Do basses get better sounding as they get older?

[Jjango]

I have always played old P-basses and they sure do sound better than the new ones! Much better quality wood and construction too! I am playing a blond maple neck '59 now so it just turned 50!

I think this may play a part in things: that it's not so much the age of the instrument, but the age of the tree that the instrument was cut from – with modern-day deforestation, most of the old-growth trees are gone, and bodies are being harvested from much younger trees. That's why we get glued-together, five-piece bodies nowadays, instead of two-piece (or one piece) – a lot of the really big trees are long gone.

Again, this is just speculation on my part. IMO, IME, IMHO, etc.

 

[excane]

I guess I can only speak for 2 basses: My 1979 MM Ray and my very first bass a MIM Fender squire.

The Fender absolutely sounds the same, just maybe the wood has aged slightly and gives it a nice little worn-in feel.

The 79 Ray I've had since high school so about 13 years. It already had a decent amount of age on it, but I think it still sounds the same as I remember it the day I got it.

 

[Flintc]

The question is, do they sound better as they get older?

That's a scientific question that has only been answered by mojo/reputation assertions thus far.

Nope, "better" can be considered a "scientific" quality only insofar as subjective preferences fall under the "science" of psychology.

What I think everyone agrees on is, it's possible for the sound of an instrument to change over time because all aspects of the instrument age, and age changes things. And there, agreement stops. Can we HEAR these changes? I'm willing to assert that nobody here has that ability, though many if not most will SWEAR they hear the difference - and nobody here faces the humbling experience of a double-blind test to prove it.

I firmly believe any such aging-oriented changes are very literally lost in the noise of the differences imposed by strings alone, let alone amps, playing style, or pickups.

So why do people hear what's not really there? People are outstandingly talented at hearing what they wish to hear and what they expect to hear. The number of tests performed on and by Psych 101 students invariably demonstrating this is in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, and growing daily. Part of being human.

 

[debassr]

Nope, "better" can be considered a "scientific" quality only insofar as subjective preferences fall under the "science" of psychology.

What I think everyone agrees on is, it's possible for the sound of an instrument to change over time because all aspects of the instrument age, and age changes things. And there, agreement stops. Can we HEAR these changes? I'm willing to assert that nobody here has that ability, though many if not most will SWEAR they hear the difference - and nobody here faces the humbling experience of a double-blind test to prove it.

I firmly believe any such aging-oriented changes are very literally lost in the noise of the differences imposed by strings alone, let alone amps, playing style, or pickups.

So why do people hear what's not really there? People are outstandingly talented at hearing what they wish to hear and what they expect to hear. The number of tests performed on and by Psych 101 students invariably demonstrating this is in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, and growing daily. Part of being human.

I dunno. Maybe saying it out loud is dumb because of all the crap I'll probably receive for it, but the difference I hear is obvious to me - as different as a trumpet sounds from a sax. I don't think you need to be a scientist to tell either - hell, my 11 yo daughter hears it (and not because she wants to or I told her to).

I wonder how many people here have actually listened to the difference in real life - the large majority of folks probably don't own older models. Maybe saying "there is no difference" or "it doesn't matter" or "it's what they WANT to hear" are just rationalizing their own purchases of newer models? It does work both ways, you know.

 

[GlennW]

I think somehow, that they absolutely do sound better over time. I have a new P bass and a 30+ year old P bass.

The older one absolutely KILLS the newer one.

Why? I have no idea - but everyone who hears them side by side agrees.

That might be because of the different pickups and electronics rather than the age difference of the wood, paint, pickguard, etc..

 

[Bongolation]

Nope, "better" can be considered a "scientific" quality only insofar as subjective preferences fall under the "science" of psychology.

You're responding to my post out of its context, which originated in my questioning the assertion that "wood molecules settle" was a scientific fact.

 

[John Bergen]

No doubt about it, older basses sound better! My '59 P-bass just turned 50 and it has the sweetest sound you have ever heard! I have two more pre-CBS P's ('59 and '62)

EDIT (Mark) : Not allowed.

 

[Bochafish]

These are issues of mechanical connections settling (real ones, too), but have nothing magical to do with wood vibrations.

I was just searching for a thread on this topic. I swear my stingray plays and sounds better than it did 8 years ago. I do agree though, that the difference doesn't feel like it comes from just the wood. It does feel like the bass has "settled in" or loosened up" probably from the "mechanical connections settling."

