tobias experience

[Brad Johnson]

Brad:

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

At first I thought... colorblind?



Seriously, did you see the green highlighted text? You said it. Maybe you mean first?

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.

"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*".

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.

You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to believe it. The silly part, to me, is the way some completely dismiss it. Not saying you. Seen it a bunch of times here, including the golden ears stuff, luthiers are just ripping people off with wood and all sorts of insightful stuff.

 

[The Penguin]

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.



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.

This is obviously too precious for you to discuss rationally, for anyone who wants the truth from Mike Tobias himself and not some "expert" on the net simply refer to the MTD website, he spells it out in english and even gives the exact serial number when they became Gibson Tobias'.

 

[The Penguin]

I guess Mike is a liar...

The first Tobias Gibson serial number was 1094

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Maybe he really meant the first pre Gibson was 1094? What does he know

 

[Flintc]

Penguin:

This is obviously too precious for you to discuss rationally, for anyone who wants the truth from Mike Tobias himself and not some "expert" on the net simply refer to the MTD website, he spells it out in english and even gives the exact serial number when they became Gibson Tobias'.

The question here is, are we attempting to assess the quality of the bass, or the destination of the profits when the bass is sold.

For most of us, the quality of the bass itself is what matters. For you, apparently, the ONLY IMPORTANT FACTOR is who got the profits. Fine, #1094 is the cutoff serial number for the profits. #2044 is the cutoff point for the basses themselves. Pick what you think matters.

Once again, there are three periods here. Before Gibson bought them, after Gibson bought them but before Mike Tobias stopped building them, and after Mike Tobias was involved. If you care about bass quality, you care about what Mike was doing at the time. If you care about finances and profits, you care who owned the operation.

Caring about the instruments themselves is not irrational. If you are a bassist, then after #2044 is the Gibson era. If you are a shareholder in Gibson, then #1094 is what matters to you. It's not that complicated.

Brad:

Not saying you. Seen it a bunch of times here, including the golden ears stuff, luthiers are just ripping people off with wood and all sorts of insightful stuff.

I don't think there's any ripoff. I DO have to take your word for it. I would of course dearly love to subject Mike Tobias to a double-blind test - say, take half a dozen basses he blessed *as lumber* and half a dozen he rejected *as lumber*, all of which were subsequently made into otherwise identical basses (same neck, style, electronics, etc.) and played through the same equipment. Play all dozen basses and have him pick good/bad for each. Scramble them and do it again, 10 times. Keep a record of the responses (double blind means the tester doesn't know which is which either. Each bass only has a number, and a third party not involved in the test is the only one who can associate basses with their numbers).

NOW, shuffle the basses and at random put Bartolini pickups in half, and EMG pickups in the other half. THEN select half of these basses at random, and play half through a Carvin amp into SWR cabs, and the other half through a Line6 combo amp set for "Brit" sound.

Then repeat the 10 identification tests.

I ask you to speculate. In each of these two sets of tests, how accurately do you suppose Mike Tobias could identify the "good" lumber accurately. Repeat this set of tests for Kevin Brubaker. Compare their results with flipping a coin. In how many cases would the coin win?

I have no idea if anyone at Gibson's Arkansas factory performs any such test. I'd guess (based on industry practices) that nobody attempts this, and that nobody is qualified even if they did. Not part of the job description.

But I have two Tobias basses made in that factory, and the wood is similar (solid bubinga for Killer B, bubinga wings for Basic) while the electronics are the same. They have a distinctly different sound to my ear. Something is making that difference.

 

[The Penguin]

Penguin:

The question here is, are we attempting to assess the quality of the bass, or the destination of the profits when the bass is sold.

For most of us, the quality of the bass itself is what matters. For you, apparently, the ONLY IMPORTANT FACTOR is who got the profits. Fine, #1094 is the cutoff serial number for the profits. #2044 is the cutoff point for the basses themselves. Pick what you think matters.

