Why do the old ones sound better?

[matski]

[quote name='4 Strings' post='1281021' date='Jun 24 2011, 02:20 PM']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.[/quote]


STOP THAT!! You'll be telling us there's no Father Christmas next!

[paul h]

[quote name='4 Strings' post='1281021' date='Jun 24 2011, 02:20 PM']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.

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

[b]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?)[/b]

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.[/quote]

First of all every new bass I have ever played has had crap strings on it. Also the idea that new basses all have new strings on them and old basses all have old strings on them is , actually I don't what it is. 100% wrong?

And I am not sure why your opinion is more valid than MM's. Mmm. Who to believe, random internet stranger, or top class professional bass player? Tough call.

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1281026' date='Jun 24 2011, 02:25 PM']Like, where do you go when everyone has a razor with 5 blades - the 6 bladed razor of course. It makes shaving better![/quote]

But alternatives to the 5-bladed razor do exist, y'know ...

[attachment=83396:zztoplegs.jpg]

[skej21]

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='1281042' date='Jun 24 2011, 02:35 PM'][b]Butt[/b] alternatives to the 5-bladed razor do exist, y'know ...

[attachment=83396:zztoplegs.jpg][/quote]

FIXED!

[Dave Vader]

[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.

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

I think we may be vaguely agreeing somewhere, but I'm not sure.

My tale is one of woe, hang on a minute....
Back when I was a young lad I had a cheap as hell jap-crap strat copy that I, as a 13 year old, assumed was crap. I went on to play a bunch of far more expensive guitars, but didn't like them anything like as much as that cheap as hell japcrap strat.
I eventually got my hands on what was supposedly a pre-CBS strat. (It really wasn't at all, years later I stripped it and found plywood) I always assumed I just preferrd cheap nasty guitars (always thought that japcrap was ply, again, stripped it later, tis nothing of the sort). Now I swapped the pickups between the 2 more times than I can remember, and both sounded completely different when swapped round, and nothing like the other in either situation (if you get my drift).
Turns out that nasty jap crap strat (still have it) was one of them there fujigen-gakki ones that fender got so upset about, and made of a lovely lump of alder or somesuch. Which is why the pretend pre-CBS got sold on for sweeties.
Point is that by golly was the tone of those two different (I used to swap the necks around a lot as well, with similar results) when the only difference was body wood.
Turns out I don't just prefer the sound of cheap and nasty after all, shame, bit like that crappy old WEM amp I used to play through....

[Beedster]

[quote name='molan' post='1280937' date='Jun 24 2011, 01:19 PM']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

[/quote]

That's been refinned and I doubt they're all original parts (the pups have certainly been rewound). However, the magnetism seems intact, and I've heard the playing action's pretty good?

[Happy Jack]

What about the string spacing?

[Mr Fudge]

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='1281129' date='Jun 24 2011, 03:30 PM']What about the string spacing?[/quote]


Mmmmmnnnnnnn ..... string

[skej21]

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='1281129' date='Jun 24 2011, 03:30 PM']What about the string spacing?[/quote]

Definitely enough space for my sausage ([size=1]fingers[/size]) to get in the gap!

Edited June 24, 2011 by skej21

[redstriper]

Thanks for all the replies.

It seems 100% unanimous that the old ones do not in fact sound better.

My old one sounds better to my ears and to everyone I've ever played it to in blind tests from non musicians to audio professionals, but it's clearly nothing to do with it's age.
This has even been the case with exactly the same strings and the difference in tone is so noticeable that I'm sure any of you would agree if you heard the comparison for yourselves.

I'm not surprised by the response on here, but I did expect there might be one or two people who thought the old ones sound better than the new and I had hoped some owners of early models would have given their opinion.

The market for vintage Fender basses must have very little to do with their sound and more to do with collectibilty and investment value.

[Mr. Foxen]

The reason old ones do sound better is due to attrition. Bad sounding basses get parted out and modified and suchlike, good sounding ones get kept.

[chris_b]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281307' date='Jun 24 2011, 05:50 PM']....I'm not surprised by the response on here, but I did expect there might be one or two people who thought the old ones sound better than the new and I had hoped some owners of early models would have given their opinion.

The market for vintage Fender basses must have very little to do with their sound and more to do with collectibilty and investment value....[/quote]
There are 5 pages of personal opinions here!

There are a lot of players who rate the feel and sound of older Fender basses and they're not wrong. It's your heart, head, wallet and reputation. Get what you think sounds right for you.

Some Fender and Gibson instruments have become investments and many more will do so. But their sound won't be a factor.

[redstriper]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1281325' date='Jun 24 2011, 06:07 PM']There are 5 pages of personal opinions here![/quote]

But none from anyone who thinks old Fenders sound better than new ones and I am surprised by the strength of that opinion.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281307' date='Jun 24 2011, 05:50 PM']....My old one sounds better to my ears....[/quote]
That's the clincher right there.

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281307' date='Jun 24 2011, 05:50 PM']....The market for vintage Fender basses must have very little to do with their sound and more to do with collectibilty and investment value.[/quote]
Spot the dog... also the "Behold, I'm serious" factor (*ducks* ) can attract the wealthier players amongst us. There's without a doubt a certain cachet to owning [b]and[/b] playing a vintage instrument and deep down no matter your stand point we probably all want one.

