Tech advances in basses since the early days

[spatters]

I believe the Alembic circuit is different. In the case of the stacked and split configurations, the 60 Hz induced signal is eliminated by physically duplicating the sensing coil inductance with equivalent and opposite turns in the cancelling coil, thus doubling the pickup inductance as stated. The Alembic circuit achieves the same result by signal summation following a signal gain stage, and uses far fewer turns in the cancellation coil.

That's a clever solution! Thank you for explaining it. But I can see why it's not more common.

1. It requires an active preamp with a mixer, and a very low noise amplification circuit for the dummy coil
2. It requires a dummy coil of similar configuration to the pickup(s) used (and the bass has to have room for the dummy coil somewhere)
3. It requires some tweaking to match the gain on the dummy coil amplification circuit
4. As a result, it's not a kit you can just drop into any bass: you have to design the bass around it

(As you say, this should be less of an issue on high-dollar basses, and should probably be more common in that world.)

You can simplify this somewhat by simply adding a complete extra dummy pickup, which eliminates the requirement for a super low noise amplifier. (Since the dummy signal is being mixed actively, not passively, it won't load the circuit and the signal from the "real" pickup won't be affected.) However, this still requires an active bass and an extra pickup...and the instrument still must be designed around hiding the dummy pickup somewhere, in the same physical orientation as the real pickup.

I'm not familiar with the guts of an EMG specifically, but IIRC, "active" pickups generally have extremely low inductance (and therefore extremely low output) and count on the preamp for both amplification and the resonant LPF that simulates the response of a passive pickup. Since their inductance is so low, winding them as humbuckers (split-coil or otherwise) doesn't significantly change frequency response in the audio band.

The "active pickup" solution is most common because it doesn't require the bass builder to design around the system, and it can be retrofitted into any bass, active or passive.

And now we bring this thread back to the subject!

From my view as a product manager and designer (though not in the musical instrument or amplification field), the biggest advance was CNC machining, whose use I believe Peavey pioneered.

Before CNC, playable musical instruments were extremely expensive.
A 1966 SG Standard ($317 then) cost $2600 in today's dollars, because it required the skilled labor of many people to create.
Before CNC, cheap instruments were not just poor quality: they were often literally incapable of creating music in tune, because to cut cost you had to use unskilled overseas labor.

In contrast, CNC allows instruments to be mass-produced efficiently and repeatedly by very few people. Today you can buy a <$300 bass from ESP or Dean or Jackson or Harley Benton, or even Squier, whose workmanship matches or exceeds anything Fender made until at least the 1990s.

The impact of CNC on electric music cannot be overstated. "I want to learn to play guitar/bass" used to require sacrificing a great deal of your life in order to afford a playable instrument. Now you can buy a giggable bass for what it costs to take a family of four out for dinner and a movie.

 

[chris_b]

Innovations that have benefited me, preamps, roundwound strings, 5 string basses, 35" scale, strap locks, replacement pickups and tort.

 

[Tom Bomb]

1. No blatant product bashing.

Bash away by all means but only if you're sneaky about it?

… don't be a jerk about it.

Very enjoyable thread. Good focus, good direction, good people. Much appreciated

I can add C.F.S., which I have at my fingertips and can recommend, as an innovation. And, also the tech. that allows us to use very old, sometimes ancient wood — genuine old growth timber — that was cut down ages ago before it sunk, of its own volition, somewhere between the forest floor and the timber mill, and then went to sleep in the deep for a century or two, until we worked out how to fetch it and then prep. it for fine instrument making. Magic
​

 

[JimmyM]

That's a clever solution! Thank you for explaining it. But I can see why it's not more common.

1. It requires an active preamp with a mixer, and a very low noise amplification circuit for the dummy coil
2. It requires a dummy coil of similar configuration to the pickup(s) used (and the bass has to have room for the dummy coil somewhere)
3. It requires some tweaking to match the gain on the dummy coil amplification circuit
4. As a result, it's not a kit you can just drop into any bass: you have to design the bass around it

(As you say, this should be less of an issue on high-dollar basses, and should probably be more common in that world.)

You can simplify this somewhat by simply adding a complete extra dummy pickup, which eliminates the requirement for a super low noise amplifier. (Since the dummy signal is being mixed actively, not passively, it won't load the circuit and the signal from the "real" pickup won't be affected.) However, this still requires an active bass and an extra pickup...and the instrument still must be designed around hiding the dummy pickup somewhere, in the same physical orientation as the real pickup.

