BottomEndian

[quote name='alexclaber' post='439195' date='Mar 19 2009, 01:19 PM']I don't think it's a wise move to have the bass and guitar both fuzzing at once unless you're totally happy to be lost in the guitar sound. It may be workable though if you have a ton of bottom and top on your fuzz sound whilst the guitar sound is all midrange, so you can hear your fuzz above it and your bottom below. That kind of extreme EQ might must do the trick.[/quote] Every word true. But if you don't want to go the route of extreme EQing like that, it really helps the sound if you're just riffing an octave down from the guitar, or occasionally playing some reasonably tight, consonant harmonies with the guitar (thirds and fifths). Then your sound can just meld with the guitar and you present a sort of unified, Phil-Spector-gone-grunge wall of fuzz. If you're aiming for independent lines with full-bore fuzz, you're just going to have sonic mush. And very rapid ear fatigue.

Actually, if you can tell us what fuzz/distortion pedal/pedals the guitarist's using, that could help pin down some suggestions for bass dirt. I notice you're from Harrogate -- PMd you for nostalgic purposes...

[quote name='ARGH' post='439031' date='Mar 19 2009, 11:02 AM']Trying another pedal could be the answer....[/quote] And finding the right pedal might eliminate the need for bi-amping and lugging two amps around! Try one with a clean blend function, like the Bass Big Muff or the Wren & Cuff Pickle Pie B (mine's on its way from the US right now ). That should keep your bottom end intact; having said that, I find the Bass Big Muff has plenty of bottom end without the clean blend. Just be aware that it can be [b]very[/b] difficult to get a fuzz/distortion sound that sits properly in the band mix. If it sounds good on its own, 9 times out of 10 it'll sound like poop when everyone else kicks in.

This might be going against the spirit of the thread, but... [b]John Paul Jones[/b] Personally, I don't think he can be rated highly enough. Logic dictates that he is, therefore, underrated. In the true spirit of the thread... [b]Mo Foster[/b] Awesome work on Scott Walker's "Climate of Hunter". And he's British too!

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='438332' date='Mar 18 2009, 03:08 PM']Sounds like a BGM scale length to me.[/quote] If it's BGM, then I think you mean scale lentgh.

Check out the [url="http://fleabass.com/page8.html"]Fleabass website[/url], and click on one of the Model 32 basses to view the specs. The phrases "[i]43" scale length[/i]" and "[i]play beautifully[/i]" surely don't belong in the same sentence... And it's quite a leap down to the 30" Junior version.

[quote name='Rich' post='436045' date='Mar 16 2009, 01:19 PM']Why not change your custom member title to [i]'Vegetarian Bassist Club Member #xx'[/i]? People seem to do that for all manner of daft reasons [/quote] I think I don't have enough posts to change my member title yet. I just don't see the point in all the clubs and numbers stuff on Talkbass. And talking of which, I'd thought I might have been pushing the boundaries of silliness, but I've now searched TB and there genuinely is a [url="http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=404844"]Vegetarian Bassist Club[/url] on there. We've drifted WAAAAAAY off topic here... but I'm no use to the OP, as I'm firmly converted to the joys of the Comfort Strapp.

[quote name='timloudon' post='435901' date='Mar 16 2009, 11:14 AM']Can I have the number -1, because I'm not a vegetarian?[/quote] "-1" might suggest you oppose vegetarianism. How about number i, the square root of -1? You'd exist on the same complex plane as the vegetarians, but at right angles to us. Then the vegetarians who oppose eating meat (not me, I hasten to add -- to each their own) can have a "-i" as well, making them something like Vegetarian Bassist Club #5-4i. And the "vegetarians" who eat fish can have a positive imaginary part as well as their real number. Problem solved. This is where a physics degree gets you these days. Cracking esoteric maths jokes on bass forums. I'll get m'coat.

[quote name='lozbass' post='435812' date='Mar 16 2009, 09:37 AM']Good to hear there's another vegetarian on here![/quote] One here too. If this was Talkbass, we'd start handing out "Vegetarian Bassist Club" numbers...

[quote name='BeLow' post='434220' date='Mar 13 2009, 10:00 PM']I have started looking for the original comfort strap because I could do with another butthey don't seem to be around as much. I got my first one from Mansons but they don't do the any more, can any one recommend another supplier.[/quote] [url="http://www.bassdirect.co.uk/bass_guitar_specialists/Comfort_Strapps.html"]Bass Direct[/url] have them at £30 delivered.

[quote name='Shaggy' post='433712' date='Mar 13 2009, 02:36 PM']a J / P would just somehow look "wrong"![/quote] Or is that just the way we're conditioned by what we know and love?

[quote name='MoonBassAlpha' post='433553' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:58 PM']The 80's Vox Standard has a Dimarzio P at the bridge. Sounds good in a Jaco-esque way.[/quote] Weird! To me, the Jaco tone's all about the J pickup, but maybe it's just the positioning.

[quote name='Shaggy' post='433536' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:48 PM']I've seen "mirrored" dual P p/u's like that (Warwick Stryker?), but BC Rich - who have been using mainly dual P DiMarzios on their basses for 30+ years, leave them in standard configuration and get a lovely punchy sound. [/quote] Interesting! Do you use the bridge pup on its own?

[quote name='MythSte' post='433475' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:08 PM']Yes indeedy, but i too would be interested to see a P at the back and j in the "normal" position. Humm...![/quote] Me too (obviously). Whenever I've played a Jazz (which is admittedly only three times), I've always gravitated towards the neck pickup, and I'd be really interested to hear the extra "bite" from a P at the bridge. My guess is that you'd have to swap the P's coil positions (E-A unit closer to the bridge than D-G unit) to avoid the D and G strings being too twangy.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='433437' date='Mar 13 2009, 11:43 AM']I made mine kind of like that. P in normal place and J right at the neck. Can't pic from here though.[/quote] That sounds awesome. The J must be instant dub-land. Pics ASAP please! You'd probably have room to stick another J in at the bridge too... Hold on! Surely John Paul Jones must have experimented with a J-P-J configuration, if only for the name?

