What Happened to all the SX Love?

[Basshappi]

No love lost for SX.
I own Fenders (MIA, MIJ, MIM) and a few Squiers as well but the bass getting all my rehearsal and gigging action is my SX Jazz. It is a great bass or I wouldn't own it.

It's sad that some people feel the need to insult other peoples gear in order to feel superior.

Play what you like, for whatever reasons you like to play it and ignore the haters.

Cheers!

 

[KingRazor]

Everyone has moved on to Squier.

Those of us who don't care about headstock shape still love our SX basses

 

[stflbn]

Plus Rondo hasn't shown much interest in providing a wider range of GAS items. For example the SX 6-string Jazz basses sold out like instantly. Kurt didn't seem to get the message (or SX didn't...not sure which is the blockage).

Some here nay-say the idea, but I still hold to the concept that Squier's expanded line of affordable offerings, and the latest moves of more variety in them for both Squier and Fender is a direct response to companies like Rondo. You cannot tell me that Fender is 'unaware' of their competing immitator's... companies pay people to track competing trends and companies.

Now at this point the competitors like Rondo are being put in a position of having to innovate their stale product line some once again. And it appears that Rondo may not be nimble enough to adapt to quickly.

IMHO.


.

 

[ThaLowEndTheory]

A combo of the headstock and the improvement of the Squier with the VM, CV, and Deluxe series. I put it mostly on the headstock though. People like what they like.

 

[xaxxat]

Some here nay-say the idea, but I still hold to the concept that Squier's expanded line of affordable offerings, and the latest more variety in them is a direct response to companies like Rondo. You cannot tell me that Fender is 'unaware' of their competing immitator's... companies pay people to track competing trends and companies.

Now at this point the competitors like Rondo are being put in a position of having innovate some once again.

IMHO.


.

This...

 

[KingRazor]

I think maybe Squier has changed things a bit.

SX: $130 basses that might need $150 in upgrades/luthiery to get them to pro caliber.
Squier CV: $300 basses that really don't need any upgrades at all.

I strongly disagree with this.

Squiers need just as many mods as SX basses do to get up to my standards. I wouldn't even consider buying a CV Squier anyway, not worth nearly what they charge for it.

The amber VM P bass is the only Squier I can think of that is truly better than an SX.

 

[70sJazz]

Even when SX was a hit and many were buying them and owned them there would be allot of threads asking the same questions over and over..no search was ever used.

You actually aren't ALLOWED to a search for "SX" on TB. Try it!

"Essex" works, but then the threads that use "SX" will not come up in the results.

 

[Muddslide]

I hate to say it, because it sounds vain and shallow, and looks really sdhould be the last consideration, but those Ursa headstocks really are a turn off.

I have an old headstock SX P with one of the sweetest-feeling and -playing maple necks ever as well as an old SX Telecaster copy. Both are really good and fun to play (though both, along with most of my other gear, are in storage on the other side of the country from me at the moment.)

I have heard people say the Ursas are a step up in quality. It's sad to hear people talk about them being turds. That's ridiculous. I am sure there are some lemons in the bunch, just as there are with ANY brand of anything, but perusing the web, you'll see far more people really pleased with their Rondo stuff and amazed at the qualty-for-cost ratio than you will see people disparaging them.

My SX P is a really, really decent instrument. I happen to love the stock pickup. I could see someday upgrading the wiring, pots and possibly the bridge, but they are fully functional as they are. I'd have no problem gigging or recording with my SX stock (except for the strings it came with, which were terrible.)

 

[vstring3]

Playing my SX tonight at Johnny Ray's...if you live in CT, come in, I'll let you try it.

 

[lucas vigor]

As with most internet forums, you have posters that have 5000 posts and have been here for years. Their celebrity is not based on talent or skill level on the bass, but talent and skill in internet forum writing, and sheer persistence. Whatever they say seems like the absolute truth, and since others on the forum look up to them and support them, it generates this massive but fake "groundswell" of support for a product or idea.

SX is the prime example. Yes, they are a pretty good deal for a beginner bassist who is looking to get started on bass without spending a huge amount. The bass will be playable, for sure. Also, the SX is just great for the amateur hobbyist luthier who wants to mod the heck out of something without spending a fortune on the platform...

but let's get realistic here. The massive amount of hype surrounding SX bassists on this forum and ONLY on this forum was really far fetched. Statements had been made here that they are just as good as the vintage pre-CBS basses used by the pros, and that in a side by side test no one can tell the difference in tone at all. Posters also said that despite owning top-of the line basses, the SX was their main gigging and recording bass!

