John Paul Jones E-Bass

[EBS_freak]

In the interest of being fair to Manson's, I have edited this post. In summary, photographer at BGM shot pictures of the bass with the string being incorrectly places in the saddle... which made everything look on the piss...

Hope this is fair as I wouldn't want to be unfair.

For the sake of discussion, here is the other point I made -

Anyway, my favourite bit of the whole article is the headstock talk though - about moving the dead spot in the neck. Hugh has gone for small... and in contrast, Jimmy Coppolo has gone for the reverse to cure the same "problem"(?). Just goes to show... draw your own conclusions! There's a lot of "opinions" in this game!

Edited October 3, 2010 by EBS_freak

[voxpop]

I've just had a look at page 50 and I think its not 'sitting' in the saddle groove correctly. Its just sitting on the top of the saddle.??

Edited October 3, 2010 by voxpop

[EBS_freak]

Check page 43... too much of a coincidence?

[voxpop]

Use this link, go to page two and zoom in on the bridge, it has been photographed with the string sitting on the saddle.
[url="http://www.bassguitarmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=427&Itemid=101"]http://www.bassguitarmagazine.com/index.ph...&Itemid=101[/url]

Edited October 3, 2010 by voxpop

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='voxpop' post='976241' date='Oct 3 2010, 06:23 PM']Use this link, go to page two and zoom in on the bridge, it has been photographed with the string sitting on the saddle.
[url="http://www.bassguitarmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=427&Itemid=101"]http://www.bassguitarmagazine.com/index.ph...&Itemid=101[/url][/quote]

Zoom in and you can see the exposed silver of the slot on the saddle...? Its the same in the printed magazine - page 5.

[Clarky]

On p43 the G string looks too far from the edge of the board so my vote is that the string wasn't sat on the saddle properly and that BGM supplied the photo, from the set it took with the review.

Still think its over-priced compared with a good UK luthier build (eg, Shuker) - and when have you seen BGM say a bass is poor/disappointing/overpriced? Their reviews always gild the lily IMHO but we've been down that route before in other threads

[EBS_freak]

Jeez, how can BGM neglect to check that strings are in the saddles properly? It's not difficult - especially when they routinely set the machine heads so they are facing directly forward...

OK, maybe I need to see one of these things in the flesh so to speak...

As for the guilding of the lily - yeah, I know what you mean!

[EBS_freak]

This looks better!

[url="http://www.mansons.co.uk/shopping/categories/manson-signature-guitars-basses/manson/e-bass-john-paul-jones-signature-bass-guitar/zoomimage-1.html"]http://www.mansons.co.uk/shopping/categori...oomimage-1.html[/url]

[stingrayPete1977]

Can I just say I dont even know what these dead spots are? How do I check for them and if its true how can headless,small head,big head or totally stolen from my supposed flat spotted MM shape (sadowsky) all be right? Im not trying to be a C**t and everyone keeps comes out with this "Go tell Jimmy you know more than him" smart arse reply to ,Which I dont claim at all as I would not know where to begin designing a bass but they cant all be right can they?

Please can we have some sensible answers on this and all behave rather than just defending your own brand which lets face it you have not personally designed the headshape even if you have had input on the overall outcome.Thanks and again lets all behave including me (Tino is barred again anyway so if ever there was a time to trash this out)

[Clarky]

I've no idea whether right or wrong but I would say it sounds logical that greater headstock mass reduces dead spots. My logic is as follows: well known players like Leland Sklar (who knows a thing or two about bass) use the clamp thing on the headstock which adds mass and clearly believe in it, thus a headstock with more mass/weight will replicate this better than a downsized headstock, all else equal. Probably b*llocks but makes sense to me.

[xilddx]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='976238' date='Oct 3 2010, 06:21 PM']Check page 43... too much of a coincidence?[/quote]
Heh heh! You are absolutely correct. The G is clearly not sitting in the saddle.

I don't believe a word of this dead spots headstock thing, there are more factors than the size of the 'stock. The wood itself is probably the biggest problem.

[philw]

[quote name='Clarky' post='976312' date='Oct 3 2010, 07:17 PM']I've no idea whether right or wrong but I would say it sounds logical that greater headstock mass reduces dead spots. My logic is as follows: well known players like Leland Sklar (who knows a thing or two about bass) use the clamp thing on the headstock which adds mass and clearly believe in it, thus a headstock with more mass/weight will replicate this better than a downsized headstock, all else equal. Probably b*llocks but makes sense to me.[/quote]

It's an enormously complicated phenomenon, but bead spots in a neck are influenced by not just the mass of the headstock but by at least five other parameters also: the mass of the body, the rigidity of the neck (and truss rod), string tension, the mechanical damping inherent in the neck, and the rigidity of the neck/body join (actually there's other factors, body rigidity for example, but those six are the major ones). The basic requirement for no dead-spots is to get the fundamental headstock-neck-body resonance above any of the resonant fundamentals of the strings (i.e .the notes!) So, what works for one bass in terms of headstock mass may be wrong for another bass. As a general rule however, reducing mass in a resonant system will increase its fundamental resonant frequency, so a lighter headstock (or no headstock) would seem to be preferable. However, it's also possible that a heavier headstock might on some instruments be beneficial through the phenomenon of "mass damping" where a mass compliantly attached to a resonant system can be tuned to act as a mechanical energy "sink" and kill the resonance (which is probably what Leland Sklar discovered).

Phil

PS. I don't know about Bass Guitar Mag but most magazines use external photography studios. Review samples will usually go to be photographed before they are reviewed too ('cause reviewers are notoriously bad at returning review samples on time). So in the case of the Manson and it's incorrectly installed G string, it's probable that the bass was photographed before anybody from BGM saw it. Some luthiers slacken strings when shipping instruments too, so the G could quite easily have popped out of its saddle. The only crime here is that the picture editor on BGM didn't spot it (or maybe they did and simply didn't have time to re-shoot or re-touch).