Why do the old ones sound better?

[paul h]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1280777' date='Jun 24 2011, 11:48 AM']If you mean often right, yes

I just heard something I like that loosely paraphrased was, cynical is a name for those with insight that is not shared by those using the term.[/quote]

Hahaha! Love it.

I'm going to make up my own definitions for words to make me sound better too.

Fat is a name for well endowed men with super powers.

I'm so awesome.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1280654' date='Jun 24 2011, 10:40 AM']That's just an assumption. Have you seen any data based on measuring?[/quote]
Here's some data for you... You are 100% wrong.

It wasn't an assumption, it was a proposal posed as a question - hence my sentence starting with "I wonder if.....".

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1280654' date='Jun 24 2011, 10:40 AM']Almost all if not all vintage explanations are simply conjecture with some anecdotal evidence in the best cases.[/quote]
Have you proof of this? Your statement seems to be based upon conjecture with some anecdotal content.

Whoopah!

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Dave Vader' post='1280724' date='Jun 24 2011, 11:22 AM']Ah, yes you're right certainly. But the (oh dear god what am I starting) different tonal characteristics between a hefty maple body and a standard alder one will be there for the hearing (what I mean is, if you build it from maple, it will be a lot less fendery).

And 'tronics are just as debatable as woods, whilst differing pups certainly sound different or better, I'm not sure I could pick out the hand-wound from the scatter-wound from the machine wound, or the ceramic from the alnico in a line-up either.[/quote]
But in the grand scheme of things, the body wood contributes less to overall tone than the tronics. For argument's sake I'll pluck a figure out of the air along the lines of 2% - 98% to illustrate the difference.

I agree about the ceramic / alnico thing. They are just floating magnets for gods sake.

[Beedster]

[quote name='Big_Stu' post='1280871' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:45 PM']belief...[/quote]

Yep, that's the key word. Such theories are easily tested, and I'm sure they have been. Magnets either do or do not lose force, and this either does or does not have an effect on the signal generated.

I believe that when I bump into Kylie she'll be instantly attracted to me. If anyone can arrange a test of that theory, please PM me.

[Beedster]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1280877' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:46 PM']But in the grand scheme of things, the body wood contributes less to overall tone than the tronics. For argument's sake I'll pluck a figure out of the air along the lines of 2% - 98% to illustrate the difference.[/quote]

I was very surprised when I was first told that, but a lot of experts appear to agree.

[Clarky]

[quote name='Beedster' post='1280883' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:49 PM']I believe that when I bump into Kylie she'll be instantly attracted to me. If anyone can arrange a test of that theory, please PM me.[/quote]
Unfortunately it will be Kylie off Coronation Street

[attachment=83388:12990827...6330x330.jpg]

[chris_b]

[quote].... Why do the old ones sound better?....[/quote]
I dunno, we just do.

[4000]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1280651' date='Jun 24 2011, 10:37 AM']It's all in the mind, unless you have faith it isn't. But if you go by what people can hear and not how they feel when they are playing something then the difference is undetectable. No one can tell vintage by listening alone.

It can't be the wood because you hear the vintage tone even with a new body and fingerboard. It's called psychoacoustic phenomena and is well documented as a science. No one can hear age in a controlled test. Many claim they can but no one can do it. The color of the room you are in will influence your perception of sound, your expectations of an instrument and your resulting filtering of what you select to hear or not will have a major influence on how something sounds to you.[/quote]

Whilst you can't hear age, you can hear difference. Obviously "better" (to the ears of the listener) may or may not correspond with "older" but it's quite feasible an older instrument (and this also potentially applies to newer ones of course), all other things being equal, may have a sound you prefer and that isn't imagined.

I do think the assumption that an older instrument definitely sounds better is inherently flawed as they'll all vary, as do new ones, and of course it's all down to personal preference anyway. My main '72 Ric is my favourite-sounding of the many, many Rics I've played. I used to think all basses made in that period would sound more or less the same, but they don't. And then of course whilst it's my favourite sounding Ric played on it's own and in most situations, in some it doesn't cut it as well. When our guitarist is using his Strat it sits perfectly. If he uses a humbucker-equipped guitar my other '72 sounds better IMO in that context.

Of course where parts have been replaced, as in this case, then it's no longer the bass it was is it?

[charic]

Define "better" ?