I'm not familiar with the guts of an EMG specifically, but IIRC, "active" pickups generally have extremely low inductance (and therefore extremely low output) and count on the preamp for both amplification and the resonant LPF that simulates the response of a passive pickup. Since their inductance is so low, winding them as humbuckers (split-coil or otherwise) doesn't significantly change frequency response in the audio band.

The "active pickup" solution is most common because it doesn't require the bass builder to design around the system, and it can be retrofitted into any bass, active or passive.

And now we bring this thread back to the subject!

From my view as a product manager and designer (though not in the musical instrument or amplification field), the biggest advance was CNC machining, whose use I believe Peavey pioneered.

Before CNC, playable musical instruments were extremely expensive.
A 1966 SG Standard ($317 then) cost $2600 in today's dollars, because it required the skilled labor of many people to create.
Before CNC, cheap instruments were not just poor quality: they were often literally incapable of creating music in tune, because to cut cost you had to use unskilled overseas labor.

In contrast, CNC allows instruments to be mass-produced efficiently and repeatedly by very few people. Today you can buy a <$300 bass from ESP or Dean or Jackson or Harley Benton, or even Squier, whose workmanship matches or exceeds anything Fender made until at least the 1990s.

The impact of CNC on electric music cannot be overstated. "I want to learn to play guitar/bass" used to require sacrificing a great deal of your life in order to afford a playable instrument. Now you can buy a giggable bass for what it costs to take a family of four out for dinner and a movie.

 

[JimmyM]

That's a clever solution! Thank you for explaining it. But I can see why it's not more common.

1. It requires an active preamp with a mixer, and a very low noise amplification circuit for the dummy coil
2. It requires a dummy coil of similar configuration to the pickup(s) used (and the bass has to have room for the dummy coil somewhere)
3. It requires some tweaking to match the gain on the dummy coil amplification circuit
4. As a result, it's not a kit you can just drop into any bass: you have to design the bass around it

(As you say, this should be less of an issue on high-dollar basses, and should probably be more common in that world.)

You can simplify this somewhat by simply adding a complete extra dummy pickup, which eliminates the requirement for a super low noise amplifier. (Since the dummy signal is being mixed actively, not passively, it won't load the circuit and the signal from the "real" pickup won't be affected.) However, this still requires an active bass and an extra pickup...and the instrument still must be designed around hiding the dummy pickup somewhere, in the same physical orientation as the real pickup.

I'm not familiar with the guts of an EMG specifically, but IIRC, "active" pickups generally have extremely low inductance (and therefore extremely low output) and count on the preamp for both amplification and the resonant LPF that simulates the response of a passive pickup. Since their inductance is so low, winding them as humbuckers (split-coil or otherwise) doesn't significantly change frequency response in the audio band.

The "active pickup" solution is most common because it doesn't require the bass builder to design around the system, and it can be retrofitted into any bass, active or passive.

And now we bring this thread back to the subject!

From my view as a product manager and designer (though not in the musical instrument or amplification field), the biggest advance was CNC machining, whose use I believe Peavey pioneered.

Before CNC, playable musical instruments were extremely expensive.
A 1966 SG Standard ($317 then) cost $2600 in today's dollars, because it required the skilled labor of many people to create.
Before CNC, cheap instruments were not just poor quality: they were often literally incapable of creating music in tune, because to cut cost you had to use unskilled overseas labor.

In contrast, CNC allows instruments to be mass-produced efficiently and repeatedly by very few people. Today you can buy a <$300 bass from ESP or Dean or Jackson or Harley Benton, or even Squier, whose workmanship matches or exceeds anything Fender made until at least the 1990s.

The impact of CNC on electric music cannot be overstated. "I want to learn to play guitar/bass" used to require sacrificing a great deal of your life in order to afford a playable instrument. Now you can buy a giggable bass for what it costs to take a family of four out for dinner and a movie.

What a great post! Thank you very much for explaining the difference between what Alembic does and what companies like EMG do (despite not knowing the guts of an EMG, that sounds like how they do it in the articles I've read that I vaguely remember).

And yes, CNC is awesome and did bring down the price of quality basses so beginners can have quality basses, too. And yet, there is a whole cult of us pro players who love those poorly made 60's basses just because their idiosyncracies make for great tones we use on occasion. Having grown up in the era of cheap semi-unplayable guitars and basses and hating them to owning one myself and loving it...that's progress

 

[DanDBassist]

Could this be considered to be an advancement.?
So many of these great innovations talked about just may have helped bass players in their own musical advancement.
Easier playing instruments allowing more practice time. Amazing effects enthralling players creativity. Any one or possibly all of these advancements could have a positive influence.

