BigRedX
-
Posts
20,293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Shop
Articles
Everything posted by BigRedX
-
Brilliant, thank you!
-
Yes but generally that's the least important factor. I would look at the different pickups and electronics used and the actual construction of the bass before worrying about the woods.
-
I saw this thread last night when the post post was the OP, but I didn't have time to post a comment. This morning I hardly need to as most of what I thought has already been said. So we have 4 basses that sound (slightly) different to each other. That's easy. Anybody can do that. It would be far more impressive if he could make 4 basses that sound exactly the same, and even more impressive if the luthier could predict exactly how each bass was going to sound before it was made. Maybe the bass version of "Snackmasters" where two respected luthiers are tasked with making a bass that looks, feels and sounds EXACTLY the same as a particular example of a classic bass. Now that would be something I would watch. -
The main problem for me with the Super is that the neck is narrow even by guitar standards, let alone when fitted with Bass VI strings! I've settled on the Shergold Marathon/Eastwood Hooky neck width as being the ideal for me.
-
AFAIK there appears to be a lot of variation in the early Kramer basses. It's a pity the Kramer Forum no longer exists as it was a mine of information with several ex-employees from the days of the aluminium necks posting there. My 450B was fine for balance but it was relatively heavy (although not unbearably so for me). I can imagine that one with lighter body woods might have been a problem. The Kramer XKB10 was a problem for balance but again that was entirely due to the body shape and strap button positions than the fact it had an aluminium neck. A wooden-neck bass of the same design would have been just as bad. Basses made with unusual materials and less conventional designs tend to be very polarising. Also many of them date from a time when there was a distinct lack of consistency from one example to the next of the same instrument. All I can suggest is that if anyone is interested in one of these that they try the actual bass they want buy for themselves, and make a decision about that particular bass only on their experiences.
- 48 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- aluminium bass
- tttides
- (and 1 more)
-
IME the sound is very much down to the pickup and electronics than the materials used in the construction of the neck and body. The most radical of the aluminium basses I owned - the Born To Rock F4B was also the most conventional sounding on account of it having a P-bass pickup in close to the conventional P-bass position: The Kramer basses were fitted with less conventional pickups on the early models and consequently had a more unique sound. No problem with neck dive on any of them except the Kramer XKB10, but that was down to the body shape rather than the aluminium neck. Both Kramers were fairly weighty but again due to the body woods used rather than the neck. The Tokai has a hollow body stuffed with foam so is about standard weight.
- 48 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- aluminium bass
- tttides
- (and 1 more)
-
As some who plays Bass VIs only in one of my bands I'm very interested. What neck width have you gone for?
-
I've owned a fair number of basses with aluminium necks and/or bodies - Born To Rock F4B Hartke XL4 Hondo Alien (Kramer The Duke copy) Kramer 450B Kramer XKB10 Tokai Talbo Bass (2000 re-issue) Anything in particular you want to know? BTW IME the going out of tune thing is not a problem so long as you don't subject them to extreme changes in temperature and expect them to stay in tune (a bit like a wooden bass really).
-
Thunderbirds are not like the average (passive) P or J bass where it doesn't really matter who makes it, the construction, hardware and electronics are all basically the same as the original Fender version. For a start not even the Gibson Thunderbirds have been consistent over the years. Take a modern Gibson and compare it with one from the 60s and the only rough shape of the instrument will be the same. Which one is the right one for you, really depends on what you are after from this bass. You need to play them all, because they are all very different instruments. Personally I think the active Epiphone version is about the furthest removed from an original 60s Gibson, and if that's what you like, then you should probably also consider some of the Thunderbird inspired instruments from other manufacturers.
-
To all those affected: stick with it. As others have said these things unfortunately take time. I'm currently involved in a fraud investigation that has been going on for almost 7 months since I first contacted Action Fraud. The DC who has been dealing with it is just finishing up gathering evidence, and then it will be up to the CPS to decide if the case is strong enough to be worth going to court. In this case the money involved is considerably more than the cost of a handful of imaginary Sansamps. However it is important to not give up. Fraudsters tend to get away with it because the victims give up because it all becomes too much bother, especially if the monies involved are relatively small. Don't let this case go the same way. £100 may not be a lot to you, but it might be to others affected, and from what I have read here, there are a lot of people affected so it all adds up. For those who have contact from the Police, reply promptly and let them know all the details. If you haven't heard anything more after two or three weeks, send a brief and polite follow-up email, just to let the Police know you are still interested in pursuing this. Keep all your correspondence with the fraudster, especially any where they make threats against you - the Police really don't like that. Good luck to all those affected.
