originally designed as a cheaper replacement of the Les Paul, and removing the maple top was a big factor in reducing production cost. So yes, in a way it was a budget guitar... and to this day it's a cheaper model than the Les Paul, so in a way it's still a budget guitar.



killiansguitar said:


> I also think that it really doesnt matter what wood the guitar body is, with the right pickup choice, you can balance out whatever frequencies you do or dont like.


 
I think it does. I don't just listen to my guitar through the speakers. I also notice when a body is more resonant, or when there's a bit of fretbuzz or whatever, which you might not hear through the pickup or speakers. You feel a difference in playing, and it affects how you play. Attack and sustain are also factors that really need to come from the wood itself, not from pickups.
I select my guitars on their acoustic qualities, and like my pickups pretty neutral.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 19, 2008)

For me basswood is nice in a six string. Plenty of mid range and cuts through the mix pretty well. Even tone all around the fretboard. When paired with a maple neck/maple fretboard it gets the best results imo. I'd still prefer a few other more exotic woods. But it's pretty nice on a 6.

But it really lacks for that low end on a 7 string. Sure paired with the right pups you can get a great sound. It's not agathis or plywood. But compared to a nice chunk of mahogany or my personal favorite a walnut body it just lacks.



Uncle Remus said:


> So does anyone have any legit theories as to why Ibanez are so loyal to basswood?
> 
> Cheap?
> Easy to get hold of in japan/korea?
> ...


 
Actually because the redesigned thier entire line of guitars because of Steve Vais endorsement. Steve wanted basswood bodies specifically at the time. The rg line which is one of Ibanez's mainstay lines was based as a cheaper version of the Jem. So they used basswood for that aswell. Many of the other guitars were designed with other woods such as the S series with mahogany. However Ibanez hasn't significantly changed a majority of thier designs since the early 90s. (introduction of AANJ and lopro trems). Now they don't even offer no where near the amount of options they used to. (No more RG 560, 565, etc) They did make a pretty significant design change with the introduction of prestige line but almost all those changes were simply the edge pro and a few differences in the neck.

All in all it's Steve Vai's fault.


----------



## Scali (Nov 19, 2008)

Ibanez' love affair with basswood goes back further than Steve Vai though.
Back in the early 80s they already used basswood for some of the Blazer and Roadstar series (more or less the predecessors of the RG/Jem).

I suppose basswood has more or less become Ibanez' signature wood. Just like mahogany is Gibson's signature wood, and alder/ash is Fender's signature... even though the companies may also offer other woods... That's just the wood most commonly used in their most popular models.


----------



## Bulbs (Nov 19, 2008)

Because I was simply interested in what people had to say. Did not mean an actual argument. More like an offering of opinions which is always positive imo.


----------



## leonardo7 (Nov 19, 2008)

If you want to play Ibanez then it really comes down to getting endorsed and having an LACS. Thats where its at! Its like your playing Ibanez but not playing Ibanez. Or is it the other way around? Mahogany neck through LACS is an Ibanez I would play. What Ive never understood is why there is a basswood Stephen Carpenter ESP LTD when he never plays basswood? The answer is probably so that they can have a lower priced version of his signature guitar. Ok, there is your answer right there. Regardless of what anyones opinion is, the fact is that Basswood is the poor mans "insert nearly any tone wood here" wood.


----------



## 7STRINGWARRIOR (Nov 19, 2008)

alter is the shit-hail jackson


----------



## Totem_37 (Nov 19, 2008)

This is definitely not a question that can be answered by one is better than the other. They are very different woods tonally, and because of that, they have very different applications. First of all, because of mahogany's warm, dark character, it is very hard to pull off on a 7 (and nigh impossible on an 8) without the guitar sounding like mud. That's why many mahogany 7s will have maple necks and ebony boards to brighten up the sound (i.e. my DC727). Both woods can sound amazing from everything from smooth solo lines (i.e. early Skolnick/Satch) to super-chunky riffing (i.e. Wylde/Dime) as long as the guitar wood is properly matched with the correct pickups. For instance, a Seymour Duncan JB/59 combo is one of the most popular configuration on mahogany Les Paul style guitars (and rightly so... they sound amazing), but on a basswood Ibanez they will sound far too bright and screetchy (esp. the JB). On the flip side, the Dimarzio Evolution and Tone Zone are both excellent pickups on a Ibby-style basswood guitar, but they will lack definition and clarity in mahogany, especially when saturated with high amounts of gain.

All that being said, I prefer mahogany because that tone works for my playing. Also basswood looks HORRIBLE under a clearcoat (green streaking everywhere) and I love natural finishes. Still, I am buying an RG2228 in a week or so, so there is an exception to every rule I guess.



killiansguitar said:


> I'm also a huge fan of throwing Seymour Duncan JB's into all mahogany bodied guitars. It really helps bring out the highs that mahogany lacks, and helps neutralize the thunderous lows mahogany offers. Mahogany + SD JB = Pure Sex.


Damn, beaten 



Scali said:


> It's just that Les Paul himself didn't like the SG at all (obviously, it didn't look as classy and it lacked the key ingredient to the famous Les Paul tone: the maple top), so he told Gibson he didn't want his name on it. That's why it was renamed to SG (it was already in production by the time Les Paul got them to take his name off them, and they had a large supply of Les Paul nametags still, which they used up before going to the SG name).


I believe his exact words were "Someone could impale themselves on those horns!" or something to that effect


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 20, 2008)

The Dimarzio 7-string Evo in NO WAY lacks definition on mahogany. Period.

Plus, I wouldn't say mahogany sounds "muddy" on 7s at all. That's some pretty outdated, old info, the kinda stuff that was passing around on the net when 7-strings first started gaining in popularity. There's all kinds of people on this site with mahogany 7's who would vehemently disagree with you on that, myself included.

Although you're absolutely right on the TZ7.


----------



## Shawn (Nov 20, 2008)

I love both. I do like blazes in basswood as well as the new7 neck and evo7 for bridge.


----------



## Scali (Nov 20, 2008)

Randy said:


> One other thing to keep in mind is that the nature of recording/mixing/tone (meaning live, distortion, etc.) has changed drastically in the last 20 years, as well.


 
Yes, I think in the early to mid 80s, there was a huge improvement in amplifiers and effects. In the old days, people needed a Les Paul and overwound ceramic pickups to get enough output and distortion.
It didn't always result in the most musical of tones.
But with better hi-gain amps, specifically designed for this sort of tone, you could use different woods and lower output pickups and still get decent sounds.

However, some of my favourite 80s tones are still mahogany-based... Like Gary Moore's Still Got The Blues, or Steve Stevens' Top Gun Anthem.


