Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
"Fender Dimensions: World famous for the very best sounding low B."
- Thread starter Ox Boris
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fender dimension low low b
Sure.
The funny thing about the Dimension series, to me, is that Fender, who is always being dogged for not doing anything new, does something "new" and it's really, really just derivative of EBMM (for which there is no shortage of historical humor to be mined); But at least it's a new "thing".
I've picked up a few and was underwhelmed. Not bad - but nothing that sent me reaching for my wallet. And I have to say I'm not wild about the look.
I'd say that Fender should just stick to what they do best, but I'm sure their CEO would disagree. Not only does a CEO need to "make a mark" but there is some truth to the old business saying "grow or die".
So for starters, I played a few and was also underwhelmed but the ones that underwhelmed me most were the USA Dimensions. For the very high price I just didn't get it. The MM thing was obvious to be but the execution in terms of the oiled neck just did them in for me. They felt awful and were nowhere near as easy to play as MM basses.
After doing research I realized that the MIM Dimensions were different. Necks are gloss, not oiled, and they are based on the J V necks thus not compound radius. Since I am really fond of my MIM JVs I took a flier and am glad I did because for the money it's a fantastic bass.
It's not an MM sound, it's somewhere in between an MM and a Fender J bass. It isn't as fast to play or as pillowy in the lows as an MM. It has more grunt and with the wide spacing you have to dig in to the bass, but if you do, the tone is rewarding, and there is no silent G string I can assure you!
As for trying something new, I was not going to go there in this thread but as I see it, Fender realized about 20 years ago as they were buying or launching, and then burying brands, there just isn't much point in truly innovating. Most of that innovation halted for the last couple of decades but I guess after years of staying true to Js and Ps, they decided best to take a flyer and try to eat a little of the other guys' lunch so this is what they came up with.
And so what happened earlier this year? After adamantly sticking to what they do and not falling into the nostalgia or knockoff trap, three years later EBMM retaliated and released the Caprice and Cutlass basses. Enough said because if I go into detail about how I feel about those basses, this might get ugly. And I LOVE Music Man as a company and for their products. But suffice to say, once again they are both bastardizing model names to once great basses by recycling them into newer less impressive basses, and confusing the crap out of people on top of it.
In closing I guess you could say that there is not much new and innovative being done by the big companies these days, and often whatever innovation is pushed is not well received. Gibson robot tuners anyone? Point being, this seems to be a business/consumer space steeped in tradition.
Sigh...
You want a company steeped in tradition?
Morgan Motor Company
They've been doing so for over 100 years.
The tension is less, but I can't tell you by how much. One should notice difference by feel for sure. They are not as smooth as Elixirs but are not anything like steels. They are brighter though which to me is great. They feel more punchy than Elixirs. Again, I love Elixirs and they are certainly not gone for good at this point. The jury is still out until I play some gigs in Devember and January. Then I will decide whether to keep going with the Dunlops. Oh! I almost forgot, the B string does seem to be a hair more floppy than the Elixirs. The tone is great but the lower tension caught me off guard at first.
So then why the popularity of Sadowsky? I know - a poor comparison, but maybe not. You can get a Sadowky with black paint and a non-figured neck that's just a really nice J bass... right?
So what's the difference? Well, they use better materials. They take more time to ensure fit and finish is top notch. And they have really good electronics. Finally, they are designed & built by *players* - not just labor.
Maybe Fender's "Custom shop" is like that - I do not know. New Fenders are, in my opinion, the best that they have ever made so aside from things like better body wood, better electronics,
just a bit more care with fit and finish and - finally - that expert touch that seems to be the Sadowsky signature. Maybe that would make me a Fender player again.
It's funny - my fav bass for years has been my Lakland 494. It's a whole lot like a PJ but with more J. What makes the real difference for me is the neck - it's just so much... Better - than a Fender neck. How hard would it be for Fender to improve their necks a bit - add a Volute, make them dead even and comfy? How hard?
I love Fender, but this was Fender's attempt to have their own version of the MM PUP.
Great point.
Personally, I think Sadowsky benefits from being both a pioneer and great execution of a very well defined objective.
There is a great video on YouTube where Roger talks for an hour about the origins of the company as well as his philosophy about building. In a nutshell it goes like this:
His basses are intentionally Fender style basses because when he went into business servicing instruments there were two categories of bass players in the union books: "bass" and "Fender bass."
In the day, Fender was the standard and that was what people wanted musicians they hired to show up with. Roger was servicing and upgrading all pros' Fenders (the most famous example bring Marcus Miller) so when he started building, he essentially made a Fender that incorporated the details and upgrades that he was being hired to do to actual Fenders: meticulous fretwork, active electronics, etc.
Because his work was essentially the result of input from the busiest session cats in NYC, it took off with them.
And he was also the first one to do it.
But he is no longer the only one. I would argue AC is a similar phenomenon though not on the same scale even if a higher price point. Same for Celinder, Xotic, Low End, etc.
The moral of the story is that there is great comfort in a familiar standard/classic design even if there isn't innovation!
Ergo the Dirmension and ergo the new Fender style Music Man basses. Ultimately it's up to we the players to decide what works and what doesn't.
Agreed.
Fender, being a company that "manufactures products" decided to create a "newish" product, rather than upping the quality ante. For my 2 cents, if Fender decided to stop using cost-saving routes and better bodies, I think it would be worth the extra $20 to 50 it might cost per instrument. But heck, what do I know.
You know honest to goodness, I have embraced the "good enough for rock and roll" philosophy. That is, if it sounds cool, and it looks cool, it is cool. I could spend my life chasing the best of the best but there is too much fun to be had with all kinds of instruments for me to let perfect get in the way of good enough.
That said, I agree with you!
I can dig it. For 99% of the playing I've done, a simple, good old J bass would be just dandy. But a problem has occurred - the better I play, the more demanding I am with my instruments. But yeah - I have a good buddy here on TB who is the never-ending hamster-wheel of gear chasing (ahem... nostatic... ahem) but he's happy doing it, so who am I to judge? I end up getting a percentage of his crazy great no longer loved gear at a deep discount, so I'd call that WINNING!
Yeah noticed that a while ago and was surprised. Always seemed like a respectable guy to me but who knows what the story is.
Maybe it was the world famous low B controversy.
Query about a 2014 vintage American Deluxe Dimension HH V Five-String Bass - what is the string spacing, center to center, or overall, at the BRIDGE.
Or is it adjustable?
TIA.. !
Or is it adjustable?
TIA.. !