Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by Optimus Prime, Apr 10, 2002.
Which one is the better?
"Better" in which respect?
Personally, I prefer the Cirrus in every way I can think of. To me, it feels better, looks better and sounds better than a Thumb. Others will think differently.
How long is a piece of string???
Seriously - I'm guessing you're looking for an opinion on these! I woudl go for the Peavey, I've read a lot of good things about them and have found them pleasing to me.
Warwick I've also read good things about - but I just don't like 'em!!!
I don't really like the Thumb Bolt Ons, but the NT's are sweet.
One of the best attributes of the Warwick Thumb b/o is the super tight low-B. A four string...I'd go for the Cirrus. Is it true they are being discontinued?
Then again, I like the wenge neck. If you're looking at a used thumb pre-'98, w/ wenge neck, I'd think about getting that one.
John, believe it or not, the B on the Cirrus is tighter than the Thumb, at least tighter than the Thumbs that I have played. And that's no criticism of the Thumb, they have an excellent B string.
Optimus, there are some big differences between those two basses.
The Cirrus has a thin neck profile, and a 3 band preamp.
The Thumb has a thick neck profile, and a 2 band preamp.
The Cirrus is a pretty versatile bass, with the 3 band EQ and humbuckers, you can get a very wide range of useable tones.
The Thumb is pretty versatile too, but with the 2 band preamp not quite as versatile as the Cirrus.
One last thing to consider is ergonomics. The Cirrus is very well balanced, the Thumb is pretty neck heavy. Make sure that you play a Thumb standing up, with a strap, and see if that is a problem for you.
The one big thing in the Thumb's favor IMHO is the tone. While not as versatile as the Cirrus, it has a killer(IMHO) distinctive tone that is pretty difficult to get with any bass, other than a Warwick Streamer Stage II.
I love the tone, but the thick neck and poor balance make it too much for my left hand. Otherwise, I would own one.
I have played both and I think they are both great basses. The Cirrus, as far as I know, can be ordered in a variety of wood combinations that will produce very different tones. The Thumb bolt-on is all Ovangkol. The Warwick is built better. Two of the cirrus basses I played had horrible sanding jobs and dried glue sticking out of the nut and some of the frets, it still sounded good. The workmanship on all of the Thumbs I have seen has been top notch. The balance of the Thumb is poor just like everybody else says, the balance of the Cirrus is good. The Cirrus is a handsome bass, the Thumb is beautiful to me, hideous to others. I would go with the Thumb because I already have a neck-thru Thumb and I love it, I may get a bolt-on fretless. Play them both and get the one that gives you butterflies!
Two completely different animals to compare here, IMHO. Personally, I prefer the Cirrus (my fiver has flawless fit and finish, as do all the others that I have played). I do like the Thumb basses, but that neck dive issue was enough to make me opt for my Cirrus over the Thumb when I was shopping back then. I also like the more versatile preamp/available tones of the Cirrus. The Thumb has a killer tone, if you are into it, but it just isn't as versatile, to my ears, anyway.
Strange. Like Ryan, my Cirrus is virtually flawless. And the only poor one I have ever seen was one at a local shop that had been beat to hell and had the strings laying on the fingerboard.
Warwick fit & finish is pretty good, but not as good as it was in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I have seen some bolt on Thumbs and Corvettes that had fretwork issues and file marks on the sides of the fingerboard. Nothing major, but not as good as they used to be.
I am selling my Thumb Bolt-on 5 string. Excellent condition, with gigbag.
I once owned a Thumb bolt on 6 and a Streamer bolt on 6 fretless. Both very nice instruments.
I now own fretted and fretless Peavey Cirrus 6 strings. Perfect fit and finish, amazing tone and flexibility. Enough said.
Ok, but which one is the better slap/funk bass?
That's also almost impossible to answer. The Thumb, being a bolt-on, has IME a slightly harder attack in its tone, but I like the tone of the Cirrus better. Both would work fine. As would 95% of the fretted basses on the market today.
When comparing these two you also have to keep in mind that the Cirrus is 35" - to some people that extra inch makes a whole world of difference, for better or worse.
EDIT: Also, "slap" does not equal "funk", and vice versa...
But of course, the Warwick the better looking...right?
And another thing, can you tell me which "famous" bass players use either the Warwick thumb bolt-on 4 or the Peavey Cirrus 4?
Looks: Very subjective on the Thumb--either ya like it or ya hate it. Kinda like the tone. I think that the Thumbs look cool in pics, but then when I see one in person and realize how tiny that body really is, it turns me off. I don't care for basses with bodies that are that small. But some people like em. I personally find the Cirrus basses to be beautiful. Especially the Tiger Eye models.
I agree. I like the look of the Thumb, but I don't think that any Thumb is as beautiful as this.
Of course, this is a very subjective thing, and what one person loves another might hate. And of course, I could be a little bit prejudiced.