- 820 replies
-
- 10
-
-
Actually it does. The ear/brain connection is a very clever thing and takes the distance of the sound source into consideration, using the minuscule delay and phase differences between each ear receiving the sound to work it out. So 5.8ms = 1.7M distance. Unless you play big stages most of us stand less than 1M away from our cabs or monitor speakers. So the latency of the wireless system is 3 times what it would be with a cable, but our ear/brain system still works out where the sound source actually is but with a delay on it. That's why IEMs are a bigger problem because it puts the sound source as close to the ear drum as possible and there is no perceivable delay or phase change between the left and right to give any sense of distance. Without that sense of distance to the sound source, the actual disconnect between what you are playing and what you are being hearing becomes a lot more pronounced, and all those slight delays become a lot more important.
-
Ant? Isn't that animal cruelty? Shame on you!
-
What's only got 1.7M(?) of latency. All the figures quoted in this thread and in the the link in the OP state 5.8ms
-
Quite high latency at 5.8ms. Not a problem on it's own, but will be noticeable if combined with additional Analogue to Digital conversions in your signal chain.
-
I've never heard any advantage to the buffer. If I really needed it I'd use the wireless system all the time.
-
I find it simpler to stick with passive basses. Unless you have something like a Wal or ACG filter pre-amp they don't add anything that you should be able to do already elsewhere in your signal chain.
-
From what I've seen and read most musicians who get replaced in the studio tend to be those who don't have the ability to play the parts accurately enough in the time allotted. If you've got a weird bass that produces unconventional sounds at the source then perhaps this is fair enough. However shouldn't the people booking him for the session have checked this out first?
-
Maybe before the advent of 24 track recording in the 70s, but since then any engineer worth their salt would have stuck a safety DI on the bass before the amp. IME unless there were some weird electronics in the bass itself it should be perfectly possible to get a bass sound to allow the producer to salvage the take.
-
With my producer's hat on, it seems very strange to hire someone well known and then not use them on the actual finished version. IME (unless it is something very extreme and completely different from what I was expecting) tone is nearly always fixable when it come to mixing the track. I'd be more likely to reject the part if the musician had been asked to come up with their own baseline and it wasn't what I was hoping for rather than their sound wasn't right.
-
The problem with Eastwood IMO is not the build quality but the fact that much of what they make is put together with standard parts and in doing so the instruments lose much of what made them an interesting and different alternative to buying a Fender P in the first place. I have their Hooky Bass which is a copy of the Shergold Marathon 6-string bass and I can't fault it, but then it was made as an exact copy of Peter Hook's Shergold and all the important hardware has been custom made specifically for this bass. Unfortunately at the other end of the scale are their copies of the Ovation Magnum and the Ampeg Scroll basses, both of which appear to have been "produced" by someone who once saw a blurry photograph of the basses in question and produced the Eastwood copies from their memory of that. These have little in common with the basses they are supposed to be copying other than the fact that the body shape is similar.
-
That's great. The point I was trying to make was much of what makes John Deacon's bass sound good is the way it interacts with the other instruments, in particular the guitar sounds, and in Queen you have a guitarist with a very unique sound. For further illumination: I did the bulk of my musical development between 1978 and 1986 when I was mostly playing synthesiser rather than bass. Often I'd hear a great synthesiser sound on a record, and think that I would want to use that in a song for my band. Like any part of a musical arrangement, what makes that particular sound great is it's place in the overall composition, and much of the time the great synth sound that I had spent ages duplicating needed a lot of tweaking to make it work in the context of the song I'd written as opposed to song I'd borrowed it from, and invariably by the time my song was complete the synth sound bore only a passing resemblance to the one I'd been inspired by.
-
Surely that only really works if your guitarist is Brian May? And again more seriously: what makes a great bass tone is not the bass tone itself but how it works in relation to the other instruments. Just listen to the isolated bass tracks in the Geddy Lee thread. On their own, they are a selection of nasty (not in a good way) farty sounds. However when combined with the rest of the instruments in the mix they are perfect, and that nasty fartiness is a lot less pronounced when it's binding the mix together rather than being standing out on its own. For a great bass tone listen to what the other musicians in your band are doing and find something to works in harmony (pun intended) with them. The sound of each individual instrument and how they all work together is as important as the notes that each instrument is playing and how they all work together.
-
On a more serious note, I don't really have a bass tone. It very much depends on the instrumentation of the band, what the other musicians are playing both in terms of sound and note choices. I have a Line6 Helix, so I can get almost any bass guitar sound imaginable. Also a bass guitar sound isn't always appropriate so I might use a keyboard synth instead.
-
My bass guitar tone sounds like a bass guitar.
-
My experience was exactly the opposite. As a fifteen year old, I was intrigued by the gear porn cover of "All the World's a Stage", especially the Rickenbacker bass, having come across it in the new releases section during my Saturday record shop browsing session. Back at school on Monday I asked around my friends if anyone had any Rush albums and someone promised to lend me "2112" the next day. I eagerly put on the album when I got home on the Tuesday and only played one side (and maybe not even all of that). I just couldn't get past the weird singing voice.
