EMG456

[quote name='lojo' timestamp='1371475305' post='2114251'] Cheers, thought I was going mad, but this solution makes sense, ill get something made up [/quote] Just before you do that, as someone with close to 30 years experience on Steinberger type instruments as well as the classics and 20, 21, 24 fret etc., I would humbly suggest that it may be the headless aspect which is throwing you off. Most folks tend to go for positions roughly 2 frets higher than they thought when adjusting to these basses. You could try playing it exclusively for a while and see how you get on before drilling holes and fitting appendages. Sooner or later, you'll find it easy to go between headed/ headless, 20/ 24 etc. Cheers Ed

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1371300491' post='2112298'] Personally I'd prefer someone to have another go at getting the Gizmo to work as usable commercial product. [/quote] Well, I haven't heard that word for years. (at least not in terms of a mechanical actuator of guitar strings!) The guitarist I was working with at the time had one fitted on to his Ovation Breadwinner - it was a brilliant thing. 1970s - great time to be playing music! Cheers Ed

[quote name='cloudburst' timestamp='1371071272' post='2109564'] As of fairly recently... Main bass = 1988 Steinberger XL2 Backup bass = 1988 Steinberger XL2A Guess I'm boring. CB [/quote] You're boring! As I don't really see the point in owning two basses that are exactly the same, my backup will always be different to my main bass. Then again, the main bass is likely to be a different one on different gigs also - no point having them and not using them and I like to just pick before I go out the door. But they'll all sound exactly like me playing the bass! And +1 to never leaving spare gear in the car. If you need a backup bass at all then it needs to be ready and tuned at the stage temperature and environment and not stolen from the car. Cheers Ed PS Amazed at all these folks who have never suffered a broken string - good on you... or alternatively, try harder!

I just used an historic inflation calculator on two prices that I kind of remember from the mid seventies. There are probably others out there for different countries - this one uses UK inflation rates. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html I was choosing between a Fender and a Rick and buying new - Fender was priced about £300 and Rick £400. Plugging those prices in concludes that they would now cost £2133 for the Fender or £2844 for the Rick. From this admittedly unrepresentative and small sample we can conclude that buying a bass as an "investment" is a complete waste of time - you're unlikely to get back even the equivalent value in the future let alone make a profit. Occasionally some buck the trend - like the aforementioned Wals - £800 new in 1984 - equivalent value today £2180 so you would stand a chance of a profit there if you could find a buyer. If you buy cheaply, it can be different story so the '61 Precision I bought for £125 in 1978 would have cost me the equivalent of £608 today! Then again, I sold it for £450 in 1984 - ho hum. Buy them to play, not to invest. Cheers Ed

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1349783877' post='1830398'] I'm kind of partial to Dirty Loops fusionised cheesy pop songs at the moment ... [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjVGJ3YFDc8&feature=relmfu"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjVGJ3YFDc8&feature=relmfu[/url] [/quote] These guys are phenomenal - never heard of them before. Thanks for posting. Ed

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1370090064' post='2096344'] I've been thinking about getting some myself , and I am very much of the generation that believed the virtual extinction of flatwound bass strings was a mark of social progress , similar to the eradication of tuberculosis or the development effective hemmorhoid treatments . For thirty years they were the bass playing equivalent of flared trousers ( i.e most right - thinking folks thought they would never make a comeback ) but they have achieved the seemingly impossible and become trendy again . [/quote] I actually did LOL at that! Dingus, you really must be the long lost bass playing twin that I never knew I had! Like you, I have been a flats-free zone for getting close to 40 years and astonishingly even to myself, am now thinking about stringing up a couple of basses with them to see how they go. There are some archetypal flatwound sounds that I would like to have at my disposal now but this would be more akin to using an effect if you like for a particular song or piece. I would not go back to flats as a default but that's because I like my basses to provide all the frequencies from the very low to the very high and flats simply don't do that. I'm well aware that many disagree with me on these things but hey - I'm happy! Cheers Ed

Enjoyed listening to that again. Human Racing always seemed to me to have the Wal bass sound written all over it - excellently played too, even if there was some studio skulduggery going on! He's a very clever writer and arranger as well - really like the way he handles the key change in Gone to Pieces. Looks like I'm going to have to pay another visit to iTunes...

