How can two versions of the same bass be *that* different?

[40hz]

I have to confess, I never, ever used to believe this or buy into it when seeing it discussed on here. Recently however, my beliefs have been shook to the core!

Having purchased a Warwick Streamer LX4 from 2004 and absolutely being bowled away by it, it got me to thinking just how different it is to my 2009 Streamer LX and Stage One that I owned.

The bass is much more alive, dynamic, smoother sounding, punchier with a really singing musical top-end. Compared to the 2009 which was a very twangy, bright sounding instrument, if a bit light on the bass. My Stage One which was pure bark and brittleness and sounded a little unrefined in a live setting unless you really dialled back the treble.

And again, the 3 Fleas I've owned. Some very noticeable differences ;

Flea 1 (a 2004 model in black) sounded like an electronic synthesizer, with a real, nasal 'electronic' growl and edge to the notes. Which I absolutely loved.

Flea 2 (a 97, silver flake) didn't have a nasty edge to it and was super clean, crystalline and full ranged, a totally different beastie.

Flea 3 (2004 in blue flake) is hugely nastier and funkier with more growl and grit and balls than the other two. A whole different ball park.

With my (not so) stunning revelation, has anyone else had similar experiences with the same models?

Edited January 24, 2021 by 40hz

[Paul S]

Good thread.

I've had two Squier JV Precisions, both at the same time, still got one.  The first was a really early '82 Fender logo '57 RI in tobacco burst with a maple neck that I bought from @LukeFRC a few years ago.  Weighed 9lbs on the nose and had a real vintage P bass tone.  The second was an '83 in black with a maple neck.  I'm not sure but I don't think this was a '57 RI model - anyone know?  It weighed 8lbs on the nose and has a far more aggressive tone to it.  The maple has some figuring on it and it is the bass I like the most of all those I have ever bought.  This is the one I've kept.

I've had three Peavey Fury basses - the Mk I single pickup P-bass-a-like.  They all sounded similar, very close to the black JV P bass above in that they are an aggressive Precision tone.  More so, in fact - the pickup reminds me of the Entwistle PBXN.  But the weight varies hugely.  The first one I had weighed 8.5lbs, the second one nearly 10 lbs, the one I have currently (the keeper) weighs under 8lbs.  Really nice basses that cost peanuts.

Hohner B2 basses.  Ostensibly very similar - B2, B2A, B2ABD.  Had all of them at various times.  The weight again was extremely variable from 7lbs (B2) to nearly 9lbs. 

[itu]

I was in a shop where I tried several five-string Laklands. One was really good, singing sound - a Skyline. Two were Americans, dull. Two other Skylines were not interesting at all. The same concept, different looks, different pickups and strings, very different sounds.

A test drive is in order when buying basses and bikes.

[Linus27]

I've had two Fender Jazz 75 AVRI basses and my first one certainly played, felt and sounded much nicer than my second one which I still own. The reason I bought my second one was because my first was one of the nicest Jazz basses I'd played and just fitted me perfectly. My second is not far off but just lacks something special that the first one had. So I get what you are saying perfectly.

[LeftyJ]

I've owned 2 MIJ Ibanez ATK300's that were remarkably similar. I had one favourite, but only for being my first. They felt and sounded truly the same, and were very similar in weight and feel. 

What's more striking to me is how different a 5-string version of the same bass can be! I also still own an MIJ ATK305 that looks and feels the same, but sounds very different despite all the same woods, pickup and electronics. I think it has something to do with the wider neck, and the effect of simply having to move more wood. It sounds nowhere near as warm and punchy as the 4-strings did. Instead it sounds much tighter and brighter and has more of a mid-scoop than the 4-strings I owned. The 4-strings just sounded so much more alive! It makes sense to me now, but back when I first got it I was expecting it to be an exact copy of my 4-strings but simply with an extended range. It really was a different beast though!

