Dingus

I think you are well within your rights to ask the individual to remove it , not least of all because it would have been only have been good manners for him to ask your permission before posting it . Why not post a video of you doing yourself justice ( either in collaboration with this guy or on your own account ) ? Lots of us on here would love to see it , and no doubt be very supportive , and there is no question that Youtube can be a very powerful tool for gaining exposure , to say the least . And anyone who plays the bass knows all about the whole playing a few notes to get the sound set up routine that we all go through , so I wouldn't worry too much about this clip that has now been taken down . You aren't going to be the Youtube bass player equivalent of Tulisa .

[quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1353677396' post='1877291'] I believe the craftsmanship that goes into building the bass is more important than the choice of tone woods. If the luthery is perfect... the bass will resonate beautifully. If not, you can spend an arm and a leg on coco-bolo or mahogany, and it will still sound like rubbish. So, on ash vs. alder, light vs heavy, just pick something that is properly built in the first place. [/quote] [quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1353677396' post='1877291'] I believe the craftsmanship that goes into building the bass is more important than the choice of tone woods. If the luthery is perfect... the bass will resonate beautifully. If not, you can spend an arm and a leg on coco-bolo or mahogany, and it will still sound like rubbish. So, on ash vs. alder, light vs heavy, just pick something that is properly built in the first place. [/quote] [quote name='BassPimp66' timestamp='1353677396' post='1877291'] I believe the craftsmanship that goes into building the bass is more important than the choice of tone woods. If the luthery is perfect... the bass will resonate beautifully. If not, you can spend an arm and a leg on coco-bolo or mahogany, and it will still sound like rubbish. So, on ash vs. alder, light vs heavy, just pick something that is properly built in the first place. [/quote] I agree entirely that any bass has to be built properly before you can get on to the finer points of what materials are best suited to particular sounds and styles ect. But , assuming that both basses are built the same and pass muster in terms of basic construction , I think the ash v alder is a very common question , and one that I am interested in myself at the moment . My personal opinion is that both will sound fine , and you probably would notice more of a difference between genuine swamp ash and Northern ash than you would between ash and alder . The basic problem is that It's so hard to make genuine comparisons without having two otherwise identical basses with differing body woods .

[quote name='djaxup' timestamp='1353669741' post='1877140'] I don't really know where this "Justin drowns his sound in effects, so the bass type is irrelevant" misinformation comes from. Schism, Disposition... well just about every song without the distortion effects display the Wal sound quite nicely i think. And tbh, every kind of harsher distortion/fuzz pretty much makes the type of bass involved not too important. My Wal sounds a lot like Schism just with a pick and a sansamp. My other basses sound nowhere near it. If i play with the GK RB1001 with Mesa cab the sound is very close, too - without the sansamp. If i use the Warwick $$, guess what i get a much cleaner sound with more bottom and snarl. I use the P-Bass, exact same other settings, and get that hollow metallic bark you would expect from a P-Bass with pick and rounds. The Wal is the essence of his sound. Just using a pick and a sansamp and any bass with two pickups will get you into his direction though, but without getting that special voice. Use a pick, a clean modern amp and a wal, and you will get "that sound". Wals have a strangely unorganic, a tad muffled sound without pick attack (a special button) engaged, but imo a pick really brings them to live with a crisp and powerful sound with a very special ringy yet squarky tone especially on the G and D strings. I never heard anything like it. Listen to "the pot" intro, or that Stinkfist breakdown at 4:05 mins "Reflection" bass part starts at 20 seconds into the track, thats just what a Wal sounds like with a pick. No plethora of effects... i wonder what kind of effects ppl suspect here? He has a lot of effects, true. If you want examples of that, the Schism bass solo at 04:00 mins or the beginning of "Right in Two" are good examples. Or that Jambi signature riff at 01:03, where you still unmistakably hear a Wal scream. [/quote] I've just listened to the music in question , and none of those sounds are typically characteristic of the classic Wal sound i.e the sound which typified Wal basses during their classic era . Justin seems to emphasize the treble end of the spectrum somewhat , which itself is further emphasized by his use of a pick . If you think that Wal basses sound "muffled " and "strangley unorganic " without the pick attack on then I can only surmise that you yourself too like to favour the top end on your Wal . Nothing wrong with that . The simple fact is though , that to to most people the sound associated with Wal basses is very , very different to the tone Justin Channcelor uses with Tool . Wal is synonymous with a very prominent low mid emphasis , coupled with an effortlessly deep bottom end . All I can suppose is that Justin Chancellor favours these basses because they retain some of that big bottom even after he has added so much treble and drenched his sound in effects . In that sense , the Wal bass is part of his sound , but broadly speaking you could easily replicate his sound with a whole host of other basses . If you wanted to sound like Geddy Lee on Power Windows or Alan Spenner on a certain era of Roxy Music records or Mick Karn in Japan then I would say that only a Wal will get you there , but when it comes to Justin and his sound in Tool I would still say it ends up being a far more generic and processed bass sound than on a whole host of tracks I could reel off that feature players using Wal Basses .

