| Author | Message | ||
| basso
New Username: basso Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2004 |
hi guys,what do you think the difference is in sound/tone between set and through neck?do you think the set neck is closer to a bolt on neck sound?please give me your views,thanks,Julian. | ||
| 811952
Intermediate Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 129 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think the set neck is closer to a bolt on sound, all else being equal, yes. A set neck is more mid-rangey in my opinion than a neck-through. | ||
| bassman10096
Advanced Member Username: bassman10096 Post Number: 261 Registered: 7-2003 |
The set neck should be closer to the bolt-on sound (more mid-rangy) than the neck thru. However, set necks have always struck me as having greater sustain than bolt-ons, since the set neck brings the neck and body woods in a bit more contact with each other. Bill | ||
| mica
Moderator Username: mica Post Number: 1516 Registered: 6-2000 |
Neck through Alembics give a kind of automatic EQ "smile" with less mids, and the set neck ones have a good amount of midgrange and a "punchier" sound. Though I've heard players on each sound like the other, so as with anything Alembic, it's all in the playing. One set necks the body woods have a slightly greater affect than on the neck throughs, which isolate the influence of the body woods more. | ||
| hollis
Member Username: hollis Post Number: 87 Registered: 11-2003 |
It's also my understanding that guitar/basses with set necks sound is influenced by their body wood far more than thru necks. Yes? | ||
| dfung60
Junior Username: dfung60 Post Number: 29 Registered: 5-2002 |
On a through-body, the body "wing" woods are only peripherally involved in the vibration of the strings, so the body woods have much less effect on the tone. The only real sonic influence that the wings have on the neck structure is that they add mass to the end. In a set-neck or bolt-on, one end of the string is anchored on the neck, the other on the body. Even with a good, tight neck joint the vibrations of the string are filtered by both types of wood and you can certainly hear the difference depending on the body wood. If you had a bolt-on with a (grunt) maple body and maple neck it will probably sound a lot like a thru-body instrument with a maple neck section. And it will probably sound quite different than an otherwise identical bolt-on which had a maple neck and mahogany body. The physics behind this are pretty simple. You can think of the neck and body materials having a particular frequency response and energy response. On a through-body, the response will pretty much match and you'll probably see more transfer of energy. If the materials are different, then there's an impedance mismatch and you'll probably see some energy lost, with a different frequency response (tone) and energy response (sustain) as a result. All that said, flat response may desirable in your home stereo, but might not be what's cherished in a neck/body configuration. That's part of why you see a lot of maple/alder Fenders. But different people and situations definitely call for different instruments. I think everybody would agree that sustain with a through-body is longer. I think that "punch" is a lot harder to quantify, but to my ears, bolt-ons (or set-neck) are much punchier. That impedance mismatch at the neck joint acts like a filter and attenuates certain frequencies differentially. If there's a lot of sustain in the midrange and the fundamental and high freqs drop out quickly, that's probably what most people would perceive as "punchy". A set-neck and bolt-on are basically the same construction (what really matters is that the string ends are sitting on two different pieces of wood). With the set-neck, you can have a much nicer heel and access to the higher frets. It would be interesting to see if you could characterize wood (either generally or by specific piece) under this sort of "impedance" model. That's sort of what an luthier does when picking woods by "tap tone"- you're kind of doing a really complex analysis of the characteristics of a piece of wood by sending in a big transient and seeing what comes out. This calls for Ron with a spectrum analyzer up in the secret lab! | ||
| s_wood
Member Username: s_wood Post Number: 81 Registered: 5-2002 |
I've been bugging Susan to consider building an Alembic quality bolt-on bass for years. Generally, I prefer the sound of a neck-through, but bolt-ons have a certain envelope to their sound which is sometimes perfect for the gig. Wouldn't a bolt-on Excel be cool? I think that the combination of the quick attack (and quick release) of a bolt-on with the tone of one of Alembic's wide apeture pickups (like the Fat Boy) would be amazing. Would anyone other than me be interested in an bolt-on Alembic? | ||
