Jump to content

Misdee

Members
  • Content Count

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Total Watts

152 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

863 profile views
  1. I'm basing it on my own custom-ordered USA Lakland PJ. When I bought it a few years ago they used a hum-cancelling J exclusive to that model as standard, so that you didn't get hum on either pickup setting. It's a great sounding J pickup too;, nice and gritty and a fine match with the aggressive-sounding NeoPunch P. If they have subsequently changed from that spec then I stand corrected.
  2. That's a lovely bass. The ash looks better than I have seen on some of the USA versions of this bass! The pickups will likely be the Lakland NeoPunch/ hum-cancelling J arrangement. They sound nice and beefy with a hot output and also have a decent balance between the output of the P and J. Looks like a lot of bass for ยฃ700.GLWTS.
  3. You putting sustain into the bass is not the same thing as the bass having natural sustain . If it had sustain you wouldn't need to put sustain into it with whatever technique. You could, by the same token, add sustain with a compressor, but that would not change the fundamental sound of whatever bass. And, for the reasons I have already stated, taking the frets out of a bass will most likely diminish the sustain of fretted notes. Your perception may differ from that, but such judgements are highly subjective. Steel frets are likely to enable a note to resonate longer in a more linear fashion than when the note is trapped between wood and finger. That's a big part of the sound of a fretless . Yes there are various things you can do to compensate on a fretless - vibrato, compression, coated fingerboard et al- but all things being equal in general terms, a fretted example should sustain more. But we've already decided that sustain isn't that important anyway. My fretless has an acrylic-coated board, but I haven't really noticed a profound increase in sustain over non-coated fingerboards, it has to be said. , I am equally confident that bridges can a very significant influence on the sound of a bass, some bridges and some basses more than others. I could give my own anecdotal evidence, but it would be a lengthy process . I have had more basses than I can count over the last 40 years or so. I used to hate the BBOT but I have come to learn its' value in terms of the classic Fender tone. It's a shame it isn't just a little bit more ergonomic and mechanically stable. That's all I am saying, really๐Ÿ™‚.
  4. I can't comment on your Wal, having no knowledge or experience of that particular instrument. I am genuinely intrigued to know how would you would know categorically that the lack of sustain wasn't caused by the absence of frets? I am well familiar with Wal fretless basses (oh, how I wish I had bought one thirty -odd years ago๐Ÿ™! )and I know how the typically perform. At the risk of sounding facetious( but really meaning to be so), fretless basses sound different because they don't have frets, and one contributory factor to that difference in sound is the change in the attack and decay of note ie the sustain. ๐Ÿ™‚
  5. If I am learning a song as an exercise at home I'll learn it note for note exact. When I used to play in a band doing covers I would quite happily play my version of the bass part on the record, depending on the arrangement ect.
  6. Well, according to you your fretless Wal didn't. Some fretless basses will sustain more than others. I think it's fair to say that fretless basses sustain differently to fretted basses. That is a pretty safe assertion.
  7. The fact that the Wal didn't have frets probably explains the lack of sustain . A string anchored between the bridge and fingerboard and finger is likely to be more muted than a string anchored between a metal fret and metal bridge . It's a big part of what makes a fretless sound like it does. And yes, the obsession with sustain is a very dated preoccupation. It's so 1980's.
  8. The fact that the Wal didn't have frets probably explains the lack of sustain . A string anchored between the bridge and fingerboard and finger is likely to be more muted than a string anchored between a metal fret and metal bridge . It's a big part of what makes a fretless sound like it does.
  9. Well I would contend that whether you were aware of it or not, the bridge was often a significant factor in the overall sound of the bass. Every note you play is anchored to the bridge. A wooden bridge with wooden saddles sounds different to a BBOT.
  10. Yes, all this with the proviso that we're talking about nuances, not huge changes in tone. But if you put say a Warwick or Alembic bridge on a Fender you would hear a difference in the overall sound of the bass. ๐Ÿ™‚ I am a big fan of the Badass on just about any bass, but I don't think it sounds any better than the BBOT, just a bit different in a good way, if you see what I mean. Its' biggest appeal to me is its' stability compared to the untracked saddles on the BBOT.
  11. Numerous big heavy brass bridges that tended to proliferate in the 1980s. The relationship between the saddles and the base plate effect the tone a lot ie have you got brass saddles on a steel base plate , or brass saddles on a steel base plate, for example. The Badass is zinc alloy, not brass, not brass, and that composition is a big part of its' sound . The BBOT is relatively lightweight and all steel, hence its characteristic sound. The Hipshot Kick donkey offers steel or brass saddle options for a different tone .Steel is supposed to be more open sounding with brighter overtones, and I would endorse that opinion. Brass saddles sound more mellow and focused , by comparison. I would be perfectly content with the BBOT if only it had tracked saddles!
  12. Bridges have a big effect on tone, but which is the right bridge for your bass is largely a matter of taste. What I will say is that on a Fender bass the BBOT bridge makes it sound the most" Fenderish", if that makes sense. Big heavy bridges take away from the classic sound of a P or J in some way or other. Some fancy bridges manage to retain the sound of Fender better than others and are just fine, but some are just too hifi sounding, for my taste at least. It's trade off, in the end. The Fender Hi Mass is probably a safe bet, and a Badass or replica is also a very acceptable substitute.
  13. All the P34's I have seen and tried are that kind of weight. It's about the same as most of the old 2024x's used to weigh.
  14. Thanks for that, I will mull it over. I suppose what I was trying to ask is, do they feel a lot slacker than the long scale set? And yes, you can have first refusal should I get it wrong. ๐Ÿ™‚ I am a big fan of TI's, but as a company TI are pretty eccentric both in their product range and string gauges. If they still made the old Superalloys and offered Jazz Rounds in conventional gauges they would sell a lot of strings.
  15. The other side of the coin is whether longer than standard scale ( ie 34 inch) basses could ever become a trend. The answer is no, because they are a lot harder to play, but they do offer as different a tonal palette as short scale basses do. Anthony Jackson , for example, favours 36 inch scale for his basses not because it tightens up his low B but because it changes the timbre of the notes, adding more harmonic content to the sound. But longer scales will never be widely adopted because they require a better technique and are likely to make most players sound worse than sound better. Nor is tighter string tension and wider fret spacing as appealing a tactile experience for most folks. By comparison , switching to short scale is more fun and easy. That is the biggest part of their appeal.
ร—
ร—
  • Create New...