Woodinblack

All bar one of mine are 5 strings so I wouldn't know. Also all of my SRs have mahogany bodys and a certain amount of wenge in the neck. The 5005 is over 10lb, not sure how much. Yep, both the 1605 and 2605 are 8.2lb, the 5005 is 10.4lb (and for reference my chambered Maruszczyk is 8.8)

I didn't see a comment for this, but noticed it on facebook Not sure if you have to be on facebook to see it, but it interesting hearing the differences (and in some cases, lack of) between these basses

It does. The MIC squier classic vibe I got is excellent.

I doubt it - can't get the staff!

And here is the family (although the fretless left home!). 2 premiums, two prestiges.

The 5005 is heavier than most fender types I have tried, except one late 70s fender which was I assume actually contained a small neutron star. The 2600 is very light. Now I look at the 4500, I suspect that it is light. I was commenting on them yesterday, considering the similarity in construction and that the difference is just really the top panel, it is amazing the weight difference. the 1605 is so light that I had to change the machine heads for ultralites to stop the head heavy thing. The 5005 is dripping in wenge. The 2605 has that amazing neck with the 13 woods and they both have titanium rods. It pretty well never needs tuning. Speaking as a confirmed nordy lover, although those pickups are great, strangely when cutting through, the 5005 probably wins as whatever the situation, you can vary its sound. There actually isn't much difference between the front and back of the premiums, the back is obviously more trebbly, but basically the sound the same. The front and back pickups of the 5005 (and I assume the earlier ones) don't even sound like they are on the same bass (they are not even close to the same volume) Oh - one difference though, my 5005 has a glockenklang preamp in it. The original premium preamps are dire, and I assume this goes for the 4500 too, 3v things where the treble stops working (like if there is one control you need, its that one). The later ones got the same preamp as the premiums, because it is a good preamp. I wouldn't want the choice you have, but obviously it would come down to the price, as previously mentioned, the resale prices are not great on ibanezes for whatever reason. I lusted after the 2605 when it came out but didn't get it because it was very expensive, then in the sales last year it went down £400 so I got it then. If I sold it I would almost certainly have to go down another £400 or so. The premium if I sold it would probably be the same I bought it for, maybe more as it was cheap (less than the 2605). I guess that is the way with second hand things.

I currently have a 1605, the burled wood one that wasn't produced long which is known as #1 bass, the 2605 currilian blue (also burled) premiums and a 5005 prestige. the prestige is good, no question, but it weighs a ton which is why I don't gig it as much. I love the nords on the premiums, although there is a lot more variations on the barts on the prestige, they are not like the standard range barts, they are closer to the nords than those. tbh, I find the 2605 harder to take out because I am worried about scratching it whereas the others are just wood. obviously these things depend on price, the 2605 and 5005 would probably both be at the front if I had to sell one (the 1605 will be buried with me), but I would lose a lot more on the 2605 as I bough it new for more than the 5005. i suspect the 4500 is lighter than the 5005 so if it came down to one, I would probably get that. Having said that the 2600s are beautiful things.

My HB jazz was an excellent instrument, apart from the weight. It was the best sounding jazz i have had, and it was good (maybe the nut could have been better). I would have it apart from the weight thing.

Its not the look, its just a bad bridge trying to be a copy of a rickenbacker (which itself is an awful bridge, but in a different way). There are a lot better bridges cheaper (and more expensive), and it seems to be put there for the reason of looking like a rickenbacker. I am sure it is possible to make a bridge looking like that that works.

It would look nice without that horrible bridge, the chickenbacker bridge. Either use a proper bridge or at least the proper rick copy bridge, not that thing.

How odd considering that inverting the pickup is a massive difference compared to changing to 35" scale, which is like fretting the first fret. So I guess a 35" sounds muddy on the f?

Oh I like the angle thing

One of those with a 16.5-17mm bridge spacing and a 3/2 headstock would be better!

Because everyone knows bass players only play fender shaped basses.

That would depend entirely on what note you are playing, your type of strings and how you played the note.

I have bought from Poland, Holland and the US, back when the exchange rate was better. Never had an issue. Probably not worth it now unless it's something you can't get elsewhere

I think my original 5p pickup was delano, before I changed it.

Obviously this depends on what you were used to. I would call 16.5 normal string spacing and 20mm extra wide, unless you are embedded in the fender world, where these sort of widths would be more common.

Mine doesn't - its one of those ones with an orange LED for additional heft.

I have a nordstrand P5 on my Maruszczyk and it seems to cut through fine.

Oh yes they do!!

Just to ruin that, preamp valves usually do glow!

That's unfair, some rickenbackers sound ok!

Nope but I have two devices that do it on my bench at the moment!

No - but the valves in the OP aren't power valves, they are preamp valves.