U.S. Peavey Club

[MNAirHead]

Hardware = commodity OR various upper end vendors (depending on era and model)

Usually Gen1 had better hardware (some times custom machined)... they then would migrate to commodity hardware

 

[Iridescentone]

Re the early Foundations, the only hardware item that was off the shelf were the tuners. The rest of it was unique to Peavey at the time, which is part of what makes them classics.

 

[DavidEdenAria]

I think it was Schaller who supplied much in the mid to late 80's?

Btw, i have an 89 Peavey Tracer maple neck guitar with a Kahler Spyder tremolo (but a Floyd Rose style), i think both of the pickups a H bridge & S neck combo are both alnico Schaller....both fairly hot with the bridge HB sounding nice but a bit too compressed...odd because my experience with many Floyd Rose trem guitars are harder and brighter sounding....the neck alnico Schaller single coil in particular is very good sounding very Strat but very warm and middy.

I'm guessing a poplar body and the 2 piece maple neck....im gonna swap out the Schaller bridge HB pickup since it is soft and compressed sounding, i need to know how much is the pickup itself (its around 11k so fairly hot wind)....anyway, off topic but Peavey still was quality stuff in 89....no cheapo hardware here and the guitar resonates very well.

 

[Iridescentone]

How where they crudely made or was it because they were using CNC machines to cut the bodies, and also were the necks also done using a CNC machine? Defiantly going to have to get a copy of the Peavey book to learn more about the history of this company and how,they built their guitars & basses.

[/QUOTE]

Couple examples....

Take another look at the above pic of the early Foundation control cavity. See that metal foil business in there? That's Peavey's original factory "shielding" job, which was crudely stapled into the sides of the cavity. It doesn't even extend over the edge to make contact with the foil on the inside of the cover. Never seen anything like that on any bass. Can it even work?

The truss rod cover, a little bent piece of plastic that covers up an often rough-hewn access trough. Sometimes those access ports look like they were carved out with a steak knife. One of mine had such a poorly made truss access port that my Peavey 5/16" wrench could not even fit into it. I used a skiving knife to remove a lot of wood just to get the wrench onto the nut. It left the factory like that, which meant that from 1984 until I modded the port, decades later, the rod had never been adjusted. Which perfectly explained why the neck had way too much relief when I got it, and probably why the seller dumped it.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm a big Foundation fan, have owned a bunch and still have a few. Love 'em. I guess I just don't see the same high level of build quality and fit and finish that others see in them. It was adequate for the '83-86 era, but by today's standards?.....can't see it. Cheers.

 

[Shawn Luckman]

Couple examples....

Take another look at the above pic of the early Foundation control cavity. See that metal foil business in there? That's Peavey's original factory "shielding" job, which was crudely stapled into the sides of the cavity. It doesn't even extend over the edge to make contact with the foil on the inside of the cover. Never seen anything like that on any bass. Can it even work?

The truss rod cover, a little bent piece of plastic that covers up an often rough-hewn access trough. Sometimes those access ports look like they were carved out with a steak knife. One of mine had such a poorly made truss access port that my Peavey 5/16" wrench could not even fit into it. I used a skiving knife to remove a lot of wood just to get the wrench onto the nut. It left the factory like that, which meant that from 1984 until I modded the port, decades later, the rod had never been adjusted. Which perfectly explained why the neck had way too much relief when I got it, and probably why the seller dumped it.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm a big Foundation fan, have owned a bunch and still have a few. Love 'em. I guess I just don't see the same high level of build quality and fit and finish that others see in them. It was adequate for the '83-86 era, but by today's standards?.....can't see it. Cheers.[/QUOTE]

Valid points Templar And yes looking at it again the shielding does look out of place maybe their thinking was, something is better than nothing. though I haven't seen any rough looking access ports myself, on any of the Peavey basses I've owned from the T-40 to the International series. I think the best trussrod design is still the trussroad wheel like you find on EBMM basses.

 

[mesaplayer83]

Valid points Templar And yes looking at it again the shielding does look out of place maybe their thinking was, something is better than nothing. though I haven't seen any rough looking access ports myself, on any of the Peavey basses I've owned from the T-40 to the International series. I think the best trussrod design is still the trussroad wheel like you find on EBMM basses.

I've had several that were really rough around the truss rod nut area, including one that required wood to be removed before it was possible to fit ANY wrench in there, as Templar pointed out...

Don't get me wrong - I love my US Peaveys, and the bang for the buck they offer is unmatched, IMO - but people sometimes over state their quality, IMO...

One thing I have noticed in all the US Peaveys I've owned - they all had very good fretwork...

 

[Shawn Luckman]

I've had several that were really rough around the truss rod nut area, including one that required wood to be removed before it was possible to fit ANY wrench in there, as Templar pointed out...

Don't get me wrong - I love my US Peaveys, and the band for the buck they offer is unmatched, IMO - but people sometimes over state their quality, IMO...

One thing I have noticed in all the US Peaveys I've owned - they all had very good fretwork...

