1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Warwick Streamer?Carvin?G&L?Rumblefish?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by bizzaro, Sep 1, 2000.

  1. bizzaro


    Aug 21, 2000
    I'm going to buy a bass soon. HELP!!! I am a real neophyte, and really need the advice of you experts at this forum. It's the best info resource I have. Where else can you gather so much experience in one place?? I am down to the Warwick Streamer for $500, Carvin LB70 for $400, G&L 2000 $450 to $500, or the Rumblefish for $500. They are all used in mint condition. I am a new bass player and don't have much experience(A couple of years). I've only played my own Yamaha TRBII-5 and love it. And a P Foto Flame which I think is Fender at it's worst. JUNK!!! I need a good all around, solid, dependable four string, versitile and player friendly. Whacha think????? HELP!!!
  2. Hey Mubiksski..
    I'm a bit biased here, but I love the Rumblefish. In fact, there is a guy on bassgear.com selling the 12th Rumblefish ever made! Wish I had some money..
    Anyway, I have owned a Carvin LB70, and played a Warwick Streamer Standard, and IMO the Rumblefish is a much better bass than either one. The Rumblefish has the best neck I've played on any bass besides a $2300 Lakland, and it sounds great as well.. really punchy and in-your-face. The G&L L2000 is a great bass too. If you can A/B the L2000 and the Rumblefish, that'd be ideal. Tough choice there.
  3. My OPINION (can't stress that enough; it's ultimately up to you!) would be the 'Fish first for great tone and playability, Carvin runner up for build quality and upgradeability.
  4. Luis Fabara

    Luis Fabara

    Aug 13, 2000
    Ecuador (South America)
    Audio Pro - Ecuador
    Da Warwick!!
    Nothing sounds like a Warwick!! (I just cant figure out how can you get a warwick for $500, is it passive??)
  5. Slater

    Slater Leave that thing alone. Supporting Member

    Apr 17, 2000
    The Great Lakes State
    The G&L is the most versatile bass on your list. It should be able to achive a variety of tones, and G&L's are constructed very well. The G&L would be my first choice.

    I like the sound of the Rumblefish (I'm a Jazz Bass fan), but I don't care for the non-wood body.

    Warwicks sound like Warwicks. I suggest you play one before you buy one. (I don't like the feel of their wenge necks in my hands).

    Carvins are decent. It would depend on the age, finish, and other options to justify the $400 used price.

    Good luck.
  6. Brooks


    Apr 4, 2000
    Middle East
    I'll also recommend that you check out that G&L. For that price, it is hard to beat.
  7. Tsal


    Jan 28, 2000
    Finland, EU

    Warwick Streamer Standards have bit bad reputation,
    try the Corvette and Fortress models too, they're around
    the same price and I have never heard anything bad about em.

  8. I'd go for the G&L too, since the low end Warwick is no fun at all.

    Righty then,
  9. Neobass


    Aug 12, 2000
    I agree that you'll probably find the G&L to be the most versatile...but I <i>personally</i> would prefer the Rumblefish. If you like the Jazz bass thing, the 'fish is your bass, but all four of those basses are quality instruments. Your pick. By the way, those are some pretty low prices-mind iif I ask where you're getting these quotes from?
  10. Turock

    Turock Supporting Member

    Apr 30, 2000
    >>I need a good all around, solid, dependable four string, versitile and player friendly.

    Sounds to me like you are describing a Fender.
  11. bizzaro


    Aug 21, 2000
    I have a Fender P bass now and I really don't like the string Spacing. I have read that most of the G&L's also have the wider spaced string set up like the P bass. At least the one I'm looking at has. Because of this, and the negative reviews in this forum on the buget model Warwick Streamer, I am down to the Carvin LB70 for $400, or the Rumblefish for $500. I am leaning towards the Rumblefish, but that price on the Carvin is pretty hard to pass up.Feed Back Please ?????
  12. cassanova


    Sep 4, 2000
    for the money your looking to spend you can also get a nice fender jazz bass or perhaps an Ibanez Sr400. But ive gotta admit Im partial to these two companies. The choice is ultimatly up to you. Get the one that feels best when you play it.
  13. akajuve400g


