• 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.

Thunderbird Club

#81,401
Chucky Stiletti said:
I was just asking to try and justify (in my head) the price of a Lull compared to that of a vintage Gibson. Not surprising. Sadowsky 7ender types cost more than 7enders but at least they are "improving" on a design that was bolt on from the get-go.
Click to expand...

As much as players can wax endlessly about the sonic differences of the various methods of construction, at this point the method of how a bass is put together comes down to personal preference and not quality differences. All methods (neck-thru. set-neck, bolt on) are computer aided in accuracy and will result in a good sounding/playing instrument. Neck-thru and set neck have more steps in the process so will cost more. The overall improvement is in the controlled manufacturing, assembling and finishing dept. My '64 T-bird II had a nut from the factory that was 'off'- not correctly cut/spaced. That just won't happen with a digitally controlled nut-cutting machine. (to give a small example)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBassNorth, RedVee, GonePlaid and 8 others
#81,402
Christine said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you're quite right to voice yours, why should you not.

I'm sorry, I'm one of the jokers, a persistent one at that, the silly thing is that even tough I've been teasing today about flats, I actually have them on my Gibson and like them but that's just between you and me. I will try and refrain from the persistent in future, I have no right to bang on if it is causing any sort of annoyance.

Like @Larry V I would greatly miss your contributions here, God forbid you're one of the few who have anything worthwhile to share on a regular basis and I'm sure I say that on everybody's behalf
Click to expand...
There you go....scaring people away again! :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFixer, GBassNorth, Dr_Feelgoood212 and 2 others
#81,403
JIO said:
As much as players can wax endlessly about the sonic differences of the various methods of construction, at this point the method of how a bass is put together comes down to personal preference and not quality. All methods (neck-thru. set-neck, bolt on) are computer aided in accuracy and will result in a good sounding/playing instrument. Neck-thru and set neck have more steps in the process so will cost more. The overall improvement is in the controlled manufacturing, assembling and finishing dept. My '64 T-bird II had a nut from the factory that was 'off'- not correctly cut/spaced. That just won't happen with a digitally controlled nut-cutting machine. (to give a small example)
Click to expand...
But that implies automated manufacture. Not "hand built"..
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFixer, GBassNorth, GonePlaid and 2 others
#81,405
JIO said:
Yep, a bolt-on is more adjustable and repairable. A neck-thru or set-neck has to be spot-on from the start. Takes more luthier skills.
Click to expand...
That's one of the reasons I have always liked Gibson guitars. Set neck or neck through, carved tops, hollow or semi-hollow bodies. There's a whole lot of work necessary to build that kind of thing, where a template and a router is about what a bolt-on neck on a flat body is.

I'm not convinced any construction type leads to more sustain or less sustain. There are too many variables that make more impact including the internal structure of the wood itself. As long as the neck is bolted on tightly, then there's not going to be a huge difference, all other things being equal. That's my opinion right there, and I am willing to admit that my 2015 Thunderbird, set neck and all, has a dead spot that's more characteristic of a bolt-on. Go figure. I can work around it, and adjustments help solve the problem. But, it is what it is. And, then there is the whole bridge thing. I'm not convinced that swapping a 3-point for another bridge makes much difference. I do it for other reasons than sustain.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: theFixer, GBassNorth, RedVee and 6 others
#81,406
Christine said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you're quite right to voice yours, why should you not.

I'm sorry, I'm one of the jokers, a persistent one at that, the silly thing is that even tough I've been teasing today about flats, I actually have them on my Gibson and like them but that's just between you and me. I will try and refrain from the persistent in future, I have no right to bang on if it is causing any sort of annoyance.

Like @Larry V I would greatly miss your contributions here, God forbid you're one of the few who have anything worthwhile to share on a regular basis and I'm sure I say that on everybody's behalf
Click to expand...

Very kind of you to say. Thanks :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFixer, GBassNorth, RedVee and 9 others
#81,407
Chucky Stiletti said:
I was just asking to try and justify (in my head) the price of a Lull compared to that of a vintage Gibson. Not surprising. Sadowsky 7ender types cost more than 7enders but at least they are "improving" on a design that was bolt on from the get-go.
Click to expand...
It's very very hard to try and compare costs between the likes of 7ender and the likes of Lull, even Gibson for that matter. 7enders were designed around the production process, they were a mass produced item from the off. Gibson less so because they introduce more hand work into lots of designs. Lull on the other hand has just a couple of people working for him, fixed business costs have to be spread out over fewer heads which increases the hourly rate enormously.

Once you take away that production process then guitar manufacture is a slow process, you have to concentrate on just a handful of instruments going through your shop as opposed to having a hundred or more where the waiting time ration per instrument to man hours is much less. True the end product may well not be worth the cost difference to some, certainly not in realistic terms but the likes of Lull have an edge over quality which makes them preferable to some buyers.

years ago I was told a fact about sports cars when I wrongly stated that a Ferrari was 10 times better than my Lotus to some geek person who quite rightly said that just because the Ferrari cost 10 times more than my Lotus it was only half as good again as mine. Maybe those figures are contestable but I'm sure you get my drift. Horses for courses
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, theFixer, GBassNorth and 5 others
#81,409
Chucky Stiletti said:
But that implies automated manufacture. Not "hand built"..
Click to expand...