Once again, there are three periods here. Before Gibson bought them, after Gibson bought them but before Mike Tobias stopped building them, and after Mike Tobias was involved. If you care about bass quality, you care about what Mike was doing at the time. If you care about finances and profits, you care who owned the operation.

Caring about the instruments themselves is not irrational. If you are a bassist, then after #2044 is the Gibson era. If you are a shareholder in Gibson, then #1094 is what matters to you. It's not that complicated.

What does the name have to do with quality? Why don't we call the Burbank period Fenders? Because they aren't. It's Mike's company and he says pre Gibson is before 1094, what magical ego crushing powers does the word Gibson have for so many people they have to call Mike a liar so stupid he doesn't know who owns his company.

And why the knee jerk reaction thinking the term Gibson is an attack on Mike and all that is holy? That's your baggage not mine. I've spent time at the Gibson shop and bought parts from Mike there. I guess I don't see the G word as such an offensive politically incorrect term and just tend to use the name the owners use.

He sold the company, Gibson paid for a new crew, they made basses with Mike there. Do you call all Musciman and G&L basses Fenders because Leo was there? No, we tend to refer to them by the company that made the basses. But then we don't have people trying to sell G&L's for over market by calling them by a different name.

I've never said anything about who gets the profits so you can drop the straw man foolishness. You've tried to attack me a number of times telling me what I think and what my motivations are, get over yourself, the term Gibson does not mean crap. Remember when that used to be your line and how angry it made you?

Brad:

I don't think there's any ripoff. I DO have to take your word for it. I would of course dearly love to subject Mike Tobias to a double-blind test - say, take half a dozen basses he blessed *as lumber* and half a dozen he rejected *as lumber*, all of which were subsequently made into otherwise identical basses (same neck, style, electronics, etc.) and played through the same equipment. Play all dozen basses and have him pick good/bad for each. Scramble them and do it again, 10 times. Keep a record of the responses (double blind means the tester doesn't know which is which either. Each bass only has a number, and a third party not involved in the test is the only one who can associate basses with their numbers).

NOW, shuffle the basses and at random put Bartolini pickups in half, and EMG pickups in the other half. THEN select half of these basses at random, and play half through a Carvin amp into SWR cabs, and the other half through a Line6 combo amp set for "Brit" sound.

Then repeat the 10 identification tests.

I ask you to speculate. In each of these two sets of tests, how accurately do you suppose Mike Tobias could identify the "good" lumber accurately. Repeat this set of tests for Kevin Brubaker. Compare their results with flipping a coin. In how many cases would the coin win?

I have no idea if anyone at Gibson's Arkansas factory performs any such test. I'd guess (based on industry practices) that nobody attempts this, and that nobody is qualified even if they did. Not part of the job description.

But I have two Tobias basses made in that factory, and the wood is similar (solid bubinga for Killer B, bubinga wings for Basic) while the electronics are the same.

That assumption is incorrect, can you tell me the specific winding tolerance Bartolini uses? The acceptable tolerance in wire gauge used? Do you know how widely one capacitor varies from another in a Bart preamp? Did you measure the distance from the pickup to the strings?

Did you take into account the huge difference in pickup placement in the Basic and Killer B? That one is a neck through and the other a bolt on? The difference in neck width because of the different string spacing etc...

They have a distinctly different sound to my ear. Something is making that difference.

No one does double blind or any kind of actual tests. There never was a secret Fender, Tobias, Sadowsky, whatever tone research lab and I've never met a golden ear who did not resort to histrionics when the suggestion of even casually testing their claims comes up. Golden ear ability is a religion and must be taken on faith only and all questioning must be attacked. IME

Try recording one of your basses and send it to Mike or any proclaimed golden ear, ask them what model it is and can they tell what kind of woods it is. Watch how quickly you become the subject of these attacks. Wait, you already where the subject of some of these attacks, strange you'd want to go the other way now...

 

[Flintc]

Penguin:

I'm starting to think we have a pure ego issue here, and facts have become irrelevant.

What does the name have to do with quality?

