The spec on this one.
Thru neck wenge/maple 7 piece.
African Ebony fingerboard
Top Claro walnut with swamp ash body wings and black veneer accent lines.
Hipshot hardware in black.
ACG FB pickups with coil tapping.
ACG EQ01 filter pre-amp with 18 volt supply.
East low battery indicator.
SIT strings.

This bass started out in my original build thread so it will be making good progress in a short time.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1208/1360931419_8017cbe204.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2413/1775190171_6973407b73.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/2122349945_f721413880.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2283/2108707160_edf2b2a0a6.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2228967206_6cc0710f90.jpg

A few firsts for me in this bass.
It is the first through neck I have built and the first 9 string so there were a few problems during the build nothing insurmountable but did cause some head scratching.
Anyway the bass is now out in the world with it's new owner.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2403697832_9b5179a87a.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2403697834_2c19aff7bd.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2403697836_90a8e61207.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2403697838_dcbc011a00.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2403697840_d7e5a5ca17.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2208/2403697842_72da28c1c8.jpg

Looks sharp!

What did it weigh in at?

Since this is your first neck through, do you plan to build more of them in the future?

man that thing is amazing! Great job! I want it =[

incredable!

To be honest I can't remember. I did weight it and I think it is just under 14 lb. I think if it was a set neck or bolt on that weight would be about 2 lb lighter as there is a lot of weight in the neck going all the way through the body. The maple and wenge certainly weighed more than the swamp ash it replaced.
I have another order for a 9 string and it will be set neck.
I have no problem building a neck through but prefer set necks personally.
Alan

MY MY Alan....very nice looking work !

I'm going to be the recipient of one of your beautiful creations shortly & can't wait !!!

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d67/PUCKBOY99/ACG%20RECURVE%20SC-5/ACG1.jpg

Looks like the 9s little brother :D

Stunning.

Wow. That's very impressive. It's one of the few 9's I've seen that doesn't look like a big, burly monster. Seems to me that sometimes builders make the bodies bigger when they make big ERBs like that. But yours is excellently proportioned. Very nice. :)

Thanks guys.
I try with all the basses to make the bodies no bigger than they need to be in order to achieve the desired lines and proportions and to accommodate player comfort and the hardware.
Alan

Thanks guys.
I try with all the basses to make the bodies no bigger than they need to be in order to achieve the desired lines and proportions and to accommodate player comfort and the hardware.
Alan


I like the way you think :) I really don't get Conklin and others who'll do a 25" wide body on a 10 string bass that weights 18 pounds + :eyebrow: Why would you want to build something uncomfortable and heavy??

I like the way you think :) I really don't get Conklin and others who'll do a 25" wide body on a 10 string bass that weights 18 pounds + :eyebrow: Why would you want to build something uncomfortable and heavy??

Maybe some people do find those shapes and sizes comfortable... The 8 string that I'm having built right now has a string spread at the bridge of around 5.5 inches, so that's the neck thru width, and the wings also have around 5.5-6 inches of width each. From a distance, the template with the neck and body looks more like a 5 or 6 string, based on the body/neck proportion. That's what I wanted visually, and also that's what I'm comfortable with: big, heavy bodies, chunky but narrow necks, solid feeling, tight strings. If the string spread at the bridge is more than 1/3 the width of the body at its widest, I'm gonna hate it.

Maybe some people do find those shapes and sizes comfortable... The 8 string that I'm having built right now has a string spread at the bridge of around 5.5 inches, so that's the neck thru width, and the wings also have around 5.5-6 inches of width each. From a distance, the template with the neck and body looks more like a 5 or 6 string, based on the body/neck proportion. That's what I wanted visually, and also that's what I'm comfortable with: big, heavy bodies, chunky but narrow necks, solid feeling, tight strings. If the string spread at the bridge is more than 1/3 the width of the body at its widest, I'm gonna hate it.


Are you really going to be happy carrying an 18 pound bass during a 2 hour gig? You're having it built but do you have the exerience of doing this?
The 9 I built has 18mm string spacing at the bridge and the body width is 13.5". The weight is only 10.5 pounds. My customer hated the weight and width of his two conklin 9's so thats what we went for. I wouldn't have liked it either if I was him.
Why wouldn't you like it if the bridge width is more than 1/3? is that a "I like the looks better" thing?
Notice Alan's 9 also has a bridge thats more than 1/3 the width and it looks fantastic. :)

(sorry to derail your thread Alan)

Hi Phil
With you on this one. An 18" wide bass would not be something I would set out to build unless specifically told to do so. Personally I don't think they need to be any where near that size and am not sure what advantage they bring other than the look mentioned above. The bass above is 14" at it's widest. However if that is what a customer/player is comfortable with that is absolutely fine with me.
Alan

Amazing 9er! (Mr. Mailloux's as well).

