bnt

Got an email from the organisers that included mention of an after-show gig on Saturday evening at a pub called the Lexington, also in Islington. I don't know, I might go and see Shakespeare's As You Like It at the Globe while I'm in town ... 🧐 Also - if you can get to Angel tube station on the Northern line, it's 5 minutes walk up Islington High St. to the Business Design Centre. Most folks should not need to take a bus.

That bass looks tasty. I’m only at the show on Saturday, so I won’t get to meet Tony, but if they have one of those on the stand, I’ll see if my attempt to play Flame Of The West sounds any better than usual!

I will keep an eye out for those, maybe a Midlands one if it's somewhere accessible by public transport. It would be just me with a hard case on the ferry & train, no car!

Anyway, I'll be flying over from Dublin for a long weekend, since I haven't been to any kind of music show in well over a decade, and haven't even been to London in over three years. I'll be at the Show on Saturday only. To be honest, I'm trying to rekindle a bit of enthusiasm for the bass, hoping for a bit more variety and bass knowledge than I find in the few shops here.

Bill Bruford may have had some hellacious arguments with Chris in the studio, but he has [url="http://www.dgmlive.com/news.htm?entry=5182"]some nice things[/url] to say today. Quote: [quote][i]An individualist in an age when it was possible to establish individuality, Chris fearlessly staked out a whole protectorate of bass playing in which he was lord and master. I suspect he knew not only that he gave millions of people pleasure with his music, but also that he was fortunate to be able to do so. I offer sincere condolences to his family.[/i][/quote] Me? I went straight to [b]Our Song[/b].

I'm not going to quote your whole post in reply, otherwise it just gets longer and longer. [quote name='SteveO' post='314529' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:47 PM']I see where you're coming from, but we're talking about two seperate things at the same time - the theoretical physics of a vibrating string and the practical application on a bass guitar. These thought experiments only work on paper.[/quote]OK, but how else do you imagine finding out the actual effect of the change, other than an experiment? I wasn't just doing a "thought experiment", I was imagining how a real experiment could be done. Yes, I [b]know[/b] an experiment is not "real world", but if you really expect to define the relationships between variables, as you did, it pays to be rigorous about what changes or not. Otherwise, you can not expect people to believe you when you make sweeping statements about "how it is". That's all I was saying. [quote]I'd agree that on a longer string with the same mass vibrating at the same frequency with the same energy put into the vibration and ignoring all other factors as insignificant (momentum, air resistance etc. etc.), then the amplitude of vibration will be the same, however in practice you cannot increase the scale length only. as mentioned earlier you will increase the string mass by using a longer string. you could of course stretch the string to increase it's length, but this increases the tension.[/quote] On a guitar, no, but I was talking about an experimental situation in which you would control tension and scale length independently. The frequency formula I quoted covers mass, length and tension. You don't need to talk about compensating one thing for another - why introduce more variables in to the problem? I'm happy that the formula works. When I tried it earlier (spreadsheet [url="http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/85261/stringtension.xls"]here[/url]) on a solid steel string, it gave me results extremely close (< 0.5%) to those quoted by D'Addario. [quote]Interesting, but no mention of the energy of a vibrating string or amplitude, which of course is at the centre of this. Until we find it i'm gonna continue to assume that the energy is a function of Frequency multiplied by Amplitude multiplied by Mass, and that all other effects are minimal.[/quote] I would modify that assumption a little: I'd say that the energy goes up proportional to half the square of the amplitude, not linearly. I'm basing that on the energy equations for [url="http://ccrma.stanford.edu/realsimple/lab_inst/Background.html"]damped strings[/url]. Again, these are ideal theoretical calculations, so don't bother complaining that they are not "real world". I'm in no position to fully analyse the complex movement of a chunky bass string attached to a piece of wood, and I doubt anyone is. Hence, the idea that you'd want to run experiments - but if you're OK with guesswork, I'm not bothered either.