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1353625111' post='1876842'] Tom Bowlus's Bass Gear magazine, issue #9, page 56, Luthier's Roundtable has a relevant article. [url="http://btpub.boyd-printing.com/publication/?i=135014"]http://btpub.boyd-pr...ation/?i=135014[/url] It appears that alder IS mid range focused and wood CAN affect tone. So there you go. [/quote] Thanks for the link to this article . Could I just take this oppotunity to say that whoever designed the website for this magazine has just managed to win my annual award for the most infuriatingly awkward piece of interactive technology .

The difference between the Classic and the Deluxe are mainly cosmetic . The only tonal difference comes from the use of alder as the body wood on the Classic , as opposed to ash on the Deluxe . The Classic has a solid colour finish, with or without a scratchplate , whereas the Deluxe has an ash body with a figured maple top . Lakland will happily make you a Classic with an ash body too , if you prefer ash for any particular reason . In reality , they both sound very similar , to my ears at least . Your talking about subtle differences that come from the respective body woods for each bass .

Me too.

I would be very interested to hear peoples experiences and impressions of the respective tonal merits of these two woods for a Jazz Bass style instrument . I know that alder is supposed to be a bit more midrange-focused like a pre-CBS Fender and ash a bit more bright and compressed , but in practise does anyone hear much of a significant difference when comparing the two ? One thing to consider is that ash is a bit of a broad category when it comes to wood . North American ash varies hugely in density and weight , hence the disparity in sound between genuine Southern swamp ash ( think Mike Lull , Nordstrand, U.S Lakland ) and Northern ash ( think Musicman , 70s Fender and serious lumbago ) . I was wondering if basses made of lightweight ash would have enough weight to the sound compared to alder, especially after casting a longing gaze over some of the very lightweight Mike Lull basses currently in Bass Direct . If anyone has first hand experiences of a good quality Jazz Bass with a very lightweight ash body I would love to hear what they think .

[quote name='machinehead' timestamp='1353364811' post='1874358'] Laklands have been mentioned in this thread. The Lakland models built initially in the Korean and now the Indonesian factories seem to command a premium price equal to US made Fenders. So that's just down to marketing strategies surely? And then there's the Korean built G&L Tribute range which are excellent quality and build standard and about half the price of Korean/ Indonesian built Laklands. Is there enough difference between these two to justify the enormous difference in price? I don't think there is myself but I'm not knocking Lakland by saying that. I'm just commenting on the power of marketing. I'm in the camp that says that the country of origin has little or no bearing on the quality but is simply used as a marketing tool and a method of maximising profits. And profit is what business is all about isn't it? Frank. [/quote] I agree with you Frank , that there are some excellent instruments coming out of the Cortec factory in Indonesia , which is where Lakland are built , and I would suspect G&L Tribute . The Lakland Skylines higher cost reflects the degree of attention they are given back in Chicago where they are Plekked and fitted with the same top quality pickups as the full-spec American basses , and they also have very similar quality bridge and tuners as the U.S models . There really is little or no difference between the sound of the Skylines and the handmade U.S Laklands and the playability is also first rate . The G&L is also excellent but maybe has had less man hours spent on it than a comparable Lakland Skyline , and when factoring the production cost of any guitar the amount of skilled man hours neccesary to produce any given instrument is the key calculation for the manufacturer . Lakland have had a good marketing strategy for sure and are a very successful company , but the undeniable quality of their product at every price point is the real key to their success.

