How good are High End Basses?

[risingson]

I think the biggest thing is that people can buy what they want if they think it's worth it, it is after all your money and if you want make an investment in an instrument that is worth in excess of £2000 and can afford to do so then do it! So long as you enjoy playing it and suits what you do then it doesn't matter if the bass costs £100 or £100,000.

Personally, I don't have that kind of money, but if I did have some cash for a new bass, I'd probably go out and buy a Sadowsky. I've played a few and they very much suit the kind of bass player I am. Equally I wouldn't care if someone said I could only ever play my Lakland for the rest of my life. It does everything I want it to do and it gets the job done... I also think it's a marvelous instrument. People put too much emphasis on how much basses cost. Past a certain price point, things get incredibly subjective.

[Mog]

[quote name='thodrik' timestamp='1322422580' post='1450716']
I really don't understand at what point a bass becomes a 'high end bass'. I suppose we are comparing 'high end' to 'higher high end' when we compare Roscoe, Vigier, Spector etc to Ritter, Alembic and Fodera. At that point what is 'good' depends on the person playing it and what they want from the instrument. I have no need for a Ritter, Alembic or Fodera, but if somebody wants to buy one, then good for them.
[/quote]

Great post lad.

Back OT, I'd say that at a certain stage everything either becomes an embellishment or just downright ridiculous.Theres only so much a type of wood/alloy/pcb can do for your tone.

The posts regarding technical ability being enhanced by higher end gear are interesting. Can someone of this opinion answer what exactly the higher end basses offer compared to some budget stuff.

[stingrayPete1977]

I think there could be an age gap thing here to some extent, not so much with the £KKK's stuff but those who are mad for cheap stuff are either too young or possibly started playing later to remember what cheap tat was like ,please dont take offense and I know some people will of played some old Jap crap thats better than an Alleva etc, I like old cars in the same way as some people like '[i]interesting'[/i] basses, but Im not that old and the beginner stuff which was not that cheap really maybe £150 was terrible and Im 100% certain there are people out there that bought them/had them as Christmas presents who gave up playing long before they would if they had something like a Sue Ryder P never mind something as good as a new Squier. Im sure many of us remember all the sh*t makes Audition, Marlin, Hohner etc etc unplayable in many cases IME.

Edited November 28, 2011 by stingrayPete1977

[Sercet]

High end basses are quite good.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1322501520' post='1451664']
I think there could be an age gap thing here to some extent, not so much with the £KKK's stuff but those who are mad for cheap stuff are either too young or possibly started playing later to remember what cheap tat was like ,please dont take offense and I know some people will of played some old Jap crap thats better than an Alleva etc, I like old cars in the same way as some people like '[i]interesting'[/i] basses, but Im not that old and the beginner stuff which was not that cheap really maybe £150 was terrible and Im 100% certain there are people out there that bought them/had them as Christmas presents who gave up playing long before they would if they had something like a Sue Ryder P never mind something as good as a new Squier. Im sure many of us remember all the sh*t makes Audition, Marlin, Hohner etc etc unplayable in many cases IME.
[/quote]

Ah right that clears up an earlier question from someone - so anything over a Marlin is high end.

[stingrayPete1977]

A Marlin has High action if that counts?

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1322502907' post='1451710']
A Marlin has High action if that counts?
[/quote]
Touché.

[stingrayPete1977]

My mate had a Hohner strat copy, the action was about a quarter of an inch at the twelfth fret and the frets were only a shade straighter than Grand Wazoo's Dingwall ones

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1322489906' post='1451390']
I don't know about anybody else but my high-end basses are made out of equal quantities of Carbon Fibre, Aluminium and Wood.
[/quote]

You are not alone.
Except the proportions of the above materials vary with differing basses.

And on an "insane attention-to-detail" note, I bet few manufacturers have their company logo etched onto their circuit board and then coated with solder. Makes me smile every time I open the control cavity of my Vigier to change the batteries....
Even more pointless than the umbrellas that pop out of Rolls Royce rear door edges, but does demonstrate the care and attention that goes into "high-ish end" instruments. If they're [i]that[/i] obsessive, you can imagine what the rest of the build quality is like.
You guessed. Amazing.

