| Author | Message | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2003 |
Although I am relatively new to the Alembic Club and I own a Series II with another in production, a West Coast Aguilar amp rep recently told me that the Series I body is larger than a Series II body. After hearing that, I checked out some photos of the Series I bass and it indeed does look larger. Is that correct? If true, it would seem to me that a Series I and Series II bass constructed from identical woods would sound different due to the mass diferential. Specifically, the Series I bass would have a more pronounced low end, would it not? If this is the case (Rami, are you listening), wouldn't a Series I bass made exclusively of ebony and purple heart offer the utlimate Alembic bottom-end punch? What say you? | ||
| mica
Moderator Username: mica Post Number: 1521 Registered: 6-2000 |
There is no difference in the Series I and Series II body shapes. Even between the Point and Omega variations, we use the identical template to cut the body. There have been variations in the Standard shape over the years, so older or newer ones indeed may be of a different size. But for any given year, a Standard Series I and a Standard Series II will have the same size body, regardless of the bottom carving. When I was a child, the Series I had a 3-piece body and the Series II had a 5-piece with accent laminates. Optically, the Series I would look larger, but they still fit in the same case. | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 110 Registered: 12-2002 |
also jeff, there,s the smaller series models and maybe the magazine was comparing a small standard (s/II) to a large body s/I, as you well know they come in both sizes, but alot of folks arent aware of most things. | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 12 Registered: 12-2003 |
There is a lot of misinformation out there. Thanks Keavin. Mica: has Alembic built an all- ebony and purple heart Series II bass yet? Is this our next project? Thanks Mica for the information. | ||
| adriaan
Intermediate Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 163 Registered: 6-2002 |
From what I understand, after the earliest models, the Small Standard is what most people call the 'Stanley Clarke' model, and the Large Standard is the 'Mark King' model. There is also the 3/4 Standard, which is a downsized Large Standard. I also understand that there is a 3/4 size Spoiler model but I've never seen one; the regular Spoiler is rather wide, so I can understand how people can have a problem handling the full size. | ||
| valvil
Moderator Username: valvil Post Number: 386 Registered: 7-2002 |
Jeff, we have an all-ebony/purpleheart series II that is currently being built for Rami, his has a rogue body shape. You can see it in the Factory To Customer section. Valentino | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 14 Registered: 12-2003 |
Valentino, Yes, I have seen it and admire it greatly. Do you know if Rami chose the Rogue body shape for this bass because it would balance better than the Series body shape or is his choice based on asthetic considerations only? Would there be a balance problem with a Series II bass with these woods because it would be neck-heavy? | ||
| rami
Advanced Member Username: rami Post Number: 325 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hi Jeff, Actually, that Bass is a Rogue with Series II electronics, rather than a Series II with a Rogue body. There is a difference! I've always loved the Rogue - not only does it balance incredibly well..... BUT IT'S JUST SO DAMN SEXY!!! The idea for the Series II electronics was Mica's. It was originally just going to be another cool custom Rogue like the "Dark Prince", only fretless. It'll probably be my last custom, so we had to make it extra special! Lots of other little details as well on that one. Can't wait to see it! Rami | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 131 Registered: 12-2002 |
man rami, you guys are true alembicians! (if it were me, i'd have this one chambered) ,but i see rouges dont have much "butt" | ||
| rami
Advanced Member Username: rami Post Number: 326 Registered: 6-2002 |
I think a solid standard point or omega body made entirely of purpleheart and ebony would be way too heavy. I own a Series II triple-omega 4 string and I can tell you, it's no lightweight! Mahogany (Chambered) body with Burl Walnut top and back. It balances perfectly as well. For anybody whose seen a standard point or omega body Series Bass in real life, you can understand why it's chambered - it's HUGE! Solid construction with Purpleheart and Ebony would weigh a ton. Even too heavy for me! I don't think the woods would have any effect on it's balance, just it's weight. | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 132 Registered: 12-2002 |
my favorite is the big body series (chambered), the sound is fuller compared to solid bodys,and a (chiropractor) ,would cost more than a brand new sterling model! | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 15 Registered: 12-2003 |
