New Carvin P bass, about time?

[WoodyG3]

Why can't they offer a dual p, or a P/MM setup?

As many options as Carvin already gives us, we all want more options, and we all have that dream bass in our head that we'd like Carvin to make for us.

It sounds like Carvin is only offering one pickup choice at the bridge posotion, a specially wound J-99, because that is what matches up correctly with the split coil.

Think of it this way, let's say Carvin offered the PB4/5 with the option of any other pickup in their line at the bridge position. Suppose most of those pickup combinations performed poorly in the eyes of the consumer. (Remember that the bridge pickup will need to match up well in terms of output with the split P at the neck.) That would represent a huge amount of money and time on R&D down the tubes, plus a big black eye for the company.

The prudent thing for Carvin to do, as well, is to limit the new P-style pickup to the PB series until it has proven itself before offering it in other basses.

P.S. I would have ordered a PB4 by now, but I still can't decide on the silly aesthetic considerations of color of finish and pickguard.

 

[Jared Lash]

Why can't they offer a dual p, or a P/MM setup?

In addition to the time and money involved in programming the CNC for a dual P route I doubt they want to invest in developing a bridge version of the split coil pickup when so few people would order that configuration.

Carvin offers quite an array of options but there will always be people asking for more. If they DID do dual P pickups the next question would be why one or both can't be reversed. There's a cost-benefit analysis for each decision on options. They might lose some sales because people want an option they don't offer but if their best guess is that those lost sales figures will be less than the cost of supplying a particular option then it's a simple decision.

For what it's worth, I'd want a dual P bass. And if it means anything, I don't like that they are using a single coil j99 for the bridge pickup. To me it makes sense to use a modded H50 since then the bass will be hum cancelling in all orientations. I also don't like the jazz like controls of dual volumes even with the active option. I'd much prefer a blend knob with an active P/J.

But again, modding the existing SB4000/5000 electronics is much more cost effective than doing a new version of the preamp for the active P/J users. I can certainly understand that from Carvin's perspective even if it isn't what I want.

 

[Toptube]

Also thinking one of these would look great in sunset burst with a black pickguard. Gloss on mahogany or flat/satin on alder. black headstock.

 

[Funkinthetrunk]

For what it's worth, I'd want a dual P bass.

Me too.

 

[jim777]

I am coming around on this one. Given the price, it's pretty tough not to. I like the tung oiled alder with red tortoise guard that the one in all the pics has, that would work for me. Ebony or maple board though, not rosewood.

 

[giantbaba]

I really want to see someone order an all mahogany one of these. Just to hear what an all mahogany p-bass sounds like.

 

[themarshall]

In addition to the time and money involved in programming the CNC for a dual P route I doubt they want to invest in developing a bridge version of the split coil pickup when so few people would order that configuration.

Sorry, but I tend to disagree. The route would be identical, just in a different spot. The p'up could also be the same, especially since there are no pole pieces to line up.

 

[Jared Lash]

Sorry, but I tend to disagree. The route would be identical, just in a different spot. The p'up could also be the same, especially since there are no pole pieces to line up.

The actual route would be the same, but it would still require the time to reprogram the CNC since obviously it's in a different part of the body. How much effort that would take, I don't know.

As for the pickups, you could use a pair of the normal ones I suppose but normally bridge pickups normally have higher wounding output so the signal strength (and tone) are more balanced.

 

[themarshall]

The actual route would be the same, but it would still require the time to reprogram the CNC since obviously it's in a different part of the body. How much effort that would take, I don't know.

As for the pickups, you could use a pair of the normal ones I suppose but normally bridge pickups normally have higher wounding output so the signal strength (and tone) are more balanced.

I agree on the amount of effort being unknown to set up for routing 2 P's.
Does/did anyone make a double-P with a bridge specific p-up? G&L, EBMM, EMG all pretty much use the same pup front and back.

 

[Jared Lash]

I agree on the amount of effort being unknown to set up for routing 2 P's.
Does/did anyone make a double-P with a bridge specific p-up? G&L, EBMM, EMG all pretty much use the same pup front and back.