Because Mike Tobias knew what he was doing, and *personally* produced fine instruments. Now, if you're claiming that he became careless and sloppy for his last 950 basses before starting MTD, please PLEASE PLEASE provide a link to Mike Tobias saying he produced crap, under his supervision, during that period. Otherwise, we are going to believe he continued to do good work.

what magical ego crushing powers does the word Gibson have for so many people they have to call Mike a liar so stupid he doesn't know who owns his company.

I guess nobody is going to penetrate. Why don't you contact Mike and ASK him if he produced crap for 950 instruments. Maybe if he doesn't admit to producing crap, you'll believe him. Once again, we're assessing the basses, not the finances.

And why the knee jerk reaction thinking the term Gibson is an attack on Mike and all that is holy? That's your baggage not mine.

Nope, sorry, it's 100% your baggage. Nobody disagrees about when Gibson bought the company. Nobody disagrees about when Mike stopped personally making the instruments.

If the problem is pre-Mike as opposed to post-Mike, here is a rule of thumb simple enough perhaps even YOU can understand it (though by now the assumption that ANY rule of thumb is simple enough for you is a stretch):

The term "pre-Gibson" refers to the period during which Mike Tobias was personally involved in making basses, regardless of who owned the company, whether you like it or not. Deal with it. You may pound your head against the wall that this is not *technically* accurate, and that "post-Mike" should be used instead. Sorry, tough luck.

I've never said anything about who gets the profits so you can drop the straw man foolishness.

Lying won't help your case a bit. You are focused *exclusively* on the finances and ownership. Others are focused on the basses. Others simply do not care about the ownership, they care ONLY about whether Mike Tobias was personally involved. Deal with it. Honestly next time, for a change. You are a minority of ONE PERSON for a good reason. The sooner you figure out what that reason is, the sooner you will become rational. Not our problem.

I'll make another try anyway: The term "pre-Gibson" is a misnomer and a convention. Technically it's not correct, we all know this. We also all AGREE TO AGREE that it refers to the period when Mike Tobias was personally involved. In practice, then, everyone agrees that YOU ARE WRONG on conventional grounds, even if you're technically correct.

Did you take into account the huge difference in pickup placement in the Basic and Killer B? That one is a neck through and the other a bolt on? The difference in neck width because of the different string spacing etc...

Amusingly, in an effort to find fault, you make the very case I was making. Yes, there are differences in neck and pickup placement. There may be differences in electronics (though Gibsons website, for what it's worth, says there is not). Basses vary in a lot of ways. My point was that the variation caused by the selection of a *particular block of wood* may be minor enough to be drowned out by more pressing differences.

No one does double blind or any kind of actual tests...Golden ear ability is a religion and must be taken on faith only and all questioning must be attacked. IME

Here, I'm inclined to agree with you more than I agree with Brad. I don't doubt these famous luthiers are gifted, I don't doubt wood varies, I don't doubt variations in wood make some difference. What I doubt is that the difference is audible when other variables change - even pickup mounting positions.

Try recording one of your basses and send it to Mike or any proclaimed golden ear, ask them what model it is and can they tell what kind of woods it is. Watch how quickly you become the subject of these attacks.

This was my point, of course. If I had to bet, I'd bet on the coin flip.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Brad:

I don't think there's any ripoff. I DO have to take your word for it. I would of course dearly love to subject Mike Tobias to a double-blind test - say, take half a dozen basses he blessed *as lumber* and half a dozen he rejected *as lumber*, all of which were subsequently made into otherwise identical basses (same neck, style, electronics, etc.) and played through the same equipment. Play all dozen basses and have him pick good/bad for each. Scramble them and do it again, 10 times. Keep a record of the responses (double blind means the tester doesn't know which is which either. Each bass only has a number, and a third party not involved in the test is the only one who can associate basses with their numbers).

That's not going to happen, for obvious reasons.

NOW, shuffle the basses and at random put Bartolini pickups in half, and EMG pickups in the other half. THEN select half of these basses at random, and play half through a Carvin amp into SWR cabs, and the other half through a Line6 combo amp set for "Brit" sound.