(What follows is not an attempt at justifying an expensive instrument (because I don't actually have to) but hopefully an alternative way of looking at how the costs of owning a high-end bass (don't) mount up)

Unlike many of the metaphors previously used (cars, golf clubs etc.) I think a good instrument represents good value for money. Instruments are [i]generally[/i] well cared-for, and prove to be more durable than (for example) an expensive car.
My Dad's replaced his club/s more often than I have bought basses (alright, he doesn't have 9 full sets, but you get the idea...) and I'll be damned if he plays golf for 14+ hours a week!
My Vigier is 16 years old in Jan 2012, but is still a superb instrument. No more durable than a Squier, but it's still as good as it ever was...
When you spread the "increased" cost of ownership over that sort of time period, expensive instruments start to look like quite good value!
Have I had £81.25 worth of entertainment each year out of it? Certainly. Has it incurred any maintenance costs besides new batteries and re-stringing? No.

Is my smile broader when I play it than when I play other basses? With the exception of my Streamline, measurably. And though your basses may vary, I suspect you enjoy your best bass just that little bit more, too.
It wouldn't be your best otherwise, would it?

[Martyn Mulligan]

My first post here and I'd like to chime in and say this. I tried out a MIM Jazz Bass and at the same time tested a Squier 'Classic Vibe' vintage Jazz Bass. I can say hand on heart the Squier was a lot nicer than the MIM Fender. It sounded and played much better, this is of course my opinion.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Martyn Mulligan

[chilievans]

Quite an amazing response there guys with some interesting views

[Muzz]

I enjoy my best bass more than the others, too. My best bass is the second cheapest I've had in twenty years.

The Shukers, Rick, Overwater and Goodfellow came and went, as did the Ray, the US Ps and Js, the 70s J, and the NT $$. All well made, some very very well made, but my two faves are frankenbuilds which really really suit me. I'm glad I owned the higher end stuff ( and the standard stuff), it taught me what I like and what I don't, and the fact that, for me, it ain't all about pound signs.

[gadget]

I've been following this thread, and found quite a number of interesting perspectives, so thought that I'd add mine.....

Over the years I've owned somthing like 19 basses. Everything from cheap Hohners and Corts, to Stingrays, to Overwaters, Pedullas, Goodfellows (GB) and many others. The one that I've settled with is a Shuker. Its the third or forth Shuker I've owned, and the only thing I would consider changing it for would be a Jerzy Drozd Legend.

To pick up on some comments here... Does my Shuker make me a better player? Absolutely! It makes playing a lot easier, and feels perfect to me, which frees my hand to flow better. I had my concerns about having a bass custom made for me, as I tend to also fall into the camp of 'try before you buy' players. But as mentioned, I had owned a few Shukers already, and knew that they all felt great, and played incredibly comfy. When getting this bass made, I requested that Jon make the neck as much like a Stingray 5 as possible, whilst maybe making it a tad slimmer. I asked this as I have always found the Stingray necks to be incredibly well suited to me. He couldn't have done this better. I can go into any shop, and pick up a Stingray, and I'm instantly at home, and familiar with its feel. So why did I bother with a custom bass if a Stingray suited me so well? Well, theres a couple of factors here. Firstly, comfort aspects... I wanted a hollow body to increase sustain, and reduce weight for my poorly back. Secondly, I wanted specific woods to help with tonal characteristics. I'm a big fan of maple, and love the sustain and tone it provides. For those who don't believe in woods affecting the tone, it makes a potentially large difference, and certain woods used in certain combinations can really emphasize specific tonal qualities. Thirdly, I also wanted a bass that was unique to me. There is no quantification on how much a bass that is specifically unique to you can lift your 'game' so to speak, and in my case, this bass certainly lifted it significantly. I find myself doing riffs on this bass, without even thinking about it, that I otherwise wouldn't even attempt on another bass. So, yes, for me at least, owning a custom high end bass has made me a better player.

To get more specific to the OT, if I understand correctly, you are asking whether a High end bass of the calibre of Fodera, Ritter, and even Smith is worth the extra money compared to 'cheaper' custom high ends like Shuker or Sei (never thought I'd consider Sei cheaper)?

