Kiwi

I build my own instruments. How quickly you siezed on my location though. Pretty unusual. Perhaps you are the one with an axe to grind?

I'm finding that setting up my PC for composing is a ridiculous amount of faff and, by the time I've done it, I've lost the will to live let alone record any creative inspiration. Instead, I'm probably going to get a Tascam 24 track recording desk soon for a few hundred quid, it'll allow me to record audio direct guide tracks with minimum hassle. I haven't touched my C4 in 6 months...it doesn't go far enough in terms of UI, sequencing parameters or connectivity...as you'll already be aware. Which can't be operated realistically mid set on a dark stage without bending over and assuming you've remembered what patch is where. It's not a convenient solution. Massive doesn't mean usable. A lot of the patches are just people throwing stuff at walls and seeing what sticks. And there's a lot to wade through before I find anything relevant. I did, and subsequently got in contact with SA who gave my comments serious consideration one lunch time but there's no more room in the C4 for more code. Perhaps my suggestions will be adopted in a new line though. It's not that simple, you need an interface before you can connect something like a Morningstar MC6 and that's just to achieve two foot operated patch buttons that could have been included in the first place. That's in the order of an extra 3-400 quid of stuff before you get basic MIDI 5 pin DIN connectivity offered of pedals way below the price point of the C4. Integrating a C4 into an existing MIDI pedalboard with 5 PIN based pedals is both expensive and far from straight forward. Which means you need to take those things to a gig, potentially leave them unattended before your first song and your hands need to come away from the instrument to make patch changes...but the rest of the stuff in your board can be operated by feet... I suspect SA prioritised form factor over connectivity in their original design and some of the features came up a bit short. For example, no individual envelope following for each step which means two steps with the same pitch just merge into one note twice the duration. Whereas the Adrenalinn III does have individual notes per step but doesn't have a pitch shift based arpeggiator. Stuff like that lets the C4 down...which is a bit of a travesty given how good it does the things it does well.

I've actually removed Barts from my Pedulla and replaced them with Alembic Activators. Not that I'm recommending Activators, they're too expensive for what they are but they did get me more mids than the Barts and are fairly flat response. A set of EMG's could probably achieve the same objective although the classic EMG's have this kind of sterile high end that I'm not fond of for bass. Maybe that's changed given how many models are offered now.

Yes but there's still the matter of perceived value. Indonesian factories are just as capable of making a Fodera type bass, they can do it more efficiently. Although Fodera do the same thing as PRS and let their necks sit on a shelf for a year or so to calm down as they work on them bit by bit. What we never find out is how much time that takes above and beyond the basic manufacture of a neck somewhere in Asia and whether the mark up reflects that extra time. Same goes for roasted necks (although that budget brands like HB are offering them on instruments suggests that the roasting process doesn't add a significant extra cost). It seems like some of the US boutique brands are running very high overheads. None of which can be rationalised to overseas customers beyond 'that's just how it is'. But THEN you have the makers who are set up for mass production jumping on the boutique band wagon, more or less saying 'oh yeah, we produce instruments that can be every bit as good as Fodera - they're hand built [from CNC rough cut parts], we use the finest [within budget and spec] woods and the best that forty year old technology can offer, we're gonna charge you twenty percent less than a Fodera! What a bargain.' And the more gullible players, who perhaps are inclined towards the social aspects of brand loyalty than a tool for gigging, want to buy into that. And the mass manufacturers are laughing at what they can get away with, all the way to the bank.

Not only that, Jason also said that in the US it costs a LOT to provide employees with things like a pension plan and healthcare that in the UK people take for granted as a right. Alembic look after their people as well. I don't know about the others. Do you live in Auckland perchance?

Nothing sinister about it, stuff just costs more in Western countries. Tax mostly, and profit margins all add up on instruments made in the UK... or US... or Denmark etc. There can sometimes be a lot of wastage as well. Jason at Fodera was telling me they only make 10% margin on their instruments and they reject a lot of the wood they buy in bulk, on the grounds it's not up to par. Sometimes western made boutique instruments aren't made in the most efficient way.

Psychiatrists would ask happy for how long though. I don't rely on my basses to make me happy, just satisfied with the playing experience.

I know people who work at some of the factories that make OEM for western brands, including Peavey, ESP, Schecter and Ibanez in China. They're not indentured slaves. They get paid a wage that is comparable to similar role of responsibility and skill in other market sectors, just like the UK. Something like 3-4000 RMB/month. No that doesn't translate into much by UK standards but the workers come from families that have modest lifestyles and income tax is extremely low. They're comfortable with a lifestyle that is free of many financial drains such as status symbols, expensive hobbies, large insurance premiums, council tax etc. They're also free to leave their jobs (and they do, many will stay a year in one place and move on) and workers rights are stronger in China than they are in the UK in regard to overtime, holiday pay, and maternity/paternity leave. Companies were required to pay minimum wage to all staff during COVID lockdown. EDIT: The cost of labour is the main reason why stuff is cheap but that'll change in the next 10-20 years. The other reason is because each person spends as little time on their part of the manufacturing process as possible and, yes, too often the labour is often (but not always) unskilled because factories don't see the point of investing a lot of time in a single employee if they're likely to bugger off in 12 months. This is the main reason why some Chinese stuff is poor quality. For some aspects like finishing, there's no substitute for having someone involved who has experience. If you have a product that needs very little time to make and is fairly straight forward to make (ie. no finishing) then stuff can be churned out at insane rates.

I've been having no issues so far. I wonder if it's a connection issue?

I don't know why or how but... this:

I've replaced the electronics in both basses. The Pedulla has Alembic Activators and a low pass filter but I'll change that filter at some point. The Spector has a custom set of Wizard soap bars and a Noll 3 band semi parametric eq. The differences are definitely down to the neck. zI can feel them.

