Would you change a Smith?

[Tim Bishop]

I thought this would be a very interesting topic. What would you want to see on your dream Smith bass (something that Ken doesn't currently provide), or what changes would you like to see Ken make to his current designs?

For me? I can only think of one thing I would ask Ken to change and while it is a minor one, it would be this:

I'm not certain on the 4-String Smith, however, on the 5's and MD-7's, I would like to see the Truss Rod Cover be redesigned such that the screw holes are positioned such as the 6-String Basses. On the 6's you can easily remove the Truss Rod Cover without de-tuning and moving the strings aside to get to the bottom 2 screws. While I realize it would be a design change to the truss rod cover, it would sure ease the pain of adjusting the neck when necessary.

Other than this, I can't begin to think of any other reason to mess with perfection.


Ok, your turn. Let's hear your input on this.

[Ken Smith]

Tim, I have this same problem. I used to put the TR Cap on after the Bass was strung up and had to take off 2 of the Strings partially. Then I decided that after the Nut was made and Neck tension tested with the set-up Strings I would then drill the holes and put the TR Cap on to hold the Nut in place and put a fresh set of Strings on then.

This is the way we do it now and have been doing for over 10 years at the Bench. I know it's a pain in the butt to pull 2 Strings off the Nut for adjustments but there isn't much room to do it a different way. Some people that need to make adjustments more often just have one screw at the top holding the Cap on. If that works for you then fine. Other than that, the Neck isn't something that should be fooled with except when needed.

[Tim Bishop]

Ahh, I was wondering how you handled this with your final set-ups.

While I agree it can be a PITB, it is a rarity that I would ever need to make a neck adjustment, particularly since I am consistent with the gauge of strings I use. Also, with my basses stored in a humidity controlled environment or even when the basses are stored in their case, I rarely have a need for an adjustment given the stability of your necks.

Ken, while the TR Cap was the only thing I could think of to get this thread jump-started, I do have an idea on what I think would be a simple mod to the TR Cap that would eliminate the need for the bottom 2 screws. Let me know if you are interested in hearing it, that is, if you haven't already thought of it yourself.

[Desmund Nichols]

The only thing I would like to see done is customied Truss Rod covers. I know that the name "Smith" goes there, but I am very weird. I like everything to be mine. If not on the truss rod, like on the back on the electronics cover, I would of liked it say "Made for Desmund Nichols."

[Steve_M]

Assuming its purely a matter of personal preference, in an ideal world I'd like:
An adjustable nut so I have more control over the set up of the instrument
17mm string spacing at bridge
Slightly wider body on the 5's (I'm a big bloke and I like larger bodied basses.)
Slightly more durable matt finish (the soft woods on my BSR5-GN takes very minor knocks easily)
On stage I sometimes miss the upper mid-range bark of the older BT6's so maybe a sweepable mid control or filter?No dis' meant to Ken and his fine work meant by these comments. Its just personal taste.

What I LOVE is
the chunky neck profile
warmth and growl
sweet treble
gorgeous woods
sounds great into the recording desk without need for vast amounts of eq
supple feel and easy to play
very forgiving instrument
very little maintenance needed

[Bob Faulkner]

Ya that is along the lines of one of the customizations I wanted when I was ordering mine. I asked for for an abalone/MoP 'F' inlay at the 12th fret position as that's my last initial.

Ken shot it down.

[Tim Bishop]

Desmund, Steve, and Bob. Thanks for your input!

Keep it comming guys!

[Roy Diza]

How 'bout a KS spin on the single cut design, and wood covered PU?

[Tim Bishop]

How 'bout a KS spin on the single cut design, and wood covered PU?


Hmmm, I'm guessing Ken will respond with a resounding 'Not gonna happen' and maybe refer you to someone like Alembic for this one. LOL! No way he's going to endorese this.

[Bob Faulkner]

How 'bout a KS spin on the single cut design, and wood covered PU?

I never understood why people like single cut designs. I think they would be clunky, heavy, and unnecessarily impede my ability to play in the upper registers.

Wood covered pickups look ok, but I just don't see the need. I'm not sure if it would interfere with the magnetic field around the pickups or not. If it does it's dead out of the gates for me. At no point do I ever want to sacrifice anything in tone for pure looks. If it has no effect then I don't see a real problem with them other than maybe durability.

Can't wait to see Ken's responses.

[Ken Smith]

I never understood why people like single cut designs. I think they would be clunky, heavy, and unnecessarily impede my ability to play in the upper registers.

Wood covered pickups look ok, but I just don't see the need. I'm not sure if it would interfere with the magnetic field around the pickups or not. If it does it's dead out of the gates for me. At no point do I ever want to sacrifice anything in tone for pure looks. If it has no effect then I don't see a real problem with them other than maybe durability.

Can't wait to see Ken's responses.


Ok, here I am. We made Wooden cases for the PUs in the beginning (1979-1983) BUT, moved away from that. The reason is that it moves the magnetic field further from the strings and you loose volume. If made thin, the top of the cover might break or split.. Been there, done that.. no thank you.. have moved on.. NEXT!!

Single Cut? WHY? Structurally, I think it's a 'stupid' idea. With all the concern about even neck Bow and adjustability you are going to LOCK it down on the low sting side while the treble strings pull and twist it from the other side? Is this to create tension in the neck to produce sounds the builder couldn't get by just making a good structural sonic Bass?

I don't know who's idea this was actually but one time when I was fishing on a boat and all the other boats rushed to this splash in the water a few hundred yards away I asked my older friend, "Should we go over there and fish?" His reply was (in a wisdomish way) "One fool draws many!"

If someone can't make a Bass with good neck structure, stability and tonal response, try this? Not in my book!

[Tim Bishop]

Ok, here I am. We made Wooden cases for the PUs in the beginning (1979-1983) BUT, moved away from that. The reason is that it moves the magnetic field further from the strings and you loose volume. If made thin, the top of the cover might break or split.. Been there, done that.. no thank you.. have moved on.. NEXT!!

Single Cut? WHY? Structurally, I think it's a 'stupid' idea. With all the concern about even neck Bow and adjustability you are going to LOCK it down on the low sting side while the treble strings pull and twist it from the other side? Is this to create tension in the neck to produce sounds the builder couldn't get by just making a good structural sonic Bass?

I don't know who's idea this was actually but one time when I was fishing on a boat and all the other boats rushed to this splash in the water a few hundred yards away I asked my older friend, "Should we go over there and fish?" His reply was (in a wisdomish way) "One fool draws many!"

If someone can't make a Bass with good neck structure, stability and tonal response, try this? Not in my book!



