Fenderbird / Thunderbird alternatives: how does it sound?

[foxyFuze]

Having missed out on the white NR Thunderbird on sale here a short time ago, I'm contemplating putting decent TBird pickups in a P Body; anyone tried this and have good / bad things to say about the sound? 

 

[NancyJohnson]

This is a bit of a loaded question for me, so let me ask you these questions:

#1 If you put Rickenbacker pickups and the guts into any bass (in the right positions, obviously) would it sound like a Rickenbacker?  

#2 Which variant of Thunderbird pickups?

#3 In a blind test, would you be able to identify a Thunderbird from another bass?

#4 What's your reasoning for doing this?

[foxyFuze]

I like the sound of the Thunderbucker Ranch 66s but they are rather expensive.

my guess is the body being a P compared with a mahogany TBird would be minimal to be honest.  I had a TBird but couldn't get on with the body shape but I loved the sound.

[krispn]

I was going to do this but the Lull pick ups have been lost in transit and I'm currently trying to get a full refund from the seller. If you can find audio of the Mike Lull PT 4 it'll give you an idea of the sounds you'll get.

 

 

[NancyJohnson]

Let me try and quantify where I'm coming from here. 

In the last 30+ years I've thrown a ton of money at trying to get what I believed to be my ideal sound; so many basses (some butchered to try different active/passive set ups), so many string choices, so many pre-stages, stompboxes, amps and cabinets.  Customisation is a long, lonely and expensive road and GAS is as well.  Along the way I came to realise that a) my gear in another person's hands will sound completely different to me and b) where I'm at now tonally is really just a short stroll from where I was when I first started out.  Sure it's nice to have all this gear, all this very expensive gear, but the expensive stuff really doesn't sound that different to the really cheap stuff. 

The only reason I cited Rickenbacker here is that for me playing a 4003 the desired tone was there right out of the box.  I borrowed one one lunchtime off a guy I worked with and tried it through two set ups and as a front end, it was exactly how what I expected it to sound like straight out of the box.  The same guy had also put the Rickenbacker pickups in another bass and while it was similar, it was a stroll away from the 4003.  You wouldn't know that guitar had Rickenbacker pickups in it is what I'm saying.  It's akin to (as I've posted elsewhere) just because you have a Chickenbacker, it doesn't mean it's going to sound like the real thing.

When you say you like Thunderbucker Ranch 66s, say why.  Have you got access to a bass that has these in and you've played it through your gear?

 

[BigRedX]

9 hours ago, foxyFuze said:

I like the sound of the Thunderbucker Ranch 66s but they are rather expensive.

my guess is the body being a P compared with a mahogany TBird would be minimal to be honest.  I had a TBird but couldn't get on with the body shape but I loved the sound.

Which Thunderbird did you have?

IME the various different types are all very different when it comes to sound. AlFAIK all the current Thunderbird pickups being made by 3rd parties (Lull, Thunderbucker etc.) are modelled on the various types used by Gibson in the 60s and are completely different to those fitted to any Gibson Thunderbird made in the last 30 years.

Mike Lull does a Fender-shaped bass fitted with his take on the 60s Thunderbird pickup and IIRC @Happy Jack owns one of these as well as a Lull T-Bass so maybe he would care to comment on how similar (or not) the two basses sound (in his hands).

EDIT: of course both Lull basses have bolt-on necks, so if you believe that this makes a significant difference to the sound compared with the through neck construction of an original Gibson Thunderbird, that's another variable to consider.

Edited August 18, 2018 by BigRedX

[NancyJohnson]

1 minute ago, BigRedX said:

Which Thunderbird did you have?

IME the various different types are all very different when it comes to sound. AlFAIK all the current Thunderbird pickups being made by 3rd parties (Lull, Thunderbucker etc.) are modelled on the various types used by Gibson in the 60s and are completely different to those fitted to any Gibson Thunderbird made in the last 30 years.

Mike Lull does a Fender-shaped bass fitted with his take on the 60s Thunderbird pickup and IIRC @Happy Jack owns one of these as well as a Lull T-Bass so maybe he would care to comment on how similar (or not) the two basses sound (in his hands).

In the last decade I've gone through ten or so Gibson Thunderbirds and now I have a pair of Lulls each loaded with a pair of his 60s clones.  Playing tonally flat, the Gibsons were all a little different from each other, I'm not saying in a bad way, but there was an inconsistency from one to one...I certainly knew which ones I preferred, but as I've posted previously, preferred tone is subjective.  The Lulls are fairly similar to each other, it's very close, although the NRT5 is slightly brighter at the moment (might also be something to do with string age as well).  

Thing is, I have an ancient Aria Pro II bass that's a wreck; it needed a bit of work and I guess all in it owes me £125 now.  I put a used Delano pickup in it that had spent a few years in a Sandberg (bought for c.£60 on this forum); it really doesn't sound that different to the Lulls.  Shocking, eh?

[BigRedX]

5 minutes ago, NancyJohnson said:

Thing is, I have an ancient Aria Pro II bass that's a wreck; it needed a bit of work and I guess all in it owes me £125 now.  I put a used Delano pickup in it that had spent a few years in a Sandberg (bought for c.£60 on this forum); it really doesn't sound that different to the Lulls.  Shocking, eh?

Not really. In the first place I think we all subconsciously alter our playing technique to counteract any bass that sounds different compared with what we are used to.

And while different basses might sound different when playing solo, in the context of a live band mix the only real difference between them is the output volume rather than any tonal variation.

[Happy Jack]

15 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Mike Lull does a Fender-shaped bass fitted with his take on the 60s Thunderbird pickup and IIRC @Happy Jack owns one of these as well as a Lull T-Bass so maybe he would care to comment on how similar (or not) the two basses sound (in his hands).

Yup, you're right Mike. I loved my T5 so much that I bought a PT4 (from Old Horse Murphy, unless my memory is failing me). Precision-shaped body (= P), but fitted with a pair of Lull's own Thunderbird pickups (= T), and it's a 4-string (= 4).

I own more Precisions than is right for a grown man, including two all-original vintage Ps and two other Mike Lull Ps fitted with Lull's own Precision pickups. The PT4 is (IMHO) both the best sounding and also, due to having two pickups, potentially the most versatile.

I say 'potentially' because I'm an all-knobs-to-max-and-leave-them-alone kind of guy so I don't do much actual, y'know, testing of these things.

Tonally, the T-pickups take the PT4 into Seymour Duncan Quarter-Pounder territory ... like a Precision, only more so.

 

[foxyFuze]

All good points in response to my original post, thank you!

Not had the chance to try the 66s out but have been impressed with the videos I've seen of them, which admittedly isn't the ideal way of judging before buying.