Another weird thing to note is I bought the bass in Chicago and played it for 4 years. I then moved to Florida and played in a hot and humid practice space for two years, then I moved back to Chicago. I can't say exactly what happened, but the neck changed, and the connections changed. The neck kinda feels like it absorbed some of the humidity over time, perhaps I'm just crazy. I feel lucky that I perceive the change to be a good one.

 

[Mikio]

I think they get softer and better at playability, but not better sounding, specially if active, since the wood doesn't make too much of the tone in it.

 

[6Steve6Harris6]

I think a lot of people have failed to take one thing into account; the construction methods of older basses and newer basses.

I'll elaborate.

Finishing - Back in the day, most bass builders (Fender and Gibson being the two that immediately come to mind), used very thin coats of nitrocellulose lacquer to finish their basses. Fast forward to today, and most basses are slathered in thick coats of polyurethane, which offers more protection, but also dampens the resonance of the instrument.

Wood - With some species of wood becoming increasingly rare (like mahogany), many non-boutique builders are being forced to use lower quality cuts of wood. Also take into account that way back when, builders were often only using one or two pieces of wood to build a body. Now, you can see upwards of three or four pieces on your average bass body.

Electronics - This is the biggest factor, bar none, as far as I'm concerned. Pretty much every bass, a few decades ago, was passive, save for maybe Alembic. On top of that, pickups were not made like they are today. Most pickups back in the day, were just tossed together - they were scatterwound, by hand, and even used different magnets from pickup to pickup. The old Gibson PAF's are a perfect example of this. I think this is why, you could pick up two identical vintage basses (P's, for example), and one would sound fantastic, while the other might sound average, at best. Today, every pickup is wound exactly the same as the one before it.

I could get deeper into this, but I'm lazy, so I'll leave it at this.

Who knows? I may be waaay off, or I may be right on the mark.

 

[Dbassmon]

Having a foot in both the BG and DB worlds, I will tell you that some of the best and most accomplished musicians/bassists in the world will tell you the tone of the wood changes for the better over time.

The construction methods today with computerized routing etc. are precision to a degree not possible before (parts fit better, they are consistant), yet basses that are 50, 100, 200 years old demand consistently higher bucks.... much much higher. Why? because they sound amazing.

This may be less true for bass guitars but if the wood resonates better on old double basses, why would they not do the same for a bass guitar. I have no empirical proof this is true, but it seems to be logical.

That being said, a great player will make any/every bass sound amazing. Rather than debate the new vs old, I am going to go practice. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this will make every bass I own sound better.

 

[unclejane]

Honest question.

I have a 30 year Ric and I swear that it never sounded better than it does now. I wonder if the aging of the wood has something to do with it.

I know everyone loves old guitars & basses - but I wonder if its not just the old models, but just the fact that older wood sounds richer & better.

I personally have never been able to tell any difference in tone over time. That's assuming nothing else changes like the amp, strings or setup.

The only thing the aging of wood does is increase the possiblity of warpage . or a change in appearance.

Fortunately, a well made instrument like a Rick won't have problems with that since they use good maple. The older ones had a skunk stripe down the middle which I think meant 3 piece construction. The newer ones look like just 2 piece. But I've never seen one warp or heard one change tone.

you can probably tell Im not a believer in "tone woods"....

LS

 

[GoesThump]

. Rather than debate the new vs old, I am going to go practice. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this will make every bass I own sound better.

Amen!

This brought a huge smile to my face. I'm gonna turn of the computer and go practice.

GT

 

[unclejane]

I think a lot of people have failed to take one thing into account; the construction methods of older basses and newer basses.

I'll elaborate.

Finishing - Back in the day, most bass builders (Fender and Gibson being the two that immediately come to mind), used very thin coats of nitrocellulose lacquer to finish their basses. Fast forward to today, and most basses are slathered in thick coats of polyurethane, which offers more protection, but also dampens the resonance of the instrument.

Wood - With some species of wood becoming increasingly rare (like mahogany), many non-boutique builders are being forced to use lower quality cuts of wood. Also take into account that way back when, builders were often only using one or two pieces of wood to build a body. Now, you can see upwards of three or four pieces on your average bass body.

