Building the uber-J. Part fortheen - at last!

Ladies and gentlemen, the Über-Jay is finally here. Actually it has been here since October. My bad for not updating the blog.

It weights 3.6 Kg. or 7.7 lb. A comparable bass I own - also a 4 stringer, Mahogany body and Rock Maple neck - weighs 4 kg or 8.8 pounds.

Having said so, it's obvious to me that the absence of tuners on the headstock makes the biggest difference, changing the overall weight distribution. This makes the bass feel very neutral and a lot lighter than numbers would suggest. The sense of fatigue on the left shoulder is basically gone.



I have rearranged the knobs order to suit my playing style. From p-up to bridge: Balance/Tone/Volume.

It reflects the way I believe players prioritize controls. I have asked around a lot and I found out that Volume is actually the least used of all. It also reflects the way I use them - with B being the most important and V the least.



I then decided to make brass knobs to replace the plastic ones. The knobs are plain, no dot marker or line. I think it's unnecessary. The thing is, if the mark is placed on the top I won't be able to see it and I usually don't look at them anyway.

From the side the Allen would be visible enough; better yet, my fingers would feel it more than they would a dot. That together with the center indent does the trick - to me that is.

I mounted the knobs so as the Allen screws are all facing the player when T/B knobs are in center position and V knob is at max vol.

It looks so much better with such a little change, doesn't it?



Click here to listen to a sound clip.

I recorded it with:

Digital recorder Zoom H4. settings in flat. Stereo microphone at about 50cm from amplifier.

No effects whatsoever. The sound is straight from the amp - setting in flat. One 12" speaker. Not the best for the sound I like. But I basically wanted to recreate the conditions one usually faces when playing a bass at the shop.

As you listen to the clip you should hear - in this order:

1 - finger style, only neck p-up. Tone at zero - basically full treble cut. Right hand moving from bridge to neck position. Progressive increment of trebles.

2- f/style, only bridge p-ups selected. Right hand playing from bridge to neck. Tone at 50%

3 - p-up blend in center position with slight variations +/- 20%. Tone at 50%

4 - slap with 2 p-ups center position and variations +/- 20% mix. Tone on bass at 50%. Mid cut on amp between 500Hz and 2Khz.

Strings: roundwound stainless steel .40/105. The action is impossibly low

At 1:30 and around 2:20-2:30 you can hear bending on open strings and harmonics. That's possible because this anchoring system - as opposed to using tuners - positions them at an angle sharp enough to do without string retainers.

So, I use my left hand to bend one or more strings anywhere between nut and the h/stock ferrules.

In my experience, this is possible only on some basses with tilt back head stock and usually only on the second and third strings. Notable exception being the Status Kingbass with optional Bendwell.



To wrap it up.... I am used to playing boutique basses. I have owned or played long enough some of the best basses around. I still own five of them. I can humbly say that I can tell a good - or bad - bass just by lifting it up or playing it unplugged.

So, how does the Über-Jay compares with the cream of basses? Trying to be as detached as possible, I'd say very very well.

There are areas where it can be improved - and it will. The neck can be thinner. The body can be chambered. An accent line would have been nice. It doesn't display the same level of craftsmanship as the others I own... yet ;)

But the bottom line is, I am a very fussy player. The bass I pick is the best I can put my hands on. Since October, that bass has been the Ü-J.

Thanks for reading this far.

O(=<

ps: Future projects.

I have started a new build. It's called the Mark II. Simply because it pushes the Ü-J design forward and implements ideas I had while building the first one.

The overwhelming response this build has met with - from fellow bass players all over - has been extremely encouraging. The next build is already spoken for and I am discussing two more builds as we speak. I never thought it would get this good :)

Wood and p-ups. Never ending story.

Is wood or p-ups responsible for a bass's sound?

Frankly we are all tired of hearing this question and the ensuing verbal fight. But I keep on bumping in it in one form or another.
I've steered clear from it until now, as it produces more foes than friends. But maybe I've been a coward. So, lets engage.

As it is formulated, it's as pointless a Q as it is impossible to answer to. Even if The One Answer did exist, it would be of little help in building a superior bass.

For argument sake, let's forget that wood's influence on tone in electric basses is minimal compared to acoustic instruments and say that Tone is in the woods. So what? Are we going to choose the best sounding woods - which is what top makers do anyway - and screw the rest? No, right?

So, it's in the electronics. Sure, lets get the cream of the electronics crop then. I've got an old frying pan sitting there, kiln-dried to perfection for the body.

No? OK then, so it is a pointless Q because whatever A we get will be basically useless.
And it is an impossible Q because it is far too generic. Is Manchester United a stronger team than AC Milan? Wanna fight? Is Ferrari a better car than Lamborghini? You and me, outside, now!

We would have to agree - as we usually end up doing when exhausted enough - that wood and pick-ups are only two of the many components linked in a chain reaction - and we're back to square one.

But if MU beats AC M hands down, then asking 'Why did this happen this time around?' might take AC M to recognize mistakes and change strategy for the next match.

Try this for a change - What do truly great basses have in common?

Is it the wood? Yes, but a Steinberger, Basslab, Status, Modulus and Moses would prove that wrong.

Then it's the p-ups. Yes. But a cheep bass mounting Alembic p-ups and electronics will never quite sound like an Alembic.

