The early Fenders were one piece maple - as are the various 50's re-issues (I have a MIM 50s P Bass and a MIJ 51 re-issue)
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 solid body basses break in over time?
- Thread starter WingKL
- Start date
The early Fenders were one piece maple - as are the various 50's re-issues (I have a MIM 50s P Bass and a MIJ 51 re-issue)
asberrys said:
Ric5 said:
Earlier this summer I refinished my Wal in poly, and during reassembly I even put the same strings back on. This bass came to me last year with no finish at all on the body and neck. Plugged in, the tone didn't change at all. Unplugged, the only noticable thing is the attack when slapped seems a little tighter, but still it's the same sound, fingerstyle sound and attack is no different.
You ARE aware that Les Paul's first electric guitar was a a chunk of wood like a 4x4 with a pickup and strings, right?
From Wikipedia: Famously, he created several versions of "The Log", which was nothing more than a length of common 4x4 lumber with a bridge, guitar neck, and pickup attached. For the sake of appearance, he attached the body of an Epiphone hollow-body guitar, sawn lengthwise with The Log in the middle.
I'm not confident that Les Paul agonized about what kind of wood was in the body, or how or whether it was aged.
IMO most of the sound comes from strings, pickup and electronics. As far as the body of the bass goes, it can be wood, lucite (many variations have existed), other plastics, metal, or just about anything you can name.
I think your mostly right there Pilgrim however I think a softer body like basswood or poplar will give you fatter lows than a hard wood like oak,afzelia or whatever.
The harder wood would be better for clarity and slapping only one would think.
Excellent thread.I think there is a clear consensus that as far as wood goes in a bass,you would do more to change the neck,more specifically the fretboard,if you're desirous of a sound change.
I was thinking if that Basset at the center of youranus is eating fish and chips,instead of pretzels,and the fish was rainbow bass(crossed with trout no doubt) then a Carl Thompson bass would have some mojo like a mofo...Especially if the alnico in the pickups were cryoed.
The harder wood would be better for clarity and slapping only one would think.
Excellent thread.I think there is a clear consensus that as far as wood goes in a bass,you would do more to change the neck,more specifically the fretboard,if you're desirous of a sound change.
I was thinking if that Basset at the center of youranus is eating fish and chips,instead of pretzels,and the fish was rainbow bass(crossed with trout no doubt) then a Carl Thompson bass would have some mojo like a mofo...Especially if the alnico in the pickups were cryoed.
Can we stop using the term "resonance" and "resonate" interchangeably with the word "vibrate"?
"Resonance" refers to a very specific phenomena that occurs when a body is vibrated very close to or at its natural frequency, or its resonant frequency.
"Resonance" is not something that can be "applied", it's not something that "adds up over time", it's something vibrating at a given frequency. Go look up the wavy bridge on Youtube.
"Resonance" refers to a very specific phenomena that occurs when a body is vibrated very close to or at its natural frequency, or its resonant frequency.
"Resonance" is not something that can be "applied", it's not something that "adds up over time", it's something vibrating at a given frequency. Go look up the wavy bridge on Youtube.
Wait - I got it! As we get older and fatter, more of the bassist's tummy rests against the back of the axe.... We get the sensation that the bass is getting better, but in fact the bassist is just getting fatter. Just sayin'
I actually thought the Ibanez SR505 sounded quite different than SR705. The 2 basses are identical in every aspect except for the finish and I thought the 705 sounded better.
I also used to own a Hammer Slammer series 5 string about 10 years ago. I stripped all the paint off and it had a different tone than when the paint was on.
Being that it is the same principle (wood and strings), then yes, certainly. To what extent will it be noticeable? well, that´s the deal, since you hardly ever get to hear a bass acoustivally, and on top of that, the sound is heavily colored by eq settings and even the speakers and room that you hear the instrument in. In the classis guitar is is a lot more noticeable because you hear the instrument without further coloring
Sorry it took a bit of time for me to reply. I wanted to demonstrate what I meant with some clips so I had to go learn a riff (Lakland Fingerfunk demo) and the REAPER recording software. These clips are recorded direct and have no processing whatsoever except for my attempt to match the bass levels. You may have to turn it up a bit.
Ogg vorbis encoded files, high quality but smaller size.
Ibanez GSR205
Mike Lull M4V
Bass comparo, Ibanez left, Lull right
mp3 encoded files, high quality, larger files.
