LawrenceH

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339704839' post='1693176'] If I stick a pickup to it, how are they different? [/quote] A hollow-bodied acoustic instrument's tone is really heavily dominated by the construction - the body plus soundholes act like a Helmholtz resonator, analogous to a tuned reflex speaker cab. The top is very thin and usually braced to give a particular stiffness-weight ratio which itself (with the shape) gives particular modal resonance properties, then this interacts with the back/sides... it's a pretty complicated system! A solid body doesn't have the chamber resonance to contend with, and the greater weight and thickness means resonances will be shifted higher and amplified far less.

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1339691556' post='1692867'] The LMTube's are using a tiny 6205 tube. PS - The Genz Streamliner uses a high plate voltage. [/quote] Ah, I hadn't realised the streamliner was HV as well! Got to be worth looking at, thanks for the heads-up. But the valve being small doesn't matter - all the 12AX7-based amps run in starved plate mode aren't going to sound as 'valve-y' as a small tube run at proper spec voltage. That 6205 is also a relatively high-voltage tube, so not great at low voltage for the same reasons as a 12AX7 but I bet in the right circuit it could sound fantastic.

Dood, Rubis - thanks for the suggestions! Actually dood I saw that you were selling the F1 and it did indeed get me thinking, the only thing is now I'm not sure if I want to stick with the F1 (I think it's a GREAT amp) or move to a GK MB Fusion. The lure of a high voltage valve preamp in the same footprint/weight as the F1 is very strong. If I could sew vinyl fabric then I'd be well onto a sleeve already...

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339682997' post='1692636'] I wonder why. I doubt there is a player or builder alive who would dispute that the choice of woods are essential for acoustic instruments. Electric instruments however "read" and reproduce the string vibrations in a different way. [/quote] Sorry, I missed this bit! Despite positive publication bias, a paper demonstrating that wood has no impact on tone would definitely be considered publishable - I'd assume a lack of publications indicates a lack of non-proprietary interest rather than because it's a crazy theory. Actually a model of how electric instruments work is essentially the same as an acoustic one, it's just that after a certain point the transforming functions are done electrically. Before that point still matters or we wouldn't hear the difference between one string type and the next or indeed one note and the next.

