• 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.

Cirrus vs Cirrus test: Audio clips

How similar / different these basses sound ?

  • Identical

    Votes: 5 12.8%

  • Quite similar

    Votes: 22 56.4%

  • Hardly similar

    Votes: 10 25.6%

  • Completely different

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
#21
They sound really similar...the only difference is that the bubinga has a touch more presence in the upper mids. I'm not really hearing it as being "brighter" because both bass have the same top end. But the upper mids are a there a bit more in the bubinga Cirrus.
 
#22
vision said:
They sound really similar...the only difference is that the bubinga has a touch more presence in the upper mids. I'm not really hearing it as being "brighter" because both bass have the same top end. But the upper mids are a there a bit more in the bubinga Cirrus.
Click to expand...

As a certified Cirrus wrangler, I'll agree with your take on it, Vision.:cool:
 
#23
I found them to be very similar, almost the same. That being said, I liked the Maple one minimally more than the Bubinga. I liked them both.

My question is what part of the bass is the bubinga or the maple? Is it the top body wood, the entire body wood or is it the fretboard? I know that maple is used for all three applications, but is bubinga ever used as a fretboard?

I'm ready to receive a Cirrus with a flamed maple top, with alder body wood, but the maple is only to top wood.

BTW: Don't knock your playing. It was just fine. Nice and clean.
 
#24
Bassmanbob said:
I found them to be very similar, almost the same. That being said, I liked the Maple one minimally more than the Bubinga. I liked them both.

My question is what part of the bass is the bubinga or the maple? Is it the top body wood, the entire body wood or is it the fretboard? I know that maple is used for all three applications, but is bubinga ever used as a fretboard?

I'm ready to receive a Cirrus with a flamed maple top, with alder body wood, but the maple is only to top wood.

BTW: Don't knock your playing. It was just fine. Nice and clean.
Click to expand...

The "Maple" Cirrus has an Alder body with Purpleheart stringers and Flamed Maple top. FB is made of Pau Ferro.
It´s the same bass you´ll be receiving.

The "Bubinga" Cirrus has a Walnut body with Maple stringers and Bubinga top. FB is made of Pau Ferro too.

AFAIK, Cirrus fretboards were always made of Pau Ferro, Maple or Ebony (Tigereye model). Birdseye maple and Rosewood are now offered through their Custom Shop.

Thanks for your kind comments.
 
#26
I'm terrible at describing my thoughts on tone so bear with me.

Scales (neck) - The bubinga has a fuller, bassier tone, while the maple has a much tighter, more trebly tone. It almost sounds like it's being played closer to the bridge. Preference goes to Bubinga.

Scales (bridge) - The opposite. The bubinga sounds more trebly and tight and I can tell it's being played by the bridge. The maple however sounds bassier and sounds as if it's being played closer to the neck. Preference goes to Bubinga.

Slap - The Bubinga has a tighter slap tone, while the maple has an again, to use the term, bassier tone. Preference goes to Bubinga.

Chords - I didn't really notice a difference to favor one over the other.

Harmonics - The bubinga has a fuller tone while the maple sounds brighter and thinner to me. Preference goes to bubinga.
 
#27
Question: These are neck-thru basses, right? What's the neck on each of these basses made of?

In my experience, on neck-thru basses, the neck wood has more to do with tone than the body and most certainly more than the body top.

I liked the bubinga better for fingerstyle- more mids, punchier.

I liked the maple better for slap-more bassy tone.

Overall fairly similar, though.
 
#28
LifeIsBass said:
Question: These are neck-thru basses, right? What's the neck on each of these basses made of?

In my experience, on neck-thru basses, the neck wood has more to do with tone than the body and most certainly more than the body top.

I liked the bubinga better for fingerstyle- more mids, punchier.

I liked the maple better for slap-more bassy tone.

Overall fairly similar, though.
Click to expand...


Picture 1 - Bubinga neck (Walnut/Maple)
Picture 2 - Maple neck (Maple/Purpleheart)
 
#29
Papersen said:
The "Maple" Cirrus has an Alder body with Purpleheart stringers and Flamed Maple top. FB is made of Pau Ferro.
It´s the same bass you´ll be receiving.

The "Bubinga" Cirrus has a Walnut body with Maple stringers and Bubinga top. FB is made of Pau Ferro too.

AFAIK, Cirrus fretboards were always made of Pau Ferro, Maple or Ebony (Tigereye model). Birdseye maple and Rosewood are now offered through their Custom Shop.

