Why isn't graphite more popular?

[younggun]

I was referring to this:



You have to agree that this is under the belt.

Who was he singling out then? Its a valid point about graphite necks: their consistency, rock solid construction, and sensitivity to mid and higher range tones DO accentuate bad technique, particularly muting problems. The ignorant remarks about graphite being an unsuitable material for neck construction in basses because of its "tone" set the "tone" for the thread. Not the remark that it accentuates bad technique...that came after the fact. Now, I would agree that its not an accurate remark either. Though I'm sure that some folks don't like graphite necks for the very reason that it points out flaws in their playing (rather they admit it to themselves or not), there is a valid reason to not prefer them if you don't like the tone they impart either.
Again, to each his own...but insofar as stability, consistency, and reliability of material, Graphite far exceeds wood as a construction material, and it was an innovative advancement in design when it came on the scene. My wooden necked instruments require a lot more maintainence and adjustment than my rock solid graphite necked instruments.
Another innovation that never has gotten its real due and gets a bad rap by "traditionalist" are headless basses. This was truly a step forward in instrument design, and I find amazing it hasn't caught on more. Balance is improved on the instrument tremendously, weight is saved, the instrument is smaller and easier to handle (no more accidentally banging the head of your $3000 bass on the music stand) and properly designed bridge tuners (especially single string types) stay in tune far better than standard head machines. The fact that they didn't catch on better has more to do with a dogmatic adherence to tradition or aesthetics instead of anything practical. I cannot see any advantage to a headed instrument over a headless, but quite a few vice versa.

 

[younggun]

Ok. I don't want to say this, but you guys are forcing me to make a point.

I hate plastic sounding basses!

If by that statement you mean that all basses with carbon graphite in their construction sound like plastic, then you obviously haven't been paying any attention to this thread, AND you haven't actually tried many (or more probably any) quality basses with CG in them. A guitarist friend of mine had his neck break on him mid-gig once. During the break I jokingly said that's why he should get a CG necked instrument. His reply was that it had to be wood because CG would sound like plastic. I was a bit surprised by the remark and figured he had a bad experience with a CG necked guitar he once owed...turns out he had never even laid hands on one. Go figure.

 

[OlafR]

@younggun: You are right about the stability.

I wanted to have one graphite necked bass (status) because I love the looks of those necks. BUT I DIDN'T LIKE THE SOUND!

The rest was great, though. Great playability, great balance and very beautiful.

Clarification: you hate basses that aren't a Fender.

Obviously you don't know me at all.

But I'm gone. Obviously you don't listen.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ok. I don't want to say this, but you guys are forcing me to make a point.

I hate plastic sounding basses!

Yay.


This reminds me of a funny story

I had just received a new bass (my first custom Brubaker Xtreme) and stopped by a local store where several bassists hang out. I let all of them check the bass out and everyone loved it. One guy did note that he dug everything about the bass except the neck. Why? Because he didn't like graphite necks. I asked him how he felt about Maple necks, he said he dug them.

Me: "Well, this bass has an all Maple neck" .

The bass has a satin black finish on the back which used the same paint as a clear finish. No difference in feel.

Him: "Why did he do that?":scowl:

Me: "I don't know... to ___ with guys like you?"



Now maybe you are one of the special ones who can hear "plastic"... and maybe you aren't. I know what I'd bet on.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Who was he singling out then? Its a valid point about graphite necks: their consistency, rock solid construction, and sensitivity to mid and higher range tones DO accentuate bad technique, particularly muting problems. The ignorant remarks about graphite being an unsuitable material for neck construction in basses because of its "tone" set the "tone" for the thread. Not the remark that it accentuates bad technique...that came after the fact. Now, I would agree that its not an accurate remark either. Though I'm sure that some folks don't like graphite necks for the very reason that it points out flaws in their playing (rather they admit it to themselves or not), there is a valid reason to not prefer them if you don't like the tone they impart either.
Again, to each his own...but insofar as stability, consistency, and reliability of material, Graphite far exceeds wood as a construction material, and it was an innovative advancement in design when it came on the scene. My wooden necked instruments require a lot more maintainence and adjustment than my rock solid graphite necked instruments.

