Old or new? What is the consensus?

[bassbully]

Now that can't be argued with, you say you enjoy the old ones more. Done.

It's the rationalizing that paying $15k for a $260 bass gives you something that makes you any more of a musician that get's a little wiggly.

No vintage bass will make you more of a musician it could make you sound better...maybe. Like anything if its sought after and considered collectible its worth allot more than it ever cost or was worth...that's just the way it works

 

[Fletcher Lanning]

If the "old wood" is such a major factor in tone why did the old instruments sound good when they were new?

A well crafted instrument is still a well crafted instrument, no matter how old it is; but aged wood still has more resonance and vibrates easier. The age of the wood is only one in a list of factors that make up a BG's tone, and it is up to you how important that factor is vs. the various other differences between new and old instruments.

If you have the opportunity, try this. Pick up a new P-Bass (or any bass that has been made similarly for decades) and play it unplugged for a little bit. Then, pick up a P-Bass that was made 40 years ago and has gotten a lot of playing time over the years. Play the exact same music unplugged on the vintage bass. The older bass will, generally speaking, be more audible that the new one. It's just physics. Whatever effect this has one your amplified tone is up for debate but there is a difference.

 

[Jefenator]

So do we have a consensus yet?

 

[darkstorm]

I think most of the newer qaulity basses sound better then those old vintage ones. People didnt start upgrading pups and so on as soon as such became available to degrade their sound. they upgraded for sound improvements to them. Pups have evolved since the early days. Tons of choices for personal sound preferance. You have far more choice today then you had even in the 70's after dimarzio and seymour started becoming rich. Nostalgia is the only thing making young players and older ones lust for basses that lots of players changed pups, bridges, electronics and so on on regular as soon as upgrade replacements become available. So I vote for newer instruments as better sounding and playing to me. One other diff you had in the old days is bands where not so into playing super loud. As a result they often got better sound in the venue then is had today with the bands blasting as loud as they can. Imo

 

[elgranluis]

A well crafted instrument is still a well crafted instrument, no matter how old it is; but aged wood still has more resonance and vibrates easier. The age of the wood is only one in a list of factors that make up a BG's tone, and it is up to you how important that factor is vs. the various other differences between new and old instruments.

If you have the opportunity, try this. Pick up a new P-Bass (or any bass that has been made similarly for decades) and play it unplugged for a little bit. Then, pick up a P-Bass that was made 40 years ago and has gotten a lot of playing time over the years. Play the exact same music unplugged on the vintage bass. The older bass will, generally speaking, be more audible that the new one. It's just physics. Whatever effect this has one your amplified tone is up for debate but there is a difference.

care to explain the physics part of "it's just physics" please?

 

[Fletcher Lanning]

care to explain the physics part of "it's just physics" please?

See my post #43 on this thread. I gave a pretty good explanation but can answer any specific questions you have.

 

[Jim C]

A lot of good points made and clearly it's an individual preference. My '66 will not replace my Alembics or even my other Jazz basses - on the other hand, not one of my other basses comes close to what the '66 does.


This is absolutely true. Leo had seniors winding them because they had the patience to sit with it. It was an approximate effort - some pickup's were hotter, some were weaker. A very good point.

Keep in mind that ALL of those old Fenders (Gibsons, Rics etc) were assembly line instruments, not handcrafted individual Master Built creations. They cranked them out as well as they could from a factory. Leo was also known to be frugal - wood (or anything for that matter) was not wasted. Glue 3 pieces together and you got another body out of scraps. Order a custom color? They'd spray over a sunburst. Bins full of necks and bodies picked out at random. It's easy to lose sight of that. However, without the benefits of CNC and other advances, they were much more labor intensive in their assembly.

Well said.
I have been fortuneate to have 2 very close friends who owned vintage guitar shops (American Guitar Center and Soutworth Guitars).
Can tell you first hand that there were 60's and 70's instruments that were just OK although I don't recall playing any that were terrible.
You were lucky to be able to choose your bass from 5 vintage instruments.
Seem to remember that early on, a custom shop relic cost the same as the real deal (less custom color rarity) and thought it stupid peolpe would buy them; of course things have changed and many like the feel of a worn nitro finish (myself included).
There are others that think that they will be better players with an old guitar.
I say either you're a player or you're not, and the instrument will not change the outcome of a recording or a set.

 

[Ric5]

In my opinion vintage gear is over-priced and over-rated.

