Why do the old ones sound better?

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4000' post='1280900' date='Jun 24 2011, 04:55 AM']Whilst you can't hear age, you can hear difference. Obviously "better" (to the ears of the listener) may or may not correspond with "older" but it's quite feasible an older instrument (and this also potentially applies to newer ones of course), all other things being equal, may have a sound you prefer and that isn't imagined.[/quote]
I think for the statement old sounds better to be true you would have to more than just hear a difference and you'd have to be able to quantify that difference in some way that could be used to define other instruments. You can hear differences between 2 vintage instruments but couldn't attribute your favorite to the sound of the age of the instrument.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='charic' post='1280908' date='Jun 24 2011, 04:58 AM']Define "better" ?[/quote]
In this context it usually means favorite.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='paul h' post='1280934' date='Jun 24 2011, 05:17 AM']Seriously though folks, this raises some serious issues that need to be seriously addressed. Seriously. I think we should all club together and get the problem sorted. I'm serious.

Vibrating G String, you take musicians. Ou7shined you take custom luthiers. I will take the large guitar manufacturers. Can someone else take please pickup manufacturers?

Right, if we start emailing everyone now we should be able to tell everyone they are wrong within a year or so. I suggest the subject line "You are 100% WRONG". That should grab their attention.

VGS: I suggest starting with Marcus Miller. I once saw an interview with him where he claimed he preferred maple fingerboards because they were brighter. What an IDIOT! MILLER! You are 100% WRONG!

O7: Luthiers. Take your pick. They all seem to have opinions about wood. They are all WRONG! Maybe send them some links to plywood suppliers to help them out? That would be cool.

Whoever takes pickup manufacturers...GOOD LUCK is all I can say. Those bastards are always going on about how ceramic and alnico magnets sound different. It makes me sick.

GO GO GO! We've only got 24 hours to save the etc. etc.

[/quote]Wow, now that this has been characterized to a ridiculous extreme it seems I have to argue the contrary. Brilliant, if not a bit cliche and reaching. But I'm sure it was fun

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1281026' date='Jun 24 2011, 06:25 AM']I don't want to take on luthiers. They know better than anybody on the planet the properties of wood....[/quote]
And the years of working with loud power tools has fine tuned their ears to subtleties that can raise their prices substantially.

Most luthiers don't even know the real names of the woods they use. Try pointing at one of their guitars and asking is that acer rubrum or acer saccharinum and of the 2 which has the most symmetrical dimensional stability. Then ask if it's good for metal.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='paul h' post='1281032' date='Jun 24 2011, 06:28 AM']And I am not sure why your opinion is more valid than MM's. Mmm. Who to believe, random internet stranger, or top class professional bass player? Tough call.[/quote]
Oooh! Take the appeal to authority fallacy! Nothing beats that. Not without using science at least.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='4 Strings' post='1281688' date='Jun 24 2011, 11:50 PM']Kind of true, (certainly is about cars) but not too many Fender basses get junked.[/quote]

I don't think Fender did spares, so spare parts floating about were probably scrapped instruments, now they are reforming into 'original' instruments. The Jazz neck on a precision has got to often have been a jazz and a precision once. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth when a carved up vintage Fender appears on ebay, that was once pretty standard, some dude pried all his frets out with a butter knife, plenty copied that.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281307' date='Jun 24 2011, 09:50 AM']The market for vintage Fender basses must have very little to do with their sound and more to do with collectibilty and investment value.[/quote]It certainly did in when they were all being sold to those suckers in Japan who would pay $300 for an old ripped pair of jeans to go with it as they played dress up on the weekends in the park. Nowadays it's more about the better tone.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='JTUK' post='1281498' date='Jun 24 2011, 12:49 PM']Fender are capable of making crap basses now just as they were then..decent ones survived.[/quote]
I always thought that was backwards, wouldn't he decent ones have been played and those be the ones worn out? The crappy ones just got stuffed under the bed to be sold later.

[4000]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1281954' date='Jun 25 2011, 10:58 AM']I think for the statement old sounds better to be true you would have to more than just hear a difference and you'd have to be able to quantify that difference in some way that could be used to define other instruments. You can hear differences between 2 vintage instruments but couldn't attribute your favorite to the sound of the age of the instrument.[/quote]

You know, there's an echo in here....

[4000]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1281966' date='Jun 25 2011, 11:14 AM']And the years of working with loud power tools has fine tuned their ears to subtleties that can raise their prices substantially.

Most luthiers don't even know the real names of the woods they use. Try pointing at one of their guitars and asking is that acer rubrum or acer saccharinum and of the 2 which has the most symmetrical dimensional stability. Then ask if it's good for metal.[/quote]

So you have to know what's in a meal before you can say what it tastes like? I better get back in the kitchen.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4 Strings' post='1281688' date='Jun 24 2011, 03:50 PM']Kind of true, (certainly is about cars) but not too many Fender basses get junked.

