• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bigger weight = Bigger sound?

#41
MrLenny1 said:
My old Jazz 4 bass weighed 12.5 lbs.
My Pedulla 5 (bolt on) weighs 9 lbs,
much bigger sounding.
Click to expand...

^But that's not even comparing similar basses at all.

For someone like Timmy C to say something like that since he has a fleet of all the same bass, is probably what he's getting at.

I have always owned multiples of the same bass. And to me the heavy beasts seem to have a harder attack and tad better sustain. But to me the lighter ones of the same model of bass have warmer mids, and I've tended to use better for recording.
 
#44
pacojas said:
isn't it simple physics,...

more density/weight = more sustain

(i'm asking, not telling)
Click to expand...

Eh, ish. It has more to do with the natural resonant frequencies of the material used and where those lie with respect to the frequencies of the strings. If you have a wood that has a resonant frequency of, say, 80 Hz, that's right about where the second harmonic of your low E (and arguably the most prominent harmonic) sits. If you play your low E, the resonant frequency of the wood is going to kill that note very quickly, leaving you with little sustain.

There is a correlation, though, between density and resonant frequencies.
 
#47
.02 cents...

Urban myth that started late 70's/early 80's when production builders like Peavey, Musicman, G&L, Fender wre using heavier woods, prolly to save money. Peavey was by far the worst offender with their T series.

Saying a T-40 sounds massive due to being heavy might not be a good analogy, because there are no featherweight T-40 examples to compare against. The T-40 definitely sounds big, but those pickups, bridge, and stout neck are prolly the main reasons.
 
#48
I prefer light basses because,well,i am kinda lightweight myself,but of the 6 basses i currently own,the one with the most huge bass tone is my 5 pound Danelectro hodad. My 10 lb jazz clone probably has the least amount of resonance of any of my basses,but it still sounds pretty good. I have a 6.5 pound yamaha basswood-bodied fretless,that sounds great too. My 3 ricks weigh in at about 8 lbs each,and each have a unique tone.The only thing i've noticed heavier basses contributing is more body fatigue for me.....:smug:
 
#51
bassdude51 said:
I've been a TBer for almost 4 years and others have been a TBer for even longer. In my almost 4 years with this forum, I learned that there is no agreement or scientific proof about speaker size, different kinds of woods for bass bodies, maple fret boards vs rosewood vs ebony vs pau ferro or whatever, or heavy basses or light basses or.................you name it concerning bass guitars............... sounding one way or another.
Click to expand...

+1
 
#52
mmbongo said:
I personally think it has more to do with woods.

When I think of a light bass, I think of Basswood...which to me sounds like crraaaap. You could add a 5 pound bridge to make it a 13 pound bass, but it's still going to be basswood...or whatever...let's not pick on basswood....and it's still going to sound like crrraaaaaapppp.

My Lakland is ash and is probably the lightest bass I have. Also the ballsiest, most bottom, most output, just stellar.
Click to expand...

What about the Bongo bass? Heck, why is it in your username?
 
#54
FunkMetalBass said:
Eh, ish. It has more to do with the natural resonant frequencies of the material used and where those lie with respect to the frequencies of the strings. If you have a wood that has a resonant frequency of, say, 80 Hz, that's right about where the second harmonic of your low E (and arguably the most prominent harmonic) sits. If you play your low E, the resonant frequency of the wood is going to kill that note very quickly, leaving you with little sustain.

There is a correlation, though, between density and resonant frequencies.
Click to expand...

ahhh,...

thank you! i completely over looked the resonant frequency variable.:(
 
#55
+ 1


Modern Growl said:
I find weights effecting tone to be pretty consistent when compared to a ligher/heavier version of the same instrument.

If all other things are equal (say a 4 String Ash/Maple Jazz)

- An 11lb ^ spec bass will have the lows and high's accentuated, with an overall tight & compressed sound.

- An 8lb ^ spec bass of the same config will have a more bloomy bottom, wider & rounder midrange... not as "tight" sounding (warmer?)

I find this true to with alder/ash/etc...
Click to expand...
 
#58
spade2you said:
Of course I'm wrong, but I've found EB MM pickups to have a very strong voice and wood kinda takes a back seat in the equation.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it's the electronics that are really responsible for the beefy EBMM tone, I think the pickups really take a backseat to the preamp. I was toying with the idea of an active/passive switch on my old SR, so I ran it passive through a 500k volume knob and directly to the jack from there. While I found the pickup to be even tonally, it wasn't anything exciting - there are other pickups that I would choose in a passive scenario. However, when paired with that preamp, it was tone city.
 
#59
This is at least as plausible as rosewood fretboards "sounding" different from maple ones. I'm not a heavy subscriber to that theory either though. I think that were you somehow able to test for a quantitative difference in sound (like frequency for example) that can be directly contributed to weight using as many controls as humanly possible to limit any other factors, you MIGHT find there to be some proof of this, although I think it would much more likely be attributed to density of wood, not weight of an instrument (hugely different things). The factors you would need to sort out are amplification (at least 100 different things there) strings, what the instrument was resting against, what position it was held in, who was playing it, how old was it, what contributed to the weight change, materials other than wood for the entire instrument, etc etc.

Of course, qualitatively, when you start having to use adjectives like "boomy, open, ballsy, thick," to describe what changed about the sound no one would be able to agree anyway.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back