----------



## WannaBeGuitarPr (Nov 20, 2008)

mahgany ftw


----------



## kmanick (Nov 20, 2008)

My favorite wood combo is a Mahogany body with a maple top and a maple fretboard.
It's snappy,clear and articulate and will take a good variety of pickups.
I never dealt with baswood guitars until I got my first 7620.
I wasn't crazy about the sound of that one (muddy even with the Evo 7 in there)
but the current one I have sounds great (even before I put the Miracleman/Jazz combo into it).
A good piece of wood is a good piece of wood no matter whether it's basswood or mahogany.
Now having said that , the guitar I own that records the best is my solid quilted maple GMW with a maple neck. 
The thing is completely solid maple but it sounds thick and mean as a mother f*cker.
I guess the right pickups can make all the difference


----------



## dtrax (Nov 20, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> The Dimarzio 7-string Evo in NO WAY lacks definition on mahogany. Period.
> 
> Plus, I wouldn't say mahogany sounds "muddy" on 7s at all. That's some pretty outdated, old info, the kinda stuff that was passing around on the net when 7-strings first started gaining in popularity. *There's all kinds of people on this site with mahogany 7's who would vehemently disagree with you on that, myself included*.
> 
> Although you're absolutely right on the TZ7.



Count me in too. 

The first thing I noticed when I got my mahogany RGA7 body was an INCREASE in top end compared to basswood, which sounded as if the tone knob was always set at 3/4. Even when I had an Evo7 installed in my stock 7321, it sounded, and more importantly, FELT dull and lifeless.

Where I disagree is the TZ7. I currently have it installed in my RGA7 and it sounds fucking sweet and lovely through my Rectoverb. It makes my Carvin maple neckthru w/ TZ6 sound like a toy. Seriously.


----------



## Drew (Nov 20, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, Steve Vai's main axe has been Evo for years, which is alder, not basswood.
> If I compare his For The Love Of God performed on the first G3 DVD (played on Evo) to the studio version (played on a basswood Jem or UV?), I'd say the live version sounds much warmer and fuller. The studio version has that typical dry, uninspiring basswood tone. The live version has a 'vintage' vibe to the tone in a way. It really sings.
> 
> As for Joe Satriani, I've heard someone claim that Satch's own guitars have mahogany bodies, not basswood. I believe he said it was mentioned in "Ibanez - the untold story".



1.) I prefer the first G3 tone too... However, I'd argue that has a LOT to do with the fact that he's playing through a JCM800 on the studio version, and a Bogner Exctacy with a TS9 out front on the G3. The studio is actually pretty clean too, while the G3 version is noticeably higher gain. 

2.) Joe's original prototype was alder, not mahogany, and he was a longtime strat player before he got picked up by Ibanez. I _strongly_ doubt he'd suddenly switch to mahogany guitars for his main player. You're probably thinking of his JS-7 sevenstring, which for one reason or another he did spec as a mahogany build, or the JS-6/6000 fixed bridge guitars he had Ibanez introduce around the time of "The Extremist" so he could have something that sounded a bit like a Les Paul but still felt like his Ibanez.


----------



## Drew (Nov 20, 2008)

dtrax said:


> Count me in too.
> 
> The first thing I noticed when I got my mahogany RGA7 body was an INCREASE in top end compared to basswood, which sounded as if the tone knob was always set at 3/4. Even when I had an Evo7 installed in my stock 7321, it sounded, and more importantly, FELT dull and lifeless.
> 
> Where I disagree is the TZ7. I currently have it installed in my RGA7 and it sounds fucking sweet and lovely through my Rectoverb. It makes my Carvin maple neckthru w/ TZ6 sound like a toy. Seriously.



However, that's an oil finished body, as opposed to a painted basswood body, correct? 


One person's "muddy" is another's "warm." Personally, I prefer basswood to mahogany for lead guitar, though I like to keep a mahogany guitar around for rhythm playing. Mahogany has always struck me as having more of a lower-mid hump to it than a true "low end," which actually makes it work rather nice for rhythm guitar - it doesn't have the depth of basswood, exactly, but a lot of that you'd just want to high-pass out anyway to leave room for the bass. 

Basswood, meanwhile, is actually a pretty decent lead guitar tonewood - it's very even, very balanced, and pretty smooth in response across the whole tonal spectrum. It responds well over the entire neck. 

The only problem with basswood of course is that in some ways it's TOO even - a lot of the appeal of some popular tonewoods is the way they DO color your sound; see for instance that low-mid emphasis that mahogany has that works rather well for metal chunk. 

Of course, personally I prefer the upper-mid focus of alder (and ash, which seems to sparkle a little more) to either.


----------



## dtrax (Nov 20, 2008)

Drew said:


> However, that's an oil finished body, as opposed to a painted basswood body, correct?



It is. Which can affect tone, to what degree I'm not sure.

To be fair, my experience with basswood is with Ibby's budget guitars, not a UV like you play. I'm guessing the quality of wood is important as well, so a 7321 is gonna sound like a wet turd and a UV is going to actually sound like a guitar.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Plus, I wouldn't say mahogany sounds "muddy" on 7s at all. That's some pretty outdated, old info, the kinda stuff that was passing around on the net when 7-strings first started gaining in popularity. There's all kinds of people on this site with mahogany 7's who would vehemently disagree with you on that, myself included.



It might just be my taste, or the stock pickups but the tone I heard out of both S7320s and the Interceptor Pro *Well, mahogany wings on the Interceptor Pro* that I've played sounded what I could call "muddy-ish" when used through the same amp I used my 1527 and 7420 through. 



dtrax said:


> To be fair, my experience with basswood is with Ibby's budget guitars, not a UV like you play. I'm guessing the quality of wood is important as well, so a 7321 is gonna sound like a wet turd and a UV is going to actually sound like a guitar.



If you're comparing a "high-end Ibanez" to "budget Ibanez", the difference in tone is more than likely in the quality of construction/components rather than the quality of the wood used (as long as they're "the same" tonewood, anyway).


----------



## sami (Nov 20, 2008)

budda said:


> then sell it and get a mahogany or alder one



Can't, I'm a broke bastid 

If I had my choice, I'd get another Swamp Ash guitar like my Electra. I'm very lucky to have that.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2008)

sami said:


> Can't, I'm a broke bastid
> 
> If I had my choice, I'd get another Swamp Ash guitar like my Electra. I'm very lucky to have that.



Tell me about this Electra.


----------



## Scali (Nov 20, 2008)

Drew said:


> 1.) I prefer the first G3 tone too... However, I'd argue that has a LOT to do with the fact that he's playing through a JCM800 on the studio version, and a Bogner Exctacy with a TS9 out front on the G3. The studio is actually pretty clean too, while the G3 version is noticeably higher gain.


 
I don't. I have an alder RG570CT and it sounds almost EXACTLY like Vai's tone on the G3 version, and NOTHING like any basswood RG570s.



Drew said:


> 2.) Joe's original prototype was alder, not mahogany, and he was a longtime strat player before he got picked up by Ibanez.


 
I believe his main Strat (the one used on most of Not Of This Earth and Surfing Wit The Alien) was actually ash... It had a really 'hollow' tone to it anyway.

Aside from that, Satriani was always a fan of the sound of Gibsons.
You can find three Gibsons in his guitar gallery on satriani.com:














So mahogany isn't too far-fetched.
I suppose Satriani is much like Van Halen in that respect: Loving the tone of Gibsons, but preferring something with a trem and slightly lighter and more accessible on stage.


----------



## gatesofcarnage (Nov 20, 2008)

I find basswood to be a bit toneless. I really like mahogany as long as there is a maple neck. But i prefer alder of ash for tighter snappier tone in low registers.


----------



## toolsound (Nov 20, 2008)

I have 2 Mahogany guitars and 1 Basswood guitar. The tone difference isn't very big in my opinion. I actually like my basswood guitar best, but that's also because it's a better-quality guitar.