Agreed on the good fretwork & for me the necks in general feel nice in the hand. Like with any brand you can have a few "Friday night specials" that slip pass QC unchecked, which is a shame because things like that harm the brand as a whole.

 

[kodiakblair]

A lot of the time Peavey were looking at savings. This goes right back to the start. Swapping the coin size in the neck tilt recess is a prime example. I've some lovely Peaveys but I've also ones with rough TR access,bodies that would have benefited from another pass through the thicknesser machine.

It never stopped. Other day a fella posted about his Cirrus custom ,folks were commenting about the wooden TR and control cavity covers. Didn't have the heart to tell him they're plastic with a thin veneer glued on top.

Doesn't mean we're playing junk just savings were needed.

 

[58kites]

The thing that I wish was more consistent is the strings being properly centered on the neck and pickup pole pieces.
What I'm finding is that the neck plate holes are drilled correctly, but then the body gets painted, so the neck screws are going into holes that have paint in them and the screws are "threading" through the body as they get screwed in and necks end up not always right/straight in the pocket.
I take off the neck and then take the screws and push them through the holes in the body ..in and out, in and out ..until they push through easily.
Then I can get the neck in the pocket where it belongs and so the strings line up correctly with pickup pole pieces and spaced equally on either side of the dot markers.
It's not very important, but satisfies my picky sense of accuracy when strings sit centered.
Not sure why the wood under the truss rod covers is raggedy but that is easily fixed and is out of sight as well.
I'm perfectly happy that they used poplar bodies on a number of models/years for solid paint jobs, the poplar sounds as good or the same as alder.
My preference with any trans finish or natural finish is swamp ash or mahogany.
I don't find the hardware Peavey used inferior to Fender, the Grover Titan Tuners were better than Fenders, the Schaller Roller Bridges that Peavey used on some of their basses are my favorite bridge, the cheapy bent metal bridges Peavey sourced were as good as basic Fender bent metal bridges.
I find the T-40/T-45 bridge waaay overkill, and the T-20 bridge was not a great design IMO, the saddles on the trapezoidal shaped bridge were too large diameter for the neck pocket/neck heel to get the strings low enough without using the micro-tilt system.
I'm not a fan of the micro-tilt system on Fenders, G&L's or Peaveys, it's and un-needed manufacturing cost, Fender and G&L both abandoned it for that reason, Peavey should have done the same and spent their time/money elsewhere on the basses.
If the neck pocket, the neck heel and the bridge are made correctly, there is no need for micro-tilt, not one of my Peaveys has any tilt.
Peavey made a number of bass pickup designs that were not Fender clones, and sound unique, which is one of the things that makes them great basses.
Fender makes two fine basses...a Precision and a Jazz, they have never done anything else of note since Leo left them behind.
I love the feel of the 8" radius fretboard that Peavey made for so many basses, ...not a fan of the flat 16-20" fretboards like Warwicks and some others.
I like a maple/maple neck and it seems the majority of Peaveys have maple fretboards, most other brands seem to to do rosewood more often.
Not every Peavey bass model/year I have has the exact same neck spec but they all feel really right.

 

[mesaplayer83]

Agreed on the good fretwork & for me the necks in general feel nice in the hand. Like with any brand you can have a few "Friday night specials" that slip pass QC unchecked, which is a shame because things like that harm the brand as a whole.

The neck on my 90s Fury is thinner than I care for - it's actually thinner than a typical Fender Jazz - but it's straight, stable, and didn't need any fretwork for a nice low action when I got it... The neck on my Foundation 5 feels almost exactly the same as the neck on my EBMM Sterling 5 HS - which is pretty amazing, considering the price difference between the two basses... I very much prefer the neck on my 80's Foundation over the 90s Foundations I've owned in the past - it's a little chunkier, and so far has been very stable - with excellent fretwork...

 

[mesaplayer83]

The thing that I wish was more consistent is the strings being properly centered on the neck and pickup pole pieces.
What I'm finding is that the neck plate holes are drilled correctly, but then the body gets painted, so the neck screws are going into holes that have paint in them and the screws are "threading" through the body as they get screwed in and necks end up not always right/straight in the pocket.
I take off the neck and then take the screws and push them through the holes in the body ..in and out, in and out ..until they push through easily.
Then I can get the neck in the pocket where it belongs and so the strings line up correctly with pickup pole pieces.
It's not super important, but satisfies my picky sense of accuracy.
Not sure why the wood under the truss rod covers can be raggedy but that is easily fixed and is out of sight as well.
I'm perfectly happy with poplar bodies on solid paint jobs, the poplar sounds good and maybe better than alder.
My preference with any trans finish or natural finish is swamp ash or mahogany.
I don't find the hardware Peavey used inferior to Fender, the Grover Titan Tuners were better than Fenders, the Schaller Roller Bridges that Peavey used on some of their basses are my favorite bridge, their cheapy bent metal bridges were as good as basic Fender bent metal bridges.
I find the T-40/T-45 bridge waaay overkill, and the T-20 bridge was not a great design IMO, the saddles on the trapezoidal shaped bridge were too large diameter for the neck pocket/neck heel to get the strings low enough without using the micro-tilt system.
I'm not a fan of the micro-tilt system on Fenders, G&L's or Peaveys, it's and un-needed manufacturing cost that could be put towards improvements elsewhere on all three brands. If the neck pocket, the neck heel and the bridge are made correctly, there is no need for micro-tilt.
I think Peavey made a number of unique bass designs that sound different from Fender clones or anything else for that matter.
Fender makes fine basses...a Precision and a Jazz and they have never done anything else of note in basses since Leo left them behind.

