LawrenceH

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1332285765' post='1586276'] They're more effective. It's not the raising of the resonance that makes the cab better, it's the stiffening of the structure. The raising of the panel resonant frequency is a side effect of that stiffening. Cross bracing is no less than twice as effective as spline bracing in so doing. [/quote] Hmm...so your rods method raises the resonance further due to stiffening in that design? I must say that directly contradicts my experience. If an engineer wants to stiffen an internal structure like this they typically use i-beams, not point contacts which still allow flexure around the point, so if your method works better there must be more to it than overall wall stiffness

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1331904573' post='1580689'] I'll put my neck on the line here and say that I think my cab is probably the more articulate of the two (I feel like a heretic saying that).... maybe its just the honeymoon period talking... maybe not. [/quote] This is a really nice build! I think that 'articulate'-ness is down to the big upper-mid peak in the Deltalites and the way they'll likely have a bump in the upper bass as well (depending on cab size/tuning) - I found it a bit much and preferred flatter speakers in the end, but you basically get instant scooped mids and a very useable 'up-front' freq response for bass guitar. FWIW if Markbass still use the same drivers as they did a few years ago then they weigh about the same (the Deltalites are a tad more powerful). They use 15mm ply though, so the weight benefits of poplar are largely negated. You'll find that they'll quite quickly distort with 'real' bass, but then I think a lot of people don't really want as much of that as they imagine...pure 50Hz is [i]seriously[/i] deep. Good work!

Depending on the types of vibrations/resonance seen I'm not sure the rods method will be as effective as stiffening the cabinet with conventional parallel braces running along the open faces of the panels. The rods will mainly act to prevent flexure in opposite directions - in phase flexure won't be nearly as effectively prevented, while glued-in parallel braces would seem to have a greater impact on raising primary panel resonance frequencies as they're providing stiffening along more of the panel's surface. Raise the resonances and you can kill them more effectively with damping material. Re damping, the keen-eared on the fEarful pages have expressed a preference for 1" or so acoustic panel-type pyramidal open cell foam of the type sold by aurelex, studiospares etc. The published absorption coefficients suggest they'd make a good choice, it's hard to find materials that absorb effectively into the low-mids. With bass guitar in a well-braced tweeterless cab I've found it surprisingly hard to tell much of a difference using generous amounts of wool/poly 'acoustic fibre' type stuff compared to the bare cab (yet damping makes a really noticeable difference on hi-fi). As Mr F says keep damping well away from the ports.

Fender's own '75 RI pickups from the US version are available as '75 Vintage'. They are excellent pickups IMO, easiest way to get them is via ebay from the States at about £80 a set all in. Nothing like the rubbish so-called 'US' pickups in my MIJ 75 by the way. Comparing them directly to a pair of Model Js they are significantly brighter and more 'open' sounding, a lot of grind with a good even bottom end that isn't as overwhelming in the lower mids - not quite so 'hot-rod' (I wouldn't describe the Model Js as 'classic jazz' however you wire them, they are a lot beefier without the upper end snap).

I think, contrary to what's been said on here so far, Ernie Ball do make their own...that unpleasant man in charge has certainly said as much on the EB forum anyway (kind of puts me off buying them as I find him so rude and annoying). If someone has any evidence otherwise then I'd happily stand corrected though!

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1331556670' post='1574640'] Ahh... not so good.. in that case, I don't know! I didn't have the problem when I restrung my P... I wonder why? [/quote] What are you supposed to do if it does this, re-drill the tuning peg?!

[quote name='tbonepete' timestamp='1331406688' post='1572573'] Things look like they are being steered towards a preamp of some sort, but this will rather defeat the object of the lovely passive sounds this bass has to offer! . What I want is vol/blend/tone, and NO appreciable volume drop regardless of where the blend knob is. Shall I put this with the quest to cure the common cold? Cheers Pete [/quote] I [i]think[/i]that with the right taper pot (non-overlapping dual audio taper, 500k to compensate for the fact there's effectively an extra pot), the blend at centre detent should be identical to a two volume-knob set up on full - it's the options for intermediate sounds that are a bit different. At any rate, volume drop with two pickups blended is to an extent part of what the 'passive bass sound' is. Pickup loading issues require a buffering preamp, while perceived volume changes due to phase cancellations between pickups are an inherent part of the tone and would require electronic gain compensation.

