Vintage basses sound better

[Chiliwailer]

Haha Gary!

Well, if I do have the oldest that means I've outdone Rick's Fine 52, and that must surely be a world first!

[lemmywinks]

Acoustic instruments will differ as they age though, that is without question as they are reliant on the properties of the wood to produce sound. A Fender plank with a neck bolted on and a pickup wired in? Not so much.

[Chiliwailer]

Absolutely, it's also all about the starting point too though, the wood quality must be good to begin with.

Older Fender have that starting point of old mature and excellent quality wood. The ash on 50's Fenders is simply stunning, and the Brazilian fingerboards of 1959 up to 1966 have a very unique tone.

Really, the pickup is the only thing that ages as it de-magnetizes and becomes a little softer. The wood was great to begin with!

[Dingus]

I love a lot of vintage Fenders and think beautiful and fascinating objects, and I have no desire whatsoever to rubbish any ones vintage collection -if that what people want to spend their money on then fine- but , objectively, I really don't think Fender paid any attention whatsoever to the" quality" of their woods back in the vintage era, in fact they probably paid far less attention to that kind of thing than they do today. Such concerns are a much more modern preoccupation when it comes to building electric guitars, although I would readily concede that guitars do start to sound very slightly different as the wood ages and becomes more brittle, but that itself if offset by other generally negative degradations that come with age such as to the sound of the pickups .

I also have to be honest with you and say that I don't think there is any real perceivable superiority or indeed any real difference between the sound of a Brazilian rosewood fingerboard and an contemporary Indian, Honduran or Madagascan rosewood board . If you can hear that kind of a difference then you have got much more acute hearing than me.

In the final analysis, for all the captivating vintage associations that older basses have, you can walk in to a shop and buy a brand new Precision or Jazz Bass and it will sound incredibly similar overall to a pre-CBS one , and will probably play much better , stay in tune better and be much more reliable overall.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Dingus

[discreet]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1392919298' post='2374244']
...music is not a passion which attracts hard-headed rationalists.
[/quote]

Simon Cowell..? Mind you, he doesn't actually like music that much.

[quote name='razze06' timestamp='1392915555' post='2374162']
All the great basslines of the 60s and 70s were largely played on new instruments.
[/quote]

And recorded and mixed in analogue studios. Then mastered and pressed onto vinyl...

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='gary mac' timestamp='1392921973' post='2374294']
Does Mr Chili have the oldest most vintage instrument on BC. Wow 1870.
[/quote]

I have a wooden flute from a maker who operated from 1800-1830, but that's getting a bit far from a bass...

[The fasting showman]

There's an interesting Guitar Player magazine article I have (somewhere!) from '82 where the galactico guitar tech Alan Rogan is contrasting how Keith Richards prefers old guitars and Pete Townsend prefers new and the related maintenance issues for their respective gear. So there you have two guitarists that would historically be lumped together in terms of era and legendary status, possibly even musically, yet that have contrasting taste.
Is it down to, in that example, an inspiring guitar versus a rock solid guitar with no structural issues?
Much as I've said elsewhere that I find new music shops boring my tastes have changed since I've favoured Stingrays as my main bass, I prefer a new bass over an old one. Not that I can bloody afford to change any of my gear now anyway!
Martin

[discreet]

[quote name='The fasting showman' timestamp='1392927713' post='2374412']
Keith Richards prefers old guitars and Pete Townsend prefers new...
[/quote]

Er... probably because Pete Townsend's guitars d[size=4]idn't get a chance to age much before he smashed them to bits...[/size]

[The fasting showman]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1392928348' post='2374417']
Er... probably because Pete Townsend's guitars d[size=4]idn't get a chance to age much before he smashed them to bits...[/size]
[/quote]Of course there is that, but I think Rogan was saying that Townsend just playing harder takes it's toll on a guitar, not just the sacrificial ones.

[jezzaboy]

Eric Clapton could afford any vintage guitar out there but mostly plays custom built new strats. Granted, they are most likely the best quality guitars that Fender make but if vintage guitars sounded "better" I`m sure Eric would be playing them.

Vintage guitars = snake oil.

Ducks for cover....

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Chiliwailer' timestamp='1392920606' post='2374263']
Any room for a post about a guitar?

[attachment=155762:ljhf 022.jpg]

I have an old Martin parlour guitar from 1870 - with original hard case! It's Brazilian Rosewood back and sides and has such a sweet warm, soft and direct tone. Even strung with nylon strings this guitar defies how parlour guitars should sound, it has a big tone with lots of projection and absolutely no harsh mids, which parlours are known for. I've also tried two Martin parlours from the early 1900's when they switched to Mahogany, completely different guitar and not very nice at all.