[Clarky]

[quote name='charic' post='1280908' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:58 PM']Define "better" ?[/quote]
not as good as betterer

[chris_b]

....but better than worse.

[4000]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1280876' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:46 PM']Here's some data for you... You are 100% wrong.

It wasn't an assumption, it was a proposal posed as a question - hence my sentence starting with "I wonder if.....".


Have you proof of this? Your statement seems to be based upon conjecture with some anecdotal content.

Whoopah!


[/quote]

[Beedster]

[quote name='Clarky' post='1280892' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:53 PM']Unfortunately it will be Kylie off Coronation Street

[attachment=83388:12990827...6330x330.jpg][/quote]

Who did you think I was talking about mate?

[neepheid]

It helps that none of my (older) basses were made for production runs long enough to debate the relative merits of different eras of manufacture

Gibson G-3 : 1975-1985 (10 years, and last 5 years were sporadic production)
Gibson Victory Artist : 1981-1986 (5 years)
Gibson IV : 1987-1989 (2 years)
Guild B401-A : 1980-1981 (2 years)

"My 1980 B401-A is so much better than your 1981" - a ridiculous assertion!

Is this just a Fender thing (and to a lesser degree Musicman) simply because of the length of time that the basses have been manufactured?

Fender Precision : 1951-present (60 years)
Fender Jazz : 1960-present (51 years)
Musicman Stingray : 1976-present (35 years)

These would be the main three longest serving war horses I guess?

[paul h]

Seriously though folks, this raises some serious issues that need to be seriously addressed. Seriously. I think we should all club together and get the problem sorted. I'm serious.

Vibrating G String, you take musicians. Ou7shined you take custom luthiers. I will take the large guitar manufacturers. Can someone else take please pickup manufacturers?

Right, if we start emailing everyone now we should be able to tell everyone they are wrong within a year or so. I suggest the subject line "You are 100% WRONG". That should grab their attention.

VGS: I suggest starting with Marcus Miller. I once saw an interview with him where he claimed he preferred maple fingerboards because they were brighter. What an IDIOT! MILLER! You are 100% WRONG!

O7: Luthiers. Take your pick. They all seem to have opinions about wood. They are all WRONG! Maybe send them some links to plywood suppliers to help them out? That would be cool.

Whoever takes pickup manufacturers...GOOD LUCK is all I can say. Those bastards are always going on about how ceramic and alnico magnets sound different. It makes me sick.

GO GO GO! We've only got 24 hours to save the etc. etc.

[molan]

[quote name='Beedster' post='1280883' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:49 PM']I believe that when I bump into Kylie she'll be instantly attracted to me. If anyone can arrange a test of that theory, please PM me.[/quote]

I bumped into Dannii once whilst ligging backstage at a gig in Hammersmith. The guy I was with vaguely knew her and she proudly thrust her breasts at us and proclaimed how much better the new ones looked than the old ones.

I had to agree

Just goes to show that sometimes the latest models can be nicer than the 'vintage' originals

[chris_b]

[quote name='neepheid' post='1280929' date='Jun 24 2011, 01:13 PM']....Is this just a Fender thing (and to a lesser degree Musicman) simply because of the length of time that the basses have been manufactured?....[/quote]
This isn't a recent thing.

By the end of the 60's it was "known" that pre CBS basses were better. The term was already in use by then; that's only 4 years after CBS took over!

[charic]

[quote name='paul h' post='1280934' date='Jun 24 2011, 01:17 PM']Seriously though folks, this raises some serious issues that need to be seriously addressed. Seriously. I think we should all club together and get the problem sorted. I'm serious.

Vibrating G String, you take musicians. Ou7shined you take custom luthiers. I will take the large guitar manufacturers. Can someone else take please pickup manufacturers?

Right, if we start emailing everyone now we should be able to tell everyone they are wrong within a year or so. I suggest the subject line "You are 100% WRONG". That should grab their attention.

VGS: I suggest starting with Marcus Miller. I once saw an interview with him where he claimed he preferred maple fingerboards because they were brighter. What an IDIOT! MILLER! You are 100% WRONG!

O7: Luthiers. Take your pick. They all seem to have opinions about wood. They are all WRONG! Maybe send them some links to plywood suppliers to help them out? That would be cool.

Whoever takes pickup manufacturers...GOOD LUCK is all I can say. Those bastards are always going on about how ceramic and alnico magnets sound different. It makes me sick.

