BigRedX

The fundraising they did with the "Sleepify" album was a much better idea. At least the content was listenable.

Surprisingly no Tune basses.

Except for the fact that Fender had neither the manufacturing tolerances or the quality control required to make them properly back in 1970s.

Really shouldn't be unless there is something seriously weird with the signal path through the amp. From the power amp PoV it would be the same as having nothing plugged into the amp and no-one would suggest that this is a bad thing. The only thing I would check is that the loop is series rather than parallel (or switchable to series) as in the latter case there will always be signal passing through to the power amp section. However as has been said without the power amp section and your cab(s) the tone from the pre-amp alone may be rather strange. If it was me I'd record the bass straight and add the amp sound later at the mixing stage.

With a good template properly clamped into place and a good router and bit, I'd agree. Without all of the conditions being met, I'd prefer to use a really sharp chisel and take my time.

Unfortunately for the test to have any validity similar isn't good enough.

Since their debut single came out the following month, I suspect they had already signed to Mute by then.

There isn't any strict definition for vintage, but generally speaking for collectable items it's anything that is more than 25 years old. That now includes plenty of 90s basses and guitars...

And also the fact that a lot of the time when people talk about tension what they actually mean is a combination of both tension and compliance.

The first gig I went to at Rock City in February 1981 (it should have been The Human League at the beginning of December but it was cancelled on account of the building work to turn Heart Of The Midlands into Rock City not being finished) was Altered Images supported by Medium Medium and Depeche Mode. Unfortunately by that time Depeche Mode were obviously destined for bigger things and therefore had withdrawn to be replaced by some other band off the "Some Bizzare Album"

In 1979 I spent most of my summer holidays helping out at my local musical instrument store which was in the process of shedding its old "Home Organ" image, and as part of that process had become main dealer for Fender, Ibanez and Aria Pro II guitars and basses. I can remember the afternoon when the Fender instruments arrived, as it was a massive anti-climax. The predominant colours were stinky poo brown and a horrible semi-transparent white (which looked like a mistake with the spraying rather than a deliberate finish). All the 3-bolt necks were mis-aligned - some to the extent where one of the outer strings was no longer over the fingerboard at the top end of the neck and most of the others had some sort of QC problem. About the only person who was happy was the freelance guitar tech who was mentally counting up how much extra money he was going to make trying to get them into a saleable condition. Hung on the wall next to the instruments from Aria and Ibanez which had arrived the previous week (and were still in tune when they were removed from their boxes) the Fenders looked tired and lacklustre. If I'd been in charge, I'd have sent the lot back and told Fender to either send me some properly made instruments or give me my money back.

Shock and Metro sound vaguely familiar. Never heard of the others.

Thinking back my synth-pop band regularly got £50 for a gig back in the early 80s. However we would have to pay for the PA hire (£25 - £35 according to the size of the venue), posters (£5 - £8 depending on how ambitious the design was and how many we printed) and ideally at least a Fiver for the support band's expenses. That didn't leave a lot for the band... And this was a just a mid-week pub gig in Nottingham most likely playing to people who already knew and liked the band, rather than supporting someone well known at a large London venue with a large potentially new audience.

Thread #6...

A sample size of one of each. Scientifically meaningless.

Any idea who they were supporting? That ought to have been a pretty good deal for the band back then as it was before they had released any records.

How much are you planning to take off the edge? If it's not a lot (<1mm) you might be better off with a decent sharp chisel.

TBH unless you need the FRFR in order for the audience to hear your bass (you have no PA support for bass) or you regularly play with PA systems that have their foldback optimised primarily for vocals, then you might be better off with an FRFR cab that puts the emphasis on clarity rather than bass so that you can hear yourself without swamping the stage in unnecessary low frequencies.

Any reason why you are not using Reaper for multitrack recording? IMO while Audacity can do multitrack work, it's very much an afterthought and not the program's core strength. Since you are recording via a mixer, if you have a spare channel then route the playback of your DAW to this channel and have it set for output only (i.e. not going back into the computer). This will completely negate the need to have to play with latency settings.

It's not so much a return of the Burns brand as a shift of ownership of the current incarnation (Burns London which has been going since 1992) from Barry Gibson to Andertons. I suspect that the new owners would like the public perception of the brand to be as though nothing has changed. In other news there is a good chance that I'll have the Eastwood version of the Shergold Bass VI some time next week.

Unlike the example in the OP the 5-string versions of the Original in the 80s also had a 36" scale length. Here are the two I use to own: 1983 fretless: and a 1985/6 fretted: Both have now been moved on to other Basschat members.

I'm a Helix FRFR user, and I've stopped taking my FRFR cab (RCF745) to the bigger gigs where I know that the on-stage monitoring will be more than adequate. Even at the smaller gigs these days it's only used as a personal monitor.

Definitely. I take it yours still has the original filter pre-amp?

As I hope I've made clear previously, my problem with "tone wood" for solid electric instruments, is not that different pieces of wood sound different (I'm sure we can all agree that they do, whether or not we agree that their contribution to the overall sound of an electric instrument is fairly negligible), but that a particular tonal characteristic can be universally applied to a particular species of wood and that it is consistently different to other species of wood, and therefore that there is a definite benefit in choosing a wood for its "sound" over it's appearance.

I'm going to have a proper read of this and other PDF you've uploaded over the next few days (although the maths may be beyond my 'A' level from 40 years ago), but just from a quick skim read there are all sorts of problems with the methodology from a scientific PoV, some of which are acknowledged in the study and others which are conveniently overlooked. My biggest problem is the sample size. Two. One of each type of guitar. From a scientific PoV this is statistically meaningless. For there to be any point to "tone wood" for a solid electric instrument, not only do you have to prove that fretboards made of different species of wood sound always significantly different, but also that fretboards made of the same species of wood sound consistently very similar. Everyone knows that it is possible to find two supposedly similar instruments that sound noticeably different. That's an experiment anyone with access to a decent sized music shop can do on a spare half day playing through their stock of Telecasters/Stratocasters/Les Pauls/P-Bases/J-Basses. The other questions I had at this stage are: where was this article originally published? Has it been peer-reviewed and if so what were the findings? There doesn't seem to be any information on either attached to the article which IMO devalues the worth of the findings. Proper scientific studies always need to be independently verified for them to have any validity.