Let's be completely honest here about vintage basses...

[Hopkins]

It depends what you want it for as to which is preferable. If it is a machine for getting from A to B in a certain amount of comfort then the first one is the one you've want. I've been in some vintage cars of the second sort and comfortable is not what I'd call them and cars back then seemed to rust as soon as look at them

But then we have the power to build cars that look like the second one externally but have all the bells and whistles of the second.

However, for gigging, I don't think either of them is ideal. I have what is essentially a small van.

Or you just take the 1970 because the awesome factor totally trumps the modern luxury of the new one.

 

[tpaul]

From a hardware standpoint, I would agree any mid priced modern bass is vastly superior to my 63 P Bass. The fretwork on my 63 (which has original frets owing to a lifetime of flatwounds) is passable, but it is not on par with most modern basses. The big advantage to a vintage instrument, in my opinion, is the wood. My 63's body is a lightweight resonant old growth alder and the neck is straight-grained maple with a Brazilian rosewood fingerboard. Those woods are virtually impossible to obtain today, especially with the benefit of fifty years of aging. Wood is the one reason why old instruments will always be special.

Old wood is superior to young wood. Just ask my wife.

 

[Belka]

I've played a few vintage basses and I can see the appeal. I played a '64 precision that was about 7 pounds. Extremely light and well made and I know that light basses are all the rage right now but the sound was nothing special. Jazz basses are a different matter though. I have yet to hear any modern bass (although I've heard a few Alleva Coppolos get close) that can do the late '70s heavy ash / maple neck Jazz bass sound. Of course you have to deal with the Louisville slugger three bolt necks, the shoddy workmanship and the weight, but for that tone you need the original.

 

[DirkP]

I think in electronics this might not matter so much, due to electronics being.. rather unchanging over time. However, on the side of acoustic basses, I feel compelled to offer the question to you all. Many violinists (for an example of instrument) agree and believe that after thousands of hours of playtime (read as: century old or older) their instruments sound and feel better due to the ever so gradual adjustment of the wood to all involved forces of playing (bowing, vibrations of the strings, stresses from the hand, etc. This, to an extent, is why Stradivarius violins are so highly sought after.

The case of Stradivarius violins is so curious and interesting that chemists have attempted to understand the instruments on a molecular level - why they're of such tonal quality, and how they came to be. Now, while a violin is a violin, fundamentally speaking all orchestral strings (perhaps excluding a piano, for simplicity's sake) are the same. By extension, I don't think it would be too believe such a thing to be true. What do you all think?

Now, I chose violins as an example because I am the proud owner of an heirloom violin that was made approximately 125 years ago - handmade by the brother of the great-great-great-grandfather of my best friend (it was bestowed upon me as a "bring this instrument back from the dead" project, as they knew very well I loved instruments ), and I've never heard one in person that has a better sound or feel to it.

The evidence isn't there that they are any better than new ones, based on double-blind trials (more tests are needed, though).

>>
Invalid Link Removed
Blind-tested soloists unable to tell Stradivarius violins from modern instruments
Following the controversial 2010 study in Indianapolis, researchers in Paris invite ten professional musicians to compare twelve instruments

Invalid Link Removed

A modern instrument was the clear winner and a Stradivarius the loser in a double-blind test of old Italian and new violins, conducted at the Auditorium Coeur de Ville in Vincennes, Paris. In a follow-up to the Invalid Link Removed, ten professional soloists compared the tonal qualities of twelve instruments – six by 18th-century Italian luthiers and six by contemporary makers. The results, published on 7 April in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirmed those of the 2010 study, which showed a general preference for new violins and that players were unable to reliably distinguish new violins from old.<< More:

Invalid Link Removed

I can get that people like the mojo and the feel and the look of old instruments that kind of have absorbed history. But that is all.

 

[96tbird]

>>
Invalid Link Removed
Blind-tested soloists unable to tell Stradivarius violins from modern instruments
Following the controversial 2010 study in Indianapolis, researchers in Paris invite ten professional musicians to compare twelve instruments

Invalid Link Removed

A modern instrument was the clear winner and a Stradivarius the loser in a double-blind test of old Italian and new violins, conducted at the Auditorium Coeur de Ville in Vincennes, Paris. In a follow-up to the Invalid Link Removed, ten professional soloists compared the tonal qualities of twelve instruments – six by 18th-century Italian luthiers and six by contemporary makers. The results, published on 7 April in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirmed those of the 2010 study, which showed a general preference for new violins and that players were unable to reliably distinguish new violins from old.<< More:

Invalid Link Removed

I can get that people like the mojo and the feel and the look of old instruments that kind of have absorbed history. But that is all.

