Harley Benton Rickenfaker?

[Maude]

What about choking? 🤐

[scrumpymike]

7 minutes ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

Yeah but slapping a chicken is frowned upon.

 

 

Unless you're another chicken.

[stewblack]

Well, I basically spent the entire afternoon and evening playing my latest Harley Benton. 

Very very pleased with it and will definitely gig it on Thursday. 

[Newfoundfreedom]

5 hours ago, stewblack said:

Well, I basically spent the entire afternoon and evening playing my latest Harley Benton. 

Very very pleased with it and will definitely gig it on Thursday. 

Superb! 

HB really make some cracking instruments for peanuts. 

Can't wait fur my new 6er to turn up. 

[prowla]

9 hours ago, Pea Turgh said:

I get it now!

Chinese Rickenbacker = chickenbacker!

 

I honestly thought it was something to do with chickens!!!

Hahaha!!!!

It started with Chinese counterfeit Gibsons being called Chibsons, and went from there...

[Pea Turgh]

Bought some in-ears, reading a review I discovered the term “Chi Fi”.  I think this helped me decipher the Chickenbacker thing.

[stewblack]

My parents generation would scoff at Made In Hong Kong on a label. We used to hear 'Jap Crap' now Crafted In Japan is a badge of honour and everything is made in China. 

Once our economy is finally destroyed completely Asian manufacturers will probably outsource to the UK to exploit the cheap labour and lack of employment law and produce Brit Sh|t or some such. 

[Woodinblack]

15 minutes ago, stewblack said:

Once our economy is finally destroyed completely Asian manufacturers will probably outsource to the UK to exploit the cheap labour and lack of employment law and produce Brit Sh|t or some such. 

I doubt it - can't get the staff!

[prowla]

11 minutes ago, stewblack said:

My parents generation would scoff at Made In Hong Kong on a label. We used to hear 'Jap Crap' now Crafted In Japan is a badge of honour and everything is made in China. 

Once our economy is finally destroyed completely Asian manufacturers will probably outsource to the UK to exploit the cheap labour and lack of employment law and produce Brit Sh|t or some such. 

I don't think that everything made in China is ropey; there is no way that is possible and  the country produces loads of high-quality goods.

It's just the bottom-end of the market, where things are made to a low price with little quality control; no different to anywhere else, really.

In addition to that, there are the cheap counterfeits, as exemplified by the guitars with fake brands.

[Woodinblack]

15 minutes ago, prowla said:

I don't think that everything made in China is ropey; there is no way that is possible and  the country produces loads of high-quality goods.

It does. The MIC squier classic vibe I got is excellent.

[prowla]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

It does. The MIC squier classic vibe I got is excellent.

I’ve got a rather nice MIC Ovation and an Aria Pro PE.

My iPhone is MIC, plus a selection of other kit. 
 

However I’ve also bought things recently which have been wrong, faulty, or poor quality. 

[Newfoundfreedom]

6 hours ago, stewblack said:

My parents generation would scoff at Made In Hong Kong on a label. We used to hear 'Jap Crap' now Crafted In Japan is a badge of honour and everything is made in China. 

Once our economy is finally destroyed completely Asian manufacturers will probably outsource to the UK to exploit the cheap labour and lack of employment law and produce Brit Sh|t or some such. 

I grew up in the late 80's early 90's and I was a massive rock / metal fan. I loved ibanez, Jackson, Charvelle etc. To this day, i'd take a Korean, Japanese, or even Chinese instrument over an over rated, overly expensive American one, any day of the week. 

While classic Fenders are the ultimate bass for many (I 'm not arguing against it. Horses for courses) I genuinely think many of the "cheap" eastern instruments run rings around them. Too many people are more concerned with the label than the quality of the instrument. 

[prowla]

1 hour ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

I grew up in the late 80's early 90's and I was a massive rock / metal fan. I loved ibanez, Jackson, Charvelle etc. To this day, i'd take a Korean, Japanese, or even Chinese instrument over an over rated, overly expensive American one, any day of the week. 

While classic Fenders are the ultimate bass for many (I 'm not arguing against it. Horses for courses) I genuinely think many of the "cheap" eastern instruments run rings around them. Too many people are more concerned with the label than the quality of the instrument. 

