Is this because they are wider? Also, if I want
the least amount of fret buzzing and the easiest frets to play on between the two, what should I choose?
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.
Fret Size - 6130 vs. 6230 vs. 6105
- Thread starter Ryan Mohr
- Start date
the least amount of fret buzzing and the easiest frets to play on between the two, what should I choose?
Both are a bit taller than the 6130 or 6230 and will last longer if you play aggressively.
As far as fret buzz goes, that is more a measure of your setup. Take the time to get the frets levelled and the bass set up properly.
Oh I thought width was the main factor for wear.
I don't have a luthier around here so I can't get the frets leveled on my current bass, hence the reason for a new Warmoth neck. Aren't the Warmoth necks high quality so I wouldn't have to worry about that?
My biased opinion is that Warmoth necks are VERY high quality. With that said, if you have very specific action requirements, a good setup (potentially with a little fret work) should be expected.
I don't have very specific action requirements, I play with medium-high action. I just want a better quality neck, and that will mean less fret buzzing most likely because the SX frets are bad quality.
I can get down with either vintage or jumbos, but you do end up with a different vibe one way or the other. The vintage frets result in a woodier sound IME and have a smooth, fast feel. The jumbos give more impact and sustain, but little less character in the tone (sort of like going from a vintage bridge to a high mass bridge). YMMV.
Vintage frets are closer to the Lakland setup. The tonal differences are very subtle, and would only be noticeable if you were playing solo and listening very closely. In a live mix, even for you on stage next to your cabinets, you won't hear anything different.
The feel can be pretty different. I prefer vintage frets myself.
The feel can be pretty different. I prefer vintage frets myself.
I think that is one of the biggest differences between a Lakland and a Sadowsky. Laklands are vintage wire Sadowskys are jumbo.
I guess it depends on the person and what they would consider a drastic change versus a subtle change. IMO it doesn't make a bass sound like a different instrument, which is what I would classify as a drastic change. It does give a different zing and character to the notes, and can enhance or detract from thing like fret buzz in either a good or not so good way. But it still sounds like the same instrument more or less. At least IME. I'm just talking about tonal changes.
The feel of the two can be pretty different however, so if it were me I'd bass my choice on that more than I would the tone. But if what I'm calling subtle tone differences are really important to a player, then perhaps they'd consider it drastic.
So if I'm a fairly heavy handed player, what kind of frets would I want to minimalize fret buzz?
Buzz, or lack thereof, comes mostly from the setup and fret leveling. If you setup the bass to get some buzz going, then the type of frets will have an effect on how the buzz sounds. Honestly, if you want no buzz, then either should be fine if you don't mind a higher action. If you are wanting a bit of buzzing to add character to the tone, the jumbo frets will be more aggressive and in your face. The vintage frets will have a more subtle, grindy feel while staying a bit warmer. The jumbos will have a tendency to be more "metal" sounding and even more clackety if you get the action down lower. Either can sound good in the right hands.
If you don't know which you'd prefer tonally, then I'd say go with vintage if you want a warmer sound. If you want the bass to play easier, I think vintage frets win by a small margin. Nothing drastic. If you want something that will hold up better over the long term, jumbos give you more metal to hold up. Stainless will be more aggressive than a nickel allow. Vintage sounds a bit more organic perhaps.
Yeah I see your point, thanks. Since I do have a heavy hand and hate fret buzz, I play with fairly high action (1/8" on the 12th fret of the E string). I prefer a warm and fat vintage tone, so it looks like the vintage fender frets win for me.
The only thing that concerns me is fret wear, because I don't have any local luthiers that could give me a re-fret. But maybe I am getting ahead of myself, how long does it take for frets to need a re-fret? In any event, will getting stainless vintage frets change the tone as much as getting nickel jumbo frets, in comparison to nickel vintage? Thanks
It's tough to say for me as the best way to know would be to put different frets on the same bass. I can only respond with how they tend to feel and sound on different basses.
You should be able to get several good fret-leveling jobs out of the vintage frets, meaning years (and potentially more years) of play before refretting. I also can't say what the tonal changes between stainless vintage and jumbo nickel would be specifically.
For me, the feel of vintage frets trumps any tonal differences that exist between them and jumbos. And if you like your action high, then you should be able to sustain a good amount of fret wear before they need dressing, much less refretting. I'd go for nickel vintage to get the warmth you want with the ease of playability. If you want a bit more fret life, jumbos will do it.
Do you have any experience with the 6105? They are narrower than the jumbos. Here's a link - Invalid Link Removed
That's a good middle of the road size, tall yet a bit narrower. Might be a good "not sure" choice.