This was seriously said right here on this forum!

All of this despite the mountain of photographic evidence that shows pros playing non-SX basses routinely!

If what the posters here said was true, you would expect more pros to be playing them. Where is the evidence of that outside THIS forum?

My take on the whole SX thing was that SX was like a code word:

A way of saying "I am such a red hot bassist that I can take ANY bass, even a 130 dollar beginner bass, and make it sound great BECAUSE I am so good!"

That's what I think the whole SX thing was really about. A way of bragging, a way of crowing. It had nothing to do with the actual bass. This was just massive Kool-aid drinking, and you know what? It really was only on this forum!

Yes, I have played an SX bass. Several times. Some were just slightly worse or slightly better then the Squire or the MIM Fenders. I give them credit for that at least....but they don't hold a candle to my MIA or MIJ fenders, nor my Carvin, not even to the cheap-ass Ibanez I played on 25 years ago.

So, I never bought into the hype, seeing it fully for what it was. I took a lot of flack and flames for this standpoint, with only a few supporting me....but then again, I am not some famous internet warrior with a legion of groupies!


set 3 by Lucas Vigor on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

 

[cheezewiz]

A lot of people realized you get what you pay for. Sure SX made some decent basses. They also made some real POS. You roll the dice and you take your chance at that price point.

 

[vstring3]

As with most internet forums, you have posters that have 5000 posts and have been here for years. Their celebrity is not based on talent or skill level on the bass, but talent and skill in internet forum writing, and sheer persistence. Whatever they say seems like the absolute truth, and since others on the forum look up to them and support them, it generates this massive but fake "groundswell" of support for a product or idea.

SX is the prime example. Yes, they are a pretty good deal for a beginner bassist who is looking to get started on bass without spending a huge amount. The bass will be playable, for sure. Also, the SX is just great for the amateur hobbyist luthier who wants to mod the heck out of something without spending a fortune on the platform...

but let's get realistic here. The massive amount of hype surrounding SX bassists on this forum and ONLY on this forum was really far fetched. Statements had been made here that they are just as good as the vintage pre-CBS basses used by the pros, and that in a side by side test no one can tell the difference in tone at all. Posters also said that despite owning top-of the line basses, the SX was their main gigging and recording bass!

This was seriously said right here on this forum!

All of this despite the mountain of photographic evidence that shows pros playing non-SX basses routinely!

If what the posters here said was true, you would expect more pros to be playing them. Where is the evidence of that outside THIS forum?

My take on the whole SX thing was that SX was like a code word:

A way of saying "I am such a red hot bassist that I can take ANY bass, even a 130 dollar beginner bass, and make it sound great BECAUSE I am so good!"

That's what I think the whole SX thing was really about. A way of bragging, a way of crowing. It had nothing to do with the actual bass. This was just massive Kool-aid drinking, and you know what? It really was only on this forum!

Yes, I have played an SX bass. Several times. Some were just slightly worse or slightly better then the Squire or the MIM Fenders. I give them credit for that at least....but they don't hold a candle to my MIA or MIJ fenders, nor my Carvin, not even to the cheap-ass Ibanez I played on 25 years ago.

So, I never bought into the hype, seeing it fully for what it was. I took a lot of flack and flames for this standpoint, with only a few supporting me....but then again, I am not some famous internet warrior with a legion of groupies!


set 3 by Lucas Vigor on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

What a creative imagination.

 

[lucas vigor]

What a creative imagination.

I just looked at your profile of gear owned: Tell us what is YOUR experience with high end gear?




set 3 by Lucas Vigor on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

 

[hdracer]

As with most internet forums, you have posters that have 5000 posts and have been here for years. Their celebrity is not based on talent or skill level on the bass, but talent and skill in internet forum writing, and sheer persistence. Whatever they say seems like the absolute truth, and since others on the forum look up to them and support them, it generates this massive but fake "groundswell" of support for a product or idea.

