Muzz

I've had a Classic, and now I've got the RH450, and I've also tried the TC cabs, and they were a little clinical for me - I was after something a bit warmer and old school (for want of a better phrase), so I ended up with a Schroeder. The Classic is a lot of amp for the money: lots of tones in there. Any of the opposition of lightweight heads (MB, Genz, etc) will be in the same ballpark, cost-wise, if not more expensive. All this is pretty subjective, though - the only way to decide is to let your ears have a go...

I'd also suggest the Schroeder 1515L - 2x15s in a package under 40lbs. Works well with either the LMIII, Classic 450 or RH450 in my experience.

Just received Steve's Jazz, a corking bass, delivered bang on time and in great nick. A gent to deal with at every stage, gets a big thumbs-up from me. Muzz

[quote name='Kev' post='1134760' date='Feb 20 2011, 08:21 PM']Endless argument, this. At the end of the day, the Ryder bass owners are correct in berating JTUK for talking down about a bass he has never tried. JTUK has a point by saying you are getting what you pay for (regardless what you people think of it, you are getting a cheaply built bass from budget materials), and has been rounded on here because he has insulted several people's new toy.[/quote] Nope, nothing to do with insulting toys (in fact there's another thread here where I'm (effectively) insulting my own, much more expensive toy's looks, so it's not the sort of thing which upsets me, strokes for folks, etc) and I'm a fervent believer that opinions are like arseholes, I'm just deeply allergic to reading baseless opinions stated as fact, when I have personal experience to the contrary. It happened a while ago when some other arse tried to tell people they couldn't get a particular sound from a particular amp, (despite having never tried for himself) and he even went as far as to tell anyone who disagreed that they were 'kidding themselves'. This hasn't sunk to those depths, but it's far from pleasant. There have been plenty of conciliatory posts from SR owners acknowledging the limitations of the basses, but some people are very, very keen to insist others experiences are wrong. Possibly trolling for the sake of it (and Lord knows that's tiresome enough), possibly not. We'll see.

If I ever actually go through with my oft-threatened response to Justin Bieber et al of pulling out my eyes and stuffing them in my ears, I'll be all over that...

Holy compacted vertebra!

[quote name='lemmywinks' post='1134687' date='Feb 20 2011, 07:25 PM']If someone comes on the thread to troll then that's their perogative, but not really what the thread is about.[/quote] I'd kinda thought that trolling wasn't what BC was about (occasional new and mostly short-lived visitors aside), but I've been disappointed by this one.

Well, I've got a oldish (ebony board) fretless Corvette I've had for a while, which was bought on a whim as a tester for fretless. Same thing - I love its quality and it's the most woody-sounding fretless I've ever played (which is what I was looking for in a fretless), but again it's no looker (IMO). I saw Soulboy's Fortress, and remembered I'd played one ages ago which I thought was a great-playing bass, and again it's the wenge neck, the build quality, and the passive P/Js which I wanted. Took me a lot of looking at the photos to decide to buy it, but I went for it. It takes some admitting, but I'm sure we've all stood in front of a mirror with the bass on to see what we look like, and to be frank I think I look like a bit of a dick with this one. Just wanted to know I wasn't the only one... It might just be good enough to get over the looks, tho, but Lord, it's gonna take some doing. Everything else I've kept long-term is black with a maple board. Anyone got any sugggestions for a bass which plays like this but isn't a Warwick? (now there's a long shot)

Let's not forget they also sell 'cheap and nasty' basses, which no-one will ever gig. Or so we've been told by someone who should know better. Come back to this thread in a year's time and Oh, I can't be bothered.

So I've recently got my hands on a nice Warwick (cheers Soulboy!) and after a bit of fettling and a fret dress, it's playing very very nicely. On the strap, it balances well, the wenge neck's great, and the sound's more or less there*. Eyes closed, it's near enough the nicest, easiest bass I've played, and positively addictive. All sounds dandy, the only problem is...how it looks. I've never seen a Warwick on wall or in a brochure and thought "Wow, that looks great", but up close, the details are great, the quality's great, the neck profile's great. I'm just struggling to love this one, and it's all aesthetic. Anyone else as shallow as me? * Well, near enough for live situations with the band - it might not be the sound in my head, but I've realised that sound doesn't actually work with a band anyway. This one does.