Hi Ou7shined, hope you don't take umbrage if I reply to your points, I'd like to be clear that I'm bothering to do so because you are actually someone who thinks about how things work and does a good job of implementing it rather than just some numpty on the internet. So I have a lot of respect for both what you do with basses and for your opinion on them! [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339682997' post='1692636'] So as a scientist, you see nothing "vaguely scientific" about taking specific components from a control bass, putting them on a test bed subject, recording the resultant output, then returning said components to the control bass, recording the resultant output under identical conditions, then allowing a random selection of the general bass playing public an opportunity to identify which bass is which? Right. [/quote] No I don't for three massively fundamental reasons: 1. It was an interesting demo but it did not address the question of whether wood can im impact upon audible tone. It just showed that two different pieces of wood from different species [i]can[/i] be made to sound very similar, itself an interesting thing but not the same at all. 'Can do' is not the same as 'always do, and formal logic spends a lot of time defining these fundamental differences in reasoning process from hypothesis to conclusion. So first up it addresses a different hypothesis to that usually debated. 2. In science controls and controlled conditions are essential. Neither the 'test bed' nor the original body had any characterisation of their physical properties, and there is consequently no means of comparison to general phyiscal properties of wood to see where these examples would fit on the curve. This might seem like a quibble but it's absolutely key. Why is that?... 3. Because the only way to do this even vaguely successfully without actual measurement info on the wood to compare to already know material variation, would be to take more samples using a lot more species of wood and to maintain a consistent plank size each time. You cannot draw any conclusion whatsoever from a total sample size of two. That's why even the ropiest statistical tests require n of at least 3 per comparison group before they can even be employed with validity, let alone accuracy. A methodologically identical analogy to that demo would be to record two bird calls from two different birds we happen to hear. Suppose they sound essentially the same, do you conclude that all birds always sound the same? Of course not, we haven't addressed that question at all. Similarly we can't conclude from a sample size of two that smoking doesn't case cancer. So, we can't test every piece of wood but really we don't need to, as long as we have sufficient information about population distributions of relevant physical properties of woods we can use statistical methods. However, 'relevant physical properties' requires that we have a model of how a note is generated, which itself requires using material vibrational analysis based on very old and well-characterised physics (physical modelling synthesis would be based on exactly this type of approach). Incidentally the quality of measurement, ie our ears from a lo-fi clip on the internet assessing someone else's playing rather than any consistent mechanical input, is yet another matter but that is a limitation in execution rather than a flaw in methodology. As is the fact that a big thick piece of lumber joined to a relatively thin neck might well result in tonal properties dictated by the neck! Drop the mass of the body and change its distribution and see what happens then - if you make it obviously too thin you'll DEFINITELY hear the impact! That's a silly extreme of course but consider that the neck vibrations on a typical Fender are easily visible to the naked eye and are visibly in the audio spectrum (20Hz-20k). That energy has to come from somewhere! [quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339682997' post='1692636'] Dead spots is another matter to tone. These are connected to inherent physical inaudible vibrations of the base material. Tone is what carries the music. If you can produce some empirical evidence to the contrary of that which I am being pushed upon then that's the thread over. A conclusion I'd welcome. [/quote] I just don't understand what you mean by 'another matter'. Tone (timbre actually but we all say tone) is dictated [i]entirely[/i] by the total harmonic content at the beginning of a note and the way these harmonics decay over time. Your ears are fourier analysers, efectively breaking the complex waveform up into component sine wave harmonics and then your brain reassembles that into 'tone'. The 'dead spot' neck resonance is altering decay of particular low harmonics which on other notes have a longer decay curve. This is [i]exactly[/i] the same as tone/timbre it's just a very obvious example because it alters the lower end of the harmonic spectrum and in a way that is position-dependent on the instrument. Despite everything I've posted I don't actually believe that subtle nuances of 'tonewood' ARE critical [i]at all, [/i]and certainly not by species, because guitar makes have already preselected materials based on certain mechanical constraints and very likely with a high degree of overlap between species. Nonetheless you probably could measure differences and show broad species correlations if you took enough samples, there'd just be a lot of noise ie a high degree of overlap. Eg you might be able to predict maple v rosewood for instance, 55% of the time - so better than chance but not by much. I would agree with the final practical conclusion 'don't worry about it, just make sure it's built properly'!

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1339673365' post='1692369'] That vid was uploaded 4 years ago. Since then the bass community has forced several controlled and impartial (as good as it can get under the circumstances) tests which have disproved the notion that an electric bass relies on the wood for tone. Most people now accept that the whole maple/rosewood argument holds little credence, a year or two ago that definitely wasn't the case. Pretty soon the truth about tonewood will reach critical mass too. [/quote] Hmm, speaking with my scientist hat on, I have never seen anything even vaguely scientific that properly tests whether wood can effect the tone of an electric instrument or not (yup, including that talkbass thread). Seen plenty of papers looking at acoustic instruments which provide convincing evidence that it does, but not solid-body instruments. First principles suggest that it has to, the real question is how much (ie whether it's at all noticeable), and what degree of correlation there is to wood variety and other properties. I know I can be a bit of a broken record with this particular argument but people often point to this or that as 'proof'/'facts' etc but the objective data simply isn't out there - especially not in that talkbass thread. I always point to dead spots on a neck which is an entirely acoustic phenomenon, dictated by mechanical resonance in the neck and body. I am genuinely baffled as to why that alone doesn't serve as adequate demonstration that wood is a factor in how the string vibrates and therefore the sound of the instrument, and that this can at least under certain circumstances be significantly audible.

Hmm, P pickup in a vaguely 'ray-ish position, on what looks to be a short scale? I bet it'd sound interesting with a DiMarzio Model P!

