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 thing with Fenders is...
- Thread starter Lorenzop
- Start date
I agree that the Fender is much stronger and warmer in the low and low-mids area in this particular clip (which is what I like in my tone preferences too), but there are a lot of other considerations not being discussed regarding this clip.
The pickup location of the Warwick is much more together and near the bridge - not an ideal place to pick up the strings at their most widest & dynamic point of swing = less bass response. That said, perhaps Warwick was going for the signature growl they are known for - in which case the pickups are in a perfect spot for this.
I'm not taking any sides here - I have no dog in this fight. Not a huge Fender fan - never owned a Warwick. I'm just stating that at best, this vid clip is only showcasing the tonal difference between pickup locations (to me). I'm sure Warwicks with an on-board preamp would have no problems dialing in just a much deep bass as a passive jazz bass could muster. To say this a testament to why a Fender (specific brand) is better in a mix seems kinda silly to say. I am sure there are probably much better modern bass comparisons that could have been made - something much more apples-to-apples such as jazz basses from Lakland, Sadowsky, etc. Essentially, other jazz basses with single coil pickups in the tradtional 60's jazz bass location on the body. To me, this clip is less about brand than it is pickups & physics.
The pickup location of the Warwick is much more together and near the bridge - not an ideal place to pick up the strings at their most widest & dynamic point of swing = less bass response. That said, perhaps Warwick was going for the signature growl they are known for - in which case the pickups are in a perfect spot for this.
I'm not taking any sides here - I have no dog in this fight. Not a huge Fender fan - never owned a Warwick. I'm just stating that at best, this vid clip is only showcasing the tonal difference between pickup locations (to me). I'm sure Warwicks with an on-board preamp would have no problems dialing in just a much deep bass as a passive jazz bass could muster. To say this a testament to why a Fender (specific brand) is better in a mix seems kinda silly to say. I am sure there are probably much better modern bass comparisons that could have been made - something much more apples-to-apples such as jazz basses from Lakland, Sadowsky, etc. Essentially, other jazz basses with single coil pickups in the tradtional 60's jazz bass location on the body. To me, this clip is less about brand than it is pickups & physics.
I'm pretty sure it's just a plain ol' American Standard with the covers installed.
For some reason after I watched the video I thought the jazz had block inlays. That's my bad!
It has less to do with Fender than with people badly using active electronics to destroy their tone. Boost like hell, add super bright strings and you get a disaster. There is less ways to sound bad on a P bass.
I completely agree with this, mostly because I used to be guilty of doing exactly that. Most (noobs) will see active cut/boost and only use the boost.
Enjoyed both bass tones. Preferred the fender in most cases. Basically comparing a blender to a cast iron skillet.
Funny I was just watching this comparison the other day. I think the cheaper Rock bass sounded "Better" to me,But it is all a matter of opinion. Some days I like my German Warwicks, and some I like my AM Dlx Fender P. The P def has that low- low end that may "Blend" better. Or maybe "Unify" the sound of the band? But the Warwicks (Double buck corvette,and a Fortress One) pop out more,more mids/growl and treble which seems to cut thru the mix. It's the age old, never ending battle of tone. Sometimes I think a Ibanez SR 300 is all anyone really needs, lol 
ANd I'm just wasting money on all these other basses!
ANd I'm just wasting money on all these other basses!
"Charles!"
IMO, sometimes the Fender sounded better and sat in the mix better, sometimes the Warwick did.
Chapeau to the makers of that video. I found it interesting to hear both basses, side by side. No major surprises, but certainly worthy of a listen.
IMO, sometimes the Fender sounded better and sat in the mix better, sometimes the Warwick did.
Chapeau to the makers of that video. I found it interesting to hear both basses, side by side. No major surprises, but certainly worthy of a listen.
This is not a comparison of how these two sit in a mix. It's a comparison of how they sound being played way louder than an normal over an already mixed song that contains a bass track.