Well, it's all down to preference.

As I say, there is some good Chinese stuff and it may be as good as that produced in any other country in the world..

But there is also cheap toot.

The mistake is in thinking that calling out the cheap stuff is inherently having a pop at the entire output of one of the largest economies and exporters in the world.

The Chickenbackers (basses) are poor counterfeit copies of Rickenbackers; there's no getting away from it.

They are easily identifiable with the pickups, hardware, and other features, and those components pervade across all of the offerings.

Now, nobody in their right mind would expect a £140 instrument to be the finest man produced, would they?

My most recent acquisition is a Chinese doubleneck which someone else gave up trying to get to work. I've got it going now and it's really quite nice, or would be but for some of the hardware and the bass pickups. It was made to a price point and the places where they cut corners are glaringly obvious.

[Newfoundfreedom]

12 minutes ago, prowla said:

Well, it's all down to preference.

As I say, there is some good Chinese stuff and it may be as good as that produced in any other country in the world..

But there is also cheap toot.

The mistake is in thinking that calling out the cheap stuff is inherently having a pop at the entire output of one of the largest economies and exporters in the world.

The Chickenbackers (basses) are poor counterfeit copies of Rickenbackers; there's no getting away from it.

They are easily identifiable with the pickups, hardware, and other features, and those components pervade across all of the offerings.

Now, nobody in their right mind would expect a £140 instrument to be the finest man produced, would they?

My most recent acquisition is a Chinese doubleneck which someone else gave up trying to get to work. I've got it going now and it's really quite nice, or would be but for some of the hardware and the bass pickups. It was made to a price point and the places where they cut corners are glaringly obvious.

Yes but old Rickenbackers were cr@p. Old Fenders were cr@p. Ok, while this may not be subjectively true. It's a weird situation with guitars and basses, where old technology is considered "better". 

In any other walk of life, technology moves on. It developes and becomes better and cheaper. But because we associate certain instruments with certain eras and kinds of music, they're considered to be the ultimate version of that instrument. It's ridiculous when you think about it. It's like selling a pre Windows, DOS PC for ten grand because  it's considered a classic. 

"Cheap" instruments can be, and are, produced as well, if not better than "classic" instruments in the modern era for a fraction of the cost. 

It's the way of the the world. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there isn't some cheap nasy cr@p around. But there is also a plethora of brilliant instruments out there for a fraction of the cost of name brands, and for a large part, it's only brand snobbery holding them back. 

 

 

[stewblack]

Glad I bought a Harley Benton and not one of these Chickenbackers - they sound awful.

[stewblack]

 

[prowla]

46 minutes ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

Yes but old Rickenbackers were cr@p. Old Fenders were cr@p. Ok, while this may not be subjectively true. It's a weird situation with guitars and basses, where old technology is considered "better". 

In any other walk of life, technology moves on. It developes and becomes better and cheaper. But because we associate certain instruments with certain eras and kinds of music, they're considered to be the ultimate version of that instrument. It's ridiculous when you think about it. It's like selling a pre Windows, DOS PC for ten grand because  it's considered a classic. 

"Cheap" instruments can be, and are, produced as well, if not better than "classic" instruments in the modern era for a fraction of the cost. 

It's the way of the the world. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there isn't some cheap nasy cr@p around. But there is also a plethora of brilliant instruments out there for a fraction of the cost of name brands, and for a large part, it's only brand snobbery holding them back. 

Hell no - old Rickenbackers are darned good. 
There is a huge difference with tech, where progress is genuine and quantifiable versus instruments and things like furniture and so-on, where newer does not equate to better. 
I think it is fair to say, however, that the entry level instruments of today can typically be better than those of a few decades ago. 

[stewblack]

I found a comment on a review which made sense in this whole "are cheap basses crap or are expensive basses just expensive labels" debate. The reviewers said that in their opinion the Harley Benton had some features which were genuinely better than the Sandberg it was based upon, and others which were less good. But no way was the difference in price reflected in the difference in quality. The comment which I liked however was this. While the new off the shelf HB represented excellent value for money would it survive in such great condition after a couple of years of humidity and temperature changes? The pricey bass had stood that test well, remaining solid and up together, would the cheap instrument also be as stable? Time will tell.

