• 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.

What Bass Was The Biggest DISAPPOINTMENT?

#761
Probably this Zon Sonus:

full1.jpg


It was a disappointment. Not because it was a bad bass; it sounded great, it played beautifully, the construction was near flawless and it weighed next to nothing. For whatever reason though, I just didn't click with it and ended up trading it for my Warwick Streamer Ltd Edition 1990, which I enjoy a lot more.

On those grounds, the Zon is the biggest disappointment, just because I'd spent years dreaming of owning one and I imagined it would be one of those basses that I just developed a natural connection with, and it just didn't happen! :hmm:
 
#763
I've noticed that one of the recurring theme in this thread is a hate on US made basses (and Warwicks... but if you don't like warwick.. you don't like warwick, they're not really cookie cutter basses)... guys you do know that for every aspect of engineering northern europe and japan are to be preferred right? US-made does not equal quality... Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Japan and a couple of others generally do... at least on the hardware side of life.. whether you like it or not is of course personal... but come on.. a Japanese Tune TWB model versus a modern US made bass? or a fender vs. a Sandberg/Clover/de Gier/Marleaux?.. I know what I prefer... lookswise and buildwise...

but as for answering the question... my squier P special 5 really ticks me off... who the **** makes a 5 string with a 50mm nut and then put a Boatneck conture on it?.. recarved it to assymmetric... feels great now ^^ (in fact... better than any fender 5 string I've tried, may I suggest going in new ways fender?)
 
#764
That's true, with everything else, Japanese, German, Swedish (etc.) manufactured items are usually superior to US made. I think the only thing that makes US made guitars still preferable is the name and history behind Fender, which trickles down to other US made instruments. Just my opinion.

Also, I think the reason that guitars made outside of the US are usually not as good is because the US companies who outsource their work purposely want their non-US line to be subpar to their US line. For instance Lakland US v. Skyline, Sadowsky NYC v. Metro, Fender American v. MIM, etc. I'm sure these companies can provide the correct specs and engineering know-how to Japanese or Korean builders to make an instrument that is equal or superior to that of the US counterparts; they just don't want to because it would affect the sales of their US made instruments.
 
#765
Biggest disappointment?

Every Gibson I've ever played.....

Okay so, THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS for a passive bass with a plastic nut, functionally useless barely adjustable rattlehouse bridge, poor intonation, terminally high action, a highly unstable 1-pc glued-on neck, scrapyard wood 1-pc body, plastic knobs, gigantic machine-clipped & unfiled frets, dead spots, no carving, no contours.... not a single feature that cant be found on the lowliest $119 epiphone and topped off with ho-hum tone. Not even distinctive tone, which could forgive almost all else..... just blah tone.

I have tried about a dozen of them. Even with a decent setup (which Gibson doesn't provide), I can't think of a single bass that doesn't offer better tone, more versatility, and better playability than the Gibsons. In almost 7 years of being here on TB you will never find one other instance of me saying this about any bass but..... they suck. I can understand that some people find them to be "their thing" but I can all but guarantee you if you pressed those people, at least half would have no real basis for comparison. Bring me a Gibson devotee and a blindfold, I will find him three other basses he decides he likes more, as long as he's blindfolded and doesn't realize they're not also Gibsons. I think there's a word for that.... when people viciously defend unnecessarily expensive purchases simply on the merit of them having been expensive or exclusive somehow... I will temper this by saying each of the Gibsons I've tried have been 2006 or newer.....

Also, until 1998 Warwicks were some of the finest basses available anywhere in the world. I owned a few of them. The 14lb chunk of hacked up waste-lumber they charge three and four grand for these days is an insult to the brand's history and a halfhearted apology of a mass-produced, all-CNC'd bass.

And that is my unvarnished opinion......
 