Ibanez GSR205
Mike Lull M4V
Bass comparo, Ibanez left, Lull right
I will have to clarify that whats missing from the Lull could be that sweet low mids or it could be that it is too bright/high middy as the bass accentuates the zing. In a live situation, as someone else mentioned, tone probably doesn't matter too much but I really prefer to play with the Ibanez when I'm by myself because it sounds sweeter and less fatiguing to me than the Lull. Some of you may love the recorded tone of the Lull but when I play with it in person, my ears get tired. Also take into account my audio interface is cheapish and tends to roll off details and dynamics so it doesn't capture the brightness well.
If the clips of the two basses sound close enough to not matter to you, keep in mind I paid about 9 times for the Lull what I got the Ibanez for. That would probably be fuel for fires in some other threads.
Ogg vorbis encoded files, high quality but smaller size.
Ibanez GSR205
Mike Lull M4V
Bass comparo, Ibanez left, Lull right
mp3 encoded files, high quality, larger files.
Ibanez GSR205
Mike Lull M4V
Bass comparo, Ibanez left, Lull right
I will have to clarify that whats missing from the Lull could be that sweet low mids or it could be that it is too bright/high middy as the bass accentuates the zing. In a live situation, as someone else mentioned, tone probably doesn't matter too much but I really prefer to play with the Ibanez when I'm by myself because it sounds sweeter and less fatiguing to me than the Lull. Some of you may love the recorded tone of the Lull but when I play with it in person, my ears get tired. Also take into account my audio interface is cheapish and tends to roll off details and dynamics so it doesn't capture the brightness well.
If the clips of the two basses sound close enough to not matter to you, keep in mind I paid about 9 times for the Lull what I got the Ibanez for. That would probably be fuel for fires in some other threads.
So from that you'd expect that a Kubicki Ex-Factor neck, with its 34 pieces of maple glued together plus a fretboard slab glued on top of it must be the deadest, most musically unsympathetic piece of junk in the world, right? If there's such a difference between a one-piece neck with a glued on fretboard and a one-piece neck with no separate fretboard then, according to the laws of physics, it must be like night and day with 35 separate pieces of wood and all that glue. Surely it must sound like a damp dog fart?
Invalid Link Removed
Egads! It's a bolt on too!
Really, what we're saying here and correct me if I go astray, this is hard to follow at times, is that if you want to rock out with the best, you need a one piece body and neck, the whole thing carved from just one piece of wood, no paint or laquer and no glue, it's got to be at least 30 years old and you've got to leave it on a vibrator for a good while so the wood molecules change to be more musical, only then you get the true tone? Damn, to think of all the money I've spent on all this toneless junk, with glue and paint and stuff.
Ah, but do you get magical mojo in this way or did Leo Fender patent that back in the 50's?
As has already been mentioned, I find it really interesting that as the years pass, the ageing and playing processes seem to make an instrument get better rather than worse. The wood must always somehow change in a direction that is pleasing to the ear of the player and never, ever the reverse.
Isn't nature miraculous?
Isn't nature miraculous?
AAAHG yes, but how many times does it have to be said that tone alone is only part of the equation. And, since it is so subjective it probably is a worthless measure of comparison.
Feel, playability, quality of workmanship, etc. are the things you also pay for.
First of all, I think what's happening is you've gotten used to the slightly muted sound of your Ibanez. When the Lull is compared to it, it sounds brighter to your ears, as it does to mine. There are several reasons for this:
First, the Lull is a much higher quality bass than the Ibanez. It is made with better quality wood, better quality pickups, and better quality hardware. What you're hearing in the Lull is the full spectrum of the tone band, which the Ibanez just can't produce. Why? Because it's a mass produced instrument, one made for profit, not necessarily for tone. That's not to say it's a mediocre bass, as you obviously like the tone it produces. But from the sound clips you posted, I think it's quite clear the Lull produces a much more piano-like spectrum of tone over the Ibanez. To me, it's much easier to tone down sound, as in the Lull, through EQ, strings, Amps, even different speakers, than it is to try to "EQ up" areas of tone that aren't there, as in the top end that your Ibanez isn't producing compared to the Lull.
Second, every instrument has a sweet spot. I don't think you've found it yet with the Lull. For example, I changed the active EMG system in my custom bass to passive humbuckers, and it took me a literally a YEAR to find the tone I wanted to hear. I also tried different bridges, different strings, and have finally settled on TI flatwounds, and now can dial in just about any sound I want, short of the "zing" that slap requires. My bass in the beginning with the EMG's sounded like your Lull - too bright and active to my ear. Because I had spent almost $3700 at the time to have my left-handed bass made, selling it was not an option to me, so I went on a parts-swap quest to get and hear what I wanted. I've succeeded, and enjoy the tone I have now very much.