[quote name='Dr M' timestamp='1353345773' post='1874010'] Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that factories in the Far East are any less capable of producing high quality instruments - simply that in general, instruments produced in Far Eastern factories will be produced to a much tighter budget. Even accounting for the difference in labour rates, this usually results in far less time being spent on finishing and QC, leaving instruments more likely to be somewhat rough around the edges. The surprise is often that, even though less time is likely to be spent on those finishing touches in Far Eastern factories, the results are still outstanding. [/quote] I wasn't aiming any of my comments at you or anyone else on Basschat in particular-on the whole most folks in this site seem very accepting of basses made in the far east- I just mean to point out that , as many of us have learnt first hand, where something is made is no guarantee of a particular level of quality control . The only thing that ensures consistancy is someone being dilligent enough to keep an eye on standards of workmanship and not letting the duff examples through . I'm lucky enough to be shopping at the other end of the market , but across the board you can get some excellent value for money basses made in Korea and Indonesia et. al. , from starter basses right up to pro -quality instruments like the Lakland Skylines . If the same basses were made in America or Britain they wouldn't be any better made by Western factory workers . Fender have enough of a problem knocking out half decent U.S.A made instruments that retail for thousands of pounds ; heaven knows what a mess they could make of super cheap basses if the made them in California .

Two pieces of wood don't know whether they were cut and bolted together in Korea or California .What matters is the quality of the materials and , perhaps even more importantly , the care and accuracy with which they are manufactured into the final product . On a historical note , there is a long history of innate prejudice and suspicion in the Western World of the competence and ability of people and goods from the Far East , but, like most prejudices , it is based on ignorance . As anyone who has visited the region will tell you , the people there are as technically savvy as anywhere on the planet , in fact probably more so , and have a talent for getting things done correctly . Of course they can build high quality guitars in Korea - they are one of the most technologically advanced societies on the planet . They could do whatever they put their mind to . I've played so many basses from supposedly esteemed brands that were made in the U.S.A and Europe that had fundamental manufacturing faults but were still put out for sale that I have no faith in the idea that West is Best when it comes to bass making . I would also point out that Lakland have been made in Indonesia for the past few years , and if anything they are even more consistant than when they were made in Korea . It's the same company as made them in Korea , Cortec , in another state- of- the -art factory with very high standards . The only trade off with these far eastern -made basses is likely to be longevity- it remains to be seen if the neccesary compromises made in materials over more expensive western-made instruments will make them robust enough to still be usable in 30 years , but looking at the JV Series Squiers I would say that there is every chance a lot will go the distance .

Have you thought of trying some flats , or half-rounds on it ? I bet they would sound massive and might ( probably would) calm the treble down a bit ?

I think you would be crazy to start butchering your Gibson RD . If it's currently all original then it's an example of a rare and valuable vintage bass that should be preserved . If I remember correctly , the RD was by far Gibsons most ambitious ( and expensive) bass ever . When they came out ( around 1977 , I think ) they were intended to be a flagship product for Gibson , who had put a lot into the research and development of this bass , which was itself intended to get the company competing in the high-tech boutique bass market . The Bob Moog -designed electronics were ( and still are ) unique , as is the final sound of the bass , and it's best just to let it be what it is rather than start messing about with it . I am sure you can tame the percieved brightness in some less radical way - my first call would be to look at what kind of strings your using and how you're E.Q ing the bass- or else learn to love it the way it is . Part of the reason why these basses have got such an amazing tone for rock music is the edge that they have got in the sound that gives them great cut and prescence in the mix . Lose that and you are ruining the bass , in my opinion. Obviously , it's your property so ultimately you can do as you please , but to me it seems a bit like an act of vandalism to start chopping and changing bits of a good example of one of these hard to come by and much sought after basses .Act in haste repent at leisure , as the saying goes . EDIT: I've just been listening to some Gibson RD Artist basses on Youtube . They sound amazing ! Just as I remembered , they are perhaps the ultimate rock tone for bass ever. Could I moderate my previous opinion to say that If you've got a good one of these you would be bloody crazy to start trying to change it .

