tauzero

Once upon a time, on a ferry to France, I was witness to the entertainment provided by Sid and Doris Bonkers, who, with the aid of their trusty drum machine, and apparently entirely intentionally, managed to play 'Delilah' in 4/4 time

That's not very exciting. It's not your own is it by any chance? "This forum is for the discussion of Ebay auctions. Please do not promote your own auctions. If you have something to sell, please use the For Sale forums."

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1336030262' post='1639597'] If you bid £100 on something with a £100 reserve the price automatically goes to £100 to meet that reserve. [/quote] I thought that was how it worked, but after reading the responses I did some checking and indeed the requirement is for the bidding to reach the reserve (ie. it gets there under the power of competing bids) rather than a single bid being at or above the reserve value.

Questions about rewiring speakers to give different impedances crop up with monotonous regularity. This is a quick guide to what you can get from wiring up speakers differently, where the speakers will be evenly loaded. When I refer to 2, 4 or 8 speaker cabs, that means 2, 4 or 8 of the same size speakers. A 12" speaker with a horn is not a 2 speaker cab in this context. Wiring speakers up to impedances of under 4 ohms or over 16 ohms is not recommended, and I'd personally avoid anything over 8 ohms. What this means, when you look at the potential values, is that rewiring speakers is pointless as you'll either let the magic smoke out of the amp or give your amp the equivalent load to pedalling a bike up Mount Everest through treacle while pulling a garden roller. 2 speaker cabs 4 ohm drivers 2 ohm, 8 ohm 8 ohm drivers 4 ohm, 16 ohm 16 ohm drivers 8 ohm, 32 ohm 4 speaker cabs 4 ohm drivers 1 ohm, 4 ohms, 16 ohms 8 ohm drivers 2 ohms, 8 ohms, 32 ohms 16 ohm drivers 4 ohms, 16 ohms, 64 ohms 8 speaker cabs 4 ohm drivers 0.5 ohms, 2 ohms, 8 ohms, 32 ohms 8 ohm drivers 1 ohm, 4 ohms, 16 ohms, 64 ohms 16 ohm drivers 2 ohms, 8 ohms, 32 ohms, 128 ohms

There is a way of doing it in an analogue fashion. IIRC, you modulate the original signal with the signal phase shifted by 90 degrees. I remember doing it with a Sinclair Projoect 60 Z30 amplifier module in a home-made multieffects unit in about 1973 (hence being a bit vague on the details).

[quote name='chrismuzz' timestamp='1335967667' post='1638771'] I also read that they can be heavier than t40s. [/quote] Good grief. Do they make them out of the stuff that Trace Elliot use to line their cabs?

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1335877218' post='1637362'] "My job is taking the controls out of basses." [/quote] "It's a manual job. That means I do it once a year."

I must admit to a slight lift on an eyebrow on noticing that it has a reserve on it (and it's more than £10-50).

[quote name='essexbasscat' timestamp='1334922273' post='1623471'] If one instrument plays a note of say 240 Hz and a second instrument plays a note of 435 Hz, why does the speaker produce two notes and not the one note associated with the sound of 240 + 435 = 675 Hz ? [/quote] The speaker emits a complex waveform that contains the two notes, plus components equal to the sum and the difference of their frequencies. So you do also get a 675Hz note and a 195Hz note. Do you ever tune up using harmonics or 5th fret and open string? That low frequency that you hear is the beat frequency - the note produced by the difference of the two principle notes.

Not bothered by the fretboard material on a bass. It does actually have a bit of effect on guitar - if you're doing string bends and you've got quite an open-grained rosewood fretboard, it's somewhat rather less smooth to do than on a maple fretboard. As I only do string bends once every six months or so, that's not a major factor for me.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1334960852' post='1624233'] Nail varnish remover is also a good one for getting rid of the goo. [/quote] Could be risky on some finishes, acetone is quite a potent solvent. Things like binding and plastic knobs would also be at risk. I've used white spirit for years for sticker goo removal and not had any problems.

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1335216031' post='1627561'] Interesting bit of blurb there, but I wonder how much of it is true? [/quote] The bits saying "THIS IS NOT A MATSUMOKU" probably are.

I don't play in anything other than standard tuning and mostly use 5s, but I wouldn't get rid of the Warwick 4s and the fretless 4 is the one I use for the ceilidh band. I just like to have a reason to keep it.

[quote name='TRBboy' timestamp='1334872373' post='1622856'] I've been looking at the Peavey Millenium BXP 5, and all the reviews seem positive, but I've never tried one. Anyone had/played one? [/quote] I've had a play of the Millennium 5 and I preferred the Grind 5 (which you should be able to get for £200 second-hand, have a look on That Ebay).

[quote name='GregBass' timestamp='1334586123' post='1618026'] Errr - unless things have changed since my Warwicks were made, they don't use screws to secure the back plates. They are clips, a bit like the battery compartments of DVD remote controls. Putting in any type fo bracing that pushes onto the backplate would be pointless as the first sign of pressure would just pop the backplate off. [/quote] In the interest of complete accuracy, early Warwicks had separate battery and control covers and the control covers were held on by screws (6 in the case of my Thumb) which screw into brass inserts. I don't know when the changeover to clip-on covers happened, but it was before 2000.

The EAD Foundation 112 should be emerging in the near future - going by the 212, the 112 will be worth checking out.

I've just emailed them to ask.. [quote] I noticed in your description of the 660 that you refer to the "trademark checkered binding". I understand that the headstock and body shapes are trademarked, but is this chequered binding actually a trademark? Regards [/quote]

The necks. The JD Thumb and the defretted Thumb with JD neck dimensions, the Antoniotsai 5, and now the Sei fretless 5. The sound of the Warwicks and the Sei are all complex, the Antoniotsai less so but still sounds pretty good to me.

While trying to find out what trademark legislation might apply to Rickenbackers and copies in the UK, I happened across [url="http://www.rickenbacker.com/model.asp?model=660/12"]this description[/url] on Rickenbacker's website. What made me curious was that they refer to 'Rickenbacker's trademark "checkered" black and white binding'. Now I know that, at least in the US, there is trademark on the headstock and body shapes, and RIC is obliged to pursue breaches of that trademark in the US otherwise they stand to lose it, but is the chequered binding really a trademark or are Rickenbacker using the term in a rather less than strict legal context?

First, if you like the way it feels, that's good. Keep it. You just need to make it sound how you want it to sound. Second, have you considered string choice? There seems to have been plenty said about the hardware, but no-one yet has mentioned the actual boingy things that make the noise. If you're playing flatwounds and want sizzle, that's your problem right there.

There's quite a lot of Rick copies that look uncannily like real Ricks. Perhaps all auctions for what are purportedly real Ricks should be flagged to Ebay - after all, as I'm sure Mr Hall would agree, you can't be too careful...

Real men don't need fret markers at 3 and 9...

If you're about to head off to Bass Direct, make sure Mark is back off his hols first (think he's away till the 10th).

I had one too - a fretless with slap plates, and IIRC a little piezo pickup in the neck joint that would pick up the percussive sound of the slap.