SX is the prime example. Yes, they are a pretty good deal for a beginner bassist who is looking to get started on bass without spending a huge amount. The bass will be playable, for sure. Also, the SX is just great for the amateur hobbyist luthier who wants to mod the heck out of something without spending a fortune on the platform...

but let's get realistic here. The massive amount of hype surrounding SX bassists on this forum and ONLY on this forum was really far fetched. Statements had been made here that they are just as good as the vintage pre-CBS basses used by the pros, and that in a side by side test no one can tell the difference in tone at all. Posters also said that despite owning top-of the line basses, the SX was their main gigging and recording bass!

This was seriously said right here on this forum!

All of this despite the mountain of photographic evidence that shows pros playing non-SX basses routinely!

If what the posters here said was true, you would expect more pros to be playing them. Where is the evidence of that outside THIS forum?

My take on the whole SX thing was that SX was like a code word:

A way of saying "I am such a red hot bassist that I can take ANY bass, even a 130 dollar beginner bass, and make it sound great BECAUSE I am so good!"

That's what I think the whole SX thing was really about. A way of bragging, a way of crowing. It had nothing to do with the actual bass. This was just massive Kool-aid drinking, and you know what? It really was only on this forum!

Yes, I have played an SX bass. Several times. Some were just slightly worse or slightly better then the Squire or the MIM Fenders. I give them credit for that at least....but they don't hold a candle to my MIA or MIJ fenders, nor my Carvin, not even to the cheap-ass Ibanez I played on 25 years ago.

So, I never bought into the hype, seeing it fully for what it was. I took a lot of flack and flames for this standpoint, with only a few supporting me....but then again, I am not some famous internet warrior with a legion of groupies!


set 3 by Lucas Vigor on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

Very true, now the crowd has moved on to Squiers

 

[vstring3]

I just looked at your profile of gear owned: Tell us what is YOUR experience with high end gear?

I never felt the need to spend big $$ on a bass, merely for the status the label gives me, when I can find a fine player for less.

 

[Batmensch]

They aren't that special but for a little over a hundred bucks you'd have a great platform for modding it. The body is better quality than the Squiers, the necks are about on par and the hardware and electronics on both are usually the most suspect parts and would be first to be replaced. So you essentially have the same bass, just cheaper.

But now that the SX headstocks are the ugliest in the biz...

I disagree. I have both Squiers and an SX, and although the SX is not bad, far from it, but the body is definitely not as well made as the Squier.

 

[lucas vigor]

I never felt the need to spend big $$ on a bass, merely for the status the label gives me, when I can find a fine player for less.

That's not what I asked.


You probably have not spent time with a fine quality instrument, so your opinion is unfortunately biased when it comes to SX basses.


I don't need to really continue this. The proof is in the pictures. The pros do not play them. And no, it is not because pros are given free high end basses to play, or would otherwise just play an SX or other bargain bass.


This has nothing to do with status, but funny you mention it, because it basically reinforces my theory that SX is all about proving that the SX kool-aid drinkers are just trying to prove how great on the bass they are.

Last year, I went into a store and played a Pedulla. I sat there for two hours with the thing, seriously not wanting to let it go. I don't care what name was on the headstock, but the bass was clearly one of the finest built and finest sounding machines I have ever touched. The feel, silken, the sound, AMAZING! This was no SX. And it was used. They wanted 600 bucks for it, and I was too stupid to grab it on the spot. It was gone two days later. yes, I could have bought 4 SX basses for the same price, but all 4 together would not match the quality of this instrument.

I know that you really want your SX to be as good as the Pedulla, but it's just not true.

I am not above admitting that I sound great on a high-end bass, and I don't sound as good on the bargain bass. I don't play as well. I don't attempt certain things because they don't sound as articulate or clear. The punch is not there. The burnished, golden tones are not there. The ease of motion is not there. I am not inspired and it has nothing to do with status or what is on the headstock. it has much more to do with a bass lovingly constructed and designed with quality parts and wood versus a green piece of inferior wood made by a 12 year old indonesian kid in some asian sweatshop.

And if that makes me a bad musician or a poor craftsman, so be it.


set 3 by Lucas Vigor on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

 

[vstring3]

That's not what I asked.


You probably have not spent time with a fine quality instrument, so your opinion is unfortunately biased when it comes to SX basses.


I don't need to really continue this. The proof is in the pictures. The pros do not play them. And no, it is not because pros are given free high end basses to play, or would otherwise just play an SX or other bargain bass.


This has nothing to do with status, but funny you mention it, because it basically reinforces my theory that SX is all about proving that the SX kool-aid drinkers are just trying to prove how great on the bass they are.

