Son of Bovril said:
You guys are all making relevant points about body woods
and I know that this is what the discussion is about, but don't
forget the affect of the pups, which IMO make a bigger
difference than anything else...
not the brand of pups so much as the configuration... you
know, jazz vs P vs humbucker etc...
I feel that your pup config is gonna be the main determining
tonal factor of a bass, and thereafter the choice of woods
and brand of pups and things like active vs passive etc are
gonna be the factors in separating the tone of one bass (with
a P pup for example) from another bass with the same config...
in another way, the pup config is like the choice between a
red or a white wine, while the woods can be the difference
between a really good and and a really bad bottle of whatever
choice you make :lol:
all just IMO of course, as there are always exceptions to
every rule...
`
PU Config is the defining element of a bass, as in "it's a Jazz"
or "it's a P-J" or an "MM-type" etc etc. So I tend to agree with
you. Yet this mindset has verrrry often left me blown away by
what wood can do, and in a big way, and sometimes by what
is only a minority portion of the wood, frinstintz just the cap.
While PU config defines a bass's genre, the exceptions to the
rule, or maybe just call it the variety WITHIN each genre, are
astounding. The exceptions are really way too common to be
called "exceptions". I love dual humbuckers. There's hardly a
hint of "genre similarity" amongst my HH [aka $$] basses:
EBMM Bongo HH
Gibson SG
Ibnz BTB905
Peavey Palaedium
Spector NSX
Wick Streamer Std
Wick Vett $$
All the above are fretted. I have more HH's sans frets which
further increases the differences amongst them, cuz you hear
more of the various FB woods without the frets in the way.
You got necks above of mahogany, maple, and ovangcal, and
bodies of alder, basswood, carolena, mahogany, maple, and
ash. There's thick caps of maple and ovangcal as well. Only 2
above have active-only EQ, so most can be compared in the
passive mode. Electronics make a huge difference, but even
in passive mode, these basses mostly seem to be from many
different planets. The EBMM and Gibson sound the closest to
each other but have entirely different woods, and one is very
active [6 control knobs] while the other is a typical passive ax.
I guess they are the exception to the exception, thus proving
that somewhere, somehow, two dual humbucker basses can
possibly have some sonic resemblance
Now, don't forget, I really DO agree with your basic premise,
lest why else would I define myself, ax-wise, as "basically a
dual humbucker kinda basser" ? Well partly, cuz I found it to
be the most versatile config. But with
versatility also comes,
hand in glove, a huge
variety of resulting voices. What I dig
about HH [aka $$] is that so often I can find so
many voices
all onboard in one ax. Me likey, bigtime.
`