Hardware then? Yes. But what exactly. A Furlanetto sounds like a Furlanetto with either brass or wood bridge/nut.

Alembic, Sadowsky, Status, Wal and others use own proprietary electronics. MTD, Steinberger, Fodera and others use p-ups and electronics custom-made for them by top makers. So there is no apparent consistency here either.

What is then the common denominator across great basses?

Here's my personal experience. When I lift a great bass I know it with my eyes closed. I instantly feel its stiffness and can almost hear its voice under my fingers.

I lift up a so and so bass and can only feel the weight of parts assembled together.

Great woods assembled with so and so built quality will still sound crap. Yet a top bass sound great even unplugged.
Whether a bass is made of wood, graphite, metal, stone or kryptonite is quite irrelevant to me. I choose between graphite and wood depending on music style and/or mood of the day.

But stiffness is everything. Every great bass I have played is stiff, whatever the building style. Be it a neck through, bolt on, set neck one thing they have in common is that you can't feel the individual parts. The bass feels like one.

Of course great el/p-u/hw will make a so and so bass sound better. But more to the point, the same parts will sound helluvalot better on a bass built the way a great bass should be.

And that to me should end the wood vs. p-ups argument. However there is a more interesting angle to it. Once construction becomes the cornerstone of great basses, then everything else take a different meaning.

Because it all becomes product of a Vision - of unique sound, playability, look and feel. Which is to me a lot more interesting and insightful than finding the silver bullet. Players are interested in great basses with great personality. No one want the Perfect One - if the is such a thing.

Some makers believe in wood tone. They keep electronics, p-ups and hardware the same for every build. Then they experiment with woods. Whichever bass they make will share the same voice. But you'll be able to appreciate subtle differences due to wood choice. It's a wonderful thing. Try a few MTD.

Some others will sound almost the same regardless of woods choice. An Alembic always sounds like an Alembic and so does a Wal or a Status. And God bless them for that.

In either cases, that's the Brand's Voice.

To this point, some time ago I watched a very interesting experiment on UK TV. A guy claimed he could tell a bass only by listening to it.

So there he was, blindfolded and with a dozen basses behind him. One by one the instruments were played by Mr. Mark King, no less. Heck, the guy nailed them all! Which goes to prove that great basses have each a unique voice.

Stiffness is the foundation of it. Each maker achieves it in the way that is more akin to his nature and craft. He then blends in p-ups, electronics and hardware to perfect his unique vision.

Different vision = Different tone.
Which is why there is no universally acceptable A to the Wood vs P-ups Q. And nothing to learn from it.
I might still not know how to build an Alembic. But I sure as hell know which way to look to build my very own.

There. I said it.

O(=<

Building the uber-J. Part Nine.

The Uber side of the Jay.

Here we are. This is were the whole project makes its biggest departure from its model. The Uber-Jay is going to be a headless cum headstock bass.
The tuners will be at the bridge while the headstock is going to act as strings retainer. The reasons for this are many. I have elaborated on them in my post The Headless Conundrum.

I'll just sum it up here by saying that the headless system is in my opinion much more reliable, clean and efficient than the traditional one. Having played for long time both type of basses side by side on stage I am convinced that the headless system works best for me.


The flip side is mainly an aesthetic one. The look of the Fender Jazz cannot survive without a headstock. Now that would be a serious blasphemy in my world. So I decided that the right thing to do was to preserve the headstock and design a device which would allow me to anchor the strings there.

It is very simple, and rear mounted. The strings will go through the headstock and a Allen screw will lock them in place. The part is buried inside the back of the headstock, flush with the wood, virtually invisible except for a 15mm disk. The aluminum makes it feather light.

Two little screws hold the piece but the stability is mainly given by it being inside the wood and by the string's tension itself. The small channel allows for comfortable tuning with a small Allen key. I already know I'll do this differently on the next Uber-Jay. Not that I don't like it but I can see an even less intrusive way of doing that. Well, this isn't a prototype for nothing after all.

To test the system's reliability and look for flaws I have mounted the parts on a hard wood blank with a tuner-bridge at the opposite end of a 34” scale. I have tuned both my broom-bass and one of my other basses – a Tobias – and kept them on the same stand in the same room. I have not played the Tobias nor have I touched the broom-bass for sixty days.

When I finally checked the two sets of strings the broom bass was still perfectly in tune while the Tobias needed some adjustment. To be fair, the broom's G was slightly down. But that was due to the fact that the thin .30 string had slightly dented into the wood – which shouldn't happen with Ebony or metal.
The bridge is an ABM. Very well machined and flawlessly finished. The shallow recess on the body was needed to align the bridge to a lower fingerboard level. You might remember me writing that the distance between the body and the top of the fingerboard will be much lower than usual for a total string/body distance of 5mm.


One more feature I always felt uncomfortable with on headless basses – aesthetically speaking – is the cut at the bottom of the body, where the tuners are. It surely makes them reachable. But it is also an important design feature. The fact that it look great on the Steinberger doesn't mean that it will always look just as good on traditional looking basses.

Anyway, I have carved a recess that allows to operate the tuners while preserving the shape of the body. It also gives top and core woods the opportunity to contrast. This bass is fairly basic in that only core wood and top wood will contrast. But it should work very well with top/veneer/core/veneer/back and with laminated neck through.


Thanks for reading.

O(=<

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.