Wow! Where to begin... I'll start by saying that I agree with Eric. There are many factors. That said, I think you identified many of the factors in your original post. Not mentioning or alluding to any specific basses, I'll invent one case among many possibilities that might serve as an example:
The premium ply:
Great workmanship, desirable figuring in the veneers, top-notch oil-based finish, high-grade ebony fingerboard, tailpiece, tuners, even response across all strings, neck and body tailored for playability, great setup, good powerful, punchy sound.
The entry-level hybrid:
So-so workmanship but with good integrity, pretty, but not highly-flamed wood, mid-grade fingerboard, tailpiece, tuners, mostly even response, generally playable but with ergonomics not as good as the above, good setup, not as loud as the ply but has the complexity of tone of a carved top that the ply doesn't have.
Now, given these two hypothetical basses, I guarantee you that many would find the first to be preferable. It depends upon what you play, what you need, and how you weight the priorities of all the factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rake  Any person/factory with some wood working experience can run down to the local wood supplier, grab some maple spruce and ebony and eventually hand you a fully carved double bass looking object. Folks like Arnold Schnitzer(who I'm sure you know builds world-class basses as well as the New Standards) have the know-how and technique to source the proper woods, design and execute a laminate or hybrid that will be mostly free of the problems a lesser maker would let slide by. (improperly dried wood, tension built into the instrument, thoughtless table thickness etc. etc.) |
Well sure, but this is an extreme example of a great ply bass and a junky "carved" BSO. That one's a no-brainer. It's usually far more nuanced than that as described in my example.
