tobias experience

[The Penguin]

The Arkansas Tobias basses are once again completely different from the previous era. I have played 7 or 8 of these basses, mostly Classics with one Killer B and one Basic. The Killer B I played was great, really well made and well put together. ALL of the others, however, had serious quality control issues like warped necks, frets sticking out, visible glue, bad laminate jobs, etc.

In my anecdotal experience I've noticed the Killer B's tend to shine quality wise. It could be coincidental but from Nashville forward I haven't played a neck through I've liked anywhere near as much as the pre Nashville ones. Even my '93 Killer B, which I really like, has some flaws like the screw holding the backplate on has missed the wood and is being held in place by the copper foil.

It also has 7 digit serial number???

 

[Debased]

One key point is that these basses while keeping the same basic design were completely different from the previous era. Not better or worse, but different. The woods used are different, and the finish is completely different, as well as the Bartolini electronics. When talking about these basses, these differences NEED to be mentioned, because you're really comparing apples to oranges. The quality control thing is a completely separate issue from the fact that you're talking about different basses.

I agree. I've played at least two-dozen pre-Gibsons (I own an '87 "Classic") and three Gibson basses from different production periods, and I can see how someone might prefer the latter, though I don't, personally. Aside from some superficial cosmetic similarities, they really are very different instruments.

The basses made by Mike and his crew have a warm, dark, smokey richness, and possess a very characteristic organic low-midrange bark that I find quite unique.

The Gibsons I played sounded big, modern, punchy, and bright, but I found the tone a little nondescript and perhaps a bit sterile. I doubt that I could pick one out of a bass recording lineup, whereas the pre-Gibsons would be pretty hard to miss.

FWIW, one of the three Gibsons I tried - a recent Arkansas "Classic" with a beautiful Bubinga top - had some quality control problems; the fretboard looked pale and dried-out, there were a few sharp fret edges here and there, and the truss-rod cavity had so much excess finish build-up inside that the owner had to have it professionally cleaned out before the neck could be properly adjusted.

The other two Gibsons had no major issues, but I wasn't all that impressed with the overall fit and finish considering the asking price. I did give a very handsome looking Gibson near Mike's '07 NAMM booth a good visual once-over and it appeared flawless, but I didn't ask to plug it in.

Aside from an occasional tendency of the wooden truss-rod cavity covers to develop a slight concave curve, every original Tobias bass I've played was absolutely flawless.

QC issues aside, I personally think of the Gibson instruments as "Tobias" basses in name only, just as I'd never confuse a Sadowsky with a Fender. I consider them to be two very different beasts rather than a continuation of Mike's original design intent.

 

[vision]

The basses made by Mike and his crew have a warm, dark, smokey richness, and possess a very characteristic organic low-midrange bark that I find quite unique.

The Gibsons I played sounded big, modern, punchy, and bright, but I found the tone a little nondescript and perhaps a bit sterile. I doubt that I could pick one out of a bass recording lineup, whereas the pre-Gibsons would be pretty hard to miss.

I completely agree. I'll also add this...while I prefer the 90's Gibsons, there are ALOT of other basses out now that do at they did, better. (That modern, bright sound). At the time, the only basses that really had that sound was Gibson Tobias or Ken Smith. There are many more options now. The classic pre-Gibson Tobias sound was unique, and nothing has really come out that sounds like it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Well if you go by what Mike Tobias writes on his site and not people who are afraid of the Gibson name pre Gibson refers to before Gibson bought the company.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Quote:
The Gibson Buyout...

After several attempts to move the business to larger, better equipped facilities, I sold Tobias Guitars to Gibson on 1/1/90. The first Tobias Gibson serial number was 1094. At that point, Gibson was instrumental in moving us to a bigger shop in Burbank and setting us up with a great spray booth and dust collection system. We finally met So Cal safety codes. Basses built during 1990-1992 era were built initially by the same crew that had helped establish Tobias Basses as one of the most sought after basses on the planet. We added several people during 1990 and ended up with a great 10-man shop.

