LawrenceH

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

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1329072456' post='1536813'] I dare say that 10 or so boost pedals in a row should do the job. Not sure how it would sound, but if you used good quality pedals, cables & power supplies, then it would be an interesting experiment. [/quote] Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74luQLg6Psw (Needless to say, sadly it doesn't work like that)

Hi Dave, Enjoying the blog - have voted Vintage white, but for me, ideally it'd be somewhere between the tint you've shown and Olympic. Good luck!

If you really want to nail that 'Precision' sound with, ahem, precision, then you have to be careful with P/J basses. A lot of them have the P pickup set further towards the neck than a true Precision, to maintain good spacing from the J pickup. The Aerodyne jazz is like this, whereas the Precision model isn't (J pickup is shifted bridge-wards instead). The Power jazz special has a reverse P. Having said all that my Aerodyne jazz does a good enough P impression despite the pickup position! But a true anorak could tell in an A/B.

The closest Precision equivalent to an Aerodyne jazz? That'll be the Aerodyne P, I'd think... http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/fender-aerodyne-precision-bass-614578/ Trick is finding one in the UK.

Band called Orgatronics used a cajon, worked well IMO. Not their best song but the only live one I could find http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA577VySPak For a good portable drum kit without compromising the sound, look at the Yamaha Hipgig stuff. Real challenge is still finding the player though. The Bellowhead percussionist is great, but his set-up's not exactly a compact alternative to a full kit!

[quote name='warwickhunt' timestamp='1328978145' post='1535584'] Thus I could turn the drums/vocals all up/down as one? [/quote] Yup, that's the usual idea. How you best group them really depends on how you find yourself adjusting things in the mix. They're often most useful for muting/unmuting in a hurry!

I really can't see the point in even a 4-way mix in a 5-piece band no matter how big the stage, unless everyone's sonically p**&ing all over each other, in which case how bad does it sound FoH? The only exceptions I can think of are if a lot of them are singers. Amazingly enough, I find that I can still hear the sound of a speaker even if someone else is listening to it so sharing a monitor is not a problem...a GOOD monitor though, now that is a luxury! It's often a problem of dispersion. Sidefill-style monitoring is a good solution IME, left, right, centre, back. So many monitors use horns with dispersion angles designed for vertical PA use that it makes more sense putting them vertical at the sides anyway.

[quote name='brensabre79' timestamp='1328796338' post='1532764'] As for the wedge, I have used a broken Boss guitar pedal for years to tip speakers up slightly, I have to say it works better as a wedge than a pedal but it is certainly not the cheapest option. A piece of wood is cheaper (unless you get a block of Purpleheart). [/quote] But a piece of wood does not give you the mechanical isolation. Bill's use of camping mat is fine for that application, just stopping a head rattling. Put a speaker on a boomy stage and it will ring out like a tom tom. Put it on camping mat and if it's heavy it compresses the mat, compromising its effectiveness as a mechanical isolator. I have found inch-thick structural foam to be very effective, giving me (much) more than 6dB in the lower mids at a gig over NY, and that's an interaction effect a pedal couldn't achieve (the stage will ring long after the note stops). It has to be rigid enough not to compress with the weight but not so much that it forms a good contact for vibration transmission itself. I can't see what the point of those acoustic wedges are on the aurelex at all though, but they aren't going to do any harm. In any case it's all only relevant on a boomy stage. Anyway back to the topic, I think there is a point to a 4 ohm cab and that's when you're using these little micro heads and they start running out of headroom at 8 ohms. The speaker is loud enough, but the amp is compromising the tone. Sometimes that little jump from (notional) 300 to 500 watts is all you need.

I have not found camping mats as effective as strips of thicker structural foam.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1328649688' post='1530768'] I contacted Markbass re this but got no reply - they're usually pretty quick to respond, so maybe they just don't want to give out this information. Do you happen to know what the roll-off is for the LM series, for example? Thanks. [/quote] Sadly I can't give a good answer, measuring response that low requires a better scope than my PC soundcard! But, if you look at the pre-amp filter section in the MB manuals you will see the response starts to roll off around 30Hz. It's hard to interpret this without knowing how they made the graph (and the graphs don't quite tally with published specs in one or two details). But the roll off looks pretty gentle, maybe 6dB an octave so if that's the case there would still be substantial benefit to a proper rumble filter. Whether there's anything happening beyond the EQ section I can't say. It would be nice if bass manufacturers published proper specs like respectable PA companies! The Genz amps from what I understand have a more extreme roll-off that starts a bit higher.

