Grangur

They offered me an MBE but I turned it down. It's too expensive parking up in London just for a garden party.

There are a lot of songs that people think as coming from "The Blues Brothers". Sadly, I don't believe anything originates from that film. I used to listen to the tracks and think "I'm sure I know this from somewhere else". So I looked some up and here are some of the tracks and their origins. [b]Peter Gunn Theme[/b] "Peter Gunn" is the theme music composed by Henry Mancini for the television show of the same name. The song was the opening track on the original soundtrack album, The Music from Peter Gunn, released in 1959 as RCA Victor LPM/LSP-1956. [b]Gimme Some Lovin'[/b] - Spencer Davis Group 1967 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcxYX8KPhGk [b]Shake a [/b][b]tail[/b][b] Feather[/b] Written by Otha Hayes, Verlie Rice, and Andre Williams, this is a song originally recorded in 1963 by the Chicago-based group The Five Du-Tones Does shake your tail feather mean get moving or move quickly or something? ... Nope, it means shake your ass. It was a song recorded by several artists. [b]"Everybody Needs Somebody to Love"[/b] is a song written by Bert Berns, Solomon Burke and Jerry Wexler, and originally recorded by Solomon Burke under the production of Bert Berns at Atlantic Records in 1964. Burke's version charted in 1964, but missed the US top 40, peaking at number 58. Wilson Pickett covered the song in 1966, and his version (which explicitly mentions Solomon Burke in the opening section) made it to #29 pop, and #19 R&B in early 1967. Other notable versions of "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love" were recorded by The Rolling Stones and The Blues Brothers. "Let Us Go Back to the Old Landmark", also known as [b]"The Old Landmark"[/b], is a gospel song. Sometimes credited as "traditional", it was written by W. Herbert Brewster and published in 1949 in an arrangement by Virginia Davis. It was recorded by Brewster's own group, the Brewster Singers, and by many other gospel performers including Edna Gallmon Cooke, Clara Ward, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, and The Staple Singers. Later recordings were made by Aretha Franklin, Dionne Warwick, and Sweet Honey in the Rock. Some of the recordings credit the writing of the song to Adeline Brunner (as A.M. or A.H. Brunner). It is featured in the 1980 film The Blues Brothers, where it is performed by James Brown with the Rev. James Cleveland Choir. It also appears on the film's soundtrack album. [b]Minnie the Moocher[/b] http://youtu.be/8mq4UT4VnbE "Minnie the Moocher" is a jazz song first recorded in 1931 by Cab Calloway and His Orchestra, selling over a million copies. "Minnie the Moocher" is most famous for its nonsensical ad libbed ("scat") lyrics (for example, "Hi De Hi De Hi De Hi"). In performances, Calloway would have the audience participate by repeating each scat phrase in a form of call and response. Eventually Calloway's phrases would become so long and complex that the audience would laugh at their own failed attempts to repeat them. "Minnie the Moocher" was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame in 1999. In case you're wondering, the "hoochie coochie" is a catch-all term to describe any of a number of sexually provocative belly dance-like dances. [b]Sweet [/b][b]home[/b][b] Chicago[/b] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8hqGu-leFc "Sweet Home Chicago" is a blues standard first recorded by Robert Johnson in 1936. Although he is often credited as the songwriter, several songs have been identified as precedents. The song has become a popular anthem for the city of Chicago despite ambiguity in Johnson's original lyrics. Numerous artists have interpreted the song in a variety of styles. Still, you have to give it to The Blues Brothers, they gave us some good versions of all these songs. While I'm at it; an old blues fav of mine is "Little Red Rooster". The Rollin' Stones gave us a good version. Howlin' Wolf covered it, but the original was written and performed by Willie Dixon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJVeHKVcE8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW4FE8WkvuM ...and, as he's no longer with us, as of 2017. http://youtu.be/LOxiSJsjjU0 Hope you enjoy these.

[quote name='steantval' timestamp='1508868124' post='3395015'] Is that the old or new £1 coin ? [/quote] It was the old coin at the time. I'd still try it with the new one. Pup height isn't too critical IMHO.

[quote name='MoJo' timestamp='1508850596' post='3394844'] I use a 5p piece. They vary in thickness slightly but I've found one that is as near as makes no difference, 2mm thick [/quote] That's a good one. I also use a £1 coin for the distance from strings to pickup.

[quote name='LewisK1975' timestamp='1508765854' post='3394261'] I think strings are relevant to how low you can get your action. Also fingerboard radius plays a part. As does having a well cut nut / level frets / neck relief etc... But I digress.... [/quote] Adjusting the action should take the radius into account. I use an Allen key under each string to measure heights and get them all the same distance from the fret.

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1508781615' post='3394395'] Not quite the path of least resistance, more the path determined by the current flow of the whole circuit. With a passive input in an amplifier the input is generally like 1M upwards (much lower on active), a pot of 500k means that more of the power of the pickup is going through the volume pot then down the cable. With 250, obviously even more is going through the pot, so it does make a huge difference. Because of the power going through the pickup there is loss in the pickup and there is loss in the long cable on the way to the amplifier (I like treble, that is why I always have an active bass, I would rather remove the treble by choice later). I don't know what a ballpark figure of an unloaded voltage output of your average pickup is, the internet shows just various amounts of crazy to figures. Might measure it tonight and work it out. When you draw the whole circuit out there is more going on then you would think. [/quote] Thank you for that. It's very true, it's easy for us to look only at the bass circuit in isolation, bit elections don't see it that way.

