Could be.
It also looks to me as if the bass with the conventional type of body might be easier to manufacture.
I wonder which body type sold better?
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.
How many of you agree with this statement?
- Thread starter Alvaro Martín Gómez A.
- Start date
Could be.
It also looks to me as if the bass with the conventional type of body might be easier to manufacture.
I wonder which body type sold better?
Again, that's not what he's saying in that clip.He's just saying that a bass does not absolutely HAVE to have a full size body to produce a useable tone, unlike an acoustic instrument.
Sorry I was being overly sarcastic, but usable and beautiful can be very different.
I think that the woods ability to resonate a certain way reflects back at the strings and influences them to vibrate differently depending on wood, size, paint or oil and construction techniques.
I would like to hear a Steinberger sanded down and body wings attached to hear a difference or not.
I would actually like to hear a 2x4 with perfect appointments to see how it sounds (it could be added to the bass oddity section).
According to the guys in the Luthier's Corner forum, a neck through construction is easier to make. Or at least it is easier for someone who can't afford a multiple CNC setup. So It would seem that a bodyless design would be easier.
I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, just one comment.
Some one earlier was talking about luthiers having a vested interest in making their customers believe that exotic woods make a difference in sound (sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing). I would like to point out that Mr. Steinberger also has instruments to sell.
Some one earlier was talking about luthiers having a vested interest in making their customers believe that exotic woods make a difference in sound (sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing). I would like to point out that Mr. Steinberger also has instruments to sell.
I think there are two factors that play into this whole body size/wood type argument for me...
The Physical Stuff:
- I am not a very tall guy by bassist standards (I'm about 5'7") so needless to say bass necks hate me and constantly want to nose-dive on me. Larger bodies on the bass seem to help me with this some, so I'd say point goes to traditional there for me.
- I also like to pop/slap and get pretty into when I start....I've played steinbergers and similar basses and when I would try to (if I could find a decent spot on them) it felt like I was going to break the thing or it was going to fly off my gut and into the crowd. Bigger basses (well, bigger than Steins) feel more comfortable and sturdy to me as well. This is the same reason why the Les Paul body is my favorite guitar type...it's a heavier, stable feeling body.
- MORE ROOM! Yeah yeah, most of the bodies are just solid wood, but like with an old car...you have room to tinker around on a larger body wood bass. I personally wouldn't want to goof around too much with a tiny, chemically-enhanced polycarbonate compound material (yeah I totally just pulled those words outta my head lol). So expandability is a plus on these.
The Tonal Stuff:
I won't assume to know as much as 95% of you guys on here know about tonal properties of wood and such, but I do know the neck and fretboard have a lot to do with the sound. With my untrained, 5 years in the making ear I can hear the differences in a maple or rosewood fretboard in addition to also feeling them quite easily. The other thing is what TYPE of playing are we referring to? Is it plucking? Picking? Pop/Slap? Tapping? I'll venture to say that different techniques capitalize on different characteristics of the instrument. But while I too think the body wood is overrated (paying $5k for some extinct brazilian hybrid wood) and isn't necessarily the biggest difference between more/less expensive basses...woods do have something to do with the tone of the instrument.
Also, the Steins use EMGs, which being active don't really pick up tonal subtleties or character from the wood as much as passives do. I know that they have a "cleaner" more "uniform" sound to them, but where is the fun in that? Tube amps wouldn't be around if people didn't want some grind and grit to their sound every now and then. Maybe its different strokes, but to totally discount a larger body as being completely useless...maybe Stein should add some "in my personal opinion" or "in my taste for musical instruments" to his statements a little more often =)
The Physical Stuff:
- I am not a very tall guy by bassist standards (I'm about 5'7") so needless to say bass necks hate me and constantly want to nose-dive on me. Larger bodies on the bass seem to help me with this some, so I'd say point goes to traditional there for me.
- I also like to pop/slap and get pretty into when I start....I've played steinbergers and similar basses and when I would try to (if I could find a decent spot on them) it felt like I was going to break the thing or it was going to fly off my gut and into the crowd. Bigger basses (well, bigger than Steins) feel more comfortable and sturdy to me as well. This is the same reason why the Les Paul body is my favorite guitar type...it's a heavier, stable feeling body.
- MORE ROOM! Yeah yeah, most of the bodies are just solid wood, but like with an old car...you have room to tinker around on a larger body wood bass. I personally wouldn't want to goof around too much with a tiny, chemically-enhanced polycarbonate compound material (yeah I totally just pulled those words outta my head lol). So expandability is a plus on these.
The Tonal Stuff:
I won't assume to know as much as 95% of you guys on here know about tonal properties of wood and such, but I do know the neck and fretboard have a lot to do with the sound. With my untrained, 5 years in the making ear I can hear the differences in a maple or rosewood fretboard in addition to also feeling them quite easily. The other thing is what TYPE of playing are we referring to? Is it plucking? Picking? Pop/Slap? Tapping? I'll venture to say that different techniques capitalize on different characteristics of the instrument. But while I too think the body wood is overrated (paying $5k for some extinct brazilian hybrid wood) and isn't necessarily the biggest difference between more/less expensive basses...woods do have something to do with the tone of the instrument.
Also, the Steins use EMGs, which being active don't really pick up tonal subtleties or character from the wood as much as passives do. I know that they have a "cleaner" more "uniform" sound to them, but where is the fun in that? Tube amps wouldn't be around if people didn't want some grind and grit to their sound every now and then. Maybe its different strokes, but to totally discount a larger body as being completely useless...maybe Stein should add some "in my personal opinion" or "in my taste for musical instruments" to his statements a little more often =)
I completely agree with this statement. Furthermore I have owned lot's of basses of the same type and brand and find slight differences in overall tone. My basses sound virtually the same unplugged as plugged into the board. And my basses made of dense wood tend to sound darker and have more sustain. Can not explain why but they just do. Keep in mind jaco could make a squire with old strings sound better then me on my best bass...lol. The bass itself is really a miner player when it comes to raw talent.
