Looking For Advice on Bass Purchase

mefloyd · #1 08-01-2007, 02:16 PM

Hello all, this is my first post on TalkBass.com.

I'm looking to purchase a double bass to play Bluegrass music. I'm leaning heavily toward an Engelhardt ES-1 or an Upton UB Hawkes laminated double bass.

I currently know little to nothing about basses except what I like in tone. What do you expect? I'm a 5-string banjo player.

My two main concerns are tone and playability. I'm looking for a deep rich tone as opposed to one of those buzzy thin sounds if that description makes any sense at all.

Can anyone offer a reason as to why one or the other basses I've mentioned would be better than the other? What about quality? Are both of these basses going to stand up over time or will I be spending more money in the first couple years gluing them back together? Should I be looking at another brand / model?

Any advice is appreciated.

Regards,
Michael Floyd
http://www.BluegrassFriends.com

jrlynch · #2 08-01-2007, 03:01 PM

as a delighted upton hybrid owner, of the two: upton hands down.

CamMcIntyre · #3 08-01-2007, 03:26 PM

The obligatory check the newbie links thread for info on first basses.

Between the 2 that you listed i'd say go for the Upton. I've had experience with an Engelhart EM1-i don't think the former owner had it setup before playing it. For my hands-the neck felt really tiny/thin and it seemed like the board was a bit flatter than the old Kay that i useda play before i got my Cleveland. Flatter like it seemed like it was trying to emulate an EUB or even a BG.

So based off of that 1 experience [about 2 years worth of experiences] i'd go for the Upton. Additionally, it seems like there's quite a few happy Upton owners on these boards.

take it easy.

MingusAmongUs · #4 08-01-2007, 03:31 PM

Terms like "deep, rich" and "thin, buzzy" may seem obvious but no two people have the same conception of a sound, and describing sound in words doesn't really work.

That said, while the Upton is a better quality instrument, and is priced accordingly, I don't know if it's necessarily deep and rich in tone, the way I define it. I play 'grass too and most of us look for a big loud boomy low end/front end with an audible thump. I didn't try the laminate but personally I thought the hybrid was not the right choice for bluegrass playing. I thought I would have had trouble being heard, especially outdoors. Most people say "get the best instrument you can afford", and presumably you can afford the Upton or you wouldn't be considering it. But it's best if you can get your hands on each one and try it for yourself first. Only then will you know for sure.

Meantime, this very question has been discussed ad nauseum on this board: try a search for both basses and see what comes up. You'll find there are a lot of other options in your price range too (Christopher, Shen, Wan, Golihur, etc). Don't overlook them.

Bass · #5 08-01-2007, 04:03 PM

Welcome to Talkbass, Michael!

I'm a happy Laminate Hawkes owner, it was my first double bass.

thesandman · #6 08-01-2007, 05:21 PM

I've got an ES-1 on the way, I'll let you know in a week. Up until yesterday, I was in the same boat, good luck.

mefloyd · #7 08-01-2007, 05:36 PM

There is a local music store in my city that has a Stentor II which is an all solid woods bass, from China. I have been told this bass is one of the higher quality units from China. It didn't sound all that bad to my ear, but I haven't tried it in a band situation yet. The dealer is willing to let me try it for a week or so.

I'm a little concerned as to whether this bass would be the best choice for Bluegrass, and whether it would stand up to outdoor playing in various climates.

There is also the concern of rough handling, although I am personally very careful with my instruments.

Blacksheep · #8 08-01-2007, 09:42 PM

Upton will tell you that the Laminate UB Hawkes is best for bluegrass, due to it's rich deep tone. Though that's really all it's GREAT for. It can do everything, but just not as well as say, the Hybrid.

Gufenov · #9 08-02-2007, 04:29 AM

I've had my ES-1 for four years now, pefroming country, Gospel and bluegrass. She's done a great job and has held up well. I prefer the thinner neck.

That said, the Upton Hawkes gets a boatload of accolades on this forum. If I was looking today, it would definitely be in the mix.

drurb · #10 08-02-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gufenov

...I prefer the thinner neck.