You know, aluminum or steel would probably exceed wood in stability, consistency, and reliability of material too... obviously that isn't what makes a bass better.

Another innovation that never has gotten its real due and gets a bad rap by "traditionalist" are headless basses. This was truly a step forward in instrument design, and I find amazing it hasn't caught on more. Balance is improved on the instrument tremendously, weight is saved, the instrument is smaller and easier to handle (no more accidentally banging the head of your $3000 bass on the music stand) and properly designed bridge tuners (especially single string types) stay in tune far better than standard head machines. The fact that they didn't catch on better has more to do with a dogmatic adherence to tradition or aesthetics instead of anything practical. I cannot see any advantage to a headed instrument over a headless, but quite a few vice versa.

To each his own.


While I have no issue with graphite necks I have most definitely played lighter wooden basses, basses that I've yet to bang a headstock, basses that come out of a gigbag in tune, basses that balance perfectly, etc. And despite being an early adopter of headless basses (before Steinberger), I haven't come across one that sounds like other basses that I tend to favor. If they can't do that, for me the rest is moot.


I don't look at either necessarily as steps forward... they're steps. If you like them they're cool, if you don't that's hardly progress.

 

[David Jayne]

Every bass I've ever played sounds different. A Warwick thumb sounds different than a Fender Jazz and last I checked they're both made of wood. Ok you say, a Warwick has the wenge thenge goin on.

No, but what I WOULD say is that the Thumb has rather different pickup placement than a Jazz bass. THAT is the biggest reason for the tonal differences in this example. The neck pickup is a lot closer to the bridge than on a Jazz, and this has a PROFOUND impact on the tone.
Moving along:

For research purposes, I have a P bass that has seen no less than 7 different necks. A couple are all maple, a couple are maple/rosewood, two are all graphite, and one is wenge with an ebony board.

I did this over a couple of years, and my goal was to prove or disprove a suspicion of mine, which is that much of the individual tone of otherwise identical electric basses comes primarily from the neck.

I believe I proved myself correct. I found that the tone, and even overall volume, changed noticeably when switching between superficially identical necks, for example two maple/maple necks. I kept all other things as identical as possible; tuners, strings, setup- all the same.

I found that my Moses neck has a more 'woody' tone compared to my Status neck. I also noticed that the Moses is heavier, and quite a bit more flexible, where the Status is lighter/stiffer. Also brighter.

After each change, I find that the bass still sounds like a P bass, but a different P bass.

Whatever works for you.

 

[TonyP-]

Yay.


This reminds me of a funny story

I had just received a new bass (my first custom Brubaker Xtreme) and stopped by a local store where several bassists hang out. I let all of them check the bass out and everyone loved it. One guy did note that he dug everything about the bass except the neck. Why? Because he didn't like graphite necks. I asked him how he felt about Maple necks, he said he dug them.

Me: "Well, this bass has an all Maple neck" .

The bass has a satin black finish on the back which used the same paint as a clear finish. No difference in feel.

Him: "Why did he do that?":scowl:

Me: "I don't know... to ___ with guys like you?"



Now maybe you are one of the special ones who can hear "plastic"... and maybe you aren't. I know what I'd bet on.

Amen...to that nice post
I like the placebo effect.

You know I was ignorant to the black satin finish for Maple.
Sounds like a nice options more builders should offer.
Brad you are always making Kevin's stuff sound more interesting to me.

 

[Hoover]

The fact that [headless basses] didn't catch on better has more to do with a dogmatic adherence to tradition or aesthetics instead of anything practical.

^^^one of the most succinctly insightful sentences I've ever read on TB.

 

[spade2you]

^^^one of the most succinctly insightful sentences I've ever read on TB.

