A pro bass player without GAS

[noisedude]

It's a heck of a lot easier to have a fixed setup with 'your sound' when you play in one band and in 'your style'.

You wouldn't last very long in a function/covers band if you only had a clanky P-bass sound and a stack the size of the stage in most small venues.

The reason we have more gear is that whilst we have our preferences, we all find ourselves playing different styles and in different settings.

I only have a couple of basses but in those two I cover thru-neck, bolt on, 4-string, 5-string, EMG/active sounds, traditional passive magnetic sounds etc etc etc. My shoddy playing comes through on both but the tones are quite different.

Of course, once you've got a little collection that covers most bases (and basses, snarf), anything more is just inexcusable GAS.

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='noisedude' post='236526' date='Jul 10 2008, 01:51 PM']It's a heck of a lot easier to have a fixed setup with 'your sound' when you play in one band and in 'your style'.

You wouldn't last very long in a function/covers band if you only had a clanky P-bass sound and a stack the size of the stage in most small venues.

The reason we have more gear is that whilst we have our preferences, we all find ourselves playing different styles and in different settings.

I only have a couple of basses but in those two I cover thru-neck, bolt on, 4-string, 5-string, EMG/active sounds, traditional passive magnetic sounds etc etc etc. My shoddy playing comes through on both but the tones are quite different.

Of course, once you've got a little collection that covers most bases (and basses, snarf), anything more is just inexcusable GAS. [/quote]

please explain how a bolt on differers from a thru-neck to make a difference in tone or are you just talking about feel?
I can understand someone wanting a certain sound but ive not heard a thru or bolt on being needed for anything before. (im really asking, not trying to argue)
I only use a P bass and it sounds fine.
We do a lot of 60's stuff though so it fits in but even if we didnt it wouldn't matter too much. P's have bene used throughout time itself and it fits most styles of music.
I also have a 55-01 and jazz but don't use them

Edited July 10, 2008 by dave_bass5

[noisedude]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='236558' date='Jul 10 2008, 02:21 PM']please explain how a bolt on differers from a thru-neck to make a difference in tone or are you just talking about feel?
I can understand someone wanting a certain sound but ive not heard a thru or bolt on being needed for anything before. (im really asking, not trying to argue)
I only use a P bass and it sounds fine.
We do a lot of 60's stuff though so it fits in but even if we didnt it wouldn't matter too much. P's have bene used throughout time itself and it fits most styles of music.
I also have a 55-01 and jazz but don't use them[/quote]
Well unless it's a really well designed bolt-on joint with loads of wood-on-wood contact (such as the ones Robert Godin swears by) then a bolt-on type will tend to have less sustain and so be a more percussive sound than a typical thru-neck. A thru-neck design lends itself to a wider dynamic range for the same reasons, with the whole instrument vibrating as one you have the opportunity to be more responsive to lighter touch than in a 70s Fender where half the energy is lost through makeshift shims under the neck.

Another difference is the scale length of the neck. In bass there isn't as much upper harmonic content than in distorted guitar but still a shorter Gibson neck will tend to a fatter sound with less detail than a 35", simply because of the difference in length of string but enhanced by the use of thicker/heavier strings to keep the tension playable on the shorter neck.

That's all theory and physics and if you have a sound that works in all settings then great. I was just suggesting that the modern odd-job player wants to be able to get a 'Flea sound' and then a 'dub sound' and then a 'metal sound' and then a 'funky sound' and that you may need different types of instrument for that. And if you look at most session players, they will have a selection of instruments (many have a mix of trad and modern non-Fender/Ricky/Gibbo stuff) for getting the different tones.

The sound difference between my Ibanez and my G&L is huge even through a relatively cheap amp. They're both very flexible but the Ibanez sounds rubbish played with a pick, the G&L sounds less 'sweet' above the 12th fret, the Ibanez has to have extra low end dialled in, the G&L needs a bit of compression to tame its attack and so on.

