LawrenceH

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='730250' date='Jan 31 2010, 01:41 AM']I do think wood is part of the equation, however were I tend to differ with most is that I don't think we can make any more than the most gross predictions based on woods. The infinitely slim promises we get from some builders strikes me as quite dishonest or at best severely delusional.[/quote] I don't differ on this much. Two different issues seem to have been confused. One is whether wood contributes significantly to tone. It does. The second is whether that contribution correlates with wood species. Several people seem to be arguing that it doesn't, because you can't reliably identify the species by sound, using this as a gold standard test. This is missing the point that there could be a correlation, but significant variability within species may exist and consequently lots of tonal 'overlap' between. I.e. it may be possible to make a bass of ash and a bass of alder that sounded pretty much the same. But the 'average' tone of alder versus ash basses of the same type would differ. This is what I think is going on. Further complicating things is that ash is probably pretty similar in tone to alder anyway. I think mahogany versus maple is a better example as they are more extremely different and therefore there's less overlap. And I agree entirely that exotic woods aren't going to give you much you couldn't get from the standard materials. One final thing I find interesting is that changing pickup position makes a big difference to tone, but within certain parameters (ie my bass sounds like my bass wherever the pickup is despite the fact there is a big difference between neck and bridge). Similarly pickup type makes a big difference within different varying parameters. Ditto strings. Each varied component has a drastic difference but the difference is confined to a particular element of the sound. I think someone who is pretty experienced with this sort of thing would be able to listen to an instrument and work out what component needed to change to best give a desired tone, or if it's even possible.

I added S1 switching to an Ibanez SR500 fitted with Nordstrand Big Singles. It is a cheap, easy, reversible mod that gives a very different tone, losing some of the mid-range grind but adding in a hefty bass/low mid thump, a very authoritative tone! I can't see a reason not to do it if you're building a bass. I'll be adding it to my Jazz once I get round to it.

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='729646' date='Jan 30 2010, 01:32 PM']Don't think that's quite right. First of all, pickups don't just amplify what's there. In fact standard guitar pickups are inherently non-linear, and definitely add their own character to the mix. Secondly, the strings are vibrating in a magnetic field, which affects how they vibrate. The electromagnetics is a little above my pay grade - any electronics engineers out there? - but it definitely happens. [url="http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys199pom/Labs/Electric_Guitar_Pickup_Measurements.pdf"]Measuring pickup characteristics[/url] [url="http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys498pom/498emi_guitar_pickup_results.html"]Results of the above analysis[/url][/quote] I didn't say it was linear amplification. But the string produces the harmonics - if it didn't then moving up and down the fret board wouldn't do much! I'm not arguing that pickups don't contribute to tone, they clearly do. But If you imagine a hypothetical 'flat' pickup, then could you not get a fairly reasonable rough approximation of a particular pickup's tone with EQ alone? What I was trying to say was that the way the string output across the different harmonics decays over time will be dominated by its interaction with the body/neck/bridge etc. Point taken regarding being in a magnetic field. But I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that this doesn't have nearly as significant affect on the note decay as the mechanical factors in the body unless the pickup is too close to the string (when you get that 'sucking' effect. Also this factor would be a constant whether the bass is played plugged in or otherwise.

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='728095' date='Jan 28 2010, 08:47 PM']I'm sure VGS can speak for himself, but I've got a feeling that's not really what he means. The various components used in preamp circuits are made within certain tolerences, which means that different examples of the same circuit can vary slightly in their 'sound'. This makes it hard to call them identical to the point that you can eliminate them as a factor. Not saying you're wrong about the sound of your basses - just that it isn't quite as simple as it looks. And with great respect, I'm still not so sure about the 'acoustic tone translating to amplified sound' argument.[/quote] It strikes me as a bit weird to imagine that an obvious difference acoustically in one particular case is not largely responsible for the obvious difference plugged in - especially if there is a good correlation between the character of the different acoustic and electric tones. Like I said before, pickups can only amplify what's there. The string dictates the initial harmonics of a note but their relative volume and how they decay is very much affected by how the thing it's anchored to resonates.