[quote name='SteveO' post='314424' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:15 AM']yup you're right, you will need to put more energy in to get more displacement, but (to go off on a slight tangent) as there is more string mass to move from a longer string, you will need more energy to move it anyway. I'm coming at a slightly different angle in ignoring the energy going into the string as in practice we'll change that constantly to get the same volume of tone at different frets.[/quote] OK so far - and of course I know that you vary your playing to get the desired volume. I think we're talking at cross purposes here, since you made what looks like a simple scientific statement with no qualifications, no reference to playing style or anything like that. ("Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude.") To answer a question like this, I was thinking in terms of an experiment: you change only one thing at a time, keep everything else the same, and measure the effects. Change the scale length [i]only[/i], change [i]nothing else[/i] while doing the experiment, and see what happens. You would have to decide whether your pluck has a fixed amplitude or fixed energy, over the experiment: that would change how the results look, but not the underlying physical relationship. If you want some general equations for string tension and frequency, try [url="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/gtb/LectureNotes/7/7.htm"]this[/url] (from MIT). When you pull a string to one side, you're increasing its length a little, which is why the tension increases and resists the pull.

[quote name='SteveO' post='314406' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:44 AM']Don't forget that there's a balancing act between frequency and amplitude here. Increasing tension will mean lower amplitude (as bnt explained above) but will also increase frequency. Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude. To keep the frequency at 41Hz for an E sting (for example) if you increase the string length you also have to increase it's tension. OK so far. The clincher is that the increased amplitude from longer length is [u]more[/u] than the decreased amplitude for having a higher tension. The result is that longer strings = more amplitude = higher action.[/quote] Sorry, I just don't see where you get that conclusion from. Why does a longer string length automatically mean a higher amplitude / displacement? I was trying to explain where the amplitude comes from in the first place: from the energy your fingers put in. The longer neck might help to preserve that energy for longer, but the neck does not put any energy in to the string. In questions like these, it helps to look at the energy. It always has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. Nothing happens without it!

I suspect this book is assuming that you'll use thinner strings on the longer scale instrument. For the same strings, however, I think you're right. Here's my slightly academic take on this, thinking in terms of energy: the string doesn't act on its own, it vibrates according to the work (energy) you put in to it from your finger. The displacement (how far it moves off-centre) is at its maximum as you hit the string, and it only goes down from there (neglecting odd effects from resonance or harmonics). When the string is tighter, you will need to put more work in (as you pluck it) for a given displacement. This is because you have to use more force to move it, and work energy can be expressed as force times distance*. You'll have a more energetic string for a given level of movement. Or, to look at it from the other side: if you put in a fixed amount of plucking energy, I can predict the tighter string will vibrate less (in displacement terms). You can see an extreme case of this if you stick your hand inside a piano: those strings are much longer and tighter, and make a decent noise while barely moving at all. So, I would not be concerned. I'm not a robot - I set the bass up as best I can, and naturally adjust my playing to the instrument. * that assumes the force is constant: if not, you have to find functions and integrate them, which is a bit more awkward, but the relationship is still the same.

I think I'd rather have a piano than one of those ERBs. That 11-string has only 11-note polyphony, after all... and the piano strings have even longer scale and higher tension.

The way it looks to me, technology had a lot to do with it. Roxy Music had Brian Eno and his VCS3 making all sorts of weird noises, then there were the synth pioneers like Billy Currie (Ultravox) and Richard Barbieri (Japan). It was also the time during which it was possible to get 24 or more tracks of recording, and then digital recording took off. You had the likes of Nick Rhodes and his Jupiter 8 Arpeggiator, which was basically [b]the[/b] sound of Duran Duran. One of my favourite stories from that period was [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep99/articles/oscar.htm"]this[/url], about the OSCar synthesiser and how it landed on an Ultravox album. It was literally a case of "if you build it, they will play it".

Congratulations... you old Slapper!

Sting's a bit handy with the ol' thumb, too - check the start of this video for an example.

All together now: [i]Ebony, or Pau Ferro? Would it make a good fretboard? I dunno... [/i]

[url="http://www.linusofhollywood.com/"]Linus'[/url] bass is also discussed in an older thread on Paul Gilbert. It appears to be a modified Rickenbacker 4000, an unbound 4001, like [url="http://www.rickenbacker.com/gallery_image.asp?archive_id=39&gallery_year=1960"]this[/url].

If you ask Ed Roman, the Gaboon Ebony is [url="http://www.edroman.com/customshop/wood/gaboon.htm"]the real deal[/url], but the Pau Ferro is [url="http://www.edroman.com/customshop/wood/morado.htm"]OK but overpriced[/url].

In my case (the Tune) the neck was at the right angle, joint was flush - but once I adjusted the neck action correctly, the bridge could still not be adjusted low enough. As a temporary fix I added steps of gaffa tape to the neck slot, changing the neck angle back a bit, and I can now get a decent action. As a permanent solution I'd take it to a pro, ask for a solid shim or a lower (or recessed?) bridge.

