[quote="Sheldon Dingwall":2gk66tle]I hadn't thought about it. I do have one question. Would you guys prefer a solid or semi-hollow? The difference is about 1/2 lb and of course the tone.[/quote:2gk66tle] In my experience with the Super J which is somewhat chambered, I do appreciate it more than if it'd had been solid, as you say weight saving is paramount, but I couldn't tell the difference in tone as I have not tried one of your solid J's or P's but I am 100% in favour of having it chambered. The one thing I would dare to suggest Sheldon, would be perhaps a more polite preamp, one that doesn't kick you in the "knick-knacks" when you engage it, with a mid control for enhancing the natural middley tone of a P bass. I am confident that whatever you come up with will be ace!

Low weight is important for me, so chambers or none, as long as the weight is in the 7.5 - 9.2 lb range, I would be happy (8.5 would be a good target weight). As for a preamp; none! Volume, tone - that's it (for me). I definitely think having a passive only version should at least be an option. Overall, I still think I would prefer 18mm spacing at the bridge, but I am not sure it would make sense to have a slimmer neck/spacing on a P than on a Jazz unless it is something you'd plan on making available as an option on both. And while we're discussing the details, I actually think the 5-string scale length of 35" - 32" is really good. It's the best of both worlds; long on the bottom and short and punchy on the top. Aesthetically, you may even consider having a pickup that shows the pole-pieces or maybe even try a traditional set like the Nordstrand NP5's.

Although I'm not going to be in a position to buy one of these for some time I would really like to see an 18mm option for the spacing in line with all the other models. Some of us weekend warriors do have difficulty in switching between different string spacing. Although my next Dingwall was going to be an ABII I would really consider an SP if 18mm was an option.

[quote="Smallmouth_Bass":23wqe6nf]Low weight is important for me, so chambers or none, as long as the weight is in the 7.5 - 9.2 lb range, I would be happy (8.5 would be a good target weight).[/quote:23wqe6nf] [b:23wqe6nf]I agree![/b:23wqe6nf] [quote="Smallmouth_Bass":23wqe6nf] As for a preamp; none! Volume, tone - that's it (for me). I definitely think having a passive only version should at least be an option. [/quote:23wqe6nf] [b:23wqe6nf]I disagree[/b:23wqe6nf]: Look if you keep it passive, with just volume and tone, then the only difference between this and a real Fender Precision would be the scale and the fanned frets, then you might as well save the cash, and buy yourself a Fender which is cheaper, don't you think? The fact that it will be a SUPER P apart from having Sheldon's clever mojo built into it, it will also have the option of active preamp as well as a passive by-pass, so that you can have the classic tone untouched but you can also have "ninja power" when you want to get more experimental, and kick some real booty. [quote="Smallmouth_Bass":23wqe6nf] Overall, I still think I would prefer 18mm spacing at the bridge, but I am not sure it would make sense to have a slimmer neck/spacing on a P than on a Jazz unless it is something you'd plan on making available as an option on both. [/quote:23wqe6nf] I am not too sure I agree: frankly I like the 5 string Super J and the 19mm spacing, and I would welcome it on a Super P, you know tried and tested, nothing bad can be expected, what if 18mm turns out to be too close on a shorter scale? [quote="Smallmouth_Bass":23wqe6nf] And while we're discussing the details, I actually think the 5-string scale length of 35" - 32" is really good. It's the best of both worlds; long on the bottom and short and punchy on the top. [/quote:23wqe6nf] Exactly! Couple that with the 19mm spacing and you are at home in your slippers, pipe in one hand, brandy in the other. [quote="Smallmouth_Bass":23wqe6nf] Aesthetically, you may even consider having a pickup that shows the pole-pieces or maybe even try a traditional set like the Nordstrand NP5's.[/quote:23wqe6nf] No not for me... Sheldon's shells are lovely and bartolinesque, poles can pull the strings down and play havoc with harmonics and intonation on such a low action instrument. Plus poles are prone to rust and decay if exposed to sweat and other agents.

[quote="Grand Wazoo":qsgwswhg] [b:qsgwswhg]I disagree[/b:qsgwswhg]: Look if you keep it passive, with just volume and tone, then the only difference between this and a real Fender Precision would be the scale and the fanned frets, then you might as well save the cash, and buy yourself a Fender which is cheaper, don't you think? The fact that it will be a SUPER P apart from having Sheldon's clever mojo built into it, it will also have the option of active preamp as well as a passive by-pass, so that you can have the classic tone untouched but you can also have "ninja power" when you want to get more experimental, and kick some real booty. [/quote:qsgwswhg] I have a Fender P5 and like it. I'd potentially off it in favour of a SP5. The scale, fanned frets and the [u:qsgwswhg]playability[/u:qsgwswhg] would be the main difference. Plus, having no preamp, rear battery route and magnetic cover would keep the cost down (I hope!). I think active should be available, but passive should be an option. [quote="Grand Wazoo":qsgwswhg] I am not too sure I agree: frankly I like the 5 string Super J and the 19mm spacing, and I would welcome it on a Super P, you know tried and tested, nothing bad can be expected, what if 18mm turns out to be too close on a shorter scale? [/quote:qsgwswhg] Just a personal preference. When Sheldon posted a poll of string spacing preference in advance of the SJ5 development, I think that's why I voted 18.5mm; it's a good compromise between the two camps and probably wouldn't be a deal breaker for either. [quote="Grand Wazoo":qsgwswhg] No not for me... Sheldon's shells are lovely and bartolinesque, poles can pull the strings down and play havoc with harmonics and intonation on such a low action instrument. Plus poles are prone to rust and decay if exposed to sweat and other agents. [/quote:qsgwswhg] I actually do like the ones the way they are now. Luckly my hands don't often sweat, so rusting pickups and hardware have never been a problem for me. Jjango's gold Dingwall SP5 mockup photo has me salivating! Of course I don't need it - the SPJ5 gets me everything I need in that respect - but it's just so darn purdy!

