Thoughts on Gibson Thunderbird - Page 2

georgestrings · #21 11-26-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBird1958

You beat me to it George!

Yeah, my experiences with Gibsons are the exact opposite of everything he wrote - mine isn't "headstock heavy" in the least, the neck is actually thinner than my Jazz necks, and the tone is more midrangy than it is "boomy"...

- georgestrings

Johnny Crab · #22 11-26-2012, 04:21 PM

Thanks to ya'll for setting the record straight.

fjadams · #23 11-26-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBird1958

Thunderbirds rule!

Tell us how you really feel about them!

fjadams · #24 11-26-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisHayes

Head-stock heavy, insanely thick neck, pretty boomy tone. Not my cup of tea, but they definitely have a really unique sound.

Uhhhh, excuse me, but you are talking about Gibson Thunderbirds right?

wvbass · #25 11-26-2012, 05:01 PM

I recently moved into the T'bird world with a Epi Classic Pro and a Gibson NR. Here's what I think...

Neck dive? Check.
Boomy tone? Check. (NR)
First fret is a bit of a reach? Check.
Gibson's questionable QC? Check.
Strap pin on the back makes the bass fall away from you? Check. (Epi)
Big, fat neck? Check. (NR)

I look at it this way. A Les Paul is heavy, not ergonomically designed, and it is very easy to accidentally break the headstock off. And they are expensive. If I were a guitar player, what would I play? A Les Paul. Why? Despite all the issues, Gibson gets a few thing right. First, their designs are just cool. Secons, the necks are just comfy. My Epi has a slender neck that is 1.5"at the nut. My Gibson has a 1.6" ball bat for a neck. Both fit my hand perfectly. Three, that boomy tone is classic tone. My T'birds dont have all the top end that my single coil basses have, but they sound good, and the sound works with a band. Looks good, plays good, sounds good - everything else is manageable.

YMMV.

BKBassDude · #26 11-26-2012, 05:16 PM

I've not owned a Tbird, but I've played many extensively and am familiar with the feel/tone. I think that the necks are usually quite nice, but my concern would be that the tone wouldn't be aggressive enough for your modern brand of metal. Old school metal/hard rock sure, but newer stuff needs something with more bite IMO. If it's the bird look you are after, I would consider another brand who makes a bird body or seeing what aftermarket pickups are available for the Gibson.

gaffster787 · #27 11-26-2012, 05:43 PM

I currently play a 74 P-bass, a MIJ Jaguar and this Limited edition 2007 Thunderbird with Lull neck PUP. Of the three basses the Thunderbird actually has less neck-dive and the neck is the easiest for me to play. The tone with the neck full on is big, deep and pure. When I roll in the bridge it gets more treble growl. I have noticed that it "cuts" guitars pretty good with a pick, but not as good as the Fenders. I love the pure tone for Led Zep (good times, ramble on, etc) and alternative (the cure) and then add growl for metal-ish like the cult. Currently I have tapewounds and really like the result.

I have also noticed that when I switch from the Thunderbird to the Fenders, it "feels" like someone shut the subs off or something. The Thunderbird provides an extra presence. If I hook-up a processor well then it does just about everything.

Johnny Crab · #28 11-26-2012, 06:14 PM

Gaffster's post ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Example of both chromitis and WIN!!!

TBird1958 · #29 11-26-2012, 06:53 PM

That Zebra Bird is way cool!

lowphatbass · #30 11-26-2012, 07:36 PM

I've seen some QC issues with later model Gibson guitars(as with may companies these days). I would want to see the bass first, or insure that there's a hassle free return policy.

theduke1 · #31 11-26-2012, 07:47 PM

Don't know anything about them, never played one, cause I do not care for the shape.
I will say that I play G&L L 2500s and I'm sure there are players who feel the same about them.
I'm not bashing TBirds, just the reasons why I can't help you in their evaluation.
Love & Peace

bluewine · #32 11-26-2012, 08:05 PM

The Gibson Thunderbird is the icon rock bass, coolest design ever. If you don't remember the 70s you probably won't get it.

I love mine, it's my number 1 out if 12 basses I play.

I would wait for a used 90s vintage.

Blue

Attachment 302225

nubs · #33 11-26-2012, 08:16 PM

Thunderbirds are the quintessential rock bass.....

NOT · #34 11-26-2012, 09:24 PM

The Gibson Thunderbird is my favorite bass. It has everything I want. Great tone, nice feel, and a killer look! Here's my '05 'Bird..

darren1970 · #35 11-27-2012, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisHayes

Head-stock heavy, insanely thick neck, pretty boomy tone. Not my cup of tea, but they definitely have a really unique sound.