| s_wood
Member Username: s_wood Post Number: 82 Registered: 5-2002 |
I've been bugging Susan to consider building an Alembic quality bolt-on bass for years. Generally, I prefer the sound of a neck-through, but bolt-ons have a certain envelope to their sound which is sometimes perfect for the gig. Wouldn't a bolt-on Excel be cool? I think that the combination of the quick attack (and quick release) of a bolt-on with the tone of one of Alembic's wide apeture pickups (like the Fat Boy) would be amazing. Would anyone other than me be interested in an bolt-on Alembic? | ||
| keavin
Advanced Member Username: keavin Post Number: 210 Registered: 12-2002 |
oh yeah im very curious my self in fact i believe they made a couple in the 70s,im not sure though! but that would be neat,somthing around the 700 dollar range,with jazz bass p/ups or p/bass set up,. | ||
| mica
Moderator Username: mica Post Number: 1559 Registered: 6-2000 |
We haven't made a bolt on neck bass, and I'm afraid there's no way we could make an instrument in the $700 range, Keavin, the electronics alone cost that much. I'm not opposed to the idea of making a bolt on, it just needs a chunk of time devoted to learning what we'd want to achieve and then figuring out how we would do it. Steve, you're not alone, I've talked to others that have expressed an interest. I'm quite sure no time will be available until some other critial in-house engineering is complete. A project like this would have to be booked to start next year. | ||
| alembic76407
Advanced Member Username: alembic76407 Post Number: 276 Registered: 5-2002 |
I don't think I would want to see Alembic build a cheap bass ,A cheap Alembic would lower the watermark for the make, if you want a $700 Alembic you should buy a used Epic. when I got my first Alembic there was only one choice (I THINK) and it was a Series. an Alembic Squier Please !!!! don't do this David T (TLO) PS; the last time I checked Rolls Royce or Lamborghini didn't build a cheap car, and Alembic shouldn't build a cheap bass!!!!! | ||
| xlrogue6
Member Username: xlrogue6 Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2002 |
Don't worry David--anyone who wanted to do that would have to get it past Susan. Anyone who knows her knows it ain't gonna happen. Never. No way, no how. Kent | ||
| hollis
Intermediate Member Username: hollis Post Number: 111 Registered: 11-2003 |
I agree oh loud one, there are plenty of (enough)bolt- ons in the marketplace. Also, I'm not really sure that I agree that a bolt on is the same as a set neck..... It doesn't take a whole lot of artistry to tighten a bolt. To set the neck with the skill and forethought exibited by the good folks at Alembic requires an extreme attention to detail. The neck is adhered to the body making virtually one piece out of many. I know that most of the higher end Alembics are thru neck, but allow me to point out that the Tribute has a set neck. I don't think that is done by accident..... End of sermon.... | ||
| bob
Intermediate Member Username: bob Post Number: 176 Registered: 11-2002 |
David - thanks for the excellent discussion. Most of this was pretty clear to me, and consistent with my thinking, though I couldn't have explained it as well. After reading this a couple more times, I still fail to understand the enthusiasm for a bolt-on Alembic. As David said, "A set-neck and bolt-on are basically the same construction", so what is it you would hope to achieve with a bolt-on? I don't think I've seen any detailed pictures of how Alembic builds set necks, but essentially in either case you would have some sort of pocket for the end of the neck, and then make the attachment with either glue or screws. My guess is that it would actually be somewhat more difficult - hence expensive - to construct a bolt-on that was in any way close to Alembic standards. It seems that essentially what you're asking for is a sloppier neck joint. Without a nice solid glue bond, you'll have more energy loss, and sure, maybe you'll like that particular tone (sometimes...). But you'll also have more problems over time as the woods shrink in different ways, which may possibly change the tone, and I suspect you'll never get quite the same solid feel that you do with a set neck. Or if I'm wrong about that, then the only other obvious possibility is that they'll do such a great job, it won't sound very much different than a set neck anyway :-) Personally, I'd rather see Alembic stick with what they're great at (and of course, "bugging Susan" is not exactly a wise move...). However (Steve), there is another approach you might consider: replacing your