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.
Identify the SX vs. Fender in the mix thread
- Thread starter savit260
- Start date
Did I ever say any of that? Nope.
Never said anything even remoltly close to that.
I really don't think any of this is all that hard to "get".
You took a leak in the Holy Grail, Savit, these reactions are to be expected
I think anytime the Fender-tinted glasses are removed, it causes an uproar on TB. I happen to agree that the SX's of today are much closer in design & build to vintage basses than newer Fender basses are. Did Fender themselves not re-visit & search for the "secrets" of their own vintage basses with the new 2008+ models. Except I missed the part where vintage basses had graphite support rod necks, high-mass bridges, SCN & other stacked coil pickups (in most recent Fenders). I love it when they stated they were taking a scientific, reverse-engineering approach to really dissect & discern what makes their own vintage instruments sound so great & then walked completely in the other design direction with the build & materials. There's no denying that the newer model Fenders are damn good basses, and built very well construction-wise. I own one myself for those reasons but I did not for one second delusion myself into thinking my 2008 MIA jazz is gonna sound anything like a vintage jazz with those additions. The SX's are closer in design recipe to vintage basses than the newer MIA & CS Fender models are and that is not IMO, that is fact.
Let me address some of this now that I have more time.
) No one ever claimed an SX straight out of the box has the attention to detail that a Sadowsky has.
The SX buyer has the option of fine tuning , and adressing what needs more attention to detail themselves as they see fit.
You are certainly entitled to disagree as strongly as you like.
While this is interesting, I don't believe I've ever commented anwhere that the sound of a "keyboard" sounds like garbage as compared to a geniune B3. I've not entered numerous threads on the subject insulting those who claim that the "keyboard" can sound just as good. Nor have I ever insisted that I , nor anyone that wasn't completely tone deaf , could hear the difference. (yes, I was assured at least once that I must be "tone deaf" regarding the SX and Fender 
)
I've played with a few and listened to a bunch of keyboard players over the years. Some used B3's while others used some pretty convincing "simulators" (some even had drawbars, and were using rotating speaker cabs although not propper Leslies), and some who used other keyboards that had B3 settings.
I even owned a Hammond M100 myself for a good number of years.
MOST guys I've played with opted for a decent "simulation". Something that could approximate the sound of a geniune B3 withough having to lug a full size Hammond B3 arround. Don't know if you've ever moved one into a gig, but let me tell you... INCONVENIENT!
It's a WHOLE lot easier to move something else that's more "appropriate" for the gig, yet still can deliver 99% of the goods, and at a fraction of the cost.
This can also be applied to the whole SX thing. There are plenty of gigging scenarios where dragging around a Vintage (i.e. expensive, and EXTREEMLY difficult to replace) Fender just isn't appropriate, or even smart. Much like the guys who use very good Hammond simulators, a modded SX, put together to replicate the Old Fender, in a much more convenient, and replacable package, makes TONS of sense, and still manages to "deliver the goods".
Now, regarding your track... I can barely hear the bass track on my speakers, so I can't comment on that but the Organ track sounds more like a Wurlitzer than a Hammond to me on my particular speakers.
I've never said anything of the sort. The more expensive instruments have to reflect local labor costs, local supply costs, more expensive/higher quality componants and the extra time and attention to detail that is involved in building top flight instruments. I've played Rogers basses, and they are quite nice, even if they don't particularly suit me (I have no interest in basses with pre amps
) No one ever claimed an SX straight out of the box has the attention to detail that a Sadowsky has.The SX buyer has the option of fine tuning , and adressing what needs more attention to detail themselves as they see fit.
I have no idea what Fender pays for raw materials vs. what SX pays, nor how many middle men they have to go through before the stock gets to the factory. I'm sure Alder and Maple trees can grow on more than one continent. Maybe SX local pricing is lower? I have no idea.
I'm sure you've been around long enough to understand that the price of a product is more than the sum of the costs of the raw materials, but yes, both basses are 3 piece Alder bodies with a Maple neck and a rosewood board. No idea where they stock for either was sourced from or what their respective raw materials cost were, but that's only a small fraction of the total cost of the instrument.