And there you have it. It just doesn't get any clearer than that! Ken, you never disappoint. I wish I could have written that response. ;)

[Bob Faulkner]

Well, he pretty much backed up every concern I had about wood covers on the pickups, and added a structural argument to backup my issues with the ergonomic and playability issues I had with single cut.

Works for me.

[Ronson Hall]

Ok, here I am. We made Wooden cases for the PUs in the beginning (1979-1983) BUT, moved away from that. The reason is that it moves the magnetic field further from the strings and you loose volume. If made thin, the top of the cover might break or split.. Been there, done that.. no thank you.. have moved on.. NEXT!!

Single Cut? WHY? Structurally, I think it's a 'stupid' idea. With all the concern about even neck Bow and adjustability you are going to LOCK it down on the low sting side while the treble strings pull and twist it from the other side? Is this to create tension in the neck to produce sounds the builder couldn't get by just making a good structural sonic Bass?

I don't know who's idea this was actually but one time when I was fishing on a boat and all the other boats rushed to this splash in the water a few hundred yards away I asked my older friend, "Should we go over there and fish?" His reply was (in a wisdomish way) "One fool draws many!"

If someone can't make a Bass with good neck structure, stability and tonal response, try this? Not in my book!





Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I LOVE Ken Smith already! After examining many basses and custom bass web sites, words cannot express how glad I am that this gentleman is building my bass.

I plan on getting him to build me at least a couple more before I check out of here, Lord willing! :)

[Tim Bishop]

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I LOVE Ken Smith already! After examining many basses and custom bass web sites, words cannot express how glad I am that this gentleman is building my bass.

I plan on getting him to build me at least a couple more before I check out of here, Lord willing! :)

Well now Albert, looks like Ronson has us covered. Bless his heart! One for me, one for you, and one for Ronson to take with him! Now everyone is happy! :D

[Ronson Hall]

Well now Albert, looks like Ronson has us covered. Bless his heart! One for me, one for you, and one for Ronson to take with him! Now everyone is happy! :D



LOL!!! Tim, you are good, and quick on the draw! I should've known you'd put that deal together!

Well, seeing that turnabout is fair play, I see Our buddy Al has three, and you have waaaaaaaaaay more than three, so...we're all covered, huh?

[Tim Bishop]

LOL!!! Tim, you are good, and quick on the draw! I should've known you'd put that deal together!

Well, seeing that turnabout is fair play, I see Our buddy Al has three, and you have waaaaaaaaaay more than three, so...we're all covered, huh?

Yeah, I think we are more than covered! LOL! :D

[Roy Diza]

Ok, here I am. We made Wooden cases for the PUs in the beginning (1979-1983) BUT, moved away from that. The reason is that it moves the magnetic field further from the strings and you loose volume. If made thin, the top of the cover might break or split.. Been there, done that.. no thank you.. have moved on.. NEXT!!

Single Cut? WHY? Structurally, I think it's a 'stupid' idea. With all the concern about even neck Bow and adjustability you are going to LOCK it down on the low sting side while the treble strings pull and twist it from the other side? Is this to create tension in the neck to produce sounds the builder couldn't get by just making a good structural sonic Bass?

I don't know who's idea this was actually but one time when I was fishing on a boat and all the other boats rushed to this splash in the water a few hundred yards away I asked my older friend, "Should we go over there and fish?" His reply was (in a wisdomish way) "One fool draws many!"

If someone can't make a Bass with good neck structure, stability and tonal response, try this? Not in my book!


No BS, and to the point. Since you shot down the SC & wood PUPS ideas, I'm curious as to what's in the horizon for new designs. It's been almost ten years since the BSR was introduced, and I'm such a big fan of your basses, so it would be nice to see what's in store for us. So what in store for us ?

[Tim Bishop]

No BS, and to the point. Since you shot down the SC & wood PUPS ideas, I'm curious as to what's in the horizon for new designs. It's been almost ten years since the BSR was introduced, and I'm such a big fan of your basses, so it would be nice to see what's in store for us. So what in store for us ?


For me: I'm hopin more of the same! Why fix or change something that's not broken? I'm playing a BT5G from 1992. I can't think of a bass on the market today that compares, except perhaps the latest Smith Fusion Elite 25th. Anniversary model. For me it's all about the feel, quality craftsmanship and sound. ;)

Great question though! I'm looking forward to Ken's response. I'm sure I won't be surprised or disappointed.

[Roy Diza]

For me: I'm hopin more of the same! Why fix or change something that's not broken? I'm playing a BT5G from 1992. I can't think of a bass on the market today that compares, except perhaps the latest Smith Fusion Elite 25th. Anniversary model. For me it's all about the feel, quality craftsmanship and sound. ;)

Great question though! I'm looking forward to Ken's response. I'm sure I won't be surprised or disappointed.

I totally agree. His basses are true classics and timeless. Since he made so many innovations in the past, I'm curious to see what coming up. I've had 3 Ken Smith basses in the past, and all of them were great.

[Tim Bishop]

I totally agree. His basses are true classics and timeless. Since he made so many innovations in the past, I'm curious to see what coming up. I've had 3 Ken Smith basses in the past, and all of them were great.


Another thing I would add. Ken has 40+ years experience with the DB. A DB is 1,000 times more sensitive than an electric bass. Do you think Ken has drawn from and utilized that knowledge and experience with DB's into the design of his electric basses? I'm bettin he would say he has done just that. Oh, and keep in mind, some of these DB's date back as far as the late 1700's. That contribution is the major difference between Smith's and the Others. ;)

[Roy Diza]

Another thing I would add. Ken has 40+ years experience with the DB. A DB is 1,000 times more sensitive than an electric bass. Do you think Ken has drawn from and utilized that knowledge and experience with DB's into the design of his electric basses? I'm bettin he would say he has done just that. Oh, and keep in mind, some of these DB's date back as far as the late 1700's. That's a major difference between Smith's and the Others. ;)


+1 on the DB thing. I can see alot of classic influences in his designs.

[Bob Faulkner]

I'm kinda interested in knowing Ken's thoughts on string-thru-body designs and if he has considered it for his basses.

[Tim Bishop]

I'm kinda interested in knowing Ken's thoughts on string-thru-body designs and if he has considered it for his basses.



Hey Bob, I think Ken is in the middle of a PA Ice Storm today. He's probably thinking about anything but a "string-thru-body" design at this point.

[Ken Smith]

I'm kinda interested in knowing Ken's thoughts on string-thru-body designs and if he has considered it for his basses.

Why do you ask? Is there an advantage you think? Pros and cons? Theories and proven results?