I'm a staunch Fender fan, and somewhat of a US Peavey fan - and I cannot disagree with any of the above...

 

[Chuck M]

"Fender makes fine basses...a Precision and a Jazz and they have never done anything else of note in basses since Leo left them behind."

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions but IMO the Fender Roscoe Beck basses are terrific. I have had a CAR RBV for many years and it is a terrific bass in every way.

 

[58kites]

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions but IMO the Fender Roscoe Beck basses are terrific. I have had a CAR RBV for many years and it is a terrific bass in every way.

The first thing they tell you about that bass is that it was built to Roscoe Becks specs.
All I'm saying is that Peavey, Gibson and others have many more bass designs over the years, Fender may have a problem in that the Jazz and Precision are obviously such successful standards that every time they bring a different design it just does not sell enough units to make management happy so they abandon it.
I think if somebody is going to buy a Fender bass they have to own a Precision and a Jazz before they think about another design, so anything new and original Fender would come up with would be Fender bass #3 in the Fender corner of your practice room.

 

[BassikLee]

I'd also like to add that the Roscoe Beck bass is essentially a jazz bass....

 

[JEDI BASS]

Other than the 51 P, they can keep their other P designs. As Lindy Fralin once told me, Leo got it right the first time. The only thing better than the single coil in that sweet spot, is a hum free stacked or split 51 style pup. Just my opinion after trying like 5 times to fall in love with a split P style Fender or Lakland, only to sell them. I have trouble truly bonding with a J also. I need series wiring, or a preamp to end up gigging one, and still usually grab a bass with humbuckers. I will end up gigging my 51 style P, as soon as I get the stacked pup made for it. Speaking of... can’t wait to test the new to me T-45 with the band! I’ll do a side by side comparison to my 51 and let you guys know what I think.

 

[mesaplayer83]

Other than the 51 P, they can keep their other P designs. As Lindy Fralin once told me, Leo got it right the first time. The only thing better than the single coil in that sweet spot, is a hum free stacked or split 51 style pup. Just my opinion after trying like 5 times to fall in love with a split P style Fender or Lakland, only to sell them. I have trouble truly bonding with a J also. I need series wiring, or a preamp to end up gigging one, and still usually grab a bass with humbuckers. I will end up gigging my 51 style P, as soon as I get the stacked pup made for it. Speaking of... can’t wait to test the new to me T-45 with the band! I’ll do a side by side comparison to my 51 and let you guys know what I think.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion(and preferences), and I have a great deal of respect for Lindy Fralin - however, a giant bulk of popular music was recorded with Leo's "2nd P bass", the split coil version - and it certainly wasn't because that version was inferior in any way...

 

[kodiakblair]

Completely OT but the single coil P-bass is the one for me Even stuck a super ferrite in one

 

[Chuck M]

I'd also like to add that the Roscoe Beck bass is essentially a jazz bass....

Interesting comment. I find it to be very capable of sounding like a Jazz bass and more.

Again, we all have out opinions. I will say that several Fender Jazz and Precision basses have passed through my collection after the Roscoe Beck V came my way. All of the other Fender basses have left and the RBV (which is the bass I have owned the longest) remains. Mine is a killer bass.

 

[58kites]

I think the split P Fender Precision Bass is a great design, the pickup sounds very good live and on record and there is a reason it has always been so popular.
I also think a 51P Bass model with a hum free stacked or split 51 style pup (that sounds like the original) is the bass that Fender could consistently sell in good numbers along with the Jazz and Precision.
Every time I see a used Squier Classic Vibe 50's model listed, it's gone in a day.

 

[DavidEdenAria]

The neck on my 90s Fury is thinner than I care for - it's actually thinner than a typical Fender Jazz - but it's straight, stable, and didn't need any fretwork for a nice low action when I got it... The neck on my Foundation 5 feels almost exactly the same as the neck on my EBMM Sterling 5 HS - which is pretty amazing, considering the price difference between the two basses... I very much prefer the neck on my 80's Foundation over the 90s Foundations I've owned in the past - it's a little chunkier, and so far has been very stable - with excellent fretwork...

I love my 90's Foundation 5 neck as well but are you preferring 80's over 90's Foundation necks in general or 4 string or what specifically?

I have little experience with 4 string 90's Peavey basses in general.....mine are all 80's with only a 90's Foundation 5.

I see plenty of 90's Peavey 4 strings but many are overpriced in my area (midwest).