BigRedX

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1460637735' post='3027467'] What's the connection between Danelectro and Eastwood? Very different instruments. [/quote] I think it's that both make vintage styled instruments that take advantage of modern manufacturing techniques.

[quote name='Paul S' timestamp='1460619668' post='3027232'] My immediate thought was to wonder what they bring to the party that a Danelectro doesn't. But I am still curious [/quote] IMO the danelectro instruments are much more accurate when it comes to recapturing that vintage vibe. The other guitar manufacturer worth looking at from that PoV are [url=http://www.hallmarkguitars.com]Hallmark[/url].

[quote name='basshead56' timestamp='1460583982' post='3027134'] I am hoping they reissue the Rocket Bass soon. They were cool. Still on my hit list from 15 about years ago! [/quote] [url=http://www.ekoguitars.it/en/hp/Ekoguitars-Acoustic-Classic-Electric-and-Bass-Guitars]Eko[/url] did a reissue of the Rocket Guitar recently, but it's been discontinued so it probably wasn't very popular. Therefore don't expect a Rocket Bass any time soon and certainly not from Eastwood.

Electix MoFX has probably the most versatile Tremolo I've come across - complete with both tap-tempo and MIDI sync.

Which ever one has the best look for the band. They all sound like basses in the mix.

[quote name='ash' timestamp='1460545505' post='3026624'] My first bass was a Musicmaster and it was a fine instrument perfect for me at the time. It cost £85 secondhand from Kingfisher Music and I got it in the January sale. This was in 1978 so with inflation... Ok there are lots of lovely basses out there for less money but if I saw my old one - and it was in worse condition than this one was even then - I'd be happy to pay £500 for it. A case of 'what price nostalgia' or 'A fool and his/her money'? [/quote] That's fair enough. Back in the late 70s there wasn't a lot of competition at the sub-£100 price point, and I totally get the nostalgia thing. But IME they are not particularly rare and unless you've upgraded/mod'd the bridge and pickup, they are just another cheaply made short scale bass.

Is this only for home use? Sometimes having two separate stands gives you more options for fitting them in on stage, and if there is a catastrophe it is less likely to affect both instruments.

[quote name='MoonBassAlpha' timestamp='1460547907' post='3026651'] I assume they will still have the high pass on one side for better dispersion? [/quote] All the Barefaced cabs with 10" driver mounted side by side have this so I doubt the 4x10 would be an exception. Slightly OT can you turn this off on the Two 10 if you stack it vertically? Alternatively is the full range side marked in some way so that you can have this one higher up?

Custom version? No reason why not. It's just an Eight 10 cab split in two.

Nice to see a "vintage" recording studio which actually features some decent quality vintage gear. I've seen too many studios recently buying up all sorts of old tat, that I wouldn't have even considered for use with my Portatstudio back in the 80s because it was simply rubbish. Just because it's old and analogue doesn't automatically mean it's going to be any good.

£500 for a Musicmaster Bass? That's a lot of money for something that will be out-performed by pretty much any modern sub-£100 instrument.

Are there lots of these basses? Or is it the same one for sale over and over again? And why do they exist? The joke is only mildly funny once (if you're about 10).

Also depends on the shapes of the basses. While the Hercules models will fit most basses, if your instruments don't have asymmetrical bodies there will be more options available to you.

Bassists in a band we've gigged with a few times has an Airline Map Bass. Looks good, but has the a really low output compared with my basses, so I always have to turn the gain right up if he's using my rig. The Eastwood instruments can appear to be very cool, but when you look closely about the only thing that they have in common with the original instruments that they are supposed to be copying is the approximate body shape. All the electrics and hardware is straight out of the generic Korean and Chinese guitars parts bins. In some ways this is a good thing since many of these parts are a definite improvement on those fitted to the original models. However it also means that a lot of the guitars don't have the full quirky character, and some are missing what I would consider to be essential features that were present on the instruments that they are trying to copy.

Without being able to see a proper screen grab of the page, it's very difficult to tell what is going on. However I suspect that your browser version is too old to support the latest version of Soundcloud. Since Safari is very much tied to the OS version that might not be possible. What version of Mac OS are you on and what version of Safari? In the short term it might be easier to use a different browser such as Firefox or Chrome (although IIRC Chrome is also tied to the OS as it also uses Webkit for a lot of it's functionality).

It would be much more useful if you did a screen grab of the browser window and posted that rather than a photo that doesn't seem to show the part of the page that should have the upload button.