I am happy with the resonance we get now from our Basses as well as the tone. I don't think an instrument of this level can be improved by drilling more holes in it and bending the String at 90% by the Bridge.

[Tim Bishop]

Why do you ask? Is there an advantage you think? Pros and cons? Theories and proven results?

I am happy with the resonance we get now from our Basses as well as the tone. I don't think an instrument of this level can be improved by drilling more holes in it and bending the String at 90% by the Bridge.


And there you have it! Keep those question's and ideas comming! ;)

[Bob Faulkner]

Why do you ask? Is there an advantage you think? Pros and cons? Theories and proven results?

I am happy with the resonance we get now from our Basses as well as the tone. I don't think an instrument of this level can be improved by drilling more holes in it and bending the String at 90% by the Bridge.


Truthfully, in all my bass playing years, I've never played a string-thru-body bass so I was hoping to get some insight from someone with more knowledge about the good, bad, and ugly sides of it. Some people swear by it. I really have no clue about what effect there is, if any.

[Steve_M]

Truthfully, in all my bass playing years, I've never played a string-thru-body bass so I was hoping to get some insight from someone with more knowledge about the good, bad, and ugly sides of it. Some people swear by it. I really have no clue about what effect there is, if any.

FWIW, I have two stingrays. One with through body stringing and one without and I'd challenge anyone to tell the difference with all other things being equal.

[Tim Bishop]

FWIW, I have two stingrays. One with through body stringing and one without and I'd challenge anyone to tell the difference with all other things being equal.

If that is a true statement (i.e. there is no difference), then what purpose would a thru-body serve?

I mean, "yes Mr. Bass Builder, I'd like to order that 5-String and yes, I would prefer to have the extra holes cut into the body because it looks cool and I love bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge too". :confused:

[Ronson Hall]

If that is a true statement (i.e. there is no difference), then what purpose would a thru-body serve?

I mean, "yes Mr. Bass Builder, I'd like to order that 5-String and yes, I would prefer to have the extra holes cut into the body because it looks cool and I love bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge too". :confused:



I think that's what Steve's getting at, Tim. If there's "no difference" sonically that comes from bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge, then why insist on doing it?

[Steve_M]

I think the theory was that through body stringing was supposed to add sustain to a vibrating string by anchoring it in a heavy mass.

However, because the string doesn't actually vibrate between the break point over the saddle and the anchor, the method of anchoring (so long as its fit for purpose) doesn't have much of a tonal impact.

Its my understanding that how much mass the saddles have and the method by which the saddles are acoustically coupled (ie. in firm contact) with the bridge plate is much more important than anchoring. I guess the idea is to have a rigid structure (ie neck) and rigid, solid anchoring at the break points at either end of a string so that the vibrations of the string are mostly isolated.

Can Ken confirm I'm on the right track?

[Tim Bishop]

I think that's what Steve's getting at, Tim. If there's "no difference" sonically that comes from bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge, then why insist on doing it?


I suspected that was what Steve was getting at, I just wanted to add my spin and a little more punch, I guess. ;)

[Tim Bishop]

I think the theory was that through body stringing was supposed to add sustain to a vibrating string by anchoring it in a heavy mass.

However, because the string doesn't actually vibrate between the break point over the saddle and the anchor, the method of anchoring (so long as its fit for purpose) doesn't have much of a tonal impact.

Its my understanding that how much mass the saddles have and the method by which the saddles are acoustically coupled (ie. in firm contact) with the bridge plate is much more important than anchoring. I guess the idea is to have a rigid structure (ie neck) and rigid, solid anchoring at the break points at either end of a string so that the vibrations of the string are mostly isolated.

Can Ken confirm I'm on the right track?


What you are saying above is correct. Hope you didn't take my response the wrong way. Just wanted to add my 2-cents worth! :rolleyes:

[Ronson Hall]

I suspected that was what Steve was getting at, I just wanted to add my spin and a little more punch, I guess. ;)


Duly noted, Tim! :)

[Tim Bishop]

Duly noted, Tim! :)


I need to remember to respond carefully. Too much ambiguity in the eThread world. :p

[Ken Smith]

I think the theory was that through body stringing was supposed to add sustain to a vibrating string by anchoring it in a heavy mass.

However, because the string doesn't actually vibrate between the break point over the saddle and the anchor, the method of anchoring (so long as its fit for purpose) doesn't have much of a tonal impact.

Its my understanding that how much mass the saddles have and the method by which the saddles are acoustically coupled (ie. in firm contact) with the bridge plate is much more important than anchoring. I guess the idea is to have a rigid structure (ie neck) and rigid, solid anchoring at the break points at either end of a string so that the vibrations of the string are mostly isolated.

Can Ken confirm I'm on the right track?


Hey, if I keep reading this stuff I might mess up what took me 30 years to get done..

Actually, most Basses with 3 feet of Paint as a finish needs all the help it can get to vibrate the wood buried down under somewhere. Stringing thru the body was thought by some to make the wood vibrate more. If our Bass or any other vibrates too much, the sound would be like 'mush' without definition. Think of all those old P Basses used in the 60s with ZERO sustain that sounded so good on recordings. Are we playing whole notes held out for 5 minutes at a time between notes? How much vibration do we need?

Hit a note on any Bass you have and grab the headstock. Then feel the back below the bridge. You will see that even if it's made or Rock, it will vibrate to some degree. Even a half assed bass has vibration throughout. It's just, what are you vibrating?

[Tim Bishop]

Hey, if I keep reading this stuff I might mess up what took me 30 years to get done..

Actually, most Basses with 3 feet of Paint as a finish needs all the help it can get to vibrate the wood buried down under somewhere. Stringing thru the body was thought by some to make the wood vibrate more. If our Bass or any other vibrates too much, the sound would be like 'mush' without definition. Think of all those old P Basses used in the 60s with ZERO sustain that sounded so good on recordings. Are we playing whole notes held out for 5 minutes at a time between notes? How much vibration do we need?

Hit a note on any Bass you have and grab the headstock. Then feel the back below the bridge. You will see that even if it's made or Rock, it will vibrate to some degree. Even a half assed bass has vibration throughout. It's just, what are you vibrating?


Please stop reading then, we don't want you to get messed up. :eek:

Interesting Ken. This is good stuff. Great ****ogy on the "old P Basses" and everything following.

[Steve_M]

Stringing thru the body was thought by some to make the wood vibrate more.

So I was walking on the right path but just in the wrong direction? :)

[Tim Bishop]

So I was walking on the right path but just in the wrong direction? :)



Steve, the main thing is that we realize we are never too old or to smart to learn. ;)

[Steve_M]

Indeed.

