mcgraham

[quote]To quote from the4 specifications (you did all read the specifications, didn't you?): "Including Warwick "User Kit", 1 extra EMP string set, 1 Ltd. Edition Signature Sheet, 1 Body Chest Bow, 1 Bass stand" The words "bass" and "stand" may provide a clue. As there's some sort of brass socket right on the midline of the body at the end between the tuners, possibly said bass stand consists of a short stick on a base, which plugs into said socket in a Freudian fashion. I initially wondered if it was so you could emulate the Dean Pace fretless-onna-stick with it.[/quote] I imagined there would be a stand, and I imagined that a stand would be the most suitable means for it to stand upright. But for the life of me I can't imagine a stand that has support from below that wouldn't interfere with the tuners or wouldn't leave the bass somewhat precariously balanced. Perhaps if there were two members to support it that contacted the periphery of the heel of the bass, although that still leaves it open to being easily knocked over (IMO). [quote]I may be wrong ( often am but don't tell the wife ) but i think the original was supplied with a custom stand, oh i love the semi, even with my new found love of Warwick's i still think i would go for a Guild starfire though.[/quote] What was the custom stand like? How did it work? [quote]I may be wrong ( often am but don't tell the wife )[/quote] Don't worry, I don't think acknowledging that we're often wrong will help our situation any, it seems the female species just generally adopts that viewpoint... though that is perhaps in light of the fact that they're always right. Mark

PM me your email and I'll email it on. Anyone else who's interested please feel free to do likewise. Mark

I think that one may be slightly different, the one I know is Hanon: the complete virtuoso pianist. Has 60 exercises in, the first third are really useful, the other two thirds I haven't worked much on, if at all. I've got a PDF copy if anyone is interested. Mark

Just to play devils advocate, even for a moment, I quite like the look of the headless model. However, the [i]instant[/i] you start to look at the design you realise how totally impractical it is. How on earth is it supposed to stand up without knocking the tuners out of position, and your strings out of tune with them? Even if they were locking, who wants their bass resting entirely on their tuning heads? I guess you could always hang it by its... oh wait... bugger Mark

Update: Good news, looks like a local luthier will be able to do me exactly what I'm after at the price point I'm after. Decided on 34" scale, 16" radius, and will possibly start a new thread in the build diary if it qualifies. As I said before, other work will be done on it such as a new ramp, install eq, replace bridge, new tuners etc. I will keep you all posted. Mark

(Edited that previous message if anyone wanted to read the changes) Jamie is dead on with regards singing. If you want to transcribe something/play it by ear, singing is a great way to internalise a phrase, even before you can play it. If you treat your voice as a second instrument, and work on it such that you can actually use it the same way you'd use a physical instrument, you'll NEVER be without a means for improvising, transcribing, 'playing' along with others. Mark

Personally, I found Hanon (piano pedagogogological exercises (spelling anyone?) as advocated by a certain Mr Janek Gwizdala) to be immensely helpful. Just a couple of exercises are enough from the point of view of string skipping, arpeggios, multiple notes per string to one etc. As was said previously, doing stuff that isn't written/'meant' for bass is great, it'll force your chops to higher level. Plus, it'll expand your ear. What I do now is identify things that I can't do to the same standard as other things. For instance, doing 7th arpeggios + string skipping, I created an exercise where I play the 1,3,7, then descend to the 5 in the key of C (say) then do the same for the G (one string below), shift up to the D, then A etc etc so effectively cycling through in 5ths although that wasn't the point. I should point out I'm playing the appropriate 7th arpeggio for each one. Another one I've identified is triplets. I have several techniques I use for triplets T 1 2, 1 2 3, T 2 3 (finger number) that I can do triplets exceedingly fast at (16ths at bout 180?). But 2 fingers isn't quite the same speed (16ths at bout 150?) so I'll be putting together an exercise for that other than scales once I've got through some other more important ones. So, Hanon, for basics. Run a couple of exercises starting at about 16ths at 60 bpm, and slowly work your way up to 16ths at 200bpm or whatever goal you like. NOTE: Pay ATTENTION to what your fingers are doing, don't just blindly try and get through the exercises. We're trying to make our technique coherent and consistent. Decide what is most comfortable, in terms of tension, raking vs strict alternation (I opted for raking), angle of fingers relative to top of the bass, hand angled forward or backward, more curved, less curved? These things change as you improve as well, what works at lower speeds often doesn't work at higher speeds. Constantly reassess where you're at and what you're doing as you improve. If you have any specific technique questions please feel free to message me or ask. I'm not claiming to be the authority on technique, but I don't mind sharing what I've learned from various experiments. Mark

So hard to even attempt to sum up what helps with improvisation, at least in my experience. 1) Practice phrases - (I used the term phrases as opposed to scales because they are also just collections of notes at the end of the day) as was previously said, don't lose sight of the true purpose which is to learn the distinctness of each scale, particularly how one note sounds in relation to another i.e. the distinctive sound of each interval in different contexts. And that extends to phrases too. 2) Apply those scales - do something musical with them, noodle, if you've 'got inside' the sound of a scale or set of intervals (which is really all a scale is) you may even recognise a song that has that sound that you could play along to, transcribe, reharmonise, do a solo too. Pull the tools out of your tool belt. Lesser discussed point... 3) Practice technique - if you don't have the chops to pull off a lick, there's very little chance you'll even be able to find the right notes let alone play them. 1/4 notes, 8ths, 16ths, triplets, arpeggios, 1,2,3,4+ notes per string, skipping string, effective muting, dynamics etc etc. I have certain exercises I use (and add to) such that my chops don't limit what I hear either in my head or from my ears. Practice them daily to maintain your technique. And at the end of the day, set goals, and manageable ones at that. (IMO) Mark

[quote]If you don't move the bridge forward, then you'll have to modify the neck pocket so the heel of the neck sits nearer the bridge. You could muck about with extra/less frets depending on whether you're lengthening or shortening scale length, but you're fudging things and hoping that your bridge has enough mm of margin in it to be able to intonate properly[/quote] I'm with Bigwan on this, you don't [i]have[/i] to move the bridge and you don't have to lose frets either. However you'd need a fretboard that extended beyond the heel, similar to how Warmoth do their 24 fret and 21 fret models (not that they've got alternative scale lengths to choose from...yet!). If it was a custom job I would expect that sort of service, however I need the bridge moving anyway so it's not a big deal either way. I've posted over on TB to get some input on whether a new neck'd help me in my search for a more stable setup, had a useful response already! Status is looking more and more likely at present as Allparts don't appear to have graphite inserts, Warmoth seem to have a reputation for being heavy (the body is way light, not a good combo) and solid graphite (or composite whatever it is!) would certainly ensure a stable relief and setup from the point of view of the neck. Mark

See I want to bring the length down without compromising too much of the looks, a 2+2 looks more than a little dinky for what I'm after. That's a gorgeous bass though! Mark

[quote]I'm going to embark on building a 32.5" scale neck, based upon Precision nut width. The logic behind that decision was because I have longish fingers so that a good string spread is more comfortable, but find the lateral stretching a bit tough for some reason. I'm definitely more P than J. I probably need to toughen up really. Not that it's particularly relevant - I'm going to build it from Bolivian Rosewood (aka Morado), using an African Padauk fingerboard. I've ordered a StewMac HotRod 2 way truss rod. Waiting for the neck blank and truss rod to arrive from the states.[/quote] Sounds like a cool project, you going to post progress pics? Although I don't feel like basses are [i]too[/i] big, they certainly don't need to be as large/long/heavy as they are. Pete Skjold in the states makes the his bodies such that the bridge sits flush with the heel off the bass, no extra inches at that end, and also opts for ?+? tuner configs (string # dependent). Some guys even lop of their headstocks! I just reckon if the headstock shape was done tastefully it would look fine; and, coupled with a 33" or shorter scale length, would knock a fair bit of length off the bass. As I said though, I don't feel my bass is too big, so it's not the end of the world if I can't get it done. Mark

Zero fret is a top idea, although I tend to get my instruments set up bearing that concept in mind i.e. the nut is cut such that the height of the bottom of the string from the fretboard is the same/fractionally higher than the height of the fretwire from the fretboard. News... first response from a luthier is that it will be a lot more expensive than I may have been led to believe, so I may opt for a standard replacement neck such as Warmoth, Allparts or perhaps even Status. I'm hesitant with regards Status though as I can't be sure how great a difference it would make to the tone, and particularly whether I'd like the change with graphite. Anyone here got any experience with replacing their necks with graphite? What were the results? Mark

[quote]I reckon it'd definitely be worth having a chat to a luthier to get their take on it and an idea of the other work involved beyond just getting a neck made. If you're ever in Edinburgh you're more than welcome to have go of my Shuker to see what you think of the shorter scale length.[/quote] Thanks for the offer man! My brother studies up there so when I go up to visit I may swing by. I definitely plan on talking to a luthier seeing as how they'd be making it I'll drop Alex from ACG and Robbie a message as well as Shuker and anyone else you guys would like to recommend. Mark