I know a few have allready said it but in my experience;

The neck is very slim and fast ( Jazz bass proportioned )
I have less neckdive than my Spector
The tone is more mid range rather than boomy

wvbass · #36 11-27-2012, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darren1970

I have less neckdive than my Spector

This is true for me as well.

Gotta love TB. Discussions about Thunderbirds devolve into talks about neck dive. You can't talk about StingRays without having a "weak G string" debate.

Here's the deal. Within two seconds of picking up a Gibson Les Paul, I can tell that the neck is "special.". Somehow, for all its faults, the Gibson managed to get a gret neck profile on my Thderbird as well.

Can we debate T'bird tone instead? I seem to have more low end with my Gibson than anything short of my active basses (with the low end boosted.). I am finding that these basses love an Ampeg 810e, and can get a little weird in the midrange with anything else. The low end overpowers everything else to the point that you feel like there is nothing but low end. I cut some lows at the amp and this really helps the mids and highs come through. Even so, I run moretop end at the amp than I do with other basses. When I get it dialed in though, the tone is smooth and even in a way that I never can get single coils to be. I was concerned that the smooth tone would get lost in the mix, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

On a side note, I am taking Tbird1958's advice and working on my pick technique. My skills with a pick are very limited, but both the tone and he Gibson setup are built forplaying with a pick. (Fingerstyle still sounds good, though.)

PatQ · #37 11-27-2012, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisHayes

Head-stock heavy, insanely thick neck, pretty boomy tone. Not my cup of tea, but they definitely have a really unique sound.

Can't be one of the current Thunderbirds you tried...
Personally I really love my Thunderbird, it's the first bass that just feels right for me.

Low Sound Love · #38 11-27-2012, 04:54 AM

I got a 2008 T-bird IV. I love the way it feels, it's got a great neck and is pretty light. It is very low mid/mid-heavy. To get a usable tone out of it I turn down bass and mids on the amp and boost highs. For that reason I'd say it fits best in a heavy rock band. Not too sure about metal though.

darren1970 · #39 11-27-2012, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvbass

This is true for me as well.

Gotta love TB. Discussions about Thunderbirds devolve into talks about neck dive. You can't talk about StingRays without having a "weak G string" debate.

Here's the deal. Within two seconds of picking up a Gibson Les Paul, I can tell that the neck is "special.". Somehow, for all its faults, the Gibson managed to get a gret neck profile on my Thderbird as well.

Can we debate T'bird tone instead? I seem to have more low end with my Gibson than anything short of my active basses (with the low end boosted.). I am finding that these basses love an Ampeg 810e, and can get a little weird in the midrange with anything else. The low end overpowers everything else to the point that you feel like there is nothing but low end. I cut some lows at the amp and this really helps the mids and highs come through. Even so, I run moretop end at the amp than I do with other basses. When I get it dialed in though, the tone is smooth and even in a way that I never can get single coils to be. I was concerned that the smooth tone would get lost in the mix, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

On a side note, I am taking Tbird1958's advice and working on my pick technique. My skills with a pick are very limited, but both the tone and he Gibson setup are built forplaying with a pick. (Fingerstyle still sounds good, though.)

Well said

Wallace320 · #40 11-27-2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c2aBassist

Im considering buying a thunderbird for my next bass, problem is, none of the local shops carry one so i can try em out to get a good feel for em. I've played on Ibanez and schecter so far, and I wanna branch out a little. I play a faster, technical metal, www.c2aband.com, if you wanna hear what I play to get an idea. but mainly i need a fast neck and good thick, consistent sound. Thanks for the help!

Go for an Epiphone Thunderbird Pro my friend

I got a IV one (but V's available as well) and it's a neckthru active two band equalizer bass with a very fast neck and action (thanx to the himass bridge only the Active Pro sports) capable of cuttin' each and every band mix

If you use lots of fx in your pedalboard, chances are you need to keep it a lil' bit focused or gonna burn your head transistors

It's really very much for your bucks

If you dig a Gibson, alright... much more resale value, but please pay attention to downtuning or putting a Hipshot GB7 bass extender on it... the three pivot stock bridge demands you to get accustomed to its settings

I can talk for your/our kind of music, for we play into a not so different niche (we're a full step downtuned and the songs ain't in their ultimate versions)
www.myspace.com/nowhereshow

Cheers,
Wallace