We're lucky on bassworld.co.uk (http://www.bassworld.co.uk/pn/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=24) in having a forum specifically set up for budding luthiers. I tried a bass at our Bassworld Bash last weekend that was built by one of our contributors (http://www.acguitars.co.uk/Home/). I wasn't keen on the body shape but I was blown away by the sound - especially considering that the guy had built it in his garage.

The neck was a combination of flamed maple and had two stringers of wenge running down either side with graphite reinforcement. It sounded crisp, warm, deep and growly. I was wondering if Ken's every experimented with wenge in the neck of a prototype Smith?

[Tim Bishop]

I was wondering if Ken's every experimented with wenge in the neck of a prototype Smith?



I suspect IF he has, he's determined that he prefers what he is currently using in his necks. ;)


About 10 years ago, I had a Wenge/Paduk combination in a custom Ibanez 6-String. Overall, the bass just didn't have the mid-range bite and the crisp highs: Just warm and muddy sounding. I was not impressed with that combination of woods on that particular model bass.

[Albert Smith]

I suspect IF he has, he's determined that he prefers what he is currently using in his necks. ;)


About 10 years ago, I had a Wenge/Paduk combination in a custom Ibanez 6-String. Overall, the bass just didn't have the mid-range bite and the crisp highs: Just warm and muddy sounding. I was not impressed with that combination of woods on that particular model bass.

Tim I played the SR-905 five string for about two years, the problem I had was in like kind a muddy sound and excessive hiss from either an incompatability issue with my rig at that time, a Hartke 700 watt Bass head running through Hartke 2 ten cab and one 15 cab. I had the bartolini pickups. But my question is how do you get rid of that muddy sound on the low end, how do you get to the warmth? With my ampeg all tube I have that, but if I ever go to a solid state how would you go about getting that tone?

[Tim Bishop]

Tim I played the SR-905 five string for about two years, the problem I had was in like kind a muddy sound and excessive hiss from either an incompatability issue with my rig at that time, a Hartke 700 watt Bass head running through Hartke 2 ten cab and one 15 cab. I had the bartolini pickups. But my question is how do you get rid of that muddy sound on the low end, how do you get to the warmth? With my ampeg all tube I have that, but if I ever go to a solid state how would you go about getting that tone?



Albert, it's all about the right equipment. You have the right bass, so, depending on your playing style, set-up, strings used, and amplification and/or pre-amp, you should be able to dial in whatever you need!

I've shared with you what I use and I stand by it and would put it up against anything. ;)

[Albert Smith]

Albert, it's all about the right equipment. You have the right bass, so, depending on your playing style, set-up, strings used, and amplification and/or pre-amp, you should be able to dial in whatever you need!

I've shared with you what I use and I stand by it and would put it up against anything. ;)

My brother as always you have never lied, indeed currently for me there is no issue with warmth or clarity of mids/highs due to the rig and axe that I have been blessed with. But for those who do not at this time have a "Smith" or an Ampeg, Eden, etc, what do you recommend?

[Tim Bishop]

My brother as always you have never lied, indeed currently for me there is no issue with warmth or clarity of mids/highs due to the rig and axe that I have been blessed with. But for those who do not at this time have a "Smith" or an Ampeg, Eden, etc, what do you recommend?




I would recommend they start saving their money and spend some time reading the following thread! ;)


http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?t=21&page=2

[Dave Cody]

I have found that string thru bodies have a lillte more string tention than the same bass going just through the bridge. I don't see the need with Ken's Basses. I do like the firmness of the string with a 2 piece bridge, in fact my Smith is the only single piece bridge bass that has ever been a keeper for me.

[Dennis Michaels]

Tho' it can be done after market my only change would be matching knobs to the rest of th hardwear. Tho I realize the black knobs on the wood are sort of a KS trademark in look but matching knobs to the hardwear would be the bomb. Chromes are easy to match but truly matching the gold is a bear. Yes mine still have black knobs.

[Ken Smith]

Tho' it can be done after market my only change would be matching knobs to the rest of th hardwear. Tho I realize the black knobs on the wood are sort of a KS trademark in look but matching knobs to the hardwear would be the bomb. Chromes are easy to match but truly matching the gold is a bear. Yes mine still have black knobs.

Metal Knobs CAN transfer body static thru the surface and make the Pots sound scratchy when turning them. This is why we use the Black Rubber Knob over the metal insert.

[Dennis Michaels]

I knew you had a reason which is why I still have the original knobs on them. I trust that what you do is with great reason. You build the perfect instruments so I just play them as you build them. Also, any one who has NEVER to to the shop it is well worth the trip to actually see these amazing craftsman at work.


Metal Knobs CAN transfer body static thru the surface and make the Pots sound scratchy when turning them. This is why we use the Black Rubber Knob over the metal insert.

[Mike Jenkins]

I don't know if this has been mentioned because I didn't read every post but why not make a separate compartment for the battery that pops open for easy access instead of hiding it under the back plate which has to be screwed off? I have two non-smith's with the feature and it came it handy one night when my batteries went dead.

[Bob Faulkner]

I don't know if this has been mentioned because I didn't read every post but why not make a separate compartment for the battery that pops open for easy access instead of hiding it under the back plate which has to be screwed off? I have two non-smith's with the feature and it came it handy one night when my batteries went dead.

To expound on this, I wouldn't necessarily want a separate compartment as I've found them to generally involve lousy plastic covers or otherwise be prone to problems.. Also, the less wood carved out of the body of my bass, the happier I am..

To implement something like this I would say make a metal access door in the metal backplate over the battery with a slotted metal latch that can be actuated using a key or screw driver. You get the convenience factor with less risk of damage from minor abuse.

The plastic, spring loaded battery cover on my Dean was broken off by my guitar player when he went to put the bass on to mess around and accidentally bumped the battery compartment, causing the cover to pop open. It was then wrenched out of it's socket by his leg. That compartment was convenient, until a minor bump which is very likely to happen in normal use made a situation where the battery would fall out and dangle from the bass under normal use.. I eventually gave up and fixed it.

[Mike Jenkins]

To expound on this, I wouldn't necessarily want a separate compartment as I've found them to generally involve lousy plastic covers or otherwise be prone to problems.. Also, the less wood carved out of the body of my bass, the happier I am..

To implement something like this I would say make a metal access door in the metal backplate over the battery with a slotted metal latch that can be actuated using a key or screw driver. You get the convenience factor with less risk of damage from minor abuse.

The plastic, spring loaded battery cover on my Dean was broken off by my guitar player when he went to put the bass on to mess around and accidentally bumped the battery compartment, causing the cover to pop open. It was then wrenched out of it's socket by his leg. That compartment was convenient, until a minor bump which is very likely to happen in normal use made a situation where the battery would fall out and dangle from the bass under normal use.. I eventually gave up and fixed it.