That has very little to do compared to mass produced production line solid body instruments. Each of those new and old violins are hand crafted orchestral grade instruments with EXTREME attention to detail.

When it comes to pre-CNC electric instruments it is quite clear that the old Fender neck carvers had it going on; however there were variances. Later on as those folks left Fender, results seem to vary even more. With the advent of CNC, results have definitely become more consistent and the new instruments are great.

Still i'll keep saying that no current Jazz can match the feel of my 62's hand shaped neck and the tone will give you bone. At the very least it is worth what a new passive CSJ will cost.

 

[DirkP]

That has very little to do compared to mass produced production line solid body instruments. Each of those new and old violins are hand crafted orchestral grade instruments with EXTREME attention to detail.

When it comes to pre-CNC electric instruments it is quite clear that the old Fender neck carvers had it going on; however there were variances. Later on as those folks left Fender, results seem to vary even more. With the advent of CNC, results have definitely become more consistent and the new instruments are great.

Still i'll keep saying that no current Jazz can match the feel of my 62's hand shaped neck and the tone will give you bone. At the very least it is worth what a new passive CSJ will cost.

I kind of agree with you to disagree even more. If age and old handcraft production techniques would have an impact on instruments that improves their sound and playability, it would be much more evident in violins than in solid body electric guitars or basses.
If such a test under the same conditons would be made comparing old pre-cbs Fenders to Fenders or Fender-like instruments build in recent years, I'm 99% sure, the results would look much worse for the pre-cbs Fenders than they did for the Stradivarius violins.

 

[96tbird]

So do please tell me what year and model or pre-cbs YOU own that you can compare to a 2015 CSJ. What old bass are you intimately familiar with that is embedded in your hands that you are able to try a new bass and immediately identify what makes the old bass just as good.

 

[_godspeed_]

I'm all about mojo. Don't care if bass is old at all. Usually new basses are way better constructed, so I'd take Fender CS Relic instead of vintage bass

 

[Seiki]

>>
players were unable to reliably distinguish new violins from old.<< More:.

You know, this makes me glad to read. How incredible is it that so many years ago craftsmen with ideas and a little practice were able to produce things that have withstood literal centuries?

 

[David Jayne]

Let's put aside mojo, collectability, value, colour, quality of tort, etc...

Regardless if it's a Fender, Gibson, or a Rickenbacker... are the vintage basses inherently better quality than newer stuff?

In some cases, yes. In most, no. It's a couple of sticks of wood and some wires. Can you put it together badly? Yeah. At any time. Can you put it together particularly well? Also yeah, at any time but it's easier now. I'll now don my 'anti-CNC/anti-PLEK' firesuit. : D

 

[jaybones]

Vintage basses, probably not.

Vintage pickups, I'm sure they sound better. Something about the copper molecules being in a magnetic field for decades makes them sound better, sweeter, more repsonsive yet at the same time mellow.

Sort of like new red wine. It could be a very good vintage, but if its just been fermented and bottled it won't be nearly as good as it will be after years of proper cellaring.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Still i'll keep saying that no current Jazz can match the feel of my 62's hand shaped neck and the tone will give you bone. At the very least it is worth what a new passive CSJ will cost.

One thing to test is whether you can really tell what the profile is in a double blind test. We have the technology to create necks that exactly match that 62's profile.

Given the 62 as an example, and given that the components are relatively simple, then a series of luthiers could be call on to make replicas (CNC cut the neck profile to match, wind pickups to vintage specs, etc.) and then a double-blind test of a series of these basses could be put up against the real 62 which would reveal if there is intrinsic about the 62, or just the neck shape, number of winds on the pickups, capacitor values, etc.

 

[mongo2]

Vintage basses, probably not.

Vintage pickups, I'm sure they sound better. Something about the copper molecules being in a magnetic field for decades makes them sound better, sweeter, more repsonsive yet at the same time mellow.

Where did you get that info about the copper from?

