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.
Issues with the Fender Ultra Jazz 5
- Thread starter WorktheWood
- Start date
That's because they did change it. I'm told they have, so this issue should be history. Not surprised the web site pics haven't been changed, but in this particular case, I feel it would probably be a good idea to do so, though I doubt they will. I'm betting they've put this behind and are focused on new stuff now.
I just got an Ultra JV a week ago. It was the first thing I noticed when I received it. That bridge is an absolute abomination--talk about a giant step backward. Decades of "string-through is more resonant, more sustain!" to "Sorry--just kidding! String-through does nothing for tone (and adds five minutes to the construction of each bass)! What you really want is something that looks like a Bad@$$ from a distance! And slotted saddles so you can tweak spacing? Those are for losers!"
Here's the thing--this is my tenth Fender V. (Yes, I have issues.) I work in marketing, so I know how hard it is to give buyers new reasons to keep buying your stuff. But methinks FMC has shot itself in the foot with the Ultras.
Here's the thing--this is my tenth Fender V. (Yes, I have issues.) I work in marketing, so I know how hard it is to give buyers new reasons to keep buying your stuff. But methinks FMC has shot itself in the foot with the Ultras.
I don't think Leo Fender will be chiming in.
My 2014 Dimension Deluxe 5 has that type of bridge. I have no knowledge of the spacing as I just play the thing having no real issues with the spacing or playability.
Last edited:
With a 5 string, 19mm/.75" spacing will give you 3 inches from center of the B to center of the G. A dollar bill is just a hair over 6 inches. If you're at a store, fold a dollar bill in half and measure the bridge width. If it lines up, 19mm spacing. You'll have to do something slightly higher tech to determine if it is 17.5, 18, or 18.5.
Spot on. I guess those 3" models were made specifically for the Dimensions, but nobody thought to check their fit on Jazz 5s. Kudos to the knucklehead(s) at Fender who approved hundreds (thousands?) of basses going out with buggered bridges.
Parts is parts I guess. Why didn't they just use the Dimension's neck profile. I've always loved the Dimension and I just figured it's neck was based upon an JB design.
Because the J is the J and the D is the D. It would be a big mistake to blur the product lines... especially the ones with the long history and fairly consistent pedigree (P, J).
My guess is that Fender had to make some changes with the Ultra to be able to call it a new model and to justify the price increase over the Elite, and those changes were decided at the corporate level, not by designers. Otherwise, how could anyone consider the changes (less attractive finish choices, poorer bridge, and less effective/more difficult truss rod adjustment) to be an improvement over the Elite? The bridge shown in the original post is a good example of an obvious flaw from a company where profit rules over effective design and quality control. It's something you might expect on a $200 bass, but it's inexcusable on a $2000 one.
I own two Elites, and they have their issues too (radical difference in output between active and passive modes, insufficient cut on the treble control, horrible blend pot, sketchy connections on the circuit board, tone control is only operational in passive mode). Those are things I'm willing to deal with because of how much I like the instruments overall. That said, if there was real R&D going on those issues wouldn't be there at all.
I own two Elites, and they have their issues too (radical difference in output between active and passive modes, insufficient cut on the treble control, horrible blend pot, sketchy connections on the circuit board, tone control is only operational in passive mode). Those are things I'm willing to deal with because of how much I like the instruments overall. That said, if there was real R&D going on those issues wouldn't be there at all.
Last edited:
Fender, as stupid as like to think they are, had their best sales year ever last year.
JeezyMcNuggles
Inactive
- Feb 23, 2018
- 14,723
- 20,970
- Disclosures
- I suck, but nobody really notices
That's a good possibility. It's kinda scary to think that they'd all pass through quality control though. All of them.
How is the the truss rod on the Ultra less effective and more difficult to adjust than the Elite?
With the Elite, it's really easy to insert a tool in the adjustment wheel (and it doesn't even have to be a truss rod wrench if you don't have one handy - a small screwdriver or med. size Allen wrench will work), but on the Ultra you have to come in at an angle and use the proper tool or risk some damage. Just try both and you'll see what I mean.
I've tried both, own two Elite's and have set up several Ultras. I don't find one more difficult than the other. I'm actually not a fan of how Fender implemented the wheel compare to other versions. It's not that easy to find a tool that will fit the wheel. Additionally, most wheels will allow the tool to pass all the way through to provide more leverage which is a much better design. I've seen several Elite truss rod wheels damaged because the tool slipped. It didn't cause any issues, just cosmetic.
My Elite came without the tool. I didn't even know there was a tool until recently; apparently it's just a metal dowel? None of my allen wrenches (and certainly none of my screwdrivers) get enough purchase to work. I agree -- a pass-through design would have made a lot more sense. Another example of, "This is a big improvement over how we did it in the past!" "Never mind, we're going back to how we did it in the past!"
