Well, to be fair, you can't use a D-Tuner on a headless bass...
FWIW, I LOVE my XM2A's!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Why isn't graphite more popular?
- Thread starter Shy Guy
- Start date
FWIW, I LOVE my XM2A's!
You certainly have enough time in your day for dumbass comments like this. Oh, and nobody cares how many ugly chicks you bone.
Funny, I bought my graphite neck so I wouldn't have to worry about what it's made out of, unlike the maple neck my bass came with that needed an adjustment everytime the weather changed.
Sound like "********"? No, not when I'm playing it.
- Aug 21, 2003
- 11,598
- 18,627
- Disclosures
- A-Designs Mike Lull GK Tsunami Cables GHS Strings RMI Basswitch Nordstrand Pickups Darkglass
I've owned a few very different basses, but when all is said and done, I just keep coming back to these. I owned one from the late 80's thru the early 2000's and it was a versatile little workhorse through three very different bands (hard rock, R&B, and college alternative...ummm...when alternative was alternative). It was the only bass I ever regret getting rid of. Never again. As a matter of fact, I've been busy searching for a white version (not an easy task!) to round out the collection.
I know they're not for everybody, but the XM2's just hit the spot for me. I can wheel in some great tones, the necks play like butter, they rarely go out of tune, easily strung, easily transported, and I think they're darn-tootin' purdy to boot!
Didn't mean to derail, but I did have a point here. Even though they are only a couple hundred SN's apart, they both sound entirely different.
$400 for a neck that sounds like ********? Man, I spent $4K on a bass that sounds like ********! Best ******** I ever played. It's just ********!!! But hey, if you'd rather not worry about what you play and would prefer to spend your money on getting laid, carry on!!!
My Status-necked Warmoth G4 doesn't sound sterile. Neither does my Status-necked Warmoth Jazz. If they did I couldn't use them with my country band, or my funk-rock-soul band. The G4 definitely wouldn't have worked when I sat in on a motown/R&B gig a couple months back.
...somehow, magically, I'm able to coax very warm and smooth tones out of either of those basses on a regular basis. What's more is that both of those basses have no onboard tone circuit, which is the same as running a passive circuit wide open. Sure sounds like a recipe for sterile tone to me, but the results couldn't be farther from it. I must have gotten the only pair of necks to NOT sound like sterile plastic
I can accept that carbon fiber necks aren't for everybody, but based on the comments I've seen in this thread, and many others, I'm convinced that most people making these claims have never even touched a carbon fiber neck.
...somehow, magically, I'm able to coax very warm and smooth tones out of either of those basses on a regular basis. What's more is that both of those basses have no onboard tone circuit, which is the same as running a passive circuit wide open. Sure sounds like a recipe for sterile tone to me, but the results couldn't be farther from it. I must have gotten the only pair of necks to NOT sound like sterile plastic
I can accept that carbon fiber necks aren't for everybody, but based on the comments I've seen in this thread, and many others, I'm convinced that most people making these claims have never even touched a carbon fiber neck.
Well graphite necks are very popular at my house! I've been playing Status basses for twenty years 
For me, the graphite gives massive sustain, supreme clarity through all frequencies & a lovely solid feel to the neck.
Yes, the sound is very very clean & you're able to hear every single harmonic in the spectrum of the instrument, but it's a fantastic three-dimensional sound that I wouldn't change for anything.
I have one Status bass with a slightly warmer sound, which has the birdseye maple-effect "phenowood" fingerboard. This is my main bass for jazz gigs & musical theatre, as it's fully capable of the graphite growl and clarity, but you can also get a lovely warm sound from it as well...
For me, the graphite gives massive sustain, supreme clarity through all frequencies & a lovely solid feel to the neck.
Yes, the sound is very very clean & you're able to hear every single harmonic in the spectrum of the instrument, but it's a fantastic three-dimensional sound that I wouldn't change for anything.
I have one Status bass with a slightly warmer sound, which has the birdseye maple-effect "phenowood" fingerboard. This is my main bass for jazz gigs & musical theatre, as it's fully capable of the graphite growl and clarity, but you can also get a lovely warm sound from it as well...
I do wish Rob Green would come up with these for his single string bridge tuners, but I understand the cost vs. demand just wasn't there.
I'm not saying there is anything inherently sterile about composite necks or headless basses for that matter. He ASSUMED I don't like composite necks which was a basis for his rant... and he was dead wrong.