At this point one thing is clear... you want to believe what you want to believe... so knock yourself out. I don't know of ANYONE (and yes, that would include Mike) other than you that doesn't get the simple fact that pre-Gibson refers to BUILD, not FINANCES.

Could it be any simpler than going by what Mike Tobias himself says? Note it's not even the same crew, they added a lot of people in the first year immediately after the Gibson buyout. It was not the same people doing the woodwork and finishing. Mike uses the term pre Gibson to refer to who owned the company, we can do that too.

By the way there was just a "pre Gibson" Growler on eBay It seems many people prefer the term for profit.

Apparently it can't be as simple as it actually is for some


To throw in that the people who worked for Mike is... hell, I don't know what it is. Weird I guess. Desperate. It's grabbing at straws.

It's a crew led by who? Mike Tobias. That built basses UNDER MIKE TOBIAS until serial number 2044. Nothing magical about that number... it came right after 2043 and right before 2045.

And who filled the Mike Tobias role when Mike no longer did?

You really are having this much difficulty understanding a very simple premise. I have no idea why.

As far as what some erroneously call "pre-Gibson"... that means what? It doesn't change the facts.

 

[bucephylus]

I've played at least two-dozen pre-Gibsons (I own an '87 "Classic") and three Gibson basses from different production periods, and I can see how someone might prefer the latter, though I don't, personally. Aside from some superficial cosmetic similarities, they really are very different instruments.

The basses made by Mike and his crew have a warm, dark, smokey richness, and possess a very characteristic organic low-midrange bark that I find quite unique.

The Gibsons I played sounded big, modern, punchy, and bright, but I found the tone a little nondescript and perhaps a bit sterile. I doubt that I could pick one out of a bass recording lineup, whereas the pre-Gibsons would be pretty hard to miss.

My experience has been somewhat different.

First of all, I have played and owned a bunch of Mike's original instruments; and I found every one of them to be so totally individual that saying that they sound like this or that just doesn't mean much to me.

I currently have #1014. It is very thick sounding; but, that is largely due to the woods involved - mostly walnut.

For a long time, I played and worked with #20XX, a Lacewood Sig 5 built in Burbank. I absolutely could not get that bass to sound like anything at all. Maybe it was the lacewood. I talked to Mike about the bass. He called lacewood the styrofoam of woods. That's about what the tone was like.

In the course of things with that bass, I carefully upgraded to the then current Gibson 18 volt preamp. Before doing that, I had a number of conversations with the Nashville Shop, and found them to be extremely knowledgeable, helpful, and generally on top of their game. To some extent, some of those folks got a bum rap, IMO/E. As things turned out, the preamp was a lot better, but I finally gave up on the lacewood and sold the bass at Bass Northwest.

After a couple of years with Jazz basses again, I decided to get a 6, just for grins and giggles, and purchased a Gibson era Classic 6 sight unseen on eBay. That was me being stupid. But, it was $1500, and I figured - what the heck, how bad could it be? "Shockingly," that bass has turned out to be the best all round player I've ever owned. I've had soundmen, band leaders, bandmates, all kinds of folks just gush over the tone; in preference to my Sadowsky, SR5, Jazz RI, etc. And other than having been played in quite a bit, it has flawless fretwork, excellent construction, etc, etc. It is hands down the loudest acoustical electric instrument I've ever owned. I guess it bugs me a little that the carving on the back of the upper bouts goes straight across the neck transition rather than the graceful curve that Mike put into his; but I try not to let it get to me.

Some of the Gibson work, at least, was not all bad; and not all of Mike's work yielded perfect results. I guess I've learned to assess each bass one at a time. Kind of like people.

 

[CrashClint]

I've had soundmen, band leaders, bandmates, all kinds of folks just gush over the tone

That is funny to hear, when I play at church, I normally use my Roscoe SKB3006 6 string. Anytime we do any recording I am asked to bring my 92' Tobias Killer B because of the tone it produces on a recording. My Tobias has the 9 volt preamp with a maple body which adds some brightness. One thing I have noticed, out of all the strings I have tried on this particular bass, the GHS Bass Boomers sound the best. They have a nice bass and mid sound and when I dial up the treble about 1/4 past zero it has a nice slap tone as well.