#766
I had a Warwick Fortress PJ (96 or so) that I bought new. It played great, the neck was great, very comfortable on a strap (not sitting down as the lower horn dug into your thigh), etc. However, the damn thing just didn't sound that great to me. To boot, I could not get the sound to balance. No matter what I or 2 different techs did, the bass kind of dropped out once you went up to the D/G strings in a band setting.
 
#767
In my opinion Gibsons, Warwicks, and Musicman Stingrays all really disappointed me. I just didn't dig the necks, and specifically how heavy those Stingrays are. The tone Warwicks and Musicman basses have is AMAZING...but once more...the neck just always gets to me.
 
#771
pablomigraine said:
Biggest disappointment?

Every Gibson I've ever played.....

Okay so, THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS for a passive bass with a plastic nut, functionally useless barely adjustable rattlehouse bridge, poor intonation, terminally high action, a highly unstable 1-pc glued-on neck, scrapyard wood 1-pc body, plastic knobs, gigantic machine-clipped & unfiled frets, dead spots, no carving, no contours.... not a single feature that cant be found on the lowliest $119 epiphone and topped off with ho-hum tone. Not even distinctive tone, which could forgive almost all else..... just blah tone.

I have tried about a dozen of them. Even with a decent setup (which Gibson doesn't provide), I can't think of a single bass that doesn't offer better tone, more versatility, and better playability than the Gibsons. In almost 7 years of being here on TB you will never find one other instance of me saying this about any bass but..... they suck. I can understand that some people find them to be "their thing" but I can all but guarantee you if you pressed those people, at least half would have no real basis for comparison. Bring me a Gibson devotee and a blindfold, I will find him three other basses he decides he likes more, as long as he's blindfolded and doesn't realize they're not also Gibsons. I think there's a word for that.... when people viciously defend unnecessarily expensive purchases simply on the merit of them having been expensive or exclusive somehow... I will temper this by saying each of the Gibsons I've tried have been 2006 or newer.....

Also, until 1998 Warwicks were some of the finest basses available anywhere in the world. I owned a few of them. The 14lb chunk of hacked up waste-lumber they charge three and four grand for these days is an insult to the brand's history and a halfhearted apology of a mass-produced, all-CNC'd bass.

And that is my unvarnished opinion......
Click to expand...

...and I'm trying to find the Gibson bass you refer to, that costs $3500: Invalid Link Removed

FWIW, if there's a bass I've ever played that isn' worth the $$$ they get, it's Lakland. Played several and they all say: overpriced Fender...to me. And a Lakland Squier import for a grand? When I can buy a Gibson for that? Ummm...no...give me a Gibson...any day.
 
#773
bassplayer8953 said:
FWIW, if there's a bass I've ever played that isn' worth the $$$ they get, it's Lakland. Played several and they all say: overpriced Fender...to me. And a Lakland Squier import for a grand? When I can buy a Gibson for that? Ummm...no...give me a Gibson...any day.
Click to expand...

Just an opinion Bubs.... a look around the thread seems a lot of people agree..... not many digs at Lakland tho... generally considered to be amongst the top 5 most respected bass makers in the world if you exclude the boutique stuff....... but sounds like really it's just not your kind of bass personally.... my point was more a statement of what kind of feature set you get for the money: $1500 between a Lakland and a Gibson the Lakland wins in every category; better built neck, neck reinforcements, better truss rod, stiffer nut material, brand name tuners, more stable neck joint, better pickups, active / passive capability, onboard preamp, coil switching, higher grade woods, exotic wood tops, 4-way adjustable bridge, string thru body or bridge etc etc. You cant get all that on a $150 bass. There isn't anything offered on your average Gibson that isn't available on your average $150 bass.... except the name on the headstock.

And if you think Lakland gets a lot for being an overpriced Fender, I hope you never get your hands on an Alleva Coppollo!! Now you're talking FIVE grand plus for a passive, bolt-on J-bass copy...and speaking poorly about the AC's on talkbass will getcha dang near LYNCHED lol!!

