4000

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1384608471' post='2278652'] Surprised that no one has mentioned the string spacing. If you're used to Fenders (19mm at the bridge) then you'll find the strings uncomfortably close together, especially if you play fingerstyle, and ever more so if you like to dig in. The lack of "comfort contouring" on the upper side of the body means that there's a real tendency to dig into your side or rib-cage. In a heavy bass (frequently 5Kg) that's not a good thing. [/quote] The string spacing is one of my favourite things. FWIW a typical 4001 weighs 9lbs; mine are both about 8.5. I actually find the body far more comfortable than a Fender. 19mm spacing is at least 3mm too wide for me. What all this boils down to is many people who are used to Fender-inspired designs don't get on with them because they feel very different. I learned to play on one so have the opposite problem; for me there is no less comfortable bass, both to hold and to play, than a Fender Jazz. Also many here seem to have some real bee in their bonnet about them, possibly partly to do with John Hall. So far as I'm concerned I'd choose a good Ric over anything; the only basses that come close IMO are Sei and Alembic. However what I would always suggest with any instrument is play as many examples as you can and make up your own mind as only you will know what feels right to you.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1384595777' post='2278447'] I have lusted over many a Ric, tried almost everyone I have seen in the shops, borrowed one and gigged it with a view to buying it as it was a good year and colour combination and at a bargain price, I had the cash to spare yet still gave it back! My biased findings so far.... 1- Neck dive. 2- Nastycheap feel to the machine head tuners operation. 3- Fingerboard not following the main neck along its length properly as if it has shunk or something. 4- Body edges that you can shave with. 5- Poorly finished bindings compared to a Gibson Les Paul.' 6- Pickup cover in the way, its right where I want to play especially with a pick (same goes for a Jazz with its covers on). 7- Remove cover and you are left with a crude metal finger grater. 8- Big clumsy bridge often swapped for something more accuratley adjustable. 9- Looks awesome and almost worth buying especially if you get offered a 70's one in fireglo red on the cheap, [i]almost.[/i] [/quote] Interesting, as I feel they're vastly superior to Stingrays in every way. I find them far comfier, I find them far easier to play and I also find them far more versatile. :-)

Best thread title ever. :-)

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1383988257' post='2271511'] I was disappointed at the lack of Syd Barret era material in the miscellany. While I like a lot of the later stuff with Gilmour, the early whimsical stuff appeals to me more for whatever reason. [/quote] Not really a fan of Sid, beyond the fact that he inspired WYWH.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1383922245' post='2270872'] That's when I first heard Rush! It was a recording broadcast on the Rock Show in the autumn of 1979 of them playing at the Pink Pop Festival in Holland that summer . There is actually film of that performance from Dutch TV on Youtube. [/quote] I've still got the tape I recorded of the broadcast somewhere. Although I missed a bit of the start of Xanadu because I was secretly recording it on my dad's hi-fi while he was out and he came back unexpectedly causing me to panic and stop recording. He was very precious about his gear and wouldn't let anyone touch it.

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1383732037' post='2268179'] I know people who are massive prog rock fans who say Rush "isn't prog". Funny old world isn't it. [/quote] I wouldn't call them prog and I'm a huge prog fan. Although all such subdivisions (sorry) are really rather meaningless. When I first discovered Rush (Hemispheres tour on the Friday Rock Show?) I loved them. After Moving Pictures I just lost interest and I now find anything after that pretty much unlistenable. Like Dream Theater.

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1383603431' post='2266589'] It just goes to show that music evokes so many emotions and opinions. I can't stand listening to the music that Pink Floyd produce. It is obviously played with precision and is played perfectly but seems so devoid of any emotion. There's just something about it that makes it all so twee and instantly forgettable but i can appreciate that a lot of people can't get enough of it. [/quote] I find it full of emotion, strangely, if in a rather repressed, middle-class sort of way. Which as a former grammar school boy I understand completely.

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1383661246' post='2267211'] I've just watched 'Prog at the BBC' on iPlayer. The bands i liked then i still like and those i didn't i still don't. Family and Soft Machine were great bands. Atomic Rooster and Wishbone Ash were always worth seeing live at a college for only a few bob and Yes still really annoy me more than i can say. [/quote] Floyd (up to and including The Wall), Yes (up to and including GFTO) and Genesis (up to and including ATTWT) are 3 of my 5 or 6 all-time favourite bands (the others probably being ABBA, the Chilis and Bow Wow Wow). I guess we have different tastes.

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1383411889' post='2264228'] What's to worry about when people say this? So I don't have the finely tuned ears to differentiate between a 77 Jazz with a maple neck and an 81 thats got a rosewood neck but, I appreciate that some people do. I fully understand that many players buy basses to get a particular sound, or a feel and playability to an instrument which will bring them nearer to what they are looking for and if it works for them, great. But, Marcus Miller would sound like Marcus Miller if he was playing a Chinese Squier through his normal amplification and I doubt if anyone would leave the gig because they thought his sound was terrible. [/quote] Wrong end of the stick mate. It worries me because I obviously have a huge anal streak. :-) As for MM, I'd already have left the gig because I think his sound is always terrible. ;-)

Our "drummer" uses one instead of a kit. It sounds great and he gets nothing but compliments. Our old kit drummer once saw us at a festival and reckoned it was the best "snare" sound of the day. It cost £95. I'll be getting one soon enough.

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1383328289' post='2263296'] I also found out that if I'm listening to past gig recordings, I couldn't tell you what bass I was playing on any particular track as they all seem to sound the same whatever I play. [/quote] It always worries me when people say this as I can always easily tell which bass I'm playing, even down to individuals of the same type of bass.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1383315384' post='2263065'] Alembics are all ugly [/quote] Bollocks. Some of the most beautiful basses I've ever seen are Alembics. It's all just personal taste. FWIW I think anyone who thinks all basses sound the same has cloth ears. Of course whether it matters what they sound like is a different issue, but it matters to me. To answer the OP, experience is seldom a waste of time. I've had loads of basses at all price points and haven't regretted any of them because I've learnt something from all of them.