 

[DanDBassist]

I believe it was a Wurlitzer bass I had which used the truss rod wheel adjustment. It looked like this:
Teisco Scroll top Violin Bass model 319 1960s Sunburst

 

[JimmyM]

I believe it was a Wurlitzer bass I had which used the truss rod wheel adjustment. It looked like this:
Teisco Scroll top Violin Bass model 319 1960s Sunburst
View attachment 4360071

Were Teiscos. Wurlies and EKO's built in the same factory? Looks like the exact same wheel on the EKO posted earlier.

 

[JimmyM]

​

Bash away by all means but only if you're sneaky about it?

​

Very enjoyable thread. Good focus, good direction, good people. Much appreciated

I can add C.F.S., which I have at my fingertips and can recommend, as an innovation. And, also the tech. that allows us to use very old, sometimes ancient wood — genuine old growth timber — that was cut down ages ago before it sunk, of its own volition, somewhere between the forest floor and the timber mill, and then went to sleep in the deep for a century or two, until we worked out how to fetch it and then prep. it for fine instrument making. Magic ​

Tom, forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but what is CFS?

 

[Tom Bomb]

My apologies, Jimmy. Jargon's the bargain — infuriating, I know. Circle Fretting System is the long-winded phrase, not that it helps all that much The factory would have it thusly,

"
All FGN guitars and basses come with a unique Circle Fretting System (C.F.S.). It was created by them based on an idea to offer better pitch and articulation than conventional guitars and basses. All frets are installed on a fingerboard in slightly curved shapes, so that every string crosses all the frets at 90 degrees, i.e. to offer minimum contact of a string on a fret, and it makes the scale length of every string even, while it actually varies on conventional Straight fretting. (See Fig. 1). The C.F.S. is a solution of fretting on a traditional guitar and bass and it offers clearer articulation and tones which give dimension when you play a chord and also cuts through the mix when you play single notes.
Link Removed

"​

I had a bit of a crack, a while ago, at explaining it further, here. There's a fair bit of confusion, around the traps. But it's not so complicated really and you could try it out easily enough if you can find a retailer close to home. It's stock tech., with all their axes Last count, I couldn't count how many I have (9) And you won't hear me complaining.

In the noughties, U-Box, where I was shopping for most things , decided to stop its international sales — they pulled the rug out from under me. I was GASing for a parlor guitar, at the time. So I tried for a K. Yari parlor and was beaten to the punch. On the very last day of trading, I took a punt on a History N-01.

It wasn't cheap, I had no idea what I was getting into. Still, I launched straight in. It started a trend Not too much farther down the track I scored a very tidy example of the next in line, in the series. Here's the detail —

​

— this is almost all I've been able to find out, about these critters — FGN, who made these guitars, are not so well known for making acoustics as their focus has been with electrics for quite some time although, these days, they're back in the game My Japanese is not a strong point But, experience, and some further investigating, has filled in some of the gaps. And, as I say, no complaints from this end, though I'd always love to know more

The last time I splurged, not so long ago, it was for a History Jazz so I could have a fretted, doomish contender in the wings. So now, bass-wise, I have, in this Historic vein, an active 5-string Jazz, a PJ, and now a very tidy Jazz, all with C.F.S. and all way beyond satisfactory I do them no justice.

Tom, forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but what is CFS?

 

[JimmyM]

My apologies, Jimmy. Jargon's the bargain — infuriating, I know. Circle Fretting System is the long-winded phrase, not that it helps all that much The factory would have it thusly,

"
All FGN guitars and basses come with a unique Circle Fretting System (C.F.S.). It was created by them based on an idea to offer better pitch and articulation than conventional guitars and basses. All frets are installed on a fingerboard in slightly curved shapes, so that every string crosses all the frets at 90 degrees, i.e. to offer minimum contact of a string on a fret, and it makes the scale length of every string even, while it actually varies on conventional Straight fretting. (See Fig. 1). The C.F.S. is a solution of fretting on a traditional guitar and bass and it offers clearer articulation and tones which give dimension when you play a chord and also cuts through the mix when you play single notes.
Link Removed

"​

I had a bit of a crack, a while ago, at explaining it further, here. There's a fair bit of confusion, around the traps. But it's not so complicated really and you could try it out easily enough if you can find a retailer close to home. It's stock tech., with all their axes Last count, I couldn't count how many I have (9) And you won't hear me complaining.

In the noughties, U-Box, where I was shopping for most things , decided to stop its international sales — they pulled the rug out from under me. I was GASing for a parlor guitar, at the time. So I tried for a K. Yari parlor and was beaten to the punch. On the very last day of trading, I took a punt on a History N-01.