You'll soon see it as an annoying trend with most musicians. Then again, there is a plethora specializing in things that the traditional companies don't do, or don't do well.

 

[sleepy_monkey]

Ok. I don't want to say this, but you guys are forcing me to make a point.

I hate plastic sounding basses!

Haha. Yeah, graphite basses were made by Mattel and you can find them in the Barbie section.

Please embellish on how you just made your point. How many graphite necked basses have you owned? Company the neck was made by? How many have you played?

As far as 'below the belt' by mentioning that graphite necks are unforgiving....I will be the first to admit that it shows any flub I do, but it also makes me a better bassist.

 

[cliff78]

My main bass is a modulus q5. I think the main reason is many bass players don't like the hi fi tone. It's only in a graphite necked bass that I've seen the tone and stability that i like.

check out the tone of my Q5

 

[GBassNorth]

No, but what I WOULD say is that the Thumb has rather different pickup placement than a Jazz bass. THAT is the biggest reason for the tonal differences in this example. The neck pickup is a lot closer to the bridge than on a Jazz, and this has a PROFOUND impact on the tone.
Moving along:

For research purposes, I have a P bass that has seen no less than 7 different necks. A couple are all maple, a couple are maple/rosewood, two are all graphite, and one is wenge with an ebony board.

I did this over a couple of years, and my goal was to prove or disprove a suspicion of mine, which is that much of the individual tone of otherwise identical electric basses comes primarily from the neck.

I believe I proved myself correct. I found that the tone, and even overall volume, changed noticeably when switching between superficially identical necks, for example two maple/maple necks. I kept all other things as identical as possible; tuners, strings, setup- all the same.

I found that my Moses neck has a more 'woody' tone compared to my Status neck. I also noticed that the Moses is heavier, and quite a bit more flexible, where the Status is lighter/stiffer. Also brighter.

After each change, I find that the bass still sounds like a P bass, but a different P bass.

Whatever works for you.

You are absolutely correct and I completely agree. My point is that no two basses (even identical ones) will sound exactly the same. And if you change just about anything (nut, frets, fingerboard, neck, body wood, bridge, strings, preamp, etc.) on a given bass it will have some change on the sound of the bass.
This is exactly what you discovered when you tried different necks. What I did find interesting in your post is that you found your Moses neck (is that one of the wood/composite combo necks?) to have a more woody tone than the Status neck. Thats great info and I guess underscores that even a composite neck can sound woody.
I've also done a lot of testing with neck materials and found that a rock maple neck with an ebony board and bell brass frets and a brass nut sounds sterile compared to a rosewood neck with a rosewood board, nickel frets and a tusq nut. So I guess it's possible to get a wood neck to sound sterile, brittle, crisp, or "plastic" (whatever that is) and judging from your post, it's equally possible to get a composite neck to sound warm, forgiving, smooth and clear or "woody".
Again, go to the link I sent and listen to the composite bass being played. The lower notes sound very woody and warm to me. The upper notes sound very brittle and crisp. I personally like warm, fat, buttery, smooth, and round notes vs sharp, crisp, clear, ringing notes. But thats just my preference and I know a lot of other people have different preferences. I have a Rainsong all graphite bass that deliveres the warm, fat, smooth tone in spades, and I just recently got rid of a G&L 2500 with a maple neck/board that was too sharp and crisp regardless of which strings and preamp setting I used. Again, every bass (even if identical) is different - that's why its so important to try before you buy. I've tried other G&Ls and loved them, just didn't like the one I had (so much for internet purchases, kind of a crap shoot I guess).
I just don't think a composite neck predisposes a bass to sound sterile. I do think one can certianly get a sterile sound from a composite neck just like one can get an equally sterile sound from a maple neck.

 

[younggun]

You know, aluminum or steel would probably exceed wood in stability, consistency, and reliability of material too... obviously that isn't what makes a bass better.




