• 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.

Ibby SR500 vs SRX690 vs SR520 for recording purposes

ArvindJayaram

ArvindJayaram

Guest
Jul 7, 2012
552
127
Away in Singapore
#1
Hey,
Have been shooting out basses for a month now and I'm a little closer to taking a call (and blowing my savings)... Hoping someone could help me compare the following basses:

1) Ibanez SR520: Why I narrowed down on an SR520 over a SR500 was primarily price. Seems no one has a clear-cut answer on the maple vs bubinga neck on any of the forums I've trawled either. I'd imagine that the bubinga neck on the SR500 would make the bass have a darker tone. Then again, they both have mahagony bodies. Would there be a major difference in sound? Does the SR520 lose the SR500's plus points on this score?

2) Ibanez ATK700: I've heard nothing but good things about the ATK line-up. The 700 is cheaper than the alternatives like the 500 and the 300 here (go figure), so I thought it was a good contender. The triple coil pick-up is reportedly the cat's whiskers, so it made the list. The only thing I'm unsure about is the string spacing/playability, couldn't find any information in the Ibanez catalog on the 300 version. Is it 19-mm like the SR or wider? I don't know how to slap/tap/pop, but I am to learn these things and finger style playing. Good choice vis-a-vis the other options from a recording perspective?

3) Ibanez SRX690: It's a neck-through, so that's a big plus. Also, the pickups are supposed to be high output, which is again a plus. String spacing is 19-mm like the SR. They're billed for being good for metal. Good price. Would string spacing be a big issue for learning to play fingerstyle?


My primary consideration is being able to string one of these guitars B-E-A-D without any hassle. Can they handle it? I know the nut can be filed if the B string doesn't fit, but I would like to avoid this if possible. A bigger consideration is whether a B string would fit through the bridge without trouble, because I definitely won't be able to drill well.

I play speed/thrash metal in B and it's a three-piece band (guitar & vocals/bass/drums, all of which I play myself). The main use of this bass would be in a home recording studio. I don't have any FX, but I have VST Amprack within Cubase 6.5, so I'll use that as a tone modifier along with other stock EQ and compression plugins.

Do fill me in guys, completely at sea on basses!

- Jimmy

PS: I'm really curious about the Cort Curbow 5 as well. Especially after seeing this guy. He's got a bunch of videos covering Death, Control Denied and other bands

Am I deaf to good bass tones? Are my leanings toward Death colouring my hearing? I thought it was pretty cool, but I dunno. What do you guys think? :hyper:
 
#2
Out of the basses you mentioned, I would go with the SR 500. I have 3. 2 from the mid 90's that I have done a ton of recording with and 1 that is a 2010 that I haven't done any recording with but from playing it, I know it would do well.
 
#3
Thanks, Jay! I'm wondering if the SR520 is any different from the 500 as budget constraints prevent me from opting for the more popular model. Also, someone on these forums told me to seriously consider an ATK. I really like the look too. And the SRX seems to have a different tone on account of the "high output" pickups. So still a little lost. Couldn't find any YouTube videos of the SRX690 either, though Ibanez says artists swear by them (good marketing? Worked on me;)

Mechanevil is a death/thrash/groove/progressive project with speed metal sensitivities. Just a three piece, so plenty of scope for riff pull and push between the guitar and the bass (which will be heard). I dunno if that makes sense to many TBers (I loved the joke about the best bass for metal being an eight-string guitar), but try to visualise massive space between a drum and a guitar. This is intended to be filled with bass that will be audible, not buried like Jason Newsted in Metallica (awesome bassist). Since the guitar is tuned BEADF#B, there is already a lot of low end space occupied. I need something punchy, maybe a little bright, but not excessively so; growling, but not muddy; and "audible" in terms of, I don't know, a commanding presence, a booming bompabomp of doom. On a recording.:bassist:
I know engineering has a lot to do with how stuff sounds on a record. But a nice start to the signal chain overrides all other considerations.

Thanks and keep hurling ideas or abuse at me.
- Jimmy
 
#5
I'd say go with the SR500 too. I own both a SR (Prestige) and a SRX, and I find that while the SRX is perfect for single-guitar mixes (seriously, this thing is a funk/rock monster), it gets drowned out way too easily whenever you add a second guitar, especially under heavy distortion.

The SR has a much more focused, midrangey sound that cuts through easily while not overpowering the guitars (plus, 3-band EQ).

As for what non-prestige SRs can do, I refer you to the vids of all-around awesome guy Tony Dickinson, who rocks an SR506 as his main axe:
-
 
#8
Out of those I have only tried SR500, but I would go with ATK.

SR500 sounds very... smooth. Lacks growl to my ears, though I know that is a very subjective thing. It's not a bad thing really, if you were playing funk or something with a lot of slap, I would go with that, because it has those glassy highs that are great. Many people who play a bit more agressively also say that the mahogany finish chips off very easily and is prone to dents, so as nice as the sound may be for certain situations, I would never get it because of the practical reasons.
A lot of modern metal bass players go with SRX but I have yet to hear a tone from one of those that is not mid-scooped.
ATK however has that low-mid-friendly monster tone that cuts through a mix really nice. Many favor it over Stingray even. The only issue that I have with it is that it's looks are by far the least appealing out of those three models that you listed, but that is just me. :)

Have you considered BTB models? They have 35" scale and are perfect for low tunings. I have one and they are by far my favorite Ibanez line.
 
#9
Thanks for the information guys. I think I can eliminate the SRX from my list, down to the ATK and the SR520.

Would have loved to get a BTB, but they're outrageously priced here, in the same bracket as an SR1000 (I think that's a Prestige).