It wasn't cheap, I had no idea what I was getting into, still, I launched straight in. It started a trend Not too much farther down the track I scored a very tidy example of the next in line, in the series. Here's the detail —

View attachment 4360421
​

— this is almost all I've been able to find out, about these critters — FGN, who made these guitars, are not so well known for making acoustics as their focus has been with electrics for quite some time although, these days, they're back in the game My Japanese is not a strong point But, experience, and some further investigating has filled in some of the gaps. And, as I say, no complaints from this end, though I'd always love to know more

The last time I splurged, not so long ago, it was for a History Jazz so I could have a fretted, doomish contender in the wings. So now, bass-wise, I have, in this Historic vein, an active 5-string Jazz, a PJ, and now a very tidy Jazz, all with C.F.S. and all way beyond satisfactory I do them no justice.​

​

LOL! I'm sure that last line's not true! I saw the bass in that thread you linked and it sure does look sweet. Interesting concept, though I do tend to think of things like that as solutions for problems I'm not having. Still, it looks like a sound idea on paper.

 

[Tom Bomb]

I get the vibe

LOL! I'm sure that last line's not true! I saw the bass in that thread you linked and it sure does look sweet. Interesting concept, though I do tend to think of things like that as solutions for problems I'm not having. Still, it looks like a sound idea on paper.

 

[chadds]

I appreciate carbon fiber. My Dave Maize ABG suffered truss rod damage by a luthier. The builder took care of the problem. When my tech had the fretboard off he set carbon rods in. The bass is projects way more and sustains amazingly. The notes ring out so chord work is more pronounced. It’s now more piano like with balance from lows to highs.

Without the bars it was stable and needed seasonal adjustments it’s now just stable.

Dave has since taken a hiatus from building but he found these additions most interesting. The addition of a “space age” material to an instrument made from reclaimed woods is a wonderful hybrid of old and new school.

 

[B-Mac]

(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!

To me it’s active electronics by far.
I also don’t understand the dislike. It’s like comparing a high fidelity system with a graphic equalizer to a first stereo with only a tone control that your parents bought for you on your 12th birthday.

I own passive and active and like them both.

 

[BlueTalon]

All FGN guitars and basses come with a unique Circle Fretting System (C.F.S.). It was created by them based on an idea to offer better pitch and articulation than conventional guitars and basses. All frets are installed on a fingerboard in slightly curved shapes, so that every string crosses all the frets at 90 degrees, i.e. to offer minimum contact of a string on a fret, and it makes the scale length of every string even, while it actually varies on conventional Straight fretting. (See Fig. 1). The C.F.S. is a solution of fretting on a traditional guitar and bass and it offers clearer articulation and tones which give dimension when you play a chord and also cuts through the mix when you play single notes.

If I understand that correctly...

The string spacing at the bridge is usually wider than at the nut. The line defined by the E & G strings, if extended, would eventually meet. That point becomes the center point for the circles that determine the arcs for the curved frets that replace the straight frets.

Cool concept! But I doubt it actually accomplishes all the things FGN claims it does. But other than cost, I don't see a downside. On that system, is the nut curved too?

 

[Tom Bomb]

No need, if you follow. If point A is the nut and point B is the bridge, it's the distance between the two. They are the two constants, assuming that the neck width differs between the two

On that system, is the nut curved too?

 

[BlueTalon]

No need, if you follow. If point A is the nut and point B is the bridge, it's the distance between the two. They are the two constants, assuming that the neck width differs between the two

If the nut is straight, the frets are going to have to be straight too. Otherwise you'll have different distances between the nut and the first fret on different strings.

 

[Tom Bomb]

What's the main difference between a nut, a bridge, and a fret? There, you'll find your answer Remember, the geometry of each fret is different, in this system, depending on where it sits

If the nut is straight, the frets are going to have to be straight too. Otherwise you'll have different distances between the nut and the first fret on different strings.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

I frequently joke that electric guitar/bass repair is mostly like being an auto mechanic... adjust, or remove & replace. Made of WOOD? in the 2000's? Old tech carbon-track potentiometers and ceramic capacitors. Circuits designed in the early 1950's.

Until we get synthetic composite molded basses with bluetooth connection, I'm still saying we play dinosaurs. Even though some dinosaurs have active onboard circuitry, lol.

What else on earth still uses 1940's quarter-inch phone plugs/jacks as the main way of transmitting signal? Anachronistic.

 

[BlueTalon]

What's the main difference between a nut, a bridge, and a fret? There, you'll find your answer Remember, the geometry of each fret is different, in this system, depending on where it sits

Nothing in your quote tells me anything definitive.

If the frets are curved based on a centerpoint beyond the nut itself (and they have to be), then the nut needs to be curved as well.