Paolo85

20 hours ago, pfretrock said:

Someone should market string gunk, as James Jameson said "The Gunk keeps the Funk".

I would buy it. Seriously. It would probably be hand cream under a different name and at double the price

I have tried Eucerine cream. It works. I have no way of saying whether the resulting sound is worse/better than it would have been with natural aging though

47 minutes ago, Basso said:

 

 

…

 

What you’re suppose tu refute is the following statement:

 

“…fatter necks actually are better suited for proper playing technique (thumb in the middle of the neck, playing with tip of curved fingers). The distance from the pushing fingers gets smaller to the string and the hand gets a better grip or “strength” thanks to a more solid contact to the actual neck. Less “air playing” equals less distance, more strength, less movement with the resulting increased control.
Believe me: thin necks are not “faster” or “smoother” or “better” for anyone but someone with REALLY small hands aka: children”. 
 

"fatter necks actually are better suited for proper playing technique (thumb in the middle of the neck, playing with tip of curved fingers). "<-- this is just the main statement, no argument in here to refute

" "The distance from the pushing fingers gets smaller to the string" <-- here we get into the argument. And maybe ehe reason nobody "refuted" is because it is not very clear. There is also the possibility that it does not make sense. If you have the thumb in the middle of the neck (the tip of the thumb, obviously), and the other fingers bent, this doed not per se determine a distance between fingers and string. That distance is adjusted by changing the angle between the thumb and the neck. Which in turn liks to many other variables includings the ergonomics of the bass, strap length, and lenght of the person's arm.

"and the hand gets a better grip or “strength” thanks to a more solid contact to the actual neck." <-- that should probably need to be rephrased at the very least. If you look at hand position as thought in music schools (at least my old music school) the only things in contact with the neck are the tip of the fingers. What does "solid" mean?

"Less “air playing” equals less distance, more strength, less movement with the resulting increased control." <-- you may find yourself playing air with a shallow neck, but whether you keep the tip of your fingers constantly at a fraction of a mm from the strings or you lift them by a few cm any time tou release from a note has nothing to do with the neck depth

"Believe me: thin necks are not “faster” or “smoother” or “better” for anyone but someone with REALLY small hands aka: children”." <-- this seems like a pure provocation but in fact you are implicitly saying there is a direct relation between hand size and comfortable neck depth. Do you have a range in mind for the size of the hand of people that should stop liking a shallow neck? As we are st it, what do you mean by shallow? And deep? Is 5cm deep fast?

Edit. Yes I know, do not feed the trolls. Weirdly I enjoy doing this stuff!

34 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

 

And for me, vice versa. My thumb finds it tiresome having to press inward, in search of the back of the neck. On a thick neck, it simply rests, naturally. It misses the lovely deep neck of my BB424. 

 

If all attempted to extrapolate universal truths from the singular examples of ourselves.....

 

Fair enough I guess/imagine that the issue with me is that the muscles around my thumb are rather weak and vulnerable, so there is no such thing as "resting" them. But there are so many factor involved that I did not mean to say that shallower necks are "better" full stop. As it happens btw, of my 4 basses only one has has a shallow neck. It has tapes on, medium action, and I never play fast on it!

Even setting aside preferences, to me it does not make sense the idea that if one compares necks that differ in depth by normally some 1-3 mm and hands that differ in lenght and shape by more than that, one can argue that "bigger is better" in absolute terms. Besides, I am sure one can achieve "correct" technique on a violin..

I tried to think of my own experience. I would indeed agree that I do not find shallow necks "faster". In fact, I would agree that with shallow necks I tend to bend my fingers less, which puts them in a more relaxed position and makes it more likely that I won't play with the tip of my finger (note: I tend to, I don't have to, nothing in them prevents bending my fingers).

So while I certainly do not find deeper necks slower, I notice that my thumb gets tired earlier. Looking into it I believe the reason is that, the deeper the neck, the more the "base" of the thumb (metacarpal, according to google) is necessarely more perpendicular to the forharm. That is just a geometrical necessity, assuming the position of the other fingers is the same and that the tumb rests on the neck in the same place. Hence, the thumb makes more of its work through muscles. Again, to me this looks like basic phisics. If you push it to the opposite extreme, and assume an implausible situation with the metacarpal parallel to the foreharm with a straight thumb, and perpendicular to the fretboard, there would be almost no hand muscles involved, much of the resistance would come from the bones. Because of that, especially given my background of tendinitis at the thumb, I can definitely say that a deep neck would not be my optimal neck for sustained fast playing. 

