• 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.

Who prefers heavier basses?

#41
Does more weight make a bass that sounds better? I am not convinced. I am certain however, that the construction of the bass and the properties of the materials used can have a huge impact on the sound of the instrumental.

My Raro custom 6 sounds enormous. It is enormous - I've never weighed it but it is enormously heavy, but I think the key factor is the mass of wood. It just dwarfs other bass guitars.

There is a resonance to this bass which I have not experienced with any other instruments, it's noticeably louder than other basses when played unplugged. On the other hand, my Warwick Thumb is also heavy, but very small and it has a very different character. Different wood, different density and a much smaller instrument. It sounds great but it's a very different character to the Raro. I truly believe the size of the Raro is a key factor in the giant sound and the most unbelievably clear lower register I've ever heard. It's also a key factor in why I wouldn't want to play a long standing set with it!

OPcEw7F.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Outtaseezun and David McIntire
#43
I like the feel of a heavy instrument as long as it’s balanced. I don’t mind lightweight, but I enjoy the feeling of a heavier bass/guitar. Nothing crazy like 14lbs, but I’m good with 10-11lbs all day. Where I want my weight savings is in the amp and cab.
 
#44
My ears could care less what the weight is as long as the bass sounds good. On the other hand, playing countless gigs with heavy fender basses for decades, my lousy left shoulder (mid back) dictates light is better. In fact, my injury is bad enough I wish I would have started out lighter much earlier on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spectre Gunner
#45
Leo Thunder said:
Weight barely affects tone and tone barely matters. Bach wrote his greatest works without even specifying for which instruments they were.

No one cares about bass tone.
Click to expand...

Maybe true, but I played an instrument - actually a couple - in the past with not-so-good tone and band mates would often ask me to turn up. One of those was a Jazz bass with an inherently mid-scooped sound. When I switched to a P/J at a gig, my guitar guy actually asked me to turn down. A first for everything.

Maybe no one cares about bass tone, but that's because they just expect to be able to hear it. When it sucks, they care a little :eyebrow:.

Afraid that I'm a bit too much of a musical neanderthal to add anything to the J.S.B. angle :bag:
 
  • Like
Reactions: David McIntire
#49
kodiakblair said:
Two years into production the timber for solid colours was changed to lighter materials,they ended up made from poplar.

Despite that change the T40 anchor myth still endures.

an
Click to expand...

Well, it’s not a myth if it’s true , right?

ThEy also made some mahogany bodies.

I’ve only ever ownEd 3 T-40s: a natural, white , and a sienna, with the natural being the lightest and the white one the heaviest, all of them being boat anchors.
 
#52
Leo Thunder said:
That, parts of the Musical Offering and then he kept transcribing stuff as if tone didn't matter. This is how we get violin concertos transcribed for the harpsichord, or violin pieces played on the lute. Tone is mostly of marginal value. Yes, it should be "nice" but it barely ever contributes anything important. People discuss tone like opera buffs worship the sound of a voice without even caring for what it sings. People who value tone over the rest have no understanding of music.

Oh, and in all the Mozart letters I read, which were quite a few, I remember him speaking of expression quite often. I don't remember him mentioning tone, not even about singers.
Click to expand...

Not to derail too much, but it's an interesting point, especially when you bring singers (who's equipment has not changed..) into the mix.

It's still hard to think that tone "doesn't matter" or isn't a big deal. But, the Bach concertos that are transcribed for both harpsichord and violin definitely make the point that the music was about structure and tone is obviously an after thought.

Then again it's like taking a modern pop tune and playing it on different instruments... if the original had just guitar and vocals, and one were to cover that song with piano and violin, the music may still work but it does not necessarily justify tone not mattering.

anyway, it's an interesting observation. I love gear and don't mind obsessing over this stuff regardless of how important it really is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bassobrutto
#53
The weight of an instrument may only have a minor bearing on the recorded or FOH tone, because onboard electronics, especially active systems, tend to override the acoustic character of the individual instrument. BUT, the density / weight of both neck and body quite definitely affect the “feel” while playing. So, to me the two things are somewhat inseparable.

Heavy basses tend to have a more solid response to right hand attack; lighter instruments tend to have a more resonant response. Both can be desirable characteristics. 9 pounds seems to be a somewhat arbitrary crossover, where some of both things are going on to varying degrees. But, deviation in either direction tends to emphasize one or the other.

Potent electronics can go a long ways to making a lighter instrument sound beefier. In fact, I could pretty much live with that trade off. But, a heavier northern ash body does get the funk for certain styles; and there’s no denying it. At the heavy end, it just depends what your pain to gain ratio threshold is. As I get older, mine is coming down.

Since we are all passionate about our instruments, weight is an important characteristic. Unfortunately, there is no single recipe for success; other than understanding the trade-offs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr_O'B and Govner22
#54
Heavy basses are my preference but that doesn’t necessarily have to be because of wood. My Spector and warwicks have lots of solid brass in them as well as heavier solid wood and batteries and such...it doesn’t have to be a mystical thing but honestly I think there is something in owning a decent chunk bass that’ll keep me schlepping them until I am unable
 
#56
While my aging body prefers basses that are lighter, I don't like them too light. I like a little heft/feeling of solidity to them, because I'm fairly active on stage, jumping around and sometimes swaying my instrument and if an instrument is too light I feel like it will slip away from me.

I couldn't rock a bass lighter than 8 pounds, but 10's become my limit. I once had an almost 13 pound 6-string that sounded and played amazing, but I couldn't shoulder it for more than 40 minutes.
 
#57
thewildest said:
After trying lighter wood, chambered and other tricks (using the same hands) on identical instruments differing only on the wood they were built from, I definitively like more the compact, dark, compressed sound of heavy wood.
Click to expand...
agreed... but IMHO you get that tone from that kind of wood even if you use a lot LESS of that wood, resulting in a bass that isn't heavy. Heavy dense wood, in a body much thinner than a fender, gives "that" sound without "that" weight. At least this is my experience after spending a lot of time trying to find my personal preferred sound.
 
#59
So even though I far prefer light basses.... the best bass I ever owned was my alembic series I, and it was heavy. So yea, heavy basses can be great, as can light basses. The weight doesn't make one better than the other, but there are great examples of heavy basses and light basses, and they can sound just as alive and exciting as each other, if built right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FenderOli, Spectre Gunner and Manticore

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back