5 string question

[jaytopp01]

i recently acquired an 86' spoiler. It is absolutely beautiful. It is an early model for 5 strings, there was some obvious mistakes made. (well not so much to me, but for standard 5 strings now) First of all the neck is thin as a 4 string neck. the string spacing took a while to get used to, but it's second nature to me now. the other mistake (if you can call it that) is that it's a 32' scale 5 string. Every 32' scale 5 string I've seen (and that's rare) has incredibly floppy B strings, this however has not only a better sounding, but tighter B string than my 35' scale Warwick. Does anyone have any idea why this medium scale 5 string has such a good B string or is the explanation just that Alembic is magic?

[bsee]

There are absolutely no mistakes made on that bass.  Not one.    
 
Why does it work?  Well, one part of the secret is the neck through design combined with dense neck woods (purpleheart added to the maple) and probably a fairly substantial brass bridge block.
 
Whatever strings are on there could be part of the magic  formula for you as well, so be careful about trying different things.
 
As far as the spacing goes, those basses are super fast and playable as long as you aren't planning on playing a lot of slap.  The spacing is a bit snug if that's your goal, but straight finger or pick playing is a breeze.  If you want to try narrow spacing, try one of the early Rickenbacker fives.
 
Oh, and if you want to sell it, let me know and I may be able to find a home for that poorly designed mistake-filled bass.
 
-bob

[flaxattack]

i would suspect its the type of b string on it
ti's are loose
the d'dario chromes are tighter.

[jaytopp01]

Thanks,
 
Maybe I should have chosen my words better, sorry about that. Believe me I wouldn't sell this poorly designed mistake-filled bass, I absolutely love it. Its just that I had never seen a 32' 5 string that worked as well as this. No other company I've seen makes med. scale 5 strings and the few I've seen were ridiculed and constantly complained about for poor playability, so i figured med. and short scale 5 strings were always considered mistakes.  
 
I applaud Alembic on their excellent workmanship, and am looking forward to doing further business with them in the future.

[funkyjazzjunky]

Does the Spoiler have a bridge block?  Does the bridge block help with a low-B?

[californiaman]

I have a Spoiler 5-String and have to agree with Bob, There's absolutely nothing wrong with that bass.
Mine plays wonderfully.
The string spacing is perfect for picking or fingerstyle.

[eligilam]

Jaytopp01, I understood your meaning the first time I read your post...you were actually complimenting the Alembic, not criticizing it.  I think you got jumped on a little harshly there...

[olieoliver]

I understood it that way too Will.  
 
It is amazing how Alembic can make a short scale 5 that sounds and plays incredile when most others can not.
 
It's like how can they make Twinkies taste SO good and not be fattening at all...Oh wait..that one is a fairy tale.  
 
Thank God for Alembic, some thigns are real.
 
OO

[bsee]

The tone of my response was part serious, part tongue-in-cheek.  One thing you all need to consider is that someone might do a search and find this thread months or years from now while doing research about shorter scales and Alembic.  The last thing anyone needs to read is that the basses are designed with mistakes.  I wanted to ensure that we didn't end up in a full description of features as problems and have someone not get it later, or skim the thread quickly and miss the actual meaning.  There was no intent to jump on anyone, and I hope it wasn't taken that way.  I would say, though, if that response bothered you, maybe you shouldn't be reading any internet forums for fear of running into actual conflict.
 
-bob

[David Houck]

Olie; I'm fairly certain Alembics are not fattening.  Hope that helps!