LawrenceH

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1329676814' post='1545747'] Wow, thanks for the very detailed response! I may make a P-Bass out of Baltic Birch as an experiment. I've been thinking about quality plywood for some time, since I made a Bill Fitzmaurice J12 from the same material. And yes, I need to get out more. [/quote] Sorry I wasn't able to give a more useful answer. But actually thinking about it I'd suggest finding a plywood with a really good stiffness:weight ratio, something prized in acoustic instruments, so maybe something like poplar over birch. The bonus there is, even if you find the tonal difference completely negligible then at least you don't have a back-destroyingly heavy bass! Just watch out for neck-dive...now if you really want to experiment neck wood is rarely mentioned but since it's the thinnest, longest part of the structure supporting the string its properties ought to be more important than the body. [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1329677115' post='1545754'] Yep, and I'm also surprised that nobody has mentioned how the original wood is sawn. Flat-sawn, quarter-sawn or rift-sawn could all be expected to make a difference. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_sawing"]http://en.wikipedia..../Quarter_sawing[/url] [/quote] Err, actually I mentioned it and so did Max in the original post

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1329672586' post='1545645'] AFAIK good plywood (Baltic Birch et al) is uniformly dense and predictably stable... what other parameters need to be taken into account to make a decent plywood bass, do you think? [/quote] I'd guess that would mainly result in instruments that had very similar acoustic behaviour between one and the next. The thing about plywood is the way they stack layers with the grains in differing orientations to ensure uniform strength in different directions. The grain structure makes wood very complicated with elastic modulus that is itself orientation-dependent, and I don't know how that would affect vibration propagation in a composite structure like ply. Broadly speaking in a single bit of wood you'd expect it to propagate better along the grain as cross-grain would effectively mimic constrained-layer-damping, and that'd be most noticeable for higher frequencies (are quartersawn necks supposed by those who believe in tonewood at all to result in a brighter, 'tighter' sound than flat sawn?). It's not my field but I think for prediction purposes you'd have to model wood as not just one but a whole series of mass-spring-damper systems all interacting. It's probably easier to do it intuitively as a builder than scientifically! But you could get at least some idea from just playing around with the piece of wood you're dealing with, bearing in mind that one important property resonant frequency is indeed dependent on overall size/mass as well as material just as people have suggested (think xylophone keys). By the way I'm sure a bass built of baltic birch would actually sound fine. [quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1329673217' post='1545660'] 1. Whatever it is that the videos show, it is not an accurate, scientific representation of how a bass string (or any other string for that matter) vibrates. Please tell me that you're not attempting to pass off vid 1 as remotely scientific [/quote] I assumed the vids were just there for the visuals, to illustrate the way that a string vibrates as a complex wave that can be broken down to a set of sine waves. Yes, what you see is actually a strobing interaction with the (constant) video capture frequency but that doesn't really matter for these purposes and it's hardly what I'd call unscientific - no-one is inferring anything about any particular frequency per se just that a string vibrates in quite a complicated pattern. If you actually know the shutter frequency and can tune it in relation to a known string fundamental frequency, you could use it to look at specific vibrational nodes etc, but that's taking it a lot further than simply introducing the topic.

Great post IMO, I've been boring people to tears about this for a while now but a lot of people seem resistant to the idea that an electric instrument is still reliant on mechanical propagation of vibration, instead seeing the wood as an 'ideal' rigid structure whose resonant properties are negligible. Understanding the role of pickup placement and type seems a lot easier for some reason. One of the confounding variables is the overlap between wood varieties and heterogeneity within a single variety - ash for example can be hugely different weight from one piece to the next which will have a significant impact on resonant frequency (weight and stiffness). If you knew what you were doing you could probably build a plywood instrument with excellent acoustic properties, and I guess a fair few custom builds with fancy laminate tops etc already qualify.

None of the bands playing covers which I've enjoyed watching most have stuck to the originals. What matters is the musicality of the part in the context you're playing in. OTOH some people seem to expect a cover to be a clone, and struggle to hear an alternative take on it as anything other than wrong. A lot of the same people probably enjoy covers bands more than originals, most of us are pretty conservative in that sense - we like what we know! But if you give it a chance then subverting expectation can be great fun.

Impedance along with inductance is important for the sound of a pickup...but it sounds like you're talking about DC resistance, which is different and largely irrelevant in itself especially when comparing pickups with different construction techniques (magnets, wire type). Ignore the DC resistance values when comparing different product ranges and go with the tone descriptions - yes, it's woolly but the real specs that describe a pickup behaviour are rarely released, unfortunately.

In theory, all this is true...but people can still feel self-conscious trying an instrument and that's fair enough really. You don't need to do anything flash, but no-one likes looking incompetent! So better to keep it simple and also work on your finger technique for simple scales and exercises - that helps everything about your playing, including trying out a bass because if you are confident in control of the instrument you will be better placed to assess it. If I'm very nervous then I'd probably prefer a rather muddy indistinct tone that hides mistakes and fumbles rather than a bright, clear sound where good playing is rewarded but bad playing is exposed. With other instruments, notably brass/woodwind, it's accepted that there are 'student' instruments which are actually easier to get a passable sound out of than the really good ones.