Another reason one might want a wider body is to have neck higher off the lap while seated.
That would allow better "reach under" for the left hand.

Would anyone consider "wedging" the body?

My laggan 7 string is about 75% wenge, 25% maple and has an ebony f-board.
Russ Laggan tapered the body profile.
It tapers from ~1.5" at the "butt' to nearly being flush with the neck depth at the other end.

The whole thing only weighs 9.4 lbs, and it balances fairly well, even wth the strap button at ~ the 16th fret!

Fair point RLK but having played it a while mostly on my lap I did not notice any problem with lack of space.
In hindsight I could have thinned the body down further as my pre-amp has boards that are only 21 mm deep which leaves a bit of room to thin the body down from the normal depth.
I saw your thread on the Laggan and it is certainly a good way to reduce the body weight especially in a bass make mostly from wenge ( my most hated wood to work with).
With the next 9 I will be taking the body depth down a few more mm's and being a set neck I wont have the extra weight from the neck in the body as the swamp ash weighs a lot less than the equivalent wenge/maple.
Alan

I like the way you think :) I really don't get Conklin and others who'll do a 25" wide body on a 10 string bass that weights 18 pounds + :eyebrow: Why would you want to build something uncomfortable and heavy??

i've dealt with conklin for almost 16 years and i've never seen an instrument like that from bill's shop.

are you talking about my doubleneck maybe? yeah, it weighs more than 18 pounds - 24 to be exact. 2 7 string necks too.

he wanted to build it because i wanted it, and wanted to play it, and i've done multiple 3+ hour gigs with it. as for it being uncomfortable, it's not. sits nicely with the weight supported into my chest. each neck is adjacent to where i normally wear my bass (fretted neck is just above standard position, fretless neck is just below).


if you're not talking about that, then i fail to see why you're calling out bill conklin and implying his isntruments are uncomfortable or heavy. in my extensive experience with them, they are neither. then again, bill conklin builds what people ask for. there have been folks that have ordered designs that are frankly foolish. he will try to bring them back within common sense realms but some folks are insistent. not saying that's the case with anyone here, but i have heard it numerous times before.

Why wouldn't you like it if the bridge width is more than 1/3? is that a "I like the looks better" thing?
Notice Alan's 9 also has a bridge thats more than 1/3 the width and it looks fantastic. :)

(sorry to derail your thread Alan)

i've seen quite a few builders make instruments with the bodies smaller on the higher-numbered string instruments. usually looked sorta silly (toy-ish) to me - just a taste thing, different strokes and all that - although i must say that i really dig this particular acg9 string - the proportions are probably the smallest (body to bridge width) proportions i would want personally. but that's just me :).

then again, i only play 7 and 8 (nondoubled) string instruments, and the higher count ones really have a different aesthetic, so to speak.

i've dealt with conklin for almost 16 years and i've never seen an instrument like that from bill's shop.

are you talking about my doubleneck maybe? yeah, it weighs more than 18 pounds - 24 to be exact. 2 7 string necks too.

he wanted to build it because i wanted it, and wanted to play it, and i've done multiple 3+ hour gigs with it. as for it being uncomfortable, it's not. sits nicely with the weight supported into my chest. each neck is adjacent to where i normally wear my bass (fretted neck is just above standard position, fretless neck is just below).

if you're not talking about that, then i fail to see why you're calling out bill conklin and implying his isntruments are uncomfortable or heavy. they are neither.

I meant this 10 string bass in particular

http://subcontrabassist.com/images/StewartMcInterview.pdf

I can't figure out why you'd want something as large and heavy. My 9 (and Alan's) as to be 1/2 the width seriously.