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1328600949' post='1529628'] When I started following and reading this thread I was firmly of the mind that the MT sounded like the next "must have" bass related gadget. However I'm increasingly more reluctant to click "Buy Now"; more so as 4 strings are quite enough for me personally. [/quote] I for one definitely didn't intend to put anyone off this product - not that this discussion seems to, judging by the speed at which they flew off the shelf Max answered all questions reasonably and was happy disclosing construction specs, which are of a high quality. Wrt to the 4-string versus 5-string, it won't have a negative impact on the tone of a 4-string, it's just that in theory you can 'get away' with a higher cut-off and even more protection if you don't want to go down that low. In practice a roll-off beginning at 25Hz or so will still offer considerable benefit [i]assuming your amp is outputting much down there[/i] [i]in the first place[/i] (a fair few will being to roll off to varying degrees around then, including Markbass, Genz). It's only if you are playing through relatively small/high tuned cabs to their absolute limits then it won't offer total overexcursion protection, though importantly it will still help a significant amount if the amp has minimal filtering of its own. These cabs are all tuned higher than the standard low E anyway, so you could either set a filter to begin rolling off around 42Hz or for ultimate protection you would compromise slightly and roll off higher but this will be audible albeit only on the lowest notes and only a modest amount (these cabs will already be 10 or 12dB down at this point). NB I would think based on spec the Thumpinator would be an excellent match for the Barefaced cabs, which quite a few people are running.

There is a varitone jazz plate available on ebay that incorporates a mid scoop, somewhere or other there is a youtube video (I think it's the same one as on ebay) where it sounds pretty usable. I guess these things work by using an RLC bandpass filter that bleeds the mids to earth, but calculating component values for your own, wouldn't that be dependent on impedance of the particular pickups used? That would make it more complicated

User nugget on here has offered to carve a binding channel for me for a very reasonable price - but it's on a defretted neck which I won't be refretting. The bindings should be do-able with a Dremel if you're careful, I'd have thought? I might have a go at this on my 'practice' neck. I'm not convinced by the stickers in photos myself, though perhaps they look better in real life. I think the stickers work much better on the VMs presumably because they're black, and under a layer of lacquer.

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1328541679' post='1528703'] I would guess (though don't know for sure) that if you're using the Pod cabinet models these will, if they're accurate, already roll off the extreme bottom end - mimicking what a cab would naturally do. [/quote] Plus many of those cabinet models will likely incorporate a boost in the mid-bass (say round 100Hz) up into the low-mids, which might exacerbate any issues with the subs.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1328534483' post='1528551'] I'm interested to know if the MT will tighten up my bottom somewhat and give me a little more controllable definition, and minimise the variables, since all PAs are different, as are the people operating them, and my FoH sound needs to be more predictable. [/quote] I would guess (though don't know for sure) that if you're using the Pod cabinet models these will, if they're accurate, already roll off the extreme bottom end - mimicking what a cab would naturally do. In any case, how effective the Thumpinator was in this context would also depend on where the subs are crossing over. 'Typical' PAs (if there is such a thing) cross over between 80-120 Hz (very roughly). Excessive boom could be as much a feature of poorly integrated subs outputting in the 50-100Hz band as true subsonic freq (sub-30Hz). SEs do like to turn them up until they wallop with the kick drum rather than aiming for flat response across the crossover! Also poor sub placement is often an issue (separated subs, one each side, is an inherently bad setup).

[quote name='Silent Fly' timestamp='1328522590' post='1528304'] From what you said so far, it sounds like you are not convinced by the [sfx] micro-Thumpinator. It is understandable. It is an innovative product and, as far as I know, there isn't anything similar on the marker. Some of my customers are a little bit risk-adverse and prefer to not take the risk (albeit limited). I understand their viewpoint. From what you write, it sounds like you know analogue filtering. If you need a bandwidth optimizer, the best options for you might be building your own version. In this way you can have a processor that is fine-tuned with your gear. [/quote] It isn't to do with risk, it is the engineering impossibility of a one-size-fits-all approach being optimal without variable filter cutoff frequency. It is a boutique product with high quality construction and a boutique price tag to match, so in that market context it would matter to me whether the product is matched to specific application. From a bit of delving it's apparent the Thumpinator as is wouldn't suit me as well as it suits others (eg 5-string users), but if there were slightly more detailed specs it would have been easier to work this out and wouldn't have required much knowledge of filtering on my part. My philosophy is that more information is always a good thing, it can always be ignored by those who aren't interested! Making my own is something I have considered but it is a lot of trouble for a one-off. However to make a more positive suggestion for sfx, if you ever decided to produce circuit variants, say perhaps a 4-string version or even a 'small cab' version with a filter tuned deliberately higher to match modern 'micro' rigs where every watt and mm of excursion counts, then I would definitely be interested. I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions even if you won't release any specifications, no offence taken and I hope likewise! Since you answered my questions on construction methods I have no doubts about the quality of the products