[quote name='merello' post='729566' date='Jan 30 2010, 12:10 PM'][url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FENDER-JAZZ-BASS-GEDDY-LEE-BLUE-CUSTOM-NEW-UNPLAYED_W0QQitemZ120523901893QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV?hash=item1c0fc8cbc5#ht_500wt_1182"]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FENDER-JAZZ-BASS-GED...5#ht_500wt_1182[/url] Not sure. Does it count as a Geddy Lee Custom if it's a Mexican Body and GL neck?[/quote] Looks like it doesn't have the 70s pickup spacing. On the other hand, I've never liked the black blocks on maple before, but it looks sweet as with the agave blue!

I actually thought this was going to be a rant about sexism from a disgruntled lady basser...my ability to spot a seaside-style double entendre has evidently seriously atrophied in the last year spent living in the Middle East! I frowningly disapprove of such misogyny...still, buckle rash isn't going to be a problem eh?

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='721918' date='Jan 23 2010, 08:27 AM']Hi Lawrence, I've heard the decent wood, select wood offered many times as an explanation for certain tones. I've never gotten anyone to define how you select decent wood and what luthiers actually do that. What do you mean by decent and do you think if wood doesn't meet those standards it will sound bad? Any one else who wants to give that a shot jump in. I've seen too many great sounding instruments made out of plywood, old doors and workbenches and other things to think the wood is important at all. Of course it's hard to charge $4000 for a Jazz bass copy made from MDF.[/quote] Well, for ME I find a correlation between a nice resonant unplugged tone with lots of prominent string overtones when you put your ear against the upper horn of the bass, and a good plugged-in sound. But I imagine there is a trade-off with sustain so that might be the complete opposite of what you want. And I know relatively cheap woods like alder or ash are perfectly capable of giving that tone, just for some reason not all of them do. I don't know what contribution size of the body makes either, I guess a bigger fender-type body will contribute more to the sound than a small jap-type. As for selecting the wood, I've no idea but I suppose giving it a few sturdy taps and listening might be a good way!

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='719708' date='Jan 21 2010, 12:22 AM']Well there's another problem right there - pickups aren't linear. In fact it's the nonlinearity of electromagnetic pickups that gives them their different characteristics - at least in part. There is no such thing as a 'flat' guitar pickup - at least not traditional types that work on the principle of electromagnetic induction. Without getting too far into another 'black art' topic, pickup designers make great play of the difference between their design and all the others - in fact it's probably not going too far to say that there's as many opinions about pickups as there are about wood.[/quote] Sorry I didn't mean to imply pickup outputs were flat, that is indeed misleading. A more accurate way of saying what I meant is that the frequency response curve of a pickup is going to make a big difference to the tonal balance, which is going to be altered by the impedence of the preamp input as well making things even more complicated! But while a pickup with a very restricted bandwidth with extreme differences in sensitivity versus frequency is always going to impart a particular character to a bass no matter what it's made of, there are others which are less extreme and with these the tonal contribution of the wood is more obvious. The other point I was trying to make is that wood can contribute a lot to the tone of a bass, and that just because individual species variability may be very high (as in 4000's example) doesn't mean you can't spot certain trends if the sample size is large enough. Make sense? Probably what matters more than focusing on species of tonewood is just getting a decent bit of wood, regardless of species. FWIW I am not a fan of the Status or Steinberger sound at all. Wood is good for me! Though I'm all for an alternative material if it sounds how I like yet is nice and light and eco friendly. I'm guessing alder is not an environmental disaster...

