wateroftyne

[quote name='mcnach' post='1355557' date='Aug 29 2011, 07:12 PM']*and* old school Motown sound? Welcome Chromes... (no, I don't get commision)[/quote] I'm not quite sure what you mean..?

[quote name='mcnach' post='1355071' date='Aug 29 2011, 10:56 AM']Ah, of course, I was merely pointing out that these strings don't really contribute to "mud". I also use them on a standard P-bass and a Squier '51 P-bass. High on depth and classic 60s tone, yet retain great definition and cut through. That's why I think that in a "near mud" situation these stings could be the ones to go for (without going for rounds).[/quote] The Mudbucker tele is also light-years away from a single-coil P. It really needs all the help it can get in the definition stakes... :-)

[quote name='mcnach' post='1354893' date='Aug 29 2011, 01:03 AM']I'd try D'Addario Chromes flatwounds. They are flats but they are rather meaty and with a pronounced midrange. So far, every bass I try them on makes me smile and think "what took me so long?" I was especially surprised when I put them on a Stingray clone (OLP). I still get a very slappable sound and the signature 'ray sound if I keep the tone up (this particular bass is passive).[/quote] Bear in mind that, tonally, OLP and the Tele Bass are completely different kettles'o'fish...

[quote]Marketed as a TC 250 it may have been more honest, but people would have presumed it not powerful enough for their needs."[/quote] I see the dilemma, but leaving '450' out of the name would have been a good move. TC's marketing is excellent - I'm sure they could have been more honest about the rating whilst also making it a non-issue. At least then people like me - who wondered why it seemed to struggle a bit at reasonable volumes - would have been able to understand why.

[quote name='Kelso' post='1354564' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:50 PM']Hey folks. I recently bought a 1972 Telecaster Bass from Si (username 0353203). I absolutely love this bass - the neck is deceptively fast, the pick up is thumping and it looks stunning. I currently play in a Soul/Motown band and I'm thinking about buying flats to string the tele. What do you think or do you have a better idea of how I might get that old school motown sound? (without purchasing a P-Bass! - I love the tele so much more!) Cheers, Kelso[/quote] I'm a flats fan, but in my experience flats and a mudbucker Tele are not a good mix... there's just not enough definition.

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1354555' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:47 PM']WTF would we do for a job then? lol[/quote] Stretch the truth a little bit.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1354547' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:41 PM']It's because we know that this is a storm in a tea cup instigated as part of an opportunistic marketing exercise by a competitor to TC.[/quote] I've got nothing against TC (really, I haven't) but IMO this incident is a step too far. They may not be first, but unfortunately they've been caught with their trousers down. I'd rather marketing people from all manufacturers were made aware that stretching the truth this far just isn't on.

[quote name='bigjohn' post='1354493' date='Aug 28 2011, 04:56 PM']I don't get it. They've marketed a 236W amp as 450W,[/quote] ...with an 800w peak.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1354385' date='Aug 28 2011, 03:30 PM']I think the RH450 is underpowered, then all the MB LM/F series are underpowered, as is the Shuttle 6.0/9.0. If you need more volume, then Im guessing you are playing much larger stages. I have spent time A/Bing most the modern micros, and the volume pulls ahead of all the 500W MB amps, and the Genz Shuttle 6.0. We will find out more on Monday when Uffe starts to comment. I also ignore anything by a rival endorsee, especially when they are competing for TCs current market share.[/quote] FWIW, I play a range of different stages, but as I've said a few times already, it's not about volume but what happens to the sound at volume, how it handles the peaks. And yes, JimmyM is an axe-grinding twit. If anything good comes from this, it's that it'll put specs from all manufacturers under the microscope. TC have just pushed things a little too far.

I love bluegrass... always have. Incidentally, the song on the OP is an old English folk ballad. Here's an example of what happened to it over this side of the pond:

The Doc has just lowered the nut on my Fretless P. Excellent job for a very reasonable price, plus I got to see more of his Leo Fender photos and pics of old 'basses that got away'. Fascinating stuff. Cheers, Doc!

I've had two of these and sold them both. What a fool I am...

[quote name='silddx' post='1352679' date='Aug 26 2011, 04:20 PM']A refret is not really a mod, it's maintenance IMO.[/quote] This. IMO, frets are like tyres on a vintage car.