[quote name='drewm' post='1133596' date='Feb 19 2011, 05:04 PM']I've just shimmed the neck on my Low Ryder, dropped the saddles and little and tightened the truss rod a smidge. It's playing nicely.[/quote] No, I'm afraid it isn't mate. It's cheap and nasty. You've been told. Mine's cheap and nasty, too, and I'll never gig it. Apart from last night...

Very, very bored with the minority of people on here insisting over and over they can't be any good, they're not as good as XYZ, we should leave them for 'the kids', oooh, there'll be loads for sale in a bit when we all see sense. Ok, they're no good, we've all bought the wrong thing, no-one's happy with them, and you were right all along. Move on. Happy now?

[quote name='Phil-osopher10' post='1132264' date='Feb 18 2011, 02:26 PM']Oh no, my, admittedly weak bank balance is going to hate me baaad! I think I'm starting to get a gas attack for a dirty blonde warwick thumb. Does anyone have one?[/quote] I'm the same. Except for the 'warwick thumb' bit...

As someone who modded a $109 SX (all the way up to about £200) and ended up selling his USA Ps on the strength of it, the Ryder P makes great sense. My Ryder has a three piece solid body with a really nice translucent finish, through stringing and decent bridge, and the pickup sounds like a P. I really, really cannot understand people's problem with this for £60. As is, it's pretty good, but with a better neck, they'll give a lot of much more expensive kit a run for its money. I've gigged the SX many times, and even taken it into the studio. I'll do the same with the Ryder when its finished. Yep, bought one, spent some time on modding it, and then...gigged it, played it, gigged it some more. By the same token, you've bought a Fender/Lakland/Smith/Fodera for £ks...then what? Don't understand that question - it's a bass, not a cure for cancer. As for us terrible folk taking basses from deserving kids...what a strange extrapolation. Why are people looking so hard for downsides? They may not be the best bass in the world, but I'd like to see a definition of 'best' before I could comment fully on that...for example, I'm selling my Overwater, but keeping my SX. Which is 'best'?

Copperhead Road. Two notes. I've got it wrong before now, though, but mostly due to boredom.

Well, I was using a couple of different sounds on my (Programmable) BDDI for different basses (I use a passive P/J and an active Ray), so they naturally translated into presets (the input gain can be preset on the RH, which I find very handy - you really don't want to get that wrong on a busy stage). Less faffing with the controls - 1 is Passive P, 2 is Ray, 3 is for the 'softer' setting for our more acoustic numbers. I am a simple creature, and I can cope with numbers which light up. As long as there's only 3... The downside of the always-on tuner is that if you play a bum note, the guitard can see what you've done...

Yep, I can completely see why there might be just too much on the thing for some - I'm a bit like that with basses - more than 1 pickup is pretty much wasted on me: it took me a loooong time to get on with my P/J setup. I could honestly live with a bass with one pickup and an on/off switch* - actually, I wouldn't need that, because the RH450 has a mute on its floorboard. * As long as the sound was there, natch...

Simon, I think it'd be better if you'd actually used the RH450 controls before commenting in such (incorrect) detail - the shift key doesn't need to be held down, once it's pressed, the para EQ mode is on, press again, it's off. You can then play a note and turn a knob. I'd consider it an advanced feature - the normal EQ works just fine, too. The input gain is the main function of that particular knob (its default), the other is the compressor, which is so effective I've found it to be pretty much 'set and forget'. All details, and really neither here nor there. Yes, it is all subjective, but to be honest, you need to use one for, ooh, five minutes before it (might) become apparent that the controls are actually pretty intuitive. Perhaps the manual doesn't read very well - I couldn't comment, I've never read it.

