BottomEndian

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='590227' date='Sep 4 2009, 10:59 PM']If I get the chance over the weekend, I'll try the same thing with my Squier. That could be a whole different kettle of apes. Or not. And then the can's open, worms everywhere... [/quote] OK, in case anyone's interested, I've just got the chance to sit down with the Squier and do this. Similar report to the SR5: on the line = pretty much in tune, up to around the 15th "fret", at which point it goes apes**t-doolally and starts drifting like a drifty thing. By the time I reach the final line (20th "fret"), I'm having to place my finger well [b]beyond[/b] the line (i.e. more towards the bridge) to be in tune. It's also interesting (to me at least ) to note that some of the lower lines are a tiny bit off: say, for example, the 5th fretline might be in tune, the 6th might be a touch sharp, and the 7th back in tune again, across all the strings. I don't know what any of this means, but I'll say one good thing about intonating so you're bang on the line: the harmonics also fall directly over the lines, rather than slightly behind them. Makes them a lot easier to hit!

[quote name='Shockwave' post='596000' date='Sep 11 2009, 07:54 PM']I used to love Mid priced gear, never thought as to why anyone would pay for a custom instrument. Then i tried a Pedulla..... :blush:[/quote] I used to love cheap gear. Then I bought your fretless StingRay 5. Things will never be the same again.

The concept of overplaying seems to vary massively between genres. One of my favourite drummers is Coady Willis (Big Business and Melvins), who's probably one of the busiest drummers I've ever heard. But it fits with the songs, and I wouldn't call it overplaying in the slightest. On the other hand, if he played grooves like this in a pub-rock band or funk outfit, he'd be awful: (Bad sound quality, yes, but you can check out the drumming.)

[quote name='xgsjx' post='595798' date='Sep 11 2009, 04:19 PM']I'd need to run thru the scale on an instrument, but from listening to it, it actually sounds like the key is a G major. Although the first 2 bass chords (that's if you played the 2 notes as a chord) could be F#5 & E5 they do fall in that scale. Could be wrong tho![/quote] The chords are F#m7 and Em7. F#m7 (and indeed F#5) contains a C#, which doesn't occur in G major. In fact, just looking at the chords, we've got: [list] [*]F#m7 containing F#, A, C# and E [*]Em7 containing E, G, B and D [/list]Stick all those letters in order into one octave, and we've got D, E, F#, G, A, B, C#. D major scale. Simples*. [size=1]* Y'know, a year or two from now, we'll look back at all these posts that finish with "simples" and wonder what the f*** that was all about. [/size]

[quote name='Bobo_Grimmer' post='595355' date='Sep 11 2009, 07:52 AM']i have been thinking of going up a gauge. Would I need to adjust anything on my bass?[/quote] Yes, very probably the following: [list] [*]Truss rod -- it'd probably need tightening to counteract the extra tension in the higher-gauge strings, otherwise you'll have a Jamerson-style bow to the neck [*]Bridge saddles -- will probably have to move back (away from the nut) a touch to keep good intonation, and may have to go up or down depending on how you like your action [*]Nut -- if you're unlucky, you might have to file the nut slots to fit the new string widths. You might get away without it (especially on the thinner strings) if the nut's been cut a little slack [/list]

[quote name='bubinga5' post='595110' date='Sep 10 2009, 09:03 PM']Why F sharp..is this song not based around minor chords..so should be a flat...is my lack of theory knowledge showing?[/quote] Yes. Minor chords does not equal flats.

I've always thought of this tune as being in D major, except it doesn't resolve to the tonic at any point. It's just chords III and II (F#m7 and Em7) repeatedly. For me, the lack of resolution is what makes it work as a track. Feel free to shoot me down.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='594034' date='Sep 9 2009, 04:55 PM']The Les Paul I tried must have been 12 or 13 lbs.[/quote] Their Les Pauls are mahogany-bodied (like the real thing), so they're bound to be heavy (like the real thing ). Their P- and J-style basses are "Eastern Poplar", so they'll be naturally lighter per cubic inch.