An accident can happen any time with anything. I've been fortunate enough not to experience any mishaps with the battery compartments on my basses. But whether or not the battery compartment is carved separately in the body or accessed through the back plate I for one wouldn’t want the battery compartment accessed with a key or screwdriver. That defeats the purpose of having the quick access compartment. Also, I'm not so sure that such a small hole in the back of the bass would make a noticeable difference in tone. Ken can speak to that one.

[Bob Faulkner]

well, a key or screw driver would be the easiest, but i'm basically talking about a rotating latch with a slot you would use something flat to turn.. in theory you could just use a finger nail..

[Mike Jenkins]

well, a key or screw driver would be the easiest, but i'm basically talking about a rotating latch with a slot you would use something flat to turn.. in theory you could just use a finger nail..

That could work

[Reyes Rodriguez]

I like everybody else on this forum like Ken Smith work but one thing I would change is the 2/3 gears on the 5 string models. I like the regular 3/2. No disrespect to Ken I just think the 3/2 looks better.

[Ronson Hall]

I like everybody else on this forum like Ken Smith work but one thing I would change is the 2/3 gears on the 5 string models. I like the regular 3/2. No disrespect to Ken I just think the 3/2 looks better.


Aren't the 2/3 gears an option? They were when I ordered my Smitty!

[Tim Bishop]

I'll take it either way if Ken Builds it. :)

I do, however, prefer the 2/3 for this reason: With this set-up/configuration, I believe the string tension is better distributed across the Peg-head, Nut, Fingerboard to bridge, thus, providing a better balance (tension-wise) across the neck.

It's my opinion and I'm stickin to it. :D

[Virgilio Venditti]

Well, I'll just put this idea on the table.

Preamble: what always attracted me about Smith basses is the very peculiar body/headstock shape of the "old style" basses. The fact that they costed an arm and a leg here in Europe unluckily always kept me at... safe, drooling distance! I could not believe myself when in a forum here in Italy I could just swap my unused Warwick Corvette IV strings with what is now my 91 black Burner V!!! No money involved and voilÃ* I have my wonderful Smith "pet", too!

Now, what I would propose is a reissue series (a la... Fender!) that would be done replicating exactly the old body/headstock configuration, just for the nostalgic guys like me, both on 4 and 5 strings. Maybe just a simple BSR model...


Mmmmmhhhh..... difficult, uh?

[Roger Vaughan]

Edit #2 here: This is in reference to an early post- sory I didn't identify it! Oops. Anyhow, you'll 'get it'...

Heh-heh. Yep, if it works, keep doing it. But it is kind of fun to read stuff like, "Ken shot it down" (in reference to a custom 'vanity' detail)... end of post! Low Sensibility-Divergence Tolerance!

I better watch my step around here, and not mention anything about stereo wiring, or balanced-out jacks... :D

But you can tell everybody loves their Smith bass, and has great regard for the builder and his crew. Me too, man. And someday, I'll have a BT with a Lacewood top. Someday... :rolleyes:

Edit: I like that old-style too! The BT- I at first thought it was awkward, but it grew on me pretty quick. It now reminds me of a crown- not just the headstock but the entire bass. Way cool. I have a Burner too, and also think it should re-emerge. Great bass.

[John McGuire]

1). The ability to have a third pickup in the neck area. I'm sure this has been tried? Would this add some deeper tone to the perspective?

2). optional chambered cores in the body wing areas to reduce weight. I played a Sadowsky NY with a chambered body and it was an awesome improvement. I didn't notice any dif.

3). Electronics to be able to switch to an old school single coil kind of vibe.

Please don't shot me! These are just some ideas for discussion! I love the ken smith I just got. Great bass. However, I still am bringing two basses to the gigs I've been playing when I need an old school vibe I bring either a 65 jazz bass or an old 4003 Ric and in addition to the KS BSR5GN for the newer fusion jazz stuff we do.

[Ken Smith]

1). The ability to have a third pickup in the neck area. I'm sure this has been tried? Would this add some deeper tone to the perspective?

2). optional chambered cores in the body wing areas to reduce weight. I played a Sadowsky NY with a chambered body and it was an awesome improvement. I didn't notice any dif.

3). Electronics to be able to switch to an old school single coil kind of vibe.

Please don't shot me! These are just some ideas for discussion! I love the ken smith I just got. Great bass. However, I still am bringing two basses to the gigs I've been playing when I need an old school vibe I bring either a 65 jazz bass or an old 4003 Ric and in addition to the KS BSR5GN for the newer fusion jazz stuff we do.


1, 2, & 3.. Been there and done that.

The 3rd pickup is not worth the trouble tonally and will gove the Bass some added weight as well. Want more Bass, use the tone controls, active and passive..

The Body story you tell on that 'parts' brand. Did you Play that exact same bass with and without the chambers? Same body both times? If not, the results you claim were not science. Just one bass compared to another.

You have to route those chambers 'before' gluing things up. What happens if a small drip of glue breaks off into that now closed chamber or some wood dust or a wood chip? Also, how do you control the extra frequency bounce caused by the chambers? Want a real Bass? Buy that big thing they call a Double Bass. Want solid sounds and controlled? Then keep it as solid as possible.

On the Single Coil we have tested this years ago with this Pickup. We have some new 3-way switches to test out we just got in when time allows. My Distributor in Japan has put some of these in a few Basses.

So, how many ways can you slice an apple? Still an apple..;)

[Bram Schoonderbeek]

I'm prolly only one of few doing this.. but I play my Smith passive, as I do all my basses. One of my basses when switched to passive has the bass-knob acting like a tone rolloff knob a la jazz bass in passive mode... I love that! I know the passive switch is prolly and emergency escape when battery is dead you can swich to passive when playing on a gig, but I like passive cicuits more then active ones just cos somehow to my ears it has a little more dynamics to it, can hear my fingers better also difference between playng softly and hard is more apparant, plus somehow it makes the tone troathier and more raw... atleast it does on all my active basses, the rest of my basses is obviously allready passive:D
Passive works best on my Glockenklang rig, cos its so ridiclulously transparant:rolleyes:... and I play that thing flat aswell....


