Club F-Bass (Part II)

[Halftooth]

Originally Posted by Vic

I thought that was the TOPwood he was talking about, and likely due to how thin his tops are. I thought he said the fingerboard and the body wood both made noticeable diffs, however.

I'm pretty sure I've heard the same thing about the body wood adding very little to the tone and that the majority of the tonal differences were due to the fingerboards.

FWIW, I owned an Ash/RW Sad and it sounded like a typical RW type bass with a touch more snap. At the same time, I had a Ash/Maple and that bass sounded nothing like the Ash/RW and was way brighter.

I've also had at the same time an Ash/RW and an Alder/Ebony and the Alder Ebony was way brighter and tighter than the Ash/RW, plus, the Alder body bass was the lightest thing I've ever picked up.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Vic

I thought that was the TOPwood he was talking about, and likely due to how thin his tops are. I thought he said the fingerboard and the body wood both made noticeable diffs, however.

Nope.

I think most of the differences people hear (or think they hear) in body woods on basses is driven by weight and density differences of particular pieces of wood versus species or type. I agree with Roger on this one.

[DiDi G]

my one

[thndrstk6]

Wow very nice!

[Tom7]

I've never read Roger saying that, but I don't doubt it. Roger is, of course, chambering some of his bass models these days too, adding credibility to Ken's assertions that mass (weight) and density are bigger determinants of tone.

And in the talkbass features area, Carey Nordstrand says something similar.

I think the thing that has the least impact on tone is the top... especially if it is a little thinner that usual. The pickups define what is available tonally. The body sets the stage. The neck determines sustain and evenness, and the fingerboard impacts the attack and dynamics of the sound. Of course this is all very generalized and there are exceptions to this, but it is a place to start.

I agree that the mass and density of wood have a huge effect, probably a bigger affect than the wood type even, but it's too hard for me to believe the wood type wouldn't be a factor. For instance, aged wood affects tone... do all species of wood age the same? It just seems like woods matter, as well as the mass and density of a bass.

In fact, I think it all matters, including the bridge, the finish type, and even how things are glued and fastened together. What is more, I prefer to buy my basses from a luthier who thinks it all matters, because I believe it would make him more cognisant of all details in the manufacturing process that would affect the basses' tone.

Let me say that another way.

If it turns out the wood type doesn't matter much, well then I'm not hurting myself by being very careful about wood choices, am I?

But if wood choices DO matter, then being careful about wood (and all other details) is the better position.

Additionally, I would FAR RATHER buy a bass from a luthier that believes wood matters, and accordingly takes great care in choosing woods, storing woods and aging woods, than from a luthier who thinks wood doesn't matter as much... just in case it leaves that business being less careful with the wood.

Anyway, rest assured that I do NOT know what I am talking about here, but I am sure that is apparent so I doubt I had to tell you that, other than to let you know that *I* know it!

BTW, I'm leaving now for the weekend it isn't likely I'll be online for a few days... so now's a good time to flame me for that, 'cause I'll be defenseless!

p.s.

I thought Fbasses sounded so much better when they went to the F logo instead of the tone killing GF logo on the headstock.

[thndrstk6]

Ostinato here's your remock. I did one in alder and one in ash for you. Let me know if they are right.

Swamp Ash:

Alder:

[Tom7]

[/quote]
OH MY MY!!!

[Vic]

Originally Posted by DiDi G

my one

WOW! Amazing grain on that body!

[Tom7]

Normally I like to wait for a new page to post a roster update so that we can see the list for longer (helping us welcome the new guy), but I'll be out of town for a bit and not likely wanting to trouble myself with Internet access...

So this roster update welcomes DiDi G and his SERIOUSLY nice BN6!

Welcome to the club with the nicest kids in town!