[quote name='EssentialTension' post='594036' date='Sep 9 2009, 04:57 PM']Very nice - except for the knees. Is it still summer in the Geordie Delta?[/quote] That's winter-wear in Geordieland, man. If it were summer, that'd be Y-fronts at most.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='583608' date='Aug 28 2009, 02:58 PM']That was done by another customer - it's probably spot on though! Apart from the first few cabs everything since has been to pretty tight tolerances, just a mm or two either way.[/quote] It might be an idea if we could get a set of the standard measurements for each cab up on here. At least then people could see if they have a freak cab. Merton and I have compared measurements on our Vintages and discovered that my side handles are 1.5 cm higher than his -- who's got the freak? If it's Merton (whose measurements Roqsolid have used), then anyone who orders from them without checking the measurements might be in for a surprise when the holes for the side handles are half an inch out! Of course, if it's me, I'm used to being a freak.

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='592910' date='Sep 8 2009, 02:26 PM'] Why is it called a Ray 35 then? Weird.[/quote] Just an unfortunate choice of model name, I guess. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a sensible reason for the Sterling Sterling (if you get me) to be called the SB14. And as for the guitars, they're covered in seemingly irrelevant numbers: AX20, AX40, JP50 and SILO20.

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='592761' date='Sep 8 2009, 11:37 AM']I assume the Ray 35 has a 35" scale, while a standard Stingray 5 is 34" is it not? If that's the case that's something of a "unique selling point".[/quote] Nope, the Ray35 is 34", just like the SR5: [url="http://www.sterlingbymusicman.com/main.html?dir=bass_ray35"]lookee here[/url].

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='592758' date='Sep 8 2009, 11:32 AM']Somewhat late to the party- just found my ruler! Now I'm wondering if I've screwed up my measurements- I always had my basses down as being medium/low action, as they always look to me like they could go lower, but I guess most people would class these as low. Maybe I can stop now with the compulsive setup tweaking. I'll need to see if I can't get a set of feeler gauges to get it a bit more accurate. All measurements made on the E string. Peavey Milestone III- EADG with light Elixirs 3rd: around 1mm 12th: about 1.5mm 17th: just under 2mm Peavey DynaBass 5 fretted- BEADG with light Elixirs 3rd: 1mm 12th: 2mm 17th: 2mm Peavey DynaBass 5 fretless- BEADG with light Elixirs 3rd: just over 1mm 12th: just under 2mm 17th: 2mm Conklin Groove Tools 7 string- BEADGBE with light Elixirs: 3rd: 1mm 12th: 1.5mm 17th: 2mm[/quote] That's probably the most consistent set we've seen so far, in terms of swapping between your different basses. But yeah, them's low!

[quote name='alexclaber' post='591992' date='Sep 7 2009, 11:05 AM']Yes. I could make them lighter still and maintain the tone using more complex composites like foam-core carbon-fibre but that would massively increase the cost (like double or triple it)![/quote] That should absolutely be an option.

Nut slot too wide? Is it a narrower gauge than you had on before?

The thump's an integral part of the attack for me.

Oh, and I've always found D'Addario flats to be quite lively as flats go!

[quote name='Spyke' post='590210' date='Sep 4 2009, 10:31 PM']...don't know what make or gauge the retail strings are on my Ibanez SR500...[/quote] If they're the original strings from the factory, they're Elixir coated mediums, at gauges .045", .065", .085" and .105". Don't ask me how I know. I just do.

OK, just to test this "intonation changes as you move up the board" idea, I've just spent 45 minutes setting up my fretless EBMM SR5 to intonate bang on the lines, to the highest accuracy I can muster with the Sonic Research Turbo Tuner ST-200 (which is ±a gnat's sperm -- something silly like 0.02 cents). I set it up so that 12th-fretline harmonic = 12th-fretline fingered with the middle of my finger on the line. I've then checked up and down the neck to see how the intonation is at the low and high ends. It's as spot-on as I can measure. No intonation drift at all. If the middle of my finger's on a line, it's in tune. No questions asked. It's surely just a matter of how accurately the lines are positioned in the board? My SR5's a bit of a freak-job: the original pau ferro board's been replaced with a polyester-coated ebony board with maple lines, and I'm pretty sure the new board was handmade to high standards. The maker might have taken the time and effort to position the lines so the intonation's spot-on, rather than just copying the lines from standard fret positions. If I get the chance over the weekend, I'll try the same thing with my Squier. That could be a whole different kettle of apes. Or not. And then the can's open, worms everywhere... Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment that the lines and dots are merely guides. Ears, ears, ears. It's just that this whole intonation thing is getting interesting now.