To each his own.


While I have no issue with graphite necks I have most definitely played lighter wooden basses, basses that I've yet to bang a headstock, basses that come out of a gigbag in tune, basses that balance perfectly, etc. And despite being an early adopter of headless basses (before Steinberger), I haven't come across one that sounds like other basses that I tend to favor. If they can't do that, for me the rest is moot.


I don't look at either necessarily as steps forward... they're steps. If you like them they're cool, if you don't that's hardly progress.

As I have said myself several times, to each his own insofar as tone is concerned. Now, we aren't talking about aluminum, steel, titanium, or kryptonite here...the discussion is centered around Carbon Graphite as a material used in the construction of basses. It started out as a question about why it isn't more widely used, and then somewhere along the line, the typical erroneous and ignorant response that it is sterile, dead, or plastic sounding came up (this misconception is probably one of the big reasons why the demand for graphite is not bigger). You don't like the tone, fine, but that does not invalidate my points about it being a structurally superior and better functioning material ("mechanically" speaking) than wood, when constructed properly. That's not a matter of opinion and preference, that's just the way it is. If someone doesn't like graphite, then they should at least state a VALID reason, and not just make crap up.
Air bags and 4 wheel anti-lock disc breaks were a step FORWARD in vehicle design. Just because you have a vehicle that doesn't have either and haven't had an accident, doesn't invalidate that those things were advancements, and that those advances haven't tremendously benefited countless others. They are a superior design development in passenger vehicles. In the same way, just because YOU haven't banged your bass head on something, or have taken it out of a gig bag and it was still in tune (100% of the time?), doesn't mean that it isn't a consistent problem with headed basses (BTW, can you lay your headed bass down on a flat surface and not have the tuners come in contact with the surface and be pushed out of tune?). Saying that you can't find a bass with a sound you like that is headless, is like saying no one makes a car that looks like a '57 Chevy that also has anti-lock breaks and airbags, you prefer the looks of '57 Chevys, so therefore anti-lock breaks and airbags are not an advancement in car design. Obviously that's an error in logic. Just because you can't find a bass without a head that has the look and sound you want, really just goes to my point that its an advancement that hasn't been used enough.
Headless has advantages over a headed, but no disadvantages. How is that not a step forward?

 

[Brad Johnson]

As I have said myself several times, to each his own insofar as tone is concerned. Now, we aren't talking about aluminum, steel, titanium, or kryptonite here...the discussion is centered around Carbon Graphite as a material used in the construction of basses. It started out as a question about why it isn't more widely used, and then somewhere along the line, the typical erroneous and ignorant response that it is sterile, dead, or plastic sounding came up (this misconception is probably one of the big reasons why the demand for graphite is not bigger).

See what you did? To each his own but people who don't hold your opinion are making erroneous and ignorant responses?

Good times... and it just gets better...

You don't like the tone, fine, but that does not invalidate my points about it being a structurally superior and better functioning material ("mechanically" speaking) than wood, when constructed properly. That's not a matter of opinion and preference, that's just the way it is.

Speaking of erroneous and ignorant... I don't like the tone?


Look at my avatar. Now focus on the neck. Still want to run with your assumption?

If someone doesn't like graphite, then they should at least state a VALID reason, and not just make crap up.

YOU think those are reasons to like graphite. IMO those reasons don't mean squat if you don't like the final product. To each his own?

Air bags and 4 wheel anti-lock disc breaks were a step FORWARD in vehicle design. Just because you have a vehicle that doesn't have either and haven't had an accident, doesn't invalidate that those things were advancements, and that those advances haven't tremendously benefited countless others. They are a superior design development in passenger vehicles. In the same way, just because YOU haven't banged your bass head on something, or have taken it out of a gig bag and it was still in tune (100% of the time?), doesn't mean that it isn't a consistent problem with headed basses (BTW, can you lay your headed bass down on a flat surface and not have the tuners come in contact with the surface and be pushed out of tune?).

