Do you think the stock SX pickups are the reason for limiting harmonic volume or something else?
BTW, I'm going to guess that the first track is the Fender.
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
Do you think the stock SX pickups are the reason for limiting harmonic volume or something else?
BTW, I'm going to guess that the first track is the Fender.
since i never changed them out, i don't know for sure, but they sound kind of weak unplugged as well, so i think it's something in the construction.
and jauqo, i'm pretty sure my old files are up in that sx vs 79 p thread i did a few years back. been a while since i saw it, but i think about 2/3 of the people voting chose the sx as the real fender.
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
I started a thread (kind of) like this. It was a 1965 J into a B15n into a Neve board ~vs~ a 2000 active American Delux J into a Line 6 POD direct into Pro Tools. Alot of folks couldn't tell the difference in the mix.
I've played a few very nice SX basses and would never say anything negative about them. However, I wouldn't gig one. There is more that goes into gear choice than tone. Aside from feel, which is, to me, more important, there is also the emotional side. I like the fact that my instruments were hand made by small builders who have spent years honing their craft. I'm not talking about the super elite expensive basses---but guys like Cliff Bordwell who make fine instruments that are alot more financially obtainable than Ritters, etc.
We can only speculate on this, but I wonder if your SX will still be playable in 46 years, like the Fender. Of course, for the price, it doesn't really matter. You can buy one a year and still pay less than the '64 Fender.
In the end, I'm glad you are getting a tone that you love and a feel that works for you.
I've played a few very nice SX basses and would never say anything negative about them. However, I wouldn't gig one. There is more that goes into gear choice than tone. Aside from feel, which is, to me, more important, there is also the emotional side. I like the fact that my instruments were hand made by small builders who have spent years honing their craft. I'm not talking about the super elite expensive basses---but guys like Cliff Bordwell who make fine instruments that are alot more financially obtainable than Ritters, etc.
We can only speculate on this, but I wonder if your SX will still be playable in 46 years, like the Fender. Of course, for the price, it doesn't really matter. You can buy one a year and still pay less than the '64 Fender.
In the end, I'm glad you are getting a tone that you love and a feel that works for you.
The demonstration is valid since it was never presented as anything other than a slightly modded SX vs a Fender. And it is actually only a demonstration and not a "test" per se.
The bigger picture seems to be missed here, and that's a $100 bass with a replaced pickup performs as well in a real life situation as a "holy grail" Pre-CBS Fender. Just because the SX performs as well as the Pre-CBS Fender, it's no reason to dismiss the results for some professed technicality. But I can see how the results would stick in the craw of some.
Don't forget image as motivation. I see that as a prevalent issue with many players in my area.
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
The same can be said if he replaced the original pickup in the P bass with a Lollar and put the P bass pickup in the SX.
Like I said before changing the pickup changed the game.
The SX is no longer a SX with a Lollar pickup in it
Lets hear the stock SX in a real life scenario.
I compared an SX with DiMarzios with a Lakland!
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=626148
.
The SX is no longer a SX with a Lollar pickup in it
I disagree, Fenders are certainly claimed to still be Fenders with all kinds of mods including aftermarket non-Fender pickup replacement. The SX should be extended the same courtesy.
No matter anyway, it's still all about a $200 bass performing as well as a Pre-CBS bass valued in the thousands of dollars.
They are not outed as non-Fenders because they still have the big "F" on the headstock - they are instead given even more accolades & praises. SX's are dismissed no matter what accoutrements are hung on them.
I don't think anyone should get too hung up on a pickup replacement. My take on the threads intent is whether said $100.00 bass built of alleged shoddy materials, construction (and any other claim that's been conjured up) can hold its own against one of the most respected holy grail instruments of the bass community in a real life scenario.
The SX is no longer a SX with a Lollar pickup in it
You are correct. But a pre-CBS P is one of the most 'highly regarded' instruments available. So, even if a stock Skyline Lakland held it's own against the '64, I think the results would still mean (prove) something.
I didn't actually listen to the clips, so I cannot comment on any differences/similiarities.
Oh yeah, image is big for some guys. Everyone has their own set of criteria I guess.
Again, here's what you quoted from me:
"It doesn't say that at all... unless listening to recordings is all that counts".
Is it?
The bass sounded quite different in the two bands to me (might just be the guitars rather than the bass sounding different), so I'm only going on the Mark Lind tracks:
Tone 1
=====
Cold Hearted
No One To Cry To
An Open Letter To Boston
Tone 2
=====
I'll Be There
Familiar Face
I preferred Tone 1 as it seemed to sit better between the drums and guitars and not get drowned out as much. I think. More low mids there. I don't have a clue which bass either one was (if they are two different basses), but out of the two I'd still rather have the Fender. Even if I had to stick a Lollar pickup in it...
Anyway, main thing is I enjoyed the music.
Tone 1
=====
Cold Hearted
No One To Cry To
An Open Letter To Boston
Tone 2
=====
I'll Be There
Familiar Face
I preferred Tone 1 as it seemed to sit better between the drums and guitars and not get drowned out as much. I think. More low mids there. I don't have a clue which bass either one was (if they are two different basses), but out of the two I'd still rather have the Fender. Even if I had to stick a Lollar pickup in it...
Anyway, main thing is I enjoyed the music.
The value of a pre-CBS Fender has practically zip to do with the sound of the actual bass. Many people understand that so the mention of value is pointless in that regard. It also doesn't mean it'll be a great player. The idea that the bass in this test is a "holy grail" is equally off the mark. The fact that the basses are not standing out (soloed) and are instead obscured in the mix seems to be okay with people who want the SX to be equal. It is clearly not much of a test to anyone with an ounce of objectivity unless they're trying to prove that either bass sits in a mix like this.
As far as I can tell that's not the exercise
. But hey, ignore the glaring variables, that's the only way anything "wins" in this thing. I could see damn near any bass, regardless of cost, sitting well in the same mixes. Take the same strings and pickup, stick them on a $20 Goodwill special and it wouldn't be at all shocking to hear similar sound in the mix. By the crooked logic displayed in this thread, that would "prove" that an SX or Fender is no better than a $20 Goodwill bass with upgrades. Because of a recording.
But it's not just about recorded sound.
At least for some. For example, there are basses that can record fine and disappear in a live mix without a lot of work. If you're someone who doesn't want to do a lot of work to stand out in a live mix...
These exercises are fun, they show the thought processes of various people. I've explained mine.
All pre-CBS P basses are not highly regarded because of their recording ability. There's far more to it than that and all of them aren't equal.
Now that sounds like a good blindfold test
Here's Jimmy's thread:
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=311414&highlight=
Unfortunately, it seems the mp3's aren't available anymore, but there is plenty of reading to be had.
Latest posts
-
Curious what the percentage of bass players use rounds vs flats is.- Latest: monsterthompson
-
-
-
-
