Lfalex v1.1

To loud? No Censitivitey, Na Articulashun? Dat's just wen I is talkin. U Shuld ear me wen I plays...

I have a cheap (£80) 8-track mixer that I run into a QSC PLX1202 (£250 second-hand). When bridged, it gives me about 700w (rms) into 8ohms, or 1200w (rms) into 4ohms. That's only the baby model of the old range, too. Alex C [i]was[/i] using an Avalon Pre-amp into the bigger PLX3002 (3000w into 4ohms when bridged) I only use standard tuned 4/5/6 strings, and it seems to work well enough even with my modest Trace Elliot 4x10. Pre/Power is a good way to go. My set up gives you a blendable FX loop, Inputs for 4 basses at once, stereo operation if you want it, 48v Phantom power for FX, and so on. All up, it cost me £330 and a Speakon connector. That's a bargain for the kind of tone and power it delivers. One thing to watch for with older cabs- if they've got 1/4" jack connectors, you might want to change these for Speakons, as sticking 1+ kw through something originally designed for telephone exchanges isn't a great idea...

Optical Pick-ups (eg; Lightwave) Variax Modelling instruments. Love 'em or hate 'em, it was a bold concept and a good attempt. Imagine those electrics in a Status... Midi systems (whether by hex pick-up or voltage sensing frets or other means) Active EQ systems D.I. Digital Tuners None of these are [i]essential[/i] to electric bass playing, but how many of us have [i]never[/i] used a DI or digital tuner? And I'd contend that these two have done the most to ensure that what we're playing is in tune and faithful to what's being played. I know some folks prefer their cabs to be miked up, but for recording purposes, a mixture of mic and DI or DI alone is a common methodology.

[quote name='fender73' date='Sep 21 2010, 08:12 AM' post='962941' Great bass in terms of construction/tone etc.... I didn't get on with the size and shape of the bass so sold it on, but they have many fans and are truly great bits of kit. [/quote] That's it in a nutshell. I visited Colchester, and tried S2s, Kingbasses and a Streamline. The S2 and Streamline suited me fine, but the Kingbass didn't. I bought a Streamline. I think it's due to the Alembic/JayDee/Mark King influences on the shape. Maybe I wear it too low...

I prefer Warwick Yellow labels to Reds. Softer and smoother, as they're nickels I tried Warwick EMPs. They were dreadful (and expensive) I'm currently using Elixirs on the Infinity (SN4) and Rotosounds on the Streamer LX6 (but only because they're cheap!) The Elixirs sound superb on the Infinity, so I'll carry on using those. I'll re-string the sixer with Yellow labels next time, as they seem to suit it well.

Looks good. I bet you can coax a fair few tones out of it with V/T V/T controls. How well balanced are the pick-ups in terms of output level- Is the "P" a lot hotter than the "J"? How long before people start modding these? BadAss/Hipshot/Gotoh bridges, tuners, etc. Can't stand tort scratchplates, though. It'd have to be swapped for a 3ply B/W/B or a Mirrored one!

Pick whichever bass is [i]least[/i] appropriate (in most people's eyes) for the gig. Take that, and prove them wrong...

Second hand Stingray5? Warwicks?

No doubt someone's got BA55IST and so on. I wonder if Leo Quan has a BAD455 on his car?

[quote name='Johngh' post='955942' date='Sep 14 2010, 01:09 PM']Warwick's. Just can't get myself to forgive them for making Status break the moulds for the awesome Status Entwhistle Buzzard.[/quote] Ah, you know that story, too. 'Tis a sad tale. A bit naughty on Warwick's part, methinks. Still, I have bought a Status to compensate for the Warwicks I own... And GAS dictates that another [i]will[/i] follow!

[quote name='beardybass' post='955662' date='Sep 14 2010, 06:29 AM']It looks like a softmint! Not necessarily a bad thing, but you wouldn't people to come up and start sucking on your instrument while you're on stage, now would you?[/quote] Thank God you posted that on BC, where people will take it in the correct context! The instrument in question is a Ritter, BTW.

[quote name='BigRedX' post='954410' date='Sep 13 2010, 09:41 AM']There are also some design features on modern basses that I really don't like: Neck-through basses with figured tops where the top wood doesn't cover the neck-through part. WHY?[/quote] Because, having paid more fore a thru-neck, some owners want some visible evidence that says "Hey, I've got a thru-neck" The only major manufacturers I can think of that conceal their neck-thru behind body faces are Warwick and som Status models. [quote]Basses with figured tops where the wood at the back is something so characterless and bland that you wouldn't even consider it for fake laminate flooring, so why is it on an otherwise fantastic looking bass?[/quote] 1. It's at the back? 2. Some genuinely good tonewoods (Alder, Poplar, Mahogany etc.) aren't as attractive as Maple, Zebrano, Cocobolo and so on. If someone wants to blend the tonal qualities of, say, Alder and Maple, it makes aesthetic sense to put the prettier one on top. Making sandwiched bodies is all very well, but more expensive. Also, you end up with stripes through the body (see above complaint about stripey necks) I suppose you could take a wood like Cedar and wrap it in carbon fibre instead [quote]Basses where the top wood has been colour stained but the back is natural (normally the colour used is blue which IMO is the worst looking when paired with natural light coloured wood).[/quote] So no Maple fretboard on your Lake Placid Blue Jazz with matching Headstock, then? Personally I crave something in solid gloss Canary Yellow with matching headstock, black hardware and an Ebony or Black Phenolic fretboard...