Best regards

Bram

[David Alan McIntire II]

A bit new here, so am afraid myself of Ken's comments, but here goes. One, I do feel a perceptable difference in my String through body basses, I have two such instruments, wit option to string through body OR bridge. Tried both ways, there is a difference in feel of string tension, and body resonance. As I can tune my bass unamplified on my chest without "hearin" anythin, when strung through, on stage wit all surrounding noise, can't do the same when they are strung through the bridge. The caveat being that my Smith does the same thing without extra holes drilled. Smith bridges are a marvel of design, apparently, and I love the resonance of mine. The 60's bass comparison is unfair, IMHO, they used flatwound strings back then, not a ton of sustain anyhow. And, just to say also that if the strings behind the bridge saddles don't vibrate, then does it matter if they are bent? I've had no issues with breakage or dead strings. And finally, use my Smith passive lots of the time, it's like having two basses in one. Passive sounds great for getting old school and rock tones, hit the switch and you have another beast, entirely. Better than ANY boost pedal made! Please, no one kill me. I'm new, tryin ta fit in.

[Roger Vaughan]

No one's going to kill you bro. Now, my Burner is very upper-midsy-honky when passive. I need a new pre circuit and can't afford it yet, so I'm just doing passive. I am not getting on with it yet, still trying.

One thing that may help is I'm getting rid of a Markbass Traveler 210 cab, which I pretty much don't dig at all. Too agressive, very 'toppy', and is probably contributing to my unhappiness thus far. Dunno though.

I'm used to Rickies, my Peavey Dyna-Bass Unity, stuff like that. It may be that the Smith is more refined than I can get on with. I'm not really a knucklehead, but maybe my bass playing is!

[David Alan McIntire II]

I'm havin fun wit everyone's seeming fear of the big Man on campus here. I had a Burner 6 for a long time, before getting my current CR6. I do remember some of the issue you speak of. But it may just be that cab. I'm a real gear head, have owned and tried all kinds of amps, basses and such. I'm an old school tone guy as well, and this new, modern soundin gear is just not suited to get that tone. Especially cabs. 'Fore ya give up on that Burner, try some different cabs, for sure, but try ones wit different designs especially. Rear ports, sealed designs ALL have big differences in how clear and how NOT so clear ya want your tone. My current rig is pretty simple. Mesa M-Pulse 600 into a Bergantino HT-310. NOT Hi-Fi at all. The Mesa has HUGE low end, I temper that using tens in all my cabs. This is a front ported cab, and loud, but really responsive to my EQ settings. I've used Mark Bass gear, and all have commented about that "honk" thing. Try a different cab. I bet it makes a big difference.

[David Alan McIntire II]

Hate to answer myself, but forgot to mention. Left the Burner series for two reasons. One, string spacing too tight for my taste, and two, no mid control. The one I had was Walnut, and its tone was such I swear by that wood now. Have you experimented with your pickup height? Can add or subtract detail of pickups. By lowering the pickups, you may lose a hair of output, but those old school basses had nowhere near the output of these modern monsters, and lowerin them may get some of the Middiness out of your sound, without the mid control. You could then make up a bit of output loss with gain on your amp. I understand Ken is marketing his pickups and electronics again, that would be the perfect choice. His pre amps the best, in my opinion, and that could also be your answer. Lots of options, really wish you the best on findin your tone.

[Roger Vaughan]

The Markbass is outta here as of Saturday. I have frankly never had a sound I've disliked as much as what I'm getting out of that cab! With every bass I have (there are 3 here) it does 'that thing', and maybe it is the problem with the Burner. Not sure though... I have played the bass through an Ashdown Evo head and Ampeg 410 Classic cab, and the troubling middley character was not nearly as pronounced. But still present... I want it to sound more like a Fender or a Rickie! Right now I'm having trouble getting it to give me that controlled and consistent growly rumble I like. Feels great, I dig the look. But sound is not working yet.

I have considered getting a couple Fender Jazz stock p'ups- the bridge position ones- and wiring the bass for them, replacing the (not-working) Smith preamp. Truth is I've just gotten back to carpentry (RI has the worst unemployment in the country right now, I believe), and don't have the scratch to bring this bass up to factory spec.

Just musing...

[David Alan McIntire II]

Well what do ya know? I'm a carpenter myself, during the day. Jobs here in SC no more plentiful. I'm also originally from RI, but left there when 3 or so as my dad was in Navy. Just lost a job had for 5 years, and playin the only thing payin bills. I been around a while, this the worst I've ever seen the economy. Usually avoid that kind of issue, been playin all my life, but it's killin me now. I have a set of Bartolini passive J style pickups, and a three band Bart preamp in need of pots. Have the hard one to get, the push pull pot, but need a balance pot and two 50k tone controls. If you like, I can send them to ya. No worries. It's just sittin, and at moment I have no use for them. Over the years folks have helped me a ton. You can have this stuff if it helps, cuz one, hate to see ya disappointed in that Smith and two, all the help I've recieved I believe in givin back. Is your bass a 4 or 5 string? Or 6? Lemme know what ya think, but I believe the best thing for it would be the Smith stuff. I'm sure he'd work out a deal. But the offer here for the stuff I got. Maybe one day you'll return favor. Parts for this pre amp pretty cheap, I just don't have the gumption ta put it together, and nuttin to put it in.

[Roger Vaughan]

Well what do ya know? I'm a carpenter myself, during the day. Jobs here in SC no more plentiful. I'm also originally from RI, but left there when 3 or so as my dad was in Navy. Just lost a job had for 5 years, and playin the only thing payin bills. I been around a while, this the worst I've ever seen the economy. Usually avoid that kind of issue, been playin all my life, but it's killin me now. I have a set of Bartolini passive J style pickups, and a three band Bart preamp in need of pots. Have the hard one to get, the push pull pot, but need a balance pot and two 50k tone controls. If you like, I can send them to ya. No worries. It's just sittin, and at moment I have no use for them. Over the years folks have helped me a ton. You can have this stuff if it helps, cuz one, hate to see ya disappointed in that Smith and two, all the help I've recieved I believe in givin back. Is your bass a 4 or 5 string? Or 6? Lemme know what ya think, but I believe the best thing for it would be the Smith stuff. I'm sure he'd work out a deal. But the offer here for the stuff I got. Maybe one day you'll return favor. Parts for this pre amp pretty cheap, I just don't have the gumption ta put it together, and nuttin to put it in.

Dave,

That's generous of you man, and you know, I'll take you up on it! I don't think it'd be worthy not to. I have been helped a ton myself; returned it a few times. I'll remember it and when opportunity comes around, it'll come back to mind.

Ken has offered a re-built pre, and in light of the $ for a new one it's a good deal. It's just that spending anything is just not going to happen for a while here. I suppose things'll change! They tend to.

So that's great- I humbly accept your offer! It's a 4-string, a CR4. I'll pm you... Thank you Dave, you're a gentleman and a scholar!

