• 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.

Vintage vs new.

#121
There are good and bad vintage basses, there are good and bad new basses.
IMHO, in new basses, I look for more of predictable, stability result, easier to find after sales/ part replacement etc. while in old/vintage basses there are value of a history, an aging, travel, ownership etc, that make their unique identity, that in turn make them more unpredictable etc.

In the vintage bass/guitar booming era (I think about mid of 90s?) I and my studio friends often played around with some kind of blind test as the article that the OP's link in the first post.
Perhaps it was just coincidence, but the vintage sounds (almost) always won me.

I'd like to have good 'vintage', but if I can't afford it, I'd go along OK with the 'new'.
 
#122
karl_em_all said:
If you listen to the vinyl copy of an album that was released say in 1970 and compare it to the cd/digital copy, the vinyl copy has a far superior sound quality. The reason is mostly because of the mastering process of the recording. That album from 1970 was mastered specifically for the medium of vinyl. The transference to digital was usually carried out without this in consideration and that's why it sounds lifeless in comparison.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the transfer to digital was done from the same masters, but after 20 years of additional age without taking into account that difference, and in some cases you are correct that some were transferred without any additional work, although I can't see how that would necessarily result in the CD version being lifeless. I suppose it depends on where the frequency roll of for vinyl takes place (do they roll off the frequencies vinyl cannot reproduce before pressing? If so then the CD should sound the same as the vinyl. If not the CD would probably sound brighter and bassier than the vinyl. I suppose one way to tell would be to put a stero 31 band EQ between the record player and CD player and amplifier. Press a record of pink noise and make a CD of the same, from a non-bandpassed master, and then use a signal analyser to tweak the EQ to produce the same output, and then try a vinyl album and a CD album taken from the same master and see if they sound the same.

Anyway, today CDs are mastered for CD, and a lot of old stuff has been remastered, so the CD should be the superior product.
 
#123
Pilgrim said:
But I own a pre-CBS Precision and I assure you that I have inexpensive basses that sound every bit as good.
Click to expand...

I wish I did as in a few years I could put it on ebay and pay off my mortgage :)

I did once get offered a 1960s EB2D for $150 but at the point I wasn't sure if I'd be able to play again so I passed. But now I probably would only dare take it out of its case on my birthday.
 
#124
Sure, there's something about the mojo of a vintage bass, but IME (admittedly limited) I prefer broken-in players' basses I don't have to worry about on gigs. I played a '69 P for a while on my main gig 4 night/week and in addition to worrying about it taking bumps and such all night every night, I just wasn't all that dazzled by the tone and feel so I sold it. I'm currently on a franken-fender - alder p body with Lollar pickup, blocked rosewood jazz neck, and not only are the guys in my main band gah-gah over the tone, producers I'm tracking with are going nuts for it, too. Ymmv. Just goes to show you've gotta play a bunch of basses and go with what feels right to you. There's no right or wrong choice as long as the end result floats your particular boat.
 
#126
smcd said:
Some of the real howlers - "hand wound pickups sound better" - "sand cast magnets" - "wire insulation" - and my personal favorite..."The less power the magnets have, the better the strings can vibrate". Comedy gold.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are on about with this. "Sand cast magnets? I agree with you.
Most people agree that hand wound pickups do sound better.
While the type of insulation may not impact the tone, it's thickness will affect the overall capacitance, which will. Also, corrosion will affect resistance, which will.
Magnets do lose strength over time. A weaker magnet can be set closer to the string before it interferes with a string's movement. This will absolutely change the tone of an instrument.
The differences that these add up to may not amount to much. And there's no telling if what they amount to are a plus or minus to you.
 
#127
Most of us who own original pre-CBS Fenders or pre-64 Gibsons, didn't pay astronomical prices for them when we bought them.

We were just as broke as anyone else, earning maybe $1.65 per hour in those days.

So a $250.00 used bass in the early 70's may have required 151 hours of work to pay for it.

You're talking a whole month's income for a young musician.

The same goes for real estate.
I paid $59,900 for my first home in 1977.
The last sale on that property went for $549,000.00

We had the advantage of getting in early.

