JONES bass, England.

[Killerfridge]

49 minutes ago, Misdee said:

I wish this chap all the best with this venture, but those  SM1;basses don't half look like older Ken Smith basses, with a bit of Fodera in the headstock shape. The SM2 slightly less so, but still fairly derivative. Knowing Ken Smith's reputation for being forthright with his opinions, I expect if he sees them he won't be happy.

 

On both models the top horn of the body looks to stop well short of the 12th fret. That makes me think the balance on a strap might not be so great, and the reach to the nut with the fretting hand would be quite a stretch. 

 

Anyhow, they look beautifully built, and it's about time fancy woodwork basses came back into fashion. I'd love to hear one of these basses in action.

From my reading since seeing this thread, it sounds like he already got in hot water from KS, and has since altered his designs enough that they are no longer interested. I could be wrong though, as it sounds like "heard from a guy who heard from a guy".

 

He's also posted photos on insta to show the lack of neck dive, which I can't say I'm 100% convinced by, but it has a least got me slightly interested

Edited Thursday at 20:37 by Killerfridge
"Can't" instead of "can" - quite an important distinction!

[binky_bass]

The build quality of the basses and technical ability of the builder look to be second to none. The design aesthetic however is definitely not my cup of tea - the headstock shape is inelegant and the body looks a little clumsy. It's a shame as Mark clearly has a great deal of skill, but the 'look' doesn't feel to be living up to the standard of the build. Genuinely the build quality does look fantastic...

[FunkyDude]

11 hours ago, Killerfridge said:

From my reading since seeing this thread, it sounds like he already got in hot water from KS, and has since altered his designs enough that they are no longer interested. I could be wrong though, as it sounds like "heard from a guy who heard from a guy".

 

He's also posted photos on insta to show the lack of neck dive, which I can't say I'm 100% convinced by, but it has a least got me slightly interested

I am sure Ken Smith has already claimed his authority over the early design! I think the SM2 on the photo looks much better also. The new owner of this bass says there is no neck dive so I guess the body weight must have balanced out the neck weight. 

[Owen]

12 hours ago, Killerfridge said:

From my reading since seeing this thread, it sounds like he already got in hot water from KS, and has since altered his designs enough that they are no longer interested. I could be wrong though, as it sounds like "heard from a guy who heard from a guy".

 

He's also posted photos on insta to show the lack of neck dive, which I can't say I'm 100% convinced by, but it has a least got me slightly interested

Strap set to "funk".

[Killerfridge]

2 hours ago, Owen said:

Strap set to "funk".

More like "fusion"

[Owen]

57 minutes ago, Killerfridge said:

More like "fusion"

Not wrong!

 

[simisker]

15 hours ago, binky_bass said:

The build quality of the basses and technical ability of the builder look to be second to none. The design aesthetic however is definitely not my cup of tea - the headstock shape is inelegant and the body looks a little clumsy. It's a shame as Mark clearly has a great deal of skill, but the 'look' doesn't feel to be living up to the standard of the build. Genuinely the build quality does look fantastic...

 

To be fair, this could be applied to 90% of boutique luthiers - including many established ones.

 

It's INCREDIBLY difficult to come up with an appealing blend of familiar and novel aesthetic proportions, ergonomic elements, and something which also doesn't attract a Cease & Desist.

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by simisker

[binky_bass]

4 minutes ago, simisker said:

 

To be fair, this could be applied to 90% of boutique luthiers - including many established ones.

 

It's INCREDIBLY difficult to come up with an appealing blend of familiar and novel aesthetic proportions, ergonomic elements, and something which also doesn't attract a Cease & Desist.

 

 

Absolutely, no arguement there whatsoever. His designs clearly appeal to enough people for his business to continue, and as mentioned, his build work looks superb - and the website appears very professional too. Just because the body shape etc. is not my personal cup of tea, it doesn't diminish his skill in building these basses, and I certainly wouldn't be upset if I had the opportunity to play one! 

[fleabag]

The headstock is the only bit i like.  The body shapes are as fugly as a fugly thing.  But as always, taste is  personal.

[Misdee]

I used to be a sucker for   expensive exotic boutique basses, but nowadays I ask myself the fundamental question "What significant advantage does this bass offer me over a decent quality production bass?" Nowadays  with the internet etc it's much easier to make useful comparisons, and, subjectively, a Fodera or Ken Smith doesn't actually sound better than a decent Fender, but objectively it does sound different. Exotic wood basses tend to sound much more compressed. Fenders and their ilk are much more raunchy.

 

In the vast majority of cases the reality is that fancy custom basses  actually offer far more disadvantages. As someone once pointed out, a committee never came up with a genius idea, but they are good for eliminating bad ideas. Mainstream designs are subject to the court of widespread scrutiny. Most custom boutique basses are not.

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Misdee

[Killerfridge]

I've actually come around to the slightly pudgy KS look, I quite like it now!

[OliverBlackman]

4 hours ago, Misdee said:

a Fodera or Ken Smith doesn't actually sound better than a decent Fender, but objectively it does sound different. Exotic wood basses tend to sound much more compressed.

Depends what you class as decent. To my ears only the recent ultra and elite series have had enough depth to easily cut through the mix of a professional band. Whereas with a KS, Fodera, sadowsky or overwater they do it with ease

2 hours ago, Killerfridge said:

I've actually come around to the slightly pudgy KS look, I quite like it now!

I adore them but it’s the thinness of the body, smooth neck join and amazing woods that appeal to me most. I can see why they command the prices they do because to my hands, eyes and ears they’re the best money can buy. 