If thats the case, then its a difficult one to answer? Technically, that Ritter for example would not play THAT much better than the Shuker, but small differences can make a world of playing as I can contest to. Really, a bass manufacturer like Ritter (specifically its more pricey basses) are aimed at collectors, who will most likely stick the bass into a glass case on the wall, and maybe even never get it out to play it? They do have lower end basses that are still pricey, even compared to Shukers and Sei's, and still look like furniture, and will be played generally in studios or special occasions. In essence, the additional price tag hte likes of Ritters brings is purely the labour of love that is put into these basses. This is not to say that Shukers do not have as much love 'laboured' on them, but I would guess that when Jon set up shop, at least until he gets a big name for himself, he has priced his basses to sell, whilst making just enough profit to survive, and develop the company. This is a good business model for a reletively unknown luthier. Ritter on the other hand have specifically gone the opposite way, and aimed their basses at collectors and enthuasiasts with lots of Moola, whilst still having some basses in almost reachable price ranges.

So, if you want a practicle tool of the trade, the Shuker is more likely a better solution, but if you want a work of art that will hold its value, or possibly increase, especially if you never intend to play it, then the Ritter becomes a viable solution. Personally, I see little point in owning a bass that you never play, or are afraid to get out its case, incase a dust particle settles onto its finish. But as many have mentioned, if you've got the money to buy one, and it works for you as a player, then theres no reason why you shouldn't spend the extra cash at all. It won't be THAT much better than an equivalent Shuker that the price justifies it, but if it encourages the player to pick the bass up and play more/better than the Shuker does (which being a shuker player would find hard to believe), then its worth every penny.

Just a comment about Sadowsky's.... Lots of people here love them, and wish they could own one, but for me, they do absolutely nothing for me. They just look like an over rated Fender copy. No I've never played one, but not being a fan of Fenders to begin with, it would be pointless, as the aesthetics of the bass do not inspire me to pick it up, even if it plays great. Aesthetics are also a large aspect of playability for me, so Fender copy is not gonna cut it for me. Having said that, I'd love to get another Shuker Jazz bass. I find these to be a great 'copy'. Surely that makes no sense I hear you ask? Well, the Shuker Jazz basses have a smaller more comfortable body than the originals, and as stated, I like the feel of the Shuker necks, which brings this bass back into contention. I feel the same way about the Lakland 55-06 Jazz copy, where the neck works for me, and the body is suitably different to not be too much of an original Fender Jazz. Each to their own. Just to quantify, before any one gets offended, I am not dissing Fenders, although I've had plenty of reason to over the years, but am rather just stating that for me personally, they don't work. If they work for you, thats great. For me I just can't get on with them, and find them overpriced for what they are.

Regards
G!

[thumperbob 2002]

I have two basses now, a Lowend Jazz bass 5 string- bought from this site for £750- now they are £2500+ It was set up in the most terrible way- almost unplayable. After set up and the correct strings etc it is my main bass. I play in a soul band and it just looks "right" and sounds amazing. It can do anything- slap, fingerstyle- tapping- can sound like a P or a high end active Jazz.

Took the Warwick Thunb NT 5 out of its case yesterday- for one reason or another I havent played this for probably a year. What an amazing bass!! Retail when I bought this new was over £2400. To be honest this is twice the bass the Lowend is- plays so good- for fingerstyle I cannot amagine a bass that plays better. However in my soul band it just looks "wrong"

Was thinking of selling it recently but as soon as I plugged it in yesterday I know that it is a keeper.

[4000]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1322489376' post='1451378']
Perhaps to bring this back to the OP question, there's no doubt the quality of workmanship in these instruments, some of it is breathtaking, but is it necessary? Do we benefit from such lush finishes, exotic materials, perfection in shaping etc when the vast majority (and some of the best) music that uses a bass guitar was played on a mass produced instrument with a bolt on neck? No matter how perfect the neck joint I cannot play like Jamerson or Pastorius. No perfection in craftsmanship, no matter how beautiful, no improved neck stabilising design will help me play like Seth Govan, nor even my mate, Sam who always sound and play much better than me and use basses with a painted finish and bolted construction.
[/quote]

Is that all a musical instrument should be? A functional tool? Not to me. IMO it should be a work of art in itself. Playability matters a great deal to me (although as BRX quite rightly states, playability is different things to different people; at the Moffat bash several people struggled with my Sei as the action was too low for them, because they play differently than me.)

