• 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.

Show Us Your Rob Allen Basses Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#461
fish slapper said:
That'd be the bass of my dreams.



According to the website and confirmed with a phone call with Rob last year, the standard Mouse with Maple top build is a Mahogany body and Goncalo Aves fingerboard.

I personally am struggling between a Maple Mouse with F hole or a Deep 4. Of course money is a key factor in that decision!
Click to expand...

Mahagony would like nice. My 'standard' Mouse came with an alder body. I guess there is no upcharge for body woods. My stock MB2 came with an ash body. My upgraded fretted mouse with Koa top has an alder body.

Hard to beat that maple tope/Goncalo (I can never remember that name!) board with the body wood of your choice.

The F hole seems pretty trivial... more about looks than any particular significant change in tone, comparing my two... one with F and one without. Nice look though, and I believe Rob feels it just opens the tone up a smidge, especially when practicing unplugged.
 
#462
KJung said:
Mahagony would like nice. My 'standard' Mouse came with an alder body. I guess there is no upcharge for body woods. My stock MB2 came with an ash body. My upgraded fretted mouse with Koa top has an alder body.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Rob told me he though Mahogany was a better choice with Maple. Kind of threw me as I've been kind of a wood snob in the past and try to stick with Ash. Can do Alder as a "generic" wood. In acoustic guitarland, Mahogany is sort of a cheap tonewood. That's just my perception. Again, Rob seems slammed and was really trying to steer me into the product line he has settled on.

KJung said:
The F hole seems pretty trivial... more about looks than any particular significant change in tone, comparing my two... one with F and one without. Nice look though, and I believe Rob feels it just opens the tone up a smidge, especially when practicing unplugged.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. This for me is an aesthetic choice. I love the look of a single cut with an F hole. Kind of why I'm not thinking MB-2. Just not diggin' the double cut body shape as much.
 
#463
fish slapper said:
Hmmm. Rob told me he though Mahogany was a better choice with Maple. Kind of threw me as I've been kind of a wood snob in the past and try to stick with Ash. Can do Alder as a "generic" wood. In acoustic guitarland, Mahogany is sort of a cheap tonewood. That's just my perception. Again, Rob seems slammed and was really trying to steer me into the product line he has settled on.
Click to expand...

I think Mahogany is considered a 'slight upcharge body wood' by most electric bass manufacturers. I would think the tonal difference between alder and Mahogany would be very, very subtle. Ash' might' get you a very slight increase in attack quickness and brightness, but we would be talking again very subtle, from my experience with my ash bodied MB-2 (which I no longer have).
 
#465
Ok - one month on and I'm establishing the differences between my Mouse and Mb2. Here goes...

Believe it or not, the Mb2 is significantly lighter than the Mouse. The tone is, again suprisingly, much woodier and slightly thinner than the Mouse. As expected, the attack is greater.

Another surprise - the Mouse is capable of producing a very, very nice P-bass tone whereas the Mb2, due to it's thinner tone, is a little less suited.

The walnut neck on the Mb2 is the fastest I've ever played - phenomenal. The fingerboard is it's equal. The f-hole looks stunning and adds a considerable amount of volume when unplugged. Tone-wise, it's hard to say what it adds as I've not played an Mb2 without one.

The Mb2 is more upright-sounding than the Mouse largely due to the incredibly woody tone it has. The Mouse is easier to play straight, meaning a fretted tone is easier to emulate.

The construction of both is beyond compare in my opinion. Both are truly wonderful pieces of practical art.
 
#467
longrange said:
Ok - one month on and I'm establishing the differences between my Mouse and Mb2. Here goes...

Believe it or not, the Mb2 is significantly lighter than the Mouse. The tone is, again suprisingly, much woodier and slightly thinner than the Mouse. As expected, the attack is greater.

Another surprise - the Mouse is capable of producing a very, very nice P-bass tone whereas the Mb2, due to it's thinner tone, is a little less suited.

The walnut neck on the Mb2 is the fastest I've ever played - phenomenal. The fingerboard is it's equal. The f-hole looks stunning and adds a considerable amount of volume when unplugged. Tone-wise, it's hard to say what it adds as I've not played an Mb2 without one.

The Mb2 is more upright-sounding than the Mouse largely due to the incredibly woody tone it has. The Mouse is easier to play straight, meaning a fretted tone is easier to emulate.

The construction of both is beyond compare in my opinion. Both are truly wonderful pieces of practical art.
Click to expand...

IMO, what you are describing probably has more to do with density and weight than models. My Mouses (mice!) are both significantly lighter than my previously owned MB-2, and sound more woody and 'DB like' than my MB. Also, the short scale lets the Mouse's notes bloom a little more down low (I guess that's the point), which also helps with DB emulation.
 
#468
KJung said:
IMO, what you are describing probably has more to do with density and weight than models. My Mouses (mice!) are both significantly lighter than my previously owned MB-2, and sound more woody and 'DB like' than my MB. Also, the short scale lets the Mouse's notes bloom a little more down low (I guess that's the point), which also helps with DB emulation.
Click to expand...