I completely agree with you Rami about the beauty of the Rogue body shape and it is DAMN sexy. Your bass is going to produce some pant-flapping bottom with that wood combination and the Series II electronics. You are, Rami, a true Alembician (love that word Keavin!) and at the cutting edge of Alembic basses. I know about the weight of a Series II because I curently own one with a coco bolo top and back and a mahogony chambered heart omega body. My bass is a bit neck-heavy and I must hold it while I play or it will pull my strap down until the bass is in a horizontal position. Does anyone out there know if there is anything I can do to keep the neck up? Keavin: does a chambered bass produce a fuller sound compared to a solid body? What do you mean by "fuller." Thanks guys. | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 135 Registered: 12-2002 |
the hollowed effect gives you a slight bigger bite to the note (just like those hollow bodied jazz guitars ) you noticed jazz guitarists dont play jazz with les pauls?,or any other solid bodys? but only with big body hollowed ones.,,,,,,(theres a bassier tone to the "note" even at the 'highest' register) well the chambered bodys of alembics offer the same effect ,a rounder richer tone and a 'fuller pluck of the string'wheras,you can tell the differencs between the two, and thats why alembic offers chambered bodys 'standard' in the series models, and thats why the series basses sound so much better and sweeter than the rest of their line. | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2003 |
Keavin, Excellent explanation of the "fuller sound" principle. In fact, as soon as I thought of the sound of an upright bass I understood what you mean. Thanks. | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 141 Registered: 12-2002 |
there you go jeff!!.......now plug up and turn up! | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 142 Registered: 12-2002 |
that also explains why alembics started with the big bodys,the bigger the body the bigger the sound, (bottom)&(overall tone) and you can also hear the bass "breath" through the sound,ie,you can also actually "feel" a series bass more than you would a solid body in a 'live setting' ,(just like you thought of the uprite). | ||
| bob
Intermediate Member Username: bob Post Number: 167 Registered: 11-2002 |
Keavin, While I truly appreciate your enthusiasm, I have some problems with your physics - not all of them, just some. And before I say anything more, I should note that I have a (solid) Rogue and only once, very briefly, played a Series bass. Nevertheless, I'll just go ahead and state a few things as 'fact' and let others contradict me :-) This is way too long, so feel free to drop out along the way. The main point I wish to make is that while there are many good reasons to buy a Series bass, the fact that it has a chambered body is not one of them (aside from keeping the weight down). Point 1: Series basses sound different than other Alembics primarily because they use a different pickup design (single coil) and somewhat different electronics. Point 2: In response to the original question, my personal sense is that for a solid body electric bass, mass and stiffness are more important than most other things. Different woods will certainly affect the tone, but on average if you just look at weight/mass/density, that will generally give you a good characterization of the overall contribution of the body to the tone. For a deeper (more fundamental) tone, bigger is generally better, though I would first spend my weight and dollar allowances on stiffening the neck, because that will make much more difference than the body. I should add that I personally believe there are some special cases here, such as the high oil content of coco bolo, possibly things like the long grain structure of vermillion, and so forth. But to put it in crude terms, I'd rather have an electric bass body made out of a heavy lucite or plexiglass (maybe Corian!) than balsa. And I would prefer that neither be hollow. My sense is that a larger, more massive body will mostly allow the strings to continue to vibrate longer and in more interesting (harmonically useful) ways. The simple theory here is that the energy remains in the strings, rather than being dissipated into the body. Hollowing out the body, and thereby reducing its mass, would actually be counter to that purpose. This is a complicated issue. We had some inconclusive discussions on this about a year ago relating to the 'hippie sandwich' constructions, and one of the questions there was: assuming the energy from the strings somehow bleeds out into the body, how exactly does it make its way back into the strings - because that's the only way it can possibly get amplified? My current thinking is that virtually none of the energy makes it way from the body back into the strings, and therefore the more important question is what frequencies get lost more easily in the first place. Point 3: there is simply no significant relationship between the construction of a Les Paul and a Series bass. A hollow or semi-hollow guitar body is constructed of fairly thin and flexible plates, with a sufficiently large air cavity that the air vibrations can interact with the plates, and in turn somehow modify the behavior of the strings. This is a bit problematic... but more on that in point 4. For the moment, I would note that while a Series body may be partially hollow, the air cavity is too small, and the surrounding wood too thick, for the chamber to behave in a resonate