hamfist

[quote name='allighatt0r' timestamp='1414059566' post='2585240'] Could be your next project bass in the making? [/quote] Don't tempt me. I'm trying to cut down.

Always thought these would be a very versatile bass if you snuck a P pickup in there in the std Fender position, which looks "free". The Pickguard will cover any routing.

THey are very, very different amps. The Orange has a good sound, but only one basic sound. The GK is much more versatile but is actually a very complicated amp to set up and a lot of folks don't understand them and get it wrong. IN fact it took me owning a 700RB mKII and then a 1001RB MKII to actually work it out. IMO, there is no inherent "clank" in the RB sound, but it can certainly get there if you want it. A key difference is in the quality of the OD. The Orange will get a fuzzier edge to the tone as you increase gain, whereas the GK will get a slightly woollier (but great in the mix) phatness as you increase the boost. With the GK, it's the level of the boost that is key, and is a main factor in giving you all the different tones that the amp can offer. "My" way to set up a GK RB is this .......First, set your gain (input volume), for your input level, as per the owner's manual to avoid clipping at that stage. Then setting all EQ at noon, contour completely anticlockwise, experiment with different levels of boost. For me I find it rather unmusical greater than 11-12 o'clock, but that's just me. But without any boost it's sterile and clinical. Getting the right amount is key for your tone. Also you might need to tweak your gain down a bit (which will effectively reduce boost levels also). Once you are getting a base level of clarity/fatness that you like, the next control I would look at is the contour, which is incredibly powerful. It'll cut out mids at about 500Hz. PLaying on your own you'll probably want to set it further clockwise to sound "nice", but with a band you'll need more mids and will need a more anticlockwise setting. I generally find the musical range with J and P basses to be between completely anticlockwise (off) and about 11 o'clock on the dial. Fine tune the top end with the presence control (if you have a horn/tweeter) and only then do I look at fine tuning with the 4 x EQ controls. Then Master volume to get the loudness you need. note .... Personally I don't find setting the master at 3 o'clock (as advocated by many) and then setting volume using the input volume control useful. What you get using that technique is a different tone at each different volume. Using this I have discovered what an incredibly versatile amp these RB's are. FUzzy OD they won't do (pedals add that for me), but a more old school "valvely fatness" (perfect for motown) they will, along with a lot of other more contemporary clanky, clean and other tones. People seem to be obsessed about saying how they sound like DUff McKagan's sound. And, yes they can do, but also so much more.

Seriously, an "MN" pot will work much smoother in the blend, without that great dip in the 50:50 blend position that others have. I really like the Bourns ones, MN500K for me, wiring like this, but[b][u] leave off the connection to ground [/u][/b]... [url="http://www.ephotobay.com/share/barto.html"][/url]

It's usually pretty easy to tap them out from the back, using a large screwdriver and a hammer. Make sure the headstock is supported well (I usually do it on my lap) and don't be too hamfisted with the hammer (gentle tapping usually does the trick in the end). Some folks will insist that the old bushings are squeezed out using some sort of special clamp and other fittings. Sounds like way too much trouble to me and I have changed many, many bushings using a hammer and screwdriver with no issue apart from the potential one described below, which would not be cured by squeezing rather that tapping the old bushings out anyway. The only issue is that sometimes the bushing takes a lump of the laquer on the front face of the headstock off with it. Usually this lump is small enough to be covered by the new bushing, but there is no guarantee of that I suppose.

The J&D '63 Precision specs don't give the nut width spec, but just by the pics I'm sure it's well wider than a Jazz neck, certainly over 40mm.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1413814211' post='2582206'] Pity it's green, though. [size=4] [/size] [/quote] Off with you. THere's no room for doubters on this thread.

[quote name='Paul S' timestamp='1413747875' post='2581554'] I'd say more pistacchio than mint, but colour is so subjective... [/quote] You have a good eye sir. Painted in Plastikote Super in Pistachio !!!