IMO, the resonance of the bass itself must affect the vibration characteristics of the strings over the pickup magnets.
You may want to rethink throwing around blanket statements like that. If you like passives better, that's cool, to each his own. But I think what you've said is an overstatement at best and could be wildly inaccurate at worst. Remember that EMGs aren't the only active pickups out there, nor are they the end-all, be-all for everyone, although plenty of folks love them. They have a characteristic sound that isn't necessarily reflective of other actives.
And some folks might tell you active pickups can pick up more subtleties or character from the wood (or graphite).
True, but beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Out of all of my 8 basses, I would say the most beautiful tone is that of my Steinberger XL-2. I'm probably odd that way though. I also really like the tone on my Sadowsky, which is somewhat Fender-like and thus "familiar" in a pleasing way.
I think Ned would agree with you. But he would probably argue that the woods in the neck and the body under the strings contribute more to the sound than the outer parts of the body (wings, horns, bouts, or whatever you want to call them). The parts that are furthest from the action of the strings I would think have the least effect on the sound.
While that sounds horrifying to me on one level, I'd also be really curious to hear the results. My guess is that the difference in tone would be very minor as the bulk of the vibrating action would be concentrated around the strings and pickups. I doubt it would transmit very well out to the wood and back again to influence the string motion to a significant degree compared to influence produced by the original body of the bass.
I would actually like to hear a 2x4 with perfect appointments to see how it sounds (it could be added to the bass oddity section).
Me too. It would be an interesting abomination. One would want to use decent wood though -- probably maple.
I think an easier experiment would be to get an SX, record it, then cut off the bouts/wings/horns and record it again. That would be a more accurate test of Ned's theory. It might be hard to play it in exactly the same way without the body though.
The Steinberger L2s aren't actually a "neck through" construction in that sense. They aren't carved from wood but made of graphite composite material and laid up in a mold in one piece, with the exception of the top and fingerboard, IIRC.
At the time I posted, it seemed to me that laying up a neck and bolting it on a body may be a bit easier than laying up the whole instrument, but after rethinking it, it may not be.
A little off topic but interesting note.
Yesterday I went into the local Guitar Center to pick up a few things. I usually don't but I spent quite a bit of time in the bass room. I've gotta say just about every bass is in desperate need of new strings and a set up. For those of you that really buy into wood doesn't matter that much, I wouldn't use this as a guage. Just about everything I played sounded blah, Geddy Jazz, Marcus Jazz, P bass with rosewood and maple, a few of the new HH and HS Sting Rays and even the 50s style Vintage vibe p bass. All with super high action and dead strings. I also played through a Acoustic 8x10 cabinet with one of their heads.
Well to make a long story short they all pretty much sounded the same and pretty crappy. I'm not sure why anybody based on who those basses played would spend the extra money on anything then the squier basses. Not that I don't love high end basses but basing it on how the store doesn't set them up they are all garbage....
Yesterday I went into the local Guitar Center to pick up a few things. I usually don't but I spent quite a bit of time in the bass room. I've gotta say just about every bass is in desperate need of new strings and a set up. For those of you that really buy into wood doesn't matter that much, I wouldn't use this as a guage. Just about everything I played sounded blah, Geddy Jazz, Marcus Jazz, P bass with rosewood and maple, a few of the new HH and HS Sting Rays and even the 50s style Vintage vibe p bass. All with super high action and dead strings. I also played through a Acoustic 8x10 cabinet with one of their heads.
Well to make a long story short they all pretty much sounded the same and pretty crappy. I'm not sure why anybody based on who those basses played would spend the extra money on anything then the squier basses. Not that I don't love high end basses but basing it on how the store doesn't set them up they are all garbage....
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
Why not have the guy above with the two p-basses record both of them and then use that Logic Pro frequency breakdown thing to show the spl charts of the tone coming through.
That'll shut everyone up. Ears are subjective. Science is science. Granted, we'll see small changes, but if there's a huge spike in the 200-300hz range with a graphite neck that isn't present with a maple neck, we'll know that woods play a very big role in all of this.
That'll shut everyone up. Ears are subjective. Science is science. Granted, we'll see small changes, but if there's a huge spike in the 200-300hz range with a graphite neck that isn't present with a maple neck, we'll know that woods play a very big role in all of this.
You may want to rethink throwing around blanket statements like that. If you like passives better, that's cool, to each his own. But I think what you've said is an overstatement at best and could be wildly inaccurate at worst. Remember that EMGs aren't the only active pickups out there, nor are they the end-all, be-all for everyone, although plenty of folks love them. They have a characteristic sound that isn't necessarily reflective of other actives.
And some folks might tell you active pickups can pick up more subtleties or character from the wood (or graphite).
I neglected to add that the part referring to pickups was based on personal experiences (playing the instruments through different amps and such) and later on by word of mouth on here that backed it up. I'm not an electrician or luthier so I go on what I hear.
Playing basses with the same active pickups/electronics, but different brand models I heard no differences when played through different transparent sounding amps or amps that added tonal color. Whereas similar dollar amount and close quality amount basses with passive pickups/electronics offered much more character between the subtle difference in similar basses.
Do I prefer passive over active? Not really...I'm actually a big fan of Warwick's sound. But playing different basses with actives in them and such different body designs didnt give as much tonal differences as they passives did for me. Maybe its consistency in passive pickup quality, idk...i dont wind the things myself =/