[spinynorman]

Surely most, if not all, of the people mentioned in this thread could get pretty much any manufacturer they wanted to give them a bass if they just promised to play it in public once. Makes you wonder why they don't. Must be a lack of curiosity.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='rjb' post='236300' date='Jul 10 2008, 09:03 AM']For a guy worth hundreds of millions, his GAS has been restrained to say the least....[/quote]

He's got Bill Black's URB. I'll wager that cost him a bob or two...

[99ster]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='236718' date='Jul 10 2008, 05:36 PM']He's got Bill Black's URB. I'll wager that cost him a bob or two...[/quote]


I wonder who has Bill Black's '57 Precision - that he played on 'Jailhouse Rock'...? Reckoned to be one of the first major hit records to feature electric bass. Now that would be a cool bass to have...

[bass_ferret]

[quote name='noisedude' post='236622' date='Jul 10 2008, 03:33 PM']Well unless it's a really well designed bolt-on joint with loads of wood-on-wood contact (such as the ones Robert Godin swears by) then a bolt-on type will tend to have less sustain and so be a more percussive sound than a typical thru-neck. A thru-neck design lends itself to a wider dynamic range for the same reasons, with the whole instrument vibrating as one you have the opportunity to be more responsive to lighter touch than in a 70s Fender where half the energy is lost through makeshift shims under the neck.[/quote]
Dont believe the adverts. I asked Bernie about the difference between bolt on and through necks when I was having my Spitfires made. He said the only difference was the price!

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='noisedude' post='236622' date='Jul 10 2008, 03:33 PM']Well unless it's a really well designed bolt-on joint with loads of wood-on-wood contact (such as the ones Robert Godin swears by) then a bolt-on type will tend to have less sustain and so be a more percussive sound than a typical thru-neck. A thru-neck design lends itself to a wider dynamic range for the same reasons, with the whole instrument vibrating as one you have the opportunity to be more responsive to lighter touch than in a 70s Fender where half the energy is lost through makeshift shims under the neck.[/quote]

Well ill take your word for it. I've played both types and have not noticed much of a tonal difference other than the fact that they have been different basses and so would sound different anyway.

[noisedude]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='236790' date='Jul 10 2008, 07:10 PM']Well ill take your word for it. I've played both types and have not noticed much of a tonal difference other than the fact that they have been different basses and so would sound different anyway.[/quote]
Why would they sound different?

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='noisedude' post='236795' date='Jul 10 2008, 07:13 PM']Why would they sound different?[/quote]

Sorry, i didnt mean different versions of the same bass, just different basses, one being a thru-neck.
I dont think ill ever get to hear a thru and bolt on version of the same bass to compare.

[noisedude]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='236778' date='Jul 10 2008, 06:55 PM']Dont believe the adverts. I asked Bernie about the difference between bolt on and through necks when I was having my Spitfires made. He said the only difference was the price![/quote]
I ran a guitar shop in a previously life, I don't pay attentiont to adverts.

I'm a physics/music technology teacher and have done a little bit of reading. There's a fantastic study/course going on at Cardiff university into resonant responses of different stringed instruments which produces fascinating (!) results.

I'm not being funny but you surely don't believe there is no difference between different construction types do you?

As I say, Robert Godin's the only high profile guitar designer I know of who thinks bolt-ons provide more sustain than glued/set necks because he says there's more wood on wood. If you look at his guitars, the fingerboard is much lower into the body with the neck surrounded on three sides. Of course, the thru-neck brings in a factor of how much glue there is in between the strips of wood. If it's got a thick layer of glue at four places across the neck and then loaded down with lacquer then it's unlikely to behave the same way as a one-piece unfinished alternative.

[noisedude]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='236797' date='Jul 10 2008, 07:18 PM']Sorry, i didnt mean different versions of the same bass, just different basses, one being a thru-neck.
I dont think ill ever get to hear a thru and bolt on version of the same bass to compare.[/quote]
No I meant why would any two different basses sound different? Sorry if that seems a trick question but what I was getting at was that the neck construction/attachment is a big factor in how it will behave, along with the other obvious answers such as wood, finish, pickups, bridge/stringing method and so on.

