3below

Self promotion placed in the wrong place now deleted. Apologies! Here is a cold and damp band at The Kerry Lamb on August 25th.

And there I was playing at the Kerry Lamb on Sunday, outdoors on a lorry trailer, cold and wet plus the other Kerry pub also had a band on. I am told people enjoyed it and we will be back.

Having once owned a JB EB3 type bass, the bridge is certainly JB. The neck joint appears similar to the bass I owned, neck through. Beyond that who knows,the headstock on mine was inlayed John Birch. I am surprised the bass has lost the JB hyperflux pickups.

The last two points make me want to do some experimental work which is why I got into Physics. Some measurements (sustain /decay times, spectral frequency distributions) of BBOT and high mass bridge fixed to an immensely rigid beam would help establish just what the effect is.

Having had a quick look at some of the maths involved it won't be me doing it any time soon. 45 years ago it was within my grasp, but 'use it or lose it' springs to mind Some light reading https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/sp2017/Lecture_Notes/Waves/PDF_FIles/Waves_2.pdf

This is correct and has made me think further. Rather than being concerned with "delivers more energy to the body" it might be more direct to state "less energy lost in the bridge". Reflecting on this my earlier conclusion "transferring more energy into the body should decrease sustain" needs to be qualified somewhat. In its simplest form I see this as a 3 part system. Energy input (string) > coupling medium (bridge) > energy sink (body-neck). Start with a 'physics' bridge that does not absorb energy and is decoupled from the body. Now couple it to the body-neck, this will increase energy losses, resulting in less sustain. A real world bridge is more complex (surprise!). Simplistically, with the 'good' bridge more energy can go into the body-neck, if the body-neck dissipates the energy more slowly then the 'poor' bridge then sustain will increase. However, if the body-neck dissipates the energy faster than the 'poor' bridge did the sustain could decrease. I feel that this needs some maths to be certain.

Yes, on several basses. I used the *bay copies, perfectly good. I really like them, it takes out the risk of cutting nut slots too deep. On anything I build in the future it will be my first choice of nut. Someone should make quality nut files at a sane price.

Pick away, at nearly 66 I am way less sharp now than I was in my early 20s, (I now tune my basses more often lol). In real world basses I think @BigRedX is on the money with that explanation.

I can't, but I can explain the opposite. In a former life I was a Physicist although it seems a lifetime ago. I would tackle this analysis through an energy balance approach. The string is plucked with a an amount of energy E. Some is absorbed by the surrounding air molecules. Some is absorbed into the neck and body through the contact points - bridge, fret. Eventually all the input E has been dissipated and the string stops vibrating. Transferring more energy into the body would allow greater energy losses into the body. In Physics world we want a bridge that is decoupled from the body and it absorbs no vibrations (energy) from the string. Ideally all the frets should also be decoupled from the neck. This means that all input energy E (from plucking the string) remains in the string and is then lost through air resistance and elastic strain energy in the string. The string will heat up slightly as a consequence. In Physics world we would also have the strings surrounded by a vacuum to minimise air damping losses. While we are improving the instrument we should also dispense with magnet or piezo based pickups since these also absorb energy. This bass has the ultimate physics and engineering basis. It is however unplayable in the real world. My conclusion: transferring more energy into the body should decrease sustain.

Same effect with my RM500 1/15 combo. Blues band 1, 6 piece with horns, 2 1x15 cabs, 150+ audiences, no problem,plenty of go. Blues band 2, 3 piece, rehearsal today, as per @stewblack had to crank the volume quite a way. The power increase at 4 Ohms (two cabs) is quite noticeable. It is a really good piece of kit to get instant 'good' sounds with different basses. In terms of bang per ££ (used or B stock) they are just phenomenal.

It is still in my possession and I like @TheRev I fully endorse the build quality, hardware,finish and sound, you also get the bonus of an ebony board. I have a fretted one as well and the same comments apply. Both of these are the Indian built versions. There is very little difference in the build quality of these and my late 80s USA G&L SB-1. The neck reminds me more of a Jazz bass neck than P bass, I have small hands, I could imagine it seeming 'small' if you had very large hands.

^ This, plus cut small and open the hole out with small incremental adjustments (rasp, half round file). If you do go way too big, epoxy plus sawdust makes a useful filler. My weapon of choice is a router plus adjustable bar. Perfect holes every time (my fingers were crossed as I wrote that). 🫰

Time is what you have less of when you retire. I wonder how I fitted everything in when I worked.

Steve very kindly sent me some Gibson 3 point bridge saddles for 'free'. A donation to our local children's hospice will be made. Many thanks to a top chap.

Headstock is glued to the neck with a scarf joint as found on many basses. Reduces the potential for headstock breakage with an angled headstock. More than happy with both of mine. The fretless fitted with TI flats has a very pleasant plummy tone. Passive, pickups left standard. Fretless model has side dots at frets 3,5,7,9,12 etc. I had a dot inserted at fret 1 (same as my Warwick fretless). On my fretted one I fitted DiMarzio Model Js, very versatile, records well, tight bass notes (TI flats again). Both of these are the Indian made models, excellent build quality.

This might help (if you have not already found it). https://support.izotope.com/hc/en-us/articles/7562928924317-How-to-Install-iZotope-Products-on-a-New-Computer. Having recently been through the same scenario you have my sympathy.

Big One, excellent cab, lots of bottom end. From experience It has a healthy appetite for Watts, check out the sensitivity of Eminence 3015LF. I moved mine on for a BF Dubster, no lack of bottom end

I have one fretted, plus a fretless. As above, ask away.

Why do I have an uncomfortable feeling about the latter and headstock breakage? What problem is it a solution to?

Yes and yes, although the PCB makes the construction simpler / neater / easier than point to point wiring when you are manufacturing thousands (or more) of the preamp. Stating the obvious, when you re-build it you will solder the new pot onto the PCB.

The little black thing with a stripe is an electrolytic capacitor. The pot (in the model circuit) is 20K. The best bet is to de-solder the pot and remove it from the little board. You will have to do this anyway to replace it, de-solder braid and or a solder sucker are useful. Get a multimeter (a cheapie 10-12 Euro one will do), and measure the resistance between to two outside terminals (legs).

Looking at your images confirms it is not the above circuit, the treble capacitor on your board is C6, on the schematic it is C3. Must look more closely at the evidence in future Having said that there is no reason why the RC combination in that circuit could not have been used in other preamps.