Also, there is a school of thought that years of playing a wooden instrument eventually vibrates and lines up the fibers in the wood, allowing the wood to resonate to its potential. I wouldn't wait for that to happen, because like old Fenders, it will take fifty years or more to happen. You need to understand that your Lull is like a Lamborghini to your Ibanez being a Honda Accord... the Ibanez is will made, comfortable, is quiet, and handles pot-holes and bumps well without rattling your teeth.
The Lull-Lamborghini is a highly tuned sports car - it's not subtle, it starts out loud and gets louder when you "gun it", it needs to be driven with all of your senses and skills, and can jar your teeth when it hits bumps and potholes. It requires you to be a better driver. And in this case, the Lull requires you to be a better bass player. By that I mean, it exposes your warts, which is to say technique, EQ, amp and speaker quality, etc. My custom bass, high-end amp and speakers forced me to learn to be a better bass player, as I could be heard over the band. My Ibanez SR800 and Carvin LB75 five-string had never exposed me like that...
In the end, you have to decide whether the Lull is worth the odyssey it will take you on, or is it simply easier to move it out of your life. I know in my case, the challenges I went through to finally be happy with the tone on my custom bass was well worth it, because not only have I learned more about pickups, bridges, strings, etc., I've learned more about finger technique, neck fingering, and what tone means to me. And as far as the tone I want to hear, I'm about 98% there....
I will say I like the tone produced by both of your basses... you understand of course you will never really be able to make the Lull sound exactly like your Ibanez. I think the Lull has more potential for you, but it also boils down to what you want to hear - old school versus new. If you like R&B, blues, old rock standards etc., then the Ibanez would be a preferred choice. The Lull however, with the right EQ etc., can give you that as well, and much more....
Now aren't you glad you opened this can of worms?....
First, the Lull is a much higher quality bass than the Ibanez. It is made with better quality wood, better quality pickups, and better quality hardware. What you're hearing in the Lull is the full spectrum of the tone band, which the Ibanez just can't produce. Why? Because it's a mass produced instrument, one made for profit, not necessarily for tone. That's not to say it's a mediocre bass, as you obviously like the tone it produces. But from the sound clips you posted, I think it's quite clear the Lull produces a much more piano-like spectrum of tone over the Ibanez. To me, it's much easier to tone down sound, as in the Lull, through EQ, strings, Amps, even different speakers, than it is to try to "EQ up" areas of tone that aren't there, as in the top end that your Ibanez isn't producing compared to the Lull.
Second, every instrument has a sweet spot. I don't think you've found it yet with the Lull. For example, I changed the active EMG system in my custom bass to passive humbuckers, and it took me a literally a YEAR to find the tone I wanted to hear. I also tried different bridges, different strings, and have finally settled on TI flatwounds, and now can dial in just about any sound I want, short of the "zing" that slap requires. My bass in the beginning with the EMG's sounded like your Lull - too bright and active to my ear. Because I had spent almost $3700 at the time to have my left-handed bass made, selling it was not an option to me, so I went on a parts-swap quest to get and hear what I wanted. I've succeeded, and enjoy the tone I have now very much.
Also, there is a school of thought that years of playing a wooden instrument eventually vibrates and lines up the fibers in the wood, allowing the wood to resonate to its potential. I wouldn't wait for that to happen, because like old Fenders, it will take fifty years or more to happen. You need to understand that your Lull is like a Lamborghini to your Ibanez being a Honda Accord... the Ibanez is will made, comfortable, is quiet, and handles pot-holes and bumps well without rattling your teeth.
The Lull-Lamborghini is a highly tuned sports car - it's not subtle, it starts out loud and gets louder when you "gun it", it needs to be driven with all of your senses and skills, and can jar your teeth when it hits bumps and potholes. It requires you to be a better driver. And in this case, the Lull requires you to be a better bass player. By that I mean, it exposes your warts, which is to say technique, EQ, amp and speaker quality, etc. My custom bass, high-end amp and speakers forced me to learn to be a better bass player, as I could be heard over the band. My Ibanez SR800 and Carvin LB75 five-string had never exposed me like that...
In the end, you have to decide whether the Lull is worth the odyssey it will take you on, or is it simply easier to move it out of your life. I know in my case, the challenges I went through to finally be happy with the tone on my custom bass was well worth it, because not only have I learned more about pickups, bridges, strings, etc., I've learned more about finger technique, neck fingering, and what tone means to me. And as far as the tone I want to hear, I'm about 98% there....
I will say I like the tone produced by both of your basses... you understand of course you will never really be able to make the Lull sound exactly like your Ibanez. I think the Lull has more potential for you, but it also boils down to what you want to hear - old school versus new. If you like R&B, blues, old rock standards etc., then the Ibanez would be a preferred choice. The Lull however, with the right EQ etc., can give you that as well, and much more....
Now aren't you glad you opened this can of worms?....