I'll start by saying, "To each his own" so what follows is just my opinion. For me, those skinny necks are a huge shortcoming. They inhibit formation of the "proper" left-hand "claw" and actually result in more fatigue. This is first-hand (pun intended) knowledge. I had a Kay C-1 from 1966 to 2002. When it arrived, it was all my folks could afford and, in those days, the options were nowhere near what they are today. That bass took me a long, long way (classical, bluegrass, jazz, theatre, etc.). Once I got my hands on a bass with a "properly" thicker neck for an extended period of time, I realized what I had been missing.

The irony is that many BG players switching to DB and many young students starting out (often without the benefit of the wisdom of a teacher) prefer the thinner neck because it seems easier to play. That turns out not to be true, in general. So, unless one is an established player who has an informed opinion based on experience that a thin neck is what he/she prefers (as seems to be the case for Gufenov), I always warn DB-buyers off the skinny necks.

Silversorcerer · #11 08-02-2007, 09:22 AM

Since you play a five string bango, don't you think you might want a five string DB? I know, folks;- I'm making a cheapshot plug for the DB of my choice, but hey, don't we all do that?

Seriously, try all the laminates you can get your paws on. Then buy something with a carved top.

Jeff Moote · #12 08-02-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

Seriously, try all the laminates you can get your paws on. Then buy something with a carved top.

That's exactly what I did when I was starting out (fully carved actually). I was looking at Strunal laminates, etc. and the right deal came at the right time on a carved bass (actually, 2 different ones that I had to choose between).

coreybass · #13 08-02-2007, 01:23 PM

I am extremely happy with my Upton Hawkes Laminate. I think it blows the doors of the Engelhardt and for the money is the best sounding and playing plywood bass out there. I got mine to have a nice plywood bass to take on the road. Since March I've taken it to Scotland, Denmark, Ireland, Canada and all over the continental United States. It's been a joy to play and has really stood up to all the travel and varying playing conditions I have to deal with.

I play mostly bluegrass, old-time, and folk music, but my training is in jazz so I like my basses setup more like a jazz player. One very strong argument to go with the Upton is the care they put into the setup. Gary and Eric really go the extra mile to tailor the setup to your playing style. Whether you are just starting out or are an experienced professional, setup is one thing that is often overlooked and really makes a difference.

Of course, I think everyone on these forums would agree that you should get your hands on these basses and play them for yourself before buying. You'll know which one speaks to you the most.

Good luck!

Corey

rdwhit · #14 08-02-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drurb

I'll start by saying, "To each his own" so what follows is just my opinion. For me, those skinny necks are a huge shortcoming. They inhibit formation of the "proper" left-hand "claw" and actually result in more fatigue. This is first-hand (pun intended) knowledge. I had a Kay C-1 from 1966 to 2002. When it arrived, it was all my folks could afford and, in those days, the options were nowhere near what they are today. That bass took me a long, long way (classical, bluegrass, jazz, theatre, etc.). Once I got my hands on a bass with a "properly" thicker neck for an extended period of time, I realized what I had been missing.

The irony is that many BG players switching to DB and many young students starting out (often without the benefit of the wisdom of a teacher) prefer the thinner neck because it seems easier to play. That turns out not to be true, in general. So, unless one is an established player who has an informed opinion based on experience that a thin neck is what he/she prefers (as seems to be the case for Gufenov), I always warn DB-buyers off the skinny necks.

I've been preaching avoiding thin necks for a long time. It really is a trap. I've done some serious damage to my wrist and arm due to a thin neck bass. It was an old carved german which sounded great, but the thin neck made me sell it after 10 years. I now have a New Standard La Scala which has a more comfortable neck. I havn't tried an Upton, but I'll bet the neck is a better size than the Engelhardt. The Engelhardt is a road and weather worthy bass . I've used one on a bluegrass gig and liked the sound for bluegrass, still didn't like the neck. I've heard other ones that were weak, maybe due to a bad set up or wimpy strings. Now that I've mentioned New Stanard, do a search for the Cleveland model. I've played a laminated one and can't imagine a better bluegrass bass.

coreybass · #15 08-02-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdwhit

Now that I've mentioned New Stanard, do a search for the Cleveland model. I've played a laminated one and can't imagine a better bluegrass bass.