[quote name='Count Bassie' timestamp='1339644194' post='1691916'] Here's a picture of the cab... I'll post again as it moves along, might be a while though! The speakers here are a pair of Emi 10s from an Avatar cab, set in the bottom holes... where the ports are going to go. [/quote] Wasn't able to see this pic before. WIth a box that big, if loading with only 2 drivers I'd be tempted to make it a sealed cab or at least tune really low. Subjectively you'd get a very smooth bass extension without being overpowering, which would match well with a PA-driver style smooth top-end. I'd also want a driver with qts on the higher side which does rule out a lot of those designed for PA. The lower power Fane 125 might be a good option there? [quote name='Phil Starr' timestamp='1339673544' post='1692377'] Anyway, this peak sounds quite nice even though it is actually a distortion and gives the classic sound of many guitar and bass systems. You might miss it if it is what you are used to hearing. That's down to taste really rather than physics so you have to decide between a smooth sound and a punchy (but distorted) one. The Fanes give the smooth sound. You can always use EQ to add a peak, [/quote] Phil has articulated this much better than I did! I indeed prefer the option of adding a peak with EQ only when needed, but it does/can sound good in a lot of contexts. I still think the peak on some of the eminence neos is excessive by any standards!

[quote name='Count Bassie' timestamp='1339643843' post='1691915'] I use a pair of Eminence Kappalite 3015s in TL-606 boxes when I need big guns, and they can take a beating! Very robust, lots of excursion, a tad strong in the upper-mids. I use the eq on my GK head to pull the excess mids out [/quote] This is the thing with the Eminence neo speakers, they nearly all bump up the upper mids (as do quite a lot of the ceramics). Certain people on talkbass insist this is never a problem but my personal preference is for something a little smoother. If you look at 10" ceramics bear in mind they'd typically weigh as much as or more than a kappalite! If portability is an issue then the other manufacturers I suggested make very good neo speakers.

[quote name='dincz' timestamp='1339667957' post='1692191'] I think you're confusing High/Low impedance (HiZ, LoZ) with high and low level inputs. You really don't want to load a passive pickup with a LoZ input. If by "fuller" you mean lacking in high frequencies, then yes a low impedance input will achieve that. [/quote] I believe 'Hi' on the input actually often refers to sensitivity - hence the 'hi' input is for low output (typically high impedance passive) instruments. I think often if you look at the schematics the different inputs will just have a pad between them. You're fine running all instruments into the 'hi' input unless it clips. I'd be more wary of running a passive instrument into the 'lo' in case the impedance was unsuitable as you say, but the other way round (low into high impedance) works fine. A preamp with enough clean headroom doesn't need 2 separate inputs (eg my Markbass F1 or the Hartke LH500 with the Fender/Alembic-type front end). Run everything into 'hi' unless it overloads it on minimum gain setting. As has been mentioned elsewhere, IME active/passive has very little bearing on output level though it will impact the impedance.

Whether an amp needs or benefits from 2 different inputs for high and low depends on its design. Whether an active bass is higher output than a passive depends on their design and how the EQ is set. If an amp doesn't have two separate inputs it usually means its designed in such a way as to not need them, so don't let it put you off.

Phil Starr has I think used a Fane 10" PA driver, you could PM him. They're not one of the fashionable names in bass guitar land but they definitely used to make good PA speakers, and AFAIK still do. Dunno if they'd be a very economic option in the US. If you want that flat PA driver sound in bass cab have a look at stuff from Faital and 18Sound maybe?

[quote name='1976fenderhead' timestamp='1339612457' post='1691571'] Could be, but I also tried it elsewhere with a MarkBass 210 standing on top of another one (unplugged) and it didn't sound at all like this, sounded much better... But when I tried it with a MarkBass 112 on the floor it did sound somewhat like this. I guess it just doesn't go well with a single 12" ? [/quote] Might be just the particular environment for each test - different speaker voicings, different positioning shifting the cancellation centre frequency around, different absorbing surfaces... or it could just be one of those things, you know? Gotta go with your ears at the end of the day! Acoustic effects can be really hard to pin down. Just a shame you couldn't get what you wanted from the one-cab option.

