LeftyBassist.com
http://leftybassist.com./

Thumb B/O v N/T
http://leftybassist.com./viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5084		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  glefty5 [ January 15th, 2014, 8:16 am ]
Post subject:  Thumb B/O v N/T
I had the chance 2 try out a '98 neck thru 5 thumb recently n although it sounded fine it was a bear 2 play, with the infamous neck dive taking a toll on my left arm/hand, fatigued in 15 mins yet can play my b/o 5 all day. Why so different n has anyone else experienced the same? I'm a short 5'6 dude who plays strapped high, top horn at right nip so the combo of extra reach with weight & the 26 frets....thoughts?
Author:  Matt R. [ January 15th, 2014, 8:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
I had a Thumb Bolt On in the late 90s and had neck dive too. I really liked the bass, but neck dive is a deal breaker.
Author:  Lefty007 [ January 15th, 2014, 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
Yes, absolutely, that model is infamous for that. That was my first "good" bass I bought back in the mid '90s and I didn't know better. Started playing gigs and didn't have a clue about what a bass should weigh or balance, or length of the upper horn. Neck dive? Didn't know the term. But it sure started hurting my shoulder and back soon after. At the time I hadn't been playing bass for that long so I figured I just needed practice. :lol:

Anyway, I loved the sound, and would have loved to keep it just for home noodling and recording. . . but then I was introduced to a Fender Jazz, and got my aha moment. :shock: Since then I don't think I've been comfortable playing anything but a full-size Fender type bass.

Another one of those "Leo got it right the first time around" examples. . .
Author:  glefty5 [ January 16th, 2014, 4:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
Yeah my dinky jazz is really comfy, same with the Ibby 505 but although my b/o thumb 5 has a little neck dive tendency it's still light years better than the neck thru was; I'm 90% comfy with my b/o thumb but couldn't keep the neck thru even if it was given to me, just too awkward in spite of the great sound. It sold anyway, probably to some 6'3 Japanese behemoth who plays with it slung low to avert the dive. Shame...
Author:  pjmuck [ January 16th, 2014, 6:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
glefty5 wrote:
I had the chance 2 try out a '98 neck thru 5 thumb recently n although it sounded fine it was a bear 2 play, with the infamous neck dive taking a toll on my left arm/hand, fatigued in 15 mins yet can play my b/o 5 all day. Why so different n has anyone else experienced the same? I'm a short 5'6 dude who plays strapped high, top horn at right nip so the combo of extra reach with weight & the 26 frets....thoughts?


I own a 4 string NT (currently for sale) and I owned a BO as well. There is a slight neck dive on mine, but it stops at around 90 degrees. I agree, there is extra reach, given the shorter upper horn, but I've gotten used to it. Generally speaking, Thumbs are heavy basses, but I suspect they can vary in weight/neck dive. Maybe the 5ers are weightier/less balanced? At any rate, there are various ways to alleviate the neck dive syndrome if needed. (i.e. Heads Up strap, suede strap, etc).
Author:  Addison [ January 21st, 2014, 8:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
I think my Thumb NT weighed a little over 12 lbs, and it felt like 9 of those 12 lbs were in the headstock.

Here's a picture of me playing it...

Image

I'm not actually singing here... I'm screaming because of the cramp in my shoulder. :lol:

Seriously, though... the Thumb bass was my DREAM bass... I had a picture of one hanging in my locker, my senior year in high school.

When I landed a fairly crappy endorsement deal with Warwick through Dana B Goods, I was in heaven. I got that bass and played it almost non-stop for 3 years straight. I literally didn't even touch a different bass... recorded a bunch with it... and I thought I was in love, but I eventually realized that I was suffering from abusive relationship syndrome. The bass was slowly beating me to death, but I kept coming back for more. :lol:

Honestly, I think my deep, deep love for it blinded me to the many problems it had... and there were lots. I would never own one again.

As far as the differences between BO and NT... to me it's always looked like the BO model's body is all stretched out... Or am I crazy :?:

BO
Image

NT
Image

I'm assuming that must have something to do with how they feel and balance... but I've never played a BO, so I wouldn't be able to compare.
Author:  gravesbass [ January 21st, 2014, 8:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
@ Addison. I had a NT and BO and yes, the BO is stretched. Different feel and still neck heavy. Bad basses for comfort but man did they sound good.
Author:  pjmuck [ January 21st, 2014, 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
For me, the BO neck was far more chunkier and uncomfortable feeling than my current NT (which is why I got rid of the BO), even though technically the dimensions were supposed to be the same. I think the NT has a narrower taper towards the heel. At least that's how it was on the 4 strings. Again, can't speak for 5ers.
Author:  Lefty007 [ January 21st, 2014, 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
My BO was circa 1997-1998, and the neck wasn't too thick, nor too thin, pretty comfy. Warwick necks vary greatly with the years.
Author:  pjmuck [ January 21st, 2014, 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
Lefty007 wrote:
My BO was circa 1997-1998, and the neck wasn't too thick, nor too thin, pretty comfy. Warwick necks vary greatly with the years.


Did that have a wenge neck? Mine was a 2005 later ovankol neck. It was my understanding the neck profile got much beefier when they started producing them with ovankol necks as standard.
Author:  Jeroen [ January 22nd, 2014, 1:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
Addison wrote:
As far as the differences between BO and NT... to me it's always looked like the BO model's body is all stretched out... Or am I crazy :?:


Absolutely right. The NT has 26 frets and therefore deeper cutaways, whereas the BO has 'only' 24 frets but the same bridge placement, so it appears to have a slightly stretched body.

pjmuck wrote:
Did that have a wenge neck? Mine was a 2005 later ovankol neck. It was my understanding the neck profile got much beefier when they started producing them with ovankol necks as standard.


You are correct :)
Recently Warwick went back to slightly thinner neck profiles on their bolt-on ovangkol necks though.
Author:  crabby [ January 23rd, 2014, 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
I own a 2006 NT Thumb 4 and there isn't any any noticeable neck dive but the neck feels a mile long on such a tiny body. I'm a pretty big guy and the bass looks funny on me. If it was 5 string, I think it would look a lot more "normal" but there would likely be a lot of neck dive. I really like mine but I admit, it gets a lot less playing time then most of my other bases. I have never played a bass though with such a responsive neck, filled with harmonics such an amazing tone. The bass just sings and virtually plays itself. Strange combination really.

Image
Author:  Jeroen [ January 24th, 2014, 1:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O v N/T
Is that an ebony fingerboard? Unusual :)
Custom order, or formerly fretless maybe?
Author:  glefty5 [ January 29th, 2014, 8:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thumb B/O 5 v N/T 5
I think what surprised me the most was the difference 2 frets & the deeper cutaway seemed to make for balance, it was a constant battle to keep the neck at around a 20-30 degree angle. They were both 5's.There is a little wannabe neck dive from my bolt on but it's pretty negligible, the neck thru felt like T bird city, all from the same maker. Not bitching & in fact kinda sad/disappointed but mostly surprised, especially as my b/o 5 is a 2005, ovangkol body & ovangkol baseball bat neck & it still is neck dive negligible. Anyway, killed the GAS for the n/t & I'm appreciating my b/o even more! Now, just gotta put a neck pup in her and parallel/series the 2 existing pups into 1 for a fatter sound & she'll be perfect! Cheers
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/