Welcome to TalkBass, the Premier Bass Player Community and Information Source. Register a 100% Free Account to post and unlock tons of features.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by dabbler, Jan 13, 2013.
About a week ago, I received an SX Ursa 2 HUM. Short answer is, it's a beautiful one off J copy:
Now for the rest of the story, I AM a J kinda guy. When this bass first appeared on Rondo's site, I thought it interesting, but I already had a 4 and 5 string with MM style HBs. Then another TBer (I think it was on here) got one and found out that the HB was a 4 wire! This got the brain to thinking (a dangerous thing).
Long story short, I put switch pots on the bridge volume control and the tone control that allow me to activat either coil of the HB, or both in either series OR parallel. Then I put a switch pot on the Neck volume control that allows it to either be in series or parallel with whatever I have chosen on the bridge HB. Swiss army J!!
The range of tones I can get out of this thing is A-MA-ZING!!!! So far, the HB in series mode in series with the neck pup is a little dark for my tastes, and I think that I will mostly be using the HB in SC mode... I'm really surprised about the tonal difference between the 2 HB coils.
Most of my SX basses are old headstock. The only other New headstock one I have is my Ursa 2 6 string, but both of these are really nice guits. The wood and tuners are clearly a step above most of my old headstock models. GO RONDO!!!
Man thats some serious flamage! Perfect figure in the ash too.
Oh yeah, I learned that shielding J pups is defininitely worth it. I at first just shielded the control cavity, but the noise from the neck pup was soooo bad compared even to the bridge pup in SC mode. This is probably due partly to the fact that the bridge lead is shielded but the neck just has 2 single conductor leads. Even though I had twisted them, there was too much noise. Shielding it with copper foil, covering the back of the guard with aluminum foil and making sure they were both connected to ground helped. I know it will never be totally quiet, but it is much better.
Also, as it turns out the neck is reverse wound wrt to the neckmost coil of the HB, so those 2 together are also humbucking.
I love what SX is doing, I would order one (or 3), but I can't get past that headstock. Stupid I know, but I think that hs is a deal breaker for quite a few of us.
Thanks. I'm glad it looks like Ash to you too. According to the site, it's Alder ( http://www.rondomusic.com/URSA2MNHUM3TS.HTML ) but the pickguard had a sticker on it that said American Ash, and though I'm no wood expert, , in this instance I believe the sticker.
Different strokes for different folks, but I actually like the new headstock for their basses that have a more modern bent, like the the one above... and the Ursa 2 6:
Of course I AM glad that I have some old headtock SX basses too, but I'll tell you, as good as my SX Ursa 2 HUM and SX Ursa 2 6 are, I would forgive the headstock shape even if I didn't like it!
Here here. I keep looking at SXs and drooling. But then I get to the headstock......I would definitely have to do the 'dixie cup' mod on one if I bought it. Not a big deal. But dang. Something about taking a jigsaw to the headstock of a brand new bass bugs me.
The HS looks fine on the 6 string. But on the 4's I like the old SX one
True just different strokes and to each their own
Oh, don't get my wrong, I love my old headstock ones too. It looks good on 4s and 5ers too:
I agree, I guess they looked a little too much like the Sadowski's design though
I have the same bass - nice one! The MM pickup has four wires so you can could tap it. I installed a switch that allows for front, both, and rear coil.
I thought the headstock was hideous also, but I closed my eyes and ordered an Ursa 5-string. Only $180 and it sounds great. Now, I couldn't care less about the headstock.
I don't care for the new headstock but with all that pretty wood to look at it wouldn't bother me in the least. Beautiful bass dabbler, just beautiful!
Wow! I didn't take a good look at the neck! That's a lot of flame!
Okay, you convinced me. I'm ordering one tomorrow. I've been trying to build one good bass, and I wanted a combo Jazz and Stingray to go with my parts. This is the way to do it.
Now to drive myself crazy trying to figure out how to do the wiring.
BTW, I'll probably have the neck and the bridge up for sale in the next week or so.
My Jazz should be here this week. Cant wait. I also saw on the Rondo site that they sell the old headstock necks. For $65 shipped I think its worth it. I may have to order one. Then ill have a left over neck for a mod/franken bass.
Well a bandsaw is a bit more trouble than say a shielding job, but worth it in my my opinion. My personal choice is the "Dixiecup" mod which to me looks a lot like a G&L headstock but without the "eye poker".
So - I'm on the verge of ordering my SX and yes --- the headstock does look whack in pictures --- BUT --- I bought an SX Hawk a few weeks ago (just cause) and really, in real life - the headstock doesn't look so weird... it gives me the same reaction I get when I see a Shur strat: "Well, thats - different".
Point being - if you REALLY hate the headstock, either replace the neck - or send the damn thing back. I hear they're pretty good about returns.
On the headstock issue ... Personally I do agree the older style headstock looks better, but the new one isn't bad, not ugly at all. I've seen uglier on much more expensive and popular (on TB at least) basses.
Quite frankly, all these mods that people are doing to the headstock (including the vaunted Dixie cup mod), IMO, are worse looking than the current headstock.
Separate names with a comma.