Again... IMHO, YMMV, IME, etc etc
 
#774
john nam said:
That's true, with everything else, Japanese, German, Swedish (etc.) manufactured items are usually superior to US made. I think the only thing that makes US made guitars still preferable is the name and history behind Fender, which trickles down to other US made instruments. Just my opinion.

Also, I think the reason that guitars made outside of the US are usually not as good is because the US companies who outsource their work purposely want their non-US line to be subpar to their US line. For instance Lakland US v. Skyline, Sadowsky NYC v. Metro, Fender American v. MIM, etc. I'm sure these companies can provide the correct specs and engineering know-how to Japanese or Korean builders to make an instrument that is equal or superior to that of the US counterparts; they just don't want to because it would affect the sales of their US made instruments.
Click to expand...

+1 on the second half of that. There is no way with a working knowledge of something that you can build 1000's of anything and not perfect it. Unless your given bad specifications by the buyer.

As for the name and history be hind fender their Pos Imo. We can make the best of anything here in the US. The issue is that the cost of mfr. Here is prohibitive to what the market is willing to spend for the most part. Luckily musicians are still willing to pay for quality.
 
#776
I bought a G&L L5500 new in '96. Trans green, EMG soapbars, bla bla bla. It was my first bass with active electronics. I tried to like it, but I never once got a tone out of that bass that was useful. I hated that thing so much that I quit playing for a year.
 
#778
pablomigraine said:
Just an opinion Bubs.... a look around the thread seems a lot of people agree..... not many digs at Lakland tho... generally considered to be amongst the top 5 most respected bass makers in the world if you exclude the boutique stuff....... but sounds like really it's just not your kind of bass personally.... my point was more a statement of what kind of feature set you get for the money: $1500 between a Lakland and a Gibson the Lakland wins in every category; better built neck, neck reinforcements, better truss rod, stiffer nut material, brand name tuners, more stable neck joint, better pickups, active / passive capability, onboard preamp, coil switching, higher grade woods, exotic wood tops, 4-way adjustable bridge, string thru body or bridge etc etc. You cant get all that on a $150 bass. There isn't anything offered on your average Gibson that isn't available on your average $150 bass.... except the name on the headstock.

And if you think Lakland gets a lot for being an overpriced Fender, I hope you never get your hands on an Alleva Coppollo!! Now you're talking FIVE grand plus for a passive, bolt-on J-bass copy...and speaking poorly about the AC's on talkbass will getcha dang near LYNCHED lol!!

Again... IMHO, YMMV, IME, etc etc
Click to expand...

My original point was that you stated 3500 for a Gibson bass. And (as the owner of a couple of Gibson basses) I've yet to see one at that price. 1K - 1.5K for most, they compete with the everyday MIA Fenders & Rics. They do not attempt to compete in the boutique price category, unless the instrument is a 1-off, CS type of thing. And fwiw, I wouldn't spend 3500 for a Gibson bass either... BTW my Gibson Tbird has the best sounding pickups/electronics of any bass I've played...and I've played a few in the 45 years I've been playing.

I haven't tried an Alevva Coppollo, nor a Sandowsky. The prices charged for them would tend to make me avoid them as I've never played an instrument I'd deem to be worth that price of admission. I have, however, tried several Laklands & a few high-end Spectors. Regarding Lakland, I found myself underwhelmed: they played nice, looked ok (the ones I demo'd had painted bodies, not something I prefer) and generally felt...like a Fender, only higher in price...way higher, than even a MIA Fender which, IMO, is the standard for basses. I know I'm treading in fanatical territory when I state an other-than-glowing opinion on Lakland; but JMO: I'm not stating they aren' t decent basses...they are...but worth the $$$...:rollno::rollno::rollno:...and their Skyline series, charging what they do, for an import? I'd take my Thunderbird 100X before I'd consider a Skyline, plastic parts & all.

Again, just IMO, yours may vary...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back