 

[Flintc]

I had my Basic model (bubinga) built and shipped to me from the factory last November. When it arrived, it was perfect, just a work of art. I couldn't find any flaws - even the bubinga was carefully selected for figuring. The tone is everything I ever wanted from a bass.

After about two months, though, the neck had changed. This isn't surprising - whenever wood is cut, it has new tensions and tends to move a bit. So a couple strings had developed buzzing against adjacent frets in a couple of places, and the frets extended painfully past the fingerboard.

I took it to our local bass wizard, and he said this is entirely normal for a new bass. He tweaked the neck a bit so it was back where it started, and dressed the frets. He said he didn't expect any more movement, and in fact the neck has stayed perfect ever since. I've been told by several experts that if new necks (especially thin necks) are not watched closely and kept adjusted, they can wander beyond recovery.

I learned that at Gibson's showcase store in Nashville, they have maybe 8-10 Tobias basses but never maintain them at all. And sure enough, the necks are warped and the frets aren't dressed. And they're filthy. This is more of that Gibson PR at work, as I see it. Maybe Gibson would be better advised to add 4 months to their build time, during which the necks would be kept properly adjusted and the frets dressed, until they'd set up properly and settled down.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I had my Basic model (bubinga) built and shipped to me from the factory last November. When it arrived, it was perfect, just a work of art. I couldn't find any flaws - even the bubinga was carefully selected for figuring. The tone is everything I ever wanted from a bass.

After about two months, though, the neck had changed. This isn't surprising - whenever wood is cut, it has new tensions and tends to move a bit. So a couple strings had developed buzzing against adjacent frets in a couple of places, and the frets extended painfully past the fingerboard.

I took it to our local bass wizard, and he said this is entirely normal for a new bass. He tweaked the neck a bit so it was back where it started, and dressed the frets. He said he didn't expect any more movement, and in fact the neck has stayed perfect ever since. I've been told by several experts that if new necks (especially thin necks) are not watched closely and kept adjusted, they can wander beyond recovery.

I learned that at Gibson's showcase store in Nashville, they have maybe 8-10 Tobias basses but never maintain them at all. And sure enough, the necks are warped and the frets aren't dressed. And they're filthy. This is more of that Gibson PR at work, as I see it. Maybe Gibson would be better advised to add 4 months to their build time, during which the necks would be kept properly adjusted and the frets dressed, until they'd set up properly and settled down.

If anything would help it might be curing the wood a bit more, not holding finished instruments. Even with that, the basses can end up in a wide variety of climates so movement can still occur. That's why there's a trussrod.

A tech telling you he doesn't expect a wooden neck to move again is pretty odd. It's not like they're "set it once and they're impervious to the elements" going forward.

 

[Flintc]

Brad:

A tech telling you he doesn't expect a wooden neck to move again is pretty odd. It's not like they're "set it once and they're impervious to the elements" going forward.

You're right, and I didn't say what I meant. He said he didn't expect more shrinkage (so the frets should be OK from now), but seasonal neck adjustments are still SOP.

I've worked with wood enough in the past to know that even thoroughly seasoned wood will move after you cut it. There's quite a lot of cross-tensions inside any block of wood, and when they're cut, they adjust. But that kind of adjustment is a one-time deal. Changes in humidity go on forever. (And I saw actual *water spots* on some of the instruments at the Gibson showcase. They'd been allowed to get wet, and then dry just sitting there!)

 

[Brad Johnson]

Brad:

You're right, and I didn't say what I meant. He said he didn't expect more shrinkage (so the frets should be OK from now), but seasonal neck adjustments are still SOP.

This is true. I went back and reread what you wrote a couple of times before I responded, I figured that's what you meant but what you were saying was about neck adjustments. Thanks for clearing that up.