----------



## shredthelight91 (Nov 20, 2008)

I think there two completely different woods... I mean I like mahogany more because its got more ballsy, pissed of rhythm tone. Basswood on the other hand has more mids which helps it cut through a mix alot better. Basswood is also cheap and soft so it doesn't take abuse extremely well


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 20, 2008)

Drew said:


> However, that's an oil finished body, as opposed to a painted basswood body, correct?
> 
> 
> One person's "muddy" is another's "warm." Personally, I prefer basswood to mahogany for lead guitar, though I like to keep a mahogany guitar around for rhythm playing. Mahogany has always struck me as having more of a lower-mid hump to it than a true "low end," which actually makes it work rather nice for rhythm guitar - it doesn't have the depth of basswood, exactly, but a lot of that you'd just want to high-pass out anyway to leave room for the bass.
> ...


 
Pretty much nailed it on the head about basswood. My favorite part about basswood is that it's so even around the neck. Can affect your tone so much with pickups. It's a very maleable product. I just don't like it for the lowend of a 7 string. 

Actually my favorite wood is walnut. Has again a very wide range of tone with a nice but not harsh topend and a low end growl almost. Pair that with something with a bit warmer like mahogany or korina and you got a killer guitar. 

Basswood isn't a bad tone wood. It's got it's own sound which is great for many applications. With the exception of plywood, agathis, and particle board a tone wood is a tone wood. It's all opinion. There is no best tone wood just what the indivisual wants. Yet since we're all musicians and tend to be very picky and strong headed we argue with each other anyways.


----------



## sami (Nov 20, 2008)

Randy said:


> Tell me about this Electra.



X260 Invicta

That's what I have (not mine in the pics). I have never played a better guitar!

Electra's/Westone's/etc all MIJ in the late 70's/early 80's. They were awesome guitars. If you see them on ebay and buy one, you won't be sorry!!

Electra was bought out by Crate (...) in the mid 80's, then they stopped making guitars.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2008)

sami said:


> X260 Invicta
> 
> Electra's/Westone's/etc all MIJ in the late 70's/early 80's. They were awesome guitars. If you see them on ebay and buy one, you won't be sorry!!





I've got a pre-lawsuit Electra LP and it's dead sexy. I was in the market for another one a month or two ago, but I noticed a few people must've caught on because I saw a few that were traditionally going for < $250 going for $400+.


----------



## Euthanasia (Nov 20, 2008)

Scali said:


> Basswood was in the same league as poplar, agathis or nato: cheaper substitute for 'real' tonewood.



I am sorry, but i think you really wrong about the poplar. Its really not in the same league as the agathis-basswood-nato.
Jackson-Charvel used poplar in their most expensive guitars in the 80's and early 90's.

I have a Jackson Kelly pro, made of poplar, with neckthrough maple neck and ebony fretboard (added some bareknuckles, OFR pro, new haredware and electronics) and I tune it to A. It's the most tight, sharp, clear sounding guitar i ever heard on low tuning. and thats without a baritone neck.
(And on the other hand, i really need to plug a loomis next time i play one )

Anyway, i have an Ibanez JPM100P4 (John petrucci's signature), its made of basswood and it really sounds great (esspecially in comparison to other basswood guitars i've played). but generally, i think mahagony is a better sounding wood for any use.


----------



## Metal Ken (Nov 20, 2008)

I'll throw in my 

Basswood is just non-resonant and dull. Unplugged, it just flat out sucks. When i played my UV, and i compared it to my 300$ Conklin Groove Tools (Cherry wood), the GT7 owned it. Then i got a Hellraiser and compared, and the hellraiser was also more resonant, more full sounding. then i ordered a loomis on a whim, and the ash was even better sounding. All 3 of these "Cheaper" guitars sounded just flat out better than the "expensive" UV.

Whenever i plugged them in, i'd tune the amp for the UV. But when you put another guitar through it, like the hellraiser, it just took those settings and laid a beatdown. People argue that "Vai, Satch, and PG Get great tones with their basswood guitars", but you're taking into account, that those guys 1) Are mostly playing lead and 2)Dont generally use basswood despite their signature guitars. PG Mostly uses his two Korina Rev. Icemans or whatever the hell shape those are now, and has always had ibanez make him weird ass guitars with crazy combinations of wood and pickups. And Vai/Satch have been discussed already. Furthermore, i really dont like the tone itself on P&W


----------



## Scali (Nov 20, 2008)

Euthanasia said:


> I am sorry, but i think you really wrong about the poplar. Its really not in the same league as the agathis-basswood-nato.
> Jackson-Charvel used poplar in their most expensive guitars in the 80's and early 90's.


 
Yes, and Ibanez uses basswood in high-end guitars. That doesn't make the wood itself any different.
My Gibson M3 is poplar aswell, and it probably cost a great deal more than many alder/mahogany/etc guitars from other brands.
It's still the same cheap, ugly, light, soft wood (which is clearly visible through the transparent amber finish, ewwww).

Funny thing is, I tried a lot of Ibanezes, Jacksons, Washburns etc in the mid 90s, when I was looking for a high-end shredder guitar. I didn't find any that I actually liked. In the end I found an alder Ibanez RG570CT, that was the one. It spoke to me from the first note I played on it. All that basswood and poplar didn't do a thing for me. It just feels and sounds cheap, dull and lifeless when you're used to mahogany.


----------



## sami (Nov 20, 2008)

Randy said:


> I've got a pre-lawsuit Electra LP and it's dead sexy. I was in the market for another one a month or two ago, but I noticed a few people must've caught on because I saw a few that were traditionally going for < $250 going for $400+.



Yeah, the tone, comfort, and action are all drool fuel. I saw the exact same model as mine a few days ago on CL. He wanted $375!!... I'd buy it if I had the moolah for it. What model do you have?


----------



## Totem_37 (Nov 21, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> The Dimarzio 7-string Evo in NO WAY lacks definition on mahogany. Period.
> 
> Plus, I wouldn't say mahogany sounds "muddy" on 7s at all. That's some pretty outdated, old info, the kinda stuff that was passing around on the net when 7-strings first started gaining in popularity. There's all kinds of people on this site with mahogany 7's who would vehemently disagree with you on that, myself included.
> 
> Although you're absolutely right on the TZ7.



I'm not saying it's impossible to have a mahogany 7 sound good (I own one and it's amazing) I'm just saying it's easier to do wrong than build one out of a more centre-balanced wood (like basswood or alder).


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 21, 2008)

I love the balls Mahogany has, basswood seems kind of dull by comparison.


----------



## vansinn (Nov 21, 2008)

Always get fun and interesting whenever basswood is brought up 
I agree with lots of said remarks in both directions, and especially that tonewoods are merely a matter of personal opinion. Just about all good quality woods are usable, it's a matter of the application.

My probably almost unknown '87 Duesenberg with basswood mahogany body, medium hard (not sycamore) maple bolt-on neck with ebony board has very nice acoustic properties and a pretty nice tone all over the board.
With a pair of OBL 450's, switchable in series/parallel/singles, it's great for shredding and has a decent low end, though I would've liked maybe a bit more low end bang. However, palm muted chucka works really well down there, even in drop D.