I have owned 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, gear and I prefer newer stuff.

I sold off my old stuff for a lot of money to finance the purchase of a lot a newer stuff.

Old basses quite often have weak necks and weak pickups.

 

[smcd]

If you have the opportunity, try this. Pick up a new P-Bass (or any bass that has been made similarly for decades) and play it unplugged for a little bit. Then, pick up a P-Bass that was made 40 years ago and has gotten a lot of playing time over the years. Play the exact same music unplugged on the vintage bass. The older bass will, generally speaking, be more audible that the new one. It's just physics. Whatever effect this has one your amplified tone is up for debate but there is a difference.

Not physics. Not true at all. There is not a single principle of physics that backs up what you're saying.

I own now, or have owned, Pbasses from '66, '71 and '72. They don't play or sound any better than some of the newer Fenders I've played. Not only that, but they sound much less impressive than most mid to high end basses out there now.

 

[smcd]

See my post #43 on this thread. I gave a pretty good explanation but can answer any specific questions you have.

That isn't an explanation. It's an idea you have. Unfortunately, it's not supported by science.

For example:

Aside from the drying process, the wood is affected by the resonance created by the instrument being played for all those years. The vibration in the bass will actually break apart some of the connecting fibers in the wood and the vibration+tension makes the bass more receptive to vibration. Think of it like when you shake a container of sediment; all the big pieces rise to the top while the sand settles at the bottom. Nature chooses the path of least resistance.

I've studied physics, and have never heard of such a thing. In order for such a claim to be supported, there would have to be extensive tests done. And in order for the tests to be conclusive, there would have to be measurable parameters regarding tone, i.e. good tone vs. bad tone. This is impossible, as tone is subjective. Not only that, but you'd have to have certain constants in the test wood. And as no two pieces of wood are identical at the molecular level, the results would be invalid.


In short, what you're claiming is impossible to to back up on a scientific level, therefore, it's not physics.

 

[sickest beast]

I have very bad OCD (the only person I have ever met with worse is my better half) so relic'ed instruments are virtually impossible for me to look at without getting physically ill. If I have an instrument with a ding or scratch I obsess on it to the point I have a hard time wanting to ever look at it again.

While I have a 76 P that is in far better shape than most the few small imperfections drive me nuts so I never play it or taker it out of the case. In fact the only reason I still have it is it was my first bass if that were not the case it would be gone. My better half got me a Yamaha TRB-5 for Christmas and I honestly do not want to play it because it has two very small dings in it and that is all I can see or think about.

So in long response to your question either new or used with the appearance of new. Besides that I like technological advancement so old is just that, old.

that's sad to hear. i hope you can get help with your OCD some day.

 

[deedub72]

Look at what the top players are using. Tal Wilkenfeld and Will Lee, to name two, have new active Sadowskys in their hands at most recent gigs. Just saying.

On the same token, I recently saw Will Lee playing a new seafoam Danelectro bass too...explain that?

 

[A-Step-Towards]

i want an old fender so bad like a 51 p because i read alot about leo and i want a piece of that history , but i will never own on there to much money when you could spend a grand and have that same tone, the price on old stuff is usually not in favor of players.

 

[deedub72]

i want an old fender so bad like a 51 p because i read alot about leo and i want a piece of that history , but i will never own on there to much money when you could spend a grand and have that same tone, the price on old stuff is usually not in favor of players.

I wold have to disagree, I recently got to spend some time with a Sting bass and a 1953 P-Bass, the P-Bass looked like it had been drug down a gravel road for a few miles, but it played and felt incredible...the tone was warm, it sounded amazing...the sting on the other hand sounded like $#!*..it was stiff the sound was blah. There were some major differences, the price tag being one $500 for the Sting $7500 for the 1953...but in all if you have the extra coin to drop the '53 would be the way to go.

 

[Fletcher Lanning]

In short, what you're claiming is impossible to to back up on a scientific level, therefore, it's not physics.

If you are a physicist as you claim then you should certainly know that the vast majority of modern physics was not based on experiential evidence. The biggest breakthroughs in modern physics were based on logistical extensions and new equations, much of which was eventually verified as modern technology progressed to be able to accurately measure what was already known.

Also, it cannot be refuted that wood takes decades to dry (this can be measured by weight over the years). As the moisture level is reduced, the wood itself vibrates more readily and the tone gains harmonic complexity as the wood is not dampened by the moisture (and I mean sonically dampened, not wet).