Well, it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that green is the colour of "tone". Basses in green, particularly lighter shades, are also way cooler looking in every way. Basses are made from wood, from trees. Trees produce leaves, which are .... green. Wood naturally produces green things, it's the natural order of things. Wood, green and basses, all together in a holy trinity. Here is evidence...... [url=http://www.ephotobay.com/share/green-jazz.html][/url] [url=http://www.ephotobay.com/share/statwest-main-b.html][/url] [url=http://www.ephotobay.com/share/westone-ray-body-front.html][/url] Please feel free to agree and to post other evidence.

As said by Si, they are different tones. Whether the Knightfall has "bite" and "snarl" all comes down to your individual definition of those words. I would say that the Knightfall is a very, very fine dirt pedal with a good range of gain/dirt to be had at different settings. The bass shift toggle is useful to give it a different feel. Full frequency gives it slightly more of an Ampeg vibe, softer and fuzzier. Taking the dirt away from those low frequencies tightens things up, makes them more "harsh" and "modern" if you will. I find the Knightfall responds very much like a tube amp in that that you can clean it up by cutting mids from your bass and, conversely, dirty it up by boosting mids from your bass (if you have that facility !). To find out if it's for you, there's no other other way but trying one.

[quote name='alyctes' timestamp='1413646864' post='2580523'] The body shape has changed, but not the colour... [/quote] Still got the other greenie. She's part of the family now.

Can't beat these with black hardware. Nice bass Mark88mph. I've gone little further with mine. Pickups now changed to Duncan STacked Jazz bridge and SPB-1 neck. And my graphite Status neck just looks sooooo good on it. [url=http://www.ephotobay.com/share/green-jazz.html][/url]

[quote name='PlungerModerno' timestamp='1413325583' post='2577276'] What the . . . That's pretty cool. Reminds me of these: Only more metal!!!! [/quote] NECK DIVE !!!

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1413319453' post='2577167'] OK, try this then: '[color=#333333]Fender adopted alder for electric instrument bodies in mid 1956, not because of a detailed scientific evaluation of its sonic properties, but probably for no other reason than it was [/color][i]there[/i][color=#333333]; that it was readily available and more affordable than ash. Ever since, it is the body wood for the majority of Fender electric instruments. It was and still is a very good choice ...[[/color][color=#333333]red] alder is used for guitars in general and Fender guitars in particular. Since it grows from Southeast Alaska to Central California and almost always within 125 miles of the Pacific Coast, a plentiful and affordable supply existed practically in Fender’s backyard.'[/color] [color=#333333]Source -- www.fender.com[/color] [/quote] I think their use of the word "probably" indicates that the source of all this is not actually that close to the decision-making process of Fender at the time. It's true that some myths simply grow and grow. After being repeated so many times, they almost seem to become "fact". I am not claiming that I am right or that you and the Fender source are wrong, but simply that I find it almost unbelievable if it were true, and I suspect the absolute truth will never be known to the general public.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1413315071' post='2577113'] Well I'm quoting Black and Molinaro's 'The Fender Bass - An Illustrated History' which is my Fender Bible and I have no reason to believe they would be wrong about this when they are right about so much else... but it's not gospel, I suppose Have you seen any written proof that Leo chose woods for their tone? Not that I want to attach too much importance to it. I will say though that [i]in my humble opinion and in my experience[/i], I don't think that body woods greatly affect the tone of an electric bass. [/quote] I have no evidence whatsoever for my suspicion. I just find it inconceivable that any musical instrument manufacturer of any but the cheapest instruments does not include tone and musicality as at least a small part of the decision-making reasoning for the design and materials. It's like making tyres and not taking into account any grip or friction of the material chosen with road tarmac. The Black and Molinaro book is, I guess, a fairly decent source but who knows what the real truth is ? I think one is going to play and play.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1413275408' post='2576496'] I'm sorry to report that they weren't. He chose woods based on availability, cost and ease of finishing. Fender did not consider tone to be a factor at any point in the process. [/quote] I honestly struggle to believe that. I am not doubting that you have read it and are repeating it in good faith. but I wonder where or who the original source was and how reliable it was. I obviously stand to be corrected if I am completely wrong. I am not doubting that availability, cost and ease of finishing were not important factors, but tone having no importance in any decision ?? Hmmmm. Why not just use pine, which seems to fulfil all those criteria and is much cheaper.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1413229141' post='2576186'] If the fancy top added a smidge of treble which I think we are all conceding is possible TheSiberian do you not think in reality it's going to be an insignificant amount compared to say +/-18db of boost or cut on a Glockenklang preamp? Serious question im not trying to cause an arguement [/quote] I strongly suspect that TheSiberian's comments were made with tongue firmly in cheek.