bridge block. Take out that half pound hunk of brass and replace it with a light piece of wood. You could pretty easily make one yourself, though you'd probably want to use threaded inserts for the adjusting screws. Think about this in the context of David's description. You would now have one end of the strings anchored to a different piece of wood, which is in turn "bolted on" to the body, and of course it will be much less massive. So certain frequencies are going to attenuate sooner (i.e. sustain less), and give you a different sense of attack and overall tone. I'm about to try this myself, over the course of the next few months - I have several blocks made of different materials sitting on my dining room table. In my case, I'm not looking for a bolt-on sound, but rather a more "woody" upright tone, and I think that allowing some frequencies to die out more rapidly will at least be educational, and perhaps even good. We'll see. But this is something that is fairly easy to try, and might get you closer to the punchy sound you want, once you find the right block. -Bob | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 176 Registered: 6-2002 |
Bob, Sounds like you're about to embark on a great journey into the unknown with those alternative bridge blocks - don't forget to keep us posted! I'm also intrigued by how you could work towards an upright tone - thinking of that huge bass sound on some tracks of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue (can't remember who the bass player was). Mind you, there are plenty of Alembics where the bridge attaches kind of directly to the wood (there's always the threaded inserts). Would love to know the outcome of this! Those who prefer a bolt-on can always buy one they like and install some Activators ... I wonder if anyone has ever done that to a Sadowsky? | ||
| bracheen
Advanced Member Username: bracheen Post Number: 364 Registered: 11-2003 |
Adriaan, have you heard Jack Bruce's upright work on his Things We Like cd? Good Stuff. Sam | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 178 Registered: 6-2002 |
Sam, no, never heard anything by Jack besides the obvious Cream stuff (Sunshine, that sort of thing). He seems have a reputation for playing out of tune on fretless, perhaps not deservedly, but still. I'm more of a Mingus fan anyway. | ||
| effclef
Intermediate Member Username: effclef Post Number: 113 Registered: 1-2004 |
Bob and Adriaan - you can get more of a muted tone by fretting on top of the frets. With that in mind, hmm - how about covering the frets with rubber? A thick elastic band around each one, perhaps? That will dampen the strings quite a bit. Or, thread the strings (where they will touch the fretboard) thru some rubber tubing of appropriate diameters. I would be cautious about materials for the sustain block. Just make sure it's not going to fracture and send 100 pounds of string tension at your face. Check out the Guild (DeArmond, now) ASHBORY bass for upright sound in an electric. The thing is nearly impossible to play - tiny thing, silicone rubber strings, fretless, and with a piezo pickup; but the thing has AMAZING low end. About $300-350 new. EffClef | ||
| effclef
Intermediate Member Username: effclef Post Number: 114 Registered: 1-2004 |
Oh, by the way, a friend of mine has a fretless Fender Jazz bass and I was telling him that one advantage bolt-ons have is that you can swap from fretted to fretless if you want. Now imagine that concept done on an Alembic. Instead of a bolt-on, imagine the neck being screwed into a metal plate, which then dovetails into a metal socket in the body, with some sort of (safe) quick release screw. With that, plus Alembic's slotted tailpiece, you could swap out the fretted neck for the fretless and just leave the strings on it or swap them at the same time. But you'd have the same electronics, same body, etc. Crazy idea, but if anyone could make it work, this company could. EffClef | ||
| dean_m
Advanced Member Username: dean_m Post Number: 291 Registered: 7-2002 |
Hey Guys!!! I'm back!!!! My set neck Orion has a much more woodier tone than my neck through Elan does. The wood on my Orion is a mahogany body with a bubinga top. The Elan has a maple body with a bubinga top. Granted my Orion is fretless and the Elan is fretted so there is an obvious change in "wood" tone right there but.... I'm really thinking that I like the Orion better for that type of sound. I also have to agree, a bolt on Alembic just doesn't sound right. BTW- Adriaan, I belive it was Paul Chambers on the Kind of Blue recordings. Peace, Dino | ||
| bracheen
Advanced Member Username: bracheen Post Number: 366 Registered: 11-2003 |
Hey Dino welcome home! How was LA? Sam | ||
| bob
