• 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 Skjold Club thread!

Status
Not open for further replies.
#181
I do agree with all that too Ken, there is just something different about Mahogany bodies Skjold's though. Since I already have an ash bodied one, my next will be Mahogany, with a Wenge board, cause that combo is the darkest, funkiest sounding combo Ive heard so far on a Skjold (Yeah, yours Henry hehe). I think the other great thing about Pete's pre-amp is that it does let the tone of the wood shine through, while still offering all that versatility. A lot of basses that use say, Bart Pickups and pre-amps, all seem to sound too similar, cause your hearing the pickups and pre-amp, more than the bass itself IMO. Thats not always a bad thing mind you, but having the transparency to hear the woods used in construction is huge to me. Otherwise might as well build them all the same hehe.
 
#182
Ken,
At least as far as Skjolds go, I'm gonna' have to go with Pete and Juneau on this one. Otherwise, I wouldn't even consider evaluating the 10 pound bass... not be cause 10 is just simply too much no matter what (especially with Pete's design), but more because, based on my experiences with a good number of his basses at this point, I do think they have pretty significant differences from each other based on woods and weight.

Thing is, I don't want this to sound like a huge problem, because even if it was just a plain old J bass, if it sounded fantastic, but was 10-11 pounds, it wouldn't be enough of a problem to keep me away from the bass. My main thing is, a heavier bass ain't gonna' kill me, but if I'm gonna' carry the extra weight, I have to have a reason... otherwise it's just stupid.

True, the preamps are powerful enough all of his basses can "do it all", so if someone could only afford to own one Skjold, they'd be just fine. This should be WELL understood, and if not, I'm sayin' it now! :)

However, at the same time, I've found they're also different enough from each other that if you can afford to own more than one, choosing different combos does actually alter things in a noticeable way both sonically as well as they way they react when played.

IMHO, anyway...
 
#183
Juneau said:
I do agree with all that too Ken, there is just something different about Mahogany bodies Skjold's though. Since I already have an ash bodied one, my next will be Mahogany, with a Wenge board, cause that combo is the darkest, funkiest sounding combo Ive heard so far on a Skjold (Yeah, yours Henry hehe). I think the other great thing about Pete's pre-amp is that it does let the tone of the wood shine through, while still offering all that versatility. A lot of basses that use say, Bart Pickups and pre-amps, all seem to sound too similar, cause your hearing the pickups and pre-amp, more than the bass itself IMO. Thats not always a bad thing mind you, but having the transparency to hear the woods used in construction is huge to me. Otherwise might as well build them all the same hehe.
Click to expand...

+1 of course, and to Vic's comments also.
 
#186
Juneau said:
Rofl, like I will do any better. Least you play outside of your house occasionally lol.
Click to expand...
Well, as long as you put it that way, this bass will be going head to head with my PSD5 in a real live gigging situation, with the blues band. What's especially cool about this is, the blues band is a power trio, so there'll be plenty of space for me to really hear the diffs, but enough of a mix in a "so-so" (at best) room to also hear how well they both punch through. I did a short video taping session with the blues band and a second guitarist recently, in that same room, with the PSD5, and I got a lot of compliments and questions about the bass because of its sound.

I predict that, as soon as a core number of these things get out there, especially exposed in live situations, Pete better think about getting enough help to ramp up production at least one notch. Seriously.
 
#187
KJung said:
+1 That was kind of my point... one of the strongest selling points (to me, anyway) of your basses is that the couple I've played have been really, really lightweight and yet still had plenty of balls to them. I would imagine the heavier ones, like with most basses, would sound even fuller, but that powerful EQ seems to be able to 'equalize' the weight/wood issue more than with other basses I've played (again, based on the small sample of your basses I've played)!
Click to expand...

Yeah , if weight is a major concern I have several choices I can make for wood and not have it deplete the tone . The main point being , that this bass will sound different in a good way from the bass he already has with just a slight increase in weight . I think the trade off will be worth it . Also keep in mind that this is Sapele mahogany and not the lighter version of african mahogany that I normally use . It is dense and yeilds a very focused mid and bass response .