Mugre the Joyless
Mugre the Joyless
I am a big Fender fan but I thought the
Warwick sounded better. I prefer p basses
Over jazz basses. Jazz basses always sound
Thin to me. Just my 2 cents
Warwick sounded better. I prefer p basses
Over jazz basses. Jazz basses always sound
Thin to me. Just my 2 cents
Exactly this. +1000
If you want to be heard, without being way louder than the rest of the band, a P will do this. It is nigh-on impossible to make a P sound bad in a mix. You can have it too low to be heard, or just too damn loud (relative to the rest of the band). Otherwise, a P will almost ALWAYS sound good in the mix. Cutting through, so you can hear what the bassist is doing, without trampling over what anybody else is doing.
But, if you want to be "felt", but not heard, then a Jazz is just about a perfect tool for you. A Jazz *can* sound good in a mix. But, the bass I most often hear (when listening to other bands play live) sounding awful in the mix is a Jazz. And, to me, "awful" is when I can hear that there IS a bass playing, and I can feel it, but what I actually hear is a huge, muddy mess. A bunch of bottom, that I can feel, and I can hear that it's there. But, if you asked me to hum the bassist's line, I couldn't do it. I couldn't even tell you if he was playing a half-tone off from the guitars.
Really, to me, the 2 best types of basses for virtually always sounding good in a mix are a single split-coil (e.g. a Fender P), and a Stingray H. Just based on what I hear when listening to other bands live, those 2 virtually ALWAYS sound good in a mix.
Anything else is hit-or-miss and totally depends on both the bassist dialing his bass (tone, EQ, and pickup blend) and his rig (EQ) in, and the house engineer (or whoever is running sound for the band, if there is someone) also dialing in everything. If any single part of that isn't right, the bass ends up sounding bad in the mix.
I highly recommend you to check out a G&L SB-2 - Leo Fender's final and ultimate evolution of the P bass. To me, it has everything my '66 Precision has, plus "something more" in the sound. And G&L offers 4 different options for necks (2 widths and 2 contours, I believe), so you should be able to find ergonomics that work for you. I don't like the nut width of my Fender P. But, my G&L has a Jazz width nut and I love it!
Thanks for the thought. I'll have to check one out some time. I do have my requisite post-Fender Fender in the form of my pre-EB Music Man fretless, which is, for me anyway, already an improvement over the Precision. But I'm afraid I've already been seduced by the Dark Side of the force - sick, "modern", oft headless, oft graphite things...
I don't have strong feelings about Fenders, either positively or negatively, but I'll echo the comments of those disagree with the concept that it is a compliment to say something like: "And they are more "felt" than heard, but you really notice smth. is missing when it's not there, smth "fat" that really fills up the bass frequency and adds dimension to a mix."
Supporting the song is great, but there's no reason why the bass parts shouldn't be as equally clear and noticeable as the others. I play mostly Carvin basses with plenty of midrange and highs in the EQ, and I regularly get compliments along the lines of "usually I can't hear with the bass is doing, but I could make out everything you played" (moreso live, but the same principle holds in the studio).
Supporting the song is great, but there's no reason why the bass parts shouldn't be as equally clear and noticeable as the others. I play mostly Carvin basses with plenty of midrange and highs in the EQ, and I regularly get compliments along the lines of "usually I can't hear with the bass is doing, but I could make out everything you played" (moreso live, but the same principle holds in the studio).
Personally, I've moved away from the Jazz & P-Bass. I have 2 Spector 5 strings with EMG-HZ humbuckers. Passive pickups, running into 9V active 2-band EQs. 1 has a Spector Tonepump (which is boost/cut, but no center knotch), and the other runs into an EMG BTS. I can get any range of sounds I want out of these 2 basses, with just tweaks of the balance & tone knobs. I have no problems sitting in a mix, or cutting through when I need to.
They're also lighter & prettier than most Fenders I've picked up.
They're also lighter & prettier than most Fenders I've picked up.
- Jul 30, 2006
- 2,315
- 453
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist:Regenerate Guitar Works Carvin, Micheal Kelly Guitars
A lot of producers , engineers and even studios have their own fender basses they will ask you to use. I've never absolutely had to use one in lieu of one of my non fenders.
I guess my willingness to accept this would depend on 2 things:
Is it my band playing on the recording, or am I a studio musician hired for the job?
Does the bass feel comfortable to me?
If it's my band, screw them. I'm playing MY sound, not their conceived notion of what I should sound like.
If I'm hired for the job, sure. It's what they see is best.
If the bass doesn't feel comfortable to me, I'll go get my own P out of the closet.
