T
temp5897
Guest
adrian garcia said:1. actually , F basses , when you think about it, are a bargain. They sell for less than many boutique basses and when you consider all the goodies, like matching pup covers and control cavity plates, etc... you realize that you are getting a lot or craftsmanship for the $ -
but the bottom line is the TONE and playability. I have yet to paly a bass that had tone i liked BETTER... as much but different? maybe... but not BETTER.. at any price.... ANY price.
2. Jared, the difference is very subtle, but i think i hear it. I have commented to myself about it when i pick a 100% ash F bass as opposed to one with a top-
yes, Maple is a tonewood, and i have played all maple basses.. not my thing. I know you are not a big Ash guy. That's one of the beautiful things about everyone being different. I seriously doubt i will ever own a fretted bass that is not Ash again--that is my voice. Also , the thinner the top, the less the difference, This is why George F has gone with ultra thin tops, so there is less interruption of HIS formula, which is obviously Ash and Maple ( neck ) - if he did not believe the top had an effect, i suspect he might not go thru the trouble since the tops are carved and it is much easier to carve a thick top than a thin one, because if you carve too far?
you expose the ash body.
All good points! I didn't mean what I said as an argument, but yeah I agree that thinner tops are used to minimize their effect on tone. I was just wondering out loud if it was really that noticeable where it was consistent. You have certainly played far more F's than I so I'll definitely take your word for it. You're right I'm not huge on ash, but I'm still quite jealous about your forthcoming basses.
:scowl:

