Would you change a Smith?

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Roy Diza

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]

Originally Posted by Tim Bishop

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]

Originally Posted by Roy Diza

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]

Originally Posted by Tim Bishop

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

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]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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...

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...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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
Passive works best on my Glockenklang rig, cos its so ridiclulously transparant... 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.