That would be easy since I dislike both rigs. Maybe one of the newer model Carvins would be more to my liking.

I could be wrong but is the point of this test to throw as many variables in as possible?

Then repeat the 10 identification tests.

I ask you to speculate. In each of these two sets of tests, how accurately do you suppose Mike Tobias could identify the "good" lumber accurately. Repeat this set of tests for Kevin Brubaker. Compare their results with flipping a coin. In how many cases would the coin win?

None.

This must be the part where you're not saying they're practicing voodoo and that it's as random as a coin toss as far what the outcome of a build will be... that they're really just guessing.

I have no idea if anyone at Gibson's Arkansas factory performs any such test. I'd guess (based on industry practices) that nobody attempts this, and that nobody is qualified even if they did. Not part of the job description.

Why not? It's a part of building.

But I have two Tobias basses made in that factory, and the wood is similar (solid bubinga for Killer B, bubinga wings for Basic) while the electronics are the same. They have a distinctly different sound to my ear. Something is making that difference.

You'd need to do a double blind test with them... and get a coin.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I guess Mike is a liar...


[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Maybe he really meant the first pre Gibson was 1094? What does he know

Why would it be precious to me? I own serial numbers 196 and 308. Duh.


Like I said, you obviously can't get this. So, unlike the rest of the market, by all means think that a pre-Gibson refers to less than serial number 1094. You're alone but why should that matter?



Answer this: When did the GIBSON CREW start BUILDING Tobiases?

That's how complicated this is. Duh.


I'm done. This is stupid.

 

[Flintc]

None.

This must be the part where you're not saying they're practicing voodoo and that it's as random as a coin toss as far what the outcome of a build will be... that they're really just guessing.

You underestimate the perversity of coin flips! But yes, I was wondering whether in your opinion they'd be able to factor the selection of tone wood out of a total sound that has a good many variables I think few people would consider inconsequential. Your opinion is that yes, they could do this consistently. OK, that's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

Answer this: When did the GIBSON CREW start BUILDING Tobiases?

That's how complicated this is. Duh.

Well, part of the original issue being discussed here is whether Gibson has their build processes down well enough today to produce basses worthy of the prices Gibson asks. There seems to be a consensus (even Mike Tobias says so) that Gibson has gone through at least one and perhaps several learning curves and policy shifts on these things, which in turn has resulted in some pretty serious mistakes being released into the world. There doesn't seem to be any consensus that Gibson has, right now today, got things to a point where one can factory-order a Tobias in full confidence of getting one's money's worth.

I'm willing to say that I have neither seen personally, nor heard of, anything short of excellent coming out of Arkansas within the last 1 1/2 to 2 years. So the very recent Tobias experience seems positive to me. I do worry that Tobias quality is hostage to the vagaries of the quarterly corporate budgeting process.

 

[scubaduba]

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

Thanks! I love the bass.

Sorry... I don't have any clips. I don't have any sound recording equipment. Wish I did. I did record a couple tracks recently for a local artist so maybe I can get my hands on the tracks.

 

[Brad Johnson]

You underestimate the perversity of coin flips! But yes, I was wondering whether in your opinion they'd be able to factor the selection of tone wood out of a total sound that has a good many variables I think few people would consider inconsequential. Your opinion is that yes, they could do this consistently. OK, that's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

Well, part of the original issue being discussed here is whether Gibson has their build processes down well enough today to produce basses worthy of the prices Gibson asks. There seems to be a consensus (even Mike Tobias says so) that Gibson has gone through at least one and perhaps several learning curves and policy shifts on these things, which in turn has resulted in some pretty serious mistakes being released into the world. There doesn't seem to be any consensus that Gibson has, right now today, got things to a point where one can factory-order a Tobias in full confidence of getting one's money's worth.

