BigRedX

I probably haven't practiced in the traditional sense since about some time in 1974, when I finally managed to string a handful of chords together on the guitar without needing to stop to re-orientate the fingers of my left hand into the next shape. I'll work on ideas that I have come up with in my head that my fingers can't yet manage in a consistent way but that's it. However I do play almost every day doing anything between a five minute noodle and several hours of composing. Because I see myself primarily as a composer rather than a musician I can't see the point of practicing unless I have an actual need to be able to play something that at the moment I can't. I'd rather be writing some more songs.

Personally if I was going to take time to work up some serious musical skills I'd do it on the guitar, piano or my singing. I wouldn't bother with techniques on the bass that are at best used for 8 bars once in every ten songs.

Any problems? I'll probably wait until the weekend to do this.

AFAICS they only need your address to enable them to send you their rather dull magazine. Everything else is done on-line, and payments are directly to your bank account (at least since I joined in the early 80s).

I had a pair of these. They fell apart after a couple of months normal (non-band) usage. The weak point is the swivel joint at the headband. Luckily I bought them from Amazon who refunded me in full with no quibbles. I bought a pair of Sennheiser 599SEs instead. I've still got a pair of DT100s which I got very cheap second hand in the early 90s for band and recording use.

The problem is Bluetooth. It was never designed for delivery live audio in real-time, so the latency aspect wasn't considered. It doesn't matter how much the audio is delayed when you are listening to music from your phone, but of course it's vitally important when used as IEMs!

It would probably be less confusing if this thread was merged with the other one that you started so that all the relevant information is in one place. Looking at the photos it appears that bridge posts as well as the bridge are missing - is that correct? It would help if you posted some close-ups of the bridge plate and mute. If so you will need to ensure that not only is the replacement bridge the correct width but also that the new posts have the correct thread for the existing inserts. IIRC the Bass VI bridge is somewhat wider than similar versions fitted to the guitars. If it helps the string spacing at the bridge on my Squier Bass VI is 55mm E-E, which feels quite wide compared with a typical guitar. Unfortunately I don't have my Squier to hand at the moment otherwise I could have measured the distance between the post centres to see if a modern Bass VI bridge could potentially fit. However there are several other Basschat members with the Squier version who could probably do this for you. If you simply want something temporary in order to check that the neck is still OK, then almost anything will do. I'd just stick a suitably sized block of wood under the strings where the bridge should be and then slowly tune up to standard tension over the course of a few days. That way you won't be out of pocket if the neck turns out to be damaged. Regarding value, if the end point of this restoration is to sell the bass then IMO you need to keep it as authentic as possible. Anything that isn't period correct is going to seriously detract from the value no matter how much more playable it makes the instrument. Remember if you want a playable Bass VI your "competition" is a brand new Squier fitted with a Staytrem bridge and a set of LaBella or Newtone strings. That's not in vintage instrument price territory.

In what way is it not his fault? He could have always tried to gently persuade Mr Clarke to pick one of his standard design basses instead, and if that didn't work just say: "no". I can never quite understand the thinking behind getting a luthier to build you something that is wildly different from their normal style (c.f. the Alien Ant Farm Fender bass). Surely you pick your luthier because you like the style of instruments they are already making? And this one appears to have Alembic electronics shoehorned into the design rather than the standard pre-amp you'd get if you ordered a Ken Smith bass. Mr Clarke was already a well-known Alembic user so why not get them to make this bass? It's far more in keeping with their design ethos.

You don't have stereo FoH (or if you do it will be very narrow and limited to "special effects") because very few people in the audience will be positioned to get the correct mix. However for IEM you always get the full benefit of the stereo and since it helps to separate out the instruments (have a listen to any late 60s recording that is available in both mono and stereo formats to hear what I'm on about) so you'll have a clearer overall sound.

Proof that just because you have a great deal of talent for working with wood don't necessarily mean that your design skills are up to scratch as well. IME the best luthiers are nearly always ones who initially trained in some other creative arts.

The problem with original 1960s Bass VIs is there are whole load of compromises between keeping the instrument original and having something that is usable and playable. The next important question is what strings are you intending to fit? The strings that these basses came with (and AFAIK still do) tend to be on the light side for the low E and A for most bass players, but if you swap to the heavier versions from LaBella or Newtone you may not have enough intention adjustment with an authentic vintage bridge. That's where the modern replacements win out. What you pick will also depend on whether you intend to make use of the vibrato system. IME once you fit the heavier strings the vibrato becomes almost completely inoperative due to the tensions involved so you might as well go modern with your bridge choice (and get the posts changed to ones that don't wobble - the originals are great for doing MBV impersonations on the guitar but don't really have any useful place on a bass). If this was my bass and I intended to play it in a band, I'd go for a modern replacement bridge with enough intonation adjustment to accommodate a set of Newtone Axiom VI strings, but also maybe keep an eye out for a vintage version to fit if I ever decided to sell it.

How authentic do you want to keep this instrument, or is the main purpose of the restoration to get it back to a playable state?

My Mac is a Mid 2012 MacBook Pro running OSX 1015 (Catalina) and Logic 10.6 something, so all slightly older. I do seem to remember that I needed to fiddle with the defaults in Mix Control before I got it to work with my system, so as I said I said I'll have a look at my settings later today when I am able to get to that computer. In the mean time, have you tried Focusrite's web chat. I found it very useful when I was having problems setting up my Novation Launchkeys controller.

Just had another look at the diagram in the OP and the description says there are 9 wires going to the pre-amp section but I can only see 5 drawn. Is the diagram correct? And @TheGreek is this the bass that Andy JR rescued? If so could you provide a link to the thread where hopefully there will some decent photos of the pickups and wiring.