Tonewood definitely matters. Though by how much will depend on how clean your signal chain and how flat the output from the pickups is. Certainly with my basses the acoustic tone of each instrument is reflected in the amplified sound. Of course it's possible to compensate for or exaggerate various aspects of this sound in the pickups/electronics. And pickup position makes a big difference but the bottom line is a pickup can only amplify what's there. One thing that is confusing the issue is the issue of uniformity or lack of it within a particular wood type. Different examples of the same species tree may have different resonant properties, Nonetheless each will have an 'average' sonic signature or characteristic tone even though individual basses may differ from this. I expect different wood species will exhibit differing variability as well - e.g. the vastly different densities of ash. I also suspect that multi-ply construction on the necks will make a big difference to tone, having come to the conclusion that a single piece, all-maple (which is quite resonant acoustically) is what I prefer. One final thing is, although I think tonewood matters I doubt there are any exotic species that could give you a sound you couldn't find within the spectrum of more typical varieties.

[quote name='Phaedrus' post='717191' date='Jan 18 2010, 09:43 PM']I noticed a similar post of yours over on TB. What is it about this vertically stacked format that's preferrable to a single 4x10 cab? I've read about close-coupling PA subs to increase perceived bass, and I think I understand it, but I'm not clear on how 4 vertical 10s will be that much different to 2 pairs of 10s? The idea interests me - I'm currently considering a Peavey 4x10, but with our typical "stage" being pretty tight, the smaller footprint of a 2x10 on its end would be a great advantage over the bigger 4x10. That flies in the face of the ubiquitous 4x10 on top of a 1x15. What gives? I doubt many of those rigs were/are bi-amped. You mean like a bi- or tri-amped PA system, where everything below 100Hz (or whatever) goes to the subs (designed for those frequencies), and everything above goes to the mains (again, designed for [i]those[/i] frequencies)? Should the "perfect" bass be bi-amped? Mark[/quote] Vertical stacking drivers gives better horizontal dispersion and reduced vertical dispersion which is advantageous in typical gig spaces where your audience are spread out in front of you on a roughly flat plane. 4x10s arranged in a square will have a more inconsistent off-axis response than vertical stacked. Plus as mentioned you get the top cab up at head height, which is useful for those of us that don't have ears in our arses. Technically for hi-fi reproduction you shouldn't mix different drivers as each will have a different characteristic group delay causing cancellations and reinforcement at various frequencies. In actual fact in practice it's often not a problem for bass guitar as many of us aren't after a 'hi-fi' sound anyway. The bass guitar's sound is in any case inherently 'artificial'. If you want to have a flat frequency response with multiple cabs then bi- or triamping is good. It also has the advantage that you can get better clean headroom for the high-frequency transients, and active crossovers are typically better than cheap passive designs. The downside is if you're playing close to the cabs you can end up hearing a disproportionate amount of just one of the outputs. Also the added cost/complexity of the set-up. Personally I don't think it's worth it in most cases for bass, though obviously for PA systems it's a different story.

[quote name='Phaedrus' post='716003' date='Jan 17 2010, 08:56 PM']Thing is, if they're moving from 100w valve power & 4x12s to under 50w and 1x12, a fair question to me would be "then why are you moving to 450w & 4x10s?" I think know the answers: 1. Valve power is very different to solid-state power. 2. Although low frequencies are less directional than higher frequencies, they don't travel as well as them, so as the frequencies being amplified go lower, the power required to do the job has to increase. Witness the common PA practice of 2/3 of a system's power going to the subs and 1/3 going to the mains - that's what we're doing: 3000w to four 1x18" subs and 1500w going to the two 2x15" mains. 3. The footprint of the TVX410 isn't hugely bigger than a 1x12 guitar combo. If you guys can add anything that I've left out, please do. On the stage cloth, where do I go to read more? Sounds interesting. Mark[/quote] The main reason is just that bass requires more power to reach the same perceived volume level! I'm off to bed so won't elaborate now, but that's just that and way more important than 'valve v ss'. Re this and lots more (e.g. absorption coefficients of different materials), I think the Yamaha sound reinforcement handbook is a good starting point if you're serious about understanding how to get a good sound without going crazy into the physics. Well worth getting hold of a copy.