    May 22, 2000
    all of these basses you are choosing between are nice. I have a warwick myself, they have a nice sound to them. Carvins probably give you the most bang for your buck though. And Rumblefish from what I have heard is a great bass, I don't care for the retro look of it though.......
  14. MrGump


    Apr 20, 2000
    Personally,I dont care for the Warwick neck.And they are not versatile.The Rumblefish is not the same quality as the others.(Sorry Dave)I have no Carvin experience.The G+L is an excellent bass,I have owned many over the years.You can find them waaay cheap used.(I could never understand why)They have been manufactured with many different neck sizes,including a jazz bass type.I would urge you to buy one of these.It will give you years of worry free service,excellent playability,and a wide selection of USEFUL tones.If you pick one up used,you should be able to get it cheap enough,so that if you out grow it,you can at least break even when you sell it.
  15. First of all, Mr. Gump, you should precede statements such as that with "IMO".
    Secondly, if you have no Carvin experience, how do you know they are higher quality than the Rumblefish?
    I have owned basses by Warwick, G&L, Carvin, and Reverend, and IMO, the Reverend is the best. But that's just me. I like a great feeling neck and ballsy, Jazz-on-steroids tone. Call me crazy. And BTW, my Rumblefish XL, with the three-way selector (single-coil, series, parallel) and a radical tone knob, has a wider selection of useful tones than any passive bass, and probably as many as any G&L.
  16. MrGump


    Apr 20, 2000
    The first word in my post is "personally".I thought you would understand that to mean "In my personal opinion"I guess I over estimated you.
    When I say "no Carvin experience"I meant I never owned one.I have however played one.That was enough to know it was well made,and made out of better(IN MY OPINION) materials than a rumblefish.
    IN MY OPINION,a hollow bass like a Rumblefish,can never fully defeat the effect of its hollow body on its tone,and therefore never really captures a solid body tone.
    IN MY OPINION,a hollow bass is nice to have as an option,but not as a second or third bass.
    Yes I have owned some hollow basses.A 66 super Beatle bass,An early sixties Hofner President,a late fifties Kay,and a Gibson Eb-750.(anybody ever seen one?).
  17. When you said "Personally", I took that as applying only to your comment about the Warwick neck. And if your comment about the Rumblefish was your opinion, why apologize to me? You don't have to apologize for your opinion.
    And you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge about the Rumblefish by saying that it's "hollow." It is NOT hollow. It is SEMI-hollow. BIG difference. The Rumblefish does not feed back like a hollow bass. And if you don't think the Reverend captures a solid-body tone, you're way off. Ask John Turner or Jon Packard or Hambone or anyone else who played and heard my Reverend the other night.
    And as far as being made out of so-called "better" materials, that doesn't mean it's a better bass. I've owned plenty of basses that you might consider "better" than the Reverend, and IMO, they don't even compare. Especially that G&L ASAT and Carvin LB70.
  18. I have a Carvin LB 75(1997) and, while the construction is good as is the acoustic sound, the amplified tone leaves something to be desired for me. It requires a lot of tweaking to get a good tone. Even then it's very nondescript. Not enough liveliness. Also I'm more partial to bolt-on necks. Something happens to that neck-thru and it could be "whole new bass" time!

    That, plus the fact that I've heard nothing but great things about those darn 'Fish, and even though I'm a big fan of wood,

    My vote's for the Rumblefish. :)
  19. MrGump


    Apr 20, 2000
    I know a rumblefish is semi-hollow.I realize I should be extremely careful about my choice of words because you will be knit-picking everything I say.Hollow body basses dont necessarily feedback,it depends on how they are amped,where you stand,and alot of variables.you say if I dont think a fish captures a solid body tone Im way off,well shouldnt you have prefaced that remark with IN MY OPINION?
    You say i dont have to apologize for my opinions in the first paragraph,and then in the second paragraph,you tell me how wrong my OPINION is.And use the OPINIONS of others to back it up.
  20. OK I apologize, my bad. The Rumblefish's capturing of a solid-body tone is not opinion though, it's fact. But let's not turn this poor guy's quest for a good bass into a flame war. IMO, and in the opinions of several others (check this thread) the Rumblefish is a great bass that gets passed over because of the way it looks and because of people's misinformed judgments of it. Too bad for them, I've got the best tone I've ever had. I'm gonna leave it at that.

Share This Page