$$ question

P

Professor Jones

Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
It seems like with its pickup configuration and the 3 way switches (parallel, series, single coil) the corvette $$ might be capable of producing every bass sound possible (or at least, approximating it well). Is it really the case ?
 





Not quite, but pretty close.

It can do-the-job-of almost any bass,
even if in an A-B direct comparison a
noticeable sonic difference is heard,
meaning it's not truly a mimic of the
other bass.

Frinstintz, it doesn't do a credible 'P',
but you can get a middy-bassy growl.
It's just not the same as the P-bass's
middy-bassy growl. A Warwick growl
is kinda unique. Actually, a 'P' is near
impossible to truly mimic with ANY ax
of a different design. It's much easier
to mimic a J-bass.

But as you've noted, it's so versatile
with all those onboard tonal options,
it seems like it should "cover all the
basses" ... but not if one insists that
"cover" means "mimic".


​




 
+1

The $$ is an extremely flexible bass (one look at my signature and you'll know that I'm completely sold on it), and there's a decent arguement that it "approximates" other pickup configurations... but it makes more sense to think of the coil-tapping switches as providing different 'voices' for the humbuckers rather than mimicking the sound of a Jazz or Precision. At most it is capable of sounding like passive J's or P's, but active J's and P's would be a different deal.

In my opinion the flexibilty of the $$ is a huge bonus, but you buy a $$ because you want the MusicMan humbucker sound. :twisted:

On a side note, as if the $$ wasn't flexible enough... with an active 3-band preamp it's just insane!
 





I think a lotta reason $$ players really use the
passive EQ-bypass fairly often is that the MEC
2-band is sorta OK, not too bad, but most of
us have a much better front end already built
into our rigs or our DI boxes. The MEC is "just
OK", so it doesn't take that much to beat it ...

+1 though, about MEC's 3-band. Having THAT
in their line-up, I don't know why they don't
just drop the 2-band. Or even if the market is
"demanding" the simplicity [!?!] of a 2-band,
at least give it the contour, or the pre-amp, or
whatever element of the 3-band it needs so it
can have that cool musical tone ! The 3-band
is not just the "2-band-plus-an-extra-band",
it's a toadally other critter.

Anyone who thinks 2-band EQ is simpler than
3-band must be confusing 2-band with 0-band.
Zero would be simple, but once you got multi-
band EQ, simplicity begins at 3-bands. 2-band
is a constant juggling act cuz it's too crude. 3-
band is enuf direct frequency control to mostly
eliminate juggling. It's a lot like the difference
between VVT vs master volume with pan. VVT
is about juggling, master & pan is simplicity !

​




 
Last edited by a moderator:
golem said:
The 3-band
is not just the "2-band-plus-an-extra-band",
it's a toadally other critter.
Click to expand...

I tried to talk you into that concept awhile back - I'm guessing the LTD 2004 brought with it some convincing? ;)

Obviously my $$ LTD 2009 is a different beast than the production model $$, but it should say something that I've only had a production model $$ back in the arsenal for a week and I already want to install the 3-band. But I agree, if I don't it's bypass city... ;)

Back to the Professor, we got off track, but did we make any sense along the way?
 
ANOTHER Corvette $$ LOVER here!! SUCH a flexible beast. & NONE of the settings sound anywhere near bad!!!! GREAT BASSES!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top