I have since experienced the same with other instruments that I have both a 4- and 5-string version of, although these differ on more specs than just neck width:

• I have both a Warwick Streamer LX4 (2001) and LX5 (2003), both with solid flamed maple bodies, ovangkol necks, wenge fingerboards and bell brass frets, but with the 4-string being a reverse P-J combo, and the 5-string a J-J configuration. The 4-string again sounds warmer and with a more pronounced midrange, but amplified and played acoustically;
• I have both a Status Graphite S2 Classic 4-string and 5-string, but there's some 10-15 years between them and they don't have the same pickup and preamp. I think the body woods are different too, the 4-string being alder and the 5-string a lighter-weight poplar. Again, the 4-string is more resonant and warmer sounding. Still the 5-string is currently my favourite bass. 

[Lozz196]

Years ago I bought a Gibson Les Paul Studio and at the shop asked to try all of the ones they had in stock (3 of them). One sang, one was indifferent, one vomited, I bought the singer. But yes, three identical guitars, same brand of strings, everything yet such a difference between them.

[chris_b]

I must have fallen on my feet with my Sadowsky Metro Jazz. I’ve tried several since an mine sounds more articulated, fuller and warmer. Even better than an NYC that I tried at GuitarGuitar. 

IMO with the standard manufacturing processes in all components these days, I would  expect basses from the same ranges to sound more similar than different. The only significant variance with others from the same range and factory is in the wood. So the wood does seem to have an effect on the tone.

[Mykesbass]

Ran a shop for a short time. The one that struck me most was getting in 3 of the entry level Yamaha basses (RBX170 from memory). All were OK set up wise, nothing bad about any of them. But one just played and so much nicer than the other two. Wasn't just me - the guy that worked with me tried them out and independently came to the same conclusion.

[TheGreek]

The two "true" Stingrays I had were chalk and cheese. The '96 played like a dream, perfect balance, great tones. The '06 was one of the most indifferent instruments I've ever owned.

Regretted selling the first - non plussed about the second..

[fretmeister]

Many Fender Strats.

And a couple of Status Energy’s with graphite necks.

[DrDrill]

Two bands regularly on the same bill, two 1990 Warwick Thumb basses, two bass players, I thought his sounded better than mine, he thought mine sounded better than his, everyone else in the two bands raised eyebrows and shrugged, we swapped, much happiness. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by DrDrill

[mattbass6]

I had 2 Vigier Excess 5, and still have one, but though exactly the same spec, I just couldn’t bond with the later version. It went in the end to a good home as I couldn’t justify it just sat there. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by mattbass6

[4000]

4 hours ago, 40hz said:

I have to confess, I never, ever used to believe this or buy into it when seeing it discussed on here. Recently however, my beliefs have been shook to the core!

Having purchased a Warwick Streamer LX4 from 2004 and absolutely being bowled away by it, it got me to thinking just how different it is to my 2009 Streamer LX and Stage One that I owned.

The bass is much more alive, dynamic and smoother sounding, punchier with a really singing, musical top-end. Compared to the 2009 which was a very, very twangy sounding instrument a bit light on the bass and the Stage One which was pure bark and brittle and sounded a little unrefined in a live setting unless you really dialled back the treble.

And again, the 3 Fleas I've owned. Some very noticeable differences ;

Flea 1 (a 2004 model in black) sounded like an electronic synthesizer, with a real, nasal 'electronic' growl and edge to the notes. Which I loved for the record.

Flea 2 (a 97, silver flake) didn't have a nasty edge to it and was super clean and full ranged, a totally different beastie.

Flea 3 (2004 in blue flake) is much, much nastier and funkier with more growl and grit than the other two. A whole different ball park.

With my (not so) stunning revelation, has anyone else had similar experiences with the same models?

I’ve always found this. I’m surprised it’s surprising, to be honest. But then I’ve always tried to play as many basses as possible, including many individual versions of the same bass where I can (at least up until the past few years, where I tend to just play things I know will work or models that I’ve never played before). So over 40 years I’ve played literally thousands of basses and have tried to mentally note the differences as best I can.