As I've mentioned before we went for the size and weight of the bass I built because my customer already owned two Conklin 9's and thought they were large and heavy. That's his opinion plain and simpe.
I am not "calling out" Bill because of that. He does a fantastic job and has inspired a few of my builds big time! All your 7's look fantastic John. I'd love to own pretty much everyone of them. :) But when I see the 9 or 10 strings Bill did, I just don't get why so largre, it's like he's using the same wing templates of his smaller bodied basses on a larger one :confused:

gotcha phil. yeah, different strokes. stew is a great player, though, who's totally in touch with what's up, so his choices on that instrument were definitely understood by him before hand.

i know that bill has also made greater-than-8's with smaller body wings - i think he goes for the proportion the player wants, more than anything. some folks don't know what they're getting into, to be honest (Again, not saying that's the case with anyone in this thread, i've just seen it first hand with some of the instruments that have been ordered from bill in t he past).

there's a compromise necessary for the really high string-count instruments between proportions and ergonomics that is probably a challenge for all you guys trying to build the extended-erb's.

i know that bill has also made greater-than-8's with smaller body wings - i think he goes for the proportion the player wants, more than anything.

Sounds good to me, I know I'd do the same if I was also asked to. :)

there's a compromise necessary for the really high string-count instruments between proportions and ergonomics that is probably a challenge for all you guys trying to build the extended-erb's.


Definitely.

I meant this 10 string bass in particular

http://subcontrabassist.com/images/StewartMcInterview.pdf

I can't figure out why you'd want something as large and heavy...

:confused:

hey, that's me and my old 10!!

Bill was the one who decided the proportions on the instrument. he knows what I like in terms of playability and weight.

if I remember correctly, that bass weighed in between 13 and 14 pounds so it was in the same ballpark as the beautiful AC9.

and for the record, I was gigging three sets a night with it. each set was a minimum of 2 hours. no issues of discomfort!

I have got to say that this 9 is just gorgeous, though! great work Mr. C!!

:D

hey, that's me and my old 10!!


Yes, with a link which I stole from your website :D

I'm surprised it weights as little as 13 or 14 pounds, it's huge. I thought it would have been closer to the 18-20 pound mark. Do you know if the body was chambered? That bass did look great though, I was just unsure of its playability when looking at it. It could have been nice to try it to see but I don't think that will ever happen. :) Why "old" bass, what happened to it?

Congrats on the new 10 in progress Stew, the design looks very nice so far.

Yes, with a link which I stole from your website :D

I'm surprised it weights as little as 13 or 14 pounds, it's huge. I thought it would have been closer to the 18-20 pound mark. Do you know if the body was chambered? That bass did look great though, I was just unsure of its playability when looking at it. It could have been nice to try it to see but I don't think that will ever happen. :) Why "old" bass, what happened to it?

Congrats on the new 10 in progress Stew, the design looks very nice so far.

it wasn't chambered. the bod wings were made of royal paulownia which is some fantastically light stuff. it's also a really nice tone wood. very lively but not as aggressive as maple or ash.

it was incredibly natural to play! just a delight. I miss it daily.

it's an old bass because it was destroyed along with nearly everything I owned in the hurricanes and flooding of New Orleans back in 2005.

Bill's made me a new 10 and I'm taking delivery of it soon, though.

:D

but this thread is not about my stuff! I want to learn more about the AC9 and see some other pics!

:cool:

it wasn't chambered. the bod wings were made of royal paulownia which is some fantastically light stuff. it's also a really nice tone wood. very lively but not as aggressive as maple or ash.



is this the "dragon wood" stuff that you talked about in a recent British bass magazine (can't remember the exact publication)?

I believe paulownia is a fairly fast growing timber and is being farmed a bit in Australia these days.

is this the "dragon wood" stuff that you talked about in a recent British bass magazine (can't remember the exact publication)?

I believe paulownia is a fairly fast growing timber and is being farmed a bit in Australia these days.

same stuff! wonderful for an ERB!!

:cool:

---if I remember correctly, that bass weighed in between 13 and 14 pounds so it was in the same ballpark as the beautiful AC9.- -
:D

Mr. Stew,
Your memory was ~80% correct ;).http://www.talkbass.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/411/sort/7/cat/13/page/1
That was still very light for its size.

13-14 lbs still seems reasonable for a neck-thru 9er.

Hi Stew
Thanks very much for the kind words from you it means a lot.
I don't have anymore pics but if there is anything you want to know about the bass I will certainly try to get you the info.
There is another 9 underway at.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=432397

Cheers
Alan

Stew....I'm going to venture a guess that you check in at about 5' 6" or so.....???

Point being, on some guys the instrument looks huge on them because they are slight of stature (physical stature, that is....).

Jerzy Drozd is one builder who comes to mind on proportionality....some of his designs (cool as they are) amount to bolting a bridge onto the end of the neck, with just enough wing for the knobs and strap button.