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1413220716' post='2576010'] I very much doubt that they designed the Bongo thinking of the properties of basswood. I think it's more likely that basswood may be cheap(er) in some places, so it's used on cheap(er) instruments, and the lack of "inspiration" is merely a reflection of an instrument made cheaply, cutting corners. Leo Fender didn't choose alder or ash because of their "tonewood" qualities exactly. Plenty of decent guitars are made of basswood and got nothing to be ashamed of. The whole classic "metal" Ibanez RG550 guitars were fantastic (once you removed the meh V7/V8 pickups), and made of basswood. Incidentally I had an RG548, which was the same design but with a natural finish, and the body being ash (for prettiness)... it didn't sound any better than a miriad of basswood RG550s I came across. But... I know, we'll just have to agree to disagree [/quote] Agreed, basswood is great for guitars. But I do suspect that when Leo was choosing what woods to use for his P's and J's, their tonal qualities were somewhere in his thoughts.

[quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1413197758' post='2575646'] In the case of an electric bass with a preamp... you could string a table up and put the electronics and pickups in it and it would sound pretty much the same as the bass the components came from. [/quote] I disagree. Having changed bodies on active basses, I have definitely heard significant changes. And (definitely not directed at you, EBS freak) using the psychoacoustics argument to always discount anyone who expresses the opinion that they have heard differences when using different wood/bodies is just rather lazy IMO. These same people who have heard tonal differences have also NOT heard tonal differences with other changes. I think it unlikely that they were significantly more likely to "want " to hear changes in bodies/woods rather than other changes like pre-amps or pickups for example. I have changed everything that it is possible to change on a bass. Many, if not most, of these changes have made no significant tonal difference to my ears. But changing bodies has .... every time I'd say. Same with changing necks (but an even great effect IME).

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1413196738' post='2575623'] Great, so plywood it is, then!! [/quote] Rather good plywood than basswood for me ! I had an awesome old Korean Squier with a Ply body. Sounded great. And going back to the Talkbass experiment. All it indicates is that the single "lumber" bass in that test sounded very similar to the alder bass used. Not that "all" or "most" crappy wood basses would sound the same. It is an experiment comparing two things. One cannot extrapolate the results too much. I haven't read the entire thread but it doesn't say what wood the "lumber" plank bass was made from in the first few posts. It may have been a pretty decent piece of hardwood, despite being "scrap".

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1413186844' post='2575506'] There could still be a correlation between basswood and basses that aren't wonderful. Simply because basswood is cheap and therefore gets used for cheap instruments, and also high end instrument buyers don't like it, so high end bass makers may avoid it for marketing purposes. But, correlation does not imply causation. [/quote] Quite possible for Basswood, agreed. I, like many others though, have changed the body of a bass whilst keeping everything else the same, and noticed a profound difference in tone. I will note though that there are differences between different bodies of the same wood, as there are differences between woods. Each body is effectively unique. However, I am convinced that there are also reasonable generalisations that can be stated about various woods as used in bass bodies. This really isn't the thread to go into it in detail though. My initial comment about basswood construction in the Revelation Jazz bass on ebay will put many others off as well as me though.

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1413154820' post='2575417'] What's wrong with basswood? [/quote] I know this is a contentious subject, but I have yet to play a basswood-constructed bass that I have been impressed with. Ditto Agathis. Soft, non-resonant. I strongly believe that the body and (even more) the neck structure and material are intimately involved in the tone of a bass. Hardness and rigidity being key factors. I'm sure basswood construction can be done right. I am aware that Bongo's are made from Basswood for example. But the whole instrument will have been designed from the ground up with that in mind I expect, and a lot of care gone into the whole construction. Cheaper basses just seem to use standard designs and yet make the bodies from basswood. Doesn't work IMO.