EDIT: How embarrasing. This axe has a painted body, so the wood isn't visible. Once, during maintenence, I say a small part of the body wood, which I for some reason I took for basswood.
I just rechecked, and it's mahogany. Now, the axe has pretty good sustain, nice shimmering top end, a bit less full mids than most always reported for mahogany guitars. Weight is fairly low. I think these properties fooled me. Also, the OBL 450 pups have a lot of top end gain.
I'm thinking it may be african mahogany, based on weight and tonal response.


----------



## John_Strychnine (Nov 21, 2008)

Mahogany sounds way better than Basswood, but i think Swamp Ash has got the best sound for a guitar.


----------



## dtrax (Nov 21, 2008)

Randy said:


> If you're comparing a "high-end Ibanez" to "budget Ibanez", the difference in tone is more than likely in the quality of construction/components rather than the quality of the wood used (as long as they're "the same" tonewood, anyway).



I'm not going to completely disagree, but I'm currently using the original 7321 neck, volume pot, and bridge plate on my RGA7. So that leaves the body wood and output jack as potential differences. Could the output jack alone give me such a shitty tone? Not likely. This reduces down to the body itself. Maybe there's something going on with the construction of the body or finishing process that makes it sound lifeless. I don't know honestly. What I do know, however, is I like African Mahogany and plan on using for most custom builds.


----------



## BurialWithin (Nov 21, 2008)

yeah for real


----------



## Drew (Nov 22, 2008)

Scali said:


> I don't. I have an alder RG570CT and it sounds almost EXACTLY like Vai's tone on the G3 version, and NOTHING like any basswood RG570s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Sorry dude... Sure, the alder vs. basswood makes _some_ difference in the tone, but you're talking about two completely different _rigs_. Different amp makers, totally different gain structures, straight into the amp vs. boosted... Fuck, different _pickups_. I love alder, but what we're hearing isn't just the switch from one body wood to another - the only constant in that tonal equation is it's the same player.  

As for Satch, nope. For one, you're talking about three guitars in his entire collection. There's ony a few on his site, but that japanese mag ran a feature on his whole collection a few months back that I recall seeing on the net - three guitars out of sixty or seventy isn't exactly an overwhelming number, and in interviews he talks about playing modded "superstrats" back in the day, much like Vai. 

Also, Rich Harris owns Satch's JS proto. It's alder.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 22, 2008)

Quite honestly in comparison to all the other things that affect your tone body woods is one of the smallest.

Run your 570CT and a 550 with the same pickups, same strings, same amps, same post eq, and cab and you're going to have a far more similar tone than If you have two alder guitars with different pickups or different amps.

Sure the right tone wood brings that last little bit of your tone into what's perfect for you. But i'll take a great playing guitar and the right rig than a great sounding guitar and the wrong gear.


----------



## ghoti (Nov 22, 2008)

bulletbass man said:


> Quite honestly in comparison to all the other things that affect your tone body woods is one of the smallest.
> 
> Run your 570CT and a 550 with the same pickups, same strings, same amps, same post eq, and cab and you're going to have a far more similar tone than If you have two alder guitars with different pickups or different amps.
> 
> Sure the right tone wood brings that last little bit of your tone into what's perfect for you. But i'll take a great playing guitar and the right rig than a great sounding guitar and the wrong gear.



I guess it depends on how much you practice with stuff unplugged. Any small difference becomes bigger with the quantity of practice you make no matter what, but especially if you do a fair bit of unplugged work (sometimes you have to, unless you live with no neighbors...) you want something that sounds good to you.

Also, if it didn't make that much difference, do you think there would be so many models of guitar? I mean, seriously...mahogany/maple with the right pickups or ash with the right pickups or alder with the right pickups and you've got at least 20 different solid-body guitar models.


----------



## controversyking (Nov 23, 2008)

Mahogany definately.

Its heavy as a biaatch but IMO sounds better in a guitar than Basswood.

Thick mahogany guitars + High output pups (ex. X2n, ) ftw!


----------



## Scali (Nov 23, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sorry dude... Sure, the alder vs. basswood makes _some_ difference in the tone, but you're talking about two completely different _rigs_. Different amp makers, totally different gain structures, straight into the amp vs. boosted... Fuck, different _pickups_. I love alder, but what we're hearing isn't just the switch from one body wood to another - the only constant in that tonal equation is it's the same player.


 
You didn't get my point.
I'm saying that my RG570CT and a regular basswood RG570 give about the same tonal differences on my rig (which sounds quite close to Vai's G3-sound) as his G3 performance versus the studio version.
There's simply more sustain coming from the alder, and it has a certain 'scream' in the high-end that's absent from basswood (or mahogany for that matter).

In fact, I'll give you one better: In the G3 show from Denver, Vai plays on Evo with one song (Juice), but switches to Flo for another (I'm The Hell Outta Here). You can hear the difference right there, alder vs basswood on the same rig. Flo doesn't nearly have as much top end and harmonics. It doesn't really have a 'singing' tone either. It's rather dull and lifeless (when he has the wah full open, it sounds about the same in the top end as the alder without a wah, so quite a difference there).



Drew said:


> As for Satch, nope. For one, you're talking about three guitars in his entire collection. There's ony a few on his site, but that japanese mag ran a feature on his whole collection a few months back that I recall seeing on the net - three guitars out of sixty or seventy isn't exactly an overwhelming number, and in interviews he talks about playing modded "superstrats" back in the day, much like Vai.


 
Again you didn't get my point. Obviously I know he mainly played superstrats, but just because he plays superstrats doesn't mean he actually likes how they sound.
I didn't buy my RG570CT because I thought it was the greatest sounding guitar in the world. I just needed something with a tremolo, and Les Pauls or even something close to a Les Paul with a tremolo was very hard to come by. So I just looked for a superstrat whose tone I could bear. If they didn't build this alder one, I might have ended up with basswood because there was no choice. That most certainly wouldn't have meant that I liked the sound of basswood.


----------



## Stan P (Nov 23, 2008)

i hear good things about the tone in thre sandwith bodies, but it is very easy to damage.. not good.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 23, 2008)

ghoti said:


> I guess it depends on how much you practice with stuff unplugged. Any small difference becomes bigger with the quantity of practice you make no matter what, but especially if you do a fair bit of unplugged work (sometimes you have to, unless you live with no neighbors...) you want something that sounds good to you.
> 
> Also, if it didn't make that much difference, do you think there would be so many models of guitar? I mean, seriously...mahogany/maple with the right pickups or ash with the right pickups or alder with the right pickups and you've got at least 20 different solid-body guitar models.


 
I didn't say it didn't make any difference but rather not that much compared to other things. I'll take a RG7420 and a VHT Pitbull over a KXK and a Marshall MG. 

Also If I'm practicing unplugged with an electric guitar it's fairly unlikely I really care that much about my tone rather than caring about my techniques, rthym, etc. For me when it comes to guitars I care far more about thier playability and comfort rather than thier bodywoods. By using a good eq and the right pickups I can easily compensate for any tone wood. Though I would prefer my wood of choice (which is not basswood by the way) if I can't afford to go custom I'll get a guitar that I love to play rather than love the tone)

Disclaimer: Tonewood does not include plywood, particle board, or those woods you see on cheap guitars where you are not entirely sure if it's wood at all.