I have exactly this setup - Logic with Scarlet 18i20 on my Mac that I use for playing the backing tracks for both my bands when we gig and it has been flawless. However I suspect that I am running an older Mac and version of Logic than you. What is the Mac and what version of Logic are you running? When I have moment later today I'll have a look at my Mix Control settings, but I know they will be different since my routings are stereo out 1&2, drummers click track 3 and that's it!

If this was my bass and the problem was simply that the two pickups were unbalanced, I'd be asking for recommendations for someone to rewind the bridge pickup to the same spec as that of the neck. However before that I'd want to go through a complete diagnostic of all the components in the circuit to ensure the problem doesn't lie elsewhere with something like a dry joint or a failing pot. Out of interest do you get the same fault using both of the outputs? TBH apart form the active section which appears to be totally self-contained and therefore can be temporarily ignored, this looks like a very standard late 70s guitar type circuit so anyone who is having difficulty understanding it probably shouldn't be making alterations to the electronics and wiring. Are you able to return the "replacement" pickups?

That diagram looks very straight-forward except for the active part - what does it do? AFAICS it's just a buffer and doesn't add any active tone shaping (frequency boost) to the instrument. The rest of the wiring is standard 2-pickup with a three way pickup selector and series/parallel switches for each pickup. Apart form the active section, it's the sort of circuit that would be more common in guitar than a bass, but nothing really out of the ordinary. If your new pickups are only 2-wire, you won't be able to use the series/parallel switches, as there is no access to the individual coils with only two wires. What exactly are you hoping to achieve with your new pickups? Last time I tried swapping the the supplied pickups in a bass with EMG actives it made absolutely zero difference to the sound, and with this new system you will actually be losing some tone shaping characteristics, unless the new tone controls allow cut and boost. Edit: Follow-up question is there actually any difference in tone between the active and passive outputs with the bass wired with the existing circuit as shown?

At the moment we give the PA individual feeds for everything. We're only a 3-piece - vocals, 2 x synth, and Bass VI with drums/drum machine and some additional synths on the backing so it's not a difficult mix and we already have all the relative levels between the instruments and backing sorted out from rehearsing, so once the feeds have been adjusted for the room there isn't really anything for the engineer to do. IMO stereo isn't much use for the FoH sound as very few people in the audience will be placed to get the full benefit, so the stereo on the backing is very narrow and only really used for special effects. We will probably switch to a full on-stage mix done by the band at some point in the future which will most likely coincide with the band going full IEM. I done full mixes for the PA before with previous bands but it relies on fair bit of time spent in the rehearsal room to get all the relative levels right for each song. IMO once you start looking at this route pending time working on the mix in rehearsal is as important as being able to play the songs as a band. Both bands I am in spend about a quarter to a third of each practice working on the sounds and mix of the songs. This IME is where covers bands who don't rehearse fall down because once you start doing your own mix you need to spend time working on it.

My Pedulla Buzz worked brilliantly with an ACG EQ1 pre-amp.

Can you not get SIT strings direct from ACG? I'm sure I've bought sets from them in the past. Otherwise I'd second the Newtone suggestion.

No-one really. I was always more interested in the overall sound of the song then any one instrument. If there was ever a time I wanted to copy anyone it was at the beginning of my synth playing days in the early 80s when my influences would have been The Normal, Vice Versa, early Human League and Freur.

I’ve been amp free for about 5 years now, since I switched to using a Helix. I have an RCF powered speaker, but for the last year I’ve only used it for rehearsals with one band and not at any gigs with either. For at least one band the on stage sound is much more controllable with no back line. If I found myself in a band where having a rig was an important part of the image, I’d probably have a dummy set up that could be folded away for transport.

Not really. The whole point of the Juno 6/60 was that you could play more than one note at a time. To this end corners were cut from a sonic PoV in order to be able to get the price down to just under £1k (not an inconsiderable sum back in the early 80s). If you didn't need to be able to play chords there were any number of monophonic synths that had far more sound shaping capabilities for a fraction of the price. And these days you can buy a decent modern two oscillator two envelope generator polysynth for what in real terms is next to nothing compared with £1k in 1982. If you really want to emulate the weedy sounds of the Juno you can simply not use the additional features. There's certainly no reason to spend lots of money on either a vintage model, and all the associated (un)reliability that come with it, or on an over-priced recreation of the same.

Westenra, Last July, Play/Dead at Whitby Brewery on Saturday

It's the same with nearly all musical instruments - a blind nostalgia for the past. It's not just confined to guitars and basses, where in reality the development of the actual instruments over the past 70 has been minimal. Those innovations described in the OP are mostly red herrings and don't contribute much in the way of improvements to the overall playability or sound. If you really want to be astounded by backward looking thinking you only need to look at the current state of the synthesiser market. The obsession with vintage (and re-issues) of budget instruments that back in the day were only popular because the synths we all really wanted were way beyond our financial reach. The current obsession with the Roland Juno 6/60 amazes me. Absolutely no-one I knew in the early 80s bought one because they thought it sounded fantastic. They bought it because it was the cheapest poly-synth available. Given the funds we'd have all bought Jupiter 8s, Prophet 5s or Oberheim OBXs. No-one really wanted the weedy sounds of a single oscillator and EG, and not even a unison mode for beefing up the sound. In fact the only real selling point was the on-board chorus because as soon as you turned that off everything sounded thin, weedy and lifeless. But despite that and the fact that almost every DAW comes with sonically superior synths built-in, the Juno 6/60 "sound" appears to still be popular with original instruments selling for far more than their real value, and numerous hardware and software recreations now available. Madness...