Last year, I went into a store and played a Pedulla. I sat there for two hours with the thing, seriously not wanting to let it go. I don't care what name was on the headstock, but the bass was clearly one of the finest built and finest sounding machines I have ever touched. The feel, silken, the sound, AMAZING! This was no SX. And it was used. They wanted 600 bucks for it, and I was too stupid to grab it on the spot. It was gone two days later. yes, I could have bought 4 SX basses for the same price, but all 4 together would not match the quality of this instrument.

I know that you really want your SX to be as good as the Pedulla, but it's just not true.

I am not above admitting that I sound great on a high-end bass, and I don't sound as good on the bargain bass. I don't play as well. I don't attempt certain things because they don't sound as articulate or clear. The punch is not there. The burnished, golden tones are not there. The ease of motion is not there. I am not inspired and it has nothing to do with status or what is on the headstock. it has much more to do with a bass lovingly constructed and designed with quality parts and wood versus a green piece of inferior wood made by a 12 year old indonesian kid in some asian sweatshop.

And if that makes me a bad musician or a poor craftsman, so be it.


set 3 by Lucas Vigor on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

Just as in your other post, you are doing a LOT of assuming in your conclusion.

 

[KingRazor]

As with most internet forums, you have posters that have 5000 posts and have been here for years. Their celebrity is not based on talent or skill level on the bass, but talent and skill in internet forum writing, and sheer persistence. Whatever they say seems like the absolute truth, and since others on the forum look up to them and support them, it generates this massive but fake "groundswell" of support for a product or idea.

SX is the prime example. Yes, they are a pretty good deal for a beginner bassist who is looking to get started on bass without spending a huge amount. The bass will be playable, for sure. Also, the SX is just great for the amateur hobbyist luthier who wants to mod the heck out of something without spending a fortune on the platform...

but let's get realistic here. The massive amount of hype surrounding SX bassists on this forum and ONLY on this forum was really far fetched. Statements had been made here that they are just as good as the vintage pre-CBS basses used by the pros, and that in a side by side test no one can tell the difference in tone at all. Posters also said that despite owning top-of the line basses, the SX was their main gigging and recording bass!

This was seriously said right here on this forum!

All of this despite the mountain of photographic evidence that shows pros playing non-SX basses routinely!

If what the posters here said was true, you would expect more pros to be playing them. Where is the evidence of that outside THIS forum?

My take on the whole SX thing was that SX was like a code word:

A way of saying "I am such a red hot bassist that I can take ANY bass, even a 130 dollar beginner bass, and make it sound great BECAUSE I am so good!"

That's what I think the whole SX thing was really about. A way of bragging, a way of crowing. It had nothing to do with the actual bass. This was just massive Kool-aid drinking, and you know what? It really was only on this forum!

Yes, I have played an SX bass. Several times. Some were just slightly worse or slightly better then the Squire or the MIM Fenders. I give them credit for that at least....but they don't hold a candle to my MIA or MIJ fenders, nor my Carvin, not even to the cheap-ass Ibanez I played on 25 years ago.

So, I never bought into the hype, seeing it fully for what it was. I took a lot of flack and flames for this standpoint, with only a few supporting me....but then again, I am not some famous internet warrior with a legion of groupies!


set 3 by Lucas Vigor on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

One could argue that the reason pros don't play them is because SX hasn't gotten enough exposure.

I'm not going to argue that SX basses are so amazing that they are way better than multi-thousand dollar basses. That just wouldn't be realistic.

But I will say that my SX P bass is one of the best basses I've ever played and I got it for much, much cheaper than a lot of other basses I wouldn't have liked as much.

I have never played a bass that cost more than $1500. They simply don't carry basses more expensive than that in any of the stores in my area.

Prices and brand names are completely irrelevant when it comes to something so subjective. A lot of people would agree that an EBMM Stingray is much higher quality than an Ibanez Soundgear. It's a respected brand and at that price point, one would expect a quality instrument. In my opinion, the Ibanez SR blows the EBMM away in every area. Finish, playability, and tone.

I pay no attention to brand names or price tags when I'm looking for a bass. I play each one and see which one is best. I've played a lot of Squiers and most of them are crap compared to my SX, despite the rave reviews of them on here.

Play with your hands and listen with your ears, not your eyes.

 

[ThaLowEndTheory]

I can't resist.

YouTube - "Excuses"