• 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 Official MTD USA Thread

#7,403
jokerjkny said:
nice nice,

but does mike only do this on certain bodies or with only certain woods?

again, guys, many thx for all the info.
Click to expand...

I've only seen/heard/played chambered alder MTDs. FWIW, mine is one of the first three chambered basses Mike built - the original three "Marilyns." As an experiment, he made one with a body that was "standard" thickness, one that was 1/4" thicker (mine) and one that was 1/2" thicker. The thicker bodies have larger chambers, and Mike was definitely going for a tonal impact, not just weight savings. IME/IMHO, the chambered MTDs do have a bit more bloom to them, which I like. The rest of the MTD formula keeps them very tight. But for some folks and for some styles, they may prefer the sound/tone/feel of non-chambered MTDs.
 
#7,404
tombowlus said:
I've only seen/heard/played chambered alder MTDs. FWIW, mine is one of the first three chambered basses Mike built - the original three "Marilyns." As an experiment, he made one with a body that was "standard" thickness, one that was 1/4" thicker (mine) and one that was 1/2" thicker. The thicker bodies have larger chambers, and Mike was definitely going for a tonal impact, not just weight savings. IME/IMHO, the chambered MTDs do have a bit more bloom to them, which I like. The rest of the MTD formula keeps them very tight. But for some folks and for some styles, they may prefer the sound/tone/feel of non-chambered MTDs.
Click to expand...
The one I owned was #8, and also the thicker body. Except the one I had, of course, sounded MUCH better than Tom's. ;) :D

:hiding:
 
#7,406
tombowlus said:
LOL! That's because the blend knob on mine was broken... :smug:

I didn't recall that yours was made extra thick.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "extra thick", but mine was definitely thicker than the solid bodies, so I figured your thicker profile was the "standard" he settled on. I was pretty sure ours were essentially identical except you had the burl and I had the wave, and you had the dot inlays where mine didn't. Otherwise, same stuff. Right?
 
#7,407
Vic said:
I don't know about "extra thick", but mine was definitely thicker than the solid bodies, so I figured your thicker profile was the "standard" he settled on. I was pretty sure ours were essentially identical except you had the burl and I had the wave, and you had the dot inlays where mine didn't. Otherwise, same stuff. Right?
Click to expand...

That, and my broken blend knob...
 
#7,408
tombowlus said:
I've only seen/heard/played chambered alder MTDs. FWIW, mine is one of the first three chambered basses Mike built - the original three "Marilyns." As an experiment, he made one with a body that was "standard" thickness, one that was 1/4" thicker (mine) and one that was 1/2" thicker. The thicker bodies have larger chambers, and Mike was definitely going for a tonal impact, not just weight savings. IME/IMHO, the chambered MTDs do have a bit more bloom to them, which I like. The rest of the MTD formula keeps them very tight. But for some folks and for some styles, they may prefer the sound/tone/feel of non-chambered MTDs.
Click to expand...

hmm,

so, are the normal chambered basses somewhat thicker than the usual non chambered bodies? do they feel in any way neck heavy?

and more importantly, would going chambered just for the weight reduction be kinda dumb? is the weight difference between solid and chambered negligible?
 
#7,409
jokerjkny said:
so, are the normal chambered basses somewhat thicker than the usual non chambered bodies? do they feel in any way neck heavy?
Click to expand...
Yes, and no, respectively.

and more importantly, would going chambered just for the weight reduction be kinda dumb? is the weight difference between solid and chambered negligible?
Click to expand...
You don't want to do this.

If all you're interested in is weight reduction, then simply work very hard with Mike to get that done with a solid body. Mike designs his chambers primarily to alter tone (hence again, the thicker body, to make them bigger). Weight reduction is a SECONDARY feature.

This is completely opposite Roger Sadowsky, who DID try hard to design the chambering to be primarily about weight reduction. Tone alteration is a SECONDARY feature.
 
#7,410
jokerjkny said:
hmm,

so, are the normal chambered basses somewhat thicker than the usual non chambered bodies? do they feel in any way neck heavy?

and more importantly, would going chambered just for the weight reduction be kinda dumb? is the weight difference between solid and chambered negligible?
Click to expand...

Several other luthiers (notably, Roger Sadowsky) chamber for weight reasons, alone, and believe that it does not have an audible tonal difference (again, when done in a fashion that is designed to minimize weight, but not affect tone).

As for chambered MTDs, I thought that Mike went with the normal thickness body, but from what Vic says, I may be wrong.
 
#7,411
tombowlus said:
As for chambered MTDs, I thought that Mike went with the normal thickness body, but from what Vic says, I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
Mine was definitely thicker, and I didn't spec anything special other than chambered.

That said, it's been a while since I ordered mine, so maybe a check-in with Mike is called for now.
 
#7,412
I was at Mike's shop yesterday and played a Marilyn for the first time. It had a piezo and standard pick up. The most interesting part was that it had nylon strings. It was punchy as hell. When I drove up I could hear someone playing the bass; it sounded great. I stood outside for awhile just listening. I was shocked to learn that is was a Marilyn. It was very light, but had tone for days. It gave me major GAS.
 
#7,414
Virgil said:
I was at Mike's shop yesterday and played a Marilyn for the first time. It had a piezo and standard pick up. The most interesting part was that it had nylon strings. It was punchy as hell. When I drove up I could hear someone playing the bass; it sounded great. I stood outside for awhile just listening. I was shocked to learn that is was a Marilyn. It was very light, but had tone for days. It gave me major GAS.
Click to expand...
Was that Jonathan Starr's old bass? That's the first one I knew of with that feature. Maybe even the only one to-date? Did it have a similar top to mine?
 
#7,415
Vic said:
Yes, and no, respectively.

You don't want to do this.

If all you're interested in is weight reduction, then simply work very hard with Mike to get that done with a solid body. Mike designs his chambers primarily to alter tone (hence again, the thicker body, to make them bigger). Weight reduction is a SECONDARY feature.

This is completely opposite Roger Sadowsky, who DID try hard to design the chambering to be primarily about weight reduction. Tone alteration is a SECONDARY feature.
Click to expand...

good stuff,

yea, with mike, i'd figured so. thx for the straight dope, vic.
 
#7,416
just got a reply from Mike confirming that Gold wire is used as standard now -- good news!

I'm also informed that titanium reinforcement bar is still optional... I wonder if any of you has this installed in your MTD?
 
#7,418
Yeah, I have no problem with the fret wire Mike is using now so I can't say I'm excited about his switching to gold. As for titanium, unless Mike has switched to using sub-standard wood then I'm not sure what the advantage would be.
 
#7,419
I have to agree on the titanium...unless its a way to reduce some weight on the truss rod. Could be a very expensive upgrade.

IMHO the best sounding necks to me have all been without even the graphite rods although I can definitely see the benefit of them especially in my corner of the world.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back