Passive option would be cool. I find that Glock preamp just enhances unpleasant upper mid frequencies. I remember just not being able to get rid of the harshness on my super J.

For the prototypes we'll be going with the P-retro. Passive would also be an option. P's and J's have large bodies which make them heavy. Tone chambers reduce weight but up the cost. Making the body thinner reduces weight and opens up the tone? I'd like to hear your thoughts on a thinner body. 1-1/2" (38mm) like the Z series would be a good place to start. I built a P body 20 years ago that was this thickness and I thought it sounded amazing.

[quote="Sheldon Dingwall":3mpxi7g4]For the prototypes we'll be going with the P-retro. Passive would also be an option. P's and J's have large bodies which make them heavy. Tone chambers reduce weight but up the cost. Making the body thinner reduces weight and opens up the tone? I'd like to hear your thoughts on a thinner body. 1-1/2" (38mm) like the Z series would be a good place to start. I built a P body 20 years ago that was this thickness and I thought it sounded amazing.[/quote:3mpxi7g4] Good idea on the thin body Sheldon, as long as it will retain the classic P shape and style and the body contour which also plays an important role in comfort. Fender did a line called Aerodyne with a much thinner body which was very comfortable. However for some reason didn't impress much in the way of pickups / sounds Here is a pic of one [img:3mpxi7g4]http://www.zikinf.com/_gfx/matos/dyn/large/fender-aerodyne-classic-precision-bass-special_3.jpg[/img:3mpxi7g4]

Refine away! I've always thought the Fender P's were over large, heavy and kind clunky. Not much more than a slab of wood with too few curves. Add a thick, chunky, too wide, half round neck feel, and it's just not much fun to play. The only thing that would make the SJ-5 better would be taking a couple pounds off the weight. Under 8 lb would be a treat!

As long as the thickness (or thinness) is not too extreme, I'd say it is worth a shot. Is it possible to make a slightly reduced P-shaped body or does it have to be a certain size to accommodate the slanted bridge without overhanging the body on the bass strings?

Oddly there's enough room for the bridge. I haven't reduced the perimeter due to Dave's wishes to have the body profile full sized. He's a big guy.

[quote="Sheldon Dingwall":2b47wvbo]Oddly there's enough room for the bridge. I haven't reduced the perimeter due to Dave's wishes to have the body profile full sized. He's a big guy.[/quote:2b47wvbo] He certainly is... [img:2b47wvbo]http://www.daveswiftbass.com/images/liveshots/live-jools-dingwall.jpg[/img:2b47wvbo]

Wow...that Prima looks like a toy with him holding it. I have a Z6 and it seems huge.

Just to be clear. I'm thinking thin, but not Aerodyne thin. What's the thickness of those? 1"?

I think they're tapered towards the outer edges, but still thin overall. I haven't really thought about it or noticed it before, but are the SJ's thinner than a standard J?

All I have to say about the SuperP is that it should definately be possible to have passive! For me even wired straight to Jack! I'd like to hear more about the bridge influencing the tone of the different strings... what's the objective with this? Would reverse P be an option? thanks ps My ABZ6 for sale will probably stay until these are in full production!

[quote="Willem":1t5xrz6t]All I have to say ....[/quote:1t5xrz6t] I'm sorry, I got more to say I don't have any experience with thick vs thin bodies nor solid vs chambered. But IMO an instrument that's heavy isn't comfortable to play during long sets. And a P should be punchy.

Sheldon on the subject of the thickness of an Aerodyne, I've asked in Basschat if anyone knew the body thickness and this was his reply: [color=#00FF00:26kujhg8][size=95:26kujhg8][b:26kujhg8][i:26kujhg8]"It's actually quite tricky to do without a large enough caliper because of the tapering...but at the neck joint lower cutaway where it's easiest to get a ruler in, it measures between 41 and 42mm. This is within a mm or 2 of my MIJ 75. The back profile is flat either side of the centreline for a total width of between 11 and 12 cm, before falling off quite sharply on the wings. The front has a more gradual contour that appears to start closer to the centre, maybe 6-7 cm around the centreline is flat at the bridge end. I can't tell if the radius is compound along the length the body but looks like it might be a bit. The body contours at their furthest (thinnest) edges from the centreline are just ~17mm thick, the horns at their furthest are ~27mm. It's a very comfy body shape to play except it could still do with the forearm contouring of a standard jazz. Hope that helps! "[/i:26kujhg8][/b:26kujhg8][/size:26kujhg8][/color:26kujhg8]