I believe that a musical instrument should inspire on all levels, sonically, ergonomically, aesthetically. Obviously different people have different requirements for each of those categories; one may like the sound/feel/look of a Fender over that of an Alembic, while another may feel the opposite. Some may like both. My personal favourites are Alembic and Rickenbacker but many here don't like either.

IME, there is no "better" bass, and over 30+ years I've played a lot, at all price points. There is only the best bass for YOU. It could be cheap, mid-priced, or hugely expensive. What you will get as you go higher up the price bracket is better fit and finish, more expensive woods, more expensive electronics. It may be that none of this is relevant to you, or you're unable to perceive any of the "advantages". It may even simply be certain basses don't fit your music or style.

A guitarist friend, a former US Fender/PRS/US Hamer player, once walked into a local guitar shop to buy a Strat and came out with a Squire, because "it sounded more like a Strat than the others". Generally speaking I'm happiest with fairly up-market through-necked basses, but I've played cheap basses that in practical terms have matched many of them. The thing is, for many it's not just about "practical terms". Otherwise, why do we play music at all? What point is there in art? Again, it comes down to individual perspective.

[4 Strings]

So does an artist only use paintbrushes or pencils which have been beautifully carved from the finest and most expensive materials with the latest carbon fibre finger pads? Or is the art the output of these basic tools in the hands of an artist?

If designing and producing such pencils and paintbrushes for artists is a wonderful new and untapped business opportunity do you think it will be because professional artists will buy them, or well-off amateurs?

[molan]

Just in reference to the post about Ritters, I play mine every day, the first bass in a while that yells out to be played every time I walk past it.

When my band gets itself back into gigging mode (long story!) then I totally intend to gig it.

My previous #1 gigging bass was my '86 Fodera, another lovely bass that works really well as a live gigging 'tool'

[4000]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1322575347' post='1452871'] So does an artist only use paintbrushes or pencils which have been beautifully carved from the finest and most expensive materials with the latest carbon fibre finger pads? Or is the art the output of these basic tools in the hands of an artist? If designing and producing such pencils and paintbrushes for artists is a wonderful new and untapped business opportunity do you think it will be because professional artists will buy them, or well-off amateurs? [/quote]

Speaking personally I use the best brushes and paints I can afford, but that's not really the point. Your post is still about the end result, with the brush as a tool, however nice. Why can't the brush itself be a beautiful, beautifully made object? To me a musical instrument should be, as I've said before, functional art. If that's not how you see it, then that's my point exactly. We all see it differently.

[4 Strings]

As Lance Armstrong said, 'Its not about the bike' (the statement carrying its weight as he was given the best the world could produce).

My point was that for hobbyists it often is.

[stingrayPete1977]

People pay £3-4 grand all the time for a boiler or buy a new car that loses thousands as soon as you pull off the forecourt even the best cars for holding their value like VW or BMW will lose a Stingray 5 at full rrp (£1900?ish) a year, by the time a cars had its first mot your down two Roscoes!

[Mog]

So what you're saying is we should all cycle to gigs?

[stingrayPete1977]

I guess anyone using anything more than a 3 speed Raleigh with a basket is a show off and doesn't need all the extra low gears

[Mog]

Aw crap, so thats a high end bass, a high performance motor and now my new fangled mountain bike that I've to get rid of?

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Mog' timestamp='1322598444' post='1453417']
So what you're saying is we should all cycle to gigs?
[/quote]

Just bought a BF Midget so, of course!
[attachment=94162:bike to gigs.jpg]

[leroydiamond]

I use a saddowsky nyc, a 1964 fender jazz and a Jaydee roadie but the nicest bass I ever played was a mates old Japanese squier jazz bass!