See what you can manage with your RH ring finger instead? Surprisingly I once found it worked ok using 1 and 3! Definitely easier than one finger for passing notes

If the acoustics of the practice room aren't great, then if you're in the position to sort it out or if you can't maybe consider an alternative place - makes a very big difference. A good drummer can play quietly without messing up the feel..but it takes decent technique, the appropriate kit (light cymbals/sticks/skins) and the will to do it. One or more of these may not be possible! Over the years I have found female vocalists in particular struggle to hear themselves in front of a band, I've had to get monitors up to ear-bleeding levels for some of them. Added to the problem I find an SM58 not a good choice of mic for all female vox - something like an SM87 can work a lot better, but they cost - trying a few mics is a worthwhile exercise. Making sure the voicings of other instruments in the band aren't sitting too heavily in the vocal range helps a lot too.

[quote name='KiOgon' timestamp='1329493142' post='1543351'] Bought for making up patch leads - I thought they were a reasonable quality bit of kit but now I'm not so sure. They've never left the house, not got wet or been bathed in splashes of beer or any other liquid. The plating is badly pitted & corroded, not fit for use - they're probably not even 2 years old - fit for the scrap bin! [/quote] I've never seen a genuine Neutrik do that even when stored in 'less than ideal' conditions. Hmmm..

If you think about bass on recordings that sounds good at domestic volumes, then you're hearing sub-80Hz roll-off, probably a bit of a boost just above this and a bit more in the upper mids/treble (classic 'smiley face equal loudness contouring) and a generous helping of compression. Compression in particular will help a lot at low volume.

[quote name='pantherairsoft' timestamp='1329294401' post='1540036'] The main reason my amp is off limits to others is that it's a 1400w PA power amp which has be tuned by computer to the gain structure of my slightly unique effects set up. Clipping an amp at 1400w is not good for my cab and as I can't just flick a switch and it be tuned perfectly for the input gain of other bassists I don't allow the risk. [/quote] If it's an amp with a digital front-end, does it allow for a hard limiter to be programmed in as a second preset separate to what you use? That with a subsonic filter would give as close to bomb-proof a set-up as you could ever get...probably even more than letting someone use your cab with an unknown amp (as I bet your amp has DC and generally more sophisticated failsafes)

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1329325174' post='1540712'] The OP did actually state that he was looking for linear... [/quote] So he did! That'll teach me to skim-read at work more carefully in future

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1329321459' post='1540630'] You're going to struggle with 250KΩ. Nearest I can find is a 220KΩ one from Maplin, use one of those and stick 3x 10KΩ resistors in line with it if the value is critical? [url="http://www.maplin.co.uk/standard-potentiometers-with-switch-2208"]http://www.maplin.co...ith-switch-2208[/url] [/quote] Or if the tolerances aren't really tight buy a load and measure each manually - find one about 10% over and you're there! Those Maplin ones are linear though so still may not be suitable

[quote name='brensabre79' timestamp='1329303805' post='1540204'] The VM Pickups are 'Duncan Designed' but made in the far east, not by Duncan. The ones I got with mine were microphonic, and I personally didn't like the sound they made much either. I was after a vintage growl, not a middy honk. The bridge is no different from your standard Fender bridge in design - slightly cheaper metal maybe, but it is perfectly functional. Adding a Badass / Gotoh will certainly make a huge difference to sustain/tone though - as it will on an MIA Fender too. The big selling point about the VM series is the neck, which is awesome and comes with blocks and binding (unusual for this price point). As the neck is the main point of contact between you and the bass it is important to have a good one! Everything else can be upgraded to suit you. [/quote] I didn't much like the pickups, put up against the real thing I thought they seriously lacked bandwidth, though they were quite punchy with a lot of low-mids/bass. I did like the acoustic tone though, as well as the neck I think the body wood is a good choice if you can put up with the weight (it's quite heavy). Definitely the VM would be my Squier preference if I was going to swap out the pickups.

[quote name='untune' timestamp='1329235655' post='1539306'] I've always used Rotosound rounds, just a shame that the most expensive set (flats) that I got, although they felt and sounded great - the G snapped before I'd even really played them, so I still have the other three practically unused sat on one of my basses [/quote] Good thing about Rotosound is they do sell strings singly IIRC, so you might be able to get another.

The pickups in the current Mexican Fenders are a lot better than those in the Squiers IMO. WIthout a pickup upgrade, the MIM will get closer to the 'classic' Fender sound, if that's what you want.

Great! Is that with the 18Sound? How is it sounding?

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1329143762' post='1537701'] However, they still want an equal share of the loot when it comes to pay-out time. ... The drummer always turns up, which is great - but he's [i]always[/i] late. What [i]is[/i] the matter with these people? [/quote] Thought about timesheets?

[quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1329126079' post='1537319'] That's looking to be a very nice job so far. [/quote] Cheers! Sanding erases a multitude of imperfections Just have to hope I haven't introduced any new ones...I would've liked the longer 18" sanding blocks but decided I was too cheapskate. We'll see if that comes back to haunt me.

After I'd finished the veneers I cut them down roughly to size with a blade, trying to avoid any gouging along the grain of the maple that'd pull it out below the surface of the board. Nearly succeeded, too. Tried some spot-filling using superglue and maple dust with limited success - the glue just dried too fast, maybe I should've used wood glue. Anyway it was close enough for jazz and there was still the sanding to go. Unfortunately I forgot to take pictures for a bit, but basically just took off the tape and sanded with the block trying to put as even a pressure as possible all the way along the board until it looked like this: [attachment=99862:DSCF1474.JPG] Next I decided that just to spice things up, I wanted the neck bound to match the aerodyne body. Which makes a good point to pause...

Once the bleeding had eventually stopped (took quite a long time actually, it was deep) I finished this very tedious and now quite painful job. No massive chunks came out, but the tangs pulled up little bits in quite a few places and up close it did look a bit ragged [attachment=99859:DSCF1467.JPG] I kept the tape on, and used a fresh razorblade to clean out the fret slots and take away the filler from the ends. Then I started preparing the maple veneers - on this neck unlike the cheap one the slots follow the radius of the board, meaning the veneers also have to be radiused. I used the practice neck as a template, shamelessly copying a youtube video I found [attachment=99860:DSCF1472.JPG] Once the veneers were sanded down so they sat all the way in the slots, I ran a line of superglue on the bottoms then pushed them into place, before putting a thin line round each edge and pressing the wood down to hopefully flatten some of the raised flakes back into place. [attachment=99861:DSCF1473.JPG]

Removing the glued in nut, with the flat-head screwdriver and hammer. A bit nerve-wracking but I did this freehand and amazingly managed not to gouge any chunks out or snap the nut. [attachment=99850:DSCF1464.JPG] Unlike for the previous board, I decided I'd mask this one up before removing the frets to offer some protection and help catch any chips pulled out. Rather glad I did this, as it turns out...these frets are really small in profile, quite soft, and I suspect glued in. At any rate, they were MUCH harder to pull out, this first one took ages and without a set of nippers that have been ground down to match the board radius, it's really tricky not to mark the board with metal tools. I heated them with a soldering iron for a few seconds until they smoked (presumably the glue) but this didn't seem to make all that much difference. [attachment=99851:DSCF1465.JPG] After a couple of frets I found that loosening up the frets with a razorblade helped subsequent pulling, working it under each part of the fret bit by bit. [attachment=99857:DSCF1468.JPG] Turns out razorblades are quite dangerous in the hands of an idiot. Who knew? [attachment=99858:DSCF1471.JPG]

So, I was a little hesitant to start ripping frets out of this very nicely finished bass in case I stuffed it up (doesn't normally stop me but eh). Fortunately, thanks to BC user oldslapper I managed to get a cheapo jazz-type neck to practice on for the cost of postage! Thanks again John I had a go at the defretting and veneer inserting on this and it seemed suspiciously straightforward...I ripped the frets out with a leatherman, which seemed easy enough to do without damaging the rosewood board, then superglued in 0.6mm maple veneers (perfect fit) before sanding down with a 8" length 9.5" radius block from Stew Mac. Unfortunately I didn't take any photos of this process but nothing apparently went wrong so I moved on to the Aerodyne. You'll never guess what - it was much harder. First casualty. The snug neck pocket on this bass is a testament to Japanese build tolerances. My removal of the neck was a testament to English cack-handedness. You live and, occasionally, learn...luckily being black it should be a fairly simple spot repair. [attachment=99847:DSCF1456.JPG] Here's the board before I mangle it, it's a nice piece of wood: [attachment=99848:DSCF1457.JPG] Some wear marks...definitely won't stand up to roundwounds without a coating of some kind! [attachment=99849:DSCF1460.JPG]

I bought an Aerodyne Jazz, originally to try out and then sell on, but it was so nice I couldn't bring myself to get rid of it. So to justify keeping yet another jazz I thought I'd convert it to fretless, and have a go at coating the board as well so I can get that nice growly roundwound fretless tone. Not finished yet but thought I'd put up some of my progress so far...

[quote name='StraightSix' timestamp='1329082444' post='1537031'] Me too - I would have voted Fiesta Red but that doesn't look anything like FR to me...more like Coral Pink. This is a common problem - I love Fiesta Red but so many Fenders are being produced now with this wierd shade - take a look at the Squier CV 60s Precision in 'Fiesta Red' - it doesn't look right at all... [/quote] Fiesta Red was not a very stable colour apparently, faded pretty easily hence, I suppose, modern repros are imitating an 'aged' version much like vintage white versus olympic