Electronics - This is the biggest factor, bar none, as far as I'm concerned. Pretty much every bass, a few decades ago, was passive, save for maybe Alembic. On top of that, pickups were not made like they are today. Most pickups back in the day, were just tossed together - they were scatterwound, by hand, and even used different magnets from pickup to pickup. The old Gibson PAF's are a perfect example of this. I think this is why, you could pick up two identical vintage basses (P's, for example), and one would sound fantastic, while the other might sound average, at best. Today, every pickup is wound exactly the same as the one before it.

I could get deeper into this, but I'm lazy, so I'll leave it at this.

Who knows? I may be waaay off, or I may be right on the mark.

Not to tick anyone off but.... and a little off topic of change in tone over time.....

The main thing that determines the tone between basses is the construction and hardware. I.e. the mass of the body, thickness/stiffness of the neck, electronics used, even scale length and quality of fit, i.e. neck to body joint, etc. are the only things that you could tell the difference in in a blind listening test.

I.e. that's why you tell a P bass from a Ken Smith or even a jazz bass, but most can't tell the difference between a reissue pre-cbs Fender from a real pre-cbs Fender.

That's why I'd for example take a factory new jazz bass over a real 62' jazz bass any day of the week (if I had to actually try to make music with it that is). I'm vintage as well and remember the days when those old Fenders that are now worth a fortune were your only choice. My hands and tendons are still sore from trying to get a decent sound out of 60's and 70's P's and a jazz here and there. And from jamming picks, screws and bits of metal in the neck joint so the neck wouldn't slop around while I was trying to play the thing.

Ugh.......

Back to the topic, I've also never heard even the vintage stuff change in tone over time. a 60's or 70's P will always have the same muddy sound forever until it's modded .

Other things that can mask it and make it sound like the bass sounds better is your playing simply getting better over time and your taste in music changing so you hear the instrument in new musical contexts that you didn't before.

Those last two are definitely big determinates for me. I can even take out my rick 4003 and start playing some of the stuff I'm into nowadays, and it sounds very different (and significantly better) than it did back when I was gigging (and was a truly mediocre player).....

LS

 

[carlos840]

Hey all,

Just wanted to add a few things that i really think do make a difference...

1_ I have heard from a few really good luthiers (Siggi jaeger being one of them) that wood isnt as good as it used to be! Apparently pollution is doing a lot to the trees and most of the wood is becoming lighter and softer as time goes. Apparently a cubic meter of modern day maple for example weight less than a cubic meter of maple that would have been chopped 50 years ago!
2_ The pickups back in the 60s where hand wound and made with whatever wire and magnets they had available... That leaves more room for error but also more room for random luck and a few great sounding pickups!
3_The fret size makes i think a massive difference in what we call "the vintage sound" most basses from the 60s have thin fretwire and no other fretwire gives you that distinctive thump.
4_I dont want to go to deep into the voodoo of unplayed VS played basses but i have to say that from my experience basses that have been played around for 45 years do sound better than basses that sat under a bed!

I do own a 1966 jazz and a 08 usa std jazz, and although they are both really nice basses, they do have a really different sound!
I cant say one is better, both other a different texture and depth of sound.
The 66 does in my opinion play better and has a much deeper woody tone but the 08 has a lot more percussive tone and slaps a lot better.

Whatever the reason they sound different i cant say that one sounds better, one sounds like a bass you would hear on old vinyls, one sounds like a modern edgy bass...

 

[bassman03]

I'm hoping so because later this month i'm borrowing a G&L SB-2 from the 70's i think he said it was. It belongs to the guitarist of one of my bands. I asked him for what he uses it for and its only for when he occasionally has a thought for another band he fiddles around with.... damn fine bass for just that if you ask me!

 

[Clank]

I think some do and some don't.

 

[dchan]

For the most part, yes. As a bass matures over the years through lots of playing, basses tend to 'open up' in terms of sound. Why do you think Italian and British basses from the 16th to 18th century are so desirable?

That said, there are some very nice sounding new basses being made today - you just have to know where to look.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

Most basses do sound better as they age. That is a fact

People/players seem to forget that when pieces of wood are made into an instrument that wood is still moving and it moves more when it is played(vibrations stimulate the most minute particle of wood)even decades after it was made. Temperature and it's constant changes from the time the instrument has been built also are a part of the ingredients playing a part in how the instrument ages

 

[fourfinger]

Do basses get better sounding as they get older?

I certainly think they do. I know my two both do.