The Steinberger.

Believe.

I'll go on record right away: I believe the original Steinberger bass is so far the only true mile stone in bass history since the Fender Precision. There. I said it. OK, before you shoot me allow me to explain.

The Precision was truly revolutionary for the time. Compared to the double bass it was small; it could be wore like a guitar; it could be amplified; it had frets to make intonation perfect. In a world traditionally diffident of new ideas it surely took guts and faith. Leo Fender saw it when others couldn't.

Almost thirty years later, history repeats itself with the Steinberger. It was such a radical departure we'd be hard pressed to find just one similarity with basses of the time - aside from having a neck and four strings.

In the early 80's Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker and a few others had basically stated what a bass should look like. Alembic and Co. had added great craftsmanship and combination of exotic woods and brass. The Japanese had introduced decent basses masses could afford. The environment was as challenging for the Steinberger as it had been for the Precision in the 50s.

The Steinberger seemed completely out of touch with reality and, even though it immediately gained a solid followers base, it also left many puzzled. I admit it, back then I didn't like it that much. What was there to like anyway? There were neither graceful lines nor exotic, contrasting woods. Heck! There was no wood, period.

Well, great things have this little peculiarity – either you love them from day one; or you're going to when you finally get it. Many years later, I finally got it.

The Steinberger take on bass.

Problem is, the Precision was designed as large guitar, basically underestimating physic, sound and ergonomic peculiarities of a bass. Everyone else followed suit, content at best to make their creation look different from the Fender. Ned Steinberger saw it otherwise.

Now that I think of it, my opening statement should have been more radical. Something along the line of: The original Steinberger bass is the only true bass ever designed.
But you wouldn't have gotten this far, would you? The thing is, most of the obvious solutions that work on a guitar become rather a limitation on a bass. For the love of the game or lack of better options, we all adjusted to Fender's vision. But that doesn't mean it couldn't - and shouldn't - be improved upon.
I have elaborate on this point in my earlier post: The Headless Conundrum. If you really want to shoot me, please read that first.

The end of the bass guitar.
Two of the most important qualities any great bass should feature are balance and stiffness. There are others, granted. A pint holder for example is a fine feature and a Facebook interface will soon become a must.

When it comes to balance, the extra weight of the headstock has always been a problem. Lets just say that without a headstock you get a shorter, better balanced instrument. Cool. Adieu headstock.

Without it one must find another place for the tuners. All previous attempts of moving the tuners, of part thereof, to the body had been clumsy and rather uninspired at best. Makers were basically using the same headstock tuners - or a smaller version of - at the bottom of the body. Things of the past. Nice memorabilia. But I can't believe some still do that today. I won't say whom, else Warwick might take offense.

This one, oh boy!, it's a masterpiece of ingenuity. If you open this thing you wonder what makes it work so well! It's so simple I nearly got pissed off at myself for not having invented it!

The bridge does its job with simple regulations of height and all. But the great achievement lies in the absolute precision and reliability of the system. Again, The Headless Conundrum digs deeper into this and it does wonders with insomnia.

At the end of the neck there is a clean anchor system where to secure the newly designed Steinberger double ball-end strings. It's fast, effective and modern.

Aside from aesthetic reasons, bodies tend to be large to offer mass, counterbalance the weight of neck/headstock protruding so far away from the center of gravity and to provide anchor points to strap the bass. With the new headless system and the stiffness of graphite the Steinberger could afford a much smaller body.

My feeling is that the shape had a lot to do also with the vision of producing something completely unorthodox. I like that touch of subtle arrogance. Why does the Steinberger looks like that? Because it can. Cool.

With a small body a new problem presents itself. Where to hang the strap? Some makers facing a similar question have simply used whatever anchoring point their design left available, sometimes with total disregard for balance, ergonomics and playability.

To that point, I just tested a bass designed like a Telecaster guitar sporting strap locks in the same position as the guitar's. Believe me, that thing is unplayable! Neck-dive would be a gross understatement and the first fret is half way to Mars. How can one make a bass that is so impossible to play? And G&L of all makers!

Look at the Steinberger's inspired simplicity. The center of the bass becomes the pivot point of the boomerang. To its extremities are the strap locks. When you strap it on, the bass instantly finds its neutral position.

Now let's twist the whole balance concept on its head. When we say 'balance' we think of a neck that doesn't dive. That's it. See? We are so used to getting used to limitations around us that every time something simply... er... works, it leaves us in awe. heck, shouldn't 'perfectly balanced' just be the bare minimum, the one feature we take for granted?

What if balance meant a whole new level of performance? Imagine you could hold the bass horizontally, then gradually your playing style shifts to a more diagonal position; at some point you go back to where you were or, why not?, all the way up, almost vertical. How cool would that be?

To do that on traditional basses you have to push or pull the neck to make the strap slide onto your shoulder and to the new position. But that cannot be done while playing. So basically, you adjust to the bass till you can move it.