They can be fiddled with and improved over the years, but even allowing for pickup magnets to change etc doesn't account for the excellent comment someone else made about the guitar sounds on some old recordings being fabulous. Just been to see the Fellowship up at the Chelmsford Bassment - the Guthrie Govan/Zac Barrett weekly meander - and the stand-in guitarist was using a pedal board run by his Mac and two Mackenzie powered wedges for amps. The days of wood, valves etc seemingly on the way out.[/quote]
Small world, I was just chatting with Guthrie a few hours ago

I used to see a lot more Fender parts getting thrown away, the twisted 70's necks that go for a fortune on eBay today were casually thrown away in the 80's as they were worthless junk. Those thousands of Might Mite necks were replacing something that was in the trash.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4000' post='1281991' date='Jun 25 2011, 03:32 AM']So you have to know what's in a meal before you can say what it tastes like? I better get back in the kitchen.[/quote]
If the argument was luthiers know the most and that's why we believe them is true then your statement would be an argument against that. If it doesn't matter what you know then the appeal to authority argument for luthiers is bogus. Can't really have both working at the same time

[4000]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1282000' date='Jun 25 2011, 11:38 AM']If the argument was luthiers know the most and that's why we believe them is true then your statement would be an argument against that. If it doesn't matter what you know then the appeal to authority argument for luthiers is bogus. Can't really have both working at the same time [/quote]

My argument was pointing out that it's not necessary for them to know the true name of a wood to know what it works/sounds like. Do you have to wear shades when you wipe your backside?

[gareth]

[quote name='4000' post='1282150' date='Jun 25 2011, 02:23 PM']Do you have to wear shades when you wipe your backside?[/quote]

well i suppose for some people it would be safer if they did so

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1281948' date='Jun 25 2011, 10:51 AM']This statement.

"todays wire will be 99.9999% perfect."

Not a lot of people here using the whole sentence [/quote]
Cheers for the reply. Some banter is always better than none.
No sorry I don't have any proof that modern wire is 99.9999% perfect.
I'd hoped that with it being such a ridiculous figure that most folk would have gotten the gist of what I was saying without taking it too literally.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1281966' date='Jun 25 2011, 11:14 AM']And the years of working with loud power tools has fine tuned their ears to subtleties that can raise their prices substantially.

Most luthiers don't even know the real names of the woods they use. Try pointing at one of their guitars and asking is that acer rubrum or acer saccharinum and of the 2 which has the most symmetrical dimensional stability. Then ask if it's good for metal.[/quote]
I think we may be taking a wander down "conjecture with some anecdotal content" lane again.... well you started it.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='4000' post='1281991' date='Jun 25 2011, 11:32 AM']So you have to know what's in a meal before you can say what it tastes like? I better get back in the kitchen.[/quote]

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1282000' date='Jun 25 2011, 11:38 AM']If the argument was luthiers know the most and that's why we believe them is true then your statement would be an argument against that. If it doesn't matter what you know then the appeal to authority argument for luthiers is bogus. Can't really have both working at the same time [/quote]

I can play certain chords on guitar that I'd have to look up the name of that fit in with some songs. What you're saying is that because I don't know the name of the chord, I can't know whether or not it sounds good.

Knowing the proper name for a wood doesn't change how it sounds or whether or not it'll work. So long as the luthier knows what they're working with and can do the job asked of them, it's not relevant whether or not they know what it's called. Hence they can still have expertise in their craft without knowing the names of the woods they're working with.

On occasion you can put up some great posts, but sometimes you seem to be making a real effort to simply be contrary to what people are saying rather than adding to the debate. You seem to be agreeing with the overall jist of the thread that old doesn't equate to better but still somehow seem to be kicking up a fuss by going on a tangent to the actual topic over specific points in a flood of replies to various posts.

Back on topic: AFAIK the mystical improvement in sound in older instruments still hasn't been pinpointed to any specific trait. Electric guitars are generally simple things, they're bits of wood bolted together that generate a signal using magnets and metal strings. Science would probably be able to detect any consistent differences between new and old instruments by now and since it hasn't, I can only assume there isn't one. There's all kinds of snake oil around though, even Sandberg (who's basses I love) have a master aging process that includes putting the bass on a machine that vibrates it for several days to try and replicate the natural aging process, I can't imagine it does anything though.