I don't believe I've said that, or even implied that anywhere in this thread. If that were the case, do you think I'd currently own four Fenders?
As stated before, you are paying for a lot of things, not limited to , but including the extra attention to detail on the more expensive basses. There is VERRY LITTLE that cant be addressed by the purchaser of an SX, to get it up to , or exceed the level of attention to detail of an off the shelf Fender. My guy can probably spend more time leveling frets, than the typical off the shelf Fender gets. THAT is all up to the individual purchaser of an SX.. as to HOW MUCH extra attention they want to spend.... and if they can do the work themselves, it's even MORE cost effective.
Given that your assumptions are completely off base in my opinion. No.
again... you're missing the boat or simply just not understanding what people are saying.
You are certainly entitled to disagree as strongly as you like.
Have any of your less expensive basses been modified in such a way as to try and replicate the sound and playability of your more expensive basses?
While this is interesting, I don't believe I've ever commented anwhere that the sound of a "keyboard" sounds like garbage as compared to a geniune B3. I've not entered numerous threads on the subject insulting those who claim that the "keyboard" can sound just as good.
Nor have I ever insisted that I , nor anyone that wasn't completely tone deaf , could hear the difference. (yes, I was assured at least once that I must be "tone deaf" regarding the SX and Fender )I've played with a few and listened to a bunch of keyboard players over the years. Some used B3's while others used some pretty convincing "simulators" (some even had drawbars, and were using rotating speaker cabs although not propper Leslies), and some who used other keyboards that had B3 settings.
I even owned a Hammond M100 myself for a good number of years.
MOST guys I've played with opted for a decent "simulation". Something that could approximate the sound of a geniune B3 withough having to lug a full size Hammond B3 arround. Don't know if you've ever moved one into a gig, but let me tell you... INCONVENIENT!
It's a WHOLE lot easier to move something else that's more "appropriate" for the gig, yet still can deliver 99% of the goods, and at a fraction of the cost.
This can also be applied to the whole SX thing. There are plenty of gigging scenarios where dragging around a Vintage (i.e. expensive, and EXTREEMLY difficult to replace) Fender just isn't appropriate, or even smart. Much like the guys who use very good Hammond simulators, a modded SX, put together to replicate the Old Fender, in a much more convenient, and replacable package, makes TONS of sense, and still manages to "deliver the goods".
Now, regarding your track... I can barely hear the bass track on my speakers, so I can't comment on that but the Organ track sounds more like a Wurlitzer than a Hammond to me on my particular speakers.
So long as peoiple listen with their eyes, the debate will rage on!
I brought an SX to a studio session, along with some of my other basses. It has a "Fecker" logo on it - a little Irish joke, but it looks like Fender if you're far enough away, and the engineer raved about it. " You can't beat an old Precision" he said, over and over.
As soon as he was told what it really was, he started to hear flaws. " Its a little thin here..." etc etc...but only AFTER he found out - he was listening with his eyes.
Does it feel as nice as an old P? No.
Does it take a little more work to get the vibe out ot it? Maybe a little, yes.
Will I be heartbroken if its stolen from me? No...
There you have it.
No-one's saying its AS good...but for a lot of what we do, and for the money? a lot of the time its probably good enough.
I brought an SX to a studio session, along with some of my other basses. It has a "Fecker" logo on it - a little Irish joke, but it looks like Fender if you're far enough away, and the engineer raved about it. " You can't beat an old Precision" he said, over and over.
As soon as he was told what it really was, he started to hear flaws. " Its a little thin here..." etc etc...but only AFTER he found out - he was listening with his eyes.
Does it feel as nice as an old P? No.
Does it take a little more work to get the vibe out ot it? Maybe a little, yes.
Will I be heartbroken if its stolen from me? No...
There you have it.
No-one's saying its AS good...but for a lot of what we do, and for the money? a lot of the time its probably good enough.
...but only for pure entertainment. I love these listening tests cause no matter how good anyone *thinks* they are, most people fail (me too!!!).
