CameronJ

Oh god, I remember this. A comical exchange.

This is exactly the V7 I’ve been eyeing up for months now. @jonnybass your photo makes the colour look very tasty!

The only practical benefit I can see for stringing through the body is for a bass like certain Rickenbackers with a crap bridge which wants to lift at the back. String through the body = problem solved! Other than that, it doesn’t change the speaking length of the string so I can’t see it benefitting me. And I’ve owned basses with through-body stringing.

Another price drop and shipping is now an option!

One of the only PJs I’ve played with a J pup which holds its own against the P is my old Yamaha BB1025x. It’s no joke. But yeah, it’s difficult to get a pup in that position to have as much authority as the pup closer to the neck. There’s a reason the likes of Sandberg and Lakland produce so many basses with a big MM style humbucker in the bridge position coupled with their neck pickup.

So how is it @TheMaartian?

Love me a nice punchy and round glass of Chateauneuf du Pape.

Ah, you’re right. I wasn’t paying attention!

The maple boarded ‘77p is definitely the brightest of the bunch here, but what often annoys me about these videos is that they almost never state whether the basses are all wearing the same strings or not! I’d like to hear the test with the same strings and same pickups in every bass.

Wow, I wasn’t expecting the SR5 to look as good as it does without a pickguard. It really works!

Somewhat off-topic but I’ve never seen a Thumpinator in that kind of housing before! Pretty cool...

I use these on stage and at home - well worth the money for a hassle free, no nonsense DI box that’s built to last and won’t let you down. Utterly flawless!

When there are so many variables in the construction of an electric bass which contribute to the final sound, it baffles me why some people obsess over the sonic signature of fingerboard wood as though it’s the be-all and end-all. A luthier building a bass is arguably more likely to use a particular section of rosewood because it has a visually appealing grain pattern than for how it sounds. The best looking grain doesn’t necessarily equate to the “best” sound. And there’s no real way of knowing how it’ll sound until you put the damn thing on the bass anyway. Since wood is an organic material with natural variances, It’s possible to find a particular sample of rosewood which is sonically brighter than a particular sample of maple. It is something of an imperfect science, given the cocktail of contributing factors. I just choose whichever wood looks best on that particular model of bass and get on with it. After all, you can’t exactly change the fingerboard on your bass once it’s built (well, you can, but at great effort and expense.) Call me a heathen but I’m of the opinion that simply changing your strings has way more of an audible effect on tone than whether your bass has a maple or rosewood fingerboard - or any other wood for that matter. And then you get into pickups and circuitry, active preamp characteristics, capacitor values, VVT vs VBT on a 2 pickup bass, selector switches vs blend pots in terms of how they load the pickups, high mass vs lower mass bridges, nut material, nut only vs zero fret, fret material, headless vs headed. The list goes on. For what it’s worth, I used to prefer the “clean” look of maple boards but now much prefer my basses to have darker fingerboard woods like rosewood/wenge/ebony, simply because I prefer the visual contrast against the strings and frets - makes it easier for me to glance down and know where I am faster, especially in certain lighting conditions. Might sound weird to some but hey, it gives me some degree of comfort!