Just try and be thankful it wasn't worse ! That sounds as if it could have been a very serious accident . Hope all goes well with the scan ect.

I use a Korg Pandora PX4 D to record on my computer via Audacity and get superb and very flexible results . Lots of sounds and features available and I couldn't be happier with the results . The Korg only costs about £90 and is a great tool for practising at home as well as recording .

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1353171319' post='1872395'] Compression built into amps is at best a poor alternative to 'the real thing', and more often completely rubbish IME. Avoid at all costs.... [/quote] I would agree that an outboard compressor is usually much better ( depending on which outboard compressor you choose of course , but thats a whole other subject ) but there are one or two notable exceptions . The old Trace Elliot two band compressor on the GP12SMX preamp was good for example , , and the single band compressor on the cheaper GP7 was even better . Built -in amp compression might not be ideal in absolute terms , but in the real world if your playing in a pub or club and you need to limit your amp a bit , it can be a handy tool to have available and is better than nothing in that situation .

[quote name='ikay' timestamp='1353171323' post='1872396'] Yes, I'm sure the fretwork does also have something to do with it. The JO4 has an exceptional neck (it's an early one from 2002 so pre Plek - in my view a positive!). The '72 still has its original frets and has been played a lot in its life. A classic workhorse bass with all the associated mojo. The frets have been dressed a few times and are getting a bit low. It's a great player but does require a slightly more forgiving action the the JO. I had a Noel Redding Jazz until a couple of years ago which also had a 7.25" neck. This had narrow vintage frets which were in very good shape but the neck still needed a little more relief and a slightly higher action than the JO. Basic geometry comes into play here. The narrow nut on a Jazz means the strings are splayed out towards the bridge (a little more than on a Precision). The top and bottom strings in particular are therefore running at quite an angle to the centreline of the neck. Doing this on a neck with a small fixed radius means that the outer strings will choke/buzz (around the middle part of the neck) if the action is too low. The larger the fingerboard radius and the more parallel the strings (ie. wider the nut), the lower the action will go before choking/buzzing. A compound radius also helps with a low action. [/quote] Ah , now I think I see . I suppose in light of those facts , ( if I understand correctly , the outer strings in effect recieve less relief from the truss rod , and so the entire neck needs more relief for the outer strings to get enough curvature in the neck beneath them , and the strings need raising to similalty compensate for the difference in relief of enjoyed by the outer strings ) . I would hope that the more expertly the neck is made and the better the fret job , the less you would have to compensate . Thanks for explaining that , it becoming a bit clearer too me now ( I think!) .

Two absolute stunners !!! Vintage Jazz Bass Meltdown !!! Nurse , bring me my credit card !

This looks like the real thing to me . I've never seen another vintage Fender in this colour , and I think it would look even more impressive in the flesh . I do like black basses , and this looks like an interesting alternative . I know the post-2008 American Standard basses were offered in charcoal frost , and I like to think I know my Fenders but I had no idea it was a vintage Fender colour . This looks like one for a serious collector .

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1353167481' post='1872336'] I have a Stingray Classic which has a similar fretboard radius to what you describe. I find it excellent - I only notice the difference when going back to playing a standard SR4 (although it only takes a minute or two to become accustomed again). I have always found more of an issue, however, with the width of the fretboard of a 'vintage' (say 60s) P bass - they are slightly wider than the modern ones and my short fingers don't like them. [/quote] Thanks Dr T, that's good to know . I know some players say that they find a more curved radius more comfortable , I'm just not clear on why . I'm very particular about how my basses play , so I'm trying to find out what I might be getting myself into.

[quote name='ikay' timestamp='1353163786' post='1872294'] I have a 72 J with 7.25" radius and a Lakland JO4 with 10" radius. By way of comparison, I can feel that the '72 has a slightly more curved board but in general terms I find them both as comfortable to play. The bigger radius and flatter board is a bit more comfortable when playing further up the board and above the 12th fret. I can also get a lower and faster action on the JO than the '72. As I like a fairly low action with very little neck relief my general preference is for a larger radius (10"-16"). Having said that the '72 suits a more medium action and the 7.25" radius somehow feels 'right' on a bass of this vintage. All other things being equal though, If I was buying a 'modern' bass I'd go for the bigger radius. [/quote] Thanks for the comparison , that's exactly the kind of information I'm after . The bass I'm looking at is a modern take on a vintage style bass , so maybe the more curved radius would feel correct on it . I too like a low action with a small amount of relief , and I was wondering if the difference in action between the Lakland and your 72 Fender could be to do with the difference in the fret work on each bass as well as the radius ? All the Laklands I have played have had seriously good fret jobs , both Skyline and U.S.A , and that combined with those very narrow vintage frets they use lends itself towards a very low setup .

To echo what a couple of the previous posters have said , my approach is to take a bass that is easy to play and that I like the sound of , plug it into an amp and cab that is loud enough for people to hear me and then play the bass . In my experience everything else is pretty superfluous . The only really neccesary effect to have in your arsenal if you are a bass player is compression , and most amps have some version of that built in nowadays anyway .

I have had a fair few old Fenders in the past that must have had a 7 1/4 inch radius , but it's getting to be so long ago I can't remember what that felt like in comparison to a more modern flatter radius. I 've got to decide whether to buy a bass with that vintage radius in the next day or two and would like to know if there is anybody who can make a direct comparison between , say , a 10 inch radius board and a 7.25 vintage Fender radius . What would be the immidiately percievable difference ?

Spectors . I want a Spector . The problem is the only one I would be happy with is the full spec U.S.A model , and they are pretty pricey and hard to get hold of , to say the least. On the subject of Spectors , I have it on good authority that Geddy Lee has recently purchased one and has been playing it quite a bit . Fact.

I am looking at the possibility of buying a bass with a vintage-style Fender neck profile , and it has a 7.25 inch fingerboard radius . This is a lot more curved than the 9 - 11 inch radius boards I have been used to playing in recent years and I would like to know what difference the more curved board will make to the feel of the bass in terms of action and playability . Any opinions , comparisons and experiences gratefully recieved .

[quote name='Bobo_Grimmer' timestamp='1353088648' post='1871599'] This is exactly what the missus and i have just been talking about. It kind of feel like i have a justification hat for my GAS and that hat goes on a lot. That then in turn feeds the negativity i feel from looks and wonders about thoughts other musicians are having of me at gigs.... If that makes sense. [/quote] Trust me when I tell you that even if other musicians are making judgements about you based on the gear you use at gigs , they are not likely to any more rational in those judgements than you are being irrational in fearing their judgement . Who are they anyway , and whatever judgement they were to make about you , what possible difference could it make to you ? Who is listening to their opinions ? Try having some faith in your own choices . If you like a particular piece of equipment for whatever reason that should be reason enough for using it . Let other people have whatever opinion of it they like- you will never be able to control what other people think anyway, no matter how hard you try . Excessive worry about what other people think of us is another classic symptom of various neurotric psychological disorders , including social phobia and much more rarely, scopophobia . It's always a good idea ( within reason ) to resist avoiding the everyday things we are frightened of , because in avoiding them they become more powerful in our imagination and more frightening over time . If you feel self -conscious about your equipment choices then make a point of using it and enjoying it . You will soon feel better about things as a result.