Bridgehouse

[quote name='Bass_Guardian' timestamp='1493044260' post='3285128'] The battery is purely for the knob lights. Gotta love knob lights... Pickups are passive [/quote] Even more interesting... Ugh. Gonna have to go try one I reckon. Someone please tell me this is madness.....!

[quote name='Bass_Guardian' timestamp='1493043042' post='3285112'] You can take the battery out the bass at the back so the lights don't come on. The pickups are passive. I regret selling mine to be honest. [/quote] Are the pickups passive/active or is the battery purely in there for the flashy bling lights? I must say, as a lightweight gigging bass it could be pretty cool. I didn't start this thread to generate more GAS....

[quote name='Bass_Guardian' timestamp='1493035740' post='3284989'] My Yamaha RBX A2 was incredibly light. Not sure if it was chambered or that. Will double check EDIT: There was one second hand at Bass Direct claiming it to be 7lbs [url="http://bassdirect.co.uk/bass_guitar_specialists/Yamaha_RBX4_A2_white.html"]http://bassdirect.co...4_A2_white.html[/url] [/quote] Oooo, those RBX4 A2's look really interesting. Not sure about the flashy lights, but I feel I may have to investigate more.. goddamit, I shouldn't have started this thread...

I kinda expect hollow or semi hollows to be a bit lighter. I'm probably thinking of the lightest solid body.. hmmmm.

To be fair, I'm not specifically looking - more out of interest I guess. I have a very lightweight guitar - a 1965 Epiphone Olympic, which checks in at 4.5lbs. Was wondering if there was a Bass equivalent of stupidly light but still conventional and playable. Some great suggestions so far, though!

I was musing over this recently - what is the lightest (weight) conventional (full body and headstock) bass available (past or present) ?

I've just got hold of a Mex classic 50's Precision - the Black non-relic Nitro one, and it's excellent. Should be able to get one just in budget new...

I think action is subjective. And it depends on the bass. And your technique. And the strings. And the direction of the wind etc.. I've been playing with the action on my 64 P recently. The exercise was to see what I preferred playing wise and tone wise. I swapped the TIs out for Chromes as I wanted a slightly higher tension feel - I figured I would probly go back to the TIs after a while. It's proven to be an interesting exercise. The board is now dead flat, which is surprising as it's a 7.5" radius and vintage frets. However, setting it flat, the best tone/playability action seems to be around 2mm E and 1.7 G - with the A and D at around 1.8 ish. Any lower and the tone just drops out a touch, any higher and it doesn't feel as good to play. Funnily enough I'm sticking with the Chromes and the action as it is as I'm liking the sound I'm getting. I'd describe it as a medium-low action and it seems to fit this particular bass just fine. Horses/courses and YMMV etc..

I've learned so much from this thread.

[quote name='LITTLEWING' timestamp='1491505496' post='3273631'] Helps if you played ordinary guitar, after that bass is a doddle. Listen to loads of music, attempt to play every style. Play at least 15 mins a day. (Keep this quiet but I take mine in when I have a poo) .....ah....maybe TMI..... [/quote] The headstock would bash against the loo roll holder in my loo. You must have a cavernous, Er, smallest room

[quote name='Chiliwailer' timestamp='1490959427' post='3269391'] mmm.. Lindy Fralin... [/quote] That thought had crossed my mind...

[quote name='Bigwan' timestamp='1490953434' post='3269314'] Saw that bass. I still kick myself daily for passing one of those (although the non-lacquer version) up at £350 in crack converters Belfast a couple of years ago... [/quote] I'm a convert. Serious quality for the cash. I have also learned a lot about how maple and body wood affects tone.

[quote name='Sibob' timestamp='1490947223' post='3269215'] Just out of interest, this model? https://www.gak.co.uk/en/fender-classic-series-50s-precision-bass-lacquer-black/113404?gclid=COeczv-igNMCFXEW0wodTtIAFw Si [/quote] Yes, that's the one. Mine is 2015 and used, and was half new price, well, a bit less. Really pleased as it does a good impression of a preCBS. I'm tempted to swap out the pickup, but it's fine for the moment.

Quick update: Saw a 50s classic advertised on here - black lacquer version. Went to try it today and bought it from a lovely BCer. I can confirm that the neck profile is identical to my 64. The maple feels a touch different, but not much. Frets are the same size. It does sound different, but I expected that. All in all I would say neck feel is 95% the same as the 64, and sound is probably 80% Very happy and now have a suitable muddy field bass

My 64 and 74 Ps sound quite different... One is a bit fatter and gnarlier, and a little more articulate, the other is deeper, more boomy and less grindy.....

[quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1490539307' post='3265775'] I'm on a similar path as yourself right now, except I'm being even fussier, I want a vintage 60s style P neck, wide and shallow, but with a compound radius, a modern bridge, modern/better access to the higher frets, as well as a vintage sound, in a rather fetching Sunderland AFC red! I promise I'm not too demanding! My search has taken me to custom built for sure! [/quote] I've really got used to the 7.5" radius on my 64. The old fender bridge has it's advantages too - easy to adjust string spacing and I've found it very easy to dial in the right string height and intonation settings - much easier than I thought it would be. Oh, and where are these higher frets that you speak of?

[quote name='Hooch' timestamp='1490530411' post='3265700'] I can do such a comparison on my Lakland P if it's any help. I think it's very close to the 64-shape, plus the vintagey frets. As for the differences, slab RW vs veneer one, flatter fingerboard board too. [/quote] It would be useful to know, thanks!

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1490516355' post='3265555'] That's very interesting. I'll have to do that! It's a shoulder thing for me too, less is good. [/quote] I wasn't sure it was going to be meaningful at first, but was pleasantly surprised by the result actually. As a comparator it gives a good account of itself.

[quote name='drake' timestamp='1490445785' post='3265186'] Don't think the Mike Dirnt Precision has been mentioned? A veritable telegraph pole of a neck and with a rosewood board too I think? [/quote] I think I've arrived at the conclusion that wide but slim with a very soft vee is the preference. I'm on the lookout for a classic 50s even tho they are maple, as I think the maple/rw thing is a red herring!

[quote name='LewisK1975' timestamp='1490372081' post='3264728'] Thanks! Not a member of the Fretboard, but now I may have to be... [/quote] There's actually quite a few bass builds over in the Making & Modding section. Bass traffic is low generally tho - much more expertise and experience over here!!

The maker is well known over on the fretboard - he doesn't advertise, and there's no website. Most of his sales are for a charity he helps to run. If you pop over there and search for gspbasses you'll see plenty of his builds. Sadly the only way I know to get in touch is through the fretboard. Sometimes he does a bulk sale of stuff he's done on the classifieds there and you can pick up a really good quality body and neck for circa £250 - £300. The quality is actually quite astounding..

If I changed my username to my #1, it would be the price of a 1st class stamp....

I hope I haven't accidentally started a rush on solder wire To be fair, it's actually been interesting trying to understand what I like about one neck shape compared to another. I always thought I preferred the 64 to the 74, and the 74 to the stingray. When looking at the profiles I can sort of see why - the 74 sits in between the two in terms of slimness, shoulder and profile. If the roadwoarn/classic 50's is even just in between the 64 and 74 in profile then I think I'm on to a winner.