I think you're right although both of mine are the only RA's I've played (due to being in the UK) so it's difficult to say. Rob says that the Mb2 is the lightest he's made so I guess that's a factor too.
 
#469
fish slapper said:
Hmmm. Rob told me he though Mahogany was a better choice with Maple. Kind of threw me as I've been kind of a wood snob in the past and try to stick with Ash. Can do Alder as a "generic" wood. In acoustic guitarland, Mahogany is sort of a cheap tonewood. That's just my perception. Again, Rob seems slammed and was really trying to steer me into the product line he has settled on.
Click to expand...

I've had a bunch of MB-2s and Mouse basses and I strongly prefer walnut necks and alder bodies. I had one mahogany body/maple neck that sounded very good, none of the ash body/maple neck basses sounded right to me. Top wood and fingerboard/bridge wood I couldn't tell any big difference but didn't have that many differences available - ebony sounded like goncalo alves to me if all the other woods were the same.

I know Rob is very busy but I think there's also something else to it. Most luthiers I've known personally are very picky about what sort of instruments they let out, they don't want anything that isn't just right out the door and have it reflect badly on them. New directions usually involve a lot of trial and error before you come across the right solution to a particular build idea, so if he hasn't done something before and he doesn't have time to do it properly, I'm not surprised he'd try to guide you towards what he already knows how to build.
 
#470
bdgotoh said:
I've had a bunch of MB-2s and Mouse basses and I strongly prefer walnut necks and alder bodies. I had one mahogany body/maple neck that sounded very good, none of the ash body/maple neck basses sounded right to me. Top wood and fingerboard/bridge wood I couldn't tell any big difference but didn't have that many differences available - ebony sounded like goncalo alves to me if all the other woods were the same.

I know Rob is very busy but I think there's also something else to it. Most luthiers I've known personally are very picky about what sort of instruments they let out, they don't want anything that isn't just right out the door and have it reflect badly on them. New directions usually involve a lot of trial and error before you come across the right solution to a particular build idea, so if he hasn't done something before and he doesn't have time to do it properly, I'm not surprised he'd try to guide you towards what he already knows how to build.
Click to expand...

+1. And the guy's a genius so there's no such thing as a bad RA.
 
#471
Was having this very discussion with Rob on Friday. When you look at the stock Mice, you have:

maple top, mahogany body
walnut top, ash body
koa top, alder body

The reason for those pairings are to maintain the "RA sound" (at least in the 30" scale version). While the tonal differences are subtle, they are real. In my case, I want a quick attack with a lot of mids - and this is for a fretted Mouse. Rob originally was suggesting maple top on an alder or ash body. That isn't his default combination because it takes the sound away from the traditional tone. Normally he'd pair a maple top with mahogany so that the body would temper the brightness of the top. I'm not a fan of Maple though, preferring both the look of walnut, but also the sound of my D5. So I'm going walnut top and alder body. For my goals, that should work - I'm losing some hi end, but those are both more "mid" woods, which is what I want. Maple/alder though may be the ideal combo for the sound I'm seeking though...

For comparison sake, I am not an ash/maple kinda guy - I just don't care for that combination. Much more in the alder/rw camp. The alder/walnut combo on my D5 sounds great, and since my D5 has a walnut neck, I decided to spend more money and get the Mouse with a walnut neck too.

In the end they all are subtle differences, but you should buy what moves you. Walnut moves me, so that's where I went.
 
#476
Just an FYI - if anyone is in the general Boston area, I'll most likely be using my Deep 4 with a big band at a free concert in Norwood next month. I'll probably wind up switching between my fretless P and the D4 at times.
 
#479
Now that the honeymoon should be over, a quick update on life with the Deep 5. I've used it in a few funk band rehearsals and while it is ok, it doesn't cut quite enough for my taste - although that was before I got what may become my secret weapon. I've used it at a bunch of my pro bono gigs doing a mix of jazz and 50's rock and Motown, and it is perfect. Just show up with the bass, LMTube and AE112, nothing else.

Today was an outdoor block party right off the beach. The group is a mix of jazz (with vocals), blues, Motown, and other bits. We did a rehearsal a few days ago (without keys) and I tried my new pedal - a Sansamp Paradriver. When playing with the funk band, the playability is there, and while there is sometimes no substitute for frets, it still just felt like if I had a bit more mid I'd be set. The LMTube has set lo mid and hi mid frequencies, and they weren't quite what I wanted. I picked up the Paradriver somewhat on a lark, but figured it might give me the ability to do a bit of tweaking. And turns out it was perfect. I dial in a bit of midrange around 200-300hz, cut just a hair of bass, and add just a bit of drive, with the pedal mixed mostly Sansamp circuit out (but EQ in). So it gives a bit more bark, and with the right attack it has nice presence in a mix. Then if I want to do a ballad or straightahead jazz tune, I just hit the footswitch and I have my huge RA tone back.

For the gig today I took my Zon fretted, but it never came out of the gig bag. All 4 sets were with the Deep 5. You know you're having a good day when *everyone* else in the band compliments the sound of the instrument. The keyboard player even said he preferred it to my Zon Lightwave (which is less woody).

Now just have to wait for my fretted Mouse :D

venn1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back