Might still decide against the impulse buy and save some more though, I'm more nervous about picking an instrument that I can grow with than I am averse to the law of diminishing returns with gear, given that I'm not earning a living from my music. That said, better gear is better, it gives one a sense of inner peace, minus any after-purchase regret.

Does anyone know the difference between an SR900 and SR910? I've read great reviews about the 900, despite the maple body, as against the SR500s mahagony. Otherwise they seem to have the same electronics. Does the SR910 have something extra?

- Jimmy
 
#11
ArvindJayaram said:
Does anyone know the difference between an SR900 and SR910? I've read great reviews about the 900, despite the maple body, as against the SR500s mahagony. Otherwise they seem to have the same electronics. Does the SR910 have something extra?
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you're going to go with an SR that's neither a Prestige nor a Premium (TBH, given the choice I'd go with a Premium -- they're not MIJ but they have the best pickups of the entire Ibanez catalogue), you want a SR 500/505/506. Above those, the only thing that changes is the body wood -- the electronics and necks remain the exact same.
 
#12
SR500 for sure: powerful punchy tone with great note clarity; it can growl just fine if played right.

ATK is nice; but it wouldn't be my bass of choice for a metal band; it's a different kind of animal.

I'd stay the heck away from SRX.


As for the bubinga vs maple topic...
1. the neck is not made from bubinga - it's jatoba (those 2 thin stripes are bubinga). It feels very different when you play on it, it has an oily feel to it, like the neck was waxed.
2. I own a SR505 with jatoba neck and one with maple neck. They sound very different: the maple sounds way brighter and it projects well those high mids - so it cuts very well in the mix, while the jatoba one has more meat and the tone is darker.
 
#14
If you are getting an SR500, make sure it's the one with the mid-shift switch. The other is nice (I owned it), but that mid switch is miiiiiighty helpful. Honestly, if you are getting an Ibanez then you've already made a good decision lol. Keep in mind though, that ATK is VERY VERY VERY HEAVY....the older ones are like strapping an SVT to your neck, but man do they sound amazing. God, I love Ibanez lol
 
#15
Some great advice there. I know Paul Gray used an ATK, any other bassists use one for metal? Kind of inaudible in Slipknot, but that's probably a mixing decision. I like the idea of a heavy instrument, I feel it makes a big difference with passive pups. I guess Fieldy would be the SR500 guy, anybody else?

Both of their sig models are different from their original choices, but I guess those couldn't be bad for someone starting out.

Anyone have an opinion on the BTB475 versus the BTB675? The 475 is mahagony, the 675 is light ash with a walnut top. Toying with the idea of stretching the budget and I read that these are killer basses for the money, at least the 675. They have the same pickups, Bart MKIIs, which I'd imagine are better than the MKIs. 35" inch scale might be nice too. Mono-rail II bridges. Other large difference is one is a natural finish and the other is a paint job. Is the neck width huge?

Interesting this I heard: Neck width doesn't matter at all, says Billy Sheehan. I wonder if I'm going about this all wrong :/

- Jimmy
 
#16
ArvindJayaram said:
Anyone have an opinion on the BTB475 versus the BTB675? The 475 is mahagony, the 675 is light ash with a walnut top. Toying with the idea of stretching the budget and I read that these are killer basses for the money, at least the 675. They have the same pickups, Bart MKIIs, which I'd imagine are better than the MKIs. 35" inch scale might be nice too. Mono-rail II bridges. Other large difference is one is a natural finish and the other is a paint job. Is the neck width huge?
Click to expand...

Mk2s aren't necessarily better, they're different. Bartolini Mk1 pickups are split-coil (Precision-style) pickups in soapbar housings. Mk2s are dual-coil pickups in similar soapbar housings. Both sound great, but they're not a bad and a good version of the same tone.

Interesting this I heard: Neck width doesn't matter at all, says Billy Sheehan. I wonder if I'm going about this all wrong :/
Click to expand...

Maybe for him it doesn't. But in the general case, he's dead wrong. Neck width and thickness (and string spacing, obviously) are very important factors in a bass's playability.

Honestly, at this point you should try them out.

Also Fieldy is probably the worst example you could find of an SR500 player: SRs and BTBs live by their midrange presence, and Fieldy scoops his mids so hard it's a miracle you can even hear anything. Take a look at the vids I posted earlier for more accurate examples of what an SR can sound like in a metal setting.
 
#17
Sheehan was talking about how some people feel that a wider neck (with bigger string spacing) makes it harder to reach across the entire fretboard. He cited the example of some guy with small hands was able to work his way across the entire neck of some wide-necked bass without any problem. Just a question of how you approach it, seems to have been his argument.

I, too, believe that differences in neck width and thickness could mean the difference between a comfortable bass to play and an uncomfortable one. I have a couple of guitars, an RG1820X and a Fender HM Strat, with very different necks. I found the HM, with its extremely odd radius and neck thickness was extremely comfortable for chords, while the Ibanez was better for shred. I'm assuming I'll be playing a lot more single note stuff on the bass, so would the difference neck thicknesses translate in the same way on the instrument?

Unfortunately, a lot of the basses I'm evaluating are only available online. Most music stores don't keep them in stock and when I inquired into the reason, they said the higher priced stuff (note, this is all relative) doesn't sell so much in their store as lower priced models. I've even tried to talk them into making a downpayment so that they bring a few basses to their store so that I can shoot them out and pick one, but no joy.

- Jimmy
 
#18
Ibanez SR500 All the way.
Did lots of research before I bought mine and have not been sorry in the least.
Great smooth sound that can pop if you want it to.
Thin quick neck for easier fingering. (I do not have large hands).
A simple Amp will do because the onboard EQ is Awsome!
It darn near plays itself.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back