[quote name='Bigwan' timestamp='1508777971' post='3394368'] Da web say: Using higher value pots (500K) will give the guitar a brighter sound and lower value pots (250K) will give the guitar a slightly warmer sound. This is because higher value pots put less of a load on the pickups which prevents treble frequencies from "bleeding" to ground through the pot and being lost. I can neither confirm nor deny... But my thoughts are that this only comes into play if you turn your volume down from max, otherwise how could it make any difference as you're shorting out the pot's resistance with the volume all the way up? Perhaps it's why passive diehards say their basses sound better with the volume at 90%? [/quote] With a VVT set up I've generally found if you turn both volumes to full, the output dips. If you back one or both off a little, the output comes back up. Never worked out why that is, but I've also never thought about it much as I don't own one.

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1508773571' post='3394310'] In fairness a bit speculative on my part - I swapped a 250k pot for 500 in a P copy fitted with a DiMarzio Model P, specifically to make it brighter and more aggressive - pleased with the result, and it does seem louder too. Did a lot of reading about this beforehand - including accounts of people with P/J setups using combinations of different values to balance the output levels. That was of interest to me because I have a P/J equipped bass which has this problem, and was considering seeing if a 500 on the lower-output J would help even things out. Fully admit I have no real understanding of the science involved - I just muck about with a soldering iron! [/quote] It could, of course, be the replacement pots were better quality. This wouldn't surprise me as you look out good quality pots and the manufacturer wouldn't.

True, taking a plane to narrow the fingerboard would be a tad drastic.

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1508760095' post='3394178'] Might be worth experimenting with different pot values - if it has 250s (which I'd guess it probably does), maybe swap for 500s, which will tend to let a little bit more level through. Plenty of info out there if you google 250k vs 500k pots. [/quote] At full volume the resistance of a 500K ohm pot is Zero ohms in the path of the hot wire. At full volume, the resistance of 250K ohm pot is Zero ohms in the path of the hot wire. The resistance from the hot wire to earth, through the pot, will be the max resistance of the pot. Yet a negligible amount of signal will go through the pot main resistance to earth because it takes the path of least resistance. So I'd be interested to know the science behind this. 500K pots can make the sound more metallic/aggressive, but I can't see how it can be louder. I would genuinely be interested to know. Not being funny, honest.

I set mine to 2.5mm at the 24th. Having just measured one at the 17th, it's about 1.6mm.

[quote name='largo' timestamp='1508764057' post='3394235'] I've had a few Warwick's in my time & still hark back to the '88 Stage II I owned many years ago. Didn't like the Thumb and always found it a "stretch" to play for some reason! Biggest bug bear with Warwick is this... I had a "broad neck" 5-string Stage II which had a neck like a tree trunk and 20mm string spacing & then tried a standard spacing 5-string Stage II with 16.5mm spacing. Why can't Warwick make a 5-string with a standard string spacing, i.e. 18mm or 19mm spacing. [/quote] The Thumb is a bigger stretch. The scale length 34", so the same as most basses, but by having a small body and short top-horn, the whole thing, when on a strap, hangs slightly further to the left than most basses. This is all fine and well, if you're going to be playing high up the neck to slap the high tones, but if you're going to play where we bass players are told we should be, then you're going to need long arms. As for the spacing, you can adjust the spacing down to about 17mm, so you only need to know how to do it. Why can't Fender et al make basses with adjustable spacing on the bridges? It's not rocket science. Except, of course, they've managed to educate folk to accept poor engineering at inflated prices. But that's my humble opinion. Others take a different view.

[quote name='TheGreek' timestamp='1508582353' post='3393063'] Martin [email protected] He's a member here... [/quote] [quote name='TheGreek' timestamp='1508612196' post='3393372'] I've just sent Martin an email on the address I left...hasn't bounced back. Martin designed and built the (invisible) front pick ups on my Psilos bass - sound great. [/quote] Hey Mick, you can't have a space in an email address. Also ".com" would be unusual to have in there. Are you sure you've posted what you're using?

As we all know there is loads of discussion on here from time to time about tonewoods and different bridges etc. As a Warwick owner I'll be the first to defend the use of good materials, but being frank, if you're getting low output you need to look at more fundamental things. If you're using your normal flavour of strings and pickups and getting low output, you need to look at: 1 - Set up - Check the distance from the string to the top of the pup, when fretted at the bottom of the neck, should be no more than about 5mm. 2 - Electrical losses - Check there are no losses between the pickup and the jack. A good check is to take the wires of the pup and solder them direct to the terminals of the jack and make sure you're getting a good output. I can see no reason why this won't give you something good as you're using good pups. If the above all checks out and you're getting a fair output with the pups straight to the jack, then you need to take a look at the wiring loom. In which case I'd look to replace the whole loom if it's passive.

All the bubinga I've seen has been a lot more red than that. It looks interesting, but I guess you're wanting to know how to correctly describe it.

Probably not taken by a muso, more likely someone with an eye on the ££££

Not good to hear.

[quote name='Kellboy' timestamp='1508353551' post='3391661'] Just checked their site and they do have some, still about 1hr 30 each way! They have a nice Streamer LX for 950, very nice! Not sure on that string spacing, looks tight. [/quote] Don't forget the string spacing on a Warwick is adjustable at the bridge. At the nut, they have 2 widths: 45mm or 47mm. That will be a 45mm. If your last one was a broad neck it was probably a 47mm. I have a 45mm width on both of mine and find them fine. But each to their own...

Here's my collection The Fender has gone now. So, I now only have Warwicks. I used to have a 5 string Thumb. The Thumb was heavy at 5Kg. It had neck dive and the pups are too far back to my liking. I like the sound of the neck pup. .. but each to their own.

Sarah just bought a Vantage bass from me. Great communication and a pleasure to deal with. Would be very happy to deal again. Thanks, Sarah.