It seems that all the P-J basses out there have the P pup at the neck and the J at the bridge. Just out of curiosity, has anyone come across one that did it the other way round?

[quote name='Geoff' post='433334' date='Mar 13 2009, 10:24 AM']So, has anyone else had funny/rather meaningless reviews of thier bands done?[/quote] "Sounded like the Melvins" That was the whole review. We were quite chuffed.

Thanks for the advice and opinions, fellas. [quote name='Dan_Nailed' post='433044' date='Mar 12 2009, 11:41 PM']...so I say give your tube pre/solid state power a go. It'll sound better than the Peavey anyway![/quote] Farting through a straw would sound better than the Peavey. I used to have a lot of love for the Peavey, but we've drifted apart. Ultra-clean just doesn't do it for me any more. I think I'll give the valve pre > SS power a whirl. If it sounds rubbish, I'll just have to save up the pennies for an all-valve. It's that simple.

Got one. It is indeed a complete pig to play, especially if you only pull it out once in a blue moon. Like Clarky said, it's very difficult for intonation. Up beyond the 12th fret, a couple of millimetres can slide you up a semitone. It would take [b]a lot[/b] of practice to become proficient. I haven't given it a lot of practice. Draw your own conclusion. The sound, though... mmmmmm. Lovely. It's like an acoustic upright and an electric fretless made sweet, sweet love and produced a stunted baby called Ashbory. Basically, the E and the A string sound really fretless-ish, while the D and G have more of a woody twang and thump. My Ashbory has more bottom end than my SUB. I don't know how it does it on an 18" scale length. There may be some sort of witchcraft or voodoo inside. The best thing about the Ashbory is confounding people's expectations. You whip it out and people laugh (why does that sound so familiar to me?), but then you plug it in and let rip. Jaws drop, eyes widen, assumptions are cast aside, silicone is worshipped... that sort of thing. Fabulous little bass. And very light and portable. I've always thought the sound would be brilliant for a little jazz trio or something, but I don't know any jazz musicians and I can't play it well enough. Downside = balance. Horrible. The strap buttons (one on front, one on back) are about 6" apart, so the neck dive is ridiculous.

Here's a question for the all-valve users out there... I had the chance to try out an all-valve head the other night (my first time), and I was blown away by the tone. Simply awesome. It was a 70s Traynor YBA-series head, and it micturated upon my solid-state Peavey Max 700 from a great, great height. Lovely, lovely clean tones, and plenty of grind and rage in there when I cranked it up. It felt like the sound I'd been looking for. I'm a little bit in love. :blush: So my question is this: how much of the tone of an all-valve head do you think comes from the power stage? Obviously there's a great deal of tone-shaping in the preamp stage, so I would assume that's where the majority of the tone is coming from. But feel free to disagree. (It was impossible to really tell on the Traynor -- it didn't have separate pre and power controls, just volume.) And the reason for the question is that I'm getting hold of an 800W solid-state power amp for next to nothing, and wondering if a valve pre would give me enough of that magic -- maybe one of the DHA boxes? Or if I'd be horribly disappointed and weep for my lost love.

[quote name='Eight' post='430958' date='Mar 10 2009, 08:30 PM']Cheers for the info fella. Think I'll order a set and give it a go.[/quote] Nae bother. I think this might be the first time I've ever been any help to anyone on any forum ever. Go me! Just out of interest, what is this magical £50 bass?

[quote name='Eight' post='430927' date='Mar 10 2009, 08:06 PM']Um... it has strings with come through the bridge as opposed to through the body. Other than that I have no idea. Right, I'm off google taperwound. Lol. [/quote] Well, you've probably found out by now, but taperwounds look like the B and E on this: With strings that are wound full-thickness to the end, there's quite often some extra thickness near the ball end (where the windings are secured), so that even if the main body of the string passes through the hole in your bridge, you might find it really tight or even impossible to get that last cm through. Taperwounds eliminate that problem, but many say they don't transmit vibrations through the saddle effectively, reducing the fullness of tone. I've seen people argue it the other way too, claiming better efficiency through the smaller contact area. Again, you just have to try it and see what works for you. The alternative to taperwounds is to file out the hole in your bridge so the string will fit through it. I've never been brave enough to attempt that. At least you don't string through the body -- then your alternative to taperwounds is a big drill and a steady hand.

[quote name='cetera' post='430468' date='Mar 10 2009, 01:34 PM']Nobody pays RRP though..... and in this case you get what you pay for....[/quote] No doubt. I know a guy who absolutely swears by his Spector Euro 4LX -- doesn't even want to touch another bass. Spector have always been on my list of "would like to try". Cetera, do you have any of the 35" Spectors (surely, among that lot... )? If so, can you do a direct comparison of a 34" and a 35" with all other things equal? That would be very interesting indeed... [quote name='Eight' post='430481' date='Mar 10 2009, 01:48 PM']I have been thinking about that... except my "spare" bass is pretty basic. I have my doubts it would really stand up to putting thick strings on and tuning to BEAD or (C/F/Bb/Eb).[/quote] As long as it's got a (functioning!) truss rod, there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to cope. You'll probably have to file out your nut slots a bit, which could be problematic if you ever decide to go back to normal gauges, and depending on how your bass strings up, you might have to go for a taperwound B. Suck it and see.