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='952712' date='Sep 11 2010, 01:52 PM']Yes that must be why its called "The sweet spot" and copied by everyone else? And why they have never managed to sell many instruments! [/quote] Come on Sterling. You're not fooling anyone! Back to yer own forum! Err... I don't really [i]hate[/i] any basses. Some appeal to me more than others, but if it sounds good and plays well, then it IS good. Aesthetics are a secondary consideration. That bloody Warwick upside-down-Explorer-with-the-wrong-headstock abomination should be erased from history, though! Gold hardware is no good for me- Sweat will turn it green in a month's worth of gigging. And it's too [b]bling[/b] for my taste.

[quote name='JTUK' post='952429' date='Sep 11 2010, 06:16 AM']look ok...I think the colour and scratch plate are trying too hard tho.[/quote] Agreed. Keep the colour, have a plain scratchplate (or none/clear) and change the hardware to black or chrome. It'd be better then. But maybe I should be quiet, given that I own this;

Looks like the "Addicted to Love" video, but without the girls in black dresses and Robert Palmer (RIP)

[quote name='Kirky' post='945891' date='Sep 5 2010, 08:41 AM']I'm a big fan of the earlier stuff - what a great band they were! Stepping Out is good too. He is a very talented writer and performer but for me, the combination of him and the original band is unbeatable.[/quote] +1! Whilst Stepping Out is a top tune, "[i]Look Sharp[/i]" and "[i]I'm The Man[/i]" (the albums) are where it's at!

IIRC the "wolf tone" syndrome is caused by an interaction between magnets and strings. So, the stronger the magnets/ closer the strings, the more likely it is to happen. Also, the magnets can damp the vibration of the strings, potentially shortening/changing the character of the sustain. If you have open-poled pick-ups, beware of hitting the pole-pieces with strings! That said, closer pick-ups = more output = (generally) better signal/noise ratio. As with all things, there's an optimum balance that suits each individual player. The good part is that it's easy (almost to the point of being fun!) to do. You can readily tell if you've gone too far, and simply reset the height to its original position if necessary as long as you take measurements before you start!!

Work commitments (etc.) permitting, I'd be up for one in Cambs.. EDIT- Or Suffolk, for that matter. Norfolk is less accessible. I guess Essex is considered to be "South East", rather than East Anglia.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='939745' date='Aug 30 2010, 02:22 AM']Probably the best material for a bass cab would be carbon fiber honeycomb matrix. It works well enough in F-117s. But it ain't cheap, especially since most of it is gobbled up by the aerospace industry.[/quote] Celestion made a compact (stereo, 2-way) loudspeaker system in the 80's called the SL600(/i) made from a material called Aerolam. Similar principle. Oh, an they weren't cheap! With reference to the resonant quality of cabinets (mentioned earlier by another poster), all cabinets will have various resonant modes, caused by various factors. There are a number of means of reducing this, a good one being to try to move the resonant frequency of the enclosure that corresponds to its mass either outside the audio band entirely or to a point where it won't be too obtrusive. I'd assume the primary objective in a low-cabinet-mass hifi loudspeaker system would be to minimise colouration by reducing the enclosure's ability to store energy. In a bass cab, whilst a laudible objective, I'd consider it secondary to the ability to carry it easily! Worth a go [i]if[/i] you've got access to the means and materials, as the OP plainly has. Some areas I can see being worthy of attention; The front baffle needs to be rigid enough to support the drivers properly Cabinet bracing might be good idea! Carbon Fibre is [u]very[/u] stiff, but it is also brittle. Look at the way in which F1 cars and composite cycle frames splinter and de-laminate when crashed hard. Bass cabs take more than a few knocks during their lives! Flight-casing the cabinet would solve this, but negates the weight advantage you worked so hard to secure. Perhaps rounding-off all the external edges and vertices would help (and look nice!), plus some sort of rubber "bumpers" around the areas most likely to sustain big impacts... Edit for dodgy quoting of BFM and an apology to ShergoldSnickers for not reading his post from 2 hrs previous. Great minds think alike, though!

I use either a Korg Pandora PX4-D (Does bass & guitar) You can turn off all the modelling and FX and the clean tone is perfectly respectable. It's got a built-in tuner, too. Otherwise, I use a cheapo (£80!) 8-track mixer. That sounds SO good, I've started using it as a pre-amp with a power amp and 4x10 for rehearsal and live use. It's super flexible- You could have 4 basses plugged into it at once, all with different gain/EQ/level settings. It's got a blendable FX loop and an aux send that I use to drive a tuner.

[quote name='dave.c' post='937045' date='Aug 26 2010, 12:38 PM']I'd go for pretty much anything on Joe Jacksons 'Look Sharp!' album, bassist Graham Maby, just great![/quote] Oh yes! Or 'I'm the Man', for that matter!, primarily; Fools in love I'm the man Got the time Done on an Ibanez- either a Roadstar or Roadster by all accounts. Dunno whether I'd call it "Pop", but if I didn't, I don't know what I would call it! I'm tempted to chuck in "Babooshka" or "You Can Call me Al", but I'm not sure that they're Pop either. Otherwise, a +1 to "Slip-slidin' Away" and (the inevitable) "Sledgehammer"

[quote name='BigRedX' post='939226' date='Aug 29 2010, 09:58 AM'][url="http://www.ritter-instruments.com/princess-isabella.php"]Yours for €7200[/url][/quote] Actually, that's really rather nice! Quite conservative by Ritter standards, albeit a bit on the expensive side. I'd rather have that than a vintage White Falcon or somesuch...

Does Jens Ritter make guitars, too, then?