Yes I can. It's like I've hit the mother lode of assumptors. And you know what? Even if I couldn't, I'm guessing having the ability to lay a bass on a flat surface is way more important to you than to me (hint: it's totally unimportant to me).

And IME banging a bass is a consistent problem with clumsy people, not bass designs. If you need a smaller headless bass to avoid that, cool. I don't. I know where my basses are when I wear them.

Saying that you can't find a bass with a sound you like that is headless, is like saying no one makes a car that looks like a '57 Chevy that also has anti-lock breaks and airbags, you prefer the looks of '57 Chevys, so therefore anti-lock breaks and airbags are not an advancement in car design.

No, it's like saying what I said... because it's true. But you've decided not to read the actual words so why start now? . You're so busy defending the flag you can't seem to read straight.

And since I've actually played just about every headless bass around outside of some homegrowns and even owned a few, which would you recommend to sound like a Northern Ash Brubaker with Barts? Or My Fodera Contrabass? Or hell, my Fender Jazz?

I'll make it easy... name one?

Obviously that's an error in logic. Just because you can't find a bass without a head that has the look and sound you want, really just goes to my point that its an advancement that hasn't been used enough.
Headless has advantages over a headed, but no disadvantages. How is that not a step forward?

Headless has no disadvantages? And you talk about logic? I actually LOL'd at that finding. Did you put ANY thought into it?


I just saw a Snuggies commercial, they now come in zebra stripe. How can that not be a step forward? think about it.


To each his own indeed.

 

[Greyvagabond]

Its unpopular because people don't like paying $400 for a neck that sounds like ********. There are so many hours in the day; I can't spend time worrying about what my neck is made out of because I'm busying playing music and getting laid. But have fun with Carbon.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Haha. Yeah, graphite basses were made by Mattel and you can find them in the Barbie section.

Please embellish on how you just made your point. How many graphite necked basses have you owned? Company the neck was made by? How many have you played?

As far as 'below the belt' by mentioning that graphite necks are unforgiving....I will be the first to admit that it shows any flub I do, but it also makes me a better bassist.

Wenge and Ash necks tend to be unforgiving too.

 

[fretman4god]

i think what he's saying is that there's nothing inherently sterile about CG or headless basses within the construction concepts. ie. if other manufacturers (Fodera, Fender, etc.) employed these construction techniques, that there'd be no disadvantages, tonally or otherwise.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I figured I'd try to clarify what he's saying...

 

[younggun]

i think what he's saying is that there's nothing inherently sterile about CG or headless basses within the construction concepts. ie. if other manufacturers (Fodera, Fender, etc.) employed these construction techniques, that there'd be no disadvantages, tonally or otherwise.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I figured I'd try to clarify what he's saying...

If Fender/Fodera, etc were to employ these construction techniques, the very same people that make the complaints would be singing the praises of CG headless or whatever else.

And yes, that's precisely what I'm saying, but some folks don't seem to understand that, so the posts just get longer and longer. CG and headless basses have definite advantages over wood and headed, even if those advantages don't apply to you personally or are not needed for your applications. I don't drive a racing car, so don't need a hot cam or race tuned suspension, but those things are technological advancements necessary for higher performance. They are advancements whether I need them or not. If I'm a brick layer, I hardly need a computer to do my job, yet a computer is still a technological advancement. If I'm a carpenter, I don't "need" a CNC machine to do my work, but its still a technological advancement. Can I make this any clearer? It doesn't matter what you want or need PERSONALLY, the further step or advancement is still there.

 

[PBass101]

Headless has advantages over a headed, but no disadvantages. How is that not a step forward?

Well, to be fair, you can't use a D-Tuner on a headless bass...

 

[spade2you]

Well, to be fair, you can't use a D-Tuner on a headless bass...

Really. Hmmmm, too bad they never thought about that. Oh wait, Steinberger did think of that on their bridge with a detuner.