The machines don't assemble the instruments - they CNC cut the body, neck/hs, wings (if applicable) precisely for a 'perfect' fit one to the other. A Plek is a machine that laser levels frets. Boutique builders use these machines just like the big producers do. With boutique builders it's a matter of less product going through less hands = more control of quality (mostly) post manufacturing of parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, theFixer, GBassNorth and 1 other person
#81,411
JJR58 said:
I'm no good for you, i'm a cad and a dirty stay out, i'll only disappoint.
V is just going to cast me aside once done with me anyway.
Click to expand...

Probably, but you'll be a good boy toy.............For awhile :laugh:

Gaolee said:
What's the string spacing like on that one? Hofners are uncomfortable due to how close together the strings are. I haven't tried an Epi violin bass.
Click to expand...

Very comfy, I'm not a finesse player but would have noticed if it had been tight as I don't like that. Regarding the logo inlay, it's hard to say what's happened to it- I don't know the method of it's construction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVee, theFixer, GBassNorth and 5 others
#81,414
Gaolee said:
That's one of the reasons I have always liked Gibson guitars. Set neck or neck through, carved tops, hollow or semi-hollow bodies. There's a whole lot of work necessary to build that kind of thing, where a template and a router is about what a bolt-on neck on a flat body is.
Click to expand...

So, just to establish a point - that's an appreciation of workmanship in the product - which is a personal plus for you. I only own one neck-thru and that's my '64 and I too appreciate the way it's built. Everything else I own/play are bolt-ons and I also appreciate them (daily!) as great playing/sounding instruments. The recent (under $1K) Epi T-bird (best RI of a gen 1 Gibson T-bird) is commendable for being a neck-thru at that cost-point - it's probably the only neck-thru made today that affordable. But higher quality (= better?) than a quality made bolt-on? This would be in the personal preference category.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hillerup, RedVee, theFixer and 4 others
#81,415
Christine said:
It's very very hard to try and compare costs between the likes of 7ender and the likes of Lull, even Gibson for that matter. 7enders were designed around the production process, they were a mass produced item from the off. Gibson less so because they introduce more hand work into lots of designs. Lull on the other hand has just a couple of people working for him, fixed business costs have to be spread out over fewer heads which increases the hourly rate enormously.

Once you take away that production process then guitar manufacture is a slow process, you have to concentrate on just a handful of instruments going through your shop as opposed to having a hundred or more where the waiting time ration per instrument to man hours is much less. True the end product may well not be worth the cost difference to some, certainly not in realistic terms but the likes of Lull have an edge over quality which makes them preferable to some buyers.

years ago I was told a fact about sports cars when I wrongly stated that a Ferrari was 10 times better than my Lotus to some geek person who quite rightly said that just because the Ferrari cost 10 times more than my Lotus it was only half as good again as mine. Maybe those figures are contestable but I'm sure you get my drift. Horses for courses
Click to expand...

I'd talk to Mr. Ed. He knows about a lot of things.

studebaker_lark_1961_wallpapers_1_b.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFixer, GBassNorth, Larry V and 3 others
#81,416
Chucky Stiletti said:
I was just asking to try and justify (in my head) the price of a Lull compared to that of a vintage Gibson. Not surprising. Sadowsky 7ender types cost more than 7enders but at least they are "improving" on a design that was bolt on from the get-go.
Click to expand...

Owning a Lull and several Gibsons I can tell you that there is an easily discernible difference in the quality, which is no surprise, one is a mass production bass, the handmade with greater attention to detail. Personally, I love my Gibsons, they're the "real thing" and there simply is no substitute for that, as I acquired them they each visited Mike's shop to be set up, with that kind of careful attention they've become fantastic players, each with it's own unique tone - I really like that about them as well, no two sound identical for any number of reasons.
The Lull is a treasure, perfect for what my band does, great player that's easy to get dialed in at any venue. There are some differences in materials from Gibson i.e. fret board woods, and of course I got to have mine made as a TB II an option Gibson hasn't offered in more than 50 years.
One reason I own the number of 'Birds that I do is the differences they each have from one another which I choose to enjoy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axstar, hillerup, RedVee and 10 others
#81,417
JIO said:
So, just to establish a point - that's an appreciation of workmanship in the product - which is a personal plus for you. I only own one neck-thru and that's my '64 and I too appreciate the way it's built. Everything else I own/play are bolt-ons and I also appreciate them (daily!) as great playing/sounding instruments. The recent (under $1K) Epi T-bird (best RI of a gen 1 Gibson T-bird) is commendable for being a neck-thru at that cost-point - it's probably the only neck-thru made today that affordable. But higher quality (= better?) than a quality made bolt-on? This would be in the personal preference category.
Click to expand...
Quality is a funny thing. Fancy construction doesn't make an instrument better. I don't want fancy inlays on the fretboard, for example, but I can certainly appreciate that kind of thing. I saw a Gibson Super 400 that was spectacular with all kinds of deco pattern inlays on the back of the guitar. Nobody would ever see that work when it was being played, and it wouldn't make the guitar sound better. It was spectacularly expensive, and I would have bought it if I had a zillion extra dollars floating around, just for the beautiful work. So, I'm inconsistent. So it goes.

I got no issues with bolt-on. I'm really happy with a bolt-on 'Bird and also the 7enderbird that's also a bolt-on. The construction doesn't make anything better or worse so long as it's done well within the technique.

A completely different thing to think about is the price of a Ford Mustang and some other more exotic cars. The Mustang is faster, more efficient, quicker turning, quicker stopping, and cheaper. It just doesn't have such fancy finishes and is a production product as opposed to a boutique product. Fancier isn't always better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hillerup, RedVee, theFixer and 6 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back