• 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 4!

Status
Not open for further replies.
#881
JOME77 said:
Well it's been a while since I chimed in. I've been recently gigging swapping back and forth between my Roscoe 6 and my Carvin SB5001 (with the H50 P/U's).

I've got to say that I LOVE my Roscoe 6 but if Carvin made the SB model in a 6'er I'd be all over it! The H50 P/U's just sound so warm and buttery with my ash 5001. I was originally worried about not having the J99's but I think that the slightly phatter tone of the H50's is perfect for me. And it's still got a good slap tone.
I've tend to go with more of the bridge P/U (than the neck P/U) and the tone is just so inspiring.
The setup on my 5001 hasn't moved since I set it up upon arrival and the action and neck feel absolutely great!

Anyone out there on the sidelines needs to jump in and try one of these basses out. You won't regret it!
...... I promise! :smug:
Click to expand...

Is your SB5001 Active or Passive?
 
#882
Vic said:
Nah, that's WAY too high tech for me. :)

Mine's a pretty boring straight up model except for a figured top and matching headstock. Went with the blend control, too. This bass totally rocks:

sb5000_black.jpg
Click to expand...

That doesn't look too straight ahead! :D
 
#884
Vic said:
Nah, that's WAY too high tech for me. :)

Mine's a pretty boring straight up model except for a figured top and matching headstock. Went with the blend control, too. This bass totally rocks:

sb5000_black.jpg
Click to expand...

That looks badass. One of the things I can't get past with these basses is the lack of pole pieces on the pickups (my problem, not theirs). But, it works well with that combo.
 
#889
Bassmunnky said:
Thank god for more photos, Vic, what is the weight on you 5001 ?
Click to expand...
It's actually a 5000, not a 5001, and it's 9.5 pounds. That's on the heavy side for me, but with this being generally a 70's spec bass, I think it works.

Others... thanks for all the kind words folks!

@madbassplaya:
It doesn't sound straight-ahead either. :) But I guess I was more getting at I didn't really have to spec too many upgrades on it other than the finish and figured top. The ebony is standard.

@bassmonkeee:
I hear you on the pole pieces, but even on other J style basses, it's not as big a deal to me as it is to you. I guess I'm just more used to it owning and having owned more J style basses with bart pickups in them.
 
#891
Jarrett said:
Vic, can you give us your thoughts and experiences on 70's J-bass variants and their weights?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, most of us associate the 70's tone with the mid-late 70's J's, which were typically made of heavy ash. You get that kind of weight and density in a bass and it's been my experience it does two primary things... it adds sustain and it also compresses. Both of which are fantastic for slap, and IMHO/IME important to that "marcusy tone". That coupled of course with the added bite/edge and "tonal width" of the bridge pickup being slightly closer to the bridge... making it more aggressive and separating it from the neck pickup more.

My first great J bass was a '78 I bought brand new. Long story short, I ended up selling it because it was insanely heavy and I just decided ultimately it was too much trouble, but the tone was phenomenal, and I didn't even bother with a badass bridge to get the sustain and compression with it because I didn't need it (that was a very popular bridge at the time because by adding those two characteristics, it also helps offset the typical dead/dull spots).

One additional thought... the poly coated maple boards were also important to that sound, and in my case, the ebony feels better, and gives me similar characteristics for sizzle, but more pleasantly.

Anyway, IMHO/IME.
 
#895
if the pickups are the H50a's they have a significantly lower output. check the specs in the Carvin catalog. there is an * beside those pickups and down in the fine print you'll see that they mention the output for these pickups is reduced. i bought a kit bass with those pickups and noticed exactly the same thing. it's too bad because they sound great, but i ended up replacing them because of the lack of punch.
 
#896
Jarrett said:
Vic, what the typical weights involved for originals and high end knock offs?
Click to expand...
Not sure I get this question, but original mid-late 70's J's were typically 9-13 pounds, if that's part of it. Regarding high end "knock offs", just depends on how faithful they want to be to the original, vs coming close without killing your back through careful construction and material selection.
 
#897
Vic said:
Not sure I get this question, but original mid-late 70's J's were typically 9-13 pounds, if that's part of it. Regarding high end "knock offs", just depends on how faithful they want to be to the original, vs coming close without killing your back through careful construction and material selection.
Click to expand...

The re-issue Fender '70s Js are crazy heavy too... When those first came out several years ago, I couldn't believe someone would want to make these again. To each his own, I guess.
 
#898
BigOldHarry said:
That's potted. I suspected that.

thanks
Click to expand...
For whatever it's worth, a bit of background...

Originally, potted meant wax potted, but now epoxy is more common.

"The term "potting" refers to the sealing of the coils in a solid material. Potting stabilizes the components of the pickup so that they cannot move relative to each other. This elminates vibration-induced signals that make a pickup microphonic. Potting can also protect the inner coil from corrosion."

Invalid Link Removed

FYI
 
#899
BigOldHarry said:
The re-issue Fender '70s Js are crazy heavy too... When those first came out several years ago, I couldn't believe someone would want to make these again. To each his own, I guess.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on which generation of reissue, as there were multiple. Some of those natural finish models were generally around 9 pounds, which I always felt was "light" for the 70's spec. Then you get in to the MIJ/CIJ "70's reissues" that were typically appropriate weights, but didn't have the right pickup spacing... basically it was just about the block inlays and 3 bolt necks. *sigh*

On the other hand, my Geddy is 10 pounds, and it's not even ash (it's alder, since it's modeled after the '72, which is a transitional spec).
 
#900
Vic said:
I think that depends on which generation of reissue, as there were multiple. Some of those natural finish models were generally around 9 pounds, which I always felt was "light" for the 70's spec. Then you get in to the MIJ/CIJ "70's reissues" that were typically appropriate weights, but didn't have the right pickup spacing... basically it was just about the block inlays and 3 bolt necks. *sigh*

On the other hand, my Geddy is 10 pounds, and it's not even ash (it's alder, since it's modeled after the '72, which is a transitional spec).
Click to expand...

All true... But it still amused me to pick up a natural Ash reissue of the bass I owned as a kid and feel that tonnage... Ooof - too much for an old guy like me!

I guess that's why Carvin has offered the chambered SBs - someone must have said "guys, these are kinda heavy..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back