Intermediate Member Username: bob Post Number: 180 Registered: 11-2002 |
EffClef - I appreciate your concern for my safety, and in fact I am a little concerned that the lightest block may fracture... however, I find that on my bass the block is mostly under compression. Did I put it back together wrong? | ||
| effclef
Intermediate Member Username: effclef Post Number: 115 Registered: 1-2004 |
Bob - I was being stupid! I was thinking sustain block but I was visualizing tailpiece! So yes, the sustain block is under downward pressure and you could probably use what you like for an anti-sustain :-) block. Hmm, my rubber damper idea - maybe you could try a hunk of rubber hockey puck as the sustain block. EffClef, thinking of interesting but not necessarily practical ideas | ||
| dean_m
Advanced Member Username: dean_m Post Number: 293 Registered: 7-2002 |
Thanks Sam!!!! It was warm and sunny. The Pepperdine Malibu campus is absolutely stunning!!!! I'm heading back again this Monday, only this time in Ventura. I might be out for another week or so. Peace, Dino | ||
| dfung60
Junior Username: dfung60 Post Number: 32 Registered: 5-2002 |
I should clarify my comment about bolt-on and set-neck being functionally equivalent. As opposed to a through-body, both set-neck and bolt-on are different pieces of wood under nut and tailpiece and I think that dominates the tonal effect. But actually building a set-neck instrument is much, much harder than a bolt-on. Not only does it require greater precision in the joinery, but you have to design the overall layout of the instrument to accomodate the set-neck as well, in particular, the fact that the body-to-neck angle is fixed, just as a through-body is. From a practical standpoint, this means special care must be taken so that the bridge height is right. On a bolt-on, if a particular bridge is too tall or too short, you can shim the neck to change the neck angle. With set-neck or through-body, you have to elevate or inlay the bridge into the body. The big difference between set-neck and bolt-on is that the bolt-on will be more likely to require a heel that might interfere with access to the higher frets. Many clever designs try to work around this, but it's pretty hard to design a functional bolt-on that yields clear access to the 24th fret like a through-body Alembic. The set-neck will give the designer a lot more flexibility to shape the heel and can conceivably offer more access up there. For some people that matters, for most, I would guess it's not a big deal. You certainly can build premium bolt-on basses. MTD is the obvious example. It's pretty terrifying to consider a $4000 bolt-on bass, but Mike Tobias didn't pick that design so he could crank out basses! There aren't very many set-neck basses - a lot of Gibsons over the years and Zon come to mind, and I have one of the original PRS basses that is set neck as well. I think that the Bass Player-type mags seem to have really overemphasized the neck pocket and neck joint tightness in their instrument reviews these days. Aligning the bolt pattern and neck properly are critical, but in my mind, there's nothing wrong if there's a small gap between the pieces or a shim in the pocket. Tighten those 3, 4, 5, or 6 screws and the joint will be appropriately tight. I also think that a less rigid sustain block alternative would be a very interesting experiment. I tried chopping up some polyurethane skateboard wheels which I think would be a very interesting material, but was unable to make anything stable enough to play. I think this would have needed to be done by casting a polyurethane block with the appropriate threaded inserts in it. An easier experiment would probably be having a like-sized block cut from some other material (aluminum?) although this probably wouldn't be as interesting as a more elastic material. | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 180 Registered: 6-2002 |
Dino, thanks for identifying Paul Chambers. Perhaps an owner of an Alembic with the ebony neck laminates knows how the bass sounds on Kind of Blue (digitally remastered) and can comment if those laminates can make the tone as big as THAT. Perhaps the lucky owner of last month's FC, the 6 string Epic set-neck with ebony neck laminates, could care to comment? I get the impression that some of the brothers perhaps do not appreciate quite how good a double bass can sound. Sure, the sustain is not as good as on an Alembic, but then it was designed to be played with a bow - try and get that kind of sustain out of an Alembic (unless you have one of those Gizmo or EBow contraptions - anyone here?). | ||
| palembic
Senior Member Username: palembic Post Number: 1261 Registered: 9-2002 |
