how bass parts affect your sound?

[Brad Johnson]

Now, now. I wasn't attacking you, just trying to point out that what sounds better to you may not sound better to other people.

For example, I've had a Jazz with a Badass, but I prefer the standard Fender style stamped bridge. My Lakland JO4 with a bridge that is basically the same as a Fender just shaped differently sounds better to me than the Jazz with Badass did. The Jazz with Badass sounded better with the original bridge to my ears than with the Badass. That doesn't mean it sounds better, it means it sounds better to me. YMMV.

I have a like new BadAss II sitting in a drawer because I came to the same conclusion when I tried it on my 68 Jazz. It did change the character of the bass... made it sound more refined. Not what I was looking for.

 

[ThumbyAche]

Now, now. I wasn't attacking you, just trying to point out that what sounds better to you may not sound better to other people.

For example, I've had a Jazz with a Badass, but I prefer the standard Fender style stamped bridge. My Lakland JO4 with a bridge that is basically the same as a Fender just shaped differently sounds better to me than the Jazz with Badass did. The Jazz with Badass sounded better with the original bridge to my ears than with the Badass. That doesn't mean it sounds better, it means it sounds better to me. YMMV.

All In good fun man.

Thumby

 

[Fuzzbass]

Agreed... we disagree. More often than not they do sound different. Very different.

Actually, I agree with "more often than not". I thought you've been trying to say that ash and alder can always be distinguished. My point all along has been "often but not always".

So Stingrays sound like Stingrays regardless of wood? I emphatically agree to disagree on that one. If that were true, OLPs with an Ernie Ball pickup would sound just like a Stingray. They don't.

The OLP's sound *similar* to a Stingray, and not very much at all like a P or a J! That's my point.

BTW I mentioned our previous conversation to someone today and you were wrong... he recorded an electric bass with a microphone and the bass was unplugged.

So, the percentage of recordings using a mic on an electric bass is now 0.000000001 percent, a far cry from zero percent. How could I be so very very wrong?

And a Jazz bass is hardly that important anymore in getting what's considered the Jaco sound. You can do it on a Roscoe, Ibanez, Cort, etc.

True enough. And that's because the majority of basses these days are built to have the J-bass vibe: that is, most have two pickups in the J-bass locations (although for some Jaco-like tones, one pickup near the bridge can be enough).

The secret is in pickup location more than anything else**. How many are playing Jaco licks on a Tele bass with a mudbucker, or even a vanilla P-bass? Nobody I know of.




(**of course technique is important... duh. But this thread is about bass parts).

 

[Brad Johnson]

Actually, I agree with "more often than not". I thought you've been trying to say that ash and alder can always be distinguished. My point all along has been "often but not always".

That's interesting, Ken. You're telling me that's why we've been going round and round about this?

Here's an absolute I will say... I've NEVER said anything regarding this was an absolute. I would've thought that to be extremely obvious.

The OLP's sound *similar* to a Stingray, and not very much at all like a P or a J! That's my point.

My point is I haven't heard one that truly sounds like a real Ray. There's a comedian who has an HBO special and he was talking about people with Chrysler 300's talking abut how their cars look like RR Phantoms. He said "Yeah, until a real Phantom pulls up".

So, the percentage of recordings using a mic on an electric bass is now 0.000000001 percent, a far cry from zero percent. How could I be so very very wrong?

Back to absolutes, you said NEVER. that means if it EVER happened, you were absolutely wrong

So yes, you were wrong. The degree of "verys" I'll leave to your discretion.

Didn't matter anyway, lots of people check the tone of an instrument unplugged. I do. That's why the unplugged tone is important to SOME people.

True enough. And that's because the majority of basses these days are built to have the J-bass vibe: that is, most have two pickups in the J-bass locations (although for some Jaco-like tones, one pickup near the bridge can be enough).

The secret is in pickup location more than anything else**. How many are playing Jaco licks on a Tele bass with a mudbucker, or even a vanilla P-bass? Nobody I know of.

And that obviously doesn't mean it's not happening. maybe someone's hellbent on doing it and tries to use a 31 band EQ to "fix" the sound. Understanding what you don't know is important.

Plus there is more than one J bass position for pickups... isn't there? I don't agree that the majority of basses are after a J bass tone. If they are, most fail miserably.

(**of course technique is important... duh. But this thread is about bass parts).

And those parts can easily come in second as the most important part of the tone equation. Ignoring that isn't very productive. Wouldn't want the kids to get the wrong impression.

 

[ggunn]

I was thinking about that too, and inertia, as I understand it, isn't transferred at all - it dissipates.