[quote name='geoffbyrne' timestamp='1331149126' post='1568576'] Replace neck pup with DiMarzio Model J wired in series - as near as it gets without routing. G. [/quote] Put in a series-parallel switch for that pickup too, so you can still get more of a jazz bass tone as well!

Usable EQ is one thing, but something that gets overlooked but matters a lot when using a bass with more than one pickup IMO is whether the preamp buffers each pickup separately before any blending. This will have a real and noticeable effect on tone. Personally I'd want a pre that buffered each separately but with the option for full passive operation, with the appropriate loading.

Very hard IMO to separate the 60s P bass sound from the use of flats... Try this one for a more 'upfront' roundwound P sound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3WwQkBTuwA

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1330379067' post='1556617'] Me, drummer, guitard: Black shirt, trousers, shoes. Girls: Red dresses. Horns: Multi-coloured zoot suits with matching hats, trousers, waistcoats, ties, spats and shades... I know. Apologies for low-quality pic. [/quote] I like this, very Kid Creole and the Coconuts! Do you do any of their songs by any chance?

[quote name='KiOgon' timestamp='1330207104' post='1554234'] Wonderful improvement in clarity & hardly a rattle in the room! My bungalow is suspended - wooden floors all through & the sound is clearer without any reverberations throughout. So when Kaz is kooking in the kitchen, she loves me playing even more Best £42 I've spent in a long time - let's face it you can spend that on a set of strings but this will make far more difference & last for years Cheerz, John [/quote] You put your whole bungalow on a gramma pad?!

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1330089963' post='1552547'] However I am still to be convinced that any of the usual angles of pick up we see make enough of a difference for them to be anything other than a visual affectation. [/quote] It's quite subtle but I'm pretty sure I can hear the difference on my P/J aerodyne between the low and high strings due to the different cancellations, compared to a standard jazz bass with both pickups on full. Plus I first noticed the difference, and went looking for the explanation rather than the other way round (ie reasoning there must be a difference and going hunting for it). Bass strings are closer to 70s jazz sound, top more like standard jazz, but both obviously with a bit more heft from the P pickup.

The other aspect of an angle pickup is how it interacts with a straight pickup when both are used in parallel - the mid scoop will alter across the strings giving more tonal difference from low to high.

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1329962055' post='1550607'] In theory, the lower the value the pot is, the less high end is removed. In practice, the high resistance of the pot means that the signal becomes so weak at the end of the pots rotation that you can't really hear the difference anyway. Easiest way to approach it is to experiment changing the capacitor value and the pot value. Having said that, I'd fit the Seymour Duncans into the bass first and see if I actually needed to make any 'tweaks' with those in place - otherwise you've no idea where you've just moved the goalposts to... [/quote] I may be misinterpreting but that doesn't sound quite right to me. A higher pot value loading the pickup [i]increases[/i] the height of the resonance peak, effectively giving a treble boost centred at that resonance frequency. If you want more upper mid bite, switch to a 500k pot. But I agree it may well be fine as is once you drop the new pickup in. There's a good illustration of this effect and others here: http://www.hardman-guitar-amplifiers.co.uk/pickups.html

That body isn't from a 70s Fender - the pickups aren't 70s spaced, they're 'standard' (60s style and mid-80s onwards). Most 70s Jap copies of Fenders also seemed to use the 70s style spacing so I'd say the body is likely more modern.

[quote name='leftyhook' timestamp='1329865039' post='1548943'] I had a Dimarzio Jazz pick up fitted to my Squier P/J. It definitely sounded punchier when on full (very sudden fall off of volume when rolled down) I then bought a Dimarzio neck pick up from ebay (original 70's). Sound check in house. "Hmm.... not as crunchy as I had hoped' Let's see live" What a let down. Boomy with less cut that the stock pick ups! After the first 3 songs I just wanted to pick up my Wal. One gig they lasted then I sold them. Now this bass might not be an American Fender, but it's a decent Squier and I can't believe the Dim'z's didn't improve it beyond just being louder. Did I do something wrong to not get a great sound? [/quote] If you wire them series (DiMarzio's default wiring) they are VERY loud and boomy. Parallel gets you a bit more open top end but still quite thick in the lower mids. Also as Mog says if you just used the stock Squier 250k pots then you will lose a lot of the characteristic response peak in the upper mids, that's why Dimarzio recommend using 500k or even 1M pots - makes a very worthwhile difference IME, brings back a lot of character. However, if you really want that classic single coil upper/mid treble bite then you're best looking elsewhere, from what people say on here Wizard would be a good place to start but don't underestimate some of the Fender offerings either.