Brother Adriaan, the CD "Kind of Blue" is playing right on this moment when I'm typing this. It is on my Powerbook I-tunes and in th eoffice I Listen to it whit small headphones when I need some momets apart to create textes. I REALLY LOVE the upright. Because this club is 90% about dreaming I'm glad to admit that buying an upright is a dream of me ...once ...ever ....eventually ... . I learned upright for about 3 years. Not enough to be good but ...well ...you know ... I'm good in 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 ...LOL Paul the bad one PS : swinging ... | ||
| dadabass2001
Intermediate Member Username: dadabass2001 Post Number: 107 Registered: 6-2002 |
"Kind of Blue" is a regular selection on my CD player as well. A keyboard playing friend surprised me one night at an open mic by launching into "So What", and I've been hooked on Miles ever since. That sextet truly epitomizes COOL! Mike | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 182 Registered: 6-2002 |
As far as the dreaming goes, I guess mine is a fretless Alembic that sounds as big as Paul Chambers' double bass on Kind of Blue, but with the longer sustain you expect from an Alembic. You can probably get an fx processor to fake that sound, but it will never come out 'natural'. | ||
| palembic
Senior Member Username: palembic Post Number: 1262 Registered: 9-2002 |
Broter Adriaan, If I were you I would contact Brother Bob (Novy) about your dream. I think he has some news for you!!! Paul the bad one | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 184 Registered: 6-2002 |
I hope brother Bob will share his news here in the thread, or perhaps start a new one for us all ... | ||
| xlrogue6
Member Username: xlrogue6 Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2002 |
Adriaan, it occurs to me that in fact Alembic already makes the instrument you're describing--the Classico. Definitely a stocking-stuffer item, if you know what I mean, but (unsurprisingly) pretty much the best EUB I've played. (Disclaimer: I've only played a Classico at the Mothership. Economic restrictions preclude ownership, dammit. | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 186 Registered: 6-2002 |
Kent, if I was looking for an EUB then I'm sure I'd be more than interested in trying out a Classico - though that would probably involve a trip to Santa Rosa. I'm dreaming of a 'conventional' bass guitar, really, just that it must have a sound with a huuuuuge bottom coming from the strings, before the signal goes into any electronic processing. Perhaps the upright has that huge tone only because it is releasing all that energy in just a relatively short sustain period, because of the high absorption rate of the materials involved. Which I guess brings us back to Bob's adventures with sustain blocks! | ||
| bkbass
Junior Username: bkbass Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2003 |
Of my alembic's my 6 string fretless Orion has that upright sound with huge warmth.It's stock electronics with the neck PU moved next to the bridge PU.It has the sustain block and is standard maple neck/walnut pinstripes 1/16maple /purple heart accents and a zebra wood top.I would describe the sound as a little on the dry but mostly warm and woody side regardless of amps used.When I do a jazz gig I usually use it and leave my Azola at home.I also own and endorse several acoustic bass guitars and yet in an amplified acoustic setting the Orion just melts into the music and is my first choice.I own a fretted as well and I'm really sitting on the fence about the next one because I can't decide on a neck thru on a set neck as they both have their postive attributes.Overall my experience has been that the set necks are distinct in their warmth,have about the same amount of clarity,punch and a little less sustain.Definitely worth the tradeoff of a neck thru.I've experimented with purpleheart,paduk,maple,ebony and three grades of aluminium as sustain blocks and bridge material.I've found the wood to be bland.The brass and aluminium had the best sonic rewards.The softer of the aluminium grades gave a slight woodness to the tone.I've also fooled around with various nut materials from various woods,plastics and metals.The biggest difference in tone being a loose rather than glued nut having a deeper woodier tone with some loss in sustain.I haven't tried it yet but might I suggest unscrewing the allen screws out of the Alembic nut(loose,be mindful of string height) to see if the tone changes and then experiment with various materials for the nut as it is a lot easier and cheaper then doing all that set up work on the other end.Also I believe Mica had once told me that they had tried various wood sustain blocks on either Jack Cassidy's or Phil Lesh's bass(s)and settled back on the brass.Mica can you add to this? | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 191 Registered: 6-2002 |
