Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
The Explorer Bass Club
- Thread starter Spleenface92
- Start date
-
- Tags
- club
Well, for the money I paid ...
Wow...congratulations. Let us know how you like it...
And nice Aria, Deathblade!
Screw seeing a stryker...it's gonna be hard to top that JE replica! God...sweet bass abngourmet! Don't EVER let me know where you live....the temptation is just too great... 
I previously owned an Alembic Limited Edition Spyder with Anniversary Electronics .... so my impressions are tempered by that. I also had an '83 Alembic Spoiler-Exploiter (an Exploiter body with Spoiler electronics). I'll offer the following in comparison.
Body Shape: My bass is much closer to Entwistle's originals. For example, like Entwistle's basses, the upper horn joins the body at the 19th fret. On the Spyder, they join the body at the 22nd fret. Makes a big difference in left arm position, particularly in first position. Also, the body is "pinched" at the "waist," making the body smaller and lighter. Finally, I have wood backplates, making the bass much lighter (my Spyder had three brass backplates).
Electronics: The Series II electronics blow every bass I've ever played out of the water. They are that versatile. This being said, I love the Bart setup in my Lakie 4-94, the J-Retro Pre in my '73 Fender Jazz Bass, and the Sadowsky pre in my '07 Sadowsky Vintage 4. What the Series II brings that those other pre-setups don't bring is the level of versatility. I was playing around today with the electronics on my Series II, and I can pretty much nail the tone of any number of basses and marks. Not many of my other basses can do that, if at all.
Playability: I sent out a set of DR Hi Beams, .40-.100 to Alembic. They set up my bass with them, and the action is low and perfect. Plays exactly like it would if I set it up myself.
Fit and Finish: Perfect. And I mean perfect. I couldn't find a single flaw.
Compared with the Spyder and Spoiler-Exploiter: The Spyder is far heavier and less easy to play (for me, anyway) aesthetically. The electronics in the Spyder are far more "crispy" sounding than the Series II electronics, which sound more woody to my ears. The Spoiler-Exploiter is better ergonomically due to it's 32" scale, but is more limited tonally given it's volume, pan, filter, and selector switch electronics set up. The Spyder has a wider neck, which, coupled with the length of the neck made it difficult for me to reach the F on the E string in first position.
Bottom line: This custom is superior, IMHO to both the Spyder and Spoiler/Exploiter tonally, electronically, ergonomically and feel-wise. Of course, it also costs more. Cost often drives the choice of bass, and I can certainly understand it if others demure at such a cost. However, it was within my means, and I've received the bass of a lifetime. Simply put, it is, for me, perfect.
Alan
Body Shape: My bass is much closer to Entwistle's originals. For example, like Entwistle's basses, the upper horn joins the body at the 19th fret. On the Spyder, they join the body at the 22nd fret. Makes a big difference in left arm position, particularly in first position. Also, the body is "pinched" at the "waist," making the body smaller and lighter. Finally, I have wood backplates, making the bass much lighter (my Spyder had three brass backplates).
Electronics: The Series II electronics blow every bass I've ever played out of the water. They are that versatile. This being said, I love the Bart setup in my Lakie 4-94, the J-Retro Pre in my '73 Fender Jazz Bass, and the Sadowsky pre in my '07 Sadowsky Vintage 4. What the Series II brings that those other pre-setups don't bring is the level of versatility. I was playing around today with the electronics on my Series II, and I can pretty much nail the tone of any number of basses and marks. Not many of my other basses can do that, if at all.
Playability: I sent out a set of DR Hi Beams, .40-.100 to Alembic. They set up my bass with them, and the action is low and perfect. Plays exactly like it would if I set it up myself.
Fit and Finish: Perfect. And I mean perfect. I couldn't find a single flaw.
