The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Fender Basses => Topic started by: 4stringer77 on April 09, 2021, 06:58:38 AM
-
Nice clean one in this play along.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24NrryYA0oo
-
Very cool. Love the bass line and that fast lick. Antigua... not so much.
If it was unfaded and had a dark rosewood fretboard, maybe it could work for me.
-
Very cool. Love the bass line and that fast lick. Antigua... not so much.
Beat me to it.
-
It's charmingly repulsive in a way that's perfect for punk, which is why this Fat Mike fellow likes it I'm guessing.
Some of those 78' Precision are great players. Here's another chap extolling the virtues of the 78' vintage Fender P. In fact he says it's a better bass than his 68' P.
The P is shown after 3:30. Looks like a nice natural Alder. Perhaps it was an Antigua in a former life that didn't survive the unruly mobs of pitchfork wielding and paint stripping Antigua haters like Rob and Ilan ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_hUhv4lxks
-
Charmingly Repulsive would be a great band name.
-
Some of those 78' Precision are great players
I have owned a couple and liked them, until I got my first early 70s P.
'78-'79 tend to be the heaviest, up to 11-12lbs and I've heard of 13lbs. '79 Jazz Basses. In my experience the heavier ones lack mids, especially those with maple necks. But wood isn't exact science.
-
It's charmingly repulsive in a way that's perfect for punk, which is why this Fat Mike fellow likes it I'm guessing.
Some of those 78' Precision are great players. Here's another chap extolling the virtues of the 78' vintage Fender P. In fact he says it's a better bass than his 68' P.
The P is shown after 3:30. Looks like a nice natural Alder. Perhaps it was an Antigua in a former life that didn't survive the unruly mobs of pitchfork wielding and paint stripping Antigua haters like Rob and Ilan ;)
You can count on us!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_hUhv4lxks
-
I have owned a couple and liked them, until I got my first early 70s P.
'78-'79 tend to be the heaviest, up to 11-12lbs and I've heard of 13lbs. '79 Jazz Basses. In my experience the heavier ones lack mids, especially those with maple necks. But wood isn't exact science.
That period was inbred with "SUSTAIN" brass at both ends of the strings and heavier bodies including inserting rods inside the body etc.
Didn't sound any better to me just easier to do whole notes.
-
Just say no to Antigua. It's a tone suck.
(https://i.imgur.com/zMMfJgc.jpg)
-
That period was inbred with "SUSTAIN" brass at both ends of the strings and heavier bodies including inserting rods inside the body etc.
Didn't sound any better to me just easier to do whole notes.
A friend who 20 years ago bought my Fender Geddy Lee J (MIJ, first year, pencil neck but fortunately stable) told me that he wanted to sell because it sounds too thin. I told him to replace the BA II bridge with a standard Fender bent bridge and get all the low end back.
-
A friend who 20 years ago bought my Fender Geddy Lee J (MIJ, first year, pencil neck but fortunately stable) told me that he wanted to sell because it sounds too thin. I told him to replace the BA II bridge with a standard Fender bent bridge and get all the low end back.
Did it come standard with the BA II?
Some guys swear by them. I never liked what they did to the tone.
-
Did it come standard with the BA II?
Some guys swear by them. I never liked what they did to the tone.
That was the stock bridge on the Geddy basses for many years until Fender came out with their own version.
-
That was the stock bridge on the Geddy basses for many years until Fender came out with their own version.
My older son had one of the first version, I had it for a year when he was stationed in Korea (2003-04) but didn't remember that it had a BA II. That bass didn't have much fundamental. He sold it shortly after he got back.
-
It's not the bass as much as the BA II. It's the chrome equivalent to the Ric .0047uF bass-cut capacitor.
-
It's not the bass as much as the BA II. It's the chrome equivalent to the Ric .00?F bass-cut capacitor.
I don't doubt that at all. Mot sure why though, something about the design must dissipate some of the fundamental. It's not heavy enough to absorb much, it's just cast zinc.
-
It's not heavy enough to absorb much, it's just cast zinc.
Rics have high-mass cast zinc bridge/tailpieces and are not known for being very deep-sounding.
-
What's weird is the bulky full contact hipshot two point replacement on my EB-3 didn't seem to change the tone much compared to when it had the flimsy chrome bar.
Getting back to Antigua, it seems to be more popular currently. Prices on vintage ones are higher than they have been and Fender offers it on their build a bass option list. Not sure why they don't offer the matching pickguard because what's the point otherwise?
-
Rics have high-mass cast zinc bridge/tailpieces and are not known for being very deep-sounding.
I don't think I'll be able to put this in a scientific context, but isn't the bridges on all old gibson basses high mass cast zinc alloy?
I know, maho and mudbucker.. but would they be less deep sounding with a steel bridge?
-
Rics have high-mass cast zinc bridge/tailpieces and are not known for being very deep-sounding.
What's weird is the bulky full contact hipshot two point replacement on my EB-3 didn't seem to change the tone much compared to when it had the flimsy chrome bar.
Getting back to Antigua, it seems to be more popular currently. Prices on vintage ones are higher than they have been and Fender offers it on their build a bass option list. Not sure why they don't offer the matching pickguard because what's the point otherwise?
IMHO it's more than just material or mass, although both are almost certainly factors.
Not quite sure which luthier/builder said this, but there are three things that can happen at a bridge when you play a note: the string energy is either retained in the string, transmitted into the body, or dissipated. Every bridge will allow some combination of the three. If too much string energy is dissipated, that would obviously be undesirable. The rest depends on what the designer was trying to accomplish. I remember a BP interview with Mica Wickersham in the 90s explaining that Alembic's bridge design, with the brass T-O-M type bridge connecting to a heavy brass plate sunk into the body, was designed to keep as much energy in the string as possible.
All we can do is decide whether it sounds good or not.
-
This 77' is one of the nicer sounding ones. Tony has been generous enough to share his wonderful bass with us in this video. I wonder if that bass originally came as a fretless or if it was a conversion? At least the finish must have been added.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GFGn7Cn5G4
-
That bass sounds great! Doesn't hurt that Tony is a great player.
-
I just did a bit of a sweep of my parts box and came up with these:
(https://i.imgur.com/nNVfJ1l.jpg)
I used to like this sort of bridge as the saddles are locked into grooves, so they won't wobble or tip. I don't play bass with a heavy right hand attack any more, so that isn't really an issue.
I wish there was a smoking gun, 'I swapped out the bridge for one of these and it did X', but I can't place it from my own experiences. I can see an argument for why a higher mass bridge might increase sustain and tone, and I can see the argument for why it might do the opposite.
I did handle a '70s Jazz bass a few years back that had a Badass II and brass nut fitted. The benefits of these, in terms of sustain and tone, were possibly undermined by the wavering gaps down each side of the neck. It was also a right heavy bastard, beaten to death, dirty and finished in a thick clear coat. "Mojo", apparently.