Originally posted by Slammer
Does anyone know when a thorough, review of the Wishbass might be posted?
here are reviews posted by me elsewhere that i did not feel like retyping in this thread...
"the one example of his craftsmanship that i played had the pickup so far out of line with the strings that the e string was about 1/2 the volume of everything else. never mind the fact that the neck was as thick as it was wide, a simple measurement error made that bass totally musically worthless, imo. it's fine to have something original, but it needs to at least be able to execute its purpose, otherwise it's worthless."
one of the reasons why i am so vocal about these instruments is the very fact that you brought up in your post - he sells them. one thing that may not be apparent in the generally poor pictures he posts in his ebay auctions is that the instruments might not even be able to perform their minimum function as a bass. aesthetics aside, this is wrong to sell something labeled as an instrument that is so poorly made that it can't even function as one. some folks might just take it for granted that these instruments function as a bass - they would just assume that there would be some lowest baseline (no pun intended) of performance that the instrument will function at, and some of these may not even function at that level.
someone who is relatively new to bass playing might not be able to tell how unusable one of these "instruments" may be just by looking at a picture. the fatal design flaw on the bass that i played would've been very difficult to detect in an ebay picture, and yet it rendered the bass practically useless without serious modification - the e string was almost off the edge of the pickup - it's volume was less than 1/2 that of the other strings.
this bass can really be pretty bad. the neck was as thick as the width of the fretboard - he's not kidding when he says he likes to use a double bass as a template. the fretboard was totally uneven, the pickup was offcenter.
if you want a project, go get some wood and hack something out for yourself. buy a warmoth neck, or shoot, make your own. i bet if you follow specs available on the web and really try to make something the best you can, even your first bass, it will probably turn out better than this one, and it would cost you less.
here i will add an in depth review, since i can't find any more of the comments that i made about this thing when i first played it:
from about 10 feet away, this particular instrument has an interesting general vibe to it, except for the headstock, which looks like a javelin. any closer than 10 feet, though, makes all the rough spots, hewn edges, uneven cuts and poor finished stick out like a sore thumb. the woods used were decent pieces, although one of the maple stringers used in the truss rod-free neck was spalted

so that's not going to be very sturdy for long. still, though, the wood that was used consisted of generally good pieces, just poorly put together and finished. how long it was aged and how stable it was is anybody's guess, however.
the fretboard was uneven and rough, with large flat sections the size of quarters or bigger at various places across the radius. the edges were very rough, almost like picking up a stick off the ground - when i first held it i joked "hey, he left the bark on it". that gives a general sense of how spots on the neck felt and appeared. there were no fret dots on the neck. the nut was around 3/4" thick, and uneven. the strings didn't line up over the pickup properly, so that the low e string vibrated past the edge of the pickup, cutting its output in half.
the neck was as thick, if not thicker, than it was wide. it had a v-shaped profile that was the thickest thing with strings on it i had ever played. i imagine that it would be stable, but it was the most uncomfortable excuse for a neck that i have ever touched. i've played double basses who's necks were thinner, front to back, and easier for me to fret on, and i'm not a double bassist. the thickness of the neck was no doubt due to the fact that there were no truss rods in the neck, but due to the questionable materials (spalted maple in neck) i question the stability of the neck.
the body had flat edges and sections on parts that were intended to be curved, due to poor finishing, or the complete lack thereof. the bottom horn was sharp and curved completely back on itself, causing it to be very uncomfortable for seated, non-strap playing. rasp marks and uneven edges abound on the body. from what i could tell, it seemed sorta headstock heavy, but i didn't use a strap with it, so i don't know.
the sound of the thing was blah. nothing special. considering the neck and body woods and the general density of the neck, i expected much more tone, especially from the e string, but due to the pickup placement, the e was quiet, dull and lifeless. if this thing was rerouted with a larger pickup - it had an emg select in it iirc - it might have had a decent tone - the woods would dictate that. the playability of the neck, though, was non-existant. in the past i have called certain basses "baseball bats" for having necks who's profile was a bit more rounded and less oval than i like, but never more. this was truly the baseball bat neck, except that it was more triangular than round in profile/cross section.
in short, this would've been an interesting instrument, with some real potential, if a. the pickup was placed in the right place, b. the neck was thinner and more playable, like a bass, instead of thick like a flagpole, and c. a bit of care was put into the finishing of the instrument - some sanding on the body, and a sanding block used on the fretboard to make it even.
GOD BLESS AMERICA, ITS CONSTITUTION, AND THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH WHICH IT PROTECTS. WE SHOULD ALL CONSIDER HOW FORTUNATE WE ARE TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT PERSECUTED OR THREATENED FOR THEIR OPINIONS OR POINTS OF VIEW.
blahblahblahblah
you are not in "america" now, bub. you are on talkbass - brought to you and paid for by paul determan, who made the rules that are enforced by the moderators he selected, with gratefully acknowledged assistance from those who paid to support the site they use. the constitution doesn't apply here, since this isn't a federal program nor a public company, but a private site under private ownership.
you have not been expressing opinions or views, you have been profusely insulting other members, and questioning a moderator, in public, both of which are expressly forbidden by the rules that paul has set up. i've given you numerous chances, when by rights, and on many other sites, you would've been banned from that crap back on the benevente thread, yet you still continue to bust my chops and make my life difficult.
grow up indeed. i have specifically directed folks not to participate in this thread unless they have directly contributed to the cause. you have posted insulting, divisive crap that i've had to delete, not only against me but against other members as well. this isn't going to bode well for your continued participation here, but perhaps you don't care.