Again, I refer Musicman20 to my argument which is - my experience wasn't about volume. It was about dealing with peaks at 'reasonable' levels. Not to my taste.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352204' date='Aug 26 2011, 11:21 AM']Its less of a shop and more of a testing ground! When I mean crank I really do mean crank to proper volume. After being a little OTT with regards to research on the recent micro amp surge, I knew what to look for. If it doesnt sound great to my ears in the shop, then it wont sound great, to me, at home, or at low volume rehearsals, or potentially in the studio, so I wont buy it just for a tone that works 'on the gig' and thats it, (then we start getting into 'Sadowsky gig tone' territory). A lot of players don't get to gig much and just play at home, record, etc, so as much as the gig is 80% of the reason we may buy amps, there are more uses, for me, that I find important.[/quote] Unless there's a drummer to my right, a couple of guitarists in the mix and a load of people standing in front of me (hopefully!), I don't find these situations realistic. For the same reason, I always take what I hear at bass bashes with a pinch of salt. They are fun, though.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352172' date='Aug 26 2011, 11:06 AM']It was literally an A/B test before I bought the 450, which I recently sold to get the 750. So, no, I understand this isnt the greatest of tests, but I trust my ears. The Bass Merchant let me crank the living hell out of both of them as they are on industrial estate. Two RS cabs. The clear deep bottom end of the Staccato is very obvious when A/Bed with the 450.[/quote] Ah, OK. I've learned to never trust what I hear in a shop.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352160' date='Aug 26 2011, 10:57 AM']Probably the most sensible post ive seen on this subject over the past week, plus one to that. The Staccato has masses of low end, I tested one out before the RH450. It definitely does not lack low end/clean power and its essentially the same amp. It does seem rather 'coordinated' with many saying 'id sell now if I were you'...ridiculous.[/quote] Did you gig with the Staccato?

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352103' date='Aug 26 2011, 10:22 AM']Wow, runs out of steam?! Seriously?! I can understand if you were in a really really loud heavy band against a few Marhshall stacks and you only had a 4x10, but then again, ive been there, and its super super loud. For everything else, its overkill. Even if it doesnt have a huge low end, and focusses more on a low mid kick with that 'pushed tube' compression, surely thats what it was meant to do? No one expected it to be super clean, crisp, with a huge low end. As some of the users of the LM3 vs F500 have said, the F500 doesnt go as deep/low and packs a bigger punch, which seems to make it seem 'louder' whereas the LM3 gets wider...the more you turn up. I think most were quite happy until the apparent wattage rating came out, and now everyone wants to jump on it. Sure, it isnt massively clean with a huge low end like the Streamliner, but for that tight low mid kick, that sits right in the mix and lets you cut if you want to, the 450 and then 750 is hard to beat, IMO and IME.[/quote] FWIW, I sold my RH450 after I wrestled with it during scores of gigs of all types for the best part of a year. Way before any discussions about wattage. I don't play in loud bands, but there was something about the way it handled transients that didn't sit right with me. It lacked authority. But like I say, it's a taste thing - plenty of people are happy with it.

[quote name='Muzz' post='1352086' date='Aug 26 2011, 10:10 AM']That'd be it, then...sounds good to me: compressed, low mids, what's not to like? [/quote] Ha ha.. my interpretation is 'Runs out of steam'. Diff'rent strokes!

[quote name='alexclaber' post='1352057' date='Aug 26 2011, 09:53 AM']If you like what the TC amp does as it runs out of power then you'll think it's loud. If you don't then you'll think it's overly compressed and lacking in deep bottom.[/quote] Nail -> Head. IME.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352027' date='Aug 26 2011, 09:21 AM']. Has anyone ever complained about the power?[/quote] *raises hand*

I found the TC lacked punch and headroom at higher volume, but that might have been a tone (and taste) thing rather than output-related.

[quote name='Clarky' post='1350538' date='Aug 24 2011, 05:56 PM']half-rounds. Thats floored you![/quote] Nowt of either.

Flats have no treble, and rounds have no bass. So, either way, you're screwed.

No experience of the SKB, but lots of experience of the Hiscox. And it's mint.