On a similar note: as I am experimenting a bit with learning some funk stuff (I have no background with it) I find that I am constantly using barre-like fretting to play notes on different strings and the same fret in sequence. Because of that, my fingers are obviously often straight. Moreover, my fingers are mostly flat on the fretboard most of the time when I slap as I cannot mute with the plucking hand's thumb. Judging by videos on youtube, this is quite common and maybe not wrong for the style? If there is a need to keep fingers straight a lot of the time to play in a certain style, then I would think the faster neck for that style would be a neck that allows to keep that "incorrect" position with minimal strain

Edit: just thought of Rocco Prestia. I doubt one can play his music with "correct" hand position as he's muting all the time

Well done them. I had a problem with a delivery last year. Accidentally ordered a pickup to my old addres from an eBay seller. But I have Royal Mail redirection (which I paid for) so it should have all been ok. 

Except Royal Mail then claimed to have delivered to my old address. It was a tracked parcel but somebody signed it (except I really doubt my old neighbours would do it without telling me anyting... and I asked. And in those days I happened to receive tracked parcels from the letter box without being asked to sign...).

The eBay seller (stringslingers) was totally uninterested in my case. eBay wanted confirmation from RM that they screwed up before doing anything. RM was busy with issues other than looking into my case. Lost the money..

19 minutes ago, Bassfinger said:

I sometimes get the feeling that Jesus himself could commission Nelson Mandela to build a Bass in conjunction with the ghost of Jaco, NASA could do the design in partnership with Leonardo Da Vinci, and Lobster would still find a reason not to like it.

I remember some quite enthusiastic reviews to be honest (Squier Paranormal, quite a few HB  quite a few Sires...)

20 minutes ago, Belka said:

 complaining about a vintage style bridge, truss rod access at the body end and neck dive being defects isn't really fair, they're features of pretty much any vintage styled Jazz, and you'll get them on custom shop instruments costing three times this much.

 

From my point of view, I can understand why, in an attempt to make exact replicas of vintage instruments, they decide to sell expensive basses without direct access to the truss rod. I would never pay even 250 pounds for a bass like that but I understand (I mean, I would buy for 250 pounds but then resell immediately :)). But at the end of the day, this bass is new. it is as vintage as a Classic Vibe. So in my opinion, having features that are objectively annoying (having to remove the neck for a setup, neck dive) is not necessarily a great idea.

47 minutes ago, Kev said:

 If the budget set by the big company is high enough, they will be excellent instruments.  If not, they won't be. 

That's no doubt true but I imagine there is quite a bit of nuance there. Obviously, with sub-500 basses made mostly in Certain Asian countries and 1000+ basses made more often in 'The West', one should certainly expect the 1000+ basses to be way better on average.

However, watching an Andertons video with some comments on the issue I got the impression that cost of labour is a even for industrially made basses a key variable. In that sense, building in the USA at higher costs than in Indonesia does not, per se, ensure than more or better trained people do the job.

Obviously, if you look within companies like Fender, with production in very different places, it is exactly as you say. They tend put more "value added" production in the USA, and the most basic offering in China - although you get situations like this one.

But if you look across companies, in terms of construction, how does a Sire V10 compares to an USA Fender? Personally I don't know but I would not necessarily bet on the USA Fender.

My experience with the Ibanez SR line, for example, is that QC is excellent regardless of where a bass has been made.

...as for the main topic.. well, I am always a bit unconfortable when I read "Made in China", "Made in Indonesia" and "Made in the US" as if they were exact rankings in terms of quality, regardless of context. Obviously, if one looks within Fender products, that's the case, at least more often than not, by design. But if one zooms out, surely location on the map is not the main factor?

52 minutes ago, Grassie said:

Madness. I've owned a fair few Fenders (and Squiers) and as much as I love them, I've always struggled to understand how a simple, passive mass produced instrument that is basically a result of cookie-cutter production techniques can be so expensive, especially when you compare their US models to something like a Shuker, ACG, etc, where you can have a custom built bass for not much more dosh than what Fender charge for their top end instruments.

Well, as for Squiers, in my opinion the fact is that their competitors have not really surclassed them. Affinity are light, with thin necks back to front which my guess is most people, especially beginners, would enjoy. Classic Vibe have extemely good sounding pickups in my opinion and are not heavy for what they are.

I tried HB and Sire. Both were markedly heavier. My HB jazz was both stupidly heavy AND a serious neck diver. I understand their necks tend to be chunkier also for Ps. My uneducated guess would be that a chunkier neck is a cost saving as you get more tolerance in terms of what wood you can use. Then you need a heavy body to offset that, I would imagine.

