Posted by Mike on April 18, 2001 at 17:07:39:
In Reply to: Thanks: but which did you prefer? posted by daveemac on April 18, 2001 at 15:09:44:
But yes, it does balance a little awkwardly. I found I needed the "dingus" they sell to balance it better. It's a little extension that fits above the bolts on the neck. The balance issue is the weak point of Turner's design
But I still liked the ren better. To me, there is no more "musical" electric bass. It has the responsivess and feel of an all acoustic instrument without the feedback and volume limitations. It responds to all the subtle playing variations you throw at it, and it can go from funky to lyrical in an instant. The notes have a bloom and decay that's much nicer than any bass I've played. The electronics are voiced about perfectly. I'm not sure what you mean by "woody," but the Turner has a remarkably organic feel. The Allen, to me, felt a little more like a conventional electric bass. As to which is more like an upright, well, you can get a good upright imitation going with a fretted precision bass, as long as your definition of upright is "thumpy, boomy and fat."
But if your goal is to mimic an upright, I'm not sure the Turner is the best bet. It swings like an upright does, because the notes have such a varied attack and "blossom." But it tends to sustain longer than an upright does--i dunno, it's hard to describe. I've had the ren for years and it still surprises me.
Turner, in my opinion, is one of the two or three most importna tguys in the history of electric instruments, especially basses. The Ren is its own thing. It's just really musical--it responds like a good acoustic instrument does.
I got mine, a four string fretless-- for 1200
Post a Followup