[quote name='warwickhunt' timestamp='1329674210' post='1545684'] No you are absolutely correct moving a cab closer to a wall for boundary reinforcement (or better still a corner) WILL make an audible difference but it won't matter if the cab is front or rear ported. Moving it 'too' close to the wall or corner can be detrimental but again it makes no difference if it is front or rear... and believe me, following on from a thread re. porting, I tried this. [/quote] If a rear port is close enough to a wall to affect air flow from the port, then it will mess up the tuning. Placed right up against a wall it will effectively behave like a leaky sealed box. A couple of port widths away from the wall is a good rule of thumb.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1329753165' post='1546780'] Having said that, I will play finger style if it suits the song. Don't like it, though. [/quote] Have you tried turning off the VPF? Woahaha

One-piece pickguard, knobs, white pickup covers and that burst all look kosher early 80s to me Oh, and hasn't the serial just been photoshopped out? Looks a bit fuzzy

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1329687137' post='1546038'] I suppose what I mean is that the neck is actually 'played' - it's an essential part of the instrument, it's design and construction is much more important than that of the body, which is basically somewhere convenient to locate the bridge, electrics, etc, and could be any old shape. [/quote] Well, the body between the neck joint and the bridge is also directly tensioned by the string...but to illustrate why that's not the only important factor look at one cure for dead spots - a clamp on the headstock. Doesn't have to be directly in the path of the tension on the neck, just has to add mass to it, changing the resonant frequency and consequently shifting the dead spot. Similarly, the rest of the body aside from the bit between neck/bridge will affect the overall resonance. [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1329687137' post='1546038'] There's a very real danger that I'm talking out of my arse here, of course. [/quote] A risk we all take on BC I think...

Why do you care about the resistance? It doesn't tell you anything about how the pickup will sound.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1329685893' post='1546002'] I'm sure that's a whole different kettle of fish... the neck is subject to string tension and so on. I could be convinced the neck wood makes some sort of difference compared to body wood. [/quote] Not sure I follow, the thing about the dead spot is that it's a result of resonant cancellations between the string and the anchor (ie wood). If neck vibration was insignificant then dead spots wouldn't be audible, but instead they demonstrate quite nicely that vibration can alter the decay characteristics of the string in quite drastic fashion - dead spots can be pretty unsubtle! Yes there's the effect of tension in the system, not to mention the truss rod, but that doesn't really change the basic concept.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1329680343' post='1545867'] Ahh, this old chestnut again. My take on it: Do different pieces of woods make (Electric) guitars sound different? Theoretically...yes. Does the wood you use to make a guitar influence the sound more or less than the shape of the guitar? (different guitar shapes will have different vibrational modes). No idea. Is the difference between two pieces of the same wood species bigger than the difference between two pieces of wood made from different species? No idea. I suspect the answer is "yes, but only sometimes". Does the effect of the wood make much difference at all when compared to the effect of your pickups or your amplifier? I very much doubt it. [/quote] I'd agree with all of this...except to add that you'd expect the nature of the effect to differ from those of pickups/amp, since there is a time component to any effect of wood whereas pickups would (mostly) act as a fixed filter (at least for a given note). A clean amp will similarly impart a fixed EQ characteristic (distortion is another factor again). So yes the effect might well be subtle, but it may still be audible through a fixed EQ as an altered decay curve. There's also the issue that people don't use particularly exceptional woods,in mechanical terms, for guitar construction very much. You're constrained by weight, workability and strength to a certain range of properties. My balsa-necked ironwood body bass remains a gorgeous dream. I'd like to experiment with it myself just for my own idle curiosity but to do it properly would require a significant investment, and essentially it's just reinventing the wheel. Playing around swapping components between my various jazzes I've felt there are certain characteristics that stay with a particular instrument regardless of electronics. As I've said before though, if the effect of wood was [b]always[/b] negligible, then we'd never encounter dead spots on necks.

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1329677581' post='1545772'] ou may not call it unscientific, but I do. Perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree on that point. There's plenty of other things going on here that are ripe for discussion. [/quote] If you like...to me it's 'scientificness' really depends what point is being made.