I've worked with wood enough in the past to know that even thoroughly seasoned wood will move after you cut it. There's quite a lot of cross-tensions inside any block of wood, and when they're cut, they adjust. But that kind of adjustment is a one-time deal. Changes in humidity go on forever. (And I saw actual *water spots* on some of the instruments at the Gibson showcase. They'd been allowed to get wet, and then dry just sitting there!)

Huh? Allowed to get wet?

 

[Debased]

First of all, I have played and owned a bunch of Mike's original instruments; and I found every one of them to be so totally individual that saying that they sound like this or that just doesn't mean much to me.

Sure, one of Mike's primary goals was to tailor the sound of each bass to suit the customer's tastes by utilizing a wide variety of wood combinations. The individual tonal idiosyncrasies you describe are one of the things that make those old basses so special, but are you saying that you don't hear an easily recognisable "house" sound from pre-Gib Tobies?

A "Basic" with a maple/purple heart neck and maple body wings certainly sounds different than a "Signature" with a wenge/purple heart neck and a bubinga/wenge body, but IME, they both share an unmistakable pre-Gibson tone due to Mike's build style and the same pickups and electronics (though the Burbank-era pickups with the embossed Bartolini logo are a little brighter than the earlier ones).

I swapped out the stock Bart pre on my "Classic" with an 18v Jim Williams semi-parimetric version, and even though the latter is much more versatile and hifi, my bass still has that "house" tone in spades.

 

[bucephylus]

Sure, one of Mike's primary goals was to tailor the sound of each bass to suit the customer's tastes by utilizing a wide variety of wood combinations. The individual tonal idiosyncrasies you describe are one of the things that make those old basses so special, but are you saying that you don't hear an easily recognisable "house" sound from pre-Gib Tobies?

A "Basic" with a maple/purple heart neck and maple body wings certainly sounds different than a "Signature" with a wenge/purple heart neck and a bubinga/wenge body, but IME, they both share an unmistakable pre-Gibson tone due to Mike's build style and the same pickups and electronics (though the Burbank-era pickups with the embossed Bartolini logo are a little brighter than the earlier ones).

I swapped out the stock Bart pre on my "Classic" with an 18v Jim Williams semi-parimetric version, and even though the latter is much more versatile and hifi, my bass still has that "house" tone in spades.

Interesting comments.

I guess I think that the electronics are so transparent on Mike's instruments that the various wood differences really speak through clearly. I also believe that the neck wood makes the most difference in the tone followed by the body woods. I believe that difference still carries through to the Gibson instruments, BUT, I don't think they were nearly as discriminating in picking out their woods - kind of you get what you get. I suspect that fact alone accounts for a lot of disappointment with the Gibson work. My 6 happened to work out.

As far as "House Sound," I believe that is due to Mike's care in picking his wood and carving the instruments. I believe he pays a lot of attention to tap tones and acoustic qualities. But, I also think he gets an amazing variety of results.

I do agree with you that the earlier pups sounded darker to my ear. I tend to like that tone more.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Interesting comments.

I guess I think that the electronics are so transparent on Mike's instruments that the various wood differences really speak through clearly. I also believe that the neck wood makes the most difference in the tone followed by the body woods. I believe that difference still carries through to the Gibson instruments, BUT, I don't think they were nearly as discriminating in picking out their woods - kind of you get what you get. I suspect that fact alone accounts for a lot of disappointment with the Gibson work. My 6 happened to work out.

As far as "House Sound," I believe that is due to Mike's care in picking his wood and carving the instruments. I believe he pays a lot of attention to tap tones and acoustic qualities. But, I also think he gets an amazing variety of results.

I do agree with you that the earlier pups sounded darker to my ear. I tend to like that tone more.

Picking wood is voodoo.

 

[bucephylus]

Picking wood is voodoo.

...which makes Mike the Voodoo Man? Could be.

I wonder how he would view THAT label.

