If I absolutely love my Thumb BO 5 then...

[ectoflanger]

how would I like the NT? I recently let pass a '98 model that sold for 1525 USD on ebay, because I wasn't quite sure. Right now there are two more 90s models on ebay. I've heard about increased neck dive with the NT models, but I already have the recommended Levy wide guitar strap. Do the '90s models differ in balance than more recent ones? There aren't dealers in my area who have Thumb NT's in stock so I don't have the option to try one first. Your thoughts?

 

[Florin]

Hi ecto,

The Thumb NT has in the mix a pretty similar character to thumb BO. But it feels different and plays different. The sound is more organic, natural, while BO is dry and growly. Thumb NT is very sensitive to technique, many times it can sound even like a fretless, with that specific mwah.

So to give you a short answer, I think it sounds the same, with some extra flavours
Some older ones, even 90's were lighter, and slicker. Also they have wenge fb, while newer ones have ebony fb. Older ones sound... older, a little bit vintage (well, as vintage as a thumb can sound) new ones are modern monsters.
I hope I am not making you more confused now

 

[DiMarco]

AND older ones have a two band pre while newer ones are three band.

 

[Hardy]

...many times it can sound even like a fretless...

Ah, thanks that somebody wrote this to confirm my impression. I´m playing Wicks for nearly 8 years now, but was very confused when I took my Thumb NT5 to the rehearsal. More than one time I thought: does this sound like a fretless? Good to know I´m not complete loco.

 

[ectoflanger]

AND older ones have a two band pre while newer ones are three band.

How far back does the two band EQ feature go? The two basses I'm looking at are a '92 and a '99. I pretty much would prefer one with the 3- band.

By the way, thank you all for the feedback!

 

[Morgoth]

I've owned, during a short time, two NT5 Thumbs (1990 and 2009).

On the 1990, which had a two band pre, you could boost the lows as much as you wanted to, and it still sounded good, not muddy at all.

On the 2009, which has a three band pre, you can just add a bit of lows, or it becomes really muddy quite fast.

Anyway, a pre on a Thumb is pretty useless. It has all the useful frequencies, and sounds best with flat EQ.

IMHO, the BOs, not only look terrible (except the vintage ones, Walnut and Bubinga bodies), but sound too dry.

The NTs have the right amount of warmth and still plenty of growl.

My 2 cents.

 

[ectoflanger]

IMHO, the BOs, not only look terrible (except the vintage ones, Walnut and Bubinga bodies), but sound too dry.

Well, I could see the latter, but regarding the former, I like the look of an Ovangkol body BO 5-- the pattern and color of the wood offset against the black pickups and hardware lends to it an exotic and alien look which I really like about my Thumb. I don't like the geometry of the shorter bodies of the later NT 5's as much, though I certainly don't consider them unattractive. In the end it is the comfort of playing, feel, and sound that ultimately matter to me.

Good to hear from you Morgoth! Thank you for the feedback! Ca va?