evilLordJuju

The EB3 is my main stage bass too. One thing i've noticed over the years is the [u]massive[/u] effect of room acoustics on this bass. The ultra fat sound (varitone position 1) can either be way too loud or way too quiet compared to the bridge pickup only (varitone position 2). It seems in a small room it just takes over everything, but in a larger room gets lost. I use both of these settings regularly (and sometimes 3 and 4 too), and always wish i'd spent more time in soundcheck seeing what relative volume is right for the room. [quote name='hatori' post='582225' date='Aug 27 2009, 10:22 AM']Why dont they reissue the EB3L slotted peg head with the original pickup selector configuration?[/quote] The current SG bass isn't as extreme in tone as the EB3, but the sound is a lot more controllable on stage. You don't get the wild volume changes of the varitone. I think they sacrificed a bit of classic mojo for a better working instrument. I still prefer the EB3 though.

[quote name='henry norton' post='577408' date='Aug 22 2009, 10:20 AM']Is your EB an original white finish?[/quote] In my avatar? that is actually a [url="http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/KalamazooKBbass.php"]kalamazoo KB bass[/url] - basically a bolt-on maple neck on a chipboard body, but with Gibson pickups and hardware. They are nice sounding basses really - if you like boomy EB0s - made in Kalamazoo still though. Gibson was phasing out those bridges and handrests, so just used them up on these. The bodies were actually made by a toilet seat manufacturer in Wisconsin White is a common colour with Kalamazoo basses. But I am about to collect my newly refinned white EB3L. A sister to my (also refinned) [url="http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/1971gibsonEB3L.php"]black Gibson EB3L[/url]. I think she'll get gigged a lot over the next few months.

[quote name='henry norton' post='577025' date='Aug 21 2009, 07:26 PM']Don't worry too much about Hipshot Supertone bridges and suchlike - I think spending an extra eighty odd quid kind of makes you want to hear a difference that isn't really there. [/quote] No, you are right, but I think most people that change out the bridge are doing so because the Gibson 3 point can be tricky to adjust, and sometimes just doesn't go low enough. Or they lost a saddle and can't get a replacement (moreso with the older ones). Personally I have no problems with them, but i've had a lot of practise. The hipshot is easier to adjust still though, no practise required.

No, I have some NOS (from the greatdealz people) bicentennial thunderbird pickup 'cases' that I would use. I know the Lull ones are very well regarded, but a pair would cost more than this bass! I would like to try them sometime though. No, since my first post I have played it a bit more, and have decided to keep it stock. My children had been fiddling with my amp, and so the first few goes were with very odd settings. I didn't notice, thinking it was just the bass, but after spotting it, it sounds a zillion times better. I actually LOVE This bass - as is, and advise you all to get one Fantastic value for money

Nice basses really - at least if you want the EB3 vibe without the problems of 40 year old basses. Having said this, they are not quite the same - whereas the EB3 goes from super-bass to super-honky, the SG bass is a much subtler affair. Most people regard those extremes on the EB3 as too extreme anyway, at least to use in a real situation - you may well prefer this 'tamed' version to the real thing. Try one! ([url="http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/2006gibsonSGreissue.php"]heres mine by the way[/url] - not many about in that colour!)

Well, a short term fix would be to remove the mute. I don't suppose you use it do you? That will give you a little bit more room to go down

[quote name='Shaggy' post='574158' date='Aug 19 2009, 01:51 PM']A bit new and shiny for you ELJJ? (oh all right...new and matt / satin......) Looks lovely though, like something Gibson should have made in the '80's instead of the Explorer - tell us how you rate it![/quote] I know. It isn't really my sound - I may pacify it (or is it deactivate?) with some nice chrome-covered NOS tbird pups. I just thought it was a very nice bass for very little money, and being maple should be robust enough to take out without worrying all night. Did I mention I snapped my 60s non-rev bird. Well it was a resnap, so i'm not losing sleep over it. So far I like it, but I need to get some flatwounds installed sharpish.

Nice gear list. Aren't you even going to lay a photo on us?

Mine arrived today from imusician. I ordered it in February

These are fantastic basses. But I love hollow bodies, pickups at the neck and so on. A nice deep rumble as the name implies.

[quote name='hookys6stringbass' post='565570' date='Aug 10 2009, 11:57 PM']Anyone got one yet?? Anyone know where they're stocking them? Tried GAK and they said they wouldn't have any till the end of the year!!!![/quote] I ordered one in February... still no sign. I've been told that they have no idea when they will arrive. Gibson/epiphone are not answering 'when' questions, and yes, it might not be any time this year. They said I could have my money back though, if I don't want to wait.

This is the second time this bass has been up this year.... the buyer didn't like it enough to keep it?