Barry, Thanks for the detailed description. I was actually tightening the middle screw under the nut on my Epic, which improved the sustain (which had been lacking before) but the sound was definitely less woody. Another important factor, besides the strings, is how high the action is - I'm thinking of raising it a bit again to avoid an overdose of mwah. I guess I'll have to find some middle ground here, but I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice the difference with the tightness of the nut. My Epic doesn't have a sustain block, but it may not be such a big factor on a set-neck. | ||
| bkbass
Junior Username: bkbass Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2003 |
Your welcome,"Knowledge is a torch,let others light upon it"Another thing came to mind,how tight are your tuner bolts/nuts?So far on my 5 Alembics and many of my other basses I've had to snug up on them.It's a matter of taste but the net effect was that more energy went back into the string causing a little brighter more immediate response.If it's a Gotoh tuner it's a metric size I'm not sure.Does anybody out there know the size?If their Schaller then you could get away with using a 5/8 nut driver.A word of caution DO NOT OVER TIGHTEN!Or you'll be in deep kimshe(spell check please)With all the talk about body mass and tone woods etc.it's amazing the amount of tone affected by such a little surface area and mass.If you use a needle tuner when tuning up(rather than a lcd)watch the needle as you first grab hold of the tuner and then the headstock just that increase of soft fresh adds mass and you should see the needle go up approx 5 to 10 cents.Elsewhere someone mentioned the added brass plate called fat heads which attached to the back of a fender headstock thus increasing sustain.I remember seeing and hearing a incredible P bass that had it's headstock tuned with small screws and washers.You may be able to approach sonic nirvana by loosing the nut,tightening/snugging(BE CAREFUL!)the tuners and changing the nut materials.I hope this helps.Good luck God Bless.BTW Check out my purpleheart neck on factory to customer.That's going to have a cocobolo Rogue body with modified series 2 electronics. | ||
| bob
Intermediate Member Username: bob Post Number: 189 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hey Barry, it's reassuring to see that someone here is even crazier about this stuff than I am (though maybe I don't really need the encouragement...). I'd like to follow up on several posts here, but need to get some work done this afternoon, so for now I'll just comment on the "sloppy nut" approach. I'm sure loosening the nut screws will make a difference, but it's not something I would recommend, or bother to experiment with myself. Ideally, the nut only matters when you're playing an open string. Assuming you're fretting with reasonable pressure, there shouldn't be a lot going on up there the rest of the time (though of course the whole neck is always vibrating quite a bit, transferring some of that to other strings perhaps, etc.). Also, whenever you talk about leaving something a little loose, it's hard to be repeatable, and likely to shift over time. So my preference is to experiement with materials, but keep everything nice and snug. I did start playing with alternate blocks, but have only had a few hours so far; I'm not being very scientific or rigorous yet, just going for general impressions, and allowing myself to change other things if I feel like it, such as pickup heights and tone/filter controls. No question, block material makes a big difference. Wood (only vermillion so far) was thumpy and sort of boring. Corian (counter top stuff) was quite interesting, very "clean" sounding at first reaction, though I came to feel it wasn't heavy enough to provide a good low B. Last night I put aluminum in there, and this seems really promising - I'm itching to get back and play with it some more, but already it feels closer to the tone I'm after. I'm not very excited by the hockey puck or other elastic suggestions (as effclef said, interesting but perhaps not very practical). At sort of the other extreme, I'm hoping to find someone who can make me one out of granite - closer in mass to brass, but without the ringing. This is quite intriguing to me at the moment. More later. -Bob | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 193 Registered: 6-2002 |
