Plexi Thunderbird

[uwe]

That is true, the EBMM also has better range.

[Pilgrim]

Hipshot's bridges are nice, too, and I also like the new slightly higher mass Fender bridges. 

About the only thing missing from the Fender bridges is a slot for each string to allow quick string changes...but since I never change strings, it doesn't bother me.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I think it's cool. And basses made with artificial material bodies do not so much sound worse than wooden instruments, but completely different. I would expect this thing to have sublow thud to beat any wooden TBird, but less mids. Never thought the Armstrong basses sounded bad, just in a class of their own.

I've always found the plexi-bodied basses to be VERY anemic sounding with little lows and highs and mostly nasal mids.

[Dave W]

I've always found the plexi-bodied basses to be VERY anemic sounding with little lows and highs and mostly nasal mids.

Agreed, though I haven't heard enough of them to know how much could be because of the body or if it's just weak electronics. I certainly wouldn't expect one to have anything resembling sub-low thud.

[uwe]

I would expect the density of the material to provide just that. Even my Kalamazoo KB-1 with its wood chip body sounds different to other mudbucker basses of the era. Deeper, but with less mids. Deader too, but with better G string definition.

A couple of years ago, ok more than a decade, Ibanez brought out a new material, what was it called again? Something with an "L" like "lucite" or something? And used it on basses that had a suitable modernistic design. I played one of those because I Liked the looks. It sounded dead, but the sublows were merciless. Even unplugged you could feel the density of its tone.

[Dave W]

I would expect the density of the material to provide just that. Even my Kalamazoo KB-1 with its wood chip body sounds different to other mudbucker basses of the era. Deeper, but with less mids. Deader too, but with better G string definition.

A couple of years ago, ok more than a decade, Ibanez brought out a new material, what was it called again? Something with an "L" like "lucite" or something? And used it on basses that had a suitable modernistic design. I played one of those because I Liked the looks. It sounded dead, but the sublows were merciless. Even unplugged you could feel the density of its tone.

Luthite. Boy, were those major synthetic turds! I don't think the composition was much like plexi (acrylic), there were reports that you could break off pieces of it by hand. At any rate, I played the Ibanez Ergodyne and the Cort Curbow that were made of the stuff, and my impression of the tone was completely different from yours.

[nofi]

lucite with a lisp.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Luthite. Boy, were those major synthetic turds! I don't think the composition was much like plexi (acrylic), there were reports that you could break off pieces of it by hand.

That luthite crap was a trip, bascially a finish-candied styrafoam that they mixed too thin and yes, it DID just crumble and fall off of many of those basses. I never heard any massive sub lows out of them that weren't the result of their electronics. On some of those models, Ibanez used mostly passive tone controls with a single active bass boost. Maybe you had one of those Uwe?

At any rate, I played the Ibanez Ergodyne and the Cort Curbow that were made of the stuff, and my impression of the tone was completely different from yours.

Never saw one of those Cort Curbows; all the ones I tried had wood bodies. Nice basses: bodies way too small for my playing style. I played one of the real Curbows that was made of the resin-injected wood once years ago. The neck was very Modulus-like but the tone was just weird but not necessarily bad, really taking on both the properties of carbon fiber highs and upper mids while still having "woody" lows.

[uwe]

It was most likely active. It was the hi-end model at the time so a 9 volt might have deceived me. I was so disappointed with the sound (especially the B string), I put it away quickly.

I only played a Dan Armstrong once, long ago. I didn't sound thin to me, rather short-scalish grumbly.

Admittedly, those plexi drums from the seventies didn't have the fattest sound. We once had a drummer with one. It miked well and looked great. And wasn't too loud in the rehearsal room either. 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Admittedly, those plexi drums from the seventies didn't have the fattest sound. We once had a drummer with one. It miked well and looked great. And wasn't too loud in the rehearsal room either. 

The nice thing about Vistalites is that their toms actually sound like tom toms are supposed to and leave the sublows to the kickdrum. The paradox of a modern drum sound is that the rack and floor toms now have deeper bass sound than the supposed "bass" drum, which has been reduced to an atonal click riding on an infrasonic pulse while the rack and floor tom rolls sustain for hours and completely drown out what little bass guitar tone might be mixed in below the massive boom of the guitars' muddy slurry. 

[dadagoboi]

When Drums Were Drums
http://snd.sc/PaN7d7

[Aussie Mark]

I've always found the plexi-bodied basses to be VERY anemic sounding with little lows and highs and mostly nasal mids.

Agreed - that's exactly what my Ampeg ADA4 reissue is like - even with flats, it's all mids.  I only own it to play occasionally in the Stones tribute.