SumOne

Cheers all. As I've been through dozens of distortion pedals and always come to the same sort of conclusion I think before buying anything new I'm going to try some of the suggestions like using clean for the rowdier bits, perhaps moving about where I have compression, and possibly it is something to do with my Amp/Cab (or at least the EQ I have on the Amp) as they have remained constant while I keep swopping distortion pedals - they sound good clean, but perhaps need something different going on when it's distortion time (e.g. distortion in the fx loop). There is probably an element of the fact I'm stood right in front of the cab when playing live with the band - so what I'm hearing in those rowdy parts is a mix of that and the stage monitors, the audience might actually hear something quite different (I only have crappy phone recordings of that so can't really tell). I do think it is something other than 'use pedal XYZ' or 'use a clean blend'.

I came to the conclusion of distortion not really adding the extra oomph that I want on a gig this Saturday and ended up not using it. Playing at loud volume through an Amp/Cab and along with drums, 2x distorted guitars and the rest the main thing the bass needs in this band at those rowdy points is a clear pulse/thump/definition of notes within that I guess <400Hz sort of range. The rowdy parts of songs have the guitars going distorted, if I also click on distortion it just makes the fundamental thump of the bass get more mushy and distorted and actually loses impact, it adds mid/high distorted noise - but they are lost in with the guitars. Can turn up the bass but that doesn't bring back the 'tump'. In isolation it sounds big and heavy, but I think almost by definition it looses that when distorted. So yeah, I think it might well be more of an issue of where the compression is, what is going on with my Amp/Cab and the mix with the rest of the band rather than needing new distortion pedals.

I think compression and where it is in the chain might be a good call. I currently have an idiotbox blower box and there is no problem with the amount of bass it can produce - it's more that the defined 'thump' is lost and that seems to happen with almost all distortion I've tried. So yeah, perhaps it is something that the right compression after distortion can sort out, or a blend and changing the clean compression. I've tried so many distortions and it seems the same thing always once playing through Amp/cab and with a band, so I'm starting to think it isn't actually the distortion pedal as such - it's down to something else.

I can't get one a third time! ......or can I?! 🤨

Yeah, I recently got one and it is really good for that. My only issue is I use it as 'always on' for the lower-gain EQ mode and I need to stomp somethign on for a few more distorted parts. Another DCX would do nicely...don't think I can justify that extravagance though!

Philosophically that's all good, economically I think it'd be a disaster and would harm the poor.

But if the UK does that, and another country coesn't then the rich will just move their money. It needs global agreement, and that isn't going to happen.

I'm looking for a medium-gain sort of distortion that still keeps the punchy 'thump' of a clean Bass when played through an Amp/Cab. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer is 'pedal with clean blend' and 'use an LS-2'. Problem with that is I find it sounds like two things playing at the same time. Any suggestions? I'm almost at the point of giving up on it. The band has 2x guitarists guitarist and it feels that when we go to more heavy/distorted parts of songs it'd be good for the Bass to switch up to to a distorted sound as the guitarists do. Problem is, I've tried dozens of distortion pedals and they sound fine at home/headphones etc but with a band I think just the nature of distortion means the punchy sort of thump gets mushy and distorted (I guess the clue is in the name!) - in isolation that sounds all good and heavy, but with a band all going for it it actually loses some impact. Perhaps just stick to the punchy thump of bass and leave it to guit@ri$ts to the distortion stuff?

The trouble is how easy it is to be global for tax as a company or individual and there is no global consensus on rates - there's competition. I was at an event where one African government official complained about inequality and money leaving the country, then next presenter was from the government of a Caribbean tax haven country showing off about how money had been bought in and how much their GDP and living standards had improved recently. What's the African country to do? Put taxes for the rich up too much and the rich just move money(buy themselves citizenship in a different country ), and big businesses do the same, it's a balancing act. So I'm not sure it actually benefits the poorest of a country to do too much 'tax the rich/big businesses' and I think economists and governments come to the same conclusion.

Have you considered the catchily named Ibanez BTB605MS? 35-37" multiscale, neck-through, £1,059. https://www.ibanez.com/eu/products/detail/btb605ms_1p_02.html

I think it does solve the 'issue' of a 5 string B sounding best when it is longer and a G being better shorter, and giving more of an even tone and tension across all strings, and possibly helps ergonomics.....But I'm not sure they really are much of an issue that can't be solved with good strings and a decent well set up Bass. And it isn't just a win-win, there are some downsides to multiscale. People always mention a Piano as multiscale example, but they are a whole different sound and playing style and more than 7 octaves, just about every stringed instrument from Violins through to Cellos does fine without multiscale. I have owned three multiscale basses so am sort of in favour of them, but then again - I've sold them all so haven't been completely convinced. Things like pickups, preamp, ergonomics, weight, strings etc. are much higher up my priorities as issues to make improvements to.

I've been hearing that for years. They've dropped the ball on that one. Dingwall were the most famous multiscale brand and to me it seems obvious that if your market is people looking for innovation then lots of them would also be keen on headless, particularly as what I'd consider the biggest issue with Dingwalls is their size and weight (my combustion was 4.6kg), both things headless would really help with. Not only would it move the weight of the headstock and tuners away from that far end of the long neck, it also means the body can be lighter and still maintain a good balance. But no. Biggest new announcement over the last couple of years = A go faster stripe! Strandberg were already doing headless multiscale - but are quite a small brand. Ibanez spotted that gap in the mass production market and now have lightweight, compact EHB MS range with high end ones edging towards Dingwall sort of prices. Now also Sire are getting onto it, Hils are doing it, and Cort realised the headless market and I wouldn't be surprised if they add multiscale. Spector are doing multiscale. What is the unique selling point of a mass production Dingwall nowadays?

I am much more sold on the benefits of headless than multiscale. The only negatives I can think of are that standard drop tuners don't work (although not really needed with a 5 string), some don't fit on wall hangers (although the Ibanez EHB and Cort Space I've owned do fit), and some people don't like the look (but I quite like the look). I expect my next Bass will be headless (especially if 5 string), not too fussed either way if it's multiscale or not.

Sure, I expect it was a mistake and they are idiots. But no-one seems to have considered the possibility that they did it on purpose, and I don't think it'd be some 3D chess genius masterstroke thing to do.