warwickhunt

+1 for the Auralex Gramma Pad.

[quote name='Legion' post='1356272' date='Aug 30 2011, 01:49 PM']The deal all went really smoothly apart from the fact that he couldn't meet me until 9pm on the day of my arrival, which felt like 4am in the morning UK time (and at the tail end of a very long day). After a couple of beers and some conversation with other NYC passers-by I was pretty much brain dead by the time John rolled up with the bass.[/quote] I won't keep you waiting that long when you sell me the Sado! Nice bass, first I've seen in that colour and the clips have me interested in the strings as well.

A Warwick FNA bass just sold on ebay for £500. Take the 10% + 4% fees and you are looking at £430 for the seller... does that seem like a good deal? I'm not saying you'll get a lot more than £500 on BC BUT at least you won't have the fees.

[quote name='gafbass02' post='1355932' date='Aug 30 2011, 08:32 AM']So, to sum up, we basically had the following dilemma when designing the RH450: On one hand we had a power module that would be able to supply 450 watts and measure correctly, but with all the downsides of potential hardclipping (as explained in the APM doc), lower average power and density and on the more subjective side; a less bass pleasing and musical sound and response.[/quote] Surely that is the same for ANY amp manufacturer! Supplying the quoted power without clipping is just a given... surely. [quote name='gafbass02' post='1355932' date='Aug 30 2011, 08:32 AM']On the other hand we had our APM technology achieving great sound and bass performance (at least that’s what our [b]subjective tests[/b] said), higher average energy than most comparable (and even a few higher rated amps) with a resulting higher perceived loudness, or ‘power’ if you will, than that of the clean 450 watt transistor performance. Yet, the clear downside, was that APM in a strict bench test would come out with the very odd 236watts result. So, we debated quite extensively what would be the most relevant rating for the amp; the bench test measure, or the real world performance measure (that corresponds to the actual power module inside). We chose the measure that we felt made more sense to the bass player and not to the engineer and went with the performance measure that also corresponds to the actual power of the module underneath the APM technology.[/quote] So despite knowing that at the output (after the APM technology) the amp delivered 236w TC made the deliberate choice to call it 450w because they felt it better suited their needs! Off the top of my head I can think of several manufacturers (Marshall, H&K, Peavey) who have all had some kind of technology that boosted the power of an amp (DPM, Dynaclip etc) yet I don't recall a single one of those that elected to take their 'inflated' rating as the true one; they quoted RMS AND mentioned what the peak/boosted rating might be! [quote name='gafbass02' post='1355932' date='Aug 30 2011, 08:32 AM']RH450: Raw power module: 450 watts rms, with APM: 236 watts rms, Spec rating: 450 watts RH750: Raw power module: 741 watts rms, with APM: 236 watts rms, Spec rating: 750 watts Blacksmith: Raw power module: 1512 watts rms, with APM: 924 watts rms, Spec rating: 1600 watts[/quote] So the RH750 is also rated at 236w... feel sorry for those who elected to sell their RH450 to 'upgrade' to more power!

[quote name='dc2009' post='1354860' date='Aug 29 2011, 12:12 AM']I think £850 is the going new rate, and I bet you could talk a shop down to £750 if you had cash/were a regular etc.[/quote] So I assume they were cheaper when new a few years ago!

[quote name='AaronScho' post='1354763' date='Aug 28 2011, 09:30 PM']I DONT KNOW BUT I CANT EVEN SELL MINE FOR 600!!!!! woops caps -- im not that angry[/quote] Unfortunately like others I've clocked them for sale for significantly less than £600, so I'd not be disappointed that you aren't getting that for yours! Just out of interest how much were the MM basses when new? You generally can expect to lose anything from 30%-50% when reselling a used item that you purchased new; if the MM basses were £600 new then used you could reasonably expect to get £300-£400... if they were £1000 new (which I doubt) then £500-£700 could be the going rate. It's basic economics.

[quote name='thodrik' post='1354641' date='Aug 28 2011, 06:56 PM']I can understand why TC decided to be creative with the wattage. If they had tried to market the product as even putting out 300 watts originally, people would complain that it wouldn't be loud enough. Tech 21 were criticised for building an under-powered amp when they were releasing the VT Bass 1969, as it only gave out '300 analog watts'. Part of the problem is that some people have the mindset that unless it is an all tube amp, anything less than 500 watts is just not 'loud' enough, hence the RH 750! Personally, I just think TC would have came across a lot better, and more innovative, if they had just been a bit more honest about the specs and marketed along the lines of 'our watts are louder than their watts'. It would still be advertising puff, but easier to take seriously than marketing a 236 watt amp as a 450 watt amp. I don't think that this will really damage TC as the quality of their products are high, but it should act as a wake up call to how they market thier products. While it would be nice to see other companies do this too, I doubt it will happen.[/quote] I may have misunderstood but isn't part of the issue down to the fact that TC amps would appear to work best when coupled with TC cabs! The whole issue of the mapping (if that is the term used) for TC getting such a decent level out of the RH450 (is it across the range), is due to the fact that the cabs match/marry and work best together. It could account for the fact that when I tried an RH450 I thought it sounded fine at home levels but didn't cut it at rehearsal/gig level; I was using it with a pair of DB112 cabs. I'm not taking the opportunity to do a bit of TC bashing, I tried the amp and found it lacking when used in conjunction with the rest of my gear... hence I didn't dump my Thunderfunk and take up the opportunity of a used TC at a decent price. I would say that there are plenty people more than happy with their TC amps and if it suits them and their style/situation/other equipment then that is all that matters to them. However, manufacturers can not be allowed to make 'statements' or quote figures for their equipment and not expect to be hauled over the (Internet/www) coals for not being transparent about specs; no matter which manufacturer!

