A few points:
Berger still took a dive. They cannot deliver, did not evolve, and made guys run to wood. NEXT! (I pesonally think it failed because of an underlying reason that makes this Forum exist and keeps guys talking about their gear....INDIVIDUALITY! Sue me if I am wrong)
I won't sue you, but I'll correct you.
For the record, Steinberger as a company went under thanks to Gibson, who brutally mismanaged them much as they did Tobias, Oberheim, Trace Elliot, and several other formerly great companies.
The quality of product and ability to evolve had literally nothing to do with it. It was bad management, period.
Ned Steinberger has gone on to design many successful instruments (NS upright bass and electric violin family) and products (capos, drum keys, etc.) that represent the likely evolution of Steinberger Sound had it not been sold to Gibson.
Notice how most instruments which have fully evolved have limited individuality?
No instrument has "fully evolved". Evolution is not a finite process with a beginning and an end.
a Few a very very few, think that new materials is the new frontier, but they have to deliver as well as be deliverable.
Is there enough attack and sustain in the present instuments that require movement away from magnetic forces working against?
Are the present day materials durable and of enough strength to acheive the apex of sustain that every bassist demands?
This is downright contradictory.
Don't blame instrument design for having "limited individuality", and then suggest that every bassist demands the same qualities from their instrument.
They don't.
It's also misguided to believe that magnetic pull from pickups is some kind of evil force that is somehow keeping basses from achieving their full potential. Piezo pickups have no such effect, and the drag from traditional magnetics is really negligible in terms of the overall picture of sustain and quality of tone.
All of the talk back and forth about gear could be subject to audio-spectral analysis and breakdowns, and resolved.
Again, don't depend too much on the technology for answers. You can look at 10 different waterfall plots of band-specific decay over time, and still have no idea which
sound good or bad.
What is missing from the present day instrument that someone could provide, short of Price being $0?
Lighter weight, more neck stability and stiffness, better balance, wider variety of tones...should we go on?
I think that it's inevitable that a company will develop a composite in the future that will be used in neck and body construction at a reasonable cost for mass-production. It'll be borrowed technology from some other application, like aerospace, medical or automotive technology.
Wood has been replaced with synthetic materials in many, many other areas of manufacturing. It'll happen here, too. Then, wood basses will be seen as the "boutique" or retro ones.
Seriously, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. But it will be enabled by technology meeting a price point of manufacturing, not driven (or encumbered) by the tastes and whims of musicians.
Again, I must respectfully disagree.
Composites have many liabilities from a manufacturing standpoint, chief among which is toxicity to the builder.
Cost and availability of practical tooling are next.
The truth is, if wood didn't exist and someone invented it, it would be seen as the miracle material of all the ages.
It is reasonably lightweight, very strong, essentially non-toxic, attractive, grows with light and water, absorbs CO2 from the air, and looks pretty in the Fall.
Wood also has better resistance to cycle fatigue (meaning the eventual loss of strength through repeated flexing within its structural limits) than any composite we've come up with yet.
Better still, there are many, many different types with different properties that already exist.
I honestly think the only reason wood will ever be replaced as the primary material for instruments is if/when it becomes unavailable, and synthetics will be used not by choice but by necessity. This is unlikely to happen in our lifetime.
Although one site Mod has explained that there was a problem with the expressive abilities of the Lightwave Optical system, there have been no entries of websites, articles, or reviews of such; not that they do not exist.
One commentor explained that the Lightwave system was too complicated.
The same complaint came from mechanics facing the onslought of computer controlled electronic fuel injection. So, complexity may not kill the baby, but the assessment of the level of advantage gained by the technology may keep the technology from being mass produced.
The Lightwave was quite complicated. Specifically, it required significant routing and invasive installation, and the sound it delivered was ultimately not good enough for most people to justify the work of installation.
Yes, I've played several. They were OK.
I've heard many, many basses powered by magnetics and/or piezos that sounded as good or better, without the big rechargeable battery or giant circuit board.
Actually, the Lightwave is a clear example of my original point: just because it's a new technology does not mean it's really a big step forward - a whole lot of R&D money went into developing a product that, at best, was maybe possibly slightly nicer sounding to a minority of people.
...there is no rush to make things stronger, harder, more resilient, or even frictionless.
Frictionless?
Cheers,
Martin
