• 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.

Do companies ever make basses worse on purpose?

#2
I think worse is not the word. Some basses get downgraded a bit. The current Yamaha BB 400/600 basses look like the old BB1000-5000 basses, but they are manufactured much less expensively. The old BB would probably run around $1,200-$1,500 if they were made now while the current BB400/600 basses are pretty much all under $500.
 
#3
Tristan said:
Do you think manufacturers ever make a worse bass than they could for the same price?

By this I mean to not interfere with higher end products they make lower end ones ugly or put worse preamps in.
Click to expand...

I don't think that a manufacturer would purposely make a bass ugly and therefore hard to sell, but it is business to use the cheapest parts possible in order to maximize profits. If they sold the bass for what it costs them to make it, they wouldn't be a business
 
#4
justinb515 said:
but it is business to use the cheapest parts possible in order to maximize profits.
Click to expand...
thats what i was going to say...guitars are a business just as much as anything else, and today you cut costs wherever you can so you aren't spending as much money...does this mean worse quality? on most occasions, yes. does bring in more money? you betcha :)
 
#8
Here it go: Once upon a time, Fender ALL Fenders were MIA!

Now all of a sudden, we get Fenders made in mexico which are cheaper with inferior wood, inferior pick ups and inferior tuners, weak sheilding, while the american made fenders are $1500!!!!!!

I know some production lines should have certain features and some should not, but I think a few things should be standard across the freakin' board!

1) The tuners

2) The bridge

3) Sheilding

This is the core fundemental aspects of being a musician playing an instrument. Youwant the damn thing to stay in tune, you want perfect your techniques without having the strings fall to the fret board because of a wimpy bridge, and you want the freakin' thing to be silent!

I mean come on, how hard is this?!!!!! :mad:
 
#9
de la mocha said:
Here it go: Once upon a time, Fender ALL Fenders were MIA!

Now all of a sudden, we get Fenders made in mexico which are cheaper with inferior wood, inferior pick ups and inferior tuners, weak sheilding, while the american made fenders are $1500!!!!!!

I know some production lines should have certain features and some should not, but I think a few things should be standard across the freakin' board!

1) The tuners

2) The bridge

3) Sheilding

This is the core fundemental aspects of being a musician playing an instrument. Youwant the damn thing to stay in tune, you want perfect your techniques without having the strings fall to the fret board because of a wimpy bridge, and you want the freakin' thing to be silent!

I mean come on, how hard is this?!!!!! :mad:
Click to expand...

Um, mad face, or not--upgrading the tuners, bridge, and shielding all add to the cost of building the instrument.

Cheaper alloys are just that--cheaper. A better quality of metal and machining add to the cost of building the instrument

Do you think that bass shields itself? No, it takes labor and materials which add to the cost of building the instrument.

It's really a fairly simple concept.
 
#10
bassmonkeee said:
Do you think that bass shields itself? No, it takes labor and materials which add to the cost of building the instrument.
Click to expand...


OK, but how much would it really cost per bass to properly shield the things when they are being made? $1-3 The materials are inexpensive, especially if purchased in bulk, and an experienced laborer could quickly install the shielding.

Aside from that point, I agree.
 
#12
PSPookie said:
OK, but how much would it really cost per bass to properly shield the things when they are being made? $1-3 The materials are inexpensive, especially if purchased in bulk, and an experienced laborer could quickly install the shielding.

Aside from that point, I agree.
Click to expand...

A proper shielding job takes quite some time, actually. If it's not done right, it just doesn't work. Labor is the big cost in shielding. Take a bass to any repairman and see how much he says it will cost. I'd bet it would cost AT LEAST $50, and probably a lot more.

The biggest cost in basses is markups for the retailer, who has huge sunken costs in retail space, labor, taxes, etc.. Cost, to a seller, of an MIM bass is probably around $200 or so. Adding $50 to the cost (and $100 to the final cost) for shielding may steer some prospective customers to a different model, as it would raise the cost of the bass considerably (25% in this hypothetical example I pulled out of my posterior). :p

Believe me, the companies involved (especially large ones like Fender) have spent considerable time analyzing every aspect of these decisions, since factored over thousands of basses, it adds up to a measurable financial impact.

IMO, of course.
 
#13
:cool:
Not on purpose.
Out of a need to make something different.
They do not want to copy what works.
They think different is better?

Who said six bolts in a neck joint is a good idear?
Put a pickup anywhere on the body?
Make a scale lenght whatever you want?
Use any kind of wood you want for tone?

They hope if it's new, us as bass buyers will perchase it?
Sorry, I'am ranting.
 
#14
I think a good example would be when DW made the Pacifica series. When they first came out they were using the same parts as the custom series, well almost, and they were selling for $800 for a kit that would normally cost around $2000. When they realized this the decreased the quality by a whooole lot. A friend of mine has one of the original pacifica kits and it sounds absolutely great.
 
#15
i was told that by a friend in the instrument retail business that when Fender bought Jackson they changed the finish so it would flake off and made the necks rubbery just as fender started to make those strats with high gain humbuckers and sparkley paint jobs.

i guess even though it would cost Fender money by a company they own going bust it was better for fender in teh long run


Dave
 
#16
fretless Bob said:
i was told that by a friend in the instrument retail business that when Fender bought Jackson they changed the finish so it would flake off and made the necks rubbery just as fender started to make those strats with high gain humbuckers and sparkley paint jobs.
Click to expand...

That simply doesn't make sense, because the prototypical Jackson player wants a superstrat with high-gain humbuckers, a tiny neck, and airbrushed graphics of a Amazonian women wearing little more than a loincloth weilding a battleaxe and riding a Ligar. I highly doubt that they would switch to a comparatively tame Strat, even with Floyd and humbuckers. Jackson plays would rather move to Washburn or one of the other "metal" guitar companies in that case.

Simply put, two different markets and Fender wanted their toes in one when past experience has shown that a Jackson player won't play a "Fender", no matter the quality (i.e. their Heartfield line, which were high-quality instruments). Same thing with SWR: it's a different tone and company that Fender's bass amp department, with their own segments of the market. I remember people talking about how Fender was going to dismantle SWR after purchasing them. Last I checked, SWR's still here.

Also, while Fender is the behemoth of the music business along with Gibson and St. Louis Music, in the business world they're all fairly small potatoes. I truly doubt Fender has the extra cash to buy Jackson just to run it out of business. And instead of letting it died bleeding on the floor, why not simply shut down operations?

...and made the necks rubbery
Click to expand...

When did Fender start inserting Flubber into their necks?!? ;)
 
#20
It's cheaper for the manufacturer to shield it than for us to buy the instrument and get it chieled ourselves. I would rather pay a little more money for my instrument so I dont have to worry about getting it shieled later. I think Fender should at least offer shielding as an option or somehting.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back