• 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.

STEINBERGER?

R

RADIOBASS&BEARS

Sep 5, 2009
8
0
Galena, AK
#1
Hey All!!!

I posted a THREAD asking what bass to purchase next: STEINBERGER or a RICKENBACKER. I will EVENTUALLY get both!Been playing for 30 years, I've always wanted each, why not buy them now? Or soon?

From the responses, the overall vote was to get the STEINBERGER first due to the prices falling due to the economy.

OK, cool. Now, my ???

The 80's STEINIES are hard to find and EXTREMELY COSTLY. When and "if" I find $, I may obtain one of those. I have been looking at the XS-15FPA. Fretless 5 stringer. I hear good and lots of bad about them! Do they sound that "ORDINARY"? Can my processing make them sound like the STEINIES use to?

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE STEINBERGER XS 15FPA?:hmm:

Please be real about... THX!!!
 
#2
I've had two Steinberger basses. The first was a post-Gibson/pre-Nashville XQ-5 Series 1. Huge, thick, heavy slab of bookmatched swap ash (translucent red) with a wide-5 neck and EMG soapbars.

The second was a pre-Gibson/Newburgh-era XM-2. Much thinner, lighter maple body (piano black with cream binding) with a 4-string neck and EMG humbuckers.

Personally, I found the tone, feel, and balance of the XM-2 to be miles and miles ahead of the newer XQ-5. It felt light and responsive. Harmonics jumped off the fingerboard. The neck felt like a good P-bass. Balance was perfect. In contrast, the QX-5 felt heavy and clunky. Didn't have any magic to it.

Both necks were arrow-straight and absolutely rock solid. And it's a good thing, too, since neither has a truss rod! The older XM bass had a more robust bridge with a smoother action and better tuning stability compared to the bridge on the newer XQ model.

Both of them had the classic "Steinberger Sound." Deep, powerful fundamental with ringing overtones and sustain like you wouldn't believe. This is the very definition of the "piano-like" tone so many bassists rave about.

The XM had a darker, slightly more mid-heavy sound. It was a rounder, punchier tone. Sort of a P-Bass on steroids. With the exact same strings, the XQ had a brighter tone with a more even frequency response. It was closer to the "modern" tone you get with a Modulus or Tobias. To my ears, the XM was a much sweeter sounding bass that absolutely killed in a live setting, whereas the XQ was a bit colorless.

I sold them both because I pretty much stopped playing fretted basses. I needed the money to buy my dream bass, a Pedulla Buzz. I can honestly say I've never missed the XQ. But I really regret selling the XM. That bass had some real magic to it.

Oh well. Live and learn :crying:
 
#3
RADIOBASS&BEARS said:
Can my processing make them sound like the STEINIES use to?
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion (and I'm being totally respectful here), relying on processing to replicate other instrument's tone makes the quest for an specific instrument something totally pointless (with the probable exception of the looks playing an extremely important role in your decision, even more than tone). Just some food for thought. YMMV, of course.
 
#4
Not really an easy question to answer, and then further compounded by the feel that you're looking for fretless instruments?


I've owned and played both Rickenbackers (4001 - my 1st 'real' bass, and a 4003), and been a fan of Steinies for so long I sold that 1st Ric to get a Hohner 4-stg copy, and then a 5-string, and have owned the Hohner and Spirit 4&5 copies, and then played a 5 String XQ and then a 5 string XL.


The Rics were, well....... Rics. And as far as the Steinbergers, the XQ I had sucked (one of the last XQ MusicYo models), and the XL was so awesome, it made me sell it and my 6 string Warwick to get an all-graphite 6 string Status bass.



The best advise I can give, knowing that you want to own both, is keep looking for the best deal on either. But if you're looking for fretless, that's REALLY gonna narrow down the whole playing field......
 
#5
Alvaro Martín Gómez A.;7943637 said:
In my humble opinion (and I'm being totally respectful here), relying on processing to replicate other instrument's tone makes the quest for an specific instrument something totally pointless (with the probable exception of the looks playing an extremely important role in your decision, even more than tone). YMMV, of course.
Click to expand...

+1. If you want the looks, any one will do. If you want the TONE of a real Steinberger, you really need to get a real one. Even unplugged my XL has a decidedly different tone from all of my other basses. It comes from the graphite body/neck. If you're looking for fretless though, that's going to be harder to find. OTOH, a fretless L or XL Steiny has an unbelievably cool tone.

Best of luck!
 