It's the same thing where graphite composite is concerned. Rob actually revealed he had a small batch of bowed necks in the 90's because the phenolic resin for the fingerboards wasn't mixed quite right. He thought my modulus (and I'm guessing all the MM Cutlass basses I've owned) had the same issue.

I like mahogany in guitars a lot. I'm planning a couple of builds with mahogany necks (laminated) and bodies. Basses are nice too, one of my self builds has a mahogany body and it's got a lovely mellowness and warmth to it despite a graphite composite bolt on neck. My spector 5 is all maple and, judging by the neck, soft maple too. But there is a nice purr to the timbre. My all maple Pedulla has less of a purr and is a bit sterile sounding but that neck is dead straight and rigid. So the action is very low.

I agree, and there's quite a bit of variability within a tree as well which can mean specifying by species alone won't guarantee predictable results. Swamp ash for example can yield very light wood at the top of the tree and much denser wood at the bottom. And I've already mentioned maple which is probably affected by the same considerations. But then there are some harder species like wenge, ebony and rosewood which vary less according to where in the tree they came from. So both sides of the argument are right. Wood is highly variable but that doesn't take away from the fact that luthiers who are highly experienced in using only a handful of species from known sources should be able to get more consistent results. Sheldon Dingwall makes some very consistent instruments and he once told me that the slabs get weighed to see how close they are to a target weight. I believe EB does the same as well. So far my 'one' if I want a Jazz bass, involves a light weight body, probably swamp ash, a maple neck erring on the softer side with a nice, rigid fingerboard - rock maple or maybe even richlite or ebony. If I want something for RnB or soul or anything Nathan East might play on, then it would be flamed maple and wenge neck with ebony fingerboard as a starting point. If the neck is bolt on then the body will need to be a lightweight mahogany. If the neck is through body then probably alder or lightweight ash.

Have you ever made your own bass? Not from premade parts but actually made it from blocks of timber and then experimented with different parts? It depends on what someone is looking for as well. You might be looking for something different to what I'm looking for. You might also be sensitive to different aspects compared to me. But I've definitely found The One on occasion. I'm guilty as charged only because I'm interested in finding out whether one-ness (in terms of what works for me) is either a matter of luck or whether there's some way to get it happening consistently. So far it seems there are different ways to get it. It's like a recipe. But like any recipe, the most distinctive flavour combinations rely on maybe three or four ingredients, carefully balanced. Traditionally its the fingerboard that provides most of the stiffness in double basses. This is why the ebony is ridiculously thick. Approaches have changed a little with lamination and carbon composite construction though.

Yes it does and if you compare different basses with a 7 piece laminated neck, they'll generally tend converge in terms of how they sound irrespective of the woods used. This is because the construction method has more of an impact on timbre as the pieces of wood laminate get thinner.

Yes, he's describing dampening. Some woods can be highly selective in the frequencies they dampen. Paul also describes in a later presentation that his guitars were all about the neck. I agree with Paul on both points.

Yeah players prioritise playability and tone in different ways too. I have a Status bass that is extremely easy to play but I wish it was more traditional sounding. But I can tame some of the liveliness with a dual band comp and maybe some different electronics would get it closer to what I'm looking for. By comparison, I've owned a few fantastic sounding Musician Cutlass basses with horrific neck bows and eventually sold them on. My Spector is a slightly less extreme version of the Cutlass basses. I'm hoping a stiffer fingerboard and reinforcement might help with lower action. But it carries a risk of making the bass less growly by lifting the resonance frequency.

I've owned Modulus basses with both extremes. One had a rigid neck, low action and very brittle sound. The other sounded great, very warm but the neck was bowed because the phenolic resin used on the fingerboard wasn't mixed properly and rigid enough. Both had lightweight alder bodies and identical hardware and EMG electronics.

Emphatically yes, necks that are too rigid tend to produce brittle sounding basses given everything else is equal, but this is relative to other components. It's a bit like a recipe. If you put too much flour in a bread recipe you can compensate to a degree by adding other ingredients like water and salt. So it's still possible to design an instrument that hits the sweet spot but only if other materials are selected to compensate eg. a softer or lighter body to soak up harsh frequencies.

There are some types of maple which have a better chance of being in the sweet spot than others, flame and birdseye for example. Some plain kinds too, such as the stuff Ken Smith uses. There are some types that can be too rigid like in the Skarbee Celinder I used to own and need to be laminated with something darker sounding like wenge to get back in the zone. Wenge and flamed maple in Sei basses is very nice. There's also a trade off in playability to be had, rigid necks are easier to set up with low action. I could never get the same action on my old Smith basses as I could on the Alembic or Status basses.

Playability counts a lot more as I get older. I'm going to start investigating filters, the body woods seem to be based on mass (lighter the better, up until a point). Neck woods on a sweet spot of rigidity (which isn't easy to measure), along with dampening for both.

I've had the wow experience maybe four times in my life and I didn't buy the bass three of those times. First was an old mongrel jazz bass back in the late 80's in NZ, second was a Sei 4 string bass, third was a Spector 5 (which I bought) and the last was a Celinder J Update 5. Still kicking myself over that last one, it was perfect. I've resolved to try and uncover what makes that wow moment happen. So far it can be either simple (a lucky combination of neck and body wood) or complex (everything). I have a few avenues to explore but no certainty.

Anything by the Freemasons, they're the masters of bombastic anthems. Not sure if they're last ten years but regardless...damn.

Speaking of interesting...would you like to hear Seasick Steve on bass and vocals? Yes, that's really him. Including Joe Hubbard.