• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Tech advances in basses since the early days

Apr 11, 2005
127,257
125,180
Plymouth NC
Disclosures
Endorsing: Yamaha, Ampeg, Line 6, EMG
(NOTE: Yes, I have way too much time on my hands at the moment. I've been under the weather so don't be hatin'.)

As low tech as I can appear sometimes, I'm not all against tech. I'm glad it exists and I find a lot of it useful, and it makes me happy to see what may be coming along the horizon. So I'll give a little list of the stuff I think has been truly innovative and impactful to the bass world since the days when Fender, Danelectro, and Gibson were about it for bass choices, then I want to hear yours. Two requests, though...

1. No blatant product bashing.
2. Try to keep it specific to the instrument itself.
3. If you disagree with someone's choices (and you will), that's cool but don't be a jerk about it.

Anyway, here's my list:

---Roundwound, tapewound, and coated strings: DUH!!! Not a fan of tapes or coateds, but they were innovative when they came out.

---Added strings: People have been adding strings to instruments for centuries, but builders have to be creative with technology to build necks that can handle the tension and stay stable on some of these basses, especially since there seems to be no limit to the amount of strings some want.

---Active electronics: Not everyone likes them, and I tend not to use them so much anymore, but they are certainly innovative for their time, and that can't be denied.

---Advances in saddle technology: The bent plate works and works very well if you know how to finesse it, but I would like saddles that are a little less crude than the threaded saddles, and I want them mounted on bent plates. Good luck with that in today's market but a guy can dream...

---Hipshot Bass Xtender: I was a latecomer to them, but I love them. I find it crazy how the head of Hipshot was able to design something that you'd think has no right to work if you look at it, but it works incredibly well if you follow directions.

---Kahler Bass Whammy: Kind of a frivolous choice, I admit. Some folks love them, some folks think they're stupid. But they were the first one ever made that stays in tune, and though I don't want any more basses with them, I'm glad to have the one I have. And I've found (read: stolen) some cool uses for it that aren't just divebombs, though divebombs are fun.

---Pickups that convert string tones to synth/digital: Wish it was better than using a keyboard, but it's been improving since the early Roland synth guitars, and it opens bassists and guitarists up to the creative possibilities that were only possible with keyboards before.

Everything else that's happened, I tend to believe are variations on themes that came before, have dubious or unproven claims about what they do, or fall into the category of "Good idea on paper."

Feel free to add your own thoughts and nitpick mine, but don't make me come over there and straighten you kids out while I'm trying to play my banjo!
 
Headless basses?
Yeah, that's a good one. Ned Steinberger did come up with some innovative stuff...the TransTrem was another very innovative product that's more popular with guitarists than it ever was for bassists, but you could lock it into different tunings and it would stay in tune. Eddie Van Halen used to use one for a couple downtuned songs with Van Halen, and Buck Dharma from Blue Oyster Cult actually tunes his guitar up because he raises the key on a couple songs they do live like Don't Fear The Reaper, and they do mostly fly gigs with rented backline so he can only take a couple guitars. Worked perfectly when I saw him use it.
 
Carbon Fiber Graphite/Composite…some people find the weight and strength an improvement. I don’t personally care for graphite necks but I do like graphite reinforced necks.

CNC machines…..haven’t made the basses better necessarily but the automation has probably reduced the cost….and likely made inexpensive basses more consistent.

Fanned frets/multi-scale instruments have been around for hundreds of years….nothing new but the implementation is considered an improvement by some(even though I love my 50’s technology I fall into this category)
 
Carbon Fiber Graphite/Composite…some people find the weight and strength an improvement. I don’t personally care for graphite necks but I do like graphite reinforced necks.
I thought about including this, but I think that while Ned Steinberger was the first to use it to make guitars and basses, he didn't invent the material :D And though I do think the rods do possibly help with stability and dead spots, I don't think it's been proven beyond doubt. I still have to tweak the bass I have that has rods in winter and summer (I live in central Florida...spring lasts about a week here) just like the rest.

CNC machines…..haven’t made the basses better necessarily but the automation has probably reduced the cost….and likely made inexpensive basses more consistent.
Innovative for the manufacturers for sure, and doesn't bother me in the least like it does some.

Fanned frets/multi-scale instruments have been around for hundreds of years….nothing new but the implementation is considered an improvement by some(even though I love my 50’s technology I fall into this category)
I predict this is going to be the big "controversy" in this thread. Other than you, I think the lovers of Dingwalls and other multi-scale basses are going to argue that it is an innovation on the basis that Ralph Novak got a patent on it, and they might have a point. It had long fallen into disuse in modern instruments, too. But the reasons for using it in medieval times are the same reasons Ralph Novak did it, so I'm leaning toward how you think about it, but you have to hand it to the guy for making it happen either way.
 
Last edited:
Those are good topics, Jimmy. The only ones I would add are the bolt on / neck through “technology;” and also the implementation of dummy humcancelling coils.

Couple of comments from my experience.

The HipShot Xtender is indeed an excellent tech addition. They do have a couple of downsides (you never get something for nothing). First, though they work quite well, I am constantly unhappy with their pitch inaccuracies. And, I mention that aspect in the context of proper use / installation. Even when the tension in the string between the nut and the tuner is properly adjusted, my sense of pitch is just never really happy with the repeatability. The average listener probably doesn’t hear it; but, I do. Still, I do appreciate what the Xtender does; and every one of my 4 bangers has one. Great piece of kit, pitch issues notwithstanding. Also, I find that frequent ratcheting back and forth tends to kill my E strings a good bit sooner, due to induced metallurgical fatigue on the string core.