On the Mark Lind stuff, the next to last song (Better Days) is a different studio, or at least a different session.
As far as the basses go - I'll make a guess. Purely a guess.
Sad Song sounds very Pbass-ish, but a little different to my ears.
A bunch of the others sound more like the same bass: No One to Cry For, I'll Be There, Coke and Jack, So She Says.
An Open Letter To Boston sounds a bit rounder, as does Familiar Face.
But I could be totally wrong. I am in NO WAY claiming to know which bass is which, though I have my suspicions. Nor am I claiming to have "golden ears" or be better than anyone else. As I said up front: I'm taking the challenge for fun. That it, pure and simple.
Great music, great playing, great tone! I like it!
On the Mark Lind stuff, the next to last song (Better Days) is a different studio, or at least a different session.
As far as the basses go - I'll make a guess. Purely a guess.
Sad Song sounds very Pbass-ish, but a little different to my ears.
A bunch of the others sound more like the same bass: No One to Cry For, I'll Be There, Coke and Jack, So She Says.
An Open Letter To Boston sounds a bit rounder, as does Familiar Face.
But I could be totally wrong. I am in NO WAY claiming to know which bass is which, though I have my suspicions. Nor am I claiming to have "golden ears" or be better than anyone else. As I said up front: I'm taking the challenge for fun. That it, pure and simple.
Great music, great playing, great tone! I like it!
As some of you may have seen in the past, in some of the SX threads I've thrown out a challenge to "definitively identify the SX and the Fender in the tracks on my sig links". Usually this is recieved by the sounds of crickets chirping.
I've decided to make this an actual thread, and see who has the "golden ears" to correctly pick which tracks are which.
Now for the players.
A lightly modded SX SPB 62 w/ a Jason Lollar pickup
A 1964 Fender Precision
Here are the links to the tracks.
Link Removed Link Removed
Disregard the last track on the first link, as it's clearly a solo accoustic thing with no bass track.
Now... let's just say for fun to make it interesting that it could be all the Fender or all the SX on the tracks.
It could be one bass on one track and the others on the rest... or not... or some combination of the two.
There could be a "spoiler" in there that's a totally different (non p bass) bass.
Just trying to keep it interesting here. LOL!!
All the tracks but one were recorded at The Outpost in Stoughton Ma. (the real golden ears should be able to pick out which track was recorded at a different studio
Bass is plugged into a Brent Averill pre to boost the signal, and then into a Trident 80B board. To the best of my knowledge , no extra effects were added, beyond basic tone shaping e/q. (pretty much the same sound I get live plugged right into the amp)
Haven't decided on a time frame yet to disclose which is which, but I will when I feel the time is right.
Thinkin for now maybe I'll pm people who chose to play to tell them if they are correct or not.
... and if you hate the music , the playing and bands... that's cool by me too... we all have different tastes, and I have very thick skin.
Anyone up to the challenge?
I think the actual results are back around page 12 somewhere, but I'll put in bold the actual basses used.
Thanks for playing
Thanks for playing
I think the actual results are back around page 12 somewhere, but I'll put in bold the actual basses used.
Thanks for playing and actaully reading the instructions too
I found the actual results after posting; I wanted to post *BEFORE* I found the results.
You win some, you lose some. Oh yeah - the last track on the Mark Lind page (Be Your Man) is a different studio. I hadn't listened to it as your original post said to disregard the "last track". Wrong "last track". The other stuff before that is much better.
I've never owned an SX, and if I did, I'm sure it would get my usual upgrades and still be a killer deal. To me, there's far more to choosing a bass than how it sounds recorded. I've used my G&L L2500 to "out-Fender my Fender" in cases where I knew it would actually *feel* better played on the G&L.
It has as much to do with how YOU feel at any given moment as anything else. Sometimes it's about the performance you can achieve on one bass vs. the other - not because one is "better", but simply different.
Like I said, good stuff! Keep it up.
It's like Fender has a marketing department, or something! Conspiracies! Cats and dogs living together!
