So, I recently traded basses with Darkly Dreaming Dave: My (somewhat worn) Z2 for his very lovely, newer Afterburner 2.
This came about because lately I've been using a LOT of neck pickup, and favoring a more round tone, where the Z2 is more bright and "Stingray-ish".
Dave and I had discussed swapping the first time I considered trading my bass, but I originally decided to keep the Z2.
Since then, Dave got a Sklar Z2 and wanted something more similar to it as a backup.
So, this was a really great trade for both of us.
What this has allowed me is the opportunity to compare an earlier AB to the latest and greatest.
I got my original Afterburner in 2003 -- it was one of the first with FD-3s, and it has an all-maple body. The combination was a bit too bright for me, so when I got my FD-1 equipped Z2, I swapped pickups.
Thus my old Afterburner has unusual electronics; FD-1s combined with a Bartolini NTMB preamp. It's a great sound for rock & roll. Although I never use the onboard EQ, it provides nice buffering.
When the Afterburner 2 showed up, I was pretty floored by the looks of the bass and the tone is right in line with the looks--hot rod! With the FD-3's (possibly Mach 2, I'm not sure) & Aguilar preamp, and walnut body, it's a bright, airy sounding bass. It's also a lot lighter and more shoulder-friendly.
Other things that Dingwall has improved upon; the bridge design is a bit more rounded, and the shoulders of the fretboard have a more gradual round-over so that the overall profile feels a bit softer.
But I guess what really impressed me was the consistency of execution of the Dingwall concept--5 years apart, these basses are more similar than different.
The moral of the story, I guess, is that there is no such thing as a bad Dingwall. The newer basses have some incredibly nice refinements, but the older basses are far from obsolete.
When you start at perfection, you aren't fixing flaws, so much as adding "wow" factor.
Thank you Dave & thank you Sheldon!
John