[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1363097506' post='2008391']
Hmmmm, maybe there are better ways of building them, but that doesn't mean that the end result is necessarily better.
For example, my two main basses are a reasonable new (2009 I think) Fender J bass and a 1986 Status series II. Both are very well put together (despite being made from very different materials and using very different methods). Is one better than the other?
Yes and no (IMO).
The Status is undeniably a "better quality" instrument, and certainly took a lot more man-hours to design and assemble. It is a neck-thru rather than the BO Fender. It balances beautifully. It sustains for ever. It has no dead spots or inconsistencies on the neck. The pickups are silent. The preamp is powerful but usable (although 3 band would be better!). All in all, it is just a "better" bass than the Geddy Lee jazz.
So why do I end up playing the J more, or even at all?
Because, despite the dated design and production methods, Fender quite simply "got it right" with this bass (IMO).
There may be different ways to get there, but the ultimate destination is the same - a bass that feels good, looks good and sounds good. New is not always better... Just look at architecture!
[/quote]
I also once owned a Status S2 and compared to the Fenders I've owned, it was certainly leagues ahead in design/build and as you say, sustained for ever. As it happens though I don't think that makes for the tones I enjoy (I mean, sustain is all well and good, but IMO the decay of a note can have as much of an impact on the tone as it's attack) , and as such I'm squarely back in the Fender (or Fender style) camp.