It's supply and demand. Fender can charge more because they're an established house hold name. Everyone knows Fender. As long as people seek them out, they can charge as much as they want. There is no better example of this than the Geddy Lee Jazz. I defy anyone to explain why this model has continually jumped around in price (aside from economics) over the relatively short time it's been around. When they first came out in 1998 they cost $699. During the great Fender price hike they reached $1219. Currently they sit at $999. The only documented changes that have been made with this model is the switch from real blocks to painted blocks (a drop in quality) and upgraded tuners.
Actually they can't charge as much as they want. I'm guessing that was hyperbole.
I don't know if you need another explanation besides economics for the Geddy Lee pricing. What other explanation would you accept?
Generally speaking, there is so much that goes into pricing that many choose to either ignore or dismiss it's not funny. Where were the GL's made over their lifespan? What did it cost year by year to do so? Did any manufacturing standards change in that time? I remember when Mike Tobias had his shop in California and the regs changed on how he could finish instruments... and that cost his company money and by some of the logic here if he had to do a big bump it's not legit.
It's also interesting that many don't have problems with something like a Lakland Skyline that sells for as much as a US Fender IIRC.
Why does Dustin Hoffman make more money per movie than Alec Baldwin ?
They're both actors, both capable of doing a "at least" serviceable job, and possibly a "great" one.
Both have done many films.
Both are older men, considered decent enough looking.
Well - because Dustin Hoffman has shown himself to be the lead actor in "more successful" films than Alec Baldwin. It's that simple - he's the "name" actor, nothing more nothing less.
It's the same with Fender - proven track record - you pay "at least in part" for the name simply because you know what you are getting.
Maybe not the best analogy, but probably gets the point across.
Then again, for a while Ben Affleck was making more money per film than Matt Damon.
BTW- I own vintage Fenders as well as I have owned SX's - gigged both, been happy with the results of both.
I'm not quite sure why some people on here seem to want to make this thread out to be more than it is. They want to make it a "Fender witch hunt", when in actuality it isn't - it's a testimony to SX and Lollar. BIG difference.
They're both actors, both capable of doing a "at least" serviceable job, and possibly a "great" one.
Both have done many films.
Both are older men, considered decent enough looking.
Well - because Dustin Hoffman has shown himself to be the lead actor in "more successful" films than Alec Baldwin. It's that simple - he's the "name" actor, nothing more nothing less.
It's the same with Fender - proven track record - you pay "at least in part" for the name simply because you know what you are getting.
Maybe not the best analogy, but probably gets the point across.
Then again, for a while Ben Affleck was making more money per film than Matt Damon.
BTW- I own vintage Fenders as well as I have owned SX's - gigged both, been happy with the results of both.
I'm not quite sure why some people on here seem to want to make this thread out to be more than it is. They want to make it a "Fender witch hunt", when in actuality it isn't - it's a testimony to SX and Lollar. BIG difference.
You gotta have a Goliath for Dave to sling his rock at. No Goliath and he's just another guy killing sparrows.
I think the actual results are back around page 12 somewhere, but I'll put in bold the actual basses used.
Thanks for playing
cool, thanks!
EDIT: Oh, I found the actual results.
I made my guess on 6, was right about I'll Be There and No One to Cry For being the same bass (the SX), An Open Letter to Boston sounded clearly a different bass to me (true, the Fender).
So then I put the other 3 in line according to what they sounded to me in the right order but didn't make out which was which, I noted that Familiar Face also sounded different but also said after all it was closer to the first mentioned (true/false, it was the Fender). Whole Damn Thing - Fender (true/false), Cold Hearted - SX (true/false).I'll give each 0.5 for that reason.
So it is (3 * 1) + (3 * 0.5) = 4.5 out of 6. So so!
That said, I personally prefer the sound of SX/Lollar to stock Fender. It is brighter, crispier, ringier.
Now the question is, do I really need two Laklands then?
(jk)
You gotta have a Goliath for Dave to sling his rock at. No Goliath and he's just another guy killing sparrows.