[quote name='1976fenderhead' timestamp='1339610750' post='1691527'] When using only one, it was the top one and I was sitting so it was pretty much pointing at my face. If anything when using 2 there was a more direct coupling with the floor adding lows? I also expected there to be only a difference in volume, but the tonal difference was massive, much fuller rounder sound, LOADS more headroom, totally different beast. Best way I can compare it is like the difference between running the Catalinbread SFT in 9v or 18v, but even much more evident and bigger improvement in this case. I then went back to one cab and tried to increase volume and EQ it to get close to the stack sound and couldn't get nowhere near! [/quote] Hmm, thinking.. on a cab raised substantially off the floor you will unavoidably get some cancellation that'd typically affect the low mids - could it be that? Since it's a cancellation node EQ can't compensate for it but moving the cab close to the floor and tilting back would solve this. The ICEpower module in the tonehammer is capable (actually more powerful than that used in the Genz or GK MB500 even though they're rated similar outputs) so I'd be surprised if it didn't work well at 8 ohm. [quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1339607942' post='1691451'] I don't know how far the family resemblance goes between the MB Fusion and the other MB heads, but my MB200 definitely has a baked-in smile curve. A guy over on Talkbass did some measurements and found that the MB200 [i]can[/i] be set more or less flat, but with the Contour off, Treble and Bass at 10 o'clock and the high and low Mids at 2 o'clock and 1 o'clock respectively, not with the knobs centred. Or is your concern more to do with aggressiveness in terms of gain? I'd agree on the disappointment of starved-plate designs. Even though I'm a big fan of valve amps and gig with one whenever it's not too impractical, when I've tried hybrid heads which have the typical blendable valve stage for "drive", I've always preferred the sound without the valve stage blended in. I'm not sure why nobody has yet come out with a micro head with a simple Fender/Alembic/Hartke LH style clean valve preamp - I reckon a lot of players would be very happy if someone did. [/quote] Yes, absolutely an F2b type pre in a micro would be great! I suppose the micros are aimed at people who like 'more' features in general. My reservations probably would concern both EQ and gain, but particularly the latter (I think the passive tonestack in the F2b/whatever Fender clone is actually pretty mid scooped anyway...). I am really tempted to switch my F1 for a Fusion if I can find an extra £200 somewhere! But I'd need to try it first as the F1 is great - be pretty interested to hear your MB200, gigging with it sometime soon?

[quote name='1976fenderhead' timestamp='1339606783' post='1691419'] I tried the TH500 today with a pair of SL112's. Loved the sound playing with 2 of them, didn't like it at all playing with just 1. Would love to get the stack but I can't afford it new, no way. [/quote] Silly question, but did you try it with the single cab angled more towards your ear and bumping up the bass/low mids a tad? I'd be suprised if there was a noticeable difference in tone from the amp itself run at 8 v 4 ohms (though it is possible) so I'd have though the most likely difference would be the placement in relation to your ear combined with the low/mid frequency coupling.

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1339605730' post='1691379'] That's not really how it works... more that all (I think) of these micro valve hybrids, with the notable exception of the GK MB Fusion, are running 'starved plate' designs [/quote] In fact thinking about it, I wonder if there might be an advantage to using a smaller valve in a low-voltage design, you could potentially use one actually designed to operate at low voltages... I wonder what the valve is in the markbass stuff?

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1339529701' post='1690074'] The tube is so small on the LMTube it's insignificant [/quote] That's not really how it works... more that all (I think) of these micro valve hybrids, with the notable exception of the GK MB Fusion, are running 'starved plate' designs where the plate voltage is much lower than the design spec of the valves call for. It may distort, but it's not a 'true' reflection of the 'classic' valve sound of old studio or Fender/Ampeg preamps. It's the subtle harmonic enrichment before audible breakup in high voltage designs that gives that 'magic smooth sheen' to classic valve pres. I'd be very interested to know if any of the other designs use a high plate voltage but I doubt it, as it's more expensive to implement and they'd be able to make a big thing of it, as GK have rightly done. That's why I am really keen to try an MB Fusion! Just concerned that it'll have been voiced to give too much of the signature GK aggression. FWIW I thought that the Orange TB and TC RH450 sounded precisely nothing like the sweet spot of a classic valve pre, the Orange when I tried it just sounded broken to my ears no matter where I put the gain. Not heard the Ampeg, Genz or SWR models (though if the headlite could actually do the sizzling HV valve pre thing that the old Redhead etc do so well then that would be great)

