1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Kubicki Factor bass: Real vs. Fender - a real owner's review (with pictures)

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by vrossi, Oct 23, 2013.


  1. vrossi

    vrossi

    Jan 29, 2013
    Good day to all!
    I am a kubicki fanboy and I had a collection of up to 7 kubicki exfactors from all eras. I got hooked when I heard stu hamm on Kings of sleep & vail johnson on kenny G live. I have since narrowed them down to 2 to make way for a few ernie balls, warwicks & fenders.

    I have seen reviews of real vs fender but really none of them being compared side by side by one owner. Most of them proud "real" kubicki owners giving their opinion on Fender-made ones.

    I still have 2 of them in possesion and I would like to give an honest review of the 2 (one fender custom shop & one pre-fender) for future kubicki owners wanting more info between the two. Here goes nothing!!!

    IMG_4893.
    IMG_4880.
    image.

    Here are my two remaining Kubickis. The black one is pre-fender from 1989, and the red is FCS from 1990. I kept these two and sold the others because I felt these two were the best overall feeling, best playing & best sounding from my collection.

    To give an overview, I had a reverse blue burst pearl from 1985 I purchased used. The bass was so abused by the previous owner the neck had a long crack from headstock to the middle of the neck and it was missing a brass cup on the E-string. It had the very early pickups and preamp which were very loud and sounded very different from that signature kubicki tone. I had a very nice bahama green from 1987 which had a fat feeling neck & very nice tone, but I could not lower the action enough like the others & I accidentally dropped it during a gig which caused a nasty crack on the control cavity. I had a black FCS from late 1989 with the 6-way kubicki leftover preamp. I found it too trebly & the pickups made a clicking sound everytime I played over the bridge pickup. I had another bahama green from 1993 which I purchased used. It had a crack on the neck heel when I got it and it sounded a bit thin. So I kept the two above because I had minimal complaints with them.

    Headstock & Neck:
    IMG_4885.
    This is my Red FCS kubicki. FCS logo stamped. One difference from REAL kubicki necks is that the truss rod nut is so hard to turn and when it eventually turns it takes a few good turns before the neck reacts.

    IMG_4884.
    The FCS side dash markers protrudes above the side of the fretboard like it was painted on.

    IMG_4892.
    Back of the neck of an FCS kubicki is finished with a clearcoat. Shiny & also sometimes sticky.


    IMG_4875.
    Pre-Fender Real kubicki. Truss rod is smooth to turn and reacts at a quarter turn of the screw.

    IMG_4879.
    Side dash markers are smooth and inlaid inside the side of the fret board.


    IMG_4891.
    Back of the neck of a real kubicki has a bare wood feel. You can feel the laminates as you move across the neck. But it also accumulates dirt from your fingers through the years.

    Surprisingly, the fender made neck is not sensitive to humidity changes as much as my real one.

    Preamp:

    Here is where most of the debate comes from. They say real kubickis "smoke" the fender preamps. I totally disagree with that.

    1_2.
    This is the FCS preamp. 9-volts plus the midboost screw. Very versatile if you want to adjust the level of boost. I prefer it at 75-80% boost.

    image.
    The real kubicki preamp. 18 volts. 6-way selector. Signature kubicki sound.

    Playablity & Finish

    IMG_4882.
    Low action on FCS kubicki. I managed to get the action very low without any buzz, without any modifications. I just slammed the saddle and made the neck almost straight.

    IMG_4878.
    Real kubicki has very very low action but has a little buzz. I had to file the saddle slot to make it deeper so the string would sit at its lowest. I also had to file the nut slots.

    IMG_4894.
    FCS. Has a slight gap on the bass side neck pocket but negligible.

    IMG_4895.
    Real kubicki has an even bigger gap on the bass side.

    IMG_4896.
    FCS bridge. I find it has the same quality as the real one. Has a bit of grind when turning the knobs even after opening it up and lubricating them.

    IMG_4897.
    Smooth operator but I had to file a deeper groove on the G string saddle to get the action very low.


    IMG_4887.
    FCS knobs have a shiny finish.


    IMG_4886.
    Real kubickis have anodized flat black finish.

    Tone/playability/Conclusion:

    So that was my honest review of the differences of real vs. fenders. do I think real ones smoke the fenders? Absolutely not! I find the fenders to have more "twang and pop" when slapping and popping. The real ones sound clean & compressed & have nice highs. The real ones sound thunderous when slapping & the FCS are more open & raw. It's like bartolinis vs EMGs. Both are nice, but different from each other.
    I managed to get the action on my fender very low without modifications. On my pre-fender, I had to file a deeper groove for the G string to go as low as possible.
    No any two kubickis will be exactly the same, be it FCS or real. Both of my kubickis have flaws. Both are nice. I would never part with any of them. I don't think one is above the other.
    I have also played other kubickis owned by my friends, both FCS and real and yes, some FCS kubickis play as well as real ones, some even better.


    I hope you like this review. Thanks
     
    Global Citizen, tomersg and JIO like this.
  2. Gougedeye

    Gougedeye Supporting Member

    Apr 1, 2008
    Central Washington
    That seemed like a reasonable review! I've always thought Kubickis were cool. Stu Hamm got me hooked, as well, although I've only seen one other in a live band situation.
     
  3. Runnerman

    Runnerman Registered Bass Player Supporting Member

    Mar 14, 2011
    Very good and interesting review/comparo.

    Great read, thanks for posting all this info. I know it must have taken a lot of time.
     
  4. pickles

    pickles Gold Supporting Member

    Mar 23, 2000
    Ventura, CA
    I had one of each. The FCS was actually made with a little more precision and would set up better, the pre-fender had more "it" factor tonally. Warmer and more present at the same time. Likely thats just the personalities of the two specific basses i had. Both were from 87 on either side of the transition.
     
  5. vrossi

    vrossi

    Jan 29, 2013
    Thanks guys. I have seen too many threads saying FCS ones do not stack up to their real kubicki brothers. Having owned several, I thought it would be best to let players who are considering getting a kubicki know about both versions. I have even read somewhere that FCS ones should be avoided which I thought was so unfair.

    @runnerman: yes it took some time to do but I enjoyed doing it! thanks.
     
  6. s4001

    s4001

    Feb 2, 2009
    I've owned a few over the years. One FCS and the rest Phil's. Honestly, the FCS I had I wish I never let go. It was the best of the bunch. I never had any trouble getting boutique action on any of them. All great basses. I will, of course, own another someday....
     
  7. barroso

    barroso

    Aug 16, 2000
    Italia
    Really interesting review on one of the most clever designs in bass world. I love my FCS, which appears to be one of the first made by Fender. Has FCS logo on back of neck but also the 6 way preamp. Maybe a transition model?
     
  8. vrossi

    vrossi

    Jan 29, 2013
    hello barroso! Yes I had a black one like yours from late 1989 which used kubicki leftover preamps. It played great but I had to sandwich a calling card cut to the shape of the neck pocket to slightly bring up the fretboard and make the action low. It was my brightest sounding kubicki and I always had to back off the treble on the bass. Don't we just love kubickis? ;)
     
  9. ggoat!!!

    ggoat!!! Banned

    Apr 6, 2008
    Lousy-Anna
    Nothing says "80's!!!!" better than a Kubicki...both in tone and style.
     
    drumsnbass likes this.
  10. OmegaZ27

    OmegaZ27

    Sep 18, 2005
    California
    Great review! Thanks for posting!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.