Also laminate bodies are not any more prone to damage than a regular body if it was built by any decent luthier. Take care of your guitars regardless of what it's made of.


----------



## Scali (Nov 23, 2008)

bulletbass man said:


> I didn't say it didn't make any difference but rather not that much compared to other things. I'll take a RG7420 and a VHT Pitbull over a KXK and a Marshall MG.


 
I don't think that was the point here though?
I mean, we were discussing people like Satriani and Vai, whom we can assume have high-end rigs. So the amp-factor has already been taken care of, and then we start looking at the wood.


----------



## Metal Ken (Nov 23, 2008)

bulletbass man said:


> Also If I'm practicing unplugged with an electric guitar it's fairly unlikely I really care that much about my tone rather than caring about my techniques, rthym, etc. For me when it comes to guitars I care far more about thier playability and comfort rather than thier bodywoods. By using a good eq and the right pickups I can easily compensate for any tone wood. Though I would prefer my wood of choice (which is not basswood by the way) if I can't afford to go custom I'll get a guitar that I love to play rather than love the tone)



Yeah, but that unplugged tone is the basis for your tone. The better tone you start off with from the guitar, the less shit you gotta do to make it sound good through your amp.


----------



## Drew (Nov 23, 2008)

Scali said:


> You didn't get my point.
> I'm saying that my RG570CT and a regular basswood RG570 give about the same tonal differences on my rig (which sounds quite close to Vai's G3-sound) as his G3 performance versus the studio version.
> There's simply more sustain coming from the alder, and it has a certain 'scream' in the high-end that's absent from basswood (or mahogany for that matter).
> 
> ...



Sigh... The first debate, whatever, it's been ages since I've played a 6100, so I can't tell you if it sounds closer to a JCM800 with no boost or a Bogner with a Tube Screamer. However, I think we can both agree that it most likely doesn't sound like _both_ at the same time, so if you're saying that the live version sounds better than the studio version because of the body wood, then again I'm going to have to disagree. The studio is just a Marshall poweramp turned up SERIOUSLY loud, while the live has a ton of preamp gain. That alone makes a huge difference in the way the guitar is going to respond. 

I don't remember if I ever bought the Denver G3 - is that the one with Yngwie? If so I'll give it a listen later on tonight. I agree with you about the difference in high end - alder sparkles a little more than basswood, and has a noticeably different high mid peak, a huge part of the reason I like it so much.

As for Satriani, you're changing the subject. Your original comment was that you'd heard rumors that Satch's Chrome Boy was actually mahogany. I was merely correcting you. His seven string is mahogany - his 6's are almost without exception basswood, and the original prototype, again, was alder, not mahogany.


----------



## Scali (Nov 23, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sigh... The first debate, whatever, it's been ages since I've played a 6100, so I can't tell you if it sounds closer to a JCM800 with no boost or a Bogner with a Tube Screamer. However, I think we can both agree that it most likely doesn't sound like _both_ at the same time, so if you're saying that the live version sounds better than the studio version because of the body wood, then again I'm going to have to disagree. The studio is just a Marshall poweramp turned up SERIOUSLY loud, while the live has a ton of preamp gain. That alone makes a huge difference in the way the guitar is going to respond.


 
I think you are working from the wrong assumptions. I never said anything about any rigs sounding exactly the same.
I think the best possible example is a Gibson Les Paul... That tone is so characteristic that you can tell a Les Paul from most other guitars, no matter what amp you play it through.
Likewise I can tell that the G3 version has that characteristic alder flavour in the tone, that the studio version lacks.
As for Bogner vs JCM800... They're not THAT different, considering that Bogner is essentially a hotrodded JCM800 amp (as is the 6100/6101 by the way).



Drew said:


> I don't remember if I ever bought the Denver G3 - is that the one with Yngwie? If so I'll give it a listen later on tonight.


 
That's the one.



Drew said:


> I agree with you about the difference in high end - alder sparkles a little more than basswood, and has a noticeably different high mid peak, a huge part of the reason I like it so much.


 
Well, then what are we arguing about then anyway?



Drew said:


> As for Satriani, you're changing the subject. Your original comment was that you'd heard rumors that Satch's Chrome Boy was actually mahogany.


 
I never said Chrome Boy.



Drew said:


> I was merely correcting you. His seven string is mahogany - his 6's are almost without exception basswood, and the original prototype, again, was alder, not mahogany.


 
You didn't correct me. You contradicted me, without any reference whatsoever. I cannot verify if any of the things you say are true or not.
I referenced the book, which the guy told me about, if I recall correctly.
Again, these are his words, not mine. If anyone has the book, they can find out what it says. I don't have it, I'm just repeating what someone has told me.


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 23, 2008)

Scali said:


> I don't think that was the point here though?
> I mean, we were discussing people like Satriani and Vai, whom we can assume have high-end rigs. So the amp-factor has already been taken care of, and then we start looking at the wood.


 

I didn't refer to the satriani or vai. I was talking about a whole other subject 
Anyways just because Satch has a couple gibsons doesn't mean he prefers how they sound. One reason is it's slightly moronic to say wow Joe Satriani who likely owns 50+ guitars has 3 gibsons on his website. That means he must love the sound of those 3 gibsons. Also had he wanted a gibson/strat combination he likely would've used a stock S all these years. As that was the whole point of it's creation. 

All in all as I said above the tone wood makes a difference. But incomparison with other things it's not as important (in my opinion) for creating your perfect tone. So many more things go into your tone (amp, strings, pickups, cables, eq settings, what eqs do you have in the effect loop, effects, etc) and with some eqing you can make a bright guitar sound warm and the other way around. Sure if someone hands me a RG2027x and an rg7620 and says which one you want, same price for both, I'll take the 2027. But if someone hands me a Schechter hellraiser and the 7620, I'll take the 7620. Becuase I prefer how the Ibanez plays. And in a guitar playability is more important to me than tonewoods as I can compensate for the difference with my gear, and at the moment I can't afford to go custom. But of course this again is all opinionated. And while it's stupid to tell each other which is better is mildly retarded, we're musicians whom are typically highly opinionated and strong headed, so we go back and forth like a bunch of idiots anyways


----------



## Rick (Nov 23, 2008)

I feel like basswood sounds a bit hollow and mahogany is more full and rich sounding.


----------



## LEWY7777777 (Nov 23, 2008)

It depends on the sound I'm going for. 
1) Ibanez basswood & maple neck: Dimarzios.
2) All others: all others.


----------



## Scali (Nov 24, 2008)

bulletbass man said:


> Anyways just because Satch has a couple gibsons doesn't mean he prefers how they sound. One reason is it's slightly moronic to say wow Joe Satriani who likely owns 50+ guitars has 3 gibsons on his website.


 
He only listed about 10 guitars on the site though, and considering the others were all his own signature Ibanez JS, it's a bit remarkable to say the least. Besides, Eddie van Halen didn't own a lot of Gibsons either, but he has often said how he prefers their sound.



bulletbass man said:


> Also had he wanted a gibson/strat combination he likely would've used a stock S all these years. As that was the whole point of it's creation.


