Which track is the Starfire bass quiz! For fun!

[lungimsam]

Two tracks. Playing same thing with same gear and eq settings same stringsets.
1. Which is the Starfire?
2. Which do you like most?
3.Why?
One is a Starfire II bass.
One is a Gibson bass.
Both use same model Bisonics. They were EQ'd super bright for reasons elaborated upon in post #8.

"Number 1" bass:

"Number 2" bass:

 

[krysh]

1 is Gibson
2 is Guild

 

[teleharmonium]

I'm going to agree with krysh that 1 is the Gibson. It's brighter with more twang which I'm attributing to the metal saddles. But they both sound good. I don't have a strong preference, 2 is probably a little closer to my own bass sound but they are not that far apart from one another.

 

[Minnesota Flats]

Above guesses sound correct to me. Seems like sample one has more sustain, which makes me think that it is the solid body

Have to ask:

•Is the third knob on the SF a swept blend pot or one with pre-set detents? I would think that that set up (as to the standard SFII wiring) would allow you to set the converted SFI to sound closer to the Gibby (with its more "middle" pup location along the speaking length of the strings). Neither of them sound like my NS SFII, but my string choice and EQ setting choices could account for a lot of that difference.

•Are the strings rounds or just very new flats. Same amount of break-in playing on both sets?

 

[Westerly Wood]

I like #2 better, it sounds clearer and more distinct.

 

[lungimsam]

Thanks for listening everyone.
In answer to Minnesota’s questions:

Ernie Ball cobalt flats. Both are young sets. Played with fingers.
Middle knob pictured is a blend knob with center detent.
Both basses have 1MEG volume pots and are being played on true bypass setting of their tone circuits.

 

[fronobulax]

If my Starfire sounded like #1 then it would probably be on the market. So #1 Gibson and #2 Guild. That said if my vintage Starfire sounded like either I probably would not be as enamored of the sound. I tend to favor more midrange and less treble than either of the samples.

 

[lungimsam]

They are EQ’d super bright aren’t they?
Helps me hear myself better when playing in groups. Stage noise and mud of all the other instruments, etc. makes it hard to discern what I am playing sometimes. Need more brass-like penetration.

Of course this bright EQ is for my in-ear monitors only. They EQ it real bassy for the auditorium at the soundboard.

I can EQ them for my in ears and at home super fat too, but these super bright recordings are Tonehammer at:
Bass-at 4 Mid at 6 Treble at 10.
I will try to record and post them EQ FAT this week so they can be heard that way too.
I updated the original post to show a statement about the brightness.

 

[fronobulax]

They are EQ’d super bright aren’t they?
Helps me hear myself better when playing in groups. Stage noise and mud of all the other instruments, etc. makes it hard to discern what I am playing sometimes. Need more brass-like penetration.

Of course this bright EQ is for my in-ear monitors only. They EQ it real bassy for the auditorium at the soundboard.

I can EQ them for my in ears and at home super fat too, but these super bright recordings are Tonehammer at:
Bass-at 4 Mid at 6 Treble at 10.
I will try to record and post them EQ FAT this week so they can be heard that way too.
I updated the original post to show a statement about the brightness.

Arguably my disappointment with both could be that I just don't like the EQ.

 

[lungimsam]

Probably not. I am guessing the sound of the basses are just not to your taste. Because even fattened up still they have their essential "voice".
However the recordings do not capture what they really sound like live and also at my house. They are very huge sounding in real world settings.This is way too sterile through Garage band. The house was shaking when I was playing these demos and recording them.
Here they are warmed up. I had to cut back on the gain and master volume of the amp because they kept overdriving my Focusrite input with the bass beefed up. But here they are with the same EQ and levels on each:

Fat Number 1:

Fat Number 2:

 

[Minnesota Flats]

Both are young sets.

Kinda what I thought: that "piano-like" quality hasn't quite worn off yet.

 

[lungimsam]

They have mellowed but still sound good after a couple months, I am happy to say.

 

[Westerly Wood]

Probably not. I am guessing the sound of the basses are just not to your taste. Because even fattened up still they have their essential "voice".
However the recordings do not capture what they really sound like live and also at my house. They are very huge sounding in real world settings.This is way too sterile through Garage band. The house was shaking when I was playing these demos and recording them.
Here they are warmed up. I had to cut back on the gain and master volume of the amp because they kept overdriving my Focusrite input with the bass beefed up. But here they are with the same EQ and levels on each:

Fat Number 1:

Fat Number 2:

I like this more low end version of the clips.
I still prefer #2. Would that be the Guild then?

w

 

[lungimsam]

I wanna wait a little longer and see if anyone else wants to chime in and then I will tell which is which.
Thanks for your patience and comments and thoughts, y'all. It means alot.
I am torn between which bass I like better.

So far, everyone has said they think Bass 1 is the Gibson.

 

[gilded]

I don't know which is which, but I like No. 1 better. So there.

 

[fronobulax]

I like both Fats better than the corresponding originals. I still prefer #2 but not as much. If #2 is not the Starfire then I'm going to hem and haw about how my preference is for the vintage Bisonic and I have ample personal experience that the vintage and the reissue don't sound the same. But comparing my Betts, solid. with a Novak and my NS SF I the SF has a "woody" component that I attribute to being a hollow body and I only hear that on #2.

There is a lot of fret clack and buzz that I don't hear on my own recordings and that also may be distracting me.

 

[lungimsam]

Thanks for your replies, y'all, and taking the time to listen.
I am very surprised!
The Starfire is "Number 1".
Only guilded liked the sound of it! Good on you!
To my ears the Starfire has a nice flabbiness to the low end that the Gibson does not. Also, my Starfire seems to not sound like a typical Starfire, which I have noticed before, after hearing lots of online sound samples from others. I don't know why that is.
After putting the bisonic in the Gibson, and being generally the same shape, though smaller body, I noticed how similar they sounded. So I thought it would be fun to put them both up here for your all's thoughts.

 

[fronobulax]

Also, my Starfire seems to not sound like a typical Starfire

Yep.

What surprises me most is that I thought I could identify a "woody" tone element that came from a semi-hollow body bass. Clearly I need to revisit that or maybe just record my instruments and use a computer and earbuds to listen rather than an amp in a room or an amp feeding headphones.

 

[Minnesota Flats]

I think that the "newness" of the strings made the OP's challenge more difficult. When I put on a new set of flats (D'Addario Chromes, in my case) except for the absence of string noise, they sound pretty "round-like" to me until they've been "played in" awhile and start to lose that piano-like ring and sustain.

And given the pup swap, this was almost more like guessing "which is the SF and which is the JS" than guessing "which is the Guild and which is the Gibson".

That not withstanding, the results of this guessing game do seem to indicate that the BiSonic pup, itself, is an even bigger determinant of the SF sound than I might've previously thought.

Would be interesting to do a similar, recorded comparison between a stock Guild SFII and a stock Gibson EB 2 or Epiphone Rivoli 2. I've never been able to do that comparison back-to-back.

 

[Minnesota Flats]

Another question for OP:

Where was the "blend" knob set on the converted SFI during recording?

My guess is "at the detent".