+1. I played one of these a few months ago and the thing was a canon. It was setup with gut strings and really had that old school sound.

A big reason I went with the Upton over the Cleveland is the price. I just couldn't justify that much money for a plywood bass! That being said, the New Standards are fantastic instruments.

Greg Clinkingbeard · #16 08-02-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MingusAmongUs

That said, while the Upton is a better quality instrument, and is priced accordingly, I don't know if it's necessarily deep and rich in tone, the way I define it. I play 'grass too and most of us look for a big loud boomy low end/front end with an audible thump. I didn't try the laminate but personally I thought the hybrid was not the right choice for bluegrass playing.

My Upton Hybrid is a very nice bass, but is a fairly bright sounding bass without much low end. My old Christopher ply had a lot more low end and was sold to a bluegrass player. There are variables such as strings and soundpost position, so it may not be a fair comparison.

Personally, for rough treatment in varying weather conditions I think I'd go with a ply. Ultimately, you should play a lot of basses before you chose.

mefloyd · #17 08-02-2007, 03:24 PM

I'd love to try a bunch of basses, but it's just not possible without a lot of travel. None of the local music stores has more than one in stock at any given time. I'm sure I'd spend as much on gasoline and hotels (by the time I was finished tryiing several units) as I would on taking a chance on a bass based on opinions of others.

I did try a $1000.00 plywood bass at a local music store and it was the worst sounding piece of junk I've ever heard. No nottom end whatsover and it had that real thin buzzy sound I don't like. I was told it wasn't setup and that it had "chicken wire" for strings, meaning not the best strings in the world. How much better could this bass sound if it had decent strings and a setup? I don't know enough about basses (yet) to make an informed decision and I'm not prepared to throw away a grand on something that might not turn out. I'd rather spend $2000.00 up front on a sure thing.

I have the opportunity to try a fully carved Stentor II bass from China. It costs just under $2000.00 completely setup from the local luthier selling it. From what I'm hearing so far, I'm a little weary of using it for Bluegrass. I know of course that it will work, but is it a good choice?

I played (if that's what you want to call it) a friend's plywood bass a couple days ago and was quite pleased with the tone of it. But of course, the owner hasn't got a clue what brand it is or what kind of strings are on it as he too is a newbie and he bought it second hand.

When I dropped over $5000.00 on my latest banjo I knew exactly the sound I was looking for and who could provide it. I had no problem ordering it and waiting over 10 months for it. The bass on the other hand is a different story.

Perhaps I'll try to check some basses out at a Bluegrass festival before making a decision.

Jake deVilliers · #18 08-02-2007, 08:23 PM

"Perhaps I'll try to check some basses out at a Bluegrass festival before making a decision."

Now you're thinking!

If you talk to every bass player at the festival and get to try out their instruments you'll have a much better idea of what you need.

Be aware that setup is at least 50% of a bass' sound. The strings & string heights, the bridge shape & fit, soundpost placement, tailpiece & wire, and the shape of the fingerboard all affect the resultant sound.

If I were choosing between an Englehart or an Upton ply I'd go Upton, if only for their great setup.

Happy hunting!

JimmyM · #19 08-03-2007, 03:41 AM

Engelhardts are decent enough basses, but I bought an Upton based on the word of a couple people I knew on the net who had them, and they're hands down the best sounding and playing uprights in their price range. I like Engelhardts OK, but they don't give me near the thrill that playing my Upton does. It's got a great big sound that hits you in the chest.

Gufenov · #20 08-03-2007, 04:36 AM

The problem I have with the "thinner neck is "improper" argument is that none of the detractors ever mentions the player's hand size. There simply has to be a point where the neck is too thick - or the player's hand is too small - for a thicker neck to be an "advantage."

I have no problem with preferences. But blanket statements that Engelhardt necks are "improper" or that they are impossible to play "properly" are so much hooey. YMMV - depending, of course, on the size of your HAND.