[quote name='bremen' timestamp='1383309659' post='2262936'] Another happy quarter pounderist here, for that clanky sound when you dig in, piano definition when you don't. [/quote] ...neither of which is something I want from a P.

Jazz Morley. Supported her Monday night, along with Jess Harwood. Both were fantastic.

Damn. John is one of my favourite players. Best wishes John!

Tried a Starcaster last week. Fab. One of the most fun basses I've tried in recent times.

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1382478209' post='2252777'] I love the sound of a Stingray, except when I`m playing one [/quote] +1. Tried one again (for the 100th time) the other day and hated it. Again. The only available frequencies were ones I didn't want. I just seem to make them sound terrible, same as I do with Jazzes and Statii. I also played a Fender Starcaster bass which suited me waaaaaaay more. Loved that (despite the headstock!).

Lady Maisery. Seth Lakeman. And local singer-songwriters Jess Harwood and David Shurr. Oh, and Rita Hosking, who we supported last year.

[quote name='dannybuoy' timestamp='1382451918' post='2252285'] Er, maybe it's not wired up correctly? There should be a massive difference, from bright and clanging with it fully up and dull and thuddy when rolled off. [/quote] This.

[quote name='Stacker' timestamp='1381657944' post='2241800'] I would not do it; it's a disaster waiting to happen if you gig with only one bass. Back in the '80s I went down to one bass when I bought my Status Series II and a few months later the bass cut out on me in the middle of a gig. Even if you're not gigging, it's still nice to have something else to 'go to' ratheyour Number One. [/quote] This. It once happened to me too. Luckily I had spare handy, although I'll admit that's not always the case.

[quote name='SparkBird' timestamp='1381583898' post='2240967'] Hi , I've been building , not every day, basses and guitars for 34 years , doesn't mean i know everything or i think i know everything. As i've, erm , progressed in years i see more variables and complexion in eveything .... but .... My experiences lead me to believe that its rigidity that counts , not whether its QS or FS , but yes Qs would normally be more rigid but , not necessarily ... What i mean by that is wood grows on trees and even within one plank there can be more or less rigid sections . What am i blabbing about ? 2 jazz basses, both mine so i know them, one 64 with a great rigid and straight neck and one 69/70 with a badly refretted neck which made it too flexible and left it a little bowed . The 69 bass lacked definition in the all important low and low mid frequencies . The 64 particularly well defined low and low mids tone . Swapped the necks over , the poorly defined tone followed the neck . Reshot the 69 fretboard and refretted it , now its nicely rigid with a vastly improved tone . So i'm not comparing two same spce QS and FS necks. Well ok but thats not that easy, the vast majority of bolt ons are FS , really i've hardly seen any QS boltons . Qs or part Qs necks are usually multi laminate . So if you took a thick enough plank of decent quality eg maple you could cut two necks from it, one QS and one FS . The QS might very well be more rigid than the FS , might not , nature is fickle like that. And then using one body and pickup to A/B them ; i think some of us might hear a tonal difference , most likely in the definition department, it might even be glaring , but i doubt one neck wouldn necessarily sound 'better' that the other just different . That would just bring me back to my point about rigidty and definition in the lower register . Finally something i'm sure about , even when you get a set of the woods ideal, perfect in every way to build the instrument with the tone your looking for . Nature can has the last word , it might not turn out as good as you expected. Luthiers use experience to choose , but in the end its just [u]more or less educated guess work[/u] . Most won't tell you that , you'll get all the blah blah about how he does this or that and the wood is this and that, but there are good and bad surpises all the time . All he's really doing is greatly lessening the possibilty of a bad instrument , great ones are a bonus. That goes even more so for electric instruments because , there is no soundboard and bracing to tweek as there is with an acoustic . So unless i'm missing the point , to answer to your question " However I'm interested to know if anyone has achieved a firm and proven opinion? " I doubt it very much doubt it . Everything you'll evey read or be told can be turned on its head by a bass that has all the wrong woods and sounds great , just listen and trust your ears , in my experience thats all that counts . Good luck . sorry does that read a little condescending ? not meant to be just trying to be helpful , i'm not much of a writer . [/quote] Now that's an interesting post. Good stuff!

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1381554120' post='2240588'] I don't know what people go on about the graphite sound. I got a status neck on my JB and it's sounds pretty much the same as before but with a lot more eveness in string output and of course no deadspots. I also never have to tune it up. I can't say I've noticed a discerning difference between the vast amount of stuff I've owned. However I has a first year production Sterling, which had a birdseye maple neck, one piece. It had gone extremely soft and for made a negative impact on how it should have sounded. [/quote] Just because you can't discern a difference doesn't mean others can't. You could blindfold me, give me various 4001s and I bet I could tell you which have a shedua neck laminate. Also, it may be that the way you play means it doesn't sound particularly different, whereas the way I play it does.

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1381505932' post='2240060'] or people are just soo very different. [/quote] This. As evidenced by the Rick comments and the fact that they're one of the few instruments I consistently get on with.

The problem with this is that more rigid necks, although structurally advantageous, won't necessarily give a sound you prefer. I've yet to hear a graphite-necked bass I like the sound of. My main bass's neck was once described by John Diggins as "spongey" (although it never moves ), and yet that's my favourite-sounding of the many hundreds of basses I've played. Steve Swallow has also commented on this, that a more rigid construction is not what he's after in terms of tone.