To be fair, I sure couldn't afford to pay upwards if $18K
for a clean vintage instrument these days.

I would however, pay top dollar for a professional quality new instrument, If... I could find one.

The last NEW bass I bought is now 35 years old.
It was custom built for me to my exacting specifications by Tom Anderson.

In 1979 that bass was $1600.00

I will never put down anyone for being broke, but I have no patience and waste no time with people who are just too plain
cheap to invest in the best possible tools for their trade.

Especially when those people carry a chip on their shoulder
going to extensive lengths trying to put down people who have saved and worked very hard for the tools they have acquired over a lifetime.
 
#130
FFTT said:
I will never put down anyone for being broke, but I have no patience and waste no time with people who are just too plain
cheap to invest in the best possible tools for their trade.
Click to expand...

LOL...I guess if anyone cared what you have patience for that might matter.

The "best possible tools" are not necessarily what you consider to be the "best possible tools." Many, many musicians have used other than what you consider the "best possible tools" to ply their trade.
 
#131
If you're into metal or into aggressive slap funk, into active basses or into Roto-Sound, Chris Squire Yes tones or Tony Levin, Music Man tones, you may not appreciate the milder sound of a sweet vintage instrument with flat wounds.

That doesn't mean you have lousy taste, it just means you have different priorities.

We all have our musical roots and our foundational influences and vastly variable amounts of experience playing our instruments.

Some of us are bass purists, some play multiple instruments and write, sing, compose around all of them.

The weakest argument comes from those who put down a vintage instrument by worst case stereotype and ridicule their owners out of pure jealousy, because they can't afford one.
 
#132
FFTT said:
The weakest argument comes from those who put down a vintage instrument by worst case stereotype and ridicule their owners out of pure jealousy, because they can't afford one.
Click to expand...

I don't see why anyone would be jealous of someone using a vintage instrument. Vintage instruments don't inherently sound or play any better than recent instruments. There was good, bad, and average instruments built back then just as they are today. I own, have owned, gigged and recorded with vintage and modern instruments from several manufacturers and know this to be true. Vintage instruments simply aren't all they're cracked up to be.
 
#135
king_biscuit said:
Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...


LOL...Sorry, but I know better than to fall victim to the supposed mystique of vintage instruments. They're just wood, metal and plastic like they've always been, but now they're just older wood, metal and plastic...nothing special about them.

Vintage is currently defined as 25 years old and older.

Do you really think that bases made 25 years ago are inherently better than those made today?
 
#137
SanDiegoHarry said:
You know, this is a very old debate and, I believe, is just a matter of faith - which cannot be settled by rational discourse.
Click to expand...

True. A lot of BS floats around on both sides, but anyone who claims to know the truth is lying, no matter how old and experienced he is.

I don't have a dog in the fight and don't care either way. It's possible that the better pre-CBS instruments have different tonal characteristics based on available wood supply or whatever. I wouldn't wager on it, just saying it's possible, and no one can prove otherwise.
 
#138
I've lusted after (and bought) both new basses and vintage basses. It's two different endeavors, with different criteria, objectives, and motivations.

When I bought my Alembics, I was really into the craftsmanship, the outrageously clean and versatile electronics, and the looks. Very cool!

When I bought my 50's and 60's Fenders, I was into the history, the warm "vibe" of the old instruments, and the nostalgia. Also very satisfying.

I don't think one of these endeavors replaces or is "better" than the other. Vintage basses are great fun to own and play, new basses are great fun to own and play. But it's not like "Chocolate vs. Vanilla... to me, it's more like Chocolate vs. Mustard. Both very enjoyable, but not really interchangeable.
 
#140
mongo2 said:
Anyone who denies the obvious truth of the vintage scam isn't paying enough attention to what they are hearing. Once the skill of critical listening is learned it's very obvious.
Click to expand...

A valuable reality check worth reiterating is that vintage rock records were made with what was then brand-spanking-new gear.

I can, however, appreciate why a player might cultivate a patina fetish!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back