The Steinberger instead follows your every move while your hands are busy playing! Effortlessly, flawlessly and without you even realizing it. The bass adjusts to you. There. Beat this.

And since we are on a roll, flip the bass and you'll see an ingenious leg rest that pops up when needed and disappear when it's not.

I also find very comfortable the retro fit jack socket. It's out of the way and there is no chance you can unplug it by stepping on the cable. Sure, we all secure the cable around the strap, but shouldn't a clever system fix that shortcoming instead? With this, who needs to fit a Neutrik jack?

Seriously though, this bass is a compendium of new solutions. The headless string retainer, the tuner/bridge, the strap system, the jack socket position, the leg rest, the graphite composite mold. There are more patents in here than in the latest i-phone.

Black diamond.

Graphite composites (epoxy resin reinforced with graphite to be precise) are very very stiff and reliable. One oft-heard complain is that graphite affects the sound. Actually it has a sound of its own. Which simply means building a system of parts around it to achieve the sound you have in mind. Just like you would with woods.

Some say that the feel is not like wood. Well, of course it doesn't feel like a satin finished neck. But you won't find much difference with a high gloss lacquered neck.

And it's black. Like Ford reportedly said: anyone can buy a Ford car in whichever colour they fancy. So long as it is black. (ps. There are actually a very few yellow and white rarities out there - Bergers, not Fords)

The electronics.

EMG. 'nough said. They are clean, precise, consistent. Players like them or not purely based on that. I like them. And I can already tell you who else likes them - studio and live sound engineers.

There are very few pick-up as easy to make sound great as EMG, even in the shittiest venue. They sound good with wood, they sound good with graphite. I bet they would sound good even on a air guitar. Controls are in line with the look: Vol/Balance/Tone. It doesn't play without battery. This is Sparta.

Living with it.

The neck is actually very thick - Fender addicts should be happy. But the action is fantastic and to find a dead note you'll have to shoot one yourself. I tend to prefer thinner necks, but I have adjusted easily and happily. Even an entire gig with it isn't tiring.

I had an initial resistance to such a small body as I am used to large ones - JayDee, Alembic and so on. To be fair, I never got fully used to it, but it doesn't bother me as much as the rest pleases me. Over time, I discovered that the upper end of the body makes for a very comfortable elbow rest when playing finger-style. Thanks to the boomerang thingy the 24th fret falls in a comfortable playing position. Of course, not having body wings helps too.

The sound is very big, clean and quite neutral, piano-like. It has great definition across the spectrum with terrific attack and longer sustain than a commercial break. It's a fantastic axe for slapping acrobatics, rendering even complex machine-gun stuff with clarity and articulation to die for.

Such a clean sound makes it very easy to personalize with pedals or studio gadgets. The two p-ups provide a fair amount of flexibility.

Some find the sound a bit cold. Frankly I think what they miss in the Steinberger is the Fender sound. The classic punchy, warm and tight sound of the F Jazz. So do I. Which is why the Steinberger is not my only bass. God knows, there is no such a thing like a do-it-all bass. And we like it that way, don't we all?

Leaving with it.

This bass gets into any car trunk easily and it doesn't take much room in the overhead compartment of a plane either! I am thinking of making a special gig bag to carry it on my bike. It travels the world easily in a soft gig bag - which would frighten any other high end bass owner. Wear and tear is a joke. This thing can cross the Middle East and come back alive. It's a nearly indestructible instrument, with a neck that has the arrogance of not even mounting a truss-rod. The one pictured here is a workaholic 1982.

Get off the plane-go to the gig venue-plug it in-whack it. Fuck humidity. Sometimes I even forget to check if it's still in tune.

Double ball-end strings might be a bit tricky to find. You can't just walk into any shop and expect to find them in the exact gauge you like. I buy them in bulk online without a problem - GHS makes them, among others.

Headless basses nowadays have switched to a hybrid string retainer system which allows to use both Steinberger and traditional strings. If I'm not wrong Moses sells the same system for S'berger.

Wrapping it up.

Great ideas are in the air. We all come across them once in a while. Most of us ignore them; few toy with them and eventually give up. For a true idea to see the light it takes someone visionary enough to get it and mad enough to believe in it. If that happens at all.

When you think of it, fitting the tuners at the bottom of a bass, using alternative materials to wood and going headless weren't exactly brand new ideas. Some had tried before, no one successfully. No one really believed they were more than gimmicks obviously.

The Steinberger is not to everyone taste. It never was and probably never wanted to be. But it has opened the door to a brand new approach to bass building, breathing new life into an industry that is paradoxically so wiry of new ideas.

Today, makers experiment with a variety of materials, including metal. The headless system is here to stay - albeit still in a sort of limbo. Would this Renaissance have ever happened without the Steinberger? I believe not.

Thanks for reading

>=)O

ps: It is. In tune. I mean, the bass. When I check.