Compared with the Spyder and Spoiler-Exploiter: The Spyder is far heavier and less easy to play (for me, anyway) aesthetically. The electronics in the Spyder are far more "crispy" sounding than the Series II electronics, which sound more woody to my ears. The Spoiler-Exploiter is better ergonomically due to it's 32" scale, but is more limited tonally given it's volume, pan, filter, and selector switch electronics set up. The Spyder has a wider neck, which, coupled with the length of the neck made it difficult for me to reach the F on the E string in first position.
Bottom line: This custom is superior, IMHO to both the Spyder and Spoiler/Exploiter tonally, electronically, ergonomically and feel-wise. Of course, it also costs more. Cost often drives the choice of bass, and I can certainly understand it if others demure at such a cost. However, it was within my means, and I've received the bass of a lifetime. Simply put, it is, for me, perfect.
Alan
I don't really dig all the Warwick John Entwistle basses since they smack more of all of those Dean Dimebag guitars/basses than an actual tribute. I know he had many that were almost identical to the Buzzards that Warwick makes, but they don't really encapsulate the things that John was after by creating them--they just seem watered down and they still cost a hell of a lot more than most people would care to shell out for one.
And that headstock is fugly! I really dig that long, sweeping Buzzard headstock that was on the Status and Warwick basses that John used, what's with that shrimpy thing on the Buzzards that you see now? I'm sure they're great basses and I'm sure they sound fine, play well, and are most everything you could expect then to be, but I'd never want one of those Warwicks just because they don't appear to be all that fantastic, just kinda average for what Warwick does. But giving Warwick the right to the design was Chris Entwistle's decision, as far as I know, so alright. Fingers crossed they make a Buzzard that I dig, but I'm not holding my breath.
And that headstock is fugly! I really dig that long, sweeping Buzzard headstock that was on the Status and Warwick basses that John used, what's with that shrimpy thing on the Buzzards that you see now? I'm sure they're great basses and I'm sure they sound fine, play well, and are most everything you could expect then to be, but I'd never want one of those Warwicks just because they don't appear to be all that fantastic, just kinda average for what Warwick does. But giving Warwick the right to the design was Chris Entwistle's decision, as far as I know, so alright. Fingers crossed they make a Buzzard that I dig, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've got to agree ... I'm not a huge fan of the Buzzards (but I'd love to get a real Status Buzzard I). John was always in search of the "perfect bass," and I've got to think that pursuing the Warwicks and the Status basses were a means to that end, including his Alembics as well. The thing that put him off of Alembics was having to use the power supply, and their propensity (in his opinion) for having necks that "moved" with weather changes. As a touring musician as he was, I can see why this would be a concern. Thus the switch to Warwicks and later, Status basses.
IMHO Chris Entwistle screwed the pooch when he gave the rights to the design to Warwick. Status produced a much better instrument, and one closer to John's idea IMHO. I know there are a bunch of folks who play Warwick Buzzards and like them, but I wouldn't touch one (or any Warwick, for that matter) with a ten foot pole.
It's OK though. I have my custom Alembic, which is as close to John's original basses as I will ever get ...
Chowder, you are referring to the headstock on the warwick stryker? That one is pretty nice. I'd LOVE a status buzzard, although I'll probably settle for a Status B2.
I've got to agree ... I'm not a huge fan of the Buzzards (but I'd love to get a real Status Buzzard I). John was always in search of the "perfect bass," and I've got to think that pursuing the Warwicks and the Status basses were a means to that end, including his Alembics as well. The thing that put him off of Alembics was having to use the power supply, and their propensity (in his opinion) for having necks that "moved" with weather changes. As a touring musician as he was, I can see why this would be a concern. Thus the switch to Warwicks and later, Status basses.
IMHO Chris Entwistle screwed the pooch when he gave the rights to the design to Warwick. Status produced a much better instrument, and one closer to John's idea IMHO. I know there are a bunch of folks who play Warwick Buzzards and like them, but I wouldn't touch one (or any Warwick, for that matter) with a ten foot pole.
It's OK though. I have my custom Alembic, which is as close to John's original basses as I will ever get ...
Mhmm my sentiments exactly on the matter, although I really dig the Buzzard shape, I don't dig the Warwick take on the whole idea. Warwick's motto is "The Sound of Wood", which is precisely what John was trying to get away from with the Buzzard as he got them made with progressively fewer wooden parts. Well, play that thing with all your heart, it must be a wonderful experience to have that in your hands. Keep rockin!
Yeah, this one:
I think that headstock looks butt ugly.
And the body doesn't look that good or that comfortable, either, but I could be totally wrong about how it is to play since I've never picked one up let alone seen one in person.
Looking at where the neck joins the body on the upper horn, and assuming that this is a long scale bass, I can say that this one would not be comfortable to play. Of course, I'd have to play one to verify, but my Spyder had somewhat of a similar neck to body placement, and my left arm was almost fully extended to get to first position. To each his/her own, as they say.
Alan
I played a Stryker several times in my local music store. How it plays with a strap I can't say but you need a long left arm. Tone wise I can say it's a killer. Piano string in perfection. But I don't like the headstock. I don't like the "idear" of first making a new headstock for the Buzzard and then giving that headstock to a totally different model! Makes no sense in my opinion. I got my custom explorer one year ago and I fell so in love with the shape and the way of playing it that it became my nr. 1 bass. I am looking for another Explorer to have a second one on stage just in case.. The Warwick is way to expensive and Warwick stopped the cheaper model- you only get the nearly 5000,- Euro version. That's to much for a machine built bass with totally normal Warwick hardware/pick ups/electrics! ( a corvette nt with a nice top wood is half the price and differs only by the shape)
Too bad there are no other good explorers arround. Or do you know about some besides Epiphone and Dean?
Too bad there are no other good explorers arround. Or do you know about some besides Epiphone and Dean?
As a fan of explorers and all all I can say is eww...:scowl:
I agree with everything you guys are saying--thought I was gonna be alone there.
A lot of times, when you stick your neck out on TB (bless its heart), you get it snapped off by swarms of people who didn't really read your post or ignored entirely.The Stryker just looks like a poorly hashed-out idea down to the last detail. I'm sure the electronics are awesome, but not awesome or John Entwistle enough to justify that cost and all those design choices.
Well, in the end it is the "fault" of the bassplayers of the world that there are not more explorers around anymore! They prefere Fender shapes over extravagant basses. At least there is one advantage resulting out of this: when you take you explorer out of the case (which I am still searching for..) you get looked at like an alien 
I have to admit that I like the more noble looking explorers better than the metal style ones. I just love a cool wood top!
I have to admit that I like the more noble looking explorers better than the metal style ones. I just love a cool wood top!
Well, in the end it is the "fault" of the bassplayers of the world that there are not more explorers around anymore! They prefere Fender shapes over extravagant basses. At least there is one advantage resulting out of this: when you take you explorer out of the case (which I am still searching for..) you get looked at like an alien
I don't know. To me this
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Is more extravagant then a explorer and not even close to as nice looking as even a dean.
I agree, but somewhere all the companies in the 80's [death to the 80's revival revival
] along with hairmetal bands the explorer was deemed the shape of "METAL" [sung in lame operatic voice] and therefor needed to be sparkly and blood covered 
I'd love if mine wasn't sparkly red or if all three of my explorer shaped instruments weren't sparkly red, but I bought them because I liked them more then what color they are.
I agree, but somewhere all the companies in the 80's [death to the 80's revival revival
I'd love if mine wasn't sparkly red or if all three of my explorer shaped instruments weren't sparkly red, but I bought them because I liked them more then what color they are.
So you're saying I shouldn't paint mine with sparkle and pigsblood?
I agree with you guys saying the Warwick Stryker is not very good looking, honestly, I feel the same about the Alembic Explorers, though. The dimensions of both are just very odd, IMHO.
It's your bass.....
I agree, they just don't have "that" flow to me.