The bridge and tuners have been changed and it has a few repairs but it's a real players guitar. I believe that the tone is all in the very old Brazilian Rosewood and nearly 150 years of use!

When it comes to acoustics, old guitars often sound phenomenal. Of course, I've also found the same with older basses from the golden age of guitar making so with Fender it'd be [b]l[/b][b]ess production amounts = higher quality wood and build. Mass production = less value.[/b]

Still, modern basses can still be great, as can 70's one's, but I find the pre 1968 Fenders have a feel and warmth that is unique and unreplicated. If that's good or bad, your choice! That's my 2 cents on vintage gear.
[/quote] I bet the wood used on that Martin was cut and left to dry naturally over any number of years.
I bet the same would be practice in American wood yards in the 50's and going into the 60's.

I wonder how much of the wood used nowadays is left to sit for years and years to dry out, and how much is kiln dried or the equivalent? I remember years and years back Warwick making a big thing of their massive wood stores for drying wood naturally - they kinda stopped mentioning that when they went mass production...

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='The fasting showman' timestamp='1392927713' post='2374412']
There's an interesting Guitar Player magazine article I have (somewhere!) from '82 where the galactico guitar tech Alan Rogan is contrasting how Keith Richards prefers old guitars and Pete Townsend prefers new ...
[/quote]

Yeah well it is said he does likes them young..... guitars I mean.

[The fasting showman]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1392930089' post='2374457']
Yeah well it is said he does likes them young..... guitars I mean.
[/quote]I really haven't got my proof reading together yet have I?

[discreet]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1392930089' post='2374457']Yeah well it is said he does likes them young..... guitars I mean.
[/quote]

Plenty of YouTube footage featuring him giving them a damn good thrashing, and so on and so forth.

[Dingus]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1392929715' post='2374448']
I bet the wood used on that Martin was cut and left to dry naturally over any number of years.
I bet the same would be practice in American wood yards in the 50's and going into the 60's.

I wonder how much of the wood used nowadays is left to sit for years and years to dry out, and how much is kiln dried or the equivalent? I remember years and years back Warwick making a big thing of their massive wood stores for drying wood naturally - they kinda stopped mentioning that when they went mass production...
[/quote]

But the pertinent question is : does letting the wood dry naturally over several years ect actually add up to much of a tangible difference in the quality of sound in the final finished instrument? And even if it is measurably different, is that difference actually" better" and necessarily preferable?

I would venture that the difference between identical pieces of kiln dried wood and slow dried wood would be negligible , at best, and insignificant compared to other differences. Indeed, some manufacturers have a clear preference for kiln drying as it means they can control and more accurately guarantee the moisture content of their woods, especially neck woods like maple.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Dingus

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1392931279' post='2374492']
But the pertinent question is : does letting the wood dry naturally over several years ect actually add up to much of a tangible difference in the quality of sound in the final finished instrument? And even if it is measurably different, is that difference actually" better" and necessarily preferable?

I would venture that the difference between identical pieces of kiln dried wood and slow dried wood would be negligible , at best, and insignificant compared to other differences. Indeed, some manufacturers have a clear preference for kiln drying as it means they can control and more accurately guarantee the moisture content of their woods, especially neck woods like maple.
[/quote] I've no idea, accurate drying would be better, I think I saw a video of a tour of taylor guitars where they did similar- I wonder if the big volume makers like Cort and FMIC do similar...

[discreet]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1392931279' post='2374492']But the pertinent question is : does letting the wood dry naturally over several years ect actually add up to much of a tangible difference in the quality of sound in the final finished instrument?[/quote]

Pretty close to the 'tonewoods' argument. My stance is that choice of timber makes very little difference to the sound of a bass.
At least compared with the differences apparent from choice of pickups, strings, electrics, rig and so on.

[lemmywinks]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1392930089' post='2374457']
Yeah well it is said he does likes them young..... guitars I mean.
[/quote]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1392931032' post='2374486']
Plenty of YouTube footage featuring him giving them a damn good thrashing, and so on and so forth.
[/quote]

All in the name of research!

[chriswareham]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1392886143' post='2373737']
The fingerboard radius seemed more extreme than on later basses... I've often wondered what 'plays like butter' means and now I know.
[/quote]

Had this experience with my Jolana D Bass. It has quite a curve to the cross section of the fretboard when compared to my Stingray, and it seems to make it much easier to play.

[discreet]

[quote name='chriswareham' timestamp='1392932225' post='2374510']
Had this experience with my Jolana D Bass. It has quite a curve to the cross section of the fretboard when compared to my Stingray, and it seems to make it much easier to play.[/quote]

I found the same with the Kubicki Ex Factor. And that was definitely not a vintage bass.

