Vintage Instruments: Quality or Psychosomatics?

[Bluewine]

1 minute ago, Bridgehouse said:

It's definitely not vintage 

This is my 1991 Gibson Thunderbird, but who knows. I'll never know what the difference is unless I play the Benton.

Blue

[Bridgehouse]

13 minutes ago, Bluewine said:

This is my 1991 Gibson Thunderbird, but who knows. I'll never know what the difference is unless I play the Benton.

Blue

I did a HB project once and I was surprised just how good it was for the money. 

If previous experience stacks up I suspect:

- Frets will need a teeny bit of fettling to feel smooth at the edges

- Body and neck fit and finish will be very good

- Tuners might need replacing

- Pickups will be pretty bland

- Electronics will be a bit average

Having said that, for the money, they are one of the better budget buys

[Count Bassy]

1 hour ago, FinnDave said:

To my understanding, the tension is the force that the string exerts between nut and bridge. A string requires less tension to provide a lower frequency fundamental, so increasing its thickness (gauge) restores the tension to that of a thinner string tuned to a higher frequency.

Though I may well be wrong, I'm just a bass player, standing at the back, next to the drummer, not attracting any attention.

This. Tension is the force on the ends of the cable, irrespective of gauge.

'Same pitch, fatter string' or 'higher pitch, Same string' both require more tension.

Whether a B string tuned to B or an E String  tuned to E requires more tension depends on their relative gauges (assuming the same materials), so it is possible that going from EADG to BEAD will actually reduce the total force on the neck.  Of course fitting an additional string without changing the others will always add  to the load on the neck.
 

[FinnDave]

2 minutes ago, Count Bassy said:

This. Tension is the force on the ends of the cable, irrespective of gauge.

'Same pitch, fatter string' or 'higher pitch, Same string' both require more tension.

Whether a B string tuned to B or an E String  tuned to E requires more tension depends on their relative gauges (assuming the same materials), so it is possible that going from EADG to BEAD will actually reduce the total force on the neck.  Of course fitting an additional string without changing the others will always add  to the load on the neck.
 

Yes, but I am saying fatter string, lower pitch, given some experience or advice, = same tension. BEAD simply means moving the EAD strings one position over, ditching the G string and adding a fat B string to fill the gap where the E used to be. I know it works, I've done it, and since that project ended have reverted to EADG tuning using 3 of the 4 strings, plus the G string, with no adjustments required.

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, mcnach said:

 

Yes, I am saying exactly that. 

Just check the figures, or even use a crude dynamometer to check it yourself before dismissing it as rubbish

 

The strings (typically) don't have the same tension, the treble end tends to be at higher tension than the lower end. Going BEAD (typically) makes this more even, if anything!

A neck constructed from properly dried wood, using the right cut (fibre orientation) is a pretty solid thing that resists pretty well against imbalanced string tension, fortunately, as we've observed for decades on steel stringed instruments. But wood is variable and sometimes stinky poo happens... However, tuning BEAD (say using 125-65 gauges) is actually less stressful for a neck than tuning EADG (105-45), for most strings.

I think we are slightly at cross purposes here.

You are saying that BEAD may be no worse than EADG. Yup agreed - depending on the overall tension and string guage combination.

What I'm saying is that BEADG (5 strings) is more force than EADG (4 strings), and that it's incorrect to say that adding a B string makes no difference. It does.

[mcnach]

26 minutes ago, FinnDave said:

Yes, but I am saying fatter string, lower pitch, given some experience or advice, = same tension. BEAD simply means moving the EAD strings one position over, ditching the G string and adding a fat B string to fill the gap where the E used to be. I know it works, I've done it, and since that project ended have reverted to EADG tuning using 3 of the 4 strings, plus the G string, with no adjustments required.

 

Yup. 

(apparently I run out of 'likes' today )

[mcnach]

Just now, Al Krow said:

I think we are slightly at cross purposes here.

You are saying that BEAD may be no worse than EADG. Yup agreed - depending on the overall tension and string guage combination.

What I'm saying is that BEADG (5 strings) is more force than EADG (4 strings), and that it's incorrect to say that adding a B string makes no difference. It does.

 

Oh, yeah, of course... 5-string! It's one louder, innit?

Yes, I only joined talking about the B string not being particularly high tension (at the normal gauges used)... and used the EADG vs BEAD as an example of what I sometimes hear... and then we got all muddled up.   I think we agree... dang, it's so boring when we agree.

RED BASSES SOUND BETTER!!!!

(let's see if that does the trick)

[Grangur]

2 minutes ago, mcnach said:

Oh, yeah, of course... 5-string! It's one louder, innit?

Yes, I only joined talking about the B string not being particularly high tension (at the normal gauges used)... and used the EADG vs BEAD as an example of what I sometimes hear... and then we got all muddled up.   I think we agree... dang, it's so boring when we agree.