Inertia can neither be transferred nor dissipated; it is a property of mass and is not a property of energy. Momentum is the word you guys are groping for, I believe.

 

[GlennW]

Thanks ggunn. It's been a while.

I had some other words in mind at various points, but kept them to myself.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Here's an absolute I will say... I've NEVER said anything regarding this was an absolute

As part of an earlier argument, you quoted Roger Sadowsky as being absolute on ash vs. alder Sadowskys. Now you're saying you disagree with him. This confirms my point that matters of tone are simply opinion and we're all entitled to disagree, whether we're "experts" or not. Fair enough!

Back to absolutes, you said NEVER. that means if it EVER happened, you were absolutely wrong

So yes, you were wrong.

If you don't believe in absolutes, how can you say I'm absolutely wrong?

I've also been arguing against absolutes. But if you want to be literal and claim that my "never" meant "absolutely never" rather than the obvious shorthand for "as close to never as you can get without actually being never", then fine, you can feel proud of yourself for finding the exception that proves the rule!

 

[Brad Johnson]

As part of an earlier argument, you quoted Roger Sadowsky as being absolute on ash vs. alder Sadowskys. Now you're saying you disagree with him. This confirms my point that matters of tone are simply opinion and we're all entitled to disagree, whether we're "experts" or not. Fair enough!

No offense but could you come up with something weaker? I doubt it.

Roger has HIS OWN OPINION OF HIS BASSES. Me quoting that does not mean I HAVE THE SAME OPINION OF HIS BASSES.

How is my conveying MY OPINION on Ash and Alder in GENERAL saying I disagree with Roger?

*your answer here*



Wow. It's bad enough you tried to put words in my mouth, now, even after that's pointed out, here comes another spoonful. Better make that a shovel.

C'mon, Ken... this really isn't this complicated. Is it?

If you don't believe in absolutes, how can you say I'm absolutely wrong?

I'll play along... show me where I said I don't believe in absolutes? Hint: if you can't, you'll be absolutely wrong about this too.

I've also been arguing against absolutes. But if you want to be literal and claim that my "never" meant "absolutely never" rather than the obvious shorthand for "as close to never as you can get without actually being never", then fine, you can feel proud of yourself for finding the exception that proves the rule!

So... now your "never" doesn't mean never... and I'm the one looking for an exception? That's some Olympic quality wigglin' your doing there, Ken. World class.

"the obvious shorthand"... I'll have to remember that the next time my logic falls apart.


Remember people don't listen to basses unplugged (or the obvious shorthand for that that you used) and your proof of it being that they don't perform or record that way.

Dig dig dig.

 

[Fuzzbass]

No offense but could you come up with something weaker? I doubt it.

Roger has HIS OWN OPINION OF HIS BASSES. Me quoting that does not mean I HAVE THE SAME OPINION OF HIS BASSES.

How is my conveying MY OPINION on Ash and Alder in GENERAL saying I disagree with Roger?

*your answer here*



Wow. It's bad enough you tried to put words in my mouth, now, even after that's pointed out, here comes another spoonful. Better make that a shovel.

C'mon, Ken... this really isn't this complicated. Is it?



I'll play along... show me where I said I don't believe in absolutes? Hint: if you can't, you'll be absolutely wrong about this too.





So... now your "never" doesn't mean never... and I'm the one looking for an exception? That's some Olympic quality wigglin' your doing there, Ken. World class.

"the obvious shorthand"... I'll have to remember that the next time my logic falls apart.


Remember people don't listen to basses unplugged (or the obvious shorthand for that that you used) and your proof of it being that they don't perform or record that way.

Dig dig dig.

I'm trying to have fun and find some common ground, but you gotta go and be insulting. See ya, this thread's all yours.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm trying to have fun and find some common ground, but you gotta go and be insulting. See ya, this thread's all yours.

Sorry you took it that way, Ken. I didn't mean it that way. I also didn't take it as insulting when you made up things I supposedly said. Oh well... fun's fun

 

[Brad Johnson]

No offense but could you come up with something weaker? I doubt it.

Roger has HIS OWN OPINION OF HIS BASSES. Me quoting that does not mean I HAVE THE SAME OPINION OF HIS BASSES.

How is my conveying MY OPINION on Ash and Alder in GENERAL saying I disagree with Roger?

*your answer here*



Wow. It's bad enough you tried to put words in my mouth, now, even after that's pointed out, here comes another spoonful. Better make that a shovel.

C'mon, Ken... this really isn't this complicated. Is it?



