1964 Thunderbird at Norman's

[ajkula66]

. I definitely do feel that the original style Series basses are an ergonomic nightmare. Why is the neck way out THERE?

The only reason why I haven't bought a mint Series I when it was offered to me 25 years ago. It played and sounded like a dream, but I couldn't find my way around it physically. I could see myself buying one of the shorter-scale versions, though.

[Alanko]

I'll stick my neck out here and say that in my experience the wood used for the body makes very little difference to the overall tone. I have never met anyone who could tell, for example, an alder body bass (or guitar) from an ash one without looking. Fretboard material OTOH makes a noticeable difference.

I'm wood agnostic, if that is a thing? I definitely think my 4003 has a certain tone to it due to the maple, rather than just construction or pickups alone. If I play it unplugged and put one ear to the wood I can hear the Rickenbacker tone in there. Sort of scooped, hard sounding but with a solid fundamental.

What I meant about the Alembics I played was that they had consciously designed the wood out of the bass. They had designed them as though wood did impart a tone into the instrument and they were trying to avoid this at all costs. For example the bridges sat on inlaid blocks, so they sort of felt like they were vibrating in free space rather than the vibrations going down through the bridge and into the body. 

[uwe]

I'll stick my neck out here and say that in my experience the wood used for the body makes very little difference to the overall tone. I have never met anyone who could tell, for example, an alder body bass (or guitar) from an ash one without looking. Fretboard material OTOH makes a noticeable difference.

In that case, lieber Ilan, I'll have to unceremoniously chop it off on the wooden block (pun intended!) of truth, much as I regret ...

I can give you three of my TBirds with zebra wood, maho and flamed maple wings, all with the same pups and from the same era and maker, all with maho/walnut neck-thru construction and centerpiece; they sound noticeably different (the zebra wood sounds middish, the flamed maple thuddy & dead and the maho best; it "sings" more than the others). And let's not even talk about how different my one-off korina Bird sounds (brighter than maho, touch of alder in its sound). Body wood makes a difference, as does neck wood. You're never gonna get a maho neck bass to sound snappy like a maple neck. Epi JCs don't sound like Gibson LP Sigs because they have a maho and not a maple neck. LP Sigs snap like a Fender, Epis don't.

Sheer heresy, tantamount to the crucifixion of deities! 

[Dave W]

...

What I meant about the Alembics I played was that they had consciously designed the wood out of the bass. They had designed them as though wood did impart a tone into the instrument and they were trying to avoid this at all costs. For example the bridges sat on inlaid blocks, so they sort of felt like they were vibrating in free space rather than the vibrations going down through the bridge and into the body.

I read an interview with Mica Wickersham years ago, that's what she said. The body cores were mahogany, which they viewed as neutral sounding, the bridge design with the sunk inlaid base was to isolate the top wood from coloring the tone.

[ilan]

You're never gonna get a maho neck bass to sound snappy like a maple neck. Epi JCs don't sound like Gibson LP Sigs because they have a maho and not a maple neck. LP Sigs snap like a Fender, Epis don't.

Agree on the neck. Necks, being long, thin and flexible, vibrate much more than bodies when a string is plucked. More here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281639288_Vibration_of_an_Electric_Bass_Guitar