RED BASSES SOUND BETTER!!!!

(let's see if that does the trick)

Can we please see your reference material that substantiates this claim?

[Al Krow]

 

17 minutes ago, mcnach said:

Oh, yeah, of course... 5-string! It's one louder, innit?

Yes, I only joined talking about the B string not being particularly high tension (at the normal gauges used)... and used the EADG vs BEAD as an example of what I sometimes hear... and then we got all muddled up.   I think we agree... dang, it's so boring when we agree.

RED BASSES SOUND BETTER!!!!

(let's see if that does the trick)

Lol! Us woosy larger drinking southerners tend to find B strings more commonly on 5ers, which was my starting point...

Big RED X's basses do sound better I agree. You seen his collection? @BigRedX time to dig your pics out for us. Some of them will be 'vintage' ish and would qualify for posting on this thread. Well at least as much as my clip of the Bangles 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Al Krow

[FinnDave]

11 minutes ago, mcnach said:

RED BASSES SOUND BETTER!!!!

(let's see if that does the trick)

Hang on, I've not got a red one yet!

[Cuzzie]

I have 2 red basses and compared to the white bass I have I sound equally as stinky poo or doubly as good

[Bluewine]

4 hours ago, Bridgehouse said:

I did a HB project once and I was surprised just how good it was for the money. 

If previous experience stacks up I suspect:

- Frets will need a teeny bit of fettling to feel smooth at the edges

- Body and neck fit and finish will be very good

- Tuners might need replacing

- Pickups will be pretty bland

- Electronics will be a bit average

Having said that, for the money, they are one of the better budget buys

I guess my take away is, when I was a teen back in the 60s you couldn't buy a decent bass for $149.00.

Do the rest  of you seniors, 60 + guys agree?

Blue

[durhamboy]

On ‎2‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 03:27, Frank Blank said:

See, here is where I show my utter ignorance. I don't know what a tonewood is! These are the things I'm trying to learn, your comment is a perfect example of a possible reason why vintage instrument may be superior to a modern one.

Tonewood. A wood that produces a pleasing tone, (that being dependent on what tone profile is/was wanted) generally accepted to be more relevant to acoustic instruments, for example, rosewood back and sides to produce a dense sound reflective surface and spruce for the top to create a vibrating soundboard. A classic Martin might be Mahogany neck, ebony fretboard, rosewood back and sides and a spruce top. Pre about 1930ish it would be finished with shellac, later with nitrocellulose. In electric guitars and basses many of the same woods are used, plus a number that would not be traditional (at least to American big name makers). Ash, alder poplar, basswood and a few others aren't commonly used in acoustics. Leo Fender made his first guitar prototypes with pine bodies, but switched to ash because pine got damaged too easily, (though pine bodies, especially for Tele type guitars has become popular in recent years) his necks were always maple in the early years, added rosewood fret boards appeared after several years of production. So generally guitar and bass tonewoods will be timbers which produce a defined tap tone and a degree of sustain. The thump of damp cardboard wouldn't be the sort of sound we're after. While some woods, ash, mahogany etcetera, are regarded as "standards", in reality any well dried/seasoned wood with a decent tap tone will work, whether they all provide a tone we might want, or have become accustomed to, will only be apparent once the instrument is made.

Does any of that mean that a vintage instrument will be better than a new one? Possibly not, wood is a natural product, trees grow under different conditions, one piece of a particular species may be denser, lighter, harder grown, younger or older than another when it goes into an instrument. Years won't change that, though the wood may be exposed to various environmental conditions which might have an effect. (Years of temperature fluctuation, changing humidity levels and climatic conditions, which may add up to degrees of cellular change, for better or worse.) Is an old piece of mediocre wood going to be better for being old, or better than a top grade piece of newly seasoned and dried wood?   

My first electric guitars and basses were made from Tasmanian native timbers, myrtle, mountain ash and blackwood, because I was in Tasmania at the time and it was in the 1970's, no internet or ebay and sourcing mahogany, maple, rosewood etcetera was very difficult. These days many guitar and bass builders use a variety of timbers, that Leo and the old Gibson builders would never have considered, yet good to great sounding instruments are produced from them. There are other factors to be consider besides tone, when selecting suitable timbers for instruments, the stability of the wood once cut and dried, it's resistance or otherwise to splitting, checking, or the degree of shrinkage which might occur are all factors along with weight and durability. (eg. A dense hard wood for a fretless base fingerboard, as opposed to an easily worn and gouged soft wood.)

Mahogany is considered to have a "warmer" tone than ash, and alder is described as a good all round, sort of middle compromise, (poplar, likewise sort of middle range) while maple is very bright. Warmoth used to have a list of the woods they offered  necks and bodies in with a tone rating from warm to bright. I don't know if it is still on their website, but it might be worth a look.