[quote name='BigRedX' post='552736' date='Jul 27 2009, 03:27 PM']IMO in the early days, apart from the EB1 Gibson have been anything but conservative[/quote] No, you are not quite seeing what I mean... I mean conservative regards to music and musicians they promoted rather than design.... The British Invasion happened - where were the adverts for all those British guys playing Thunderbirds/Rivolis/EB2s Jack Bruce/Andy Fraser must have sold thousands of EB3s - where were the late sixties adverts? The only Jack Bruce advert came out in the seventies, after Cream had split Gibson was still advertising bow-tied blues artists (BB King), Country (Homer and Jethro) and Jazz (Wes Mongomery) etc RIGHT at the point that they should have had Jack Bruce and Eric Clapton I think the political situation in the US in the late sixties may have something to do with it - perhaps they were against the very un-conservative things going on in the world. Perhaps hippies made them mad? Whatever the reasons, Gibson advertising in the 1960s looks staid, and a good decade behind the times. Check some [url="http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/advertisements/gibson"]old Gibson adverts[/url] here

Gibson have always been a lot more conservative. Right at the begininng they decided a bass should be an upright, just like in Les Pauls Trio - so when they took their basses electric in the fifties they made the violin-shaped EB1. They were making Epiphone double basses too. Just about all the Gibson artists, workers and owners were into Jazz, bluegrass and so on. So Gibson made deep thumpy mahogany basses that fitted the role that the upright would have had. As the sixties wore on, this bass-role attitude changed a little, but it didn't really hit home until the seventies when they started using maple, and generally longer scales. The maple seventies basses sold well. Gibson have made some great basses - usually darker sounding than Fenders - but they have made so many variations (a lot more than Fender) that any generalisation about Gibson basses will almost certainly have exceptions

[quote name='beerdragon' post='550473' date='Jul 24 2009, 06:53 PM']Anyone seen one? played one?, i think they look pretty good. the electrics were made by Moog apparently.[/quote] They are nice basses. I've had three, one standard, one artist (both of which I sold on) and a custom - the one I kept. The look doesn't fit in with my current band, so it rarely gets played. I have considered selling it actually, but it's the kind of bass that I know i'll miss one day if I do. The electronics are by Tim Shaw by the way. See this page for more about the [url="http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/Chuck_Burge_victory.php"]development of the Gibson Victory[/url]

The new through-neck Epiphone birds are (will be) available as a five string.... I've got a four string on order, but no sign of it yet

Man.... you want the 1969 Muddy Waters album - Electric Mud. He hated it apparently, but I love it heres a track. Check it for funkiness [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0GMv_UMc9Y"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0GMv_UMc9Y[/url] In the same vein... Black Merda, early Funkadelic, late 60s Bo Diddley [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr3DasqX6Uw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr3DasqX6Uw[/url]

I think Gibsons often get lumped together - which isn't too helpful - Gibson have pushed hard over the years to win through with a bass, but never get very far - but as a consequence, they have tried a lot of different styles, scales, woods, pickups, constructions... Theres a Gibson bass to suit every player - generally well-built and in a similar price range to MIA Fender and Rickenbacker. Can't go wrong with an EB3

[quote name='YouMa' post='444598' date='Mar 25 2009, 12:40 AM']Rubbish,i like vintage guitars and a lot of the standards were better etc,but most of the early "electronics" employees were mrs bloggs from down the road in fullerton. And i know that the there was no holy grail search for woods,the guy was just trying to sell a decent guitar that would rival a hollow body. Wood from old trees is still available cheap as chips.[/quote] How about reading what I wrote before completely dismissing my post? Did I mention any electronics employees? Did I even mention Fullerton or Fender? I specifically mention Gibson. I talked about tapping tops, and listening to them. A bit different from winding a pickup. With regard woods i'm mostly talking about rosewood and mahogany (what Gibson basses were made of), not pine, or whatever they build Fenders out of . Ancient South American rainforests were cut down, and used as a matter of course in the 50s. I'm not 100% sure of the legal situation now, but you can't legally buy equivalent wood 'as cheap as chips' as you claim - if at all. Gibson do get sustainably collected mahogany still - but this isn't necessarily the wood they would have got 50 years ago, and if it is, it will be in much smaller quantities, and used on only a few top end guitars. [url="http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/profiles/documents/gibson_profile.pdf"]http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/profile...son_profile.pdf[/url] And you missed the point further too - my main point was about design - about the use of mutes, pickup placement, etc etc. It may not have changed much on some basses - but, for example, a 1963 Thunderbird is a very different bass to a 2009 Thunderbird.

Yeah, Rippers are fantastic basses in my opinion. I especially like the ones with maple bodies (some were alder), but like all things, a matter of opinion.