manner that would reflect back into the strings. Yes, you might actually "feel it breathe" (vibrate) a bit more, and that might inspire your playing and so forth, but you will have a very hard time convincing me that these small chambers actually affect the sound. Point 4: an upright bass is a completely different animal, even more so than the Les Paul. Assume you are playing an upright bass, without amplification, in a modestly sized room; or playing an electric bass in the same room with a small amplifier. In both cases, anyone more than a few feet away from the instrument is hearing virtually zero sound from the vibrating strings themselves. Maybe some string/finger noise, like plucking attack or fret noise or fingerboard slap, but not the main tone. With the upright, the strings vibrate, they move the bridge, which is designed to rock sideways and thereby transfer the vibrations to the top plate, which in turn excites an extremely complicated and interacting set of air and wood resonances between the cavity and the front/back body plates. This is what moves the air in the room so that you can hear the sound - air molecules pumping in and out of the sound holes, as well as being shoved around by the vibrations of the wood plates (a large surface on an upright). But you get remarkably little air movement from the vibrations of the strings themselves. With the electric, it's completely different. Essentially all of the sound is coming from string movement, 'picked up' by magnets/coils and then amplified and sent out through a speaker. Yes, the sound will be different depending on the woods, construction, and of course the electronics. But fundamentally, you are relying on an electro-magnetic sensing of the vibration of the strings, plus subsequent amplification and driving of a speaker cone, rather than a physical movement of air and wood surfaces, to produce the sound. The string itself doesn't move enough air, nor does the trivial vibration of the solid - or chambered - body. So with an electric, what really matters is what you can do to modify the vibration of the strings, or sense those vibrations differently. Point 5: I don't believe anyone at Alembic is going to claim that they hollow out part of the Series bodies so that it will sound more like an acoustic, or so that it will otherwise sound better than solid models. They need more room for electronics, want to reduce the weight, and maybe even some of it is just because that's how they've been building them for years. It might be useful to read the description of the Classico (Alembic's electric upright). As you'll see, it has a hollow core to reduce weight, but everything about the design is focused on keeping the energy in the strings - not on trying to take advantage of a resonant air chamber. I'm probably being too picky here, but there is no reason not to put Series electronics in some other solid body shape (as many people have) - you'll still get the Series sound. It is not going to sound less "full" just because you don't have a couple of small air pockets in the body. -Bob | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 150 Registered: 12-2002 |
very well said watson!!! (sherlock holmes) | ||
| jeff
Junior Username: jeff Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2003 |
Bob, I am constantly amazed at the wealth of knowledge exhibited by Alembicians and your explanation of the "solid vs. chambered body" sound certainly enhances my opinion. I would be very interested in hearing from Mica, or anyone else at Alembic or in this club, if they agree with your observations. The outcome of this discussion may influence my choice of body style for my next bass. Jeff | ||
| bracheen
Advanced Member Username: bracheen Post Number: 342 Registered: 11-2003 |
Bob, very enlightening post. I do have one question for you about point 2. Not an argument or contridiction but an honest to goodness question. "Point 2: In response to the original question, my personal sense is that for a solid body electric bass, mass and stiffness are more important than most other things. Different woods will certainly affect the tone, but on average if you just look at weight/mass/density, that will generally give you a good characterization of the overall contribution of the body to the tone." My question, I have a Warwick Thumb bolt-on that is much smaller than my Epic. The Epic is of course Mahagony with a Zebrawood top. The Thumb is Ovangkol. The weights are similar and both are fretted. The smaller Thumb has a much deeper tone than the Epic. If size and weight are the main factors what would explain this difference in tone between the two? Sam | ||
| bassman10096
Advanced Member Username: bassman10096 Post Number: 284 Registered: 7-2003 |
Bob: Really careful and logical analysis. I agree with each of your points based on my own reasoning. I think the chambered body's use is strictly a matter of weight control. I don't have enough direct experience to tell whether a chambered body produces less sustain than a solid one, if the neck stiffness is the same for each. I guess my instinct tells me that a generally larger body with greater weight contributes more stability and resistance to energy loss than a smaller, and or lighter one. On the other hand, I've definitely observed the differences in sustain between a neck of maple with walnut pinstripes and one with purpleheart laminates, though. One other point on the chambered body - Alembic can also produce Signature Deluxe models on a chambered basis. I don't know whether the hollows are identical to those made to accomodate Series electronics, but any difference would seem to matter to the bass's weight only. Bill | ||