My Sires had QC issues, were heavy, plus the pickups tend to be on the harsh side which is not necessarely what one wants from a P or a J. Preamps are brilliant but that's only of interest if one wants an active bass.

Don't get me wrong. I had even more QC issues with new Squier Affinity. In the end I think nobody has yet cracked the formula of the perfect sub-400 P or J but overall for a passive instrument my go-to passive P and J basses are used Affinity to be modded, with a BC seller assuring they work ok, or I plan eventually to buy some CVs from trusted sellers or a shop with a good return policy.

15 minutes ago, Reggaebass said:

Have you tried the labella LTF’s , they are pretty much all I use now 

I did try. It is incredible how thumpy they are despite the low gauge and I find roundcore strings very expressive. But the G was not really working for me. I have not written them off completely. It seems sometimes Labella roundcore have issues and you get a slight "sitar" effect. Maybe there was an element of that in my set. Maybe not. 

But before trying a new set of LTF, I have another plan.

I do not remember that well how TI flats sounded in my hands. I moved on to other strings as I did not find them thumpy enough (plus other stuff). I do not remember having issues with the G though.

After watching this video 

I concluded that old TIs can thump! I asked the guy and he had his strings on for at least 12 years😁

I have a Squier P with Tonerider and no strings on, waiting for a fret dressing and then I'll put some TIs on, hoping I like the G. Hopefully I won't have to wait 12 years for some thump! I read somewhere that a year could do

Not sure how the GHS compare to the Fender but in my case, after a while I gave up. Soundwise 55-105 was perfect, but with my background of tendinitis I thought it was not worth it. Now I have some Labella Tapes 60-115, very soft despite the gauge. And I am quite happy with how the G compares with the rest of the set. They do not really replace flats completely though. They are their own thing. I am still looking for the perfect flats.

I would imagine you'd have to adjust the truss rod. Although I remember after replacing some GHS flats 55-105 with D'Addario nickel I believe 45-105 I was surprised as I was expecting a bigger change in relief than what I actually got. Still, I think I did a setup but I always do

Just wanted to report that all is sorted after... changing strings. I have replaced the D'Addario ProSteels with less middy DR HiBeams 45-100 and it is a perfect match! I love the bass and I even find myself playing a lot with 75% bridge and 25% neck, instead of 50-50 or bending toward the neck as before.

That was a relatively cheap fix😁

1 hour ago, bass_dinger said:

 

You have got me thinking.

 

Is the bass funky-sounding (single coil J-bass, steel round wound strings?) - or is the funk from the fingers, the tight timing, and by playing the strings nearer to the bridge?

 

 

Yes you are totally right. That was GAS talking. In fact, not that many people in the world absolutely need four basses. At my level and for my needs, I could certainly do with one. At the same time, as I mentioned in other occasions, if one goes down this line of thinking Basschat would have no reason to exist, and most of the bass industry would have no reason to exist. Clearly there is something very appealing in the sound of a bass with a pickup a few cm closer to the bridge than the P's 😁

I had a non-straightforward issue with eBay and they were unable/unwilling to deal with it. I would not go through them again unless it is a slam dunk

I have happily done one in, one out for the most part last year but now it gets tricky. I could do that for upgrades, as you did. Sell a P for a "better" P. But say I wanted a J, which I don't have, am I ready to sell for example one of my Ps for that? They have flats, rounds, tapes so I would argue they are completely different basses, not interchangeable. Maybe I could let one with tapes go?

That would be an excruciating decision to make!

3 hours ago, Smanth said:

Ipartly the increased position shifts required.

 

On that, you may interested in buying Simandl's book, volume 1. As you use three fingers, different finger patterns for your scales may be easier, and they are thought through the book.

I started going through the book but then I realised that 90% of what I play is based on pentatonics for which the change is less of an issue so I just got lazy and dropped it

On 12/01/2023 at 14:52, Smanth said:

Oooooo … I currently use OFPF at all positions.  With my ukulele bass background (where this is easy) I never considered anything different when I started playing longer scales.

I shall have to investigate, does it basically mean that you only span three frets in any one position and use index finger on the first fret in the position, middle on second and pinkie (with ring finger supporting) on third?

S’manth x

The Simandl techniquebis absolutely amazing. It makes a massive difference in terms of resistance and ability to cope with longer scales and large fretboards. It is used by doublebass players as OFPF would just kill their hands. In general, making quick shifts left and right with the left hand instead of trying to extend the fingers is less straining. Even if you use OFPF. With Simandl you do a lot of shifting. You can still use OFPF on that one fast passage where it is needed.