One thing that I sometimes attribute it to is that a well played bass [i]can[/i] feel nicer than a new one, older necks especially feel really nice when they're well played in IMO. Maybe the fact it feels better makes you more confident about it and in turn makes you think you sound better. Obviously it'd only work for basses that you're playing, but it's possible.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='4000' post='1282150' date='Jun 25 2011, 06:23 AM'] My argument was pointing out that it's not necessary for them to know the true name of a wood to know what it works/sounds like. Do you have to wear shades when you wipe your backside?[/quote]
But that was after trying the luthiers know more argument. I'll take the personal attack as your concession, or maybe just an indication of your personal fetishes.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1282638' date='Jun 25 2011, 04:09 PM']Cheers for the reply. Some banter is always better than none.
No sorry I don't have any proof that modern wire is 99.9999% perfect.
I'd hoped that with it being such a ridiculous figure that most folk would have gotten the gist of what I was saying without taking it too literally.[/quote]
But why assume that wire has made such amazing improvements and changes in tone without any evidence other than it would work nicely for your argument? There are other ways to discern facts than simply declaring them boldly.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1282639' date='Jun 25 2011, 04:10 PM']I think we may be taking a wander down "conjecture with some anecdotal content" lane again.... well you started it. [/quote]
No you did, no tapbacks

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1282648' date='Jun 25 2011, 04:16 PM']I can play certain chords on guitar that I'd have to look up the name of that fit in with some songs. What you're saying is that because I don't know the name of the chord, I can't know whether or not it sounds good.[/quote]No, that's a straw man argument that has no relation to anything said so far.
[quote]Knowing the proper name for a wood doesn't change how it sounds or whether or not it'll work. So long as the luthier knows what they're working with and can do the job asked of them, it's not relevant whether or not they know what it's called. Hence they can still have expertise in their craft without knowing the names of the woods they're working with.[/quote]If you think the most expertise is found in people that don't even know the names of what they work with then we really don't see eye to eye on what constitutes knowing more than anyone else.[quote]On occasion you can put up some great posts, but sometimes you seem to be making a real effort to simply be contrary to what people are saying rather than adding to the debate.[/quote]debate is often contrary, saying the same thing would be agreement. [quote]You seem to be agreeing with the overall jist of the thread that old doesn't equate to better but still somehow seem to be kicking up a fuss by going on a tangent to the actual topic over specific points in a flood of replies to various posts.[/quote]If you don't understand ask, I'll explain it to you. Many people are making non scientific claims and expecting them to be taken as fact. I happen to know a lot about wood and am offering information that comes from more objective sources than people that profit from the myths. I know this can cause a lot of fear in those who are heavily invested in those myths and they will often just try to attack the messenger without ever considering the points made, it's not uncommon.
[quote]Back on topic: AFAIK the mystical improvement in sound in older instruments still hasn't been pinpointed to any specific trait. Electric guitars are generally simple things, they're bits of wood bolted together that generate a signal using magnets and metal strings. Science would probably be able to detect any consistent differences between new and old instruments by now and since it hasn't, I can only assume there isn't one. There's all kinds of snake oil around though, even Sandberg (who's basses I love) have a master aging process that includes putting the bass on a machine that vibrates it for several days to try and replicate the natural aging process, I can't imagine it does anything though.[/quote]The shaking myth goes back at least 30 years.

There is a basic human trait where we assume that any interaction we have with something will be for the better, therefore anything we do to an instrument is by default an improvement. Calling a pickup change an upgrade no matte what the change for example. The problem comes when people get too invested in the myth and defend contradictions as an attack on them. You can see this in all the tone myths. And is why these tone discussions will always have people taking offense and getting upset.[quote]One thing that I sometimes attribute it to is that a well played bass [i]can[/i] feel nicer than a new one, older necks especially feel really nice when they're well played in IMO. Maybe the fact it feels better makes you more confident about it and in turn makes you think you sound better. Obviously it'd only work for basses that you're playing, but it's possible.[/quote]Any positive beliefs about an instrument will be perceived as an improvement over playing it without the beliefs. Any good salesman knows this. If it's a history or just your hero once played it they will all have marked effects on ones perception.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Vibrating G String

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1282762' date='Jun 26 2011, 07:22 AM']No, that's a straw man argument that has no relation to anything said so far.

If you think the most expertise is found in people that don't even know the names of what they work with then we really don't see eye to eye on what constitutes knowing more than anyone else.[/quote]

No, your point seemed to be that because luthiers don't know the names of the woods (something that I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with), it makes them unqualified to say whether they sound good or not. I disagree, names are just a label and as long as the luthier has experience with the woods, they could know what it would work with. Expertise and knowledge are different things.

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1282762' date='Jun 26 2011, 07:22 AM']debate is often contrary, saying the same thing would be agreement.[/quote]

You're not debating the topic, you're agreeing with the topic then being contrary to specific posts that have moved away from the topic. The topic's about whether or not older basses sound better than newer ones, yet you're making points about luthiers amongst many other unrelated things. Obviously threads twist and weave, but you seem to have come into the thread, seen that you agree with the general topic, then replied to every post you can disagree with one after another.