As far as the settling of the fibers in the wood (as well as the breakdown of the interconnecting fibers WITHIN the wood), that is, as I said above, a logistical conclusion that is based on the observations of hundreds of years of luthiery. As it is improbable that someone is going to cut apart an instrument over the course of 200 years and molecularly analyze the wood as it ages, I will cede the issue to you and agree that it is not feasible to take on such a task.

But if you want to argue with what has been learned over the millenia that people have been making carved instruments (and particularly the last 600 years or so) then go right ahead.

@deedub

I think the conversation is more aimed at comparing the best of the old to the best of the new. A new bass at the low end is obviously never going to outplay a quality instrument of any age.

 

[Aspidites]

i want an old fender so bad like a 51 p because i read alot about leo and i want a piece of that history , but i will never own on there to much money when you could spend a grand and have that same tone, the price on old stuff is usually not in favor of players.

Why not get a pre 92 G&L which was his last company and one where there is a good chance he may have actually handled the instrument you purchase.

 

[lowphatbass]

If you are a physicist as you claim then you should certainly know that the vast majority of modern physics was not based on experiential evidence. The biggest breakthroughs in modern physics were based on logistical extensions and new equations, much of which was eventually verified as modern technology progressed to be able to accurately measure what was already known.

Also, it cannot be refuted that wood takes decades to dry (this can be measured by weight over the years). As the moisture level is reduced, the wood itself vibrates more readily and the tone gains harmonic complexity as the wood is not dampened by the moisture (and I mean sonically dampened, not wet).

As far as the settling of the fibers in the wood (as well as the breakdown of the interconnecting fibers WITHIN the wood), that is, as I said above, a logistical conclusion that is based on the observations of hundreds of years of luthiery. As it is improbable that someone is going to cut apart an instrument over the course of 200 years and molecularly analyze the wood as it ages, I will cede the issue to you and agree that it is not feasible to take on such a task.

But if you want to argue with what has been learned over the millenia that people have been making carved instruments (and particularly the last 600 years or so) then go right ahead.

I not only agree, but have experienced first hand what age and regular playing(especially bowing) can do to "open" a double bass up. Nobody can argue this fact.
One thing to consider is that the sound is produced entirely differently with an electric bass guitar. Presumably, the only thing the wood can do to influence tone is effect the way the strings vibrate, period. I'm not saying that wood's aging in a bass guitar doesn't effect tone, everything effects tone, all I'm saying is one could argue how much.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

Why not get a pre 92 G&L which was his last company and one where there is a good chance he may have actually handled the instrument you purchase.

Well its just something about the 1951 fender P bass made in a humble little shop by a few people. I just read alot about guitar making and the start of fender and i just always want one of the first fender made P basses. Its not like i will ever get one or think about it every day, i would not have it sit in some case or something and collect it, i would play it. I have never played any bass older then 1982 and that was older then me i just have this desire towards some older basses, dunno why

 

[Aspidites]

Well its just something about the 1951 fender P bass made in a humble little shop by a few people. I just read alot about guitar making and the start of fender and i just always want one of the first fender made P basses. Its not like i will ever get one or think about it every day, i would not have it sit in some case or something and collect it, i would play it. I have never played any bass older then 1982 and that was older then me i just have this desire towards some older basses, dunno why

Get a G&L L1000, Leo believed it to be his masterpiece and it was handmade in a small shop by a handful of people.

Plus in single coil mode it sounds like a P-Bass, but I understand you point about the 51.

Here is mine.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

I wold have to disagree, I recently got to spend some time with a Sting bass and a 1953 P-Bass, the P-Bass looked like it had been drug down a gravel road for a few miles, but it played and felt incredible...the tone was warm, it sounded amazing...the sting on the other hand sounded like $#!*..it was stiff the sound was blah. There were some major differences, the price tag being one $500 for the Sting $7500 for the 1953...but in all if you have the extra coin to drop the '53 would be the way to go.

i agree that 60 years of use and different tooling styles cant be replicated to a perfect example but i think if you were to assemble a warmoth bass or allparts and had a grand yto spend you could get 90% of the feel of a bass you were trying to replicate.

But i actually am just guessing as i have never played any bass older then mid 80's. i dont know what its like to feel and play a real vinatge bass that has seen life.That seems like a good price for a 53 i would have been super tempted to spend my tuition on it