 
I take it you're not a Gibson-man yourself?
Well I am, and even though the S would seem like the logical choice on paper, I ended up with my alder RG570 anyway. The S just never did it for me... I don't really know why... But it's nothing like a Les Paul really. While the RG isn't mahogany, it does deliver a big, singing tone with lots of sustain, which is what I like about my Les Paul.
So no, I don't think it's all that likely that he would have gotten the S.


----------



## Drew (Nov 24, 2008)

Scali said:


> I never said Chrome Boy.



Sigh. 



Scali said:


> As for Joe Satriani, I've heard someone claim that Satch's own guitars have mahogany bodies, not basswood. I believe he said it was mentioned in "Ibanez - the untold story".



However, Chrome Boy is most certainly one of "Joe's own guitars." Barring the JS-6, JS-6000, and JS-7, they're basswood. 

Look, you like mahogany. That's cool. Basswood isn't my favorite tonewood either, but it's certainly a workable one, and I don't invent elaborate conspiracy "the artists don't REALLY use it" theories to justify slagging off on it.

EDIT - this is the thread I was talking about. Pictures are down, but it's the JS prototype. Body's alder. If you want to argue that Joe is playing guitars made from something other than the production basswood, go right ahead, but if he was requesting alder early on, it's tough to picture him going 180 degrees and ending up with mahogany, a tonewood with an entirely different EQ curve.


----------



## Randy (Nov 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> Look, you like mahogany. That's cool. Basswood isn't my favorite tonewood either, but it's certainly a workable one, and I don't invent elaborate conspiracy "the artists don't REALLY use it" theories to justify slagging off on it.





+1


----------



## BurialWithin (Nov 24, 2008)

well me and my guitarist both have the same rig almost 5150's both RG 7620 his is a 7621M the mahogany one and his eats mine for lunch fa sho!!! 
7621m: "hey guys what's for lunch today?.......mmm that 7620 looks good"
7620: "whatever dude..........."


----------



## Randy (Nov 24, 2008)

^
Pickups?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Nov 24, 2008)

BurialWithin said:


> well me and my guitarist both have the same rig almost 5150's both RG 7620 his is a 7621M the mahogany one and his eats mine for lunch fa sho!!!
> 7621m: "hey guys what's for lunch today?.......mmm that 7620 looks good"
> 7620: "whatever dude..........."



As Randolf said, what pickups are in it? Also, I used to own a RG7621 and because that was string through it was louder and punchier than my RG1527 even though the RG1527 was of higher quality.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 24, 2008)

Hmm...

Just thinking, I wonder how a basswood body with a mahogany cap and maple neck and fretboard would sound.

Might be cool!


----------



## Drew (Nov 24, 2008)

Randy said:


> ^
> Pickups?



Take this with a grain of salt, but I suspect the "New 7's" in the 7620 are the same pickups that were originally wound for the CST. At the very least, they're based on the same pickups, the Super Distortion in the bridge, and, um... I forgot what the neck was, actually.  If that's the case, they work WAY better in mahogany than basswood - the low end in mahogany is pretty restrained, so the same pickups that sound a little boomy and mushy in the basswood 7620 sound pretty balanced in the mahogany CST (and, by association, probably the 7620M as well).

Also, the 7620M is an oil finish, right?


----------



## Scali (Nov 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sigh.


 
I should be the one sighing here. I never said it, and it's poor form to put words in my mouth like that.



Drew said:


> However, Chrome Boy is most certainly one of "Joe's own guitars." Barring the JS-6, JS-6000, and JS-7, they're basswood.


 
Why should I just take your word for it? Can you back it up with any trustworthy sources?



Drew said:


> Look, you like mahogany. That's cool. Basswood isn't my favorite tonewood either, but it's certainly a workable one, and I don't invent elaborate conspiracy "the artists don't REALLY use it" theories to justify slagging off on it.


 
Oh please, don't go down to the personal insult level. I actually was right about Steve Vai and his alder Jem... In the case of Satriani, I just said that according to a friend of mine, that's what's in the Untold Story book. I don't really care if it's right or not.



Drew said:


> If you want to argue that Joe is playing guitars made from something other than the production basswood, go right ahead, but if he was requesting alder early on, it's tough to picture him going 180 degrees and ending up with mahogany, a tonewood with an entirely different EQ curve.


 
Again ignoring the fact that I as a Les Paul lover specifically picked an alder RG because it gave me what I was looking for, and a mahogany S did not.
If I as a Les Paul-lover like alder on a bolt-on superstrat, then I don't find it very tough to picture that Satriani might like it aswell.
I don't even find it tough to picture that Satriani likes basswood... I really don't want to argue with you about it, especially if you start being condescending and putting words in my mouth. If you really want to make a point, come up with some credible sources. Else just forget it, it's your word against my friend's word, and my friend is not even here to defend himself. I'm not going to defend him either, because I haven't read the book.
I don't know who's right, and I don't really care, to be honest. It's not like I'm going to throw out all my Satriani CDs if he doesn't use a mahogany guitar.


----------



## Drew (Nov 24, 2008)

Dude, I quoted you verbatem. Don't believe me? Click on that little arrow, it'll take you back to your original post. 

Reputable sources? I trust Rich Harris, for one, and I went through a pretty big Satriani fanboi phase. There's not much about JS-series guitars produced before '03 or so that I don't know. 

For a guy who "doesn't care," you're certainly putting a lot of time in arguing about it. You're wrong - let it go.


----------



## Scali (Nov 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> Dude, I quoted you verbatem. Don't believe me? Click on that little arrow, it'll take you back to your original post.


 
And where exactly did I mention Chrome Boy? Nowhere, exactly. Oh, and it's spelt 'verbatim'.



Drew said:


> I trust Rich Harris, for one


 
I don't, that's for sure 
But that's another story.



Drew said:


> I went through a pretty big Satriani fanboi phase.


 
You ever heard me play? There's a HUGE Satriani-influence in almost everything I do. I've also done a few Satriani-covers, which I think are pretty accurate.
Heck, when he told me, I was pretty surprised aswell... I asked "Are you sure?", he said "I read it in this-and-that book". I saw no reason to doubt him.
Not that I'm saying he can't be wrong ofcourse.



Drew said:


> For a guy who "doesn't care," you're certainly putting a lot of time in arguing about it. You're wrong - let it go.


 
I don't care about the argument. I do care about poor form.
Firstly, the claim was not done by me, but by a friend of mine, I am merely a proxy. Secondly, even if the claim is wrong, you did not put forward any evidence to support it.
Yet you still want to get "your truth" out of the argument. You're not getting it, there's no reason to say you're right. It's a stalemate at this point.


----------



## BurialWithin (Nov 24, 2008)

OH my bad we both have stock pickups i think the 7620 comes with the "new dimarzio 7's" but yeah mahogany rules


----------



## Drew (Nov 24, 2008)

You put an argument forth that Satriani's guitars (not one or two of them, but merely "satriani's guitars") were "...made from mahogany, not basswood." You did so in a manner that suggested, at the very least, that you thought it was an interesting theory worth hearing out, if not something you actually subscribed to.

So, do you agree with your friend, or do you agree with me that barring the production guitars that were mahogany anyway (JS-6, 600, 6000) and his JS7 prototype, Satriani flirted briefly with alder but ended up going with basswood for his guitars?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Nov 24, 2008)

Come on guys! You're derailing this thread even further and it's going to get closed.


