akabane

That would be awesome! Whereabouts are you?

Near Brixton in London

Okay you traitors of what's old and heavy - after 59 pages I'm sold on the idea of trying a FRFR speaker. I would like some guidance though: there's been a lot of opinions on the matter, but they are all very specific on the bands/situations and sound everyone is looking for. I'm hoping that by giving a bit of background on how I would use such system will help you guide me. I am primarily looking to use the ampsim + frfr combo as an avenue to explore solo projects sounds. It would pretty much never be used in a 'band' settings - excluding few exceptions where there could be a jazzy style drums playing together, and/or other instruments that are inherently not loud (1 or 2 acoustic string instruments, one wind instrument) and wouldn't even need to be much amplified in the settings I'd be playing in. We are talking small, quiet pubs, small churches used for performances, small theaters and so on - most of these places will also have a small but dedicated PA system. I would make extensive use of a low B, as well as higher frequencies of modulated C string with weird effects and sounds. I definitely do NOT need a giant monster going in that can make walls tremble and push the sound out between two metal guitars (there's different equipment I'd use for that situation). As reference, In such situations I would just bring my simple Ampeg combo (which is a small 50watt RMS with a 12' at 39lbs - don't think I could actually get lighter, but a comfier form factor would help a lot) and it would be plentiful (given some PA support as I said). Pretty much it's "practice land' in terms of requirements, just with the ability to get a bit louder if need be (and as far asI've understood so far, that would not be a problem with any of the ones I'm looking at). The best contender at the moment would seem to be the QSC K12.2. On specs, my Ampeg combo should be able to reproduce 50hz - would that be the case with the QSC K12.2? If so, is that hope gone if one would go even down tinier with a 10', for example a K10.2? The highest aim for the rig would be portability and weight/comfort of transport over sheer power. So, given the requirements, what do you guys think? When using a 12.2 or 10.2 would I lose enough of the low end vs a 'normal' bass cab, or is it a problem I'd only encounter trying to push highest volumes? Thanks! (And this all sounds very exciting )

Well, if you guys put it that way, if we're talking about cantankerous luthiers, the good old Ken Smith is known for his bad temper and being rude and argumentative (and he doesn't even have the excuse of being lost in translation! :P). Yet, I bought a second hand KS bass (of which he didn't see a dime of), and he spent a LOT of his time talking me through it, helping me check it was in the right condition, offered to re-tighten everything and change the screws for new ones if I ever get around his. Just to say that even the ones who are known to be 'chocolate starfish' from time to time, know how to keep customer satisfaction about their products. Even when they don't gain immediate monetary value from it (because they know it will come later)

Oh I'm not saying we should get rid of valves, amps, cabs and so on. I myself would love a big donkey stack with a valve amp moving the hairs on my back from time to time. However, we should be objectively aware of what's been happening so far (it is a science, after all), to each their own, let's not demonise other's choices (not saying you are - talking in general), and so on and so forth

It is a very interesting topic. I think it's very naive to compare what has been happening recently (and most importantly, what will happen in the next 10 years...which should happen in the next 2-3 really, but the music industry likes to stretch technology soooo thin in order to rake in more money it's embarassing) to whatever other type of amplification evolution that happened in the past. The fact is that we already are able to digitally capture and reproduce how many combinations of amplifications we want. The waveform signals start to literally be the same. The only thing that then needs to keep up is the waveform reproduction systems (at this point, it seems like the FRFR ones are the most apt to reproduce such signals), which is where I think more research should focus on. The main point I see in going sim+frfr would be more justifiable for people who play at home/small/medium gigs, even just because of the price and size/transportability. It's been proven again and again how for similar budgets and sizes, that solution tends to be more versatile, consistent between venues, and often time more powerful (if need be taken to that level). On the other hand you have god-tier bands like Metallica who now exclusively gig with ampsims and FRFR. People who would swear by their valve monsters. They sound like Metallica. They love it. The audiences love it. The truth is, most people still don't believe that if you have a pure enough sound reproduction system, you can EQ in any 'amp' sound one wants; 'my tone' is still believed by some to be this magical thing that comes from some sparkly dust inside their amps So much so that still so many gigs have 'shells' of valve amps, because people listen with their eyes! (And also why there is a market for FRFR cabs in the 'shape' of normal cabs )

Dark, rich grainy woods work so well with deep gold hardware!

*looking at the ropes hanging from the bass* THAT's a string gauge appropriate to BASS!

I frankly still cannot understand here all the people who are going to OP saying "Oh you simple thingy, you should have known that a finish on your new custom bass coming from a highly paid luthier would come in cracked, awww" - I find that disgusting. Regardless of whether nitro finishes are more prone to cracks or not (undisclosed to the customer), regardless of whether the volume pots are working with some weird curve to them (undisclosed with the customer), the point is that anyone running a business would not want those type of discussions happening around about their brand (and it happens here in multiple topics, over on talkbass and so on), for what? In exchange of a couple of polite email replies and offering help to the customer? I know for a fact that despite really liking some of their designs (and why I follow such topics), after this rigamarole I will never go and buy a bass from Adrian. All he had to do was not even offer refunds etc...but just keep an honest channel of communication open with the customer, so that they could work TOGETHER to solve the problem. Even if NOTHING was then done to regards of sending bass back, changing parts etc...the OP would have been absolutely happy with their instrument since the builder took the time to walk them through their doubts. Seriously you all are minimising the sour taste this leaves way too much. I wonder if {insert your favourite luthier here/Shuker/Sei/Marleaux/Sadowsky/Whatever} did that when YOU ordered your custom build...