[Killerfridge]

1 hour ago, OliverBlackman said:

I adore them but it’s the thinness of the body, smooth neck join and amazing woods that appeal to me most. I can see why they command the prices they do because to my hands, eyes and ears they’re the best money can buy. 

I mean the pudgy Mark Jones version!

[EBS_freak]

On 26/12/2024 at 15:25, itu said:

*Shivers*

A good looking and single cut are contradictory terms. And this blond looks puffy.

Nowt wrong with single cuts... if basses which look like can openers is your bag!  

[Misdee]

2 hours ago, OliverBlackman said:

Depends what you class as decent. To my ears only the recent ultra and elite series have had enough depth to easily cut through the mix of a professional band. Whereas with a KS, Fodera, sadowsky or overwater they do it with ease

I adore them but it’s the thinness of the body, smooth neck join and amazing woods that appeal to me most. I can see why they command the prices they do because to my hands, eyes and ears they’re the best money can buy. 

Seriously, you think a passive Fender can't cut through the sound of a band? If that's your experience then fair enough, I'll listen to what you have to say, but my own bass playing journey made me reject some revered exotic boutique basses because I found they were too polite-sounding and got a bit lost in the mix in some music.

 

Ken Smith basses are amazing instruments built to the highest standards and they have their own signature sound, for sure. It's a deep, rich and lush  tone with a scoop somewhere in the mids and a peak in the treble somewhere. It's magnificent for some music, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be playing heavy rock with one. 

 

Just as an aside while we're on the subject of Fender-style basses v exotic boutique basses,   has anyone else noticed there's an uncanny sonic resemblance between the Sadowsky Modern 5 and the classic Ken Smith basses, despite the radical differences in construction? 

[Russ]

34 minutes ago, Misdee said:

Ken Smith basses are amazing instruments built to the highest standards and they have their own signature sound, for sure. It's a deep, rich and lush  tone with a scoop somewhere in the mids and a peak in the treble somewhere. It's magnificent for some music, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be playing heavy rock with one. 

One of my favourite albums from 20 years or so back, Headspace by Pulse Ultra, was all recorded with a Smith. Fantastic bass tone that works very well in a rock/metal band, and not dissimilar to a Wal - there's a pretty obvious Tool influence, and that extends to the bass tone. 

 

 

[Misdee]

41 minutes ago, Russ said:

One of my favourite albums from 20 years or so back, Headspace by Pulse Ultra, was all recorded with a Smith. Fantastic bass tone that works very well in a rock/metal band, and not dissimilar to a Wal - there's a pretty obvious Tool influence, and that extends to the bass tone. 

 

 

That's great, but generally speaking I would say a Ken Smith wouldn't be a good choice for that kind of music. If this chap can make it work then that's fine, though. 

 

I don't think Smith basses sound anything like a Wal, by the way. A Wal has a much more prominent midrange and a much dirtier treble than a K.S. It's apparent as soon as you plug one in. That's what makes them a good fit for heavy music. A Smith is much more refined in every respect. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way, but it's horses for courses, in my estimation anyway.

 

At least there's  distinct and identifiable K.S sound. Without wishing to be controversial, I couldn't recognise a characteristic Fodera sound beyond that most examples have that generic high-end boutique bass sound. I could say the same of F Basses, too.  I've played bass for well over 40 years and I've always had a keen interest in gear, yet I don't think I could pick out either marque in a blindfold test, or indeed  tell one from the other. They  sound very similar to me.I could pick out a Wal or a Stingray, though.

Edited 12 hours ago by Misdee

[Killerfridge]

27 minutes ago, Misdee said:

At least there's  distinct and identifiable K.S sound. Without wishing to be controversial, I couldn't recognise a characteristic Fodera sound beyond that most examples have that generic high-end boutique bass sound. I could say the same of F Basses, too.  I've played bass for well over 40 years and I've always had a keen interest in gear, yet I don't think I could pick out either marque in a blindfold test, or indeed  tell one from the other. They  sound very similar to me.I could pick out a Wal or a Stingray, though.

I don't think that's controversial at all; I think certain basses fall into general sound categories: F bass and Sadowsky are both Jazz sounds; Fodera (personally) sounds fairly uninspiring and generic (not bad by any stretch, but I would never think "aha, that's a Fodera").

 

I'm surprised at how right you are about the Sadowsky Moderns sounding like Ken Smiths. I've never liked the Modern, and I really like the Smiths, but hearing them next to each other I wouldn't be able to tell you which one was which. It's funny how much visual bias plays into your hearing!

[OliverBlackman]

9 hours ago, Misdee said:

Seriously, you think a passive Fender can't cut through the sound of a band? If that's your experience then fair enough, I'll listen to what you have to say, but my own bass playing journey made me reject some revered exotic boutique basses because I found they were too polite-sounding and got a bit lost in the mix in some music.

 

Ken Smith basses are amazing instruments built to the highest standards and they have their own signature sound, for sure. It's a deep, rich and lush  tone with a scoop somewhere in the mids and a peak in the treble somewhere. It's magnificent for some music, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be playing heavy rock with one. 

 

Just as an aside while we're on the subject of Fender-style basses v exotic boutique basses,   has anyone else noticed there's an uncanny sonic resemblance between the Sadowsky Modern 5 and the classic Ken Smith basses, despite the radical differences in construction? 

It depends on the makeup of the band. But my experience is that in larger setups especially, with a modern passive Fender the audience are unlikely to hear much definition in the notes. It tends to be all the low end which can make the sound a bit wooly (nothing wrong with that if it’s what is desired).

 

My experience with boutique instruments is that the electronics are all of significant design and quality that they do not suffer this same issue. I guess this is why they are popular in gospel, musical theatre and big bands. Plus in those musical situations the player is often seated and not throwing the instrument around the stage ala the who.