In general the whole debate seems as subjective as whether we like the shape of a bass or not. Those of you who have decided, for example,  the bridge on my new bass is crap may actually be correct. If you held the bass in your hand you might even know this for sure rather than just making your mind up from a distance. But if, like me, you couldn't tell one bridge from another and as long as it stays where it's supposed to be and does what it should then you were totally happy with it, then it's a great bridge. We're both right depending on what we value and want from an instrument. No one is definitively correct or definitively in error.

It's like cameras. Once I had upgraded my cameras and lenses to a certain point then the smallest improvements began to arrive at astonishingly huge price increases. Anyone who didn't give a fig about noise levels at high iso or chromatic abberation would shake their head in wonder at the fool who would blow such sums when their camera phone could take just as good a picture. And they'd be right. But I do care about such things so I stumped up the cash. The results (invisible to the average Joe) make it worthwhile because I get joy avery time I look at the pictures I get with this expensive gear.

It's exactly the same with music because actually all that really matters in photography is the picture. If someone likes the picture they won't give a damn whether it was taken on a Nikon D850 or a Panasonic ZS80. If someone likes a song they really don't give a stuff what the bass player spent on his bass.

We as bass players might care, but not necessarily to the same degree and maybe not about the same things. Playing in time is more important to me than what pick ups I'm using. Writing as bassline that makes the BL smile matters more to me than what material my tuning peg is made from. As long as the instrument doesn't hurt or explode and sounds OK to me that is all that matters, not label, not price.

Anyway we heard all this before on Bassworld. back then it was Behringer who's products were being lambasted. Generic tales of speakers blowing up at the first rehearsal were being repeated like a Trump speech. Their kit was cheap Chinese made crap said those who wouldn't go within a mile of it. Now? Now I see it used everywhere and I still have and use some of their stuff I bought decades ago and it still works and sounds great - to me. Doesn't mean it is great. You simply can't measure these things. Or you can measure everything but if the measurements don't mean anything to you then do they matter?

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, stewblack said:

The reviewers said that in their opinion the Harley Benton had some features which were genuinely better than the Sandberg it was based upon, and others which were less good. But no way was the difference in price reflected in the difference in quality.

The HB is based on a sandberg?

1 hour ago, stewblack said:

In general the whole debate seems as subjective as whether we like the shape of a bass or not. Those of you who have decided, for example,  the bridge on my new bass is crap may actually be correct. If you held the bass in your hand you might even know this for sure rather than just making your mind up from a distance. But if, like me, you couldn't tell one bridge from another and as long as it stays where it's supposed to be and does what it should then you were totally happy with it, then it's a great bridge.

See that is what I thought you were interpreting it as, which is nothing at all what I meant. OK, I can't say the shape of your bridge really appeals to me, but that is just aesthetics and one persons blah blah blah.

I agree totally, if it stays where it is supposed to be and does what it is supposed to do then it is a great bridge, the problem I have with your bridge is that it looks like the ones on the chickenbackers (and obviously I don't know it is, but that is what it looks like). The problem i have with the chickenbacker bridges are that to make it look like a rickenbacker bridge they have actually compromised the function of a bridge, and lets face it, there isn't much a bridge has to do, other than enable you to set the intonation and height of the strings well, and not allow side to side movement. If it does that fine, it just looked like the ones that don't. 

To be honest, I liked my chickenbacker (apart from I don't really play 4 strings much), and I think that all of its problems were due to the idea that it was supposed to look like a ric, and the main thing with that was that damn bridge that didn't work properly and got in the way, and the pickup cover (I don't like those on any bass). Its pickups weren't great but they weren't terrible.

I certainly don't buy the cheap bass has to be cheap like in some posts here - when it comes down to it prices are magnified in production and sale, so if you put a £10 bridge on a bass, rather than a £5 one, at sale price that will be £30 difference. As much as people with expensive production basses like to think, there is no way a pickup costs a manufacturer more than a fiver to make, it is still a coil of wire and a magnet. The costs are just down to the labour costs and the markup required to recoup the investment, which obviously depends on the volume you are selling, like everything else. 