[quote name='Phaedrus' post='715357' date='Jan 17 2010, 12:40 AM']On the points in bold italics - I may be misunderstanding you here, but is that just a statement, or are you perceiveing from my posts that it's my intent to "just keep adding more and more volume from different sources to balance things out"? The whole crux of this thread is that I want to [i]lower[/i] our on-stage volume, not [i]raise[/i] it. No deficiencies - they both just like to play loud. IMO, this pretty commom with some guys: when you start playing as a kid, you typically have crap cheap gear, and you aspire to getting what your heroes use (till you realise the cost), even if it's unsuitable for your application. You don't even consider that you'll be availing of PA support, so you play louder and use louder gear so you can be heard. It's basically down to you to make sure your amp is at the best level. And that sticks and persists into later projects. I agree about bass getting a more powerful amp - LF saps more amp power than HF. Mark[/quote] No I really just meant the first post implied this to me and made me giggle - since in it you are asking what amp you need to match the band, but also say you won't ask the guitarist to downsize, yet you don't want guitar amp to dominate FoH! Other posters had talked about reducing the volume and you'd taken that on board. Implementing it is the tricky bit especially if you have to convince people to change the way they approach something, I was trying to make clear that it would be absolutely necessary they do this to to achieve what you're after. The number of guitarists who harp on about the tiny nuances of their tone as if that mattered more than the fact they're so loud that the mix is screwed and people's ears are shutting down! Grrrr Regarding hearing damage...anyone who has played drums or guitar loudly without protection for an extended period (i.e. several years) will have hearing deficiencies. It is inescapable, the 'safe' threshold limits are easily exceeded by these instruments and will likely occur at the highest frequencies first and those where there's a real load of energy they've been exposed to. This hearing loss typically first manifest noticeably as difficulty deciphering multiple noise sources, e.g. a particular person's talking against a background of other conversations. Worryingly, it's only later on when the damage becomes more severe that a standard hearing test will pick it up. These tests rely on single tones (which limits their diagnostic sensitivity) and top out at 8kHz, whereas theoretical human limit is average 20kHz at least for children and adults who REALLY look after their ears. Because the loss is gradual it's not noticeable to the individual in question at the early stages either, but it will be there. I played bass for 2 years or so in a weekly jam house band. We were playing mainly funk and jazz, not loud at all compared to typical pub-rockers (I kept up fine with 130w SS 1x12") and my hearing is now a couple of dB down on where it used to be at the highest frequencies. I don't notice it day-to-day but it's there. I now have moulded ear plugs and to be honest they're not ideal but there's not much more you can do sadly. If you have the possibility of using hung stage-cloth like I suggested, then seriously give it a go - it is really good for solving or at least minimising a lot of common problems with bad acoustics that otherwise screw gigs right up. It's a bit alien to our normal way of thinking which seems to like buying exciting new electronic toys, but in many cases it's actually the single most effective thing you can do to correct the sound of a band and at a couple of hundred quid or so it's miles cheaper than most alternatives too. It's especially great for taking some of the crazy killer edge of cymbals and snares, there is so much early reflection from these in a typical small room and getting rid of it improves perception of mix clarity no end. You find things have to be up less loud in the monitoring which also contributes to improved FoH.

[quote name='mikebass78' post='715771' date='Jan 17 2010, 04:28 PM']bump, getting worried about it now[/quote] I am an ignorant buffoon compared to many people here, but this sounds like it might be a capacitor failure somewhere? Since it's affecting the input level monitoring it's almost certainly in the preamp stage, possibly in the circuitry that feeds the input level lights themselves. Almost certainly repairable by someone who knows what they're doing. But that's not me sadly!