In 1982 I acquired a stepbrother who played guitar, and he said something like "OK, you can play bass". Which I didn't think much of until a cheap P-bass copy went on sale locally, and I bought it. Stuff to learn came from a neighbour's record collection and the tape recorder on his hi-fi. I was blown away by Yes, but it was fortunate that 90125 came out about that time - the most accessible Yes album to a learner bassist by quite a margin. Then I met another bassist, who said "dude, you gotta try some Rush"... As well as bass, I play keyboards (badly), sing (badly), and learned Highland bagpipes in the early 90s (long story), but I haven't played those since 1991. Once I thought about the instrument in detail, I was horrified by its limitations. Nearly every piece of music in existence can never be played on the bagpipes - it's not chromatic, has a range of about 1 octave, no dynamics, and can only be played legato!

At a basic level, 2-pickup wiring is not hard. There are plenty of diagrams around, with the two main options being Fender Jazz style (2 volume controls) or Volume + Blend. Seymour Duncan has [url="http://www.seymourduncan.com/support/wiring-diagrams/"]plenty of diagrams[/url], including both those options, and a specific P/J diagram that is easy to follow. IMHO the big issue will be pickup selection. The P-type pickup is humbucking by itself, but a standard Jazz pickup is not. With standard Fender Jazz wiring, the two pickups together form a humbucking pair, when both are turned up, but you won't have that option. If I was in your position I would be looking at a humbucking J-type for the rear slot, such as the (Seymour Duncan again) Jazz Stack (e.g the [url="http://www.seymourduncan.com/products/basslines/cutting-edge-1/stkj1_classic_f/"]Classic[/url] or [url="http://www.seymourduncan.com/products/basslines/cutting-edge-1/stkj2_hot_for_j/"]Hot[/url]). Or something similar, with 4-conductor wiring for more tone options. Re Knobs, you could look at a Stacked knob for volume/blend, too avoid more drilling. You're totally free to drop the tone control altogether, as long as you never need it.

Hmmm... you may be able to approximate the envelope (attack, sustain etc.) using major compression. However, if you're really looking for a change to the fundamental waveform, no conventional effect is going to do it, in my opinion. Could something like a Roland VG-88 do it? PS: did you post this question in three different sections? Why?

If there's someone here who knows exactly what's inside, and how it's wired, then it might be possible to say more here. Based on the descriptions I read, my [i]guess[/i] is passive pickups wired to an active preamp/EQ circuit, so if someone was to install a bypass, it would leave you with volume and pickup blend, but no EQ.

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='300067' date='Oct 5 2008, 07:30 PM']Me too. A waste of time if she turns out to ba a "bean flicker" all this time though. [/quote] I don't believe you guys. Short hair = "bean flicker"? A look at Suzanne's [url="http://www.suzannevega.com/news/"]web pages[/url] would have told you that she used to be married to producer Mitchell Froom, and is now married to a bloke named Paul Mills, a lawyer & poet. Her hair's quite long, these days.

If I imagine myself in that position, I think I would see myself as more of an ambassador for the product. Maybe that was done, too, but isn't shown in that video. Slapping alone, no matter how good, is a poor advertisement for Rotosound strings, in my opinion. They play an important role in the history of modern bass, as the first roundwounds, and they have the whole Entwistle / Squire / McCartney legacy to hark back to. By way of comparison, I saw Stu Hamm demo Hartke amps at a show, years ago. He actually talked about the amps, demonstrated tones and settings - then showed off a little. The funny thing was... I'd heard him play before, so it was nothing new to me, but I was impressed by the way he changed the strings on his Fender before the demo. All four strings swapped and tuned, in under a minute!

[quote name='Mr Fudge' post='299691' date='Oct 5 2008, 12:39 AM']s she a bean flicker now?[/quote] "bean flicker"? I think you mean "bean counter" - at least I hope you do, if the search results for that are any guide. No, Suzanne is still making music, though she also does a bit of writing. Have a look at her recent NY Times [url="http://measureformeasure.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/toms-essay/"]essay[/url] about [i]Tom's Diner[/i] - where it came from, the impact it had, and how it led to her being called "the Mother of the MP3".

I think that's Michael Visceglia, who's been with Suzanne for ages, at least as far back as [i]Solitude Standing[/i].