----------



## Drew (Nov 24, 2008)

I for one don't even know why we're still having this discussion - as far as I'm concerned, they're both perfectly acceptable tonewoods.


----------



## twiztedchild (Nov 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> JS7 prototype



Sorry fo being offtopic but they DID make a JS 7 prototype 7 string?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Nov 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> I for one don't even know why we're still having this discussion - as far as I'm concerned, they're both perfectly acceptable tonewoods.



Aye, but the mahogany camp are generally always shouting about how crap basswood is, when it isn't, it's just different.


----------



## twiztedchild (Nov 24, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Aye, but the mahogany camp are generally always shouting about how crap basswood is, when it isn't it's just different.



well I love mahogay but Basswood isnt that bad I played the Dean Vendetta which is bass wood and it sounded badass. Play, even though everyone says the pick ups suck, I like the RG7321 also.


----------



## hufschmid (Nov 24, 2008)

JerkyChid said:


> if I did not need the money, I wouldn't have sold my only mahogany guitar. But soon I'm gonna have a 7 with Blackouts so



i only use mahogany principaly.... 

the thing is ''mahogany means a lots of things'' of which mahogany are we talking here? 

the honduras, the sapeli, the cipo specie? they all have different tone characters.... 

my favourite is the sapeli one...

and there are over 300 different ones out there... so when a guitar brand says mahogany its cool but does not really mean anything unless they specifically precise which one they are using, the prices change a lot, for exemple the cipo is much more expensive then the sapeli but less interesting esthetically....



actually over 500 species here they talk about it http://science.jrank.org/pages/4093/Mahogany.html


----------



## JerkyChid (Nov 24, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Aye, but the mahogany camp are generally always shouting about how crap basswood is, when it isn't, it's just different.


 
I've had mohogany and basswood guitars (now all basswood because they were cheaper) and for me, tweaking my 7 band eq got me mahogony tone from basswood


----------



## bulletbass man (Nov 24, 2008)




----------



## hufschmid (Nov 24, 2008)

for more info

Mahogany - Biology Of Mahogany, Uses Of Mahogany, Some Related Species


----------



## Bobo (Nov 24, 2008)

JerkyChid said:


> I've had mohogany and basswood guitars (now all basswood because they were cheaper) and for me, tweaking my 7 band eq got me mahogony tone from basswood



EQ'ing makes so much difference in my tone. I can tune it for any of my guitars to find a tone that suits me better than the flat setting.


----------



## Chris (Nov 24, 2008)

You guys are all wrong, because basswood kicks ass anyway.


----------



## Metal Ken (Nov 24, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Aye, but the mahogany camp are generally always shouting about how crap basswood is, when it isn't, it's just different.



i am not in the mahogany camp, i am in the anything-but-basswood camp


----------



## Scali (Nov 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> So, do you agree with your friend, or do you agree with me that barring the production guitars that were mahogany anyway (JS-6, 600, 6000) and his JS7 prototype, Satriani flirted briefly with alder but ended up going with basswood for his guitars?


 
There's no such thing as agreeing with this or that, it doesn't make either one true.
The wood that Satriani's guitars are made of are an objective fact. I cannot make up my mind until I get the right information from a reputable source.
So I don't agree with either, I'm undecided at this point.



twiztedchild said:


> Sorry fo being offtopic but they DID make a JS 7 prototype 7 string?


 
Yes, in fact, Satriani has recorded some songs with it and uses it live:


----------



## Emperoff (Nov 24, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> i am not in the mahogany camp, i am in the anything-but-basswood camp



+1


----------



## ZeroSignal (Nov 24, 2008)

bulletbass man said:


>


----------



## Xaios (Nov 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> You guys are all wrong, because basswood kicks ass anyway.



The Adminishredder has spoken.


----------



## Scali (Nov 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> You guys are all wrong, because basswood kicks ass anyway.


 
Well, I think what some of us are saying is this: Basswood Ibanez 7-strings kick ass, but if they made more alder, mahogany/etc ones, it'd kick even more ass.


----------



## dtrax (Nov 24, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, I think what some of us are saying is this: Basswood Ibanez 7-strings kick ass, but if they made more alder, mahogany/etc ones, it'd kick even more ass.



Nope, you still got it all fucked up. Popsicle sticks and balsa wood pwnz ur s0ul.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 24, 2008)

And tin strings, to boot.


----------



## twiztedchild (Nov 24, 2008)

Scali said:


> Yes, in fact, Satriani has recorded some songs with it and uses it live:




so why didnt it go into production?


----------



## Drew (Nov 24, 2008)

Scali said:


> There's no such thing as agreeing with this or that, it doesn't make either one true.



Are you kidding me?  This is like "well, it depends on the definition of is" level, dude. It's a straightforward question - when you said "I've heard that Satriani's guitars are made of mahogany, not basswood," in response to someone saying Joe gets great tone out of basswood guitars, did you say that because you believed that despite virtually every other guitarist believing Joe really does play basswood guitars primarily you thought that the only reason he got good tone was he was using basswood, or were you saying "jeez, the crazy things my friend tells me. Why, listen to _this_ crazy theory."

I mean, you obviously have an opinion one way or the other here. How about not dodging the question and giving a straight answer.  

Twiztedchild - maybe prototype isn't the word, but he had at least one custom-shop JS7 made up, possibly two. He was pictured for a while with a oil-finished mahogany JS7 with visibly rough-shaped contours right around the time he was working on Strange Beautiful Music, I think, and by the time Is There Love In Space came out, he was usually playing a transparent red JS7 that he said in a few interviews was also mahogany. What I don't know for sure is if they're two different guitars, or if the LACS banged out a quick rough-contourred JS7 for him, he played it a while and dug it, and then brought it back so they could touch up the body a bit and slap on some red clear. 

I actually asked Mike Manning about it when he did the in-store appearance for Love In Space - Mike thought it WAS in production.  I talked with Rich Harris about it when Joe started being seen with the red JS7 rather a lot, who told me that word was Ibanez just thought there wasn't enough demand. Which, sadly, was probably true. :/


----------



## twiztedchild (Nov 24, 2008)

I see. Well I dont really like the JS guitars but I woud use the JS 7.

I know I just contridicted myself there  But it i true


----------



## hufschmid (Nov 25, 2008)

Uncle Remus said:


> So does anyone have any legit theories as to why Ibanez are so loyal to basswood?
> 
> Cheap?
> Easy to get hold of in japan/korea?
> ...



easy to work especially on cnc and cheap of course...... also its not a porous wood so you can shoot as many coats of lacquer and do all the crazy paint jobs... the perfect wood for a factory...


----------



## Scali (Nov 25, 2008)

twiztedchild said:


> so why didnt it go into production?


 
Well, it'd probably be much more expensive than the S7320, and judging from that video, it doesn't sound half as good as a S7320


----------



## Ancestor (Nov 25, 2008)

Elysian said:


> basswood is a very middle of the road wood, somewhat well balanced, but not very resonant, imo. its very soft, sucks to work with from a building perspective, and soaks up tons of finish. some people dig its tone, i personally do not. mahogany on the other hand is great to work with, looks awesome, sound is beefy, huge, and i have been using more of it than any other wood in my replacement body builds



I don't think basswood sounds as good as mahogany. I have heard some basswood guitars that sounds great, though. It just seems like mahogany is almost always good. Especially the heavy (weighty) stuff. In fact, it seems like the heavier a guitar is, the better it sounds.