[David Alan McIntire II]

Any time, my friend. I suppose we ought to befriend ouselves on this sight. Make us look less lonely. I've received and replied to your PM, all will happen soon as I can get to everythin. Know what you mean about spendin, I'm not either. Hope this helps ya, and if you decide to let that one go, you know where to reach me. I've got a CR6, my baby, though I've put her through the ringer, not intentionally of course, just things happen over the years when playin every night. I wouldn't change one scuff or remove one ding on this bass' body. It's a special bass, one I know is mine, and was meant for me. I'll tell ya the story some time. But would like you to feel same 'bout yours, then one day you can tell THIS story. Heh.

[Roger Vaughan]

Story is in progress Dave. I'll tell it someday! I hope so anyway, I'll tell you at the end of it...

[Michael Wilson]

I would love to see a comeback of the older big black headstock. Maybe just a limited edition model/w the stacked 3 knob controls. That would be nice.

[Ken Smith]

I would love to see a comeback of the older big black headstock. Maybe just a limited edition model/w the stacked 3 knob controls. That would be nice.

The big headstock is available by request for an extra charge as we do it by hand.

The 3 knob must be put into 3 of the 5 holes we use now so that when you realize the BMT model is a better circuit, you can upgrade it. The old BT 3 knob route was not upgradable.

We can do it.

[Michael Wilson]

Well ok then, now that i have it on paper here is going to be my next Smith order NEXT MONTH

1. CR5
2. Flame Maple T&B
3.Mah core
4. Ebony fretboard
5. Big black headstock
6. Gold Hardware
7. Lefty/Str Righty
8. 18 volt pre/BMT

Ken, please give me the cost and how long of a waiting period.

Mike

[Ken Smith]

Well ok then, now that i have it on paper here is going to be my next Smith order NEXT MONTH

1. CR5
2. Flame Maple T&B
3.Mah core
4. Ebony fretboard
5. Big black headstock
6. Gold Hardware
7. Lefty/Str Righty
8. 18 volt pre/BMT

Ken, please give me the cost and how long of a waiting period.

Mike

This is regular business. Please email me at the shop. I can give you cost and eta then.

This is almost a standard bass for us with the custom old head. The old heads all had black Phenolic overlays, not wood. Even on the early BMTs. The current way would be to use actual Ebony on the head for the black.

[Tim Bishop]

The big headstock is available by request for an extra charge as we do it by hand.

The 3 knob must be put into 3 of the 5 holes we use now so that when you realize the BMT model is a better circuit, you can upgrade it. The old BT 3 knob route was not upgradable.

We can do it.
+1 Ken. The midrange circuit is key in the mix for any bass. :)

[David Alan McIntire II]

I'm glad to see this thread go this way, one of the main questions I have is concerning upgrading my '95 three band circuit to the new, 18v pre amp. Problem is that I really like the sound of this bass and not sure of the new preamp's sound in comparison. Probably not a ton of difference, and gotta say the new one's design intriguing, with the dip switces and all. I'm assuming a bit more output with the new one, but I'd rather not assume. in fact, don't even know if upgrading mine possible, but that why I'm here. Any here have experience with New vs. Old circuit?

[Tim Bishop]

If you have the 3 band (i.e. Bass, Mid-range, and Treble) pre-amp, you're good. I wouldn't change a thing unless there was an issue with it. Otherwise, the only difference between the 9V and 18V Pre-amp. are the number of batteries (1 vs. 2) and the Dip Switches. Your not getting more output, you are only getting more battery longevity. The Dip Switches in the 18V provide frequency adjust flexibility, however, I find no need to adjust from Ken's factory settings (old vs. new).

Maybe some day I'll spend more time with different DIP Switch settings (doubtful though). If I need to adjust between 20Hz and 12k, I have all the flexibility from the bass and amp EQ: Not a problem. :rolleyes:

[David Alan McIntire II]

Man, am glad to hear that. I figured I wasn't missin that much not havin the newer electronics. But ya know how folks get when somethin new comes out. Always tellin me I need to upgrade. I run pretty simple myself, rarely usin the eq at all. Bass sounds so good flat, barely need all the eq options I've got on bass or amp. It is a hair lower output wise compared to my other, 18v equipped basses, so that why aslkin if the newer Smith 18v pre had a hair more output. If that isn't the case, then no need to change. Another question, what impact does the finish of the bass have on its final tone. My bass has the hard finish as opposed to the oil. Is there a difference? My bass' wood grain isn't as flashy as some I've seen here, and though I don't mind, I think my bass has a pretty unique look, just wonderin if that finish may affect the looks of the wood, the sound of the instrument, and how.

[Tim Bishop]

You might want to check and see if you have a gain trim adjustment on your bass' pre-amp. If so, you can bump it up a bit for more output from bass.

Generally speaking, as far as finishes, I've played both. If built right; using quality woods and craftsmanship, I prefer an unfinished (i.e. oil finish) bass. The main reason? 1. I love the feel. 2. I also think the wood responds/vibrates better, thus, giving you more of what the tone woods used can produce naturally.

On the other hand, I also have some basses with clear-coat finishes and wouldn't part with them for anything. Particularly those finishes that are not over-sprayed (i.e. too heavy a clear-coat). While the clear-coat does provide protection, more times than not, I go back to my oil finished basses.

Lastly, you can get a "dud-of-a-bass" whether it is sprayed with lacquer or hand-rubbed-oil finished. This is why it is important to know the craftsman you are dealing with. There are a bunch of instrument builders out there, but few are legitimate Master Luthier's.

Shop wisely!

[David Alan McIntire II]

I completely agree there aren't many Master builders out there, my questions here are meant only about Smith basses. Where I'm from, both originally and where residin now, there are NO techs to properly set up basses, or have too much knowledge concerning them at all. I do dearly love the feel of a nice, oil finished instrument. I have yet to be able to afford a Smith built for my needs exactly, but the one I have I got very reasonable, it's in good shape, sounds amazing and I wouldn't consider it a "dud" in any way. Compared to my 18V Jazz bass, its output is less, but it's more of a feel thing than an actual jump in volume, per se. My Smith has the hard finish on it, and though pretty, it doesn't have the crazy grain or figure in the wood I've seen in some Smiths. I was wondering if the finish did change the tone or appearance of wood, as compared to an oil finished bass, and I think got the answer. It's all subjective. Heh. I would never have ordered the hard finish on a bass like a Smith, but I must say it's aged well. It gives the bass an antique type vibe, and though would've never said in a million years I think I like the finish in the end. I've gotten used to it and really love it. So, I ain't changin a thing. If I want a new preamp, I'll get a new Smith. Someday...