Barry, About those changes in pitch when you hold the tuning peg and the peghead ... perhaps you should not grab the peghead when tuning up because you may be pulling it backwards - easy does it. In my experience you can get a neck-through out of tune easier than a set-neck. Then again peghead vibrato is one of Stanley Clarke trademark tricks. I always tune up to a piano, or whatever the main instrument is. In case I'm on my own there's always the curse of perfect pitch to fall back on. The substitute for that is of course the slightly sharp G you get from electrical hum in Europe (50 Hz). And Bob, the loosened nut is obviously more 'effective' on a fretless. On a fretted bass the end of the string behind your finger will be immobilized already by the first fret in that direction, which doesn't happen on a fretless. We all agree that it will pay off to make the hardware sit tight. Unfortunately brass doesn't yield the most upright-like tone, and the very idea of a sustain block is - well, inappropriate under the circumstances. The stuff people do to their P bass pegheads is usually to overcome deadspots on the fingerboard. On the other hand, the most substantial part of an upright must be the short neck with the big scroll on the peghead. I wonder what difference a wooden or bone nut would make. | ||
| basstard
Member Username: basstard Post Number: 85 Registered: 3-2003 |
Although the idea of a bolt-on Alembic seems to be pretty interesting, I'm not sure if it's a really good one. I think everybody should stick with what they do best - and in case of Alembic, it's neck-thru and set-in. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that if Alembicians ever decided to make a bolt-on bass it would be a helluva top quality instrument. But... It wouldn't be "alembicky" enough, if you get my drift. Want a great sounding top quality bolt-on bass? Buy a Wal (the Rolls Royce of bolt-on basses, IMHO). While we're at it... Q: Who's the lamest singer with removable neck? A: Michael Bolt-on. | ||
| bracheen
Advanced Member Username: bracheen Post Number: 385 Registered: 11-2003 |
Jarek, have another cup of coffee Brother. There's a local band in Jacksonville called Liquid Blue whose bassist plays Wal exclusivly. He'll bring them to gigs three or four at a time. They do sound good. Sam | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 196 Registered: 6-2002 |
Jarek, Okay, I'll laugh this time. Next time, I'll settle for a bad hair day. I was zapping with the remote and came across Beavis and Butthead, who were also making fun of a Michael Bolton video - this was one of his attempts at hard rock, and I distinctly remember the bass player had an Alembic. Can't remember the model though. | ||
| basstard
Member Username: basstard Post Number: 90 Registered: 3-2003 |
Erm... is it just a weird impression, or did I really post this joke somewhere on this discussion board earlier?... Just 25 and already serious memory problems... | ||
| jazzyvee
Intermediate Member Username: jazzyvee Post Number: 102 Registered: 6-2002 |
Picking up on a point made earlier in this thread about the sound being affected by having a glued neck to body rather than an through neck. Accept my innocence of the vibration theory of sound propogation in woods materials and interfaces... :-) here. I understand that my bass sounds great and sustains well but, I don't see that the though neck design vs Set Neck is the reason for this especially since my SC has neck laminates. Consider that a neck laminate is virtually the length of your bass and the thickness of the neck and body so there you have a much greater surface area of glued joints at the interfaces between the laminate woods. Also the bodies have laminated top and backs which again is another glued wood to wood interface. Surely this would have a greater affect on attenuating the vibrations within the instrument and hence sustain than an instrument with a mere glued neck to body join. Outside of a lab and controlled conditions, I don't think you can can determine the difference between set neck vs through neck just by listening to other basses made of different materials by the same or manufacturers, as the differences in manufacturing tolerances, quality of materials used, workmanship even each peice of wood is different so you could not guarantee that the differences you hear are purely attributed to the neck join whether it be through or set. I think that having neck laminates would negate any benefits of through over set neck design. I imagine that if you had an instrument made completely of a single peice of wood would it would probably have the best sustain as there would be no interfaces apart from wood to air to attenuate the vibes, or a through neck made of a single piece of wood. But neck laminates must attenuate the sound vibes more than the neck body joint. I have a couple of basses alembic and Music man, now they sound completely different but I couldn't listen to them comparitively and