Identify the SX vs. Fender in the mix thread

[Brad Johnson]

Most bassists who are concerned about how their instument 'sits in the mix' are in a band--which, after all, is what this thread is about.

Did I say otherwise?


He said most bass players are in bands. I disagreed. It had nothing to do with bass players who are concerned about the mix. I don't think most bass players are in bands... period. Could be a good excuse for a poll and of course it would be flawed because it would only deal with bass players on TB. That doesn't cover all or even most bass players.

If most bass players are in bands they'd have to be about the highest number of any musical instrument being played.

And I guess I might as well point out the obvious... just because you're not in a band doesn't mean you have to play alone There are plenty of recordings to play along with.

There are a million little things 'wrong' with the test, but as a whole, most people who posted couldn't hear much of a difference. I don't think that the intention of this thread was to provide difinitive scientific proof that SX basses can hold their own against a 1964 Fender. It was just a fun thread that went downhill once things started getting too serious.

It was supposed to prove something, which a few people seem to think it did. What it actually proved was when Savit records with those two basses in bands he records with it's hard to tell. Some seem to take that and run with it.

I do agree with you on other aspects, though. Like I said earlier, tone isn't the only reason to pick a bass---and for me it's not even the most important. So, I would say that, strictly from a tonal perspective, in this particular example, I was impressed with the (non-stock ) SX as compared to a '64 P.

If I were holding the basses---or listening to them in MY personal real world situation, I might be able to distiguish the two---but going purely by the sound clips of the mp3's through my headphones---I couldn't pick them apart. I think I even picked one SX track and one Fender track as my favorite.

I think that we can all agree that it is possible to get a good sounding set up on almost any budget. I don't mind paying more for my gear because I have a specific set of requirements/preferences.

I'm pretty sure I already said that.

 

[Brad Johnson]

A good recording, through good equipment, can make anything sound good. The ****ing Champs use cheapo old guitars, aside from a Fender Strat and a Gibson Les Paul, through old Marshalls and get pure metal. They also have more recording gear listed in their liner notes than guitar equipment.

Did we ever get a straight answer what's what? I haven't kept track of the 15 pages.

By the way, is that one song a Jaws reference?

Yes, it can... which is why it doesn't prove much, despite what some think.

It's like taking a picture of a dirty car. In the photo it can look really clean despite the dirt. IRL...

 

[Brad Johnson]

You want it to be about ego-stroking Fender lovers but the more I'm on talkbass the more I see people bashing 'ego-stroking Fender lovers' who largely don't even exist - at least not on this forum. If you look at the first few pages of posts in this particular thread the majority of it is people e-high-fiving eachother because nobody will respond about the recordings. The 'golden ears'. It reminds me of high school kids driving around in an old rusty Dodge Neon cheering because nobody will try to race them at all the stoplights.

I just like whatever looks, sounds, and feels fitting. No justifications - just whatever I like. The more I see these threads the more I realize in this forum SX has become like Fender - just another name people like to attach something too. The 'anti-label' has become the 'label'. Just like punk, Hot Topic, and mohawks.

There ya go. If you don't want the cheap bass, it's because of a need for prestige or all other sorts of imagined baggage. It couldn't simply be because you appreciate what you're holding in your hands.

 

[Brad Johnson]

What I want is not to have people, especially financial struggling musicians, turned off from buying an SX bass because ego stroking Fender lovers are bashing them.

It would be just as nice if people would quit going overboard in the other direction. Take this ego stroking nonsense for instance. Is that really productive or just some kind of tit for tat?

SX's are not magic. They are not the equal of all of the basses some of you need them to be. If you're only going to listen to recordings of them and not actually play them you don't even need one... the recording bassist did.


Anyone who's going to blindly take the word of a bassist with zero scrutiny has issues anyway. People have to understand that there's loads of baggage around and if they really want to find out what THEY like they need to do the same things many of the rest of us do... check them out for themselves. That's half the fun anyway.