As far as whether or not there'd be disadvantages to going headless, I was dead serious... how much thought wasn't put into that edict? Having to buy ball end strings is not an advantage. Higher production cost would not be an advantage. If people simply don't like the esthetics... OMG, is that even possible or do they have to be ignorant to dislike the look?
And the idea that there will be no tonal difference, considering how many things can affect tone... wow. For example missing mass at the end of the neck won't matter. A different brdge won't affect it either. Etc.
Like I said, how much thought is actually going into these conclusions. Not much as far as I can tell. And the zealotry hardly helps either.
And some people will never get that an advancement that is largely unwanted is not an advancement. They then refuse to see any disadvantages, which is telling. For many others, those advancement wouldn't be as useful as sticking an LED flashlight on the bass so you could find your way in dark stairwells... or see bumps before you hit them.
Some will never see that because something is different or newer does not make it better or a step FORWARD. Even if they like it.
younggun said:
First, how does artistic expression have anything to do with technological advancements?
Second, if we'd all been playing graphite or headless instruments for the last 50 years, and someone suddenly invented a wooden-necked instrument with tuners on the head, would that be a technological advancement? If only a small percentage of bass players preferred the wooden necks, would that make them the open-minded ones?
What does artistic expression have to do with avoiding technological advancements?
Back to the point. Graphite vs. wood. Mostly preference, I think.
I have built several graphite necked basses and I live relatively close to Moses Graphite in Eugene. I have toured the shop and watched the process and it seems, to me, less labor intensive per neck but at least no more so. You still have to install boards and frets and drill holes and sand just like wood but you don't have to cut out the neck from a laminated wood form and shape the neck.
I play Modulus basses and love there beautiful articulate tone. I personally don't think they can be beat with one exception: Status. I built one bass with a Status neck and the tone was stunning! Since I was trying to make money doing this I sold it. Wish I hadn't. I discovered by chance that there is a huge difference in tone when going from wood to graphite. Just a thought or 2.
I have built several graphite necked basses and I live relatively close to Moses Graphite in Eugene. I have toured the shop and watched the process and it seems, to me, less labor intensive per neck but at least no more so. You still have to install boards and frets and drill holes and sand just like wood but you don't have to cut out the neck from a laminated wood form and shape the neck.
I play Modulus basses and love there beautiful articulate tone. I personally don't think they can be beat with one exception: Status. I built one bass with a Status neck and the tone was stunning! Since I was trying to make money doing this I sold it. Wish I hadn't. I discovered by chance that there is a huge difference in tone when going from wood to graphite. Just a thought or 2.
Well, that's a subset of my question. If the two have nothing to do with each other, then chasing or avoiding technological advancements are both irrelavant.
I don't know, I figure painters must have been pretty excited when the paint-brush came along. And how about that bass guitar, and roundwounds, and onboard EQ, and extended-range basses, and amplifiers, and... well, I guess you might see where I'm going with this.
First of all, I didn't mean to imply that you personally don't like CG or headless or whatever...I had meant the "you" to be a collective you, not you personally, as in an example. I'm trying to figure out when this became a pissing contest between the two of us, and that is probably the problem right there. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was singling YOU out in my examples.
Just to be clear, I too have both wood and CG, headed and headless basses. I understand there is a sound difference between the two, and have no problem if someone (not you personally) does not like the sound. But I still have yet to see any denial of the fact that CG necks in general have advantages over wooden necks in terms of action and stability. CG IS a more stable and controlable substance than wood. If you were to isolate every other variable, that would always be the case. That's not zealotry, nor am I trying to convince someone they should like one thing over the other. However, Brad, you cannot deny that many people make the assumption that anything made with CG will sound sterile, plasticky, etc. etc. etc. In my experience there have been lots of comments to that effect (look at just this thread for example), and that opinion is made on lack of knowledge or experience with CG constructed instruments.
Aesthetics are a big part of buying any instrument (and many other things). I'll gladly accept that fact, and agree that its a valid reason, for not wanting a headless bass. However, functionally speaking a headless still has advantages that you can't get with a headed bass, and that most people's reasoning for not wanting one has more to do with looks than function. I'd be willing to bet that if the first basses had been headless, then folks would be scratching their heads as to why someone would put a big chunk of wood with unreliable and sensitive machinery at the other end.