Hi there, I've just had a tape measure on my Jap 75 reissue with 5 screws. The distance from the outer screw centres to the middle screw centre is 35 mm. Hope that helps Lawrence

I have to say I laughed out loud when I read the first post in this thread. You want a well-balanced tone, without dominant guitars, and you want a good stage sound, without bleed into FoH, and you're using 4x12" guitar cabs with a loud drummer and you're gigging in pubs...you want the moon on a stick! Or else a magic box which sucks sound out of the air... Even if you're playing awkward, long rooms full of obstructions then a better set-up would be to use delay lines or an array. Seriously, you can't just keep adding more and more volume from different sources to balance things out. People's ears just start shutting down at a certain threshold, the more sound you add the worse it gets. Less volume and you will hear yourselves better and your ear damage will also be less severe. If, as seems likely given the kit they're using, some band members already have deficiency in their hearing, then they need to get used to using in ears. Too late to save their hearing but it'll save everyone else's and you'll get a better sound. Ironically the one rig that I consider worth having a bit more power for is the bass (and maybe kick drum monitor) simply because those frequencies require such a lot more power and physical space to produce. With your set-up I'd say you'd have trouble getting enough bottom end even with a 500w 4x10", but that would be the least of the band's problems. If all else fails in terms of persuasion, then if you can lug around some heavy stage cloth and hang it in loose folds behind the drummer it will help absorb a lot of the early reflections which will make things significantly less dreadful. For the guitarists, powersoaks on the amps so they can crank them to get the tone. If they just want the sheer volume, then in ears again are the only way they can have this without absolutely ruining front of house sound at 9 out of 10 gigs. As an aside I just can't understand drummers with bad technique (and if they can't play quietly they don't have good technique) who then buy loud drums, WHY??? You sit RIGHT NEXT TO THEM when you're playing them, how loud do you think they need to be?! I sometimes wonder if they understand the concept of the microphone-amplifier-loudspeaker system.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='714948' date='Jan 16 2010, 04:00 PM']Thanks for all the info guys. Im thinking MAYBE a Spector...but I dont know what their string spacing and necks are like. [/quote] For a Fender vintage jazz tone? I'd have thought a Fender jazz might do that better...

+1 to the S1 switch. Reversible, simple, cheap, awesome. Do you mind modding the bass? I put Nordy Big Singles in my Ibanez and the bottom off them is very solid indeed with a lot of definition. You could go for the fat stacks, but you'd have to route larger cavities. Otherwise given the shape of J-bass pups, you probably want noiseless with overwinding.

[quote name='BassBunny' post='712841' date='Jan 14 2010, 06:16 PM']That's interesting. the SB 300 series Bass I bought last week has now turned out to be an SB405. I only found out when doing a Clean Up/Set-Up/Re String and needed to shim the neck. When I detached it there is a Lot Number and SB405 stamped in the neck pocket. I guess that is the definative way to identify the model, take the neck off. I will have a look for the switch, but I am going to have to replace the pre-amp, (yes I know it's heresy, but I will keep the original in case i ever decide to sell. Very unlikely). The Bass/Treble controls do very little and when panned to the rear pick-up, there is very little output. I suspected it might be a pick-up problem so to attampt to prove it i metered them and they are identical. I then swopped the pick-up wires around on the Blend board and it behaves in exactly the same way, ie the blend seems to have a mind of it's own. Anyway before I remove it, i will try and figure out what it does. Is there any way you could take a picture of all the connections on the board with the serial number? Mine has definately had some "re-wiring" and that may explain the problems i am experiencing. The other bonus is a beautiful Brass Nut. Not sure if that is normal.[/quote] As I think I mentioned before, there is a little trim pot on the pre-amp which solved exactly this problem for me

Each to their own, but the body and scratchplate look like they were cut out by a five-year-old using special child-friendly plastic scissors. Fine if that's your look though.