----------



## Ancestor (Nov 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Yeah, but that unplugged tone is the basis for your tone. The better tone you start off with from the guitar, the less shit you gotta do to make it sound good through your amp.



Yeah, I agree.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 25, 2008)

One other problem is that all guitars behave slightly differently because each piece of wood is different, even from the same tree. Mass produced instruments will have variation so there's always a chance of crap as well as great guitars from the same run. 

I seem to have ended up with mainly Mahogany bodied instruments, usually with a stiffer neck of some description and a top. To be fair all koa is fantastic (mahogany but a touch brighter and very alive in your hands) as is korina w/maple neck and swamp ash....

I don't own any basswood guitars mainly because I don't own Ibbies. I'm not prejudiced particularly, so if I was in the market for a guitar and a basswood bodied piece spoke to me then I'd be happy with that.


----------



## Koshchei (Nov 25, 2008)

I don't like basswood because of its poor durability. I like mahogany because it stands up much better, and in threads like these, I get to feel superior.

Short story shorter, I think this whole argument is bullshit, and unless somebody can cite results from a properly implemented peer-reviewed double-blind experiment proving otherwise, the "tonewood makes a difference in a solidbody electric guitar" hypothesis gets the clothes hanger.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Nov 25, 2008)

Koshchei said:


> I don't like basswood because of its poor durability. I like mahogany because it stands up much better, and in threads like these, I get to feel superior.
> 
> Short story shorter, I think this whole argument is bullshit, and unless somebody can cite results from a properly implemented peer-reviewed double-blind experiment proving otherwise, the "tonewood makes a difference in a solidbody electric guitar" hypothesis gets the clothes hanger.



Gawah?  Of _course_ it makes a difference. What makes you think that it doesn't, may I ask?


----------



## dtrax (Nov 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Gawah?  Of _course_ it makes a difference. What makes you think that it doesn't, may I ask?



What he said.

It's debatable as to what degree body wood affects solid body electrics, but it's never the less influential in tone and feel. Otherwise, we'd all be playing 'green' eco-friendly guitars by now and save all the purdy trees for more important shit, like converting C02 to O2. 

* No, I don't hug trees... yet.


----------



## leonardo7 (Nov 26, 2008)

I have scratch recordings with Basswood! Go to my bands website. myspace.com/theconceptofzero
We have three old songs recorded Jan 08 on there that arent close to finished. We have soooo many more even heavier songs as well as some mellow songs but are waiting to have finished recordings before taking the site farther. I will add you if you want to befriend me though but Im not reaching out much until we record more songs and finish these. Finally my point, I recorded those songs with a stock Ibanez RG7620. I will be rerecording the tracks in January with a Mahogany guitar. Im also going to add leads. When Im done I will post links of the Basswood and Mahogany versions and then we can see which we like better. Or at least I can see which one I like better. Has anyone done this yet?


----------



## twiztedchild (Nov 26, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, it'd probably be much more expensive than the S7320, and judging from that video, it doesn't sound half as good as a S7320



it kind of looks like a S7320 also


----------



## noodles (Nov 26, 2008)

Koshchei said:


> Short story shorter, I think this whole argument is bullshit, and unless somebody can cite results from a properly implemented peer-reviewed double-blind experiment proving otherwise, the "tonewood makes a difference in a solidbody electric guitar" hypothesis gets the clothes hanger.





I understand that wood does not make as big of a difference as it does with acoustic guitars, but I can absolutely tell the difference tonally as I move between different body, neck, and fretboard woods. They all effect the vibration of the string, and therefore, effect the sound that comes from the pickups. If wood didn't matter, we'd all be playing guitars made from injection molded plastic.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 3, 2009)

I saw the title of this thread and couldn't resist.



hairychris said:


> One other problem is that all guitars behave slightly differently because each piece of wood is different, even from the same tree. Mass produced instruments will have variation so there's always a chance of crap as well as great guitars from the same run.



this is absolutely true 

and also probably the reason why I will never buy a guitar without playing it ever again! I have to hear that the wood gives a tone to my liking, or I am no longer happy to part with large amounts of money.

at the end of the day, each guitar is different, has it's own 'character', even guitars which are the exact same model. in my future purchases I will definitely be making sure I like the guitar's 'character' before I hand over &#163;500+.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Apr 3, 2009)

Oh god... Someone just opened the 4 month old can of worms...



[action=]Runs[/action]


----------



## Herb Dorklift (Apr 3, 2009)

Ok, so is it Basswood like the Bass guitar? Or Basswood like the Bass fish?


----------



## Scali (Apr 3, 2009)

Herb Dorklift said:


> Ok, so is it Basswood like the Bass guitar? Or Basswood like the Bass fish?


 
Like the fish.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 3, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Oh god... Someone just opened the 4 month old can of worms...
> 
> 
> 
> [action=]Runs[/action]



I had something to say.

besides, I find it an interesting thread and I'm sure others do too.

it's Basswood as in 'bay-swud'


----------



## Herb Dorklift (Apr 3, 2009)

I heard something funny in a guitar shop once...

Salesman - "This Ibanez is made of Basswood (Said like the bass guitar)"

Customer - "But it's not a bass!?"



Scar Symmetry said:


> I had something to say.
> 
> besides, I find it an interesting thread and I'm sure others do too.
> 
> it's Basswood as in 'bay-swud'


 
It is?!

I've pretty much always said Basswood like the fish.


----------



## Jason (Apr 3, 2009)

I say Base-wood BUT I have been told it is Basswood like the fish.


----------



## Herb Dorklift (Apr 3, 2009)

Wikipedia said:


> *Basswood*, derived from _bast_, the name for the inner bark


 
I'd say B-ASS-T.


----------



## shanejohnson02 (Oct 30, 2009)

I have always personally preferred Basswood for most things. My thought is that basswood tends to sound "woody" and "clunky", like hitting a hollow log with a hammer, or when a 2x4 falls over and slams on a concrete floor. Mahogany tends to be thicker and more mid-heavy. Almost honky in some circumstances, but it also sounds a lot less dry than other woods.

What I *do* like mahogany for is when I want a HUGE rhythm sound, especially with Dimarzio pickups. They have that natural midrange spike, and when you combine it with down-tuning and a mahogany body, the growl potential is through the roof.

EDIT: Also, just for the record, I pronounce it like the fish.


----------



## Wi77iam (Oct 30, 2009)

Dictionary.com pronounces it as the fish. as in Baaasswood


----------



## MF_Kitten (Oct 30, 2009)

it´s definitely b-ass wood, not b-ayse wood.

also, i´d take high quality mahogany (along the lines of what Hufschmid uses) over basswood any day. basswood is very soft sounding, and sort of swallows alot of highs and lows, thus bringing out some smooth mids. cool if you want smooth mids, shit if you don´t 

it´s not like you´re doomed though, most people wouldn´t really notice anything "off" about using basswood guitars for metal rhythm. it´s when you compare it that you notice any difference at all.


----------



## technomancer (Oct 30, 2009)

Oh for fuck's sake did we really need a bump of one of the 8 million this wood vs that wood threads?


----------