GO GO GO! We've only got 24 hours to save the etc. etc.

[/quote]

Sounds like a plan

[neepheid]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1280945' date='Jun 24 2011, 01:23 PM']This isn't a recent thing.[/quote]

I didn't say it was.

I said that those basses in particular have been around long enough to have several distinct periods in time in which they were anecdotally regarded as "good" and "not so good".

[molan]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1280945' date='Jun 24 2011, 01:23 PM']This isn't a recent thing.

By the end of the 60's it was "known" that pre CBS basses were better. The term was already in use by then; that's only 4 years after CBS took over![/quote]

I first started buying NME & Melody Maker in the early '70s (probably around '72) and can clearly remember people advertising 'pre-CBS Fenders then and asking for higher prices than brand new ones.

[stevie]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1280728' date='Jun 24 2011, 11:26 AM']Someone bought an original '61 Strat in to our shop. As soon as it was plugged in you could hear how much better it sounded. As a bass player I hate the back pickup on Strats, but this was fat and smooth - no harshness whatever. The whole sound and tone was just amazing.[/quote]
After all those years, what are the chances that the pickups were original?

A Duncan APS-1 will improve the sound of the back pickup on any pre CBS strat - not that many people are likely to swap.

[Ancient Mariner]

A lot of the time it's not how the instrument sounds of itself, but [b]how it responds to our playing[/b].

[Wil]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1280987' date='Jun 24 2011, 01:49 PM']A lot of the time it's not how the instrument sounds of itself, but [b]how it responds to our playing[/b].[/quote]

Very true.

[4 Strings]

Back to the OP - Its the strings!

These have the largest effect on the sound and he has very old flats. If there's a blind test with three similar basses then he has to use the same strings.

Its absolutely impossible to tell the difference between such subtleties as tone woods on an electric bass with such steamroller sonic effects from different strings.

All new basses will sound more brittle/brassy/thin (enter adjective here) than an old war horse as they'll have new strings.

Also I would willingly tell Marcus Miller he's wrong about maple fingerboards sounding brighter. They look it, definitely, but its impossible for them to sound brighter as the wood is softer and less dense than rosewood. Similarly ebony, being darker is supposed to be warmer but its properties are harder and more dense and so will sound brighter (remember those aluminium necked travesties in the 80s?)

Perception is everything. As someone else posted, an old guitar is going to sound great as soon as its known to be old. I don't get the soaked in vibrations thing either, certainly not for mass produced lumps of wood an inch thick.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='paul h' post='1280934' date='Jun 24 2011, 01:17 PM']Seriously though folks, this raises some serious issues that need to be seriously addressed. Seriously. I think we should all club together and get the problem sorted. I'm serious.

Vibrating G String, you take musicians. Ou7shined you take custom luthiers. I will take the large guitar manufacturers. Can someone else take please pickup manufacturers?

Right, if we start emailing everyone now we should be able to tell everyone they are wrong within a year or so. I suggest the subject line "You are 100% WRONG". That should grab their attention.

VGS: I suggest starting with Marcus Miller. I once saw an interview with him where he claimed he preferred maple fingerboards because they were brighter. What an IDIOT! MILLER! You are 100% WRONG!

O7: Luthiers. Take your pick. They all seem to have opinions about wood. They are all WRONG! Maybe send them some links to plywood suppliers to help them out? That would be cool.

Whoever takes pickup manufacturers...GOOD LUCK is all I can say. Those bastards are always going on about how ceramic and alnico magnets sound different. It makes me sick.

GO GO GO! We've only got 24 hours to save the etc. etc.

[/quote]
I'm game but can I have a different group please?
I don't want to take on luthiers. They know better than anybody on the planet the properties of wood.... the fact that they don't pass on what they actually know to the punters is up to them (the reason being it helps put food on the table). There's a word for it.... ah yes marketing.

Like, where do you go when everyone has a razor with 5 blades - the 6 bladed razor of course. It makes shaving better! (my heart sinks)
Meanwhile over on Razorchat we find the guys who gush wildly over the 6 blades for a closer shave, then you still have the guys with their boring old 5 blade razors who (while obviously are subhuman morons) somehow still managed to get shaved. The Razor company side with the 6 blade guys.

Besides, I know that body wood (even ply) affects tone*... it's just not much.

*sustain is affected more but we're not on that subjet..... yet.