Does a bass being a lightweight indicate a negative?

[Gary Stevens]

(edited) People write about tone and people write about weight. We can all be clear that these are not the same thing. They may be associated in various ways at various times, but they are independent. Lower vs. high weight is clearly better and objective--we can control for weight and compare other things. Timbre/Tone is subjective and not as easily controlled. We can't take two basses with an identical timbre and then pick the lightest one (unless we are looking at units of the same model at Sweetwater!). So the whole discussion is apples to oranges at some level. For a good sound, we want the least weight--an optimality problem. But there are so many varieties of 'good sound' that we are all looking for the lightest bass that has certain timbres/tones we are going after. So we will have to settle for optimal solutions within these subjective categories, and there will always be multiple solutions (i.e. local optima). What is the lightest bass that produces a great P-bass tone? Or, what is the lightest bass for metal? Most of us can't systematically try enough basses to answer that kind of question with much confidence, so we end up triangulating based on the few we can try. I gravitate without trying too hard toward the lighter basses I have that produce sounds I like--that's just a good compromise at best and everyone needs to make their own. (apologies if the previous unedited post seemed combative).

Right on! I view weight and tone as separate, unrelated issues. As a qualification, I am a bass player who has built 90 basses since 1989.

 

[scubaduba]

If heavier weight equals better tone and sustain I will make that sacrifice for an instrument 9 lbs or less. Lighter weight is my preference. All of mine now weigh 7.5 - 8.9 lbs.

 

[Gary Stevens]

If heavier weight equals better tone and sustain I will make that sacrifice for an instrument 9 lbs or less. Lighter weight is my preference. All of mine now weigh 7.5 - 8.9 lbs.

Heavier weight does not necessarily mean better tone and sustain. Weight and tone are separate, unrelated issues.

 

[scubaduba]

Heavier weight does not necessarily mean better tone and sustain. Weight and tone are separate, unrelated issues.

Maybe, maybe not. It’s an unrelenting debate here in this thread and elsewhere. My point is that regardless, I’ll sacrifice any tonal/sustain benefits of heavier weight basses for one in the 7.5 - 9 lb. range.

 

[mouthmw]

Not only is it not a negative, but it's a positive 90% of the time.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I have a couple of fretless basses that are so heavy I am not sure they are actually made of wood. I have a Strat that is so light I worry I might crush it. There's an optimal level in the middle. Light bodies can mean neck dive unless it's a barely existent Ibanez Soundgear-type headstock. Or maybe a Geddy Lee Jazz where the neck is so thin it barely exists.

 

[gigetto]

I have a couple of fretless basses that are so heavy I am not sure they are actually made of wood...

I have two Yamaha BB one FL 1976 two PUPS made of light wood and one new BBPH that is more consistant and heavy. Is not true that old instruments were heavier, not necessarely.

 

[Gary Stevens]

If heavier weight equals better tone and sustain I will make that sacrifice for an instrument 9 lbs or less. Lighter weight is my preference. All of mine now weigh 7.5 - 8.9 lbs.

Heavier weight does not necessarily equal better tone and sustain

 

[Moving Pictures]

I have two Yamaha BB one FL 1976 two PUPS made of light wood and one new BBPH that is more consistant and heavy. Is not true that old instruments were heavier, not necessarely.

You are correct that old doesn’t equal heavy. However in the 70s it wasn’t uncommon to find more heavy Fenders and Gibsons than light ones based on my experiences. I also remember a few other brands that were consistently heavy back then. But certainly not every bass was heavy back then. I was able to find comfortable basses back then. I think things have improved over the years and I’m grateful for that. It is truly amazing the choices we have now, there are options for every preference.

 

[Greywoulf]

I have a couple of fretless basses that are so heavy I am not sure they are actually made of wood. I have a Strat that is so light I worry I might crush it. There's an optimal level in the middle. Light bodies can mean neck dive unless it's a barely existent Ibanez Soundgear-type headstock. Or maybe a Geddy Lee Jazz where the neck is so thin it barely exists.

"Barely existing" Ibanez headstock?? Huh?? -By that you mean what I call normal, well thought out 2x2 headstocks? Listen, I have a neat 34" Ibanez GSR100ex that weighs less and has almost no neck dive as compared to my 30" Fender/Squier Mustang that weighs more with it's ugly, much over-sized, 4-in-line heavy headstock that wants to head for the floor whenever I don't play it at a 45% angle..!! Fender headstocks are the poorly designed abnormal ones, not Ibanez's!

 

[PeteCarlton]

I just picked up a Sandberg 5 super light. It weighs in at 6.3 lbs. no neck dive at all. Sounds amazing.

Not the first time I've heard this - another one I was told of was also under 7lb and equally delighted its owner. If I could afford it, this would be my next (or indeed only) long-scale. Unfortunately, they're two grand in the UK, about $2700.

The LTD has all the heavy hardware like the PS, but actually weighs less, hence the lack of sustain, IMO.

I think there's enough evidence on this thread and elsewhere to suggest that this is not the case.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Does a bass being a lightweight indicate a negative?

Not at all.

 

[DrDAV14]

My 6.7lbs Strandberg Original sounds as good or better than any of my other basses. I imagine its all in how you build it.

 

[Bartrinsic]

My 6.7lbs Strandberg Original sounds as good or better than any of my other basses. I imagine its all in how you build it.

Very good choice there, for those needing sub-8 pound axes. I played one at Pitbull Audio alongside a similar featherweight Mayones chambered Prestige. Both seemed to me well-engineered featherweights. I ended up passing on the funny neck, but I could get used to it if this weight range were essential for me (I'm still at 8lb-9.2 for a 5 string).

 

[Gary Stevens]

"Barely existing" Ibanez headstock?? Huh?? -By that you mean what I call normal, well thought out 2x2 headstocks? Listen, I have a neat 34" Ibanez GSR100ex that weighs less and has almost no neck dive as compared to my 30" Fender/Squier Mustang that weighs more with it's ugly, much over-sized, 4-in-line heavy headstock that wants to head for the floor whenever I don't play it at a 45% angle..!! Fender headstocks are the poorly designed abnormal ones, not Ibanez's!

Fender headstock is poorly designed for a number of reasons. I say this as a Fender fan. The need for string trees came about because of Leo's desire to get a neck out of 5/4 maple (full inch milled), ie keeping material cost down. I don't know the original reason for the large 4-in-line headstock, but it is larger and heavier than pure engineering requires.

 

[Stevorebob]

Leo was as much a marketer as an engineer. He built what he thought people would want to play and designed for a 1950’s modern esthetic, which was successful then and has since stood the test of time. The headstock was inspired from Bigsby’s guitars. Perhaps not the best engineering choice for a bass, but it has proven to be a well-executed branding strategy.

 

[Polfuste]

My personal limit is 8,8 lbs (4 kg ). My main bass is 8,1 lbs, which is really comfortable for gigs. And the the next one, which could be an Ibanez EHB 1500 DEF 4 would be 8 lbs. I think it will be my limit for the futur.

 

[gigetto]

Yamaha RBX A2 3,1 Kg my lightweight one