If I take my current Rics (and 1 replica) as examples, my Feb ‘72 is really open, growly and resonant. My Aug ‘72 (which has a schedua strip), is much more upper-middy, snappier and less growly, and a bit brighter and thinner-sounding. The replica doesn’t haven’t the openness of the other two, but is a bit thicker and honkier-sounding. The Feb and the replica both have a real sing-song quality to the upper register, the Aug not so much (although still more so than many other Rics I’ve had). 

[4000]

1 hour ago, Lozz196 said:

Years ago I bought a Gibson Les Paul Studio and at the shop asked to try all of the ones they had in stock (3 of them). One sang, one was indifferent, one vomited, I bought the singer. But yes, three identical guitars, same brand of strings, everything yet such a difference between them.

I did the same trying 3 CS LPs. They were all great, but all sounded completely different. Unfortunately I never got to buy the one I preferred because some bills came up. 

[TheLowDown]

I suppose it goes to show how much the setup really matters.

[AndyTravis]

We used to order the same Gibson acoustic guitar 6-10 units at a time, for whatever reason, the Montana acoustic dealership orders always came through us at Manchester shop.

we’d sit and compare them and even same day of completion, same spec, out of the box guitars sounded different.

Better/Worse is always subjective but some were vibrant and alive, great for strumming, some were dark and woody/dead which was crap for strumming but ace for flat pickers.

Anyhow, that’s my anecdote on production variables.

[chris_b]

Just now, AndyTravis said:

Anyhow, that’s my anecdote on production variables.

So with acoustic guitars, even more, the only sonic difference can be the woods used.

[AndyTravis]

7 minutes ago, chris_b said:

So with acoustic guitars, even more, the only sonic difference can be the woods used.

Yeah. It will come down to the player too - apparently some very famous guitars (greeny’s LP springs to mind) are alleged to be absolute pigs...but some people seem to be able to make them sing.

We used to get 4/5 American standard P and J basses in at a time - they would vary.

Wood species all the same etc, weight (density?) would change resonance and therefore feel in hand and overall sound. 
 

That’s a whole can of worms though, so.

[Beedster]

Wood, it's that simple. It's why bitsas and custom builds often make the best instruments, because the process of trial and error that results in the best neck ending up with the best body - and then hardware to suit (bit toppy so put on a BBOT not a Badass etc) - is not something that mass production allows for. 

[4000]

2 hours ago, TheLowDown said:

I suppose it goes to show how much the setup really matters.

Nothing to do with setup. I set up all my basses as near identically as I can and have tried swapping bridges and electronics. The basic characteristics remain. 

[Beedster]

1 minute ago, 4000 said:

Nothing to do with setup. I set up all my basses as near identically as I can and have tried swapping bridges and electronics. The basic characteristics remain. 

I agree, no amount of setup refinement can sort components, wood and metal, that don’t work together 

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

8 hours ago, 40hz said:

And again, the 3 Fleas I've owned. Some very noticeable differences ;

Flea 1 (a 2004 model in black) sounded like an electronic synthesizer, with a real, nasal 'electronic' growl and edge to the notes. Which I loved for the record.

Flea 2 (a 97, silver flake) didn't have a nasty edge to it and was super clean and full ranged, a totally different beastie.

Flea 3 (2004 in blue flake) is much, much nastier and funkier with more growl and grit than the other two. A whole different ball park.

With my (not so) stunning revelation, has anyone else had similar experiences with the same models?

The @Chiliwailer purple one that I now own is nothing like the blue one I had, mainly down to the different pick-up's and bridges they were equipped with, so not that surprising i guess?

[Beedster]

3 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

The @Chiliwailer purple one that I now own is nothing like the blue one I had, mainly down to the different pick-up's and bridges they were equipped with, so not that surprising i guess?

Graphite neck removes a lot of the variability I think? 

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

1 minute ago, Beedster said:

Graphite neck removes a lot of the variability I think? 

Mmm, graphite basses kind of do their own thing, but I think there is quite a bit of variety in their spectrum. 

[Beedster]

2 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

Mmm, graphite basses kind of do their own thing, but I think there is quite a bit of variety in their spectrum. 

Yep, but I understand that there is less variability between graphite components than wooden components, all other thing being equal?