| Author | Message | ||
| bigbadbill
New Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hi! This is my first post as a new member. I currently own a 91 Stanley Clarke Signature Deluxe which I adore (my first Alembic); for a while however I've been considering a Triple Omega Signature custom order. This would unfortunately necessitate the sale of my SC. However I do have some back and neck problems (probable cervical spondylosis to get technical!)and the SC has been causing me trouble in that area; 2 days ago wearing my SC trapped a nerve in my neck and I'm currently struggling a bit!This seems to be more due to the balance of the bass and the point where the strap crosses the shoulder due to the position of the strap button, although the bass does weigh around 10.5 pounds; is there anybody out there who has played a triple omega, preferably with knobby headstock and medium scale, who could advise on the feel (i.e. weight and balance) compared to an SC or even MK. I don't really want to go over 10 pounds (the lighter the better really) and I need it to balance pretty well; consequently I'm a bit worried about selling a bass I love and ending up with one I can't play (standing up anyway), although I do really need a bass that balances better. Any ideas? I know there are a couple of other models I could look at but I've always wanted a Triple Omega (yeah, JP Jones I'm afraid!). Does the pistol grip top horn make a difference? Thanks! | ||
| valvil
Moderator Username: valvil Post Number: 229 Registered: 7-2002 |
Hello Bill, & welcome. The triple omega body shape is generally fairly heavy, however it should be possible to build one under 10 pounds (as long as we are talking 4 string). The balance is definitely better than a Stanley Clarke model. On the other hand the Mark King is very similar in feel and balance to the triple omega, since it is the same body shape without the omegas. We recently made a buckeye burl series I with a triple Omega body for one of our dealers and he lists the weight at about 9 pounds. Here's the link if you'd like to take a peek:http://www.superbass.net/superbassnet_076.htm We can do something similar with signature electronics instead of series I. The important thing, if weight is the main concern, is to choose woods that are not too heavy; also it helps if you select either plastic or wood backplates rather than brass. The medium scale will also save you some weight. Something else that we suggest for weight reduction is to have the core hollowed out. The pistol grip won't add much in weight and will make the bass balance even better (a little)(personally, I love pistol grips, 3 of my 5 Alembics have 'em). One thing about triple omega basses is that sometimes they are not too comfortable to play sitting down, because the lower omega will bite into your leg and cause you some pain, unless you put something (like a pad) in between your leg and the bass. take care Valentino | ||
| malthumb
Intermediate Member Username: malthumb Post Number: 112 Registered: 5-2002 |
Val, You mention that wood backplates are lighter than brass, but aren't the wood backplates a veneer over the brass plate? I guess if the brass is thinner to account for the wood veneer it would be marginally lighter. James | ||
| valvil
Moderator Username: valvil Post Number: 230 Registered: 7-2002 |
Hello James, yes, that was the way Alembic used to make them ( brass+ wood) but recently a switch was made so that wood backplates have no brass glued to them, it's all wood. We are also introducing the option to have non-continuous wood back plates; if you have a bass with no back for example, you could have wood backplates made to match one of the neck woods or the top & peghead of the intstrument. Valentino | ||
| palembic
Senior Member Username: palembic Post Number: 688 Registered: 9-2002 |
HA ...I've seen that non-continous wood back-plate idea before! I mean: and realted to other used wood! BTW welcome Bigbadbill. I you want to be a "sweet william now" you HAVE to post us some pictures of your bass. Watch me: there will another Paul coming in who will be start yelling "pictures-pictures-pictures" so ... you better LOL Paul the bad one | ||
| bigbadbill
New Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hi guys! Well, finally taking part in a club discussion is almost as exciting as actually getting a new bass...I said ALMOST! Many thanks for the comments and advice Valentino; from what I've seen you should have a pretty good idea about triple omegas! (not that I'm jealous or anything!)The "superbass.net" bass is absolutely gorgeous;I'd actually been considering buckeye burl (I have a Sei Flamboyant 4 with a buckeye top which is stunning - for those who don't know Sei's are hand built in London by Martin Petersen and are fabulous basses, but of course this is the wrong club for that discussion!), and I recently saw the 5 string in Ed Romans which was incredible. The only possible hindrance with the buckeye is price, as its pretty expensive (although if it has to be I guess it has to be). I also love the flame and quilt maple, although I guess they'd be a bit heavier; would they be too heavy? I also particularly like the wierd maple top (almost looks like buckeye)on a 5 string triple O signature which I believe I saw at superbass.net some time ago. I'd be interested to know how much that top cost and how heavy it would be. What other lighter woods would you suggest? I also figured for the bass to be hollow (I've e-mailed Mica about whether that costs extra), and the comments regarding the brass plates make complete sense. Obviously the comment regarding playing a TO sitting down is important, as if it was uncomfortable standing up AND sitting down I'd be in trouble!I'd be grateful for any further advice in this area. Meanwhile... hello Paul the bad one! (Maybe I'm "the Ugly"? I sure hope not!)Yeah, the name actually is a joke in that I'm more of a sweet william and my friends found it funny(its my middle name).I'm pretty new to all this computer stuff and don't actually know how to post pictures yet, but as soon as I work it out she'll be up there (although she's only an ordinary SC Deluxe). Any advice would be appreciated! BBB | ||
| palembic
Senior Member Username: palembic Post Number: 693 Registered: 9-2002 |
Ts-ts-ts-ts Bad Bill ...you are not sweet now! There is NOTHING "ordinary" in an Alembic ...leave alone the SC Deluxe. Paul the bad one I eve think there were murders committed for those basses. I still stromgly believe that "the great train robbery" was not about money but about an traonloads of Alembics, or "the Italian Job" wasoriginally about stealing a load of Orions but ...because the "Mini" was going to sponsor (again) they changed to money for the obvious reason they couldn't get the guitars into the mini's he-he-he-he | ||
| bigbadbill
New Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 4 Registered: 10-2003 |
He He! Sorry, of course I meant "ordinary" in Alembic terms! Rest assured there's nothing ordinary about that bass! Its much easier to play than any other bass I've ever had, and is incredibly responsive. But then of course you all know that about Alembics..... p.s. How about"the Californian Job"? That's a film right there.As long as I get to keep all the basses! | ||
| bigredbass
Intermediate Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 169 Registered: 9-2002 |
bbb: While I am a traditionalist in that the ONLY ALEMBIC shape for me are the original Series-range shapes (point, Omega, etc.), they will never balance like a ROGUE or EXCEL. But I can live with it because of my totally irrational love of that look. I don't know how big a hippie sandwich you require. I have a unique SPOILER that is a long scale 5-string in the Omega shape with the Crown peghead. It has the deluxe laminate neck (three purpleheart strips) with a quilt top and mahogany wings. It's a very useable sound and it only weighs 9 pounds. Most people are surprised at the weight, expecting a lot more heft just from its size. It also has no sustain block, and believe me it HARDLY lacks for sustain, although there may be a slight tone difference because of it. I might suggest for a lighter weight instrument: - a body with fewer laminates - no sustain block - if it's a Series-shaped instrument, have the crew hollow out the body as is done on a Series instrument to save weight - check out the new-style Series body that was redesigned for better balance with a longer upper horn Hope you feel better soon! J o e y PS: Val: While we're confronting the eternal weight/balance question, has ALEMBIC ever investigated using the HipShot ULTRALITE tuners? I've been very impressed with them, even though they are open gear keys. | ||
| s_wood
Member Username: s_wood Post Number: 69 Registered: 5-2002 |