I do use active electronics; but, honestly I think we make too much out of them. The decision as to where the preamplifier stages should be physically located is somewhat arbitrary. I never use cables that are so long that cable impedance causes issues. I guess it is nice to have more control onboard; and I do use that. But, the whole thing seems 6 of one, half dozen of the other for most practical rigs.

Which brings me to the neck through vs bolt on tech. We started with bolt ons; neck through came along; and now we are pretty much back to bolt ons. I can hear differences. My neck through instruments are just much more even across the board and spectrum. OTOH, bolt ons have more punch. Musically speaking, I like each one for different reasons. But, there is a dark aspect to neck through constructions; which is that they make servicing the instrument to be either a nightmare or impossible as the instrument gets played hard, due to complexities of replacing finger boards or broken truss rods. On a bolt on instrument, one can “simply” replace the whole neck. On a neck through, it can be high drama. Alembic advertises that they use a sacrificial laminate for this reason. But, they very kindly replaced a broken truss on my Series I a few years back; and I know they were sweating bullets when it came to the actual procedure. Mike Tobias has gone nearly 100% bolt on. I’m fine with bolt on instruments. But it would be nice to figure out how to make neck through constructions more practically durable.

Finally, it is a simple fact that single coil pickups on dual pickup instruments have an undeniably desireable open sound quality. But, they can also create nightmares, particularly on stages with various lighting setups. And, one never knows when that will happen. Alembic pretty much solved that by using a dummy humcanceller in the mid 70’s; but for some reason, that solution has never caught on. Instead we just tend to get humcancelling pickups, which don’t sound quite as great. Pat Wilkins does install a similar circuit in some of his basses. But, we could use a lot more implementation in more of the popular onboard preamps.
 
Last edited:
All the tech I need from a production bass is a four string perfectly balanced light weight offset hollow body shortscale with a pencil neck, 24 frets, an adjustable floating bridge with tailpiece, a passive humbucking pickup in the neck position wired straight to the jack sans controls, strung with nylon tapes.

That's all simple tech that has been around since the '50s but nobody makes it. Hofner comes close with the Club bass but I really need an offset body due to a medical issue. I talked to a local luthier about a custom build but I simply can't afford it.

While I'm waiting I'll have to get by for shows with my DIY modified Bronco body sporting a salvaged Hofner neck, a no name passive humbucking Strat rail pickup wired straight to the jack bypassing the controls, a Hofner bridge with a DIY tailpiece strung with nylon tapewounds.

I think I'll be waiting for a long time.
 
Quality compact tuners.
Dual action truss rod.
Lightweight body. (Not always high tech but most solutions take some effort. Like chambers, reduced proportions that don't look "dinky", or just sourcing woods that satisfy multiple criteria.)
Those rubber washers you stretch over the strap button to keep the strap from slipping off.
+1 low B & active electronics (worse than useless for some projects but it's hard to imagine covering modern pop without 'em)
 
……

I predict this is going to be the big "controversy" in this thread. Other than you, I think the lovers of Dingwalls and other multi-scale basses are going to argue that it is an innovation on the basis that Ralph Novak got a patent on it, and they might have a point. It had long fallen into disuse in modern instruments, too. But the reasons for using it in medieval times are the same reasons Ralph Novak did it, so I'm leaning toward how you think about it, but you have to hand it to the guy for making it happen either way.

Yea, I feel you on this.
IMO, it’s not black and white. I’ve heard reports that Dingwall took the path of least legal resistance from the get on this…small company, production numbers were low, relatively low cost just to pay the royalties. Dingwall also used their own “math” to determine their scale lengths I think…created a prototype with adjustable bridge and nut and tweaked the angles until it felt “right”.
Whether or not Dingwall decided to go this route because of Novax I do not know…maybe so since they decided to pay the royalties, or maybe it’s just a super nice “Canadian Thing” lol.
I go back to the example I use to explain the multi-scale thing to audience members who ask me about it: Lift the lid on a grand piano, the lower strings are longer…etc.
It seems tough to be able to patent physics…but this is a $$ thing and a legal thing, both of which I don’t focus much on these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rezdog and JimmyM
Not that don’t wish you well but I certainly have no complaints about you posting more often. I dig your posts…you had a lot to this forum.

Having said that, I still imagine you as a tiny black man based on your profile pic.

As far as the postcards I would say flatter radius and compound radius necks. Also, singlecut basses and lightweight tuners.
 
I think that there are several great advances afforded by technology and design.

Better tuning machines
Graphite rods in the neck - these necks usually require less adjustment although they do require minor tweaks.
noiseless pickups
asymmetric neck profiles - I like this on my Fender V, it feels very comfortable
better active electronics
strap locks - don't leave home without them
nicer fret ends, rolled edges etc.

And that's just basses, class D amps, better speakers, lighter cabs, amazing preamps and of course strings. We are spoilt for choice now. On a different but not unrelated topic digital mixers have transformed the stage, with electronic drums and all you can really set up in a short time with perfect IEM foldback, nice FOH with much lighter powered cabs and it does away with large racks of gear that would have to have been wired in to the desk.

You'll hear no complaint from me, all of the above have made my musical life so much easier.
 
There are some of the higher tech considerations which never really became mainstream but were at least interesting. The two that jump to mind are the Torzal Twist basses, and Lightwave pickups.
naturalTwistContent1.jpg


94a33638fdb776ce7822ed2616163452.jpg
 
Ned Steinberger did come up with some innovative stuff.

I think one could make a compelling argument that the original Steinberger L-2 was not only the most technologically-advanced bass ever produced, but that it represented (still, to this day) the absolute apex of bass guitar design...and subsequently proved that the bass playing market was not especially interested in the absolute apex of bass guitar design.