Pete
 
#188
gkbass13 said:
the skjold body design has really grown on me lately. nice stuff.
Click to expand...
Again, based on the [comparatively little] exposure I've had to these basses in action - they look one way sitting on a stand, but a different way when held by a player. I daresay, and mean in a positive sense, that the design looks much less "exploratory" in the hand than it does on the stand. The basses also seem more svelte when held.
 
#189
Juneau said:
I do agree with all that too Ken, there is just something different about Mahogany bodies Skjold's though.
Click to expand...

My main experience with Mahogany to this point has been with the 30th anniversary Stingrays. Since I have owned a few Stingrays, it was real easy to notice the differences on the 30th in sound. After playing those a few times I knew I would want a Mahogany bodied bass eventually, and thankfully I am getting my opportunity with Pete.
 
#196
Your missing out Nate hehe. Like Pete says, it has more low mids, less upper mids than Ash. It has a fuller bottom I think, and is still punchy due to the mid bump. It has a darker overall tone than ash by a bit though. Well you can kinda hear for yourself in the clips I posted. Not that my crappy camera does very good at reproducing those frequencies at that volume, but you can get a decent idea. I'll have to have Pete A-B an ash to Mahogany body on Video sometime hehe.
 
#197
Juneau said:
Your missing out Nate hehe. Like Pete says, it has more low mids, less upper mids than Ash. It has a fuller bottom I think, and is still punchy due to the mid bump. It has a darker overall tone than ash by a bit though. Well you can kinda hear for yourself in the clips I posted. Not that my crappy camera does very good at reproducing those frequencies at that volume, but you can get a decent idea. I'll have to have Pete A-B an ash to Mahogany body on Video sometime hehe.
Click to expand...

This very point is why I went with Pete for my first custom bass. I had corresponded with several luthiers (including a very nice gentleman from NYC ;)) and stated my desire for a mahogany-bodied instrument. Pete was the first luthier that I talked to who responded enthusiastically to my request, and that definitely put him near the top of my list. Then, of course, I was able to visit his shop in person, and that sealed the deal.

But I had always felt that mahogany gave excellent clarity from lows to highs, but with a more full - yet clear - low midrange. I had read comments from others regarding mahogany sounding "muddy" or "dull in the highs", and all I can say is that this was not my experience, but rather, I suspect it might be attributable to some other components (pickups, etc) of a given instrument (some of the earlier Gibsons - not T-bird).

At any rate, I just love my mahogany bodied Skjold! It is anything but muddy/muted, but it is also nicely full and powerful. Booyah! :bassist::bassist::bassist:

Oh, and not long after I placed my order with Pete, that nice gentleman from NYC came out with an "Anniversary" model, which used - you guessed it! - a mahogany body. So yes, I have one of them, too! :smug:
 
#198
I think too some peoples "muddy" experiences with Mahogany could also be contributed to fingerboard choices too. Ive noticed a pretty different tone from the Mahogany bodied Skjolds with different fingerboards. Ebony has that Ebony sort of compression added to it - crisp but focused high end. Morado adds brightness to the upper end, but is more open sounding than Ebony to me. Wenge is darker sounding, almost like you rolled the tone off a bit - cuts out the high highs I think is what I hear there - awesome for finger funk or heavy metal slapping maybe. Im sure maple would brighten the tone right up in the upper end - might make for someone's perfect slap tone.

Having said all that, you might not notice the tone differences as much in a bass with different pickups and pre-amp. Pete's stuff is pretty transparent - I think of his electronics as a way to accent the best qualities of the tone you want, or a way to dampen any frequencies you might not want. His electronics dont have a colour of their own though, they let the instrument shine through (which is awesome to me).
 
#200
tombowlus said:
Pete was the first luthier that I talked to who responded enthusiastically to my request...
Click to expand...

Me too. I talked to some other builders who didn't want to work with me on my idea at all. Pete said "Sounds awesome. Let's do it."

Proof of this: Just yesterday I was on the phone with Pete talking about bridges and he removed one bridge and installed another while we were still on the phone! How's that for flexibility?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back