- Apr 18, 2008
- 16,013
- 1
- 31,725
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
I've got a heavy bass.
Ya think?!? If you're gonna play a seven-string, then you pretty much signed up for heavy, my friend.
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.
I've got a heavy bass.
Chambering for the most when used with bass building is to reduce weight. Does it affect the sound? I don't know if there is a clear answer on that. But I had two Sadowsky basses, one chambered and the other solid. I really could not tell the difference. I know Sadowsky started to chamber his basses mainly due to he was having a harder time finding good light weight body woods and the weights were going up on the instruments.
The alembic series basses also tend to be chambered unless specifically requested otherwise. I think this is more for weight and to hold the electronics than tone specifically.
I don't think you have enough area available there to make a significant difference. Even if you used a router to enlarge the control cavity and the battery cavity to their maximum possible size, I doubt you could remove 1 lb of walnut from it. Look up the average density of Walnut and do some math.I've got a heavy bass.
13.6 lbs of weighty walnut to be exact.
I've thought about boring some shallow holes of different sizes in the back to take some weight off.
But I'm not really sure about the percentage of wood/weight removal to make a difference.
There's only so much surface area on the back.
(Of course noone should bore holes in the neck through stringers)
View attachment 1021171
@JIO did that with his Dark Sparkle P I think he mentions a before and after weight in the thread but I'm not sure.I've got a heavy bass.
13.6 lbs of weighty walnut to be exact.
I've thought about boring some shallow holes of different sizes in the back to take some weight off.
But I'm not really sure about the percentage of wood/weight removal to make a difference.
There's only so much surface area on the back.
(Of course noone should bore holes in the neck through stringers)
View attachment 1021171
@JIO did that with his Dark Sparkle P I think he mentions a before and after weight in the thread but I'm not sure.
black & blond P makeover (etc)
Another way to lose a lot of weight is a thinner body. A body at 1.25 inches thick loses roughly 2/7 of the body weight or more than 1/4 of the weight of the standard 1.75 thickness. I've made a number of bolt ons in this thickness and it works great though it limits your choice of jacks and switches and you have to trim some of the screws so they don't pop out the back.
I like this solution if you want to use a dense body wood but keep the weight similar to alder.
The problem with just holes is it only covers a small part of the surface of the body. You could probably drop about a pound and a half planing 1/4 off the back. (using a router sled and then re-rounding the back.) This is pretty drastic and you would have to have room to be able to recess the battery boxes and back plate but it could take a large chunk off.I've thought about boring some shallow holes of different sizes in the back to take some weight off.
Any sound difference before and after?