RaNoFuNkY

That's my point. I guess we'll never know - as Ernie Ball don't sell short scale flatwounds at the moment?! Given that there are a few errors on their website about specifications, and that I don't detune that low for Vulf covers, I just presumed this was an error.

Still struggling to see how short scale 45-105 gauge flats happily hit bottom C - and why this is standard spec here, given that he doesn't de-tune or rely on a 5 string for Vulf work?

Surely that's a typo? Do they mean Concert pitch? No Vulf track needs to be in Low C anyway? And on a 30", with 45-105 gauge?!

Apparently the bass comes with Ernie Ball Short Scale Flatwounds. I don't believe any such short scale string actually exists? Is this to become a new product? I don't trust buying the long scale flats and trimming them...

Cheers all. Trying to avoid adding a separate loop at this stage - but I can see I might have too. The omnilooper looks interesting, and the routing on the Source Audio looks good too. Thanks for the suggestions.

Broughton comes closest, but not in stock: https://www.broughtonaudio.com/product-page/filter-fx-loop Any others out there?

Does anyone know of an EQ pedal which has its own effects loop? By switching on such a pedal, it would engage all the pedals in the effects loop, and applies the EQ? It would need EQ and gain/level control. The EHX Tri Parallel Mixer comes close - but is a little overkill for my needs. I'm looking for a smaller footprint too. If not, I'll just use a simple loop pedal, and include a separate EQ pedal at the end of that loop's signal. Thanks

It's nuts that fender would put out such a confusing image!? I would also take that to be asymmetrical. I don't see how another other conclusion can be made! That imagine indicates that a "modern C" would be asymmetrical - and I don't believe that is the case. I find their explanations so frustrating - what then is a "60s C" in comparison to a "Modern C" and "Slim C"? These terms are all used, but never actually defined with measurements. I'm assuming that they can all be 1.5" at the nut (i.e. a jazz), and I know that they refer to the shape of the profile (so, not to be confused with "A", "B", "C" necks - which is always a confusing tangent). So, these "modern", "60s" and "slim" terms must refer to the depth from fretboard to back of the neck, and how that tapers from fret 1 to fret ~21. Would love to know those depth dimensions - and specifically which is the skinniest at the 1st fret.

Hi All, This is a topic which comes up a fair bit - but I couldn't find a consensus. Does anybody happen to know if the necks on the current Mustang Vintera/American Performer/PJ are interchangeable with their respective bodies? In other words, can a Vintera body have an American Performer neck? (There is method in this madness, eventually). I'm assuming that the neck heel and neck pocket dimensions would be compatible? Secondly, are the necks of the Mustangs/Musicmasters/Broncos all switchable within reason as well? I have a few projects lined up, but I'm no luthier. And when I meet one to discuss an idea, I try to keep the number of times I look woefully ignorant/their eye-rolling to a minimum. Thanks!

Really helpful all. Many thanks. I suppose the frustration is the inconsistency between how these things are written between websites. Also "60s C" "modern C" and "1963 C" don't really help, when you don't know what they're describing/referring too! It just means they're different, and it's a right challenge figuring it out. (I'm looking for the slimmest neck front to back, i.e. depth) Ta muchly. I don't have calipers but when I return home I'll upload a picture of the nut width/neck depth on my American Performer and also my 1970s Mustang.