Thanks for your kind comments.
Click to expand...
Uhm... have you actually characterized the basses based on their body tops? The body and the neck should have a far bigger impact on tone, so the "Bubinga" is more of a "Walnut" and the "Maple" more of an "Alder" IMHO.
 
#31
Dragonlord said:
Uhm... have you actually characterized the basses based on their body tops? The body and the neck should have a far bigger impact on tone, so the "Bubinga" is more of a "Walnut" and the "Maple" more of an "Alder" IMHO.
Click to expand...

You're correct that the body and neck have more of an impact on the tone, but with the Cirrus basses it is easier to identify the woods used by the top wood. You know what the body and neck are because of the top wood used, but you can't say the same in revirse.

For example, if you talk about a "redwood" Cirrus, you know that the body is alder and the neck is maple/purpleheart. If you say "bubinga", you know the body is walnut and the neck is walnut/maple. But if you say "alder", the top could be either redwood or maple. If you say "walnut", the top could be bubinga, walnut, or wenge. This may be confusing if you don't know the Cirrus product line, but Cirrus owners usually describe their basses by the top wood to keep it simple.

By the way - all of this goes out of the window if you're talking about a Custom Shop Cirrus, becuase any combination of woods could be used.
 
#32
vision said:
You're correct that the body and neck have more of an impact on the tone, but with the Cirrus basses it is easier to identify the woods used by the top wood. You know what the body and neck are because of the top wood used, but you can't say the same in revirse.

For example, if you talk about a "redwood" Cirrus, you know that the body is alder and the neck is maple/purpleheart. If you say "bubinga", you know the body is walnut and the neck is walnut/maple. But if you say "alder", the top could be either redwood or maple. If you say "walnut", the top could be bubinga, walnut, or wenge. This may be confusing if you don't know the Cirrus product line, but Cirrus owners usually describe their basses by the top wood to keep it simple.

By the way - all of this goes out of the window if you're talking about a Custom Shop Cirrus, becuase any combination of woods could be used.
Click to expand...

Couldn`t have explained it better, thanks.

I took their names according to the way Peavey sells them.
 
#33
Sure, but that should be explained in the first post because not all people are familiar with Peavey's line, so they listen to your samples and they think that they hear the sound of bubinga and maple... it might turn out to be rather frustrating than helpful to most.
 
#34
Good point. Actually I think this post would have been cool if he didn't say which bass was which, and just let people guess on it at first. The Cirrus basses all sound so close to each other, I don't think that majority of people would guess correctly. (I've played a TON of Cirrus basses!) When it's already put out there, people are almost listening for the differences that match their pre-conceived notions about woods.
 
#35
My vote : Bubinga :)

I like the more open sounding upper midrange. If it were a harsh midrange, I'd say the maple, but its got a nice tone going on in the upper mids. Great for defining fingered and slap notes. Are they the same brand of strings? Because I also find the fundamental notes to be a bit deeper/fuller and a little less punchy than the maple soundclip. I'd rather have a deeper/looser fundamental than can be tightened up (if needed) with low mids added rather than a fundamental that is too punchy and can't be dialed-in to have a great, warm low end. In a band setting, I doubt your gonna hear much of a difference between the two. In the studio, those mids would sound sweet...I'd go with the Bubinga.
 
#37
stingray69 said:
Are they the same brand of strings?
Click to expand...

Well, in fact (I should correct my original post), not only the same brand, but also the same set. I`ve put them in one bass, recorded the clips, took them off, and put them in the other bass then.
 
#39
Time to post my own opinion.

I`ve found the Bubinga Cirrus to have a more defined midrange sound in the fingerstlye clips, which I preferred.

The Maple Cirrus, sounds a bit more scooped to my ears, and I prefer its slap sound. I find it a bit more "pingy".

The overall sound of both basses is quite similar, but it was nice for me to perceive that wood affects tone (in a subtle way, but it does).
 
#40
pickles said:
They sounded very similar to me on the chords, but on fingerstyle and especially slap I think the maple bass sounds a lot better. More polished, balanced, and clear. Great sounding bass! The bubinga seems a little congested.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. To my ears the tones are very different. From a recording standpoint to my ears the maple sounds much better and balanced. The bubinga sounded like it woud take work in the studio to pull the muddier midrange tones out IMO. I think the bubinga looks the best though. :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back