say that the reason the alembic sounds and sustains better is because it has a through neck rather than a bolt on neck... There are so many variables to consider and the fact of the matter is they are both great basses but I just prefer the sound of my alembic thats it. Now Alembic have hit on a method of making instruments that works and gives theirs consistent and distinctive sound, thats why we buy them. The fact that it is set neck or bolt on or through is a side issue as far as I can see. Before I went to the shop to buy my bass I hadn't got a clue as to whether the neck was a set, through or bolt joint. I bought it because I had heard the sound of alembics on record primarily Stanley Clark and wanted an Alembic. I tried the instrument and loved the sound of the instrument so I bought it. I think the subject is far too academic..... just "PLAY THE BASS..... PLAY THE BASS....PLAY THE BASS!!!!!! I await to be enlightened :-) | ||
| adriaan
Advanced Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 202 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hi Jazzy, Not sure if the issue is really academic ... and I wholeheartedly agree that you just need to play that bass, play that bass, and before you stop just play that bass (repeat). Nonetheless, I don't think glued joints, as large as the glue surface may be, can have as big an impact as bolt-on joints because pieces of wood joined by glue will have more or less integral vibration characteristics, whereas pieces of wood joined by bolts will have more like a summing up of the different vibration characteristics of the separate pieces. Obviously a bolt-on is a three-part construction (body + bolts + neck) whereas a set-neck is two-part (body + neck) and a neck-through is structurally one-part (neck with body wings attached). I presume that a good bolt-on connection will be constructed in a way that the bolts will not resonate, which means that at the most critical point of the construction you have kind of a dead spot, whereas with a set-neck, like with a neck-through, the whole thing will vibrate. On a neck-through there is only a significant joint between the neck and the body wings, which means the joint is taking a much smaller part in the transmission of the vibrations - hence the comment that you can hear the effect of the top woods more strongly on a set-neck than on a neck-through. I have no experience with high-end bolt-ons (never touched an MTD or a Sadowsky or what have you) but even a nice MusicMan StingRay still feels less of a unity than either of my Alembics. | ||
| davehouck
Senior Member Username: davehouck Post Number: 470 Registered: 5-2002 |
JV; I don't have the understanding of physics that others in the group have, so don't expect enlightenment from me. However, I will contribute a few comments to the discussion that possibly may be of some help. On a neck through, the bridge and nut are vibrating the same piece(s) of wood. The same energy from a vibrating string is being introduced to each end of a single long piece of wood. On a set neck, the bridge and nut are vibrating separate pieces of wood. The energy from the string is being introduced from the nut to a shorter neck wood and from the bridge to a shorter and much wider body wood. To me, the fact that on a neck through the same vibration is being introduced to both ends of the same long piece of wood does not seem insignificant. On a set neck, the vibration from the nut enters a short piece of wood on just one end. Like wise, the vibration from the bridge enters a short piece of wood at just one point. It does not seem likely that gluing those two pieces of wood together will give the same effect. Introducing the same vibration at both ends of a long piece of wood should reinforce and sustain that vibration in a way that a neck through can't. All other things being equal, maple neck woods, maple body woods, same body shape and electronics, it seems reasonable to me to expect that a neck through should sound different than a set neck in regard to both frequency response and sustain. However, I agree with you that generally all other things are not equal and there are a number of factors that go into the sustain and tone of any individual instrument. | ||
| adriaan
Advanced Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 205 Registered: 6-2002 |
Dave, I agree a set-neck will not sound like a neck-through, but there's a greater similarity between SN and NT than between SN and BO. To put it bluntly, BO is basically a body with a neck nailed onto it while SN is a body married to a neck by a dovetail joint. I guess the effect of the joint would be evident when you could A/B an all maple SN to an all maple NT with similar electronics and strings. |