EDIT - I think you'll find plenty of people who prefer, for example, a Thumb BO or NT for a reason other than the price. Honestly.

Edited July 10, 2008 by noisedude

[bass_ferret]

[quote name='noisedude' post='236803' date='Jul 10 2008, 07:21 PM']I'm not being funny but you surely don't believe there is no difference between different construction types do you?[/quote]
As far as sound goes, yes. Me and most of bass chat. You dont believe this is the first time this has come up do you? Its ironic that the same claims that used to be made for thru necks ae now being made for single cuts.

[noisedude]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='236814' date='Jul 10 2008, 07:34 PM']As far as sound goes, yes. Me and most of bass chat. You dont believe this is the first time this has come up do you? Its ironic that the same claims that used to be made for thru necks ae now being made for single cuts.[/quote]
So it doesn't matter how it's put together as long as it's done well?

A P-bass made from ash will sound the same as a Soundgear made from ash as long as they have the same hardware and pickups? Or does the wood or hardware not matter either?

I'm interested to know what your subjective opinion is. Because I'm not claiming they're night and day but the discussion was about whether having different basses was a legitimate choice or GAS dressed up as hearing.

You're saying that, for example, a Thumb bolt-on and a Thumb thru-neck with exactly the same specs otherwise will sound, in terms of timbre and dynamic response, exactly the same?

[bass_ferret]

I have not tried that many warwicks to be able to say but I did have two Ibanez basses of the same vintage, one thru neck and one bolt on. They sounded different cos of pups and actives but I would not say the thru neck had more sustain. I guess it depends on the quality of the bolt on. Lots of bolt on necks are not bolted on at all, just woodscrews through the body and into the neck. My GB's are bolt on, with threaded inserts in the neck into which bolts bolt, as it were.

There is no doubt that thru necks are more comfy to play up the dusty end but I dont spend much time up there.

[noisedude]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='236845' date='Jul 10 2008, 08:16 PM']I have not tried that many warwicks to be able to say but I did have two Ibanez basses of the same vintage, one thru neck and one bolt on. They sounded different cos of pups and actives but I would not say the thru neck had more sustain. I guess it depends on the quality of the bolt on. Lots of bolt on necks are not bolted on at all, just woodscrews through the body and into the neck. My GB's are bolt on, with threaded inserts in the neck into which bolts bolt, as it were.

There is no doubt that thru necks are more comfy to play up the dusty end but I dont spend much time up there.[/quote]
Yeah most don't have any sort of threads in the neck, but it sounds like a good idea. And I mentioned 70s Fenders because those terrible neck pockets weren't just a problem because they looked messy, they weren't good for stability or sound either (unless, of course, you like the sound they make, which plenty of people do!). The fact remains that a unified system such as a carefully made thru-neck is going to allow for more efficient energy transfer (i.e. guitar rings for longer as less energy lost in transferring between materials or vibrating less resonant materials, i.e. more sustain) than two different sections pressed against one another over a couple of inches of surface area. Subjectively this may or may not be the difference between a percussive clank and a longer, piano-like decay. But if the neck pocket of the bolt-on is deep and the surfaces are level and tightly fitted, it could well resonate for longer than a 7-piece neck full of cheap glue along its length and, as you say, defy expectations.

As an aside, and because the science is fascinating to me, here's a brilliant image of the standing waves on the soundboard of a classical guitar. You can see exactly which bits of wood are vibrating and which are not ... and the implications that would have for bracing/construction. Note the activity at the neck/body join:


We now return you to Nick Cave and the P-Bass Seeds, or whatever the thread started as!

[ARGH]

This is the old Bolt on vs Thru topic.

Both are as difficult to make,and then to make well.

[Clarky]

[quote name='noisedude' post='236895' date='Jul 10 2008, 09:21 PM']We now return you to Nick Cave and the P-Bass Seeds, or whatever the thread started as![/quote]

Amen to that!