Another thing that doublebass players do is to use the weigh of the shoulder to fret instead of the fingers. The idea is that instead of squeezing the string between your thumb and the other finger you are using,  you just hold your fretting hanf in position and then pull with the strenght of your arm. I recommend this video on the subject

Does that apply to electric bass? Well, that may be controversial but when I practice sitting down I do use this approach a bit. My plucking harm keeps the bass still, the shoulder keeps the fretting fingers on the fretboard. And the thumb does not do much. Just when using the shoulders I need not to be careful not to overdoit. Above all, the body needs to be relaxed. The problem with that is that it is not good posture for the plucking hand and that when you stand up you necessarily use different muscles. But I find that alternating this and standing is the best way for me to practice for a good amount of time without straining any specific muscle too much. Maybe think of using the shoulder as time to learn new songs or something like that.

Another interesting tip I heard it recently in an interview to Kiko Lureiro (a guitar player). When I fret, I tend to use more energy than necessary, which wears my muscles unnecessarily. Apparently he used to practice scales just touching the string, not fretting them, as if to make a ghost note but with just the tip of one finger. Then he would progressively increase the pressure, until he would get to the point where pressure would be just sufficient for the note to ring, nothing more.

I try to be very careful about all this stuff. I effectively stopped playing the bass at 18-19 because of tlrecurring tendinitis. And that was not long after I had decided I would try to make a living out of it. Later on I tried again a few times but tendinitis would come back. 

This time it is going better. Part because of better research into how not to strain my muscles (eg the discovery of Simandl), part because I take it very easy. If I get pain i rest a few days, no stress, no anxiety. If and when I hands get in good shape, I'll join a band, time permitting. Else I'll just enjoy it as it is.

Thinking again, I probably am in a pickle. Do straps count? I have long delayed the purchase of a wide leather strap. I quite value my back so if they count I may not last long (although who knows how long I can continue to delay that... ). In any case, I'll try to avoid going "oh well, I bought the strap, I may as well buy a bass"😁

36 minutes ago, Bunion said:

A cheap audio interface so he can start recording 

True! Good idea

Maybe he would like online resources, but a bit more structured - a paid-for online course. I love this website for online lessons https://members.talkingbass.net/shop/ and they sell gift cards so your son could decide what sort of course he's interested in.

Because all these people selling online courses also make free youtube videos, chances are he knows the website already so it may be good to find a way of checking if he loves it or hates it.

3 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

I'm going to go the other way. I like the fat mids of the MM so I'm going to source a split-coil J pickup instead. I find I use the MM pickup more so will keep that as is.

May I ask out of pure curiosity what is the J-MM bass you are working on?

39 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

If there are only two conductors in the wire coming out of the pickup then you're not going to be able to do anything about changing the inherent sound of the pickup, since it is sealed with epoxy. Whether it is wired in series or parallel is entombed in plastic, essentially, and unchangeable.

 

An issue with this kind of MM-J setup is when you set the EQ so the MM has the brightness you need, the single coil J is just too bright. They work better when both pickups are humbuckers. Can you get a tone you like from the MM if you focus on the MM alone, with the EQ?

Thanks! Yes it's exactly how you say. Basically I either EQ for the bridge or for the neck. I see the bridge as a nice-to-have so I have not made massive efforts to get a great tone out of it in isolation. With preamp flat or treble boosted a bit, it does not remind me of a Stingray much to be honest (though I never owned one). It has a dirty sound which I would see well in some rock contexts. That's why I suspect it may be series.

I always found the bridge pickup in the Js I had too thin for my taste, unless I was trying to pretend to be Jaco.

I was hoping a J-MM would be the best of both worlds. Maybe I failed to appreciate how well the JJ work together. Still, I have hopes that a different MM, in parallel could do the trick! Maybe I'll change the pickup one day!

Hi all. So I have this bass with a MM type pickup at the bridge which I wish was a bit brighter, had a bit more clarity. I really don't knob much about pickups, I wonder if it is possible to tell from just a few pictures if it is wired in series or parallel, and whether this could be changed by a non expert with good will. My guess would be that it is wired in series, and maybe if it was parallel I would lose some mids but a more stingray-esque sound (at least that's how I understand it). There is just one cable coming out of the pickups which brings two wires to the pickup-blend pot. The white wire goes to the lug, the yellow to the side of the pot. The bass is active with 2 band preamp (the stacked knobs) also a (good) J pickup at the neck. I have no idea how the preamp fits into the picture in terms of wires

Thanks!