Regardless of how we hear or don't hear tonal differences, the debate about whether different timbers and finishes actual make much difference to the sound an amplified instrument makes will go on as long as there are musicians to hear, or think they hear, them. For me, given pickups, strings, bridges, electric, all the same I believe I can hear differences at low volume, in a close environment between distinctly different timbers, (home recording or practicing) listening to a band at high volume, with effects, ambient room acoustics etcetera, I doubt it.  As I only apply finishes as thinly as possible to provide a protective coating, I don't think there is much difference between them. My personal preference is for shellac and oil finishes, but that has as much to do with the feel I prefer, plus a consideration for years of accumulated exposure to environmental and industrial pollution as well as carcinogenic compounds in paints and varnishes, particularly in nitrocellulose.

I hope at least some of my rambling thoughts add something to your information base.

[Cuzzie]

great right there

[Steve Browning]

7 hours ago, Bluewine said:

I guess my take away is, when I was a teen back in the 60s you couldn't buy a decent bass for $149.00.

Do the rest  of you seniors, 60 + guys agree?

Blue

Definitely. When I was learning there were no Squiers etc. My first bass was a Columbus Jazz which was adequate but nothing more. The range of affordable (and very good) beginners gear is amazing.

[FinnDave]

11 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Definitely. When I was learning there were no Squiers etc. My first bass was a Columbus Jazz which was adequate but nothing more. The range of affordable (and very good) beginners gear is amazing.

I spent years aspiring to the dizzy heights of a Columbus Jazz! The first bass I owned was a short scale Vox, before that I had use of a friend's brother's old short scale that was possibly have been a Burns. If Squier or HB had been around then, I'd have learnt a lot faster!

[dmccombe7]

38 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Definitely. When I was learning there were no Squiers etc. My first bass was a Columbus Jazz which was adequate but nothing more. The range of affordable (and very good) beginners gear is amazing.

Yep me too. Columbas Jazz from my Mothers mail order catalogue. Not a lot of choice in 70's. From memory it was ok but i didn't know anything about setting up a bass so maybe i could have had a lower action etc. My mate still has the bass and his daughter learned to play bass on it. It went from fretted to fretless and back to fretted again. She has moved on to an Overwater bass altho she is playing in orchestral type situations having gone thru proper music training at Uni.

[Chewie]

On 1/1/2018 at 14:50, Frank Blank said:

That’s very kind of you although I feel there must be something in it, I can’t imagine everyone who plays and prefers a vintage instrument is being hoodwinked. The more I think about it and the more I read these replies the more I realise it is foolish to seek a quantifiable answer to such a subjective query.

Some people have style and money.....

Some people have no style and no money......

Some people have style but no money......

Some people have money but no style.....

Discuss?

 

[wateroftyne]

8 minutes ago, Chewie said:

Some people have style and money.....

Some people have no style and no money......

Some people have style but no money......

Some people have money but no style.....

Discuss?

 

Some people have a modest amount of money and style, and like to buy something that they won't have to take a hit on if they happen to sell it.

[Steve Browning]

I think it's more about playability. There was a time (before relicing) when only the natural wear of a few years playing would create a smooth neck and the nitro finishes had the resonance. It seems to me that the line is more blurred now because modern instruments can be bought with the attributes that were, once, only available on an old bass.

Sure, there's some element of snobbery (in some cases) but the bass I enjoy playing most is my 66 Precision. The reason is that the neck is worn smooth and it is so resonant. I prefer the genuine tort guard that isn't available now (or at least until recently).

 

If that could be reproduced exactly on a brand new bass I'd be happy to own it, regardless of the name on the headstock.

[Woodinblack]

58 minutes ago, Chewie said:

Some people have style and money.....

Some people have no style and no money......

Some people have style but no money......

Some people have money but no style.....

Discuss?

Some people love the look and history of a vintage instrument and can afford it, or like the sound of that instrument, which are perfectly good reasons

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, wateroftyne said:

Some people have a modest amount of money and style, and like to buy something that they won't have to take a hit on if they happen to sell it.

And why would you want to sell it? If you’ve made the right choice of instrument, then you won’t need to.

[wateroftyne]

5 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

And why would you want to sell it? If you’ve made the right choice of instrument, then you won’t need to.

Because you can.

[Al Krow]

5 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

And why would you want to sell it? If you’ve made the right choice of instrument, then you won’t need to.

'Cos it's great to experience new things and not always be stuck in "well it was good enough for the last 20 years" mindset?

[stingrayPete1977]

How can age improve two lumps of wood bolted together? A 1970s 15lb Fender Jazz with a terrible neck pocket will only improve if you take it to a good luthier to have the body chambered and the neck pocket redone.