Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Me, a blasphemer...

  1. #21
    I have an NS SF-I and an NS SF-II and played through the exact same rig with the exact same EQ settings, the SF-II (with the bridge pup only selected and the vol/tone knobs on the bass set the same) does not sound identical to the SF-I. Close, but there is a perceptible difference. In a busy mix and/or to anyone but me, it probably amounts to splitting hairs.

    Is there more material in the SF-I center block? Are the tapers of the tone pots slightly different? Is it due to a tone wood density variation? I don't know.

    Just sayin'...

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Minnesota Flats View Post
    I have an NS SF-I and an NS SF-II and played through the exact same rig with the exact same EQ settings, the SF-II (with the bridge pup only selected and the vol/tone knobs on the bass set the same) does not sound identical to the SF-I. Close, but there is a perceptible difference. In a busy mix and/or to anyone but me, it probably amounts to splitting hairs.

    Is there more material in the SF-I center block? Are the tapers of the tone pots slightly different? Is it due to a tone wood density variation? I don't know.

    Just sayin'...
    the Bridge pickup on a SF-1 bass vs. the bridge pickup on a SF-2 bass is a completely different conversation, than a Bridge SF-1 vs a Neck SF-1, on several levels.

    I was suggesting for those passionate about this discussion of the SF-1 basses, to try the neck and bridge pickups on the same bass (a SF-2) as "additionally recommended research" just as another control group/variable, however you classify it.

    A SF-2 bass is a lot heavier with all that extra hardware and that has some effect on tone. also the neck pickup is still pulling signal from the strings, even if u have it switched off and its volume all the way down (you are just muting it), so the SF-1 has the full string signal at all times (u would need the SF-2 bass in the middle position with both pickups activated to achieve this). I am actually much more of a single pickup person, guitars like Jetstar and LP Jr, and most basses like the P-bass and mustang only have one pickup. But with the Guild Bisonic basses, the SF-2's ive experienced just seem like the perfect SF bass. I've also heard some SF-1's that really sound unreal, no doubt the player is the biggest factor- but those were all neck pickup SF-1's.

    one thing I am pretty sure I have figured out even with all of the possible unknowns and variations, I like the bridge pickup of the mahogany SF bass better than the bridge pickup of the maple SF Bass (the mahogany bridge pickup sounds more like the maple neck pickup). the mahogany neck pickup is the darkest tone of all (in a very good way), all other things equal (which again, more likely there is some circuitry variation among them, than not). the solid body mahogany JS-2 bass with the neck Bisonic is all kinds of darkness ("Luuke i am your father!"), but that one also has a super treble-ee mini humbuker in the bridge, and almost certain the neck tone pot is 250K (and bridge pot 500K) the earlier Jetstar (mahogany) with bridge Bisonic only, has more treble ( but is also likely a 500K tone pot?).
    Last edited by mavuser; 10-13-2017 at 10:48 PM.

  3. #23
    Thanks, mavuser. Interesting contribution.

  4. #24
    cheers, yes, i have often questioned many of the same details as the rest of u, clearly!

    I actually have done quite a bit of research and information gathering, I kind of just gave up when I realized just how much potential for variation there is within circuitry, and all of the possible reasons for all of the little tweaks along the way. dismantling the original internals of valueable, beautiful condition semi-hollow 1960's Starfires really just isn't my thing though. So I basically just let it go. There is variation, across the entire spectrum, for sure. much more than it appears.

  5. #25
    Super Moderator fronobulax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Central Virginia, USA
    Posts
    14,076
    Blog Entries
    9
    Hehe...

    Obviously my preference tone is what I hear. "Practice room" tone might describe it. I tend to set the signal chain so that everyone else hears what I do, only louder. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. If something has to change so I fit in the mix, so be it, but that was not my preference. It occurs to me on those rare occasions where the genre requires a tone I switch instruments if that is an available option.

    The physics of a vibrating string predict the sweet spot, so all you have to do is say your preference depends upon the greatest amplitude of the even harmonics and the math will tell you were the PU belongs.

    There was a Gibson bass in the 70's with a sliding PU - Ripper or Grabber? - so that would be an alternative means to experiment to find personal preferences.

    I understand all of the variables involved with vintage Bisonics and Guilds but I was musing about the experiment in the sense that acoustic folks will prefer one tonewood over another. You will never be able to built two identical acoustic guitars, yet the body of belief about how rosewood sounds, how maple sounds, how different spruces change things is reliable enough that people will choose instruments based on those beliefs. And these beliefs are built and reinforced by playing similar instruments. So I would find some value in comparing similar instruments even knowing that they might differ in some unknown but possibly critical factor.
    Quote Originally Posted by mgod View Post
    What he said.

    '67 Starfire I Bass (Cherry)
    '71 JS II Bass (Walnut)
    '82 B-50 Acoustic Bass (Natural)
    '87 Pilot (Black)
    '13 Newark Street Starfire Bass (Cherry)
    '16 Betts Bass "Walnut Bottom"

    LMG I, II, III

    This space available.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •