This is a large part, I believe, of why Leo Fender believed each of his subsequent bass designs were better than the prior ones. From a sheer engineering standpoint, the designs have evolved and improved from Fenders through Music Man to G&L. There's a refinement, an increase in precision (no pun intended), and increased flexibility and sophistication of electronics and controls.
But for all of that, the key to how "good" a bass is still largely subjective and affected by context. Do all of those technical refinements make the bass sound more like you want it to sound? Does it make it sound better in a band, or in a recorded mix? You can see the line of technical advancement continuing well past G&L up into the heady realms of Fodera and the like, but does that make any of those basses better for you, for what you want to do? Music Mans are more advanced from a design standpoint than Fenders, but are they better? Are G&Ls better than either predecessor?
No, not inherently. A higher-fi bass is not necessarily a better bass for almost all musical contexts. Advancements in technology are not improvements in every way, they are changes. For everything you gain, everything else besides that is affected, and not always for the better.
There's a sound in your head that you're looking for a bass to make. A newer bass, a more expensive bass, these things don't have any inherent connection to getting closer to the sound in your head.