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1282762' date='Jun 26 2011, 07:22 AM']If you don't understand ask, I'll explain it to you. Many people are making non scientific claims and expecting them to be taken as fact. I happen to know a lot about wood and am offering information that comes from more objective sources than people that profit from the myths. I know this can cause a lot of fear in those who are heavily invested in those myths and they will often just try to attack the messenger without ever considering the points made, it's not uncommon.
The shaking myth goes back at least 30 years.

There is a basic human trait where we assume that any interaction we have with something will be for the better, therefore anything we do to an instrument is by default an improvement. Calling a pickup change an upgrade no matte what the change for example. The problem comes when people get too invested in the myth and defend contradictions as an attack on them. You can see this in all the tone myths. And is why these tone discussions will always have people taking offense and getting upset.Any positive beliefs about an instrument will be perceived as an improvement over playing it without the beliefs. Any good salesman knows this. If it's a history or just your hero once played it they will all have marked effects on ones perception.[/quote]

I do understand all that and my last post was basically saying the same thing and it's exactly what I'm trying to point out, you've worded it as though you're making an argument against what I said (like, for example, asking if I don't understand) when in actuality you're agreeing. I'm not trying to start an argument, but I expect a few people will agree that coming into a thread and seeing 4-5 posts in a row all from the same member and all being contrary to whatever's been posted before (however relevant to the topic) isn't great reading.

Anyway, carry on, I didn't want to make a big deal about it, I just wanted to make a quick point since a few people seemed frustrated with your posts. I won't go into a long debate over it.

[PauBass]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281307' date='Jun 24 2011, 05:50 PM']Thanks for all the replies.

It seems 100% unanimous that the old ones do not in fact sound better....

....I'm not surprised by the response on here, but I did expect there might be one or two people who thought the old ones sound better than the new and I had hoped some owners of early models would have given their opinion.

The market for vintage Fender basses must have very little to do with their sound and more to do with collectibilty and investment value.[/quote]

A bit late to the discussion but I do think that old Fenders sound better than modern ones. Not all of them of course, there's always been and will be really bad ones, that happened 40-50 years ago and it happens nowadays.
Why do I think they sound better? Not sure if it's because the wood used was better quality or that now after so long it has settled, or the time is been resonating.... or just magic but I do think there's a difference.
For those who think that wood has no effect on the bass sound, listen to a Warwick bass and you'll see how it really affects the tone.

[quote name='redstriper' post='1281332' date='Jun 24 2011, 06:17 PM']But none from anyone who thinks old Fenders sound better than new ones and I am surprised by the strength of that opinion.[/quote]

I firmly believe the good ones do sound better.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='1281434' date='Jun 24 2011, 07:59 PM']I'm a recent convert. Having been through LOTS of basses (see my sig) I finally bought a 1966 Precision at Xmas.

Astounding.

Outstanding.

I've had Alembic and Wal, Lakland and Status, Shuker and Goodfellow, etc.

They were all great basses, all far more competent as instruments than I will ever be as a player. But the 1966 Fender simply nailed THE sound, effortlessly. Flat EQ, no pedals, simple rig, game over, Fender wins.

Bear in mind that I am realistic enough to know that this vintage & rare, multi-£000s instrument is actually a mass-produced basic tool, bottom of the range at the time, put together by a bunch of low-paid guys who could never have guessed that it would still be around 45 years later and worth silly money too.

It doesn't sound good because I want it to, or because it cost me a lot of money, or because people tell me that old = better. It's just a genuinely excellent bass. Maybe that's because it's old. And then again, maybe it's not.

[/quote]

I have been there too, many top of the range basses, all great but in the end I went back to my old Fenders. My '66 Jazz is the one that has THE Sound too

This is all just my opinion, I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I won't be convinced by anyone either, each to their own but I can tell you, that without people knowing about the age of my basses they have all agreed the older ones sounded better to their ears.

Edited June 26, 2011 by PauBass

[BigRedX]

There are good and bad basses from most manufacturers every year. However for basses like Fenders, over the years the bad ones get destroyed, parted out or mod'd until they are good so by the time they are "old" most of the bad ones are long gone.

Remember that all these "old" basses were new at some point in their lives and many of the classic bass sounds on recordings from the 60s were done with instruments that were only a few years old at the time.

What I find interesting is that as time progresses it only seems to be Fenders that continue to go up in value even from the acknowledged less good periods of manufacture such as those from the late 70s. Form my personal experience of the time working in my local music shop the new Fender basses we were getting in were almost without exception horrible while the basses from Aria and Ibanez were in every respect far superior. Despite this, nowadays a late 70s Fender is generally worth far more than an Aria Pro II or Ibanez from the same year.