Can't see the RH450 as "off the scale bad", despite having got a lot of features into a small box. The 'shifted' features (which I'm presuming you mean by the multifuntion controls) are really fine tuning stuff, like the semi-para EQ and the compression, the rest is straightforward - the presets can help there. Want to add compression? Press Shift (it lights up), turn the knob. Want to increase the input gain? Press Shift (the light goes out), turn the same knob. The head's about as hard to use as a car stereo once you give it 5 minutes, and pretty intuitive. Having said that, there's a lot of folk who can't work their car stereo - my Mrs included Horses for courses, but then I know people who've no idea what VPF and VLE are, either If you've only got one amp, then unless you're DIing, you're stuffed if it goes down, whether it's got lots of features or none. By your 'single box' reasoning, I guess you'd have a power amp and a pre, then?

TC definitely isn't emperors new clothes, it's simply another amp option which may or may not suit individuals. Just like Markbass stuff. Most of us don't have don't have easy access to anywhere we can A-B all the options these days, so buying without playing is common, and specs and others opinions don't tell the full story. Even stuff tried extensively in music shops can behave very differently in a band context, so it's natural kit flies around secondhand for all sorts of reasons - and I haven't even touched on GAS yet...

Our vocalist makes his living from music - he has a wedding/function band, can go out solo (he's a great guitarist, too) or in a duo, so he's very flexible (and cost-efficient, too), but he's usually skint: getting gigs week in, week out, coping with cancellations, agent fees, illness - seems like most things that happen impact on his earnings directly. For example, if you've calculated £500 per week is what you need, a couple of £150 weeks mean you'd need to pull a couple of £850 weeks just to break even. What I'm saying is it seems (from looking at my vocalist's example, anyway) that it's far, far easier for the money to falter than it is to crank it right up again. He's divorced and his kids are grown up now, so he's renting a flat, and has a very understanding girlfriend. Even with this lack of other commitment in his life, he tells the rest of us it's very hard some weeks, and I can see it makes him very weary around music sometimes, and as has been said earlier, making your hobby your job mostly removes a hobby from your life. He also says there's no way the lifestyle is compatible with a happy family life, which is I guess what's behind the 'young/single/not-a-family man's game' concept expressed earlier. If you've no ties, plenty of drive and energy and you really want to do it, then go for it, but it's not a decision to be taken lightly. Even if I could manage the lack of money and family time, I'd be wary simply for the fact that it'd reduce my enjoyment of playing music - I've been in computers for 25+ years now, and I can't begin to tell you how bored with technology I am... Am I jealous of him? Sometimes, when he's on a good roll of gigs. Would I swap? Not a chance.

First Bass Owned: Satellite Short-scale Sunburst thing 'Go To' Bass: Modified SX/MM Precision 'Your' Bass: Modified SX/MM Precision

Having gone from LMIII - Classic 450 - RH450, I'm bound to say yes, it's a worthwhile upgrade, but I'd try the Classic 450 (or RH450) first to make sure that's the sound you're after. The core sound of the Classic 450 is the same as the RH450. I loved the LMIII, but found I was using a Sansamp BDDI permanently on it, and in a OCD-based drive to reduce kit to the minimum possible, I sourced and tried a Classic 450, which, with the Tubetone, I found I could get that valve-y Ampeg-y sound I was after (and a lot more besides). Once I'd used the Classic for a short while in a band situation, I was convinced enough to want to add the functionality of the RH450 (Tuner, adjustable EQ, programmable presets, greater connectivity on the back panel), so I part-exchanged the Classic for a RH450 on here. Because I did both moves with good people on BC for secondhand gear, the steps weren't half as painful as going straight from a LMIII to a RH450. If you're not bothered about the differences between the Classic and the RH450, then it's not worth the extra. If you are, it is. Mark at Bass Direct has lots of amps in (including the Genz stuff) so you can A-B (and -C and _D) them to your heart's content. Edit: just seen your location. That'd be a big day out, then...

If you're after a low-profile way of getting an amp, Vox do a small headphone amp for Bass which I've used before for bedroom practising. You need headphones, but you can also plug your mp3 player in and learn by playing along to your favourite tracks (I'm guessing from your username it'll be Peaches or Hanging Around ). You won't sound like JJB yet, but you'll be amplified, at least. Here's a link: [url="http://www.dv247.com/guitars/vox-amplug-bass-guitar-headphone-amp--57462"]http://www.dv247.com/guitars/vox-amplug-ba...hone-amp--57462[/url]