I'll play along... show me where I said I don't believe in absolutes? Hint: if you can't, you'll be absolutely wrong about this too.





So... now your "never" doesn't mean never... and I'm the one looking for an exception? That's some Olympic quality wigglin' your doing there, Ken. World class.

"the obvious shorthand"... I'll have to remember that the next time my logic falls apart.


Remember people don't listen to basses unplugged (or the obvious shorthand for that that you used) and your proof of it being that they don't perform or record that way.

Dig dig dig.

Was the insult the gigantic holes I'm pointing out? If so, I apologize.

 

[The Penguin]

No offense but could you come up with something weaker? I doubt it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

No offense but could you come up with something weaker? I doubt it.

I thought that was a fairly kind way to point out how ridiculous what I quoted was. Did you read it?



"As part of an earlier argument, you quoted Roger Sadowsky as being absolute on ash vs. alder Sadowskys. Now you're saying you disagree with him. This confirms my point that matters of tone are simply opinion and we're all entitled to disagree, whether we're "experts" or not. Fair enough! "


Nowhere did I say anything about disagreeing with Sadowsky's "opinion" on his bass-building experience. To even come to that conclusion was frankly kind of weird. I figured Ken must've just been pulling my chain... I guess you're saying I should've taken this seriously.

You don't think that's weak? No surprise there.

Anyone who read somewhere in this thread where I said that I now disagree with Sadowsky's personal experiences,ABOUT HIS BASSES, link please. Anyone who's ever read me writing that ALL Ash basses will do one thing, ALL Alder basses will do something else, feel free to point that out. I have spoken specifically about my experience with older FENDER JAZZ BASSES but it appears some people can't see the difference between that and saying ALL basses. My bad? Okay.

This stuff truly is a hoot. Instead of actually reading and comprehending, people go off the deep end with assumptions. When that's pointed out... oops, my bad again. It just doesn't stop around here.


I'll live.


Ken and I have been back and forth on this subject forever and now I find out that it's because, at it's very foundation, he THOUGHT I said something I've clearly never said. That could be taken as insulting but I don't.

 

[The Penguin]

This stuff truly is a hoot. Instead of actually reading and comprehending, people go off the deep end with assumptions.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Was the insult the gigantic holes I'm pointing out? If so, I apologize.

"Gigantic holes"? ROFL. The fact that you disputed the Wiki entry on scientific method is proof enough that the sky is as green as your Zon in your world.

 

[Jim Carr]

1. Pickups (type and location)
2. Body wood
3. Neck wood
4. Preamp (assuming it's decent quality)
5. Body top (unless it's especially thick)


Pickups define the tone of the bass more than anything else. Fender P-basses and J-basses are essentially the same bass (solidbody bolt-on) but with different pickups. Body wood can make a difference, but a P-bass (any wood) will easily be recognized from a J-bass (any wood) in most situations. No combination of hardware/materials/strings will make a P-bass sound like a J-bass with the bridge pickup soloed, or vice versa.

+1

Also, IMHO, POSITION of pickups will matter, too.

 

[Brad Johnson]

"Gigantic holes"? ROFL. The fact that you disputed the Wiki entry on scientific method is proof enough that the sky is as green as your Zon in your world.

Didn't you leave?

Since you're back, care to address the post you bailed on?


BTW I disputed Wiki >>in general<<. Most people who know what it is do.

Apparently you didn't catch that either. So go ahead and show all the stuff you think I said. Again, all in good fun. For the children.

 

[patrickj]

1. strings

 

[ggunn]

Didn't you leave?

Since you're back, care to address the post you bailed on?


BTW I disputed Wiki >>in general<<. Most people who know what it is do.

Apparently you didn't catch that either. So go ahead and show all the stuff you think I said. Again, all in good fun. For the children.

Irrespective of what Wiki (I am also skeptical of an encyclopaedia wherein anyone can make entries) sez, I know a bit about how the scientific method works; in earning two technical degrees I was steeped in it.

If you say that X has an effect on Y, then it's an opinion (or hypothesis) no matter how experientially formed that opinion is if it is not proven by objectively obtained, unambiguous, measureable, and (above all) repeatable data. If there is some data to support the concept, but it doesn't rise to the level of a proof, then it is a theory (and still an opinion). If you merely observe a change in Y when you know there to be a change in X, that in itself does not constitute proof that Y depends on X; correlation does not imply causality.

And lead us not into the realm of "yeah, well prove it doesn't"; the world is full of PSMJ (pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo) based on the concept that if something can be conceived of which cannot be disproven, then it must be true.

 

[The Penguin]

So you're saying truth is not derived from name calling?