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1460112286' post='3022661'] Likewise. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for a 5 string version.... [/quote] Me too! However one thing that I haven't seen picked up and discussed is that AFAICS the long scale model uses exactly the same body as the short scale, but with a longer neck, a shorter tail-piece and a repositioned bridge. That means firstly the pickups are more neck biased in their placement on the long scale, and secondly that there is unlikely to be a 5-string version unless the body is redesigned to accommodate the wider neck that would be required. This would most likely require re-tooling which is going to be a significant expense for what is going to be a considerably less popular instrument. However, the fact that their only competition would be the Warwick StarBass which IIRC correctly has a price tag of close to £2000, it might just make economic sense. I just wouldn't expect it to be the fantastic VFM of the 4-string. Perhaps Chowny Bass would care to comment?

I'm sure bands are louder these days, but IME the sound is also much better and IIRC it's poor sound quality as much as anything that causes hearing damage. If there is distortion now it's intentional and generally musically pleasing rather than the horrible sound of power transistors and speaker cones being forced past their limit. The sound at most of the gigs I went to in the late 70s and early 80s probably wasn't as loud as some these days but was generally horrible (Kraftwerk being a notable exception). Vocals were just about audible in that you could tell there was singing but good luck trying to make out the words, and always on the verge of feeding back. Everything else was a distorted mid-range-y wall of sound caused by having all the amps - both instrument and PA - running close to flat out. I'm sure if it had been economically possible to have been louder back then, it would have been.

If you can find one, a MiK Warwick Pro Series StarBass. Far better than the Rockbass version (and full 34" scale as well) and at least as good IMO as the MiG models.

Of course everyone knows that in the end it's how a bass looks that really counts! ;-)

I think it depends on the instrument and the PA. For my bass rig I have some nice gear with an amp capable of delivering 1kW into the cabs I use and as a result rarely need to wind the master volume up beyond about one third. On the other hand my current guitar amp is now only 50W and run through a power soak, whilst back in the 80s I had a 100W amp that needed to be run flat out most of the time. Also when I first started gigging everything went through the PA and vocals were generally mixed at a level where they could be heard, but the lyrics were rarely discernible. These days vocals at nearly every gig are crystal clear and at most small venues the PA is only used for vocals and the occasional kick drum. Also IIRC in the 70s and 80s we pretty much all ran everything flat out until it failed, and it sounded pretty nasty a lot of the time.

It's a great idea to try and discuss these things with the engineer that will be recording you. If you want your "live" sound in the studio then it is best to use your rig and insist that it is mic'd up, or that the engineer can quickly demonstrate that they can replicate this sound to your and the band's satisfaction from a DI source. IMO DI should always comes second to the sound of the bass rig mic'd up and is used only if the mic'd sound requires a bit of extra weight, or as a safety track that can be re-amped should the overall sound of the song change so much at the mixing stage that your original bass sound is no longer appropriate. The other thing to avoid IMO is the temptation to try instruments and amps in the studio that you are not familiar with. This fine if you have unlimited time and budget for the recording, but that's very rarely the case, so stick with what you know and like.

[quote name='AndyTravis' timestamp='1459939375' post='3021016'] Don't all guitar synth pedals sound a bit like that? Just listened through some decent headphones - sounds good. The only issue I have with my BSW is that if the note you play hasn't got a smooth decay it either warbles awfully or cuts off, seems the processor in this unit is a lot more powerful and actually does something with it. BRX I don't use my BSW to replace a keys player, it's for snippets in songs. I had a Korg G5 for a good while and we used to do "Freak Like Me" by the sugarbabes (sample of Are Friends Electric...) and the G5 was ideal - just a pain to use. This looks like a good compromise between the two - as without a hex pickup or even an actual synth it's always a compromise. [/quote] I went back and had another listen running the sound through my studio monitors, and it doesn't sound quite so awful. But... I think it was a mistake to make a demo of a song with such distinctive synth sounds and not really get very close to the original. The part where they play what is very obviously a guitar part on the recording using the pedal sound is just hilarious! I've been interested in trying to use guitars (and basses) to control synths since before the technology was available and have been following (and trying where ever possible) what has been available from the first proper guitar-controlled units from Roland, ARP and Hagstrom in the 70s onwards. Unfortunately pitch detection is never going to be the solution since the laws of physics are always going to be against you. Having spent a good deal of the 80s trying to make synths sound like guitars and then much of the 90s making guitars and basses sound like synths, I know that while it is possible, it is neither easy or particularly satisfying to do - other than as an exercise to show it can be done after a fashion. Ultimately I found it far easier to develop some rudimentary keyboard chops that allow me to play synth parts quicker and more accurately then wasting hours modifying my guitar technique to do the same thing, but with less consistent results.

Are we watching the same video? All I hear is a way of making a couple of decent guitars sound like a Casiotone put through a cheap fuzz box.

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1459894415' post='3020722'] Don't they still make these? [/quote] Warwick make a more modern version.