I used to own a triple omega bass (with Anniversary electronics). The omega cut on the lower bout made the bass very uncomfortable to play while sitting down -- in fact, that's why I sold it. I don't think that the triple omega bass was much lighter than the regular Series body, either. If you are trying to cut down on the weight, why not consider one of the newer body shapes, like the Europa or the Rogue? My primary live basses are some Series basses with Europa bodies. They are several pounds lighter than the standard Series body, and in a live setting I really can't hear the difference between the Europa body and its bigger cousin...and I'm pretty picky. I'll bet you could even have your bass built with a semi-holow core, which would save even more weight. The Essence body shape is small and light, but I don't think you can fit Series electronics inside (though I may be wrong). One caution: be careful about choosing woods based on weight. The lighter woods sound very different than the heavier ones. That may be good or bad, depending on what sound you are going for, but you need to know that your tone will be changed when you change the woods. Good luck! (Message edited by s_wood on November 05, 2003) | ||
| bigbadbill
New Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 6 Registered: 10-2003 |
Wow, and there was me thinking some advice would simplify things! Seriously guys, many thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated. With regards to the look, I guess in many ways I'm coming from the same place as Joey (Bigredbass). When I first started playing, the only real Alembics you saw were the Standard and Small Standard (and variations thereof such as Omegas, Triple Omegas etc, The Ox's Exploiter/Spyder shape being the obvious exception),and consequently they were the Alembics I aspired to. The first time I saw JPJ's Triple O 8 string (on a Zep poster) I stood there with my mouth hanging open for about 10 minutes! Ironically before my back problems started I could've easily managed a Standard body but couldn't afford an Alembic; now that I can afford one I'm concerned about the weight!Anyway, I digress...my main issue aesthetically is that after waiting so long to get a custom bass made, if it went ahead I would love it to look like the bass I always wanted, which is not to denigrate any other Alembics in any way as they're all fantastic (just a shame the mandala and myriad inlays are out of the question financially)! After saying that however I have actually started to take the Rogue shape into consideration, but the TO is still currently winning out, although I have seen a very nice burl maple top Rogue with crown headstock and Simms LEDs for sale in London recently. I must say Joey I'm amazed that you've got a 5 string in the Omega shape that only weighs 9 lbs! More food for thought...as is the Europa info. Valentino's original (?) Triple O (balanced point?)is very interesting, by the way. In my experience I've always liked the sound of the sustain block equipped basses better, but obviously they've all been neck throughs with more complex electronics. Still, I think I'd like to keep the sustain block. S-wood, was your TO solid or hollow? I take it we're talking about the "mutant maple" one here? That bass was gorgeous. I guess if I did go for a smaller body (eg Rogue), I could use heavier woods and have it hollowed...mmmm. Yeah, I appreciate the changes that different woods would make (I could tell you things about the differences in tone of my many Rickenbackers past and present- all made of different weights of maple- that would send you to sleep, if this thread hasn't already!). I do tend to like maple basses as stated earlier, but even in quilt or flame form am not sure whether it'd be a bit too heavy in the TO shape. Oh well, I guess I've got a heck of a lot to think over! Once again, thanks for your input everyone - I see sleepless nights ahead! (And I've got to make these replies shorter...) | ||
| s_wood
Member Username: s_wood Post Number: 71 Registered: 5-2002 |
Yes, the mutant maple TO in the gallery is the bass I was referring to. She is beautiful, no doubt, but I just couldn't deal with that omega cutting into my thigh! The bass has a solid mahagony body, by the way. We agree on our love for the look and tone of maple tops, and sustain blocks, too. Alembics without sustain blocks sound quite different, so I would think twice before eliminating the block to save weight. | ||
| bigbadbill
New Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 9 Registered: 10-2003 |
Just to let everyone know, this weekend I stumbled across a MK Signature Standard Triple Omega (hollow bodied, with crown headstock) in walnut in the Bass Centre in London, so I finally got to play one! The weight and balance were reasonable (do-able I think) and it both played and sounded fantastic. It raised one or two more questions (yet another thread!), but unfortunately was sold a few days before I got there; oh well! I tried a Rogue out for comparison, but preferred the Triple O... |