In a Nutshell:
+ Revolutionary. Perfect action for life. Always in tune. Big sound. Indestructible.
- look and sound not to everyone taste. Hard to find.

Links:
Interview to Ned Steinberger.
Steinberger trivia.
The new official Steinberger website.

Lesson learned: My ol' Jaydee taught me.

After 23 years the fingerboard of my old Jay Dee Supernatural and its truss rod had to be replaced. In the meantime I had entered this dangerous phase of my life when I want to know basses inside out - the most recent by-product of it being the upcoming Uber-J ;) - see the progress in archive on the right.

























I wanted to do it myself, hands on and, under the guidance of a luthier I know, I took on the challenge.

First thing I did was to remove the old Ebony board - and almost my left thumb while at that.
It's one tough MFSOB of a job! It's hours spent heating up the old wood, trying to take it out only to see it cracking into tiny pieces which you'll have to deal with one by one - with pain. Believe me, after one hour of that you will want to pay whatever the guy's asking.

And here's Lesson One: Building instruments really is hard work and that costs money.

But I finished the job. Doing this forced me to notice and ponder over tiny things which a player doesn't necessarily need to know, being mostly focused on the 'feel' of the thing as opposed to the way it works. I learned how to choose the wood, prepare the fingerboard, decide the radius, bind it, glue it, choose the size of the frets, fret it, er...re-fret it, oil it.

Playing on a fingerboard I know this well is a feeling I haven't experienced so far and it is affecting the way I play this bass.

And here's Lesson Two: God is in the details.

Together with replacing the old truss rod with a new double action one I wanted to add stiffness to the neck. So I considered adding two graphite rods. Hence the chilling question:

"Do graphite rods affect (negatively or positively) the sound of a wooden bass which was not made with graphite rods to begin with?"

It's a honest question, if you ask me. Many have argued over it since graphite first appeared in the bass universe. You know those 'headless vs headstock' or 'sound-of-wood vs sound-of-electronics' kinda debate? There you go.

To know for sure - or close enough - the only way is to have two identical wooden basses, one with and the other without CF rods. Of course there is no such a thing like two identical wooden basses. Ah ah ah. So the next best thing is to take a chance and do it to a bass you know very, very, very - did I hear very? - well. Like mine.

Which is exactly what I did.

Now I cannot speak as a builder because I ain't. But I am a bass player, I can tell you that. And my answer is a humble, resonant, rounded 'hell no'. Nope, niet, pas de tout, nein.

I couldn't notice any difference at all. Same strings, same amp, same player etc. The bass sounds the way it always did. Maybe my neighbor's cat hears something I don't. But, as far as I'm concerned, if I can't hear it it isn't there.

The graphite rods did however make the neck beautifully straight, stiff, and believe me, absolutely impervious to the humidity level of a tropical rain forest during the rainy season. But that is a side effect I can happily live with ;)

End of the debate, as far as I'm concerned.

So, my Lesson Three is: What seems to have a point in theory might not have one in practice. Do it and see for yourself.

























The Best for last: Lesson Four.

I wanted to add a few personal touches to my Jay Dee, but was intimidated by the old fear of spoiling the market value of the instrument. But I really, reeeeeally wanted to add an inlay myself and most importantly fix a few details which were key to my playing pleasure.

So I did the inlay. It took me two months. It might not be a masterpiece of perfection but I like it and I learned a lot, especially Lesson One all over again. Inlaying is one hell of a job which requires patience, precision, time, dedication, a sharp eyesight and good taste.

Then I added an oval shaped Ebony/Maple to fill the gap between fingerboard and body. It works with my slapping technique, which requires 5mm max distance between strings and body. For the same reason I had to file the edge of the fingerboard's lower angle to a smooth rounded shape right down to the neck. It just works for me. You can see both modifications in the picture above.

And here's Lesson Four: If it works for me I'm gonna do it. Screw the market value.
What I have learn easily compensates me for the monetary loss - if! Plus, I ain't gonna sell this love after 23 years :) Which brings me to the Special Wisdom Prize

Special Wisdom Prize: The Lesson of a lifetime.

I bought this bass brand new in 1987. I my early years I wasn't in the position to own more than two basses. To buy this one I had to sell my Music Man Sting Ray - a '77 I believe...yeah, don't say a word ;) (Fore the records, the second bass I had at that time was a fender Precision fret-less class '73. Ask me where that one is now, please?)

Years later when I had more cash to spare I tracked down the owner - it wasn't easy, the bass had changed hand a couple of times! - only to see it disappear again, for good this time.

And here is the lesson: Never sell a great bass.
Not even to buy another great bass. Sell your car, sell your next 5 years worth of booze, sell your ass if you have too. Later on, you'll never miss them as much as you will miss that great bass you once let go.

Thanks for listening

>=)O

ps: In case you asked, I sold the '73 P to buy a Wal Mark I fret-less - a gorgeous bass, not from this Earth. It will follow me into my grave. Wood smells good underground ;)