CLUB FBASS ROSTER
(Updated Fri 06 Feb 09)
#00 George_Furlanet

1. Quadzilla - BN4, BN5, ?
2. Tombowlus - BN4, BN5
3. Puff_father - BN5
4. Debassed - BNF5
5. ThumbyAche - BN5, GFC
6. brandonwong - BN6, BN6 custom, AC6, BNF5, BNF5(2), BN5 custom
7. Tom7 - AC6, BN5, BN6, VN5
8. Eric_Lamb - BNF5
9. knarleybass - BN5, BN6
10. Reefer - BN5, BN4?
11. VinceLovesF - BN5, AC5
12. T._Brookins - BN5
13. DKB - BN5
14. Speyer - BN6 (b)
15. jmilky - BN5
16. edel - BN5
17. administrator - BN5
18. Dave Hill - BN5, (b)
19. FbassDave - BN5, BNF5
20. Vic - VF5
21. Georges_Abitbol - BN5 (b)
22. xav_paris - BN5
23. Munjibunga - BN5
24. Toolmybass - ?
25. Modny - Studio5, Prototype
26. mikoespanol - AC5
27. Ron_Plichta - BN5
28. Gbarchus - BNF5
29. nuwavedc - BN5
30. JerryJ - BN5, BN6
31. yansdgr - BNF5
32. firebass - AC5, AC6
33. <reserved for the return of choad42>
    
34. donstrenz - Vintage 4 (stolen)
35. Gilsonite - Studio6
36. Tjluke - BN6, AC6
37. cabooke - BNF5
38. Brad Johnson - Studio5
39. MHemmber - BN4
40. Jonno1707 - AC5
41. dreamwood - BN5
42. wolfbass1025 - BN5
43. funkydanbass - AC6
44. Phillip Jordan - BN5
45. Halftooth - BN5
46. thndrstk6 - BN6
47. funkifiedsoul - Vintage4
48. Trapeze Fan - BN5
49. Poppsyche - BN6
50. Groovy Bastard - BN6
51. Kemet09 - Vintage4
52. ModulusAcacia - AC5
53. bassjam - BN5
54. Bassconbeatz - BN6
55. Basses55 -
56. blen dem - BN6
57. Kevin Woods - BNF6
58. pierreganseman - BN5
    
59. DiDi G - BN6
60. <Your name could be here!>

Former Fbass owners:
GRoberts, AJ Brown, JRB, jmondick, ursus, Freddy-G, Adrian Garcia, Yvon, dean82, smperry, FortressOne, Ryan_L, rodneyat, 123eranoid, Gordon of Eden, choad42,

[thndrstk6]

Tom7,
Here's your remock of the ice blue bass. I also did the alaska pickguard too. I did a few
other designs with it. They are paint jobs rather than pickguards. I also included one
without a pickguard or paint job. I think it's looks pretty cool without the pickguard.
Anyways... let me know what you think and if they are right.

[pierreganseman]

How did you guys found out about Fbass?

How did you end up buying one?

that's my questions of the day:-)

Cheers

[DonovanBankhead]

I had been seeing these pictures of these amazing looking basses with a rather plain name - F Bass. But the basses looked AWESOME. And the reviews were nothing short of spectacular. Every time one came up for sale on TB it seemed to get sold before I could respond.

Well, finally at the end of 2007 I decided to contact George Furlanetto to see if I could get a bass at cost. My “day gig” is running a full-line music store in Missouri, and frequently manufacturer’s will hook up people “in the biz” with dealer discounts, even if they aren’t a dealer for that product line. I was hoping George would do the same. But George is a man of firm integrity, and if I wanted an F Bass at dealer cost, I had to be a dealer. Well, I pondered that point for a few weeks, and decided that I would go for it. I ordered my basses, and waited for them to arrive.

So, I waited. And waited. I picked up my first batch at the NAMM show. I was blown away at the craftsmanship and attention to detail. I plugged them in, and I was AMAZED at how great they sounded and how easy they were to play. Now realize, I’ve been in the music biz all of my adult life, and I’ve played and owned MANY high-end, terrific basses. But for me, the F Bass was where it was at. I’ve been a loyal user of F Basses since that fateful day.

Something else that’s interesting? I had NEVER PLAYED an F Bass until that NAMM show. Yup, I paid thousands and thousands of dollars for basses I had never actually played! I don’t think that would normally be a good idea, but I was convinced that these F Basses were going to live up to my expectations - and that they did.

[thndrstk6]

Originally Posted by pierreganseman

How did you guys found out about Fbass?

How did you end up buying one?

that's my questions of the day:-)

Cheers

1.) I found out about them when I was searching for a new bass online. I was
just going through all the high end basses that I've heard of over the years and
doing some research on how they are made and what their philosophy is on bass
building. I originally saw them here and there but a guy came into a GC I was
working at and said that F basses were the most responsive basses he had ever
played.

2.) I was looking for my next bass and I wanted a nice high end one. While I was
researching different basses I came across F bass. It hit me like a sledgehammer.
I did some research and found out that they are made just as good as they look. I
found as many reviews as I could and found that 99.9% of them all were extremely
happy with F basses. I posted a message on the F bass club thread about how I
wanted to order an F bass and that I had a lot of gear to get rid of before I did it.
Mr. Donovan Bankhead messaged me saying that he owned a shop that sold used
gear and that I could trade some of my gear for a new custom BN6 F bass.

[George Furlanet]

Originally Posted by emjazz

George, if you wouldn't mind answering this as I'm curious, but if you have a neck with a longer fingerboard/neck (more frets) could you essentially counter that with a larger body? I know you're talking about more weight now, but would this work?

No, it would just add more compression.

[George Furlanet]

Originally Posted by Tom7

I have heard this wood combination before only by another luthier and liked it.

Tom, if you have a moment (and don't mind doing it), how will the ash & rosewood differ from the more typical ash & maple, or alder & rosewood combinations?

The ash body would give you a more solid low end than alder, with a little less mids.

[George Furlanet]

Originally Posted by Halftooth

I'm pretty sure I've heard the same thing about the body wood adding very little to the tone and that the majority of the tonal differences were due to the fingerboards.

FWIW, I owned an Ash/RW Sad and it sounded like a typical RW type bass with a touch more snap. At the same time, I had a Ash/Maple and that bass sounded nothing like the Ash/RW and was way brighter.

I've also had at the same time an Ash/RW and an Alder/Ebony and the Alder Ebony was way brighter and tighter than the Ash/RW, plus, the Alder body bass was the lightest thing I've ever picked up.

I found body woods to have a great affect on the tone and strength of the fundamental. Also the density of the particular wood adds characteritics to the tone; a denser wood will result in a "harder" tone and add compression. Anything that affects the way the string vibrates will have an effect.

[Vic]

Originally Posted by George Furlanet

I found body woods to have a great affect on the tone and strength of the fundamental. Also the density of the particular wood adds characteritics to the tone; a denser wood will result in a "harder" tone and add compression. Anything that affects the way the string vibrates will have an effect.

If, by this, you're saying that an identically cut alder body vs an ash body, both also the same weight, will sound different, I'm definitely in agreement.

No disrespect to Roger, but I just can't see how the wood type wouldn't matter at all. Maybe density the most, but surely the grain structure and resulting additional resonant characteristics matter. I just can't see how they couldn't.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Vic

If, by this, you're saying that an identically cut alder body vs an ash body, both also the same weight, will sound different, I'm definitely in agreement.

No disrespect to Roger, but I just can't see how the wood type wouldn't matter at all. Maybe density the most, but surely the grain structure and resulting additional resonant characteristics matter. I just can't see how they couldn't.

Every piece of wood sounds a bit different It's not that wood type doesn't matter at all. I don't think anyone is saying that. As Tom7 points out, EVERY one of the hundreds of differences between each instrument (even identically spec'd ones) impacts the tone to some extent.

IME, I would put the 'type' of body wood WAY down on the list of things I would worry about when choosing a bass., at least where tone is concerned. Since I love a trans finish, ash looks a lot better, so that's what I gravitate towards.

[Vic]

Originally Posted by KJung

IME, I would put the 'type' of body wood WAY down on the list of things I would worry about when choosing a bass., at least where tone is concerned.

We definitely disagree. Just MHO of course.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by Vic

We definitely disagree. Just MHO of course.

Hmmm.. interesting. I just don't hear it all when I compare otherwise identical basses where only the body wood is changed. Of course, every bass sounds quite different, even with identical spec's. I've never noticed a systematic, significant identifiable variance in tone based on body woods.

IMO, this belief is kind of pre-programmed into us based on the 'alder/RW' to 'ash/maple' shift that happened from the 60's through 70's at Fender. There is so much confounding between those era's of instruments due to the many changes in components (pickups, pickup position, fretboard, weight, wood type).

That being said, since ash and alder are both cheap and available (that reminds me of a girl I went out with in college... but that's another story), it's kind of a moot point. IMO and IME, if you are getting a painted bass, it doesn't matter much. For bursts and trans, alder looks like dog to me, so go with ash