Eh, what to say...try not to slip over my drool, please! Beautiful. Ok: I want to know more! This is wonderful! 😮 Gosh. Is that Leduc's signature floating top?? Admittedly, I would have no practical use for this, but it is just SO BEAUTIFUL 🤣 This one has a good old soft spot in my heart. I will always regret selling mine, and one day I'll buy one back (still unsure on whether to go for the Red finish this time...) - such a unique and finely crafted instrument. Your whole collection has been fantastic! Thanks for sharing

Not the bass I'd buy - however, if I found one at a jam or at a friend's place, I think I would love to try one. If it turns out to be as much fun as it seems, I just might have to get it...why is the headstock so ugly though T_T In any case, finally starting to see some more interesting ideas and experiments in bass land - about time! Let's keep experimentation going - well done Nordstrand!

Agreed! Actually one of the only finishes I enjoy seeing a MusicMan in. Congrats @danbanbass - beautiful instrument!!

Yes, I literally just went straight to that after the first song you posted. It's a wonderful rendition, I think I like them

@Hellzero man, those tomahawks! :Q_ Very beautiful wood my friend.

I think it's a beautiful piece of work.

I agree, you shouldn't feel any hurt by selling it. Perhaps the only thing you should accept that maybe "your specs" are not, in fact, your specs! Just keep looking! It's nothing bad to say on you nor the instrument. On another note; have you tried to give it enough time to see if you actually could get comfortable with it? Some of my most beloved basses I had to "fight with" for a bit before forming very strong bonds

Not sure if they've been suggested already, however the Yamaha TRB series is killer. It has a lot of higher end instruments, however the TRB1004 (even the one made in korea and not the made in japan TRB1004J) is a very reliable, aggressive but versatile instrument, and it can be found around 400-500 quid. Haven't tried the newer TRBX series with the open pole pickups - those seem even cheaper, but if they go through the same QC the rest of the TRB series does, should be a very safe bet

Fire off spotify, take 5 random songs (different genres possibly), and note down the rythmic structure of their basslines. Then forget about those songs, and start playing those rythms/basslines. High chances are they'll sound and feel different than the original. Find the one you like best, or mix and match to taste. You just created a new rythm/bassline! EDIT: Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your question - I thought the question was "How do I come up with bass parts?". But it turns out it might be "I don't know how to keep the time as the bass player"? In the latter case, metronome and practice, that's all

Let me preface by saying: I've grown up playing upright bass (with classical and some jazz influences). So 4 has been the norm forever for me, since I was 10-11 years old. Since I took up electric, after having a try with a 4, I've always gone directly for 6 strings since. Compared to upright they're so much easier to play, I don't see reason not to have those two extra string possibilities available to me, at the cost of having a fretboard not even half the width of an upright one I don't care if I see somebody come out with a 9 string bass. I don't care if they proceed to spend the evening only playing root-five on E and A, I don't care if they spend the evening doing chordal harmonic work. As long as the music is good and they are comfortable and happy playing it No, and we don't have to. Aside of being a pretty silly assumption to make (how 'much' better musical quality or bass playing per-string we should get? What's the "get good cost" of adding any string more than the 4 you already have? Have you earned your 4 already then, or should you be better off playing a 2 strings bass? ) It's literally the same instrument sonically, if you use the same notes as a four stringer. Nobody of those amazing musicians is what I'd consider 'mainstream'. The thing is, you're very likely to have heard someone play a 5 or 6 in some actual mainstream record without even realising it (because they're not using the extended range if not needed). In my example here, the job could have been done with a 4, obviously. Who cares? Again, they're doing the same exact job and can sound identical. Obviously more strings do not make better music. I can make better music with two beaten up pans and my fists, than a Steinwey piano with 88 keys that nobody's playing. It's just logic and common sense. Or, I could sit down at the piano, and rock a 30 min set with two chords and two notes. Or, I could sit down at the piano, and rock a 30 min set while going through all of Beethoven symphonies, sped up thrice just because I'm bored. The instrument doesn't define the music. Play what makes you feel good and enjoy. If you like playing in a bluegrass band with a metal pointy 31 strings bass, as long as everyone in the band agrees, have at it! Just don't ruin the songs by starting going ham on the instrument! (Which is something lots of 4 strings players are culprit of too...so again, poor number of strings. What has it done to you?) Edit: The end of my point being, where has it brought us? To different tonal palettes in some parts of music (like with the people you mentioned) and in the future, who knows who/what else!

Love that top! I'd go with the first bridge. Gives a bit more character and feels heftier.

Hmm, interesting looking instrument! I like the woods, finish, the patterns. I do NOT like the tone of yellow they chose for the decorations to go against that wood. I REALLY don't like how marked the fretboard is. (But I know that's just me. I like my fretless boards to be CLEAN)

This is generally a very good guide to make your Mac experience more lightweight!

Both beautiful, although I'm biased towards that 6... I wonder how the selected woods for White Tiger Anniversary models looked - I don't think I've ever seen any, only Black Tigers. They must have been CRAZY. By the way, my Smith EQ is now in its 'default' 'new settings', as it would come from Ken's hands. It's got an incredible growl now, much more aggressive. Before I had to dial in the growl via the mids. Now I think I'll have to dial in more bass instead. The sounds on those are so versatile. I'll probably upload a sound clip of my Smith flat EQ'd, 100% DI into Logic (as soon as I get a half listeneable performance out on anything), if anyone's interested. I think it sounds really, really good! I would also love to hear more clips from other owners, there's not enough 'tone flaunting' as there should be, am I alone in this?