 

[bucephylus]

That is funny to hear, when I play at church, I normally use my Roscoe SKB3006 6 string. Anytime we do any recording I am asked to bring my 92' Tobias Killer B because of the tone it produces on a recording. My Tobias has the 9 volt preamp with a maple body which adds some brightness. One thing I have noticed, out of all the strings I have tried on this particular bass, the GHS Bass Boomers sound the best. They have a nice bass and mid sound and when I dial up the treble about 1/4 past zero it has a nice slap tone as well.

I've been using Fodera nickels, which sound a whole lot like DR Sunbeams. I agree that the nickels seem to fit the Tobias electronics.

 

[Georges Abitbol]

Hi scubaduba,
Really nice bass!
Have you any soundclips please?

 

[Brad Johnson]

...which makes Mike the Voodoo Man? Could be.

I wonder how he would view THAT label.

He must be aware by now of the derision some people lay on luthiers who think wood actual matters.

 

[Flintc]

He must be aware by now of the derision some people lay on luthiers who think wood actual matters.

Maybe this paints with too broad a brush. Even to my ear, which isn't one of those trained Golden Ears you read about, I can hear the difference between very different tone woods all else being equal, like the strings, the electronics, the neck, etc. I can close my eyes and exceed random guessing by a good margin identifying among bubinga, ash, and mahogany.

What's voodoo is being able to distinguish a mediocre chunk of mahogany from a great chunk of mahogany *even before cutting it to shape*. I'm sure it's way beyond my competence to hear the difference between two otherwise identical basses made from different blocks of the same kind of wood. I usually suspect that in a performance situation, the average member of the audience is focusing on the vocalist, hears the bass only subliminally, and couldn't hear any difference at all between a mahogany bass and a clear plastic bass.

I don't think "derision" is the right word here. I just wonder how many of us really CAN factor out the contributons made by the pickups, the pre-amp, the head, the cabs, etc. to tell a good maple bass from a great one. I'm not saying Michael Tobias can't do it, but I doubt I can.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Maybe this paints with too broad a brush. Even to my ear, which isn't one of those trained Golden Ears you read about, I can hear the difference between very different tone woods all else being equal, like the strings, the electronics, the neck, etc. I can close my eyes and exceed random guessing by a good margin identifying among bubinga, ash, and mahogany.

What's voodoo is being able to distinguish a mediocre chunk of mahogany from a great chunk of mahogany *even before cutting it to shape*. I'm sure it's way beyond my competence to hear the difference between two otherwise identical basses made from different blocks of the same kind of wood. I usually suspect that in a performance situation, the average member of the audience is focusing on the vocalist, hears the bass only subliminally, and couldn't hear any difference at all between a mahogany bass and a clear plastic bass.

I don't think "derision" is the right word here. I just wonder how many of us really CAN factor out the contributons made by the pickups, the pre-amp, the head, the cabs, etc. to tell a good maple bass from a great one. I'm not saying Michael Tobias can't do it, but I doubt I can.

You said it's voodoo... again. "voodoo", "golden ears", they're all buzzwords and they're usually used in the fashon I mentioned by people that don't believe others can do something they can't do, hence calling it "voodoo". I'd call it listening for properties.


Mike Tobias checks out lumber for it's sonic porperties before it's cut for a body. I know Kevin Brubaker does the same thing. Maybe one day they'll graduate to "Alchemists".

 

[Flintc]

Brad:

You said it's voodoo... again.

No, YOU said it's voodoo. From post #133:

Picking wood is voodoo.

they're all buzzwords and they're usually used in the fashon I mentioned by people that don't believe others can do something they can't do, hence calling it "voodoo".

But, as we read, I said: "I'm not saying Michael Tobias can't do it, but I doubt I can." And I said this in the context of the entire experience, where the actual block of wood is one of many components, which I listed.

I'd call it listening for properties. Mike Tobias checks out lumber for it's sonic porperties before it's cut for a body.

For all I know, this is an important test, and produces instruments that have particularly pleasing or exciting tones. This seems to be what you believe. I can only take your word for it. At the very least, it reflects a conscientious attention to every detail which surely makes a difference in many ways.