Muzz

I've got quite a big span (210mm wrist to tip, 240mm thumb to pinkie and 200mm index to ring) and normally go for Precision-sized necks, although I'm enjoying the new (to me) Jazz and Fortress necks quite a lot...

I can't be the only person who was disappointed to click on this thread and find no pictures...

I like that new similie: "pushy like a guitarist"...should be in the OED

As far as I'm aware he used both tracks of the bass - as I say, the sound was there in what I'd assumed was its finished state for days and days of tracking/mixing, it's only in the final mix that he's flung the wool over it. It sounds like he got to the final mix and paid attention to the bass sound for the first time and said "Oooh, that's not fluffy enough...how did I miss that?"

Thanks for the responses guys (and Jennifer) - I appreciate it. OK, to clarify a few bits: I'd been surprised and disappointed with the sound, because I'd been so happy with the results of the tracking days (a mix of DI and mike'd cab) sound-wise. It'd been a GAS-reducing result to hear the bass sit in the band mix sounding pretty much as I'd imagined in my head. All through the rough mixing while we were tracking everything else, there it was, very nice indeed. Come the final mixing days, due to serious family illness I was backwards and forwards to hospital and so I missed out on being there (ironic in itself, as I'd been there for 8 days AFTER I'd finished tracking the bass parts, just to show willing, make brews and take the mick out of the drummer for struggling to record tambourine in time) and the bass tone changed dramatically. Listening again (sorry I can't post anything yet, but the singer, who's the main songwriter wants it all under wraps until it's done) and I can hear traces of the old sound, but it's definitely been duveted*. Anyway, the good news is we're having a sit-down this week to review the results so far (7 out of 12/13 tracks are 'complete', so it's an ongoing process) so there's a forum for me to raise the issue. It's not just me obsessing about 'my tone', though - I genuinely think at least some of the songs are poorer overall for the wooly bass. We've also got the option of playing around at the mastering stage, so maybe it won't be as expensive as I'm fearing. Finger crossed. Cheers, Muzz * Is this a word? I think not. Anyway.

Schroeder 1515L FTW - 800w 2x15, 40lbs or so...booyah.

...and then the studio engineer/producer manages to make it sound as woofy, wooly and indistict as a lot of the nondescript bass out there. Bah. Just had a first listen to the final mixes of our album project, and I'm in two minds - the songs sound great: for a (fairly) budget job, they sound professional, and much of the mix is fantastic. The disappointment for me has been the bass sound: I took the P/J, the Ray, and the RH450/Schroeder rig in, and while tracking I had a really great sound (and variations on it), which I liked a lot, and I thought complimented the songs - I'd even played to the sound, you know, a bit of growl here, a slur there, etc. We'd done preliminary recordings, and everyone had liked the bass sound, and this carried ovver into the recordings themselves, but come the final mix, and it's all had a duvet thrown over it. Nothing traumatic, and it all sounds OK, but it bears very little resemblance to what I recorded tone-wise. I guess a lot might be down to the fact the I wasn't there for some of the final mixing days, and of course through several £ks of studio monitors things always sound better, but even so, it's a bit of a bugger. So, do I upset the applecart by complaining (and raise the possiblity of running up remix costs, which we can't afford), or keep schtum for the general good? Anyone been here?

"If I am turned off by your tone you've lost me for good...Your tone should be like a warm blanket that I want to be wrapped up in. " Yeah, and if you sound like Kenny G, pal, you can do one too... Bloody honkers, who do they think they are?

Yup, the 3 presets on the RH450 could be just what you need for instant switching between tones, with the minimum of kit.

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.