ilovefuzz.com

smile_man wrote:fuck this thread.

Fuck you.

Mudfuzz wrote:

jrmy wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I wub you, Nad.

Boring thread now less boring

So while I'm here... I'm ask what I've been asking around...

Bolt-on VS Neck-through if all else is the same, PUNCH on low notes?

GO!

It's easy to say bolt-on, but there are too many factors really. My punchiest bass is a set-neck, and the second most one is a neck-thru. I think with both of those the pickups are what makes them punchy (Cliff Bordwell with Nordstrand NJ4SE pickups, and Rickenbacker 4003 respectively). Honestly the only real difference I can absolutely point out between neck-thru and bolt-on is the location of the dead spot.

Also, welcome to the No Fun Zone:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=735673

That started off in Effects but ended up in O/T and then some people got butthurt. Oh well, at least it didn't get deleted.

What do you call a person who hangs around musicians?

nieh wrote:What do you call a person who hangs around musicians?

NSFW: show

A Bassist.

Dude you didn't even get the joke right.

nad wrote:

nieh wrote:What do you call a person who hangs around musicians?

NSFW: show

A Bassist.

Dude you didn't even get the joke right.

Yeah, we all know it's the guitarist's drug dealer.

Here is my contribution to Kev's thread.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost. ... stcount=44

nad wrote:It's easy to say bolt-on, but there are too many factors really. My punchiest bass is a set-neck, and the second most one is a neck-thru. I think with both of those the pickups are what makes them punchy (Cliff Bordwell with Nordstrand NJ4SE pickups, and Rickenbacker 4003 respectively). Honestly the only real difference I can absolutely point out between neck-thru and bolt-on is the location of the dead spot.

OK cool [also thanks to BCBC and Carrot for laying some of my fears to rest as well]. Yeah I agree on the pickup thing. I sort'a figured it wouldn't be the biggest deal...

I''ve been asking around because I'm going to build a new fiver and was thinking about getting a carvin neck and then I thought through body.. huh.. why not I like T-birds and Rics but then I also HATE Alembics, Smiths and Pedullas...

I've about made up my mind the the T-N option just for fun and I think it'll fine

It'll be a Vee and I'm going to use some Korina [black] I've had laying around for a few years for the body/wings, pickups I'm still thinking, Nordstrand interests me a bit but I'm also looking at a few other ones as well.

warwick.hoy.. bud... that is what glue is for...

I totally misread you post muddy,...but yeah,...I'm sure my cousin kept the glue around for other reasons.

^Further intentional misreading aside; the CT I played (several times now through my gear) was a bolt-on with Kent Armstrongs in it and it is punchy as fuck. Granted it's a CT though.

I used to think it was a big deal but I could give two shits if my bass is BO or NT.

EDIT: A certain user in this thread reminds me of un N/A

EDITx2: Hai Gayz; i want to sound like Timmy C. Dude get a VT

warwick.hoy wrote:I used to think it was a big deal but I could give two shits if my bass is BO or NT.

Smart move.

It's like Active v. Passive or Tube v. Solid State or any number of comparisons. One isn't better than the other, they are just different.

Can't wait to see the new Mudfuzz bass.

It'll be a bit... but it'll be cool think. I'm also going to finish the jag-master bass I keep trying to get around to finishing at the same time and get my building projects caught up..

Actually this is also sort'a a active/passive thing.. I'm going to build this to retire my main bass for the last 18 years which is active Basically I need a bass that works better with all the FX I use and also looks cooler on stage I plan on getting some sort of pre-amp pedal [more like what is in a active bass vs a amp replacer] for when I need the active sound.

And yes I do have another fiver that is passive but it isn't "ballsy" enough for my normal sound, it has a basswood body and like most basses with bass wood bodies even though I might like the sound they tend for me to be not punchy enough

I always had an issue with people who say that how a bass looks isn't important. Maybe not as important as how it sounds or how it feels,...but it's pretty gawddamned important IMO. If the aesthetic doesn't appeal to you; you aren't going to pick up your bass and play it. If you get onstage with an 80's pink pointy monstrosity in your indie band you are going to look like an amateur.

As long as it sounds good and feels right, I'm happy! I'll take a photo of my basses so you can all have a nice laugh at me

gnasher1993 wrote:As long as it sounds good and feels right, I'm happy! I'll take a photo of my basses so you can all have a nice laugh at me

It's definitely subjective. Some people would say my 'Wick is ugly as sin,...I like it and it sounds great,...could use a fresh set of strings though.

That said,...I've always had trouble sourcing strings locally and I usually get Warwick strings online since they are the easiest to deal with considering the tailpiece/bridge arrangement from Warwick. Warwick strings don't seem very highly regarded so an alternative would be great. I tried DR longnecks and they were too long. I need at least a tapered B string. This is about my only gripe with German Warwicks.

I absolutely have no idea the difference sound wise between SS and Nickel strings or the pros and cons. Anyone care to help me out with that?

warwick.hoy wrote:I always had an issue with people who say that how a bass looks isn't important. Maybe not as important as how it sounds or how it feels,...but it's pretty gawddamned important IMO. If the aesthetic doesn't appeal to you; you aren't going to pick up your bass and play it. If you get onstage with an 80's pink pointy monstrosity in your indie band you are going to look like an amateur.

Fuck yeah. Given two basses of equal sound and playability, I'll always go for the better looking one (obviously). But if one bass was kinda ugly but was a marginally better sounding and playing instrument than the other decent looking bass...I'll go for the decent looking bass every time.

SmallEQ wrote:

warwick.hoy wrote:I always had an issue with people who say that how a bass looks isn't important. Maybe not as important as how it sounds or how it feels,...but it's pretty gawddamned important IMO. If the aesthetic doesn't appeal to you; you aren't going to pick up your bass and play it. If you get onstage with an 80's pink pointy monstrosity in your indie band you are going to look like an amateur.

Fuck yeah. Given two basses of equal sound and playability, I'll always go for the better looking one (obviously). But if one bass was kinda ugly but was a marginally better sounding and playing instrument than the other decent looking bass...I'll go for the decent looking bass every time.

Dude,..you play a Big Al.

j/k; at least it's not a Bongo.

Big Als are sexy!!!