Author Topic: Effect of Chambering body on Tone (Read 205 times)

dtrice · « **on:** August 06, 2008, 01:37:25 AM »

I was looking at the quote generator and I noticed that the King Deluxe with S1 upgraded electronics was a little cheaper than a standard S1 on the generator. I know that the S1 are chambered bodies, but I believe that the Kings do not. So my question is what would the tonal differences be? Also I assume that the chambering saves weight, right?

adriaan · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2008, 02:23:19 AM »

You must have been playing around with the other options ...

MK Dlx with SI electronics: 15,200
SI: 13,500
That makes the SI cost 1700 less, not more.

Monthly special for July is 15% of base price to be applied to custom options.
MK: 1425 - net price 13,775.
SI: 2025, which would leave just 175 required for the upgrade to cocobolo (standard on MK Dlx) - net price 13,675

So a lot depends on the monthly special ...

Other than that, there don't seem to be any differences in the build details.

The SI body has a few additional cavities because the electronics take up a lot more space than the regular Signature package, but of course an MK + SI electronics needs to have the same cavities. Not sure how much more wood would be removed for a chambered body.

(Message edited by adriaan on August 06, 2008)

dtrice · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2008, 05:34:45 AM »

You have to pay like a couple thousand extra to get Coco Bolo on the S1. Add that to the price and it comes to 15800 on the generator. So it is like 600 dollars cheaper. If Mica happens to find this thread maybe she can fill me in on having a bass 'Prepped for Series', you know so I could maybe differ the cost of the upgrade to a later date.

daveski · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2008, 07:29:49 AM »

I think you might find that the wings on a MK deluxe are hollowed out as standard,because i enquired about body contouring on my recent MK deluxe order and was informed that it could be done but not to much as the wings are hollow.

dtrice · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2008, 08:06:53 AM »

That's interesting. Then they should be much the same as far as weight. Give of take the weight of the electronics themselves. The reason I ask is that as I pointed out it is slightly cheaper to upgrade a MK deluxe than upgrade a S1 with the same custom features.

oujeebass · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2008, 06:27:07 PM »

One or two sold out nights at Madison Square should cover it.

dtrice · « **Reply #6 on:** August 07, 2008, 04:47:43 AM »

Now, when they say it costs an arm and a leg. Does it have to be my arm and leg?

jorge_s · « **Reply #7 on:** August 07, 2008, 06:01:26 AM »

I believe our fellow member Malthumb ordered his Series bass as a Mark King specifically to keep the body from being chambered. He has quite a few Alembics; I would be interested in hearing his opinion on the tonal differences.

jseitang · « **Reply #8 on:** August 07, 2008, 07:01:05 AM »

i also have a series II without the chambered body...very different as far as tone is concerned.

olieoliver · « **Reply #9 on:** August 07, 2008, 07:08:30 AM »

When did they start chambering Series instruments? My 89 Series 2 weights as as my MKs. But my new S2 is much lighter, even taking into account the smaller body it's still much lighter.

OO

s_wood · « **Reply #10 on:** August 07, 2008, 07:22:04 AM »

I have a couple of chambered Series basses, and a couple with solid bodies. There is a difference in tone, for sure. The solid basses have a more pronounced high end (but the chambered basses have plenty of high end, too). The chambered basses have a little more punch, meaning that either the attack or decay of the initial note is a little bit quicker. Let's see if this makes sense. Some basses are like tubas - quite punchy, with lots of fundamental information in each note. Others are more like the bass notes of a piano - more sustain and more of the upper harmonics are present. Jaco's tone: tuba-like. Entwistle's tone: piano-like. That being said, the chambered-bodied basses are a little more towards the tuba end of the continuum (pun intended!) while the solid core basses are a little more towards the piano end of things.

I don't want to overstate the difference - they both sound very much like Alembics!

dtrice · « **Reply #11 on:** August 07, 2008, 08:19:24 AM »

That is a pretty good metaphor, Steve. That kind of answers my question. But if Malthumb or someone else cares to put in there two cents, by all means do.

keurosix · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2008, 01:03:09 AM »

Hey Dan,
One point not yet brought up: the chambered bodies have a pronounced sound when played acoustically, being a semi-hollow body. You can get a satisfactory sonic experience without an amp for solo practice - probably not loud enough for playing sans amp in an acoustic group though
Kris

82daion · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2008, 02:48:36 AM »

Series basses have been chambered since the beginning of the company, I think-my '75 is definitely chambered, and it has a thicker body than the more modern basses (since there's no separate cavity for the preamp card). In terms of the sound, there is a hint of air around the note, and the attack is a little rounder than my other basses. It's not as pronounced as it would be with a bass like the Lakland hollowbody or a Starfire, but it's certainly noticeable.

And Kris has it right-the bass is quite audible unplugged thanks to the hollow wings, although it's not enough for anything beyond personal practice.

bigbadbill · « **Reply #14 on:** August 15, 2008, 05:42:30 AM »

My MK Signature Triple O is chambered/hollow; when I first made enquiries via the Bass Centre I requested a hollow body for reasons of weight and they were told (or so they informed me) that in order to have a true hollow body I would have to have rear laminates.

Now thinking about this, I seem to remember a conversation I had a long time ago with Susan where she said that all the MK Sigs had been chambered since *insert a date I can't remember*. if this is the case I'm not sure why I needed back lams - although they're gorgeous and I wouldn't change them for the world - as it appears that MKs are now typically chambered but don't have back lams. It also makes me wonder whether or not my bass is MORE hollow than a typically chambered Alembic (it weighs about 10.5lbs or so, so it's difficult to tell by weight alone).

My understanding is basically that the MK Standards were once solid (born out by the weight of many older ones I've played), then at some time in the not too distant past they became chambered.

I believe you can hear the chambering in my TO, although without comparing it to an identically constructed instrument without chambering it's difficult to advise how much. There does indeed seem to be a bit more air round the note, and I would agree the attack seems a little rounder. It certainly sounds very different acoustically to any of my other basses.

One thing I will say is that if anything my bass is quieter acoustically than my Rickenbackers (must be all that maple and chrome!).