[quote]Remember, if you're putting a replacement neck on your Geddy, if it's going to be a different scale length, you'll have to reposition the bridge to compensate. If you go for a longer scale, make sure you have room to move the bridge back - I doubt there would be room for a 36" or longer. Jon.[/quote] Anticipated this too. I have a bridge I want to replace the Badass with, the mounting holes fit but it's they're a tad too far back to intonate correctly; so at the time of installation I'd be having additional work done in that I'd have a different bridge mounted and fitted correctly. I'm also going to get a much more professional ramp done, probably same finish as the neck just to match it. I'm potentially going to shell out for an onboard preamp, the ACG EQ02 catches my eye, as does the Villex passive eq. Mark

I agree wholeheartedly I think it’s a great idea. It achieves a much more even tension across the board, creates a more even tonality from string to string and given the right min-max scale lengths would be completely manageable. However, I didn’t find the pros outweighed the cons. Chords in the upper register are unpleasant to finger, visually it’s distracting up there too, finding strings (for wider fans) are difficult and balanced gauges would be even worse. And at the end of the day, I felt a difference, but not a big enough one to make me switch. That’s just my opinion though, for others I know it’s what they’ve been waiting for and never known it. I may consider fanned fret, but I’ll probably say no, if only for the reasons above. Mark

[quote]Why not go for the best of all worlds and get a fanned fret neck!! The Dingwall J-Bass (Novax system) ranges from 34" on the E to 32" on the G I assume you're looking for someone to build you one?[/quote] I am indeed looking for someone to build me one, whilst that would be subtle enough fanning, I didn't really like the fanning of the frets on the dingwalls I tried when in the bass gallery. Plus for a 4 string I’m not sure it’s really worth it. Good idea though! Mark

[quote]One thing to consider though, is that adjusting the string's "speaking" length without changing anything else will effect the relative position of the pickups, if you see what I mean. It would be like shifting the pickups slightly closer to the neck. It won't be too drastic on a 33" scale, but any shorter might make a big difference to the sound from the pickups.[/quote] Already thought of that, like you say, won't be too noticeable on a 33" scale, and on a 32" scale it's effectively like fretting the 2nd fret and tuning to Eb on a 34" scale. On a longer scale it'd serve to tighten up the sound in the same way moving pickups closer to the bridge than 'normal' would. Do you find there's a discernable, but perhaps unquantifiable benefit in this scale length? Some people say it feels easier to play than a 34" scale length. What's your take on it? Big enough difference to warrant giving the luthier a bit of hassle? [quote]Sounds like a nice project. I would strongly advise to keep to 36" or less scale length. A 38" scale might give you real tendonitis problems unless you have really massive hands and long fingers.[/quote] Thanks for the advice, I've not had any experience with any crazy scale lengths, it's purely the increased string tension that made me consider such scale lengths. Mark

Alright people, pretty sure I'm going to get a replacement neck for my Geddy, I couldn't decide whether I wanted the sturdiness of a graphite neck or the woodyness of a maple neck so I'm opting for a graphite reinforced maple neck. I'm wanting the same sound, feel and look as the current one just without the pesky shifting, so it'll look dang near identical to a Geddy neck (probably get whoever does it to measure it up and copy it). HOWEVER, I'm up for some subtle changes as it's (likely) going to be made from scratch. 1) Scale length - I'm contemplating a different scale length, anywhere from 32" to 38". I'm looking for people to chime in on which scale length they prefer and why. I'm thinking something shorter for the ease of reach, but then the benefits of increased tension in a longer scale length cannot be denied, hence the uncertainty. Realistically I'm looking at 34" vs 33" scale, anything more or less would prove to be too much of an undesirable difference. 2) Fingerboard radius - definitely block inlays on the board but the radius is up for debate. I'm thinking flatter in order to achieve/maintain a lower action even whilst bending. In short, and to make it easier to decide, I'm looking at 16" vs completely flat. Currently leaning towards 16" as it's almost flat but still some radius. 3) Headstock shape - I'm thinking a Fenderish equivalent of the 3+1 arrangement on a Sterling. So imagine a Fender headstock without any holes routed, scale it down in the longitudinal direction, then introduce a 3+1 arrangement. What do you think? Adjusted or standard? Any input would be appreciated, including who to get to do it. If anyone has any price estimates before I start asking around that'd be great! Mark