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='694683' date='Dec 28 2009, 08:49 AM']I had one when they first came out. As Alex mentioned, the stock pickups aren't up to a deal, but that's an easy one to solve. The newer Classic Vibe Jazz is a much better proposition all round, though. It has tons of output & the quality is up there with the best.[/quote] Do the pickups make it sound more like a jazz though? Because acoustically, the one I tried just didn't have the warmth of the VMJ, which in the case of the latter definitely translated to the plugged-in tone. (Didn't get to try the CV plugged in) [quote]Art Digital MPA tube pre-amp[/quote] This will make a noticeable difference

[quote name='umph' post='694528' date='Dec 27 2009, 09:14 PM']you had a v6 for your kick drum rig? wow[/quote] Evidently so...I had to look up the amp because it was a fair while back but the v6 looks about right. It was the bass rig as well, of course, and we just whacked the kick through it as an experiment to see if we could get a bit more oomph. But I can confidently say that headroom was NOT an issue with that amp! The sound was, in technical parlance, phat.

I am going to disagree with everyone here and say it is sometimes worth putting the bass drum through the bass rig. We used to do this with a 4x12" 300w valve Trace Elliot way back in my first band. Punched better than any PA I've tried that didn't have separate subs, and better than many smaller subs too. We didn't try and exaggerate the click of the beater or anything but we got a solid, well-damped thump that really helped lay a groove. You might try putting a bit of the LOW end of the snare through as well, it's surprising how important sub-500Hz region can be for giving punch in certain styles. It doesn't need much, or it indeed starts to have undesirable effects. But in my experience putting drums through inadequate PA tops will compromise vocals much more than you'll compromise bass in this method. 450w is a decent amount of headroom to be working with. Plus if you and the drummer are tight, having the kick from the same sound source really helps create a solid sound, almost like the beat of the kick is the beginning of your bass note. And yes, before I get piled into for saying this, I HAVE done a fair bit of live sound with a fair few different small and medium systems, inc off the top of my head JBL, EV, Nexo, Martin Audio, RCF etc so although I'm by no means a pro I am at least able to make a meaningful comparison.

[quote name='jezzaboy' post='694458' date='Dec 27 2009, 07:06 PM']I want a Jazz. Don`t bloomin need one but the yearning is there. I`ve had a few Mexican ones and while they are okay, I always fancied a 75 re-issue. Now, not having the spondoolies for one, I was thinking of getting one of the Squires (not much differance eh?). I just like the natural finish. Could someone whose got one tell me what it`s like? Is it gigable the way it is? If I keep it for a while I might upgrade it. Cheers for any info. Jez[/quote] Tried one in Mansons the other day...way better than the Classic Vibe acoustically but the pickups are a little lo-fi sounding, lacking bandwidth. Frets were not very well dressed and the neck was a bit chipped on the binding I'd say they're very decent if you can choose a good one, can spend the extra to swap out the pickups and can put up with the extra weight...they're not light.

[quote name='Paul S' post='692374' date='Dec 23 2009, 03:02 PM']I was secretly hoping for a Squier of some sort but every single one (I tried about 6 of various sorts) fell short of the mark compared to a USA jazz or, what I ended up with, my MIJ Jaguar. Since then I have acquired a Squier VMJ fretless and it is really good... but still not as good as the Jag. But then it is a lot cheaper.[/quote] I'm not really getting the Squier CV love - they look pretty cool, but the two I've tried in shops have been badly set up and sounded rubbish acoustically compared to a US or the Mex Classic 70s jazz. I know that's not the whole story but I do think when looking for a classic jazz bass sound the wood is an important contributor, and basswood or agathis don't really do it. I think these are alright basses but no better than budget offerings from Yamaha, Ibanez etc. The VM 70s, though, sounded much more like it. Tone plugged in was nice and growly but rather restricted in bandwidth, so my conclusion was that with a pickup upgrade it could be a very good sounding bass. However, again I tried two and both suffered nasty fret buzz and had poor finishing on the necks, though the bookmatching on the body was lovely. If you can live with the weight (heavy) and find one with a decent neck, then these are the most 'jazzy' sounding budget basses I've heard - and therefore IMO the best! *But not as good as a US.