[gareth]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281332' date='Jun 24 2011, 06:17 PM']But none from anyone who thinks old Fenders sound better than new ones and I am surprised by the strength of that opinion.[/quote]

I should have spoken up earlier cos i am with you and definately think older fenders sound better than new ones

I am suprised wateroftyne has not added his voice too in support of this proposition - maybe he is away on tour/holidays/etc?

For myself I am not fortunate enough to have really early fenders but I do have them from late 60's onwards

Certainly regarding precisions the earlier the better

Regarding jazzes, I have a 69 and a 74 and the 69 is lighter and to me sounds better.

Should add that you should also try some of the reissues - particularly the fullerton USA vintage re-issues and the USA custom shop basses.

[chris_b]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281332' date='Jun 24 2011, 06:17 PM']....But none from anyone who thinks old Fenders sound better than new ones and I am surprised by the strength of that opinion....[/quote]
You've only heard one side. I think most of the "for" guys just don't want to get into yet another yes-it-is/no-it-isn't argument. They know what they know and they own the instruments to prove it.

Vintage basses cost a fortune but there are modern "vintage" basses being made today that perform much better than many of the originals, and they won't break the bank. Also, I wouldn't take a 60's Fender or any £3000-£6000 bass to a pub gig!

[Wil]

This has some interesting footage of the Fender factory pre CBS. It looks like any other workshop, no magic elves or anything

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1281375' date='Jun 24 2011, 07:02 PM']You've only heard one side. I think most of the "for" guys just don't want to get into yet another yes-it-is/no-it-isn't argument. They know what they know and they own the instruments to prove it.

Vintage basses cost a fortune but there are modern "vintage" basses being made today that perform much better than many of the originals, and they won't break the bank. Also, I wouldn't take a 60's Fender or any £3000-£6000 bass to a pub gig![/quote]

I'm a recent convert. Having been through LOTS of basses (see my sig) I finally bought a 1966 Precision at Xmas.

Astounding.

Outstanding.

I've had Alembic and Wal, Lakland and Status, Shuker and Goodfellow, etc.

They were all great basses, all far more competent as instruments than I will ever be as a player. But the 1966 Fender simply nailed THE sound, effortlessly. Flat EQ, no pedals, simple rig, game over, Fender wins.

Bear in mind that I am realistic enough to know that this vintage & rare, multi-£000s instrument is actually a mass-produced basic tool, bottom of the range at the time, put together by a bunch of low-paid guys who could never have guessed that it would still be around 45 years later and worth silly money too.

It doesn't sound good because I want it to, or because it cost me a lot of money, or because people tell me that old = better. It's just a genuinely excellent bass. Maybe that's because it's old. And then again, maybe it's not.

[JTUK]

[quote name='Low End Bee' post='1280575' date='Jun 24 2011, 09:47 AM']I don't buy the vintage is better thing.
I've played lots of old ones. I've played lots of new ones. There's not much in it for me, Some old ones are better than some new ones and vice versa.[/quote]

Me too... My 77 Jazz was the biggest piece of crap ....and people want £1450 now because of its date.
Fender are capable of making crap basses now just as they were then..decent ones survived.

[thodrik]

Depends on the bass. There are gems and dogs throughout the decades when it comes. Wouldn't change my old 78 Precision for anything, including a pre CBS one. I played a few older Jazzes (69, 71 and 75) last year that I really didn't like and I newer one that I nearly liked, and a Sandberg and Sadowsky that were amazing. A different person would rank those same basses in an entirely different order. It is not something that bothers me.

[4 Strings]

I didn't say all old basses have old strings, just that the OP said his had old flats.

Yep, believe everything a celebrity says, they know everything.



[quote name='paul h' post='1281032' date='Jun 24 2011, 02:28 PM']First of all every new bass I have ever played has had crap strings on it. Also the idea that new basses all have new strings on them and old basses all have old strings on them is , actually I don't what it is. 100% wrong?

And I am not sure why your opinion is more valid than MM's. Mmm. Who to believe, random internet stranger, or top class professional bass player? Tough call.[/quote]

[skankdelvar]

Sixty-odd years and hundreds of thousands of good, bad and indifferent Fenders means that using production date as a parameter is like playing darts blindfolded. In a room full of dartboards.

But it's nice to know we care enough about it that we go off on these little jaunts from time to time.

Edited June 24, 2011 by skankdelvar

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1281308' date='Jun 24 2011, 05:52 PM']The reason old ones do sound better is due to attrition. Bad sounding basses get parted out and modified and suchlike, good sounding ones get kept.[/quote]


Kind of true, (certainly is about cars) but not too many Fender basses get junked.

They can be fiddled with and improved over the years, but even allowing for pickup magnets to change etc doesn't account for the excellent comment someone else made about the guitar sounds on some old recordings being fabulous. Just been to see the Fellowship up at the Chelmsford Bassment - the Guthrie Govan/Zac Barrett weekly meander - and the stand-in guitarist was using a pedal board run by his Mac and two Mackenzie powered wedges for amps. The days of wood, valves etc seemingly on the way out.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='paul h' post='1280873' date='Jun 24 2011, 04:46 AM']I'm going to make up my own definitions for words to make me sound better too.[/quote]
You didn't get it?

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1280876' date='Jun 24 2011, 04:46 AM']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]
This statement.

"todays wire will be 99.9999% perfect."

Not a lot of people here using the whole sentence