There are plenty of people who regularly criticize things who are pretty clueless when you actually scrutinize their opinions/"experience". Many don't have sense enough to know that a setup they don't like does not mean a bass is bad... they'll bitch about it to anyone who'll listen.

I was talking with a guy yesterday at Atomic Music who was considering starting to play bass and asked for recommendations. I asked what price range he had in mind and recommended a few basses in the store to check out, among them some Fender Squiers and SX's. That's what I've always done. I don't tell people to not check out anything...to be blunt I think that's just plain stupid. Even if it's something I might not care for I know that they might like it.

If someone's not bright enough to see I'm not ragging on SX's I guess that's just entertaihment.

 

[mongo2]

But the missing part is that a GOOD craftsman carefully chooses his tools to give him exactly what he wants in every situation.

Interesting point.

Now if the question is whether or not the $5 hammer can do the SAME job as effectively as the CNC, I guess that depends on the given job. In some cases the answer is probably yes. For others, it's no way.

Perhaps you should be comparing a $5 hammer to a $50 hammer to keep it an apples to apples comparison and even about the same price ratio between SX and a current production Fender. In that case, I honestly don't think $5 hammer would be much of an impediment to a good craftsman. They may not like having to use the $5 hammer but they could do the same job because that's what makes them tick, it's what they do. They can't permit anything but a good job.

They may even prefer to use the $5 hammer for their personal connection to it.

 

[mongo2]

If someone's not bright enough to see I'm not ragging on SX's I guess that's just entertaihment.

You mean entertainment? I know, it's a typo but it's just humorously ironic that it happened in that particular sentence.

 

[Surly]

One question though: if that SX is what you say it is, then why own an expensive '64 P-bass? Why hasn't that been rid of yet? I myself don't usually hold onto two basses that sound exactly the same.

There are lots of guys (on here anyway) who own 4-5 Precision basses and multiple Jazzes. I also used to think it was strange, but not anymore. Some guys will keep flats on one P, and rounds on another.

 

[Stinsok]

Like MrGotBass said, in so many words: It's not an honest comparison.

I was looking forward to the title comparison (and hoping no one could tell.)

 

[mongo2]

One question though: if that SX is what you say it is, then why own an expensive '64 P-bass? Why hasn't that been rid of yet? I myself don't usually hold onto two basses that sound exactly the same.

Because somebody will be willing to pay a boatload of money for the '64 P and it's probably only going to go up in price in the future?

I don't think they sound exactly the same though. But they also don't scream which headstock decal they're sporting in the recordings.

 

[Brad Johnson]

You mean entertainment? I know, it's a typo but it's just humorously ironic that it happened in that particular sentence.

Did I mean entertainment?

No.

 

[mongo2]

Did I mean entertainment?

No.

Well, "entertaihment" isn't a word, so what did you mean?

If you're going to attempt insulting our intelligence it may be helpful if you used actual words.

 

[michael_atw]

Well, "entertaihment" isn't a word, so what did you mean?

If you're going to attempt insulting our intelligence it may be helpful if you used actual words.

I'm glad in real life someone's intelligence isn't based off a typo, just like I'm glad in real life an instrument's playability and sound aren't based off one recording.

 

[michael_atw]

Yes, I know that having three P basses, all strung with the same strings, and basicly the same set up flies in the face of TB conventional wisdom, but that's what workd for me.

I don't think it's TB conventional wisdom so much as it goes against why you have this thread up to begin with. Just get 3 SX basses instead of holding onto that expensive Fender. You'd save a ton of money. Isn't that what you want? That's why people buy SX.

 

[stingray69]

I don't think it's TB conventional wisdom so much as it goes against why you have this thread up to begin with. Just get 3 SX basses instead of holding onto that expensive Fender. You'd save a ton of money. Isn't that what you want? That's why people buy SX.