That's a good question. I played a BC Rich with dual Ps but I have no idea if the pickups were identical. The frankenbasses I've seen with dual P's all seemed to have off the shelf pickups, but I know some pickup makers will do custom wound Ps with no issue so there's no reason not to optimize it for the bridge position.

When I was deciding on pickups for my Stambaugh build I was considering a pair of Aero split coils in soapbar shells. Larry at Aero was adamant about winding them as a set, but then he's very particular about the string spacing and the exact position the pickup will be placed in for custom pickups.

 

[bassRunner]

Since we've had so many "it looks a little off" comments in this thread, I thought I'd try and make a list of what is actually "off" with the new PB's body. Personally, I have no problem with the PB body shape, and I'd order one of these basses now if I had the money.

I used these two pages to compare:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

The biggest differences I notice are with the "waists" of the two basses (i.e. the thinnest portion of the body) and the lower horns/cutaways.

The waist of the PB is thinner than a Fender P, and I'm guessing this is weight saving design. Carvin is advertising 8.25 lbs for the PB4 (which I'm sure would only be for a passive, single pickup model).

The PB4's cutaway is deeper and goes below the 19th fret, and it's lower horn extends to almost exactly at the 16th fret. The Fender's cutaway ends pretty much exactly at the 19th fret, and it's lower horn extends to somewhere between frets 15 and 16.

The PB's body is rounded just below the bridge where the strap button is; the Fender looks to be flat.

I'll restate the obvious that the pick guard is different at the controls, and the PB's pick guard seems to extend farther towards the upper horn.

The upper horn and neck pocket on the top have of the body seem pretty much the same to me.

I can see the argument that the Fender P's body is more aesthetically pleasing, but I can also see the practicality of the PB's body.

 

[monkeyfinger]

I couldn't make an argument against you. This is your personal taste. However, IMO, many of these reactions are simply because it is not what you expect. The Fender body shapes are so engrained in our minds that slight variations seem somehow off to us. Personally, I think the design is fine. I am sure the more accustomed I become to the body shape, the more I will come to appreciate its design.

 

[Freddels]

What seemed off to me was the shape of the pickguard. The body shape is fine.

 

[Nobody]

It doesn't look perfect(I rather like the looks myself) but at that price with that many options it's pretty hard to complain...... but of course people will.

 

[monkeyfinger]

Yes, I think the line of the pick-guard edge below the pickup could be a little more in line with the lines of the pickups. I think it may have been done this way because the body is more compact along both axis. This left little room for the part of the pickguard that covered the controls. Overall, they could have softened up the curves a little more, but I believe they are trying to give it a more modern look.

 

[Handyman]

The shape of the PB series is starting to grow on me.

I'm assuming that the bridge pickups for these things is a normal J99A?

 

[Jarrett]

Someone mentioned they are overwinding a J99A to work in that spot

 

[jim777]

The kicker on the odd body to me is that it was completely unnecessary to begin with. They could have simply added the P pickup to their existing body styles and swapped that effort with the effort needed to create a new body shape / pickguard altogether. The B and SB body shapes would have easily taken a P pickup in the 'neck' spot, and people already liked those bodies.
This bass is starting to grow on me as I've said, but if I could have gotten an SB5000 with the P pickup in the neck I would have ordered one the day this was announced.

 

[Jarrett]

The SB is a artist model and the B series looks a lot like a P bass already. I suspect putting a P pickup in the artist model wasn't part of the agreement. And putting a P pickup into a P shape bass (B series) might have drawn fire from Fender. But making a new body that's similar to a J and putting a P pickup in it should be litigation proof. Just speculating.

 

[Freddels]

The SB is a artist model and the B series looks a lot like a P bass already. I suspect putting a P pickup in the artist model wasn't part of the agreement. And putting a P pickup into a P shape bass (B series) might have drawn fire from Fender. But making a new body that's similar to a J and putting a P pickup in it should be litigation proof. Just speculating.

The SB is a signature model but they already put the MM pickup in it (which really isn't the 70's jazz bass vibe at all). Not really seeing the big deal about adding a split P pickup too.