There is the idea that old magnets may (or may not) lose some field strength over time, but I also wonder if batches of magnets were simply magnetized to slightly different field strengths when they were first made.

 

[Doctor J]

It's amazing that the effects of aging invariably make things sound better, sweeter, mellower, just molto awesomer. I'm always amazed that manufacturers of high end audio equipment aren't out chasing the oldest wood, copper and magnets for their products. Has nobody told them?

 

[96tbird]

Vintage basses, probably not.

Vintage pickups, I'm sure they sound better. Something about the copper molecules being in a magnetic field for decades makes them sound better, sweeter, more repsonsive yet at the same time mellow.

Sort of like new red wine. It could be a very good vintage, but if its just been fermented and bottled it won't be nearly as good as it will be after years of proper cellaring.

Ok now you're just making sh$t up. It's pretty clear that many of you are posting on pure fantasy and speculation with no first hand experience.

One thing to test is whether you can really tell what the profile is in a double blind test. We have the technology to create necks that exactly match that 62's profile.

Given the 62 as an example, and given that the components are relatively simple, then a series of luthiers could be call on to make replicas (CNC cut the neck profile to match, wind pickups to vintage specs, etc.) and then a double-blind test of a series of these basses could be put up against the real 62 which would reveal if there is intrinsic about the 62, or just the neck shape, number of winds on the pickups, capacitor values, etc.

As I said before, it's the neck shape and attention to detail. Sure they could scan it and replicate it but they won't. It's too delicate and potential numbers of warranty returns would calculate as too risky over at the bean counter lodge. So they just leave more meat on them now. The heads are also thicker.

Where did you get that info about the copper from?

There is the idea that old magnets may (or may not) lose some field strength over time, but I also wonder if batches of magnets were simply magnetized to slightly different field strengths when they were first made.

Alnico magnets are magnetized by the pickup maker after they are wound. They do not arrive from the magnet maker energized. A batch is therefore all the slugs in the pickup when it slides through the magnetizing apparatus. So yes it is possible that vintage mags are lower gauss to begin with due to the equipment they used.

Bill Lawrence did lots of research into mags. Less than a 1/2% drop in mag strength per century is to be expected. Basically nothing.

 

[96tbird]

That is 1/2% loss per century.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[mongo2]

Alnico magnets are magnetized by the pickup maker after they are wound. They do not arrive from the magnet maker energized. A batch is therefore all the slugs in the pickup when it slides through the magnetizing apparatus. So yes it is possible that vintage mags are lower gauss to begin with due to the equipment they used.

Bill Lawrence did lots of research into mags. Less than a 1/2% drop in mag strength per century is to be expected. Basically nothing.

Thanks for the info. Yet another myth about vintage instruments busted.

 

[96tbird]

Thanks for the info. Yet another myth about vintage instruments busted.

True enough. All I say is MY Jazz is the best JAZZ BASS I've played. Therefore it should be worth as much as a new passive Custom Shop Jazz. More than that and it's simply fantasy value.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

As I said before, it's the neck shape and attention to detail. Sure they could scan it and replicate it but they won't. It's too delicate and potential numbers of warranty returns would calculate as too risky over at the bean counter lodge.

I can see some logic in that from a production point of view, however, the Geddy Lee has a thin neck profile, so new production with a thin neck profile is certainly available. I like a slim neck, but I actually found the Geddy Lee was a bit too slim - not much, but a bit. I don't know what the return rate is on the Lee model, and whether your 62's neck is slimmer or less slim, but a comparison could in theory be made, and return rates discovered, although I somewhat doubt Fender would give us that information. However, if the return rate is low it might be that Fender chooses not to make many necks with those dimensions as it is catering to a market which in general likes a slightly thicker neck (and Music Man to a market which likes something even thicker).

Creating a modern production bass with the same parameters such as neck profile as a '62 (in theory the many reissues do this, but they are not exactly to spec) would tease out whether there is something other than those production parameters between an original '62 and a very exact copy, more exact than an AVRI, etc.

The bottom line is if your '62 is the best bass for you, it's the best bass for you. I've let a couple of best basses slip through my fingers in the search of slightly greener grass.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

The heads are also thicker.

Actually, I wonder if that is an attempt to have a built-in 'fathead' to deal with deadspots in conjunction with stiffening rods in some models (does the MIA Geddy Lee have the rods?).