 

1 hour ago, stewblack said:

 

 

[stewblack]

Sorry for the confusion. The HB/Sandberg comparison was not with this particular bass. They were discussing a different instrument. 

My comment about the bridge was meant as an example to illustrate a wider point - in fact my whole post was more about the nature of subjectivity, the real thrust being in the analogy with photography. 

Reading back it comes across in parts as a swipe at other people and their views which wasn't my intention and so I apologise for that. 

 

[prowla]

There's someone on the FB 'fakers group who has/is considering getting one of these and is debating whether to replace the pickups.

I recall that I bought a set of those pickups to try out, but they were really cheap and nasty and I've not used them.

They're looking at the Retrovibe pickups.

[Woodinblack]

3 hours ago, stewblack said:

Sorry for the confusion. The HB/Sandberg comparison was not with this particular bass. They were discussing a different instrument. 

Ah, I wondered if that is what you meant. I hadn't seen a sandberg like that.

Although I could imagine the conversation as they are totally different ends of the pricing spectrum and there are people (and I am not suggesting this is true for everyone, or even most) who really have to believe if they paid £2k for something that it is substantially better than something that cost £200. And it obviously is in certain ways, but not ways that matter to an audience

[King Tut]

It's interesting where this thread has gone and I've had a thought relating to 'old being better' in terms of 'actual old' rather then older designs. I personally get a kick out of gigging cheap basses occasionally, although with Stray I always use a Ricky for the Stray set and either a Rick or a Fender for the Blues Devils stuff. This is mainly to do with the Punters expectations and the fact that Stray's original bass player used a Rick, and my desire to present a pro approach by using what is seen as pro gear. Having said that, when I was playing covers I'd often happily use a cheaper bass which did the job just as well. Even now I'll occasionally take my Ibanez BTB30 out as my spare. 

With regard to actual old basses, I think there's a mystique that somehow the magic of all its previous players, previous gigs and previous experiences may somehow seep through the ether and improve the players' performance. Certainly if an old instrument is still in circulation, then it's proof itself that it's stood the test of time and is probably a good player because it's still in use.

There's no rights and wrongs here - I'd love to try one of these Harleybackers but I have waaaay to much stuff!! Much love to all x

[Maude]

11 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

OK, I can't say the shape of your bridge really appeals to me, but that is just aesthetics and one persons blah blah blah.

I agree totally, if it stays where it is supposed to be and does what it is supposed to do then it is a great bridge, the problem I have with your bridge is that it looks like the ones on the chickenbackers (and obviously I don't know it is, but that is what it looks like). The problem i have with the chickenbacker bridges are that to make it look like a rickenbacker bridge they have actually compromised the function of a bridge, and lets face it, there isn't much a bridge has to do, other than enable you to set the intonation and height of the strings well, and not allow side to side movement. If it does that fine, it just looked like the ones that don't. 

I can't believe the bridge can cause such debate when the Rickenbacker bridge is IMO such a poor design. Sure there will be people that will say "I've had no problems" but it has to have the worst way of setting intonation I've ever come across, and the tail lift problem is a real problem, for those that don't know, the rear of the bridge is not secured so bends up over time under string tension where the weak point on the bridge is, eventually your have to raise the saddle height so the strings will still sit on them. I like Rickenbackers and am not trying to rubbish them but arguing that a Chickenbacker bridge isn't as good as Rickenbacker bridge seems pretty futile. Unfortunately for what is worth, the HB bridge does look like it's copied the Rickenbacker bridge enough to have incorporated the risk of tail lift, from the pictures it appears that the last rearward fixing is way forwards of the string anchor point, unless there's a fixing I can't see at the back. Also my opinion only but, on an expensive genuine Rick I'd be annoyed, but a £150 bass, I'd just put a couple of fixings neatly down through the rear of the bridge and get on with life. 

[bertbass]

Getting back to the bass.  Reading the specs, the nut seems quite wide.  Is the neck more jazz or precision?  Is it thin or chunky?