I believe Savit already laid out very thoroughly his reasons for keeping the gear he does. I didn't get the impression he was looking for advice on how to re-adjust his bass collection.

I have 7 jazz basses myself - pretty much along the same line of reason. Several variations of Alder, Ash, 60's pup spacing & 70's pup spacing, and strung with different brands of strings, pot values, dual volumes or blend knobs on some, etc. for different tones. They are all just variations of a jazz bass tone, which is exactly what I want. But you are correct - someone could save a ton of money if all they wanted to play was SX basses exclusively.

 

[Jim Dep]

Not reading all 16 pages let me just say, some fenders are just dogs.......

That's a relevant point, but fortunately not as many Fender bow wow's currently as you'd find 20 - 30 years ago. The pooches of yester-year are now called Squires and MIM's, with exceptions of course. I've played a Squire that I liked better than a 70's MIA I used to have.

With the used stock SX P found for $75 at a pawn shop, I have a sample of ONE SX that I tried out.
It was great from what I could see, feel, and hear. I'm sure there are used dogs out there but given Rondo's return policy, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a new one.

 

[THand]

I don't think it's TB conventional wisdom so much as it goes against why you have this thread up to begin with. Just get 3 SX basses instead of holding onto that expensive Fender. You'd save a ton of money. Isn't that what you want? That's why people buy SX.

If you were familar with Savit's story you would know he is quite attached to and proud of that old Fender. What is it with people who think it has to be either/or? What's wrong with loving all of your basses reguardless of price? I have real Fender's, ibanez's, a homeade Carvin P, and 2 SX's...plus I bought my son an SX. Luckily, his is almost perfect. My luck wasn't as good, and my main SX P bass has had everything replaced. Everything. The only part that is original is the body. But, I'm picky, and I don't mind doing a little work to get them like I want.
I grew up when CBS Fenders were the SX of the day. Everyone knew back then that if you bought one, that you would probably need to do more work on it. When I got my first SX, I really recalled having my first CBS Fender. It is very close to that.
They are what they are. Even with everything replaced, I got a good body for $100. And the pocket is cut to fit american replacment necks, unlike MIM Fender, or squier. So it is still a good deal.
I don't understand the either/or business though. Have bass players gotten so materialistic that they don't realize that they can make almost any bass a good bass? This used to be common knowledge. In the 80's everywhere you turned people were playing Frankensteined guitars and basses, but now there seems to be a line of thinking that says that it is only good if it ran down a brand name prodution line and left bone stock. Get over it. They are still just basses, and not a single one has had majic fairly dust sprickled on them. IMO, no Fender, except pre-CBS Fenders are real Fenders anyway. The company was sold ages ago and nothing is made the same way. If you want a "real Fender" that is brand new, get a USA G&L!!

 

[Darkstrike]

And the pocket is cut to fit american replacment necks, unlike MIM Fender, or squier.

All three are the same spec.

I have a Fender replacement neck that been on both Squiers and an MIM Fender before, and fit perfectly, never tried it on my SX, though...

 

[savit260]

One question though: if that SX is what you say it is, then why own an expensive '64 P-bass? Why hasn't that been rid of yet?

I think you may have answered your own question

I just like whatever looks, sounds, and feels fitting. No justifications - just whatever I like. .

 

[THand]

All three are the same spec.

I have a Fender replacement neck that been on both Squiers and an MIM Fender before, and fit perfectly, never tried it on my SX, though...

I stand corrected. I had heard of several people needing to modify the pockets for a good fit on MIM and Squiers, but if your experiance is different, I believe ya. My Fender replacement neck fits my SX even better than the SX neck did, and that was a good tight fit, honestly.

 

[Darkstrike]

I stand corrected. I had heard of several people needing to modify the pockets for a good fit on MIM and Squiers, but if your experiance is different, I believe ya. My Fender replacement neck fits my SX even better than the SX neck did, and that was a good tight fit, honestly.

Very cool, espcially if you're not into the new SX headstock.