[earhook]

I like the car analogy that someone mentioned earlier.
Some look cool but are better in the garage,, some look rubbish but go like stink. New ones are reliable, do what theyre meant to, dont take much effort to maintain but feel a bit soulless.
Every now and then you find a good one that fits your needs and budget. Unfortunately I wont be getting an Aston Martin or a Ricky any time soon.

[chriswareham]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1392932833' post='2374521']
I found the same with the Kubicki Ex Factor. And that was definitely not a vintage bass.
[/quote]

Not sure whether the Jolana qualifies as a vintage bass, since it's probably late 1980's. Plenty of dents and chips on it, so using earhook's car analogy it's a bit of an old banger that's surprisingly good to drive.

[uncle psychosis]

I wrote this on another forum recently.

if you do properly controlled double blind testing, it appears that professional violinists prefer modern violins to old ones.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/in-play-off-between-old-and-new-violins-stradivarius-lags.html?_r=0

I've got a PhD in musical acoustics and know a fair bit about musicians and their perceptions of their instruments and it turns out that a lot of musicians are very fond of making definitive blanket statements like "trumpets made from white gold sound completely different to trumpets made from brass". However, subject these ideas to double blind testing and the results are never conclusive. Musicians are very perceptive, but a lot of the time they are just victims of psychoacoustics and confirmation bias.

  Old guitars are just inherently cool. We guitarists love "mojo". Some old guitars are absolutely fantastic, but that doesn't mean that modern guitars aren't capable of being equally good. Same goes for violins---you may need to play an old instrument to be taken seriously as a solo violinist, but thats got just as much to do with societal pressure and expectation from within the musical community as it does the quality of the instrument. Even classical musicians love a  bit of "mojo". 

We should also bear in mind that the guitars that have survived from the fifties and sixties in playable condition are almost certainly the good ones. The ones that weren't as good haven't been taken care of, been cannabalised for parts, or just plain forgotten about and lost. The good examples are far more likely to have survived the years than the rubbish ones. 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an old guitar. But more for the inherent coolness of owning a piece of history, rather than because it was better than a modern equivalent. 

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1392943149' post='2374639']
I wrote this on another forum recently.

if you do properly controlled double blind testing, it appears that professional violinists prefer modern violins to old ones.
[url="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/02/1114999109"]http://www.pnas.org/...1/02/1114999109[/url]
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/in-play-off-between-old-and-new-violins-stradivarius-lags.html?_r=0"]http://www.nytimes.c...-lags.html?_r=0[/url]

I've got a PhD in musical acoustics and know a fair bit about musicians and their perceptions of their instruments and it turns out that a lot of musicians are very fond of making definitive blanket statements like "trumpets made from white gold sound completely different to trumpets made from brass". However, subject these ideas to double blind testing and the results are never conclusive. Musicians are very perceptive, but a lot of the time they are just victims of psychoacoustics and confirmation bias.

Old guitars are just inherently cool. We guitarists love "mojo". Some old guitars are absolutely fantastic, but that doesn't mean that modern guitars aren't capable of being equally good. Same goes for violins---you may need to play an old instrument to be taken seriously as a solo violinist, but thats got just as much to do with societal pressure and expectation from within the musical community as it does the quality of the instrument. Even classical musicians love a bit of "mojo".

We should also bear in mind that the guitars that have survived from the fifties and sixties in playable condition are almost certainly the good ones. The ones that weren't as good haven't been taken care of, been cannabalised for parts, or just plain forgotten about and lost. The good examples are far more likely to have survived the years than the rubbish ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an old guitar. But more for the inherent coolness of owning a piece of history, rather than because it was better than a modern equivalent.
[/quote]

Cracking post Gromit.

However I'm staring to tire of the general assertion that only the best examples have made it this far. I'm sure that more than a few dogs got relegated to the uncle's loft in mint condish (or not for that matter) for not being that great in the first place. I mean we're talking mass produced commodities not a few choice gems.

[hamfist]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1392944674' post='2374643']
I'm sure that more than a few dogs got relegated to the uncle's loft in mint condish (or not for that matter) for not being that great in the first place. I mean we're talking mass produced commodities not a few choice gems.
[/quote]

Very good point, and I'm fully in agreement with uncle psychosis' general ideas.

However, I also think that there are more guitars/basses made these days made of poor (read as "soft") wood. Basses of yesteryear tended to be made of better (ie. harder) woods, as people didn't seem so bothered about having a light bass back then. I'd rather take a bass made of a heavy piece of ply rather than Agathis or Basswood personally.
I have never played an Agathis or Basswood-bodied bass that I liked the tone of (trying to avoid psychoacoustics and all that ... I didn't realise some of them were Agathis or Basswood until well after I'd decided I didn't like the tone).