#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tiger vs same wood body
So I'm about to pull the trigger on a Black Tiger 5, walnut/maple/walnut. Typically I'm a walnut body guy, but I did play a GN that was all walnut and didn't quite send me. From reading here, it seems like sandwiching walnut and maple (in either direction) tends to bring the "best of both worlds" thing. Since I tend to lean more walnut than maple, I'm assuming that going with the maple core is probably the way to go. Since I'm buying long distance, no ability to test with my own hands so I need to make the best guess.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
??
Quote:
If so, those body wing sets made around 2001-2002 were with western grown Claro Walnut and not eastern grown Black Walnut. The cores were Black Walnut on those basses and the Maple, I don't remember. We used all species for laminates as we saw up 1" top or neck woods with less or no figure and use these pieces for laminates as opposed to using slices veneer which is thinner and not book matched. So, it is a different wood laminate construction entirely. The rest of the bass betwen the GN and TN are the same. It is the body that makes them different. It is usually the Top wood that makes the most difference with the sound as the Core under it flavors the top. The fingerboard wood is also on the top of the neck under the strings. That matters too. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The GN was walnut over walnut core and a recent (new) instrument. The BTs are new as well (at Bass Central). Trying to stay lighter in weight so luckily that is an easy metric to figure out from a distance. They have one that is 9.5 lbs and that would work well as my discs like less stress on the shoulder. That said, I end up playing seated more and more these days, by choice.
I typically like walnut, so sounds like BT is the way to go. One other question - is there much variation in the neck shape/carve? Since they are done by hand I figure there is some difference but in the few I've played I didn't notice night/day difference. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, I'm mixing acronyms. I meant Black Tiger is the way to go for me. The BT body shape won't really hang well on a strap for me. The BSR I can play seated or standing no problem.
That's what I figured on the neck - handmade is...handmade. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, got it. For me personally, I prefer the BT shape as do many pros. They and myself play with the right arm over the body and not around it like a guitar with a pick. The arm helps to balance the bass. Sitting, you don't have the upper horn as long like on a BSR. The BT shape is easier for my to work with, sitting or standing.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
interesting. I have always found that short upper horns tend to put the nut too far away from my body so I'm stretching to get down there. Seated it becomes a non-issue. But that was with Roscoes. Haven't tried a BT shape as i assumed it wouldn't work for me ergonomically.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I think what he means is that the BT's shorter upper horn forces the bass to the left (if you're right handed). Same scale length, just different position on your body.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
That can happen if you eat a big meal right before as well.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
LOL... Eating before a gig is highly not recommended!
Back to the thing, I prefer the BSR just for that reason. Visually, I prefer the BT shape. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, typically I find a shorter upper horn (most basses going to like the 12th or 13th fret) moves the nut further away from my torso giving a longer reach to the nut. Even though I have long arms, it can cause a funky wrist angle in the extreme. The BSR is fine. I haven't tried the BT shape but it looks like it wouldn't be ideal for me.
At any rate, a black tiger will be here The for me to start working with. Have a gig Fri night so it'll get a quick baptism. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
15th/+
Quote:
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|