+1 to loving jazz. What I love about it is the freedom that it gives musicians performing it. Whether you're listening or performing, the freedom is there; whatever you want to play is up to you, there are no confines, it's a genuine musical playground. Mark

[u]Clarus Review[/u] Unlike cabinets, amps have a fair few features, even the simpler ones, as such I won’t pretend to have this one figured just yet. However I do like it, but the reasons I like it will be the very reasons a lot of you won’t like it. This amp is rated at 400W at 4 ohms. It is very natural and very transparent. Whatever you put in, seems to be what you get out, very little colouration. For it’s size, it’s weight and it’s power, it’s hard to beat. Combined with Schroeder I think it’s a winning combination. For that reason I love it. I am a real clean freak, I want a good tone yes, but I believe it should come from you and your bass first (including pickups) and that colouration from amplification and effects (if any) should only be to taste, not the source of your sound. For this reason, the Clarus set to flat is awesome for me. It is neutral sounding. Now, that is where my praise ends. As another BC’er posted, the eq is pretty awful, whilst I wouldn’t go that far, it doesn’t change the sound much at all without some pretty crazy dial rotations. I do like the mid control section as you can get (to my ear) a somewhat convincing Ampeg sound (or at least some identifiable elements of it) out of the amp with only a slight tweak. As a result of the less than stellar eq, I would definitely not dub this a versatile amp, hence a quality preamp + eq is on my next to buy list. In short, you will hear the tone of your cab with this, so it will give you exactly what you want without any undesirable colouration or unpleasant sterileness (NB: avoided the use of the word sterility). If your cab has a good, useable, sound then you’re in luck. However there isn’t much room to manuevre with this amp. You won’t get grit, you won’t get a thick beefy sound unless it was there to begin with or that’s what you’re putting in. In VERY short, it’s clean and clear sounding, and it’s musical. If you want something versatile that does that, look somewhere else. If you don’t mind an additional preamp (like me) I’d recommend it. I will edit as and when it surprises me folks! Mark

Review Ok, so I recently assembled my very first rig. Schroeder 1210L + Acoustic Image Clarus 1 (v.3). I’ve played through many different systems and rigs but never my own, so it’s quite a thrill to have one at long last. I had a band rehearsal last night with it and so was able to listen to it in a band situation. The review is split somewhat into two, firstly a review of the Schroeder, secondly a review of the Clarus. [u]Schroeder 1210L[/u] I was able to play through one in the summer, absolutely loved the tone. It sat so well in the mix, was compact and relatively light (this was the R version sorry). I’d been wanting to try one for a while before that so this only hardened my resolve to get my own. Construction: Top notch. I love the simple, understated look too. My favourite thing about this is that the version I played through in the summer has a knurled metal knob for tweeter control that was too tall compared to its width. It didn’t feel too sturdy and I noticed that between one practice and another it had been bent over to one side. The new one has a large flat dial with nice physical resistance. Feels very secure. Not the biggest fan of standard carpeted cabs, but at least scratches don’t show. I’m pretty sure the other one also only had jack input whilst this has Neutrik locking AND Speakon inputs. Great to have a choice. Weight: Stupidly light, weighs less than your luggage going on holiday. Handles are comfy to carry it with too. Sound: The reason I’ve split the review up is that the Clarus (to my knowledge and IMO) is designed to be a transparent and clear amp, so I reckon I’ve heard a decent representation of the real sonic character of my cab. So, eq flat… at home I liked/loved the tone. It had punch but without being perversely thick, was warm (enough) whilst also being clear, but again without being sterile. I felt it was perhaps a tad too open sounding, almost too neutral perhaps. However I realised that wouldn’t be enough to make a call as it’s all about what it sounds like in the mix. In the mix it sounded fantastic, I had the eq flat, tone rolled off slightly (to about 75% of full) and both pickups on full (DiMarzio Model J’s in a Geddy Lee). When I say fantastic, I mean that I had it significantly louder than a typical practice but it wasn’t overwhelming. It cut through AND sat in the mix (if that makes sense), without being distracting whilst also being noticeable. Essentially the sort of balance you want to achieve with your bass. One thing I would like to point out is that I had the tweeter on 100% and not once did it sound harsh, clanky, nor did it have unnecessary sizzle. Using the tone control when necessary meant it had exactly the right amount treble when necessary and it was always musical. In short, what I felt about the Schroeder before holds true now. They sit astonishingly well in a mix, and with the right amp (as echoed by BC’ers and Tb’ers alike), they produce a wonderful array of tones that just work. They allow you to hear yourself well, but without overwhelming your band mates. I will post my views on the Clarus shortly. Mark