And I've never ranted. Nothing I've said is meant derogatorily or printed with great passion. I'm simply stating what I think are valid opinions and facts. If you don't like my statements Brad, that's O.K. with me, no harm done, and I didn't mean to make you think I had a problem with you personally.
Cheers!
Just to be clear, I too have both wood and CG, headed and headless basses. I understand there is a sound difference between the two, and have no problem if someone (not you personally) does not like the sound. But I still have yet to see any denial of the fact that CG necks in general have advantages over wooden necks in terms of action and stability. CG IS a more stable and controlable substance than wood. If you were to isolate every other variable, that would always be the case. That's not zealotry, nor am I trying to convince someone they should like one thing over the other. However, Brad, you cannot deny that many people make the assumption that anything made with CG will sound sterile, plasticky, etc. etc. etc. In my experience there have been lots of comments to that effect (look at just this thread for example), and that opinion is made on lack of knowledge or experience with CG constructed instruments.
Aesthetics are a big part of buying any instrument (and many other things). I'll gladly accept that fact, and agree that its a valid reason, for not wanting a headless bass. However, functionally speaking a headless still has advantages that you can't get with a headed bass, and that most people's reasoning for not wanting one has more to do with looks than function. I'd be willing to bet that if the first basses had been headless, then folks would be scratching their heads as to why someone would put a big chunk of wood with unreliable and sensitive machinery at the other end.
And I've never ranted. Nothing I've said is meant derogatorily or printed with great passion. I'm simply stating what I think are valid opinions and facts. If you don't like my statements Brad, that's O.K. with me, no harm done, and I didn't mean to make you think I had a problem with you personally.
Cheers!
I don't know, I figure painters must have been pretty excited when the paint-brush came along. And how about that bass guitar, and roundwounds, and onboard EQ, and extended-range basses, and amplifiers, and... well, I guess you might see where I'm going with this.
Then they should've been estatic when the spray can came along.
Some interesting "opinions." My empirical evidence is that in 9 years of playing out with my Zon fretless with graphite neck and Lightwave (1st generation) system, I always get at least one, "wow, that bass sounds amazing" comment. While I would like to attribute it to my playing, the reality is that for whatever reason the combination of graphite neck (which is rock stable), phenolic fretboard, ash body and Lightwave system gives amazing tone. Both live and recorded direct.
I can't speak for other graphite applications, but this one is magic and I'll never sell it. And a fellow bass friend who saw it first to this day regrets that he didn't snap it up before I did.
I can't speak for other graphite applications, but this one is magic and I'll never sell it. And a fellow bass friend who saw it first to this day regrets that he didn't snap it up before I did.
The problem isn't that they have advantages, the problem is you state as fact that they have no disadvantages. If that were actually true there'd be a ton of them out there now. It's not. A more complicated build is a disadvantage. Higher cost is a disadvantage. Disagree?
Stability I'll give you. Action I can't because I own and have played basses that can set up as evenly and as low (if not lower... the fretjob still matters and composites have no lock there) and play as clean as any composite neck I've come across. And if the composite doesn't have a trussrod, it has the disavantage of not being adjustable. There is no one relief fits all and varying string tensions can cause changes in relief even on composite necks.
Yes, many people do spout baseless, cockeyed opinions about the stuff. But stating there's no downside doesn't help either... it's the pendulum swinging hard to the other extreme.
Ever play a headless bass with no volute? IME it's annoying. Ever been scratched/cut by a non-ball end string end on a headless that uses a clamp to hold the cutoff strings? Ever need a ball end string in a town with stores that don't carry them?
You seem to think that most folks' aversion to headless is illogical. Mine is based on owning and gigging with them. If I could find a Steinberger that sounded like one of my current gigging basses, that had the tonal flexibility, the wide spacing, the ease of using the string I want to use, that didn't feel like I was swinging around a stick, I'd probably own it. Were any of those requirements unreasonable? Seemed pretty ordinary to me.
Headless basses had their shot. There were even pretty affordable models available but after the novelty wore off, what they didn't deliver became obvious to many bassists. Cool idea but the execution suffered. IMO.
No problem. I did take it as you singling me out, which as I said made no sense to me considering how much I liked my composite necked Zon, Ambush and Modulus, how long ago I got my Fleishman stick bass (warts and all) and how often I recommended them.
BTW my first bass was headless. It was a 2x4 with clothesline strings, roofing nail "tuners" and pencilled in fretlines. I couldn't wait to get one with a headstock.
