Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Carvin SB5000 / SB4000 Roll Call...Part 2!
- Thread starter smperry
- Start date
- Status
I believe it! My MIA Jazz V is 10.4 and I purchased an SB5000 from the board here that is 9.2. I'm expecting it to feel a lot lighter (not here yet).
VERY interested to hear your results. So hard to imagine chambering resulting in a thinner sound.
I don't know, intuitively it seems to me that chambering would in fact make the sound more acoustic-y and diffuse, and by some definitions thinner.
I know my old Sadowsky didn't have as much authority in the low fundamentals as I would have liked, and I always wondered if it was because of chambering.
I know my old Sadowsky didn't have as much authority in the low fundamentals as I would have liked, and I always wondered if it was because of chambering.
So I was looking on the Carvin site and noticed that the bass kits now include as standard the same pickups, bridge, preamp, neck (different shape headstock), and tuners as the SB series. Am I missing something?
For $509 you can get the same basic instrument as the SB5000 unfinished with a different body shape. The SB headstock is a $20 option. If everything else is really the same, that is a smokin good deal. Thoughts?
Invalid Link Removed
For $509 you can get the same basic instrument as the SB5000 unfinished with a different body shape. The SB headstock is a $20 option. If everything else is really the same, that is a smokin good deal. Thoughts?
Invalid Link Removed
Well... you're getting the same instrument as the B50, which is pretty much a non-sig basic shaped version of the SB... The B50 is what, 770 with case? so saving a bit of cash but doing the work and finish yourself.
Some people have said they sound different... Who knows.
Since there is a good return policy, maybe you can order one of each and return the one you don't like as much? That is, if they show up at the same time I guess.
Since there is a good return policy, maybe you can order one of each and return the one you don't like as much? That is, if they show up at the same time I guess.
You equate diffuse with thinner? I wouldn't. I'd equate thinner with lacking bottom.
I have a USA MTD that's chambered. In this case, Mike specifically made the chambers to maximize the potential for acoustic involvement. That bass definitely does not at all sound thinner than the solid-body similarly-wooded counterparts I've played before.
How old? Keep in mind they didn't always chamber their bodies. Also, I have both a chambered and a non-chambered NYC JJ5, same exact pickups, same woods, and the chambered one is completely comparable to the solid one except for weight.
I would agree somewhat to diffuse, tho... like maybe slightly less coherent, since you're taking material consistency away from the body... maybe a bit more presence of overtones, but I don't think it would be enough to really be a huge difference unless the chambers were really designed to do that, which I don't think they are. Plus, keep in mind the body is really already "chambered" anyway with the electronics cavity, and for that matter, the neck pocket and pickup routes if we're simply talking body grain interruption.
That's why I find this case so interesting. I played both 5000's and 5001's at NAMM, and while that's not the greatest listening environment, the Carvin booth is at least somewhat isolated, and I was literally kneeling right in front of the cab too. I really didn't hear that much difference between them, and what minute differences I did hear could easily be attributed to 4 vs 5 strings, different wood types, etc.
My gut instinct on this one is, if it's not a pickup problem, it's "just a wood thing", specific to one instrument... not anything inherent to the 5001 vs th 5000 in general. Time will tell if I'm right tho. Just my current supposition.
Did you say the overall output seemed lower on the 5001 vs the 5000, or just that it seemed to lack low end?
Given a general output level diff, is there maybe an internal gain trim set wrong?
I'm curious about the trim pot on my bass, I notice not much of a volume difference between passive and active, could they have set the trim pot before shipping it out to have the same volume output between passive and active?
I decided to take my bass to a guitar tech to address the buzzing issue I'm having, I told him when I move the bass around the buzzing decreases, I bypass the preamp I still hear buzzing, he said my bass might need shielding, or maybe a ground issue. Any thoughts?
My SB5000
BM Blue Mist Metallic
PH Headstock to match body color
WL White logo
DMP White mother-of-pearl diamond inlays
WP White pearloid pickguard
H5A H50A alnico stacked humbuckers
BLK Black pickups
MVB Master vol & blend replaces separate volume controls
_______________________________________________
CG clear gloss finish (Standard)
CH chrome hardware (Standard)
EB ebony fingerboard (Standard)
FR med-jumbo frets .048" H .103" W (Standard)
MA maple neck/alder body (Standard)
R14 14in fretboard radius (Standard)
SBH SB-style bass headstock (Standard)
TN tung oil finish back of neck (Standard)
________________________________________________________________
Depending on the lighting, this finish can appear as two different shades of blue, as these pics indicate.
Pic one.
Pic two.
BM Blue Mist Metallic
PH Headstock to match body color
WL White logo
DMP White mother-of-pearl diamond inlays
WP White pearloid pickguard
H5A H50A alnico stacked humbuckers
BLK Black pickups
MVB Master vol & blend replaces separate volume controls
_______________________________________________
CG clear gloss finish (Standard)
CH chrome hardware (Standard)
EB ebony fingerboard (Standard)
FR med-jumbo frets .048" H .103" W (Standard)
MA maple neck/alder body (Standard)
R14 14in fretboard radius (Standard)
SBH SB-style bass headstock (Standard)
TN tung oil finish back of neck (Standard)
________________________________________________________________
Depending on the lighting, this finish can appear as two different shades of blue, as these pics indicate.
Pic one.
Pic two.
Ok, that's what I thought you meant... yeah, something doesn't seem right there. I definitely did not have to do that at NAMM. Did you end up sending the whole bass back for them to check out?
I have a passive B50 and it sounds a bit scooped compared to a similarly spec'd SB5000. I A/Bd them @ the factory and preferred the sound of the B50. TBer Kaycee has youtube videos of his ex B50 that you can check out as well.
All in all you're not giving up anything in the Jazz vibe although the pups are little bit wider apart in the B50, however, they are the same distance from the bridge and the neck.
Yeah, it's one of those terms that can mean so many things. A diffuse and unfocused sound seems more "transparent" as compared to "solid", so "thinner" seems appropriate to me.
My nyc was made in the transition period (2004), and Sadowsky didn't keep good records,so they couldn't tell me if it was chambered. There was just something about the sound which didn't sound as focused in the low end as I would like, and my guess was that it could have come from chambering. I could be wrong, it's the only Sadowsky I've ever played, and maybe I'm one of the few people not into the Sadowsky sound.
- Status