#6
100_0830.gif


You mean one of these? :hyper:

LanEvo said:
I've had two Steinberger basses. The first was a post-Gibson/pre-Nashville XQ-5 Series 1. Huge, thick, heavy slab of bookmatched swap ash (translucent red) with a wide-5 neck and EMG soapbars.

The second was a pre-Gibson/Newburgh-era XM-2. Much thinner, lighter maple body (piano black with cream binding) with a 4-string neck and EMG humbuckers.

Personally, I found the tone, feel, and balance of the XM-2 to be miles and miles ahead of the newer XQ-5. It felt light and responsive. Harmonics jumped off the fingerboard. The neck felt like a good P-bass. Balance was perfect. In contrast, the QX-5 felt heavy and clunky. Didn't have any magic to it.

Both necks were arrow-straight and absolutely rock solid. And it's a good thing, too, since neither has a truss rod! The older XM bass had a more robust bridge with a smoother action and better tuning stability compared to the bridge on the newer XQ model.

Both of them had the classic "Steinberger Sound." Deep, powerful fundamental with ringing overtones and sustain like you wouldn't believe. This is the very definition of the "piano-like" tone so many bassists rave about.

The XM had a darker, slightly more mid-heavy sound. It was a rounder, punchier tone. Sort of a P-Bass on steroids. With the exact same strings, the XQ had a brighter tone with a more even frequency response. It was closer to the "modern" tone you get with a Modulus or Tobias. To my ears, the XM was a much sweeter sounding bass that absolutely killed in a live setting, whereas the XQ was a bit colorless.

I sold them both because I pretty much stopped playing fretted basses. I needed the money to buy my dream bass, a Pedulla Buzz. I can honestly say I've never missed the XQ. But I really regret selling the XM. That bass had some real magic to it.

Oh well. Live and learn :crying:
Click to expand...
 
#7
Thanks Guys!!! Yes, I really want to stay fretless. I am selling my Fender Jazz 5 string fretless. The neck is cumbersome to me/ too wide. I am selling it on EBay right now.

I have ALWAYS wanted a STEINBERGER, but in the 80's I was young and broke. Now, I can afford one, but the company went in two different directions. What can I trust? I like the Synapse XS-15FPA. I can buy it new, its fretless and 5 strings. I've heard good and bad on it and again, not sure what I should trust.
 
#9
mmbongo said:
If you're going to get a Steinberger, get a real Steinberger. Synapse does not count. Get a Newburgh, NY Steinberger.
Click to expand...

+1

...or the oldest L1, L2 or XL2 you can find.

The original SS Pickups are the steinberger sound.

I know that the fretlesses are extremely rare, but they do turn up now and then.

The search is half the fun, keep funds on hand, you never know when the rare bird will jump in your lap.
 
#16
vinxbass said:
My brother installed the strings like that about 10 yrs ago. Since I don't play the Steinberger anymore I just left it the way he installed them. I know it looks kind of stupid, but that's my brother for ya.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I like how he put the tapered end at the headstock! Now when you slide up from the first fret you get to leave all your finger skin there on that steel barb. Nice :)
 
#17
I had a Synapse 5-string fretless. I would not recommend it. I tried several different types of strings, both single and double ball, and it never had the unique fretless muah sound. I sold that bass. In comparasion, I have a Gary Willis 5-string fretless which has a beautiful fretless sound.
 
#19
Here's my pro-Steinberger argument: I've had this L2/5 for 3 decades, ever since it came into the guitar shop I was working at after school. At 15, I yelled "Dibs dibs dibs, this ain't even going on the floor" and spent most of 10th grade working it off out of half or better of each paycheck, but also playing in older bands because of the level of professionalism just having one lent.

Now, I've played Ric's, Wals and a Thumb Bass but the Steinberger is so perfectly balanced and comfortable, I've never felt the need to add a second instrument. The pivoting strap harness is attached at the bass' center of gravity so no matter where you position the neck, the weight never shifts. The active EMGs blend very well; I get a lot of punch from the bridge and the neck ads just enough warmth without getting muddy.

The idea behind this bass is "Why should an electric bass be an oversize, clunky guitar?" and it's definitely not. I play guitar, mainly as a song-writing instrument and to teach students for extra earnings, and there's a very smooth transition going from guitar to bass. You don't feel like you're going from a "normal" guitar to a big unwieldy behemoth, like picking up a Strat-which I have, and then going to a Precision bass.

Link Removed
 
#20
mmbongo said:
I see two things very...uhh...strange...about your string installation. Do you do those on purpose?
Click to expand...

Those holes on top are for set screws,not ball ends, the very early L2s came with the option to use regular strings, and they were held in place with the set screws, the ball ends are supposed to be on top like that.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back