[quote name='Silent Fly' timestamp='1328288916' post='1525096'] I suggest you base your assessment on how the unit actually sounds and what other people you respect say about it. Just for my personal curiosity, could you give an example of typical HPF you are referring to? [/quote] Cheers Max, the ongoing discussion is interesting and useful, for me at least. So, a 'typical' HPF to me would be Buttterworth, Linkwitz-Riley, Chebyshev topologies for example. I do find your 'suggestion' a bit unhelpful in this special case (normally I'd agree), let me explain why. The Thumpinator is unusual for an effect pedal - we're NOT looking for it to colour the sound, rather the aim is speaker protection and increasing amp headroom. This is, first, hard to assess without destructive testing(!) and second, it is the nature of reflex cabs that whether the product is functioning optimally for a given setup depends [i]entirely on the particular speaker used and the lowest tuning of the bass being played[/i]. I say optimally (rather than just 'adequately') because you are suggesting the thumpinator is designed 'optimally'. Which I'm sure it is, but only within a particular set of design parameters. Because reflex cab cone excursion rises rapidly with port unloading below resonance, with a secondary peak above, by far the most critical factor for optimal protection is the filter cut-off frequency in relation to resonance. Filter Q is a secondary consideration, though still quite important. 'Typical' reflex cab tunings range from around 40 all the way up to 65Hz or maybe more. For optimal performance a sub-sonic filter should be tuned close to resonance. Cut-off too high and you will compromise the useful bass output. But, cut-off too low and the speakers can still over-excurse considerably. Similarly, relatively low q (say Butterworth) will give too gradual initial roll-off which might well affect the audible range adversely, whereas a high q filter topology with the characteristic boost above f0 could even potentially be damaging to the speaker if f0 is too low for that system! Cascaded lower order filters of different q at different frequencies could be used to minimise that boost while maintaining a sharp cut-off, but essentially it is still the interaction with system resonance that determines how well your filter is optimised. Incidentally in a system of cascaded filters like that group delay could come into play - it will be additive with the speaker increasing chances of audibility [i]in a system-dependent manner.[/i] Given that from your graph the thumpinator appears to be set to cut off low, (sub-30Hz) and with a boost above cutoff (unknown amount, graph not scaled) I would therefore suggest that for people playing 4-strings, particularly with small cabs tuned to give high output in the midbass region a sweepable HPF just employing a standard filter topology will give results closer to optimal. That is not meant in any way as a criticism of your product which it's clear is very well put together, just my explanation why I feel more detailed specs (eg filter -3, -10 dB points and maybe even max resonant boost) are in fact very useful to assess value in relation to my setup. If it was a distortion pedal of course I would say ears are the only thing that mattered

Hmm, I have 3 Jap Fenders from 3 diff decades and they've all been great, but my MIM had a couple of issues and from reports on here the US stuff it seems can vary - though I am surprised there are finish and fret dress issues. As you say though, the sound is great. The bridge...if it's a new US one it should be a high-mass vintage which are good - or is this an 'American Special'? Anyway with my jazzes I do find the necks are a bit more changeable with the seasons than my old Ibanez, I put that down to one-piece maple being inherently less stable versus laminate construction. Once they're settled there shouldn't be any inherent reason why it can't get a good low action as long as you're prepared to tweak it every few months. Perhaps it needs a proper fret dress?

Good choice! I bought one to sell on, eyeing a quick profit but I couldn't bring myself to part with it! I am just [s]butchering[/s] carefully defretting it now to justify keeping it. The pickups are hot and fat, I think it'll sound great as a fretless.

Hi Phil, Is the concave bow totally even or does it have a 'wiggle'? I would try tweaking the rod slightly to bring it slightly straighter and see what effect that had - I've found that nearly straight works well for me though I think it depends on the strings and playing. It could be wear on the lower frets though, are they noticeably worn?