[Otto Orraca]

one thing I would like to see new is a lighter weight hardwear. I have own 2 Ken Smith BSR5GN and they were both a little bit too heavy, when I was cleaning both of them, I removed the hardwear for cleaning I realiase that the bass it self is light, and I could feel how heavy the hardwear was. I would be great to get a K.S. bass that weights at least 9 LBS.

[Tim Bishop]

Another consideration: Some woods are heavier than others too. Personally, I don't have a problem with the weight of any Smith I've ever owned. :rolleyes:

[Anton Hasias]

Hi All,

In fact I like the fretted Smith basses as they are and I am pretty sure there will not be so many changes in the future, as this design showed at what level the basses are excelent made and thought.

Nevertheless, my thoughts are in the fretless area.

I wish it would exist a specific fretless design/model with the following features/options:
- only one sweetspoted pickup
- option for a piezzo pickup considering the exceptional sound the Smith basses deliver.
- longer fingerboard (joining the sweetspoted pickup or at least 28 fretlines) so no need for a neck ramp.
- chambered body in order to achive more acoustic headroom.(especially usefull with the piezzo pickup)

Am I dreaming too much?

Best regards

[Brian Hewett]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned before but I would like to see an option for a shorter headstock on 7 string Smith basses. I played a six string Smith for many years and now with the 7 string I have to be much more careful not to knock people in the head when playing music in tight quarters. I'm getting more used to it but it would still be nice to have a headstock which is closer to the same length as a six string if it is possible.
I've imagined that perhaps 3 tuners on the top in normal spacing with 4 on the bottom using a very tight spacing, probably almost touching tight, could possibly work and come out to about the same distance as the 3 top normally spaced tuners. Perhaps the F string tuner would need to be slightly closer to the nut than the B sting to achieve the equal distance at the A and D string tuners. I'm not sure about the details but if this could be done it could lesson the length by around 2.5 inches which may not seem like a lot but again when playing in tight corners going from about 8.5 inches to 6 inches of headstock length would be nice.
I've even imagined a couple of ways of modifying my own bass to achieve this but then I regained my sanity and thought better than to even think about going down that road.

[Ken Smith]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned before but I would like to see an option for a shorter headstock on 7 string Smith basses. I played a six string Smith for many years and now with the 7 string I have to be much more careful not to knock people in the head when playing music in tight quarters. I'm getting more used to it but it would still be nice to have a headstock which is closer to the same length as a six string if it is possible.
I've imagined that perhaps 3 tuners on the top in normal spacing with 4 on the bottom using a very tight spacing, probably almost touching tight, could possibly work and come out to about the same distance as the 3 top normally spaced tuners. Perhaps the F string tuner would need to be slightly closer to the nut than the B sting to achieve the equal distance at the A and D string tuners. I'm not sure about the details but if this could be done it could lesson the length by around 2.5 inches which may not seem like a lot but again when playing in tight corners going from about 8.5 inches to 6 inches of headstock length would be nice.
I've even imagined a couple of ways of modifying my own bass to achieve this but then I regained my sanity and thought better than to even think about going down that road.

Two problems will be inherent if done. One, it will be hard to tune and turn the tuners if you can't get a finger between them and two, moving them closer to the edges of the wood will weaken the wood and be prone to splitting, cracking or breaking. Basses get bumped all the time. You need some cushion of strength there. The wood between the tuner hole and the outside edge of the wood is that cushion.

[Brian Hewett]

Two problems will be inherent if done. One, it will be hard to tune and turn the tuners if you can't get a finger between them and two, moving them closer to the edges of the wood will weaken the wood and be prone to splitting, cracking or breaking. Basses get bumped all the time. You need some cushion of strength there. The wood between the tuner hole and the outside edge of the wood is that cushion.

Hi Ken! Thanks for your reply!

I wasn't really thinking a smaller head, just the length of it so I think the distance to the edge might be able to stay the same but strength certainly would trump a couple and a half inches of length in the headstock so if drilling the tuning machine holes closer to each other would make it weaker then it certainly would not be worth it. And, like you said, basses get bumped all the time so again strength wins out.
I've dealt with basses in the past that had very close tuning machines and it didn't bother me but I can see how a lot of people would probably not like that.

Thanks again for your reply and your time!

By the way, thank you for making such fantastic instruments!

I hope you have time to get out and play some golf.

Brian

[Ken Smith]

Hi Ken! Thanks for your reply!

I wasn't really thinking a smaller head, just the length of it so I think the distance to the edge might be able to stay the same but strength certainly would trump a couple and a half inches of length in the headstock so if drilling the tuning machine holes closer to each other would make it weaker then it certainly would not be worth it. And, like you said, basses get bumped all the time so again strength wins out.
I've dealt with basses in the past that had very close tuning machines and it didn't bother me but I can see how a lot of people would probably not like that.

Thanks again for your reply and your time!

By the way, thank you for making such fantastic instruments!

I hope you have time to get out and play some golf.

Brian

I think my Golf time is now practice time on the bass. I enjoy it as well. The years I played a lot of golf I was not playing much bass at all. With this business demanding so much of my personal time I think it is one or the other, golf or bass. I can do 2 things but 3 is difficult. Especially if you want to be good at it. I make more playing bass than golf. ;)

[Christopher Rhodes]

I almost had the problem with the headstock - but the problem was really the other musician standing too close to me.

Last night, the guitarist kept standing too close - so I put the headstock about one-inch from his nose. He stepped back.

No problems with my Smith7-string bass. None.

[Brian Hewett]

I almost had the problem with the headstock - but the problem was really the other musician standing too close to me.

Last night, the guitarist kept standing too close - so I put the headstock about one-inch from his nose. He stepped back.

No problems with my Smith7-string bass. None.

LOL - Hey Christopher, that's the spirit! The other musicians better start watching out. I love the "one-inch from the nose" technique. :D

[Chris Wohlfeil]

I would change the string spacing to 16mm like on the Burner Basses. For light touch, fingerstyle playing it is so comfortable. There is absolutely no way a US made Smith Bass could be ordered with 16mm string spacing??

[Ken Smith]

I would change the string spacing to 16mm like on the Burner Basses. For light touch, fingerstyle playing it is so comfortable. There is absolutely no way a US made Smith Bass could be ordered with 16mm string spacing??

No, not at this time. It would be a totally new design. Neck Jigs, custom pickups, New Bridge, etc.

Sleek Elite in Japan is making a re-issue Burner model now in 16mm and it's very high quality.

[Christopher Rhodes]

Ken Smith MD7 - I would only change the number I own. :)
A White-Tiger MD7!
I am accepting donations for worthy cause.
Contact me for the donation website - really, contact me :)