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1353856' date='Aug 27 2011, 08:03 PM']... which puts the ridiculous witch hunt into perspective.[/quote] I can appreciate why you feel the need to defend TC/Uffe but tbh it's hardly a 'witch-hunt' and at the end of the day if TC state that an amp is 450w and it turns out to be significantly nowhere near that (assuming that you are using the same rating/scale as everyone else) then they have lied or at least be economical with the truth, end of.

icolors If you are talking pub/club gigs we've yet to find anything that comes close and yet weighs so little (also DMX controlled so just set on 'sound to light' and forget about it).

I commented on the ebay TE thread and even though I would like to have a blast through the old monolithic 4x10 + 1x15 I've already said my Aggie DB12s are probably the equal or a better tone than I had back then BUT back in the day when you were a misty eyed youngster who was playing through a homemade cab and an old Marshall valve amp (that the local TV repair guy had to fix every other weekend), the sight and overall power of the big TE rigs was alluring! As to the tone of the old TE... just stick the amp in preshape mode and make a bit of a smiley face with the graphic; it wasn't perfect but it got you through the gigs.

I was expecting the BIG 4x10 & 1x15 (vinyl covered) with the MAHOOSIVE amp with the UV light... that rig's the baby one! I had both of the above set ups (way back when, and the compact rig was the first generation vinyl covered) and I'm sure my present rig is every bit as good as those rigs at half the weight and size but time plays tricks on you and I would love to blast through those old rigs one more time... so long as I didn't have to carry it back out to the van.

Nice one, love a PJ Precision (a PJ Jazz just doesn't work for me aesthetically) however Fender still got the P pup the wrong way round!

I never end up using one but... I bet the shipping and taxes kill this in the water for me.

One of my old Sadowskys used to need tweaks whenever I moved from one location to another, not to the point where it backbowed and bottomed out but the action would vary massively with a small increase/decrease in temperature. An Overwater that I had pass through several moths ago had a neck that would flex with normal playing pressure, it could literally be put 'way' out of tune just with hard fretting and the action varied depending on if the bass was on edge on your lap or laid flat! I've noticed that it seems more prevalent with one piece maple necks which I assume are of lighter density maple.

Ask them both for the serial number and see who replies!

[quote name='billyapple' post='1351610' date='Aug 25 2011, 06:30 PM']Fair-do's if that is the case, but I've got one in my hand right now (well, not while typing) and she is finished front and back.[/quote] Wonder if year of manufacture dictates rear finish?

[quote name='billyapple' post='1351601' date='Aug 25 2011, 06:14 PM']There is a Gibson Thunderbird up for grabs on eBay at the mo, but the pics of the sunburst front do not seem to match the plain wood finish of the rear. Have a look for yourself, and tell me what you think. [url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320746988199#ht_500wt_949"]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...99#ht_500wt_949[/url][/quote] It must be 25+ years since I had a T'bird but I seem to recall that looks about right. The front was burst and the back was just a standard lacquer... saved Gibson on costs I imagine!

To further cloud your search... necks varied in width and profile across the various ranges, there isn't a 'standard' that you could say 'Warwick necks were slim in 19** and chunky in 20**'. Also, Warwick do a 'Broadneck' option for those that don't like tight finger spacing but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a chunky neck, just wider! I had a 91 Dolphin Pro I that had the widest neck of ANY bass I've ever played and yet it was a breeze to play because the neck was quite shallow/flat by the same token I had a 91 Streamer Stage I that had a very narrow neck with a bit more depth than the Dolphin. In summary; it isn't that easy! I'd suggest that you try as many as you can and when you find one that fits... buy it.

[quote name='AsterL' post='1349933' date='Aug 24 2011, 09:26 AM']I totally agree. If it wasn't for all the small gigs, i'd go completely di. What do you think is a good standard of rig to cover both? I think 210 is to small for the bigger gigs, 610 might be to cumbersome and larger for the smaller pub gigs. 410 is goldielocks :-)[/quote] Big can of worms there as I'd have said a pair of stacked 1x12s for portability or a vertical 2x12 if you want a one cab solution... but there will be a whole heap of other ideas that are equally valid!

I'm always amazed that folks forget that big amps with many watts can play quietly; they have this 'magic' control normally found on the far right of the amp... shame our guitarist doesn't understand this! I used to gig with a pre/power set-up and the power amp was something like 1200-2000watts and I used to get loads of comments about overkill but then I had an amp that was barely ticking over and I didn't need to panic when I turned up to find a venue was a bit bigger than anticipated and/or PA support wasn't adequate (so long as you have decent cabs that aren't pathetically inadequate despite their reported ratings).