| effclef
Member Username: effclef Post Number: 100 Registered: 1-2004 |
Chambered Series - well, imagine an acoustic guitar where the top, sides, and back, are 1/4" thick! Think that will sound good? The top of an acoustic needs to vibrate to send air movement out the sound hole. So my guess is that a Series bass with a 1/4" top and back over the chambers would mean that the chambers don't add as much to the response of the bass as much as the neck, especially with ebony or purpleheart. Only Ron knows for sure ;-) because I bet he has tried measurements on both! EffClef PS on Signature models - I have seen pictures of them with signatures on the front headstock laminate, and I believe I have seen ones on the back. Regardless - are these actual signed veeners which are then mounted on the bass? (I can just imagine Stanley taking a Sharpie at his kitchen table and signing dozens of wood pieces.) | ||
| 811952
Intermediate Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 137 Registered: 10-2003 |
I always thought the chambered body was to accomodate the electronics, which, in the older instruments, pretty much fill up the chambers... John | ||
| bob
Intermediate Member Username: bob Post Number: 169 Registered: 11-2002 |
Sam, I think I can weasel my way out of your question (about four posts earlier) pretty simply, with the phrase 'all other things being equal'. Suppose you had either Alembic or Warwick make you two identical basses - electronics, bridge/nut, body size/shape, all other woods and construction techniques - the only difference being the body wood. I'm not familiar with Ovangkol, but suppose one body was all ash and the other all ebony. The ebony one is going to keep more energy in the strings, which will probably be particularly noticeable in the lower frequencies. Forget the brand names and marketing lingo for a moment, and think about what happens. A wave (vibration) moves along the length of the string and runs into the bridge. If the bridge and whatever it was attached to were infinitely massive, then the wave would have no choice but to turn around and go back along the string. In the case of many Alembics, the wave hits the bridge and then it has to first try to move a half pound piece of brass (the sustain, or bridge block), and then it has to get that chunk of brass to try to move the rest of the body. Make the body more massive, and the wave is fighting a losing battle. Of course, the other end of the string is anchored way out at the end of along thin piece of wood, and the wave has a better chance of messing with that. So some of the energy is transferred to the neck, and some of that will also make its way back into the body (bypassing the bridge block this time). So again, make it harder for the neck to move the body, make it harder for the string to move the neck, and more of the wave gets reflected back along the string - and therefore passes over the pickup one more time. But I digress (yet again...). Suppose you take these two identical instruments, and change only the bodies to get the total weight the same. You could make a really huge ash body, for instance, but I'm pretty sure the ebony one will still sound "better" in some ways - deeper, fuller, more complex, better sustain. In fact, my guess is that you could leave the ash body as it was, and drill a bunch of holes in the ebony body to lighten it up, and it will still retain some of those characteristics. I don't claim to understand how far you can push this, so that's why I kind of fudged things by referring to "weight/mass/density", and I probably should have thrown in "rigidity" or something as well - I'm sure there are some differences between a large but very thin body, vs. a small thick one, for instance, though perhaps not within the range of size/shape that would be useful for a bass. Having said all this, I still have no doubt that different woods make a very important contribution in shaping the overall tone. But as a general rule for getting deep, rich, sustained bass, first make the neck really stiff (oh, and maybe long) and then anchor it in a nice heavy body. Just ask Rami, he's had this figured out for years. -Bob PS: John, I had the same thought - originally the electronics took up a lot more space, but just because they're smaller now is not a compelling reason to change a perfectly good construction technique, that also keeps the weight reasonable. | ||
| keavin
Intermediate Member Username: keavin Post Number: 153 Registered: 12-2002 |
after playing & recording with a large body s/II for 25yrs,there is no doubt theres a diffrence in sound (however wood is always a tonal factor here),...so my conclusion is that its both,the sound is very much so affected by the chambered body,there is a pure 'sonic logic'behind this design,you can hear it in all of stanleys bass solos,there is purely a "hollow alembic sound" (especially when the filters are, or have been tweeked). |