I'm willing to say that I have neither seen personally, nor heard of, anything short of excellent coming out of Arkansas within the last 1 1/2 to 2 years. So the very recent Tobias experience seems positive to me. I do worry that Tobias quality is hostage to the vagaries of the quarterly corporate budgeting process.

I was referring to the term Pre-Gibson. It means one thing. For some unknown reason it's been a cause for debate in this thread even though it means one thing. Before Gibson took over production, Mike and his crew built Tobias basses. The basses Mike and his crew built are considered pre-Gibson.

 

[The Penguin]

Why would it be precious to me? I own serial numbers 179 and 308. Duh.


Like I said, you obviously can't get this. So, unlike the rest of the market, by all means think that a pre-Gibson refers to less than serial number 1094. You're alone but why should that matter?



Answer this: When did the GIBSON CREW start BUILDING Tobiases?

That's how complicated this is. Duh.


I'm done. This is stupid.

The Gibson crew started building basses in 1990, read the website Mike Tobias wrote.

 

[The Penguin]

Penguin:

I'm starting to think we have a pure ego issue here, and facts have become irrelevant.

I think you can't read what's on a page and go by whatever your mind makes up. You're assigning all this baggage to me agreeing with Mike. You keep making up stuff about how I'm trying to attack Tobias & ruining Christmas and other ridiculous stuff that I have no idea where you're getting it from. You've gone well beyond ego

 

[Flintc]

You keep making up stuff about how I'm trying to attack Tobias & ruining Christmas and other ridiculous stuff that I have no idea where you're getting it from. You've gone well beyond ego

Woo woo woo! Nutcase alert. By now, everything everyone knows about that history has been presented. Why don't you just assure yourself that everyone else is an idiot, nobody can read or think but you, and declare yourself the winner? Seems that's what you're here for anyway, so go for it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Woo woo woo! Nutcase alert. By now, everything everyone knows about that history has been presented. Why don't you just assure yourself that everyone else is an idiot, nobody can read or think but you, and declare yourself the winner? Seems that's what you're here for anyway, so go for it.

That won't work either, Flintc.

 

[Brad Johnson]

The Gibson crew started building basses in 1990, read the website Mike Tobias wrote.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Brad Johnson]

"Late in 1992, it was decided that in the best corporate interests, Tobias would move to Nashville. After much deliberation, no one from the original Tobias Guitars crew went to Nashville. The final LA Tobias/Gibson serial number is 2044. Despite Gibson's ownership of Tobias, all of the basses made up to 2044 were built by the my regular crew".

I'd be willing to bet this just bounces off as usual.



*thud*

 

[rockstarbassist]

FWIW, I went to the Gibson shop in one of the malls in Nashville when I was there in February.
I picked up the biggest, nicest, awesomest, bestest looking Tobias 5 I could find on one of the wall hangers, and to be honest I was sorely disappointed. The "far side" frets (on the bottom of the neck) were not filed at ALL, and this was a $7000 bass!
The neck was nice, but it was very unbalanced and the frets just killed it for me.

I have an MTD to be delivered Monday, but just from what I've heard there's not much comparison of today's Tobias basses vs. MTD designs.

 

[Brad Johnson]

FWIW, I went to the Gibson shop in one of the malls in Nashville when I was there in February.
I picked up the biggest, nicest, awesomest, bestest looking Tobias 5 I could find on one of the wall hangers, and to be honest I was sorely disappointed. The "far side" frets (on the bottom of the neck) were not filed at ALL, and this was a $7000 bass!
The neck was nice, but it was very unbalanced and the frets just killed it for me.

I have an MTD to be delivered Monday, but just from what I've heard there's not much comparison of today's Tobias basses vs. MTD designs.

I know that seems major but that's a fairly minor fix by a competent repair person. It could be climate related and even $7k basses aren't immune.

 

[rockstarbassist]

I know that seems major but that's a fairly minor fix by a competent repair person. It could be climate related and even $7k basses aren't immune.

True, but you shouldn't need to take a $7K bass straight to your tech, ya know.

Not to say it didn't sound heavenly even unplugged or anything!