• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

SG & EB Bass Club

#1,961
eb.jpg

The Savoy project... duh duh duh!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBassNorth and ajkula66
#1,962
I recently started playing again after a long haitus, and I have been seriously gassing for an EB-0 or EB-3. Are there much noticeable tonal differences between the 70s EB-3s (neck pickup moved closer to the bridge) and the original style with the mudbucker right up against the neck? I know there are other differences such as construction, hardware, optional scale length, etc. but strictly speaking about tone, how much of a difference are we talking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghostinthemach
#1,963
chanson said:
I know there are other differences such as construction, hardware, optional scale length, etc. but strictly speaking about tone, how much of a difference are we talking?
Click to expand...

I've never played them "head to head" but having owned pretty much all varieties of EB-0/3 over the past 35 years or so, my take that there is a difference. Post-72 examples are more polite, for a lack of better word. Can they still give your audience a mud bath if that's what you're looking for ? Definitely.

My $0.02 only...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBassNorth
#1,965
40Hz said:
This is my SB-300. SG style body and two single coils. A very unusual early 70s Gibson.
Click to expand...

I've been wanting to play an early example like yours for quite some time now, have zero recollection what these sounded like 30 or so years ago when I last touched one of them.

My recollection is that some (all?) of the SBs sported alder bodies instead of more common mahagony seen on SG/EB series. Is that the case with yours ?
 
#1,966
ajkula66 said:
I've never played them "head to head" but having owned pretty much all varieties of EB-0/3 over the past 35 years or so, my take that there is a difference. Post-72 examples are more polite, for a lack of better word. Can they still give your audience a mud bath if that's what you're looking for ? Definitely.

My $0.02 only...
Click to expand...

Would you say the sound is very similar or noticeably different?
 
#1,968
ajkula66 said:
I've been wanting to play an early example like yours for quite some time now, have zero recollection what these sounded like 30 or so years ago when I last touched one of them.

My recollection is that some (all?) of the SBs sported alder bodies instead of more common mahagony seen on SG/EB series. Is that the case with yours ?
Click to expand...

AFAIK there was no mahogany used in any of the SB series. Necks were maple and although Gibson never officially stated the bodies were alder, most people seem to think that's what it is. One guy commenting over on Fly Guitars website said he refinished several SB-300s (seems a little hard to believe) and they were all poplar. All I can say is it's incredibly light. My mahogany Supro Huntington is far heavier.

Soundwise it's brighter than an EB or SGB. Single coils will do that. I threw a set of TIs on it so it's not as bright as it might be however. I was going to use GHS Pressurewounds on it originally. But I already have those on a Junior Jet so I said what the heck and used TI flats instead. Pleasant thump when you want it but still some nice mids. Figured a vintage Gibson needed some vintage sounding strings.

It is a very cool little bass. I consider myself lucky to have found it. It's not quite like anything else I own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajkula66
#1,969
40Hz said:
Soundwise it's brighter than an EB or SGB. Single coils will do that. I threw a set of TIs on it so it's not as bright as it might be however. I was going to use GHS Pressurewounds on it originally. But I already have those on a Junior Jet so I said what the heck and used TI flats instead. Pleasant thump when you want it but still some nice mids. Figured a vintage Gibson needed some vintage sounding strings.

It is a very cool little bass. I consider myself lucky to have found it. It's not quite like anything else I own.
Click to expand...

You, sir, are not helping my "No more Gibsons this year" quest...at all...;)

All jokes aside, thanks a million for a concise yet well-positioned reply. Now I know I've got to find one to test...somewhere.
 
#1,970
ajkula66 said:
You, sir, are not helping my "No more Gibsons this year" quest...at all...;)

All jokes aside, thanks a million for a concise yet well-positioned reply. Now I know I've got to find one to test...somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I know how that goes. I thought after I bought that second Ripper and a 2017 EB that I'd be done for awhile. :rolleyes:

But then that little cutie showed up in the classifieds and it was one if those "it's now or never" things for me. I'm 63 so it's not like I've got 50 more years to play patience. :whistle:

Sometimes you just gotta. :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghostinthemach
#1,972
Craig4003 said:
Congrats!



Are the pickups any different this year than they've been for a while? The modern SG basses have always had Thunderbird neck pickups hidden under mudbucker-style covers. That's what my 2011 has.



Yeah, that's what I like too. It's kind of interesting, because with my other two-pickup basses (Fender Jazz, Rickenbacker 4003), I usually play one pickup or the other, rarely both together.



Yes, I've noticed that too.



My 2011 model originally came with the old Gibson three-point bridge, which leaves very little space between the ball end and the saddles, so strings with silk usually do end up with the silk sitting on the saddles unless you trim it back. I quickly replaced that bridge with the Hipshot SuperTone, which is similar to the Babicz that Gibson is now using -- a high-mass, full-contact bridge that moves the ball end back far enough that the silk doesn't land on the saddles. As you've discovered, short scale strings barely fit on the SG bass with this type of bridge. I now use medium scale La Bella Deep Talkin' flats (the 760FL-M set, .043"-.104"), which fit perfectly -- no problems at either end.
Click to expand...

Hello, Craig! Yes, the pickups are the Thunderbird+ pickups. Thanks for the info about the La Bella strings. :)
 
#1,980
aproud1 said:
I prefer the Hipshot. The Babcz is nice too. Hipshot is just a little easier to adjust.
Click to expand...

I have the Hipshot and I'm very happy with it. It was a perfect drop-in replacement for the original Gibson three-point bridge. The one thing to be aware of is that you may prefer medium-scale strings with the Hipshot due to the fact that it puts more space between the ball end and the saddles (which is good, because it means the silk won't be sitting on the saddles). I haven't tried the Babicz, but I would imagine it works best with medium-scale strings also, for the same reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMaartian

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back