I can'[t believe how seriously people are taking this and how much grief the OP is getting! As for being bitter?! There are bands who I don't particuarly like but I can recognise that the bass player is contributing something musical and interesting in some way. There are other bands like U2, Korn, Greenday, Coldplay, all incredibly boring IMO whose music leaves me totally cold, and the insipid and/or ADHD basslines contribute to my feeling of overwhelming, despairing tedium when I hear them. I think that it's allowed to not like those bassists (as players) and, when they're sitting there in Beverley Hills in front of a wall filled with platinum records casually burning bundles of money on a big open fire, I doubt very much they care at all what someone on the internet says about their playing so it's probably fine to express an opinion

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1331725284' post='1577681'] Emailed GK, the USA made MB amps will probably start shipping to the UK in June/July. They have to sell the Chinese made versions first before shipping the new ones. [/quote] Any idea what this'll do to prices? I don't really care where they're made as long as they're made well. I really want to try the MB Fusion with its proper high voltage tube preamp, especially after the reviews posted here by Lozz196 and deepbass5, all other valve micro options are just pretend. But I'd rather not find its gone up by £200 by the time I can get it!

There's a lot of difference between speaker types. What's the ampeg cab model name/number?

Thanks guys, from what you're saying this might be much closer to what I'm after than the other 'valve' micros. It's pretty much the same size and weighs a shade less than my F1, so I'm sorely tempted to try one out. Looking at the MB200, if you had one of each the MB fusion would be the 'big rig'. Insane!

Lots of good ideas here. Me, I tend to think in terms of phrases that have a balance to them (as in speech) and also about what the other instruments are doing and think about this in terms of monologue versus conversation/counterpoint. Conversation can be really quickfire or slow and measured but you need to be able to follow it which you can't if everyone's all talking at once. The exception is if everyone's saying the same thing (monologue), and that can be really effective too.

[quote name='apa' timestamp='1339357429' post='1687417'] Is this what you call being damned with faint praise? A [/quote] Not at all! Just that people pay a premium for the B/B necks (I have a couple myself) and so the contrariness of merrily ripping it right off earns a respectful smile IMO.

Useful info, cheers guys - especially that it's working well in a jazz context. I like the clarity of my Markbass F1 but it just lacks a little of that valve magic. I'm interested in the MB Fusion because, unusually, it is running the valves at high voltage. I love the clean sound of a nice SWR or classic Fender valve preamp, and wondered whether the GK can do that 'shimmery' thing with the high end where it just sounds essentially clean but somehow sweeter? When people talk about 'valve sound' here they seem to mostly focus on more distorted tones, whereas what I like is I think more what you'd get from a high-end valve mic pre: smooth, creamy and with plenty of sizzle. BTW I tried the Orange Terror bass and thought it was pretty much the worst sounding amp I'd ever heard, right through the gain range, if that helps with my tonal preferences!

If you want to w&*( in your bedroom (which is fair and reasonable ), listen with guitarist's ears. If you want to play with a band, listen with a bassist's ears. Or a keys player's. Or pretty much anything but a guitarist's! I'm sure most of us have heard and played with too many guitarists whose tone just doesn't work in the mix at all. I personally find it hard to see beyond the 8 million or so variations on a Fender theme, the strat in particular is just so versatile. Agree with the majority about PRS, never met anyone who was really enamoured with the tone (why do people buy them, is it just because of the shiny deep poly finish?!). But at that price point with Fenders/Gibsons as others have said, it's much more about investing the time to find 'the one', there's just so much variation out there in terms of tone, pickups, feel, etc etc.