Another +1 for a US made Sub. I have one and it is great. As has been stated it basically *is* a US made Stingray, so you can't get much closer than that. Ed

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1369606063' post='2090885'] Ed/EMG465 thanks for the long one! I've had the ACG for ooh 6 months now so in terms of being able to dial in sounds I want and adjusting on the fly (if needed) I can work that out.... any thoguhts/advice based on how you set yours up? I tend to go for a good rock tone on the front pup, a more middy sound on the back one with a bit of boost and then use the blend to set my sound with treble added if needed. [/quote] No bother Luke. I suspect your ACG pre is a bit more sophisticated than mine - I only have one low pass filter stack so whatever blend of pickups is set goes through that one filter. I was always a big fan of the Wal circuit and the ACG really takes that to another level versatility- wise by offering continuously variable boost around the filter cutoff frequencies and a variable frequency and boost for the high- pass which in the Wal is the switchable "pick attack" at a fixed frequency but with the amount pre-set by an internal trim pot. With the flexibility comes added complexity of course, so if using that bass live, I tend to set up the pre carefully to suit the room/ stage and then not really vary it that much during the gig - that way I can just use the techniques I would use on any bass to vary the tone on a gig - pickup selection/ blend and right (picking) hand position. The trouble with going to town and fully using something like the ACG pre live is that it is so variable. For example, I may think I need just a little bit more bass, so I reach for the bass stack gain but depending on where I have left the frequency control set on that stack, it could be acting effectively as a treble control... or a high mid or a low mid or a subsonic bass! It's not always easy to hear these things in the middle of a gig so I go very canny on these adjustments. For live work the other possible difficulty with using eq at source - ie in the bass or in the amp if you're taking a DI post eq- is the potentially radically different frequency response curves of the amplification chains involved. My big rig cabs are Acme LowB2s which have a very similar response curve to good big PA rig -ie basically flat from 20Hz to 20KHz. So if I'm over egging the bottom end at source, I can hear that and fix it. On small gigs though, I often just take my little Phil Jones Bass Briefcase which has nothing like the low bottom end of the Acmes so it's quite possible for me to be setting up a nice, chunky sound on stage which is far too bass rich for the PA. The sound guy has to then try and compensate for that using eq which is almost certainly operating at different frequency centres from the ones I am using and well, you know what the results can be! So, for me using eq at source live with a feed to the PA - nothing too extreme and set it and forget it for the night! Cheers Ed

It's your sound Luke. The job of the sound guy is to reproduce that as accurately as possible and then blend it with the other instruments and voices so that everyone can hear *everything* that is going on. Go to 90% of gigs and you can see what the basic problem is with this thought! So, some sound guys can do that and many others can't. A lot of the "education" in music technology nowadays also suggests that the best way to get separation in a mix it to divide instruments up into frequency bands and separate them that way. So all the bass players end up with a wooly, ill defined boomy sound because that doesn't get in the way of the vocals and guitars/ keys. To beat this approach I find it's best to go in with a collaborative approach. Be nice. Ask him does he want a DI out pre or post eq. Explain to him the sort of bass sound you like to use. Quietly give him the confidence that you know exactly what you are doing and that you're somebody he will enjoy working with - that way he'll do the best he can for you. Sometimes of course it doesn't work out but if you're going to be back there on a regular basis it's worthwhile trying to sort something out. Overall stage volume can work against you as well - could the whole band be persuaded to play a little quieter on stage to help out with the sound? Lastly (thank goodness I hear you say) I'm interested in your comment about the ACG preamp. Any gear you're not completely familiar with can cause you to misjudge your settings. I did a gig recently supporting another band. The bassist let me use his rig for convenience - it was a nice rig, Acoustic Image Clarus head and two EA cabs. It wasn't quite bright enough for my liking but I didn't want to mess up his eq settings and I had brought along a Jazz Bass 24 that I have recently acquired so I just set up the tone using the on- board preamp in the bass. I did actually get three comments from people in the crowd that didn't know me saying that they loved the bass sound but when I got home and next plugged the bass into my little Phil Jones amp that I use in the house, I realised how extremely I had tweaked the sound - huge amounts of top end which I simply wasn't hearing from the rig on the night. Now, I have an ACG filter pre in one of my basses and whilst I love it, I am also aware that it is perfectly capable of providing any number of completely unusable, extreme sounds, capable of speaker destruction even at seemingly low levels. Couple that with some of it's controls being slightly counter- intuitive on occasion and it's possibly making life more difficult for you in a live situation? If in doubt. Simplify and build from there - if that means take a P-Bass the next time, then do that and see what it's like. Hope it works out. Ed

[quote name='ikay' timestamp='1369079583' post='2084673'] I;ve drawn up a couple of graphics showing string vibrations of the first 7 harmonics and some common pickup positions. [/quote] Thanks for putting in the time there - that is extremely informative. Cheers Ed

Another interesting thread to me. I recently acquired a fender Jazz Bass 24, which is the first bass I've had almost forever which can use through-body stringing. so I thought "I'll try this!" Using my normal gauge string set (.040 - .100), the bass definitely feels "tighter" than I would have expected. On my normal scheme of re-stringing, it'll be probably several years before that one needs done again but I will be interested to see what the difference is on the same instrument. As has been mentioned, it's the same tension for either method but what changes is the rate at which that tension increases as the string is pulled away from its resting position - ie a straight line from saddle to nut. The tension increases as you pull the string to pluck it, as you fret a note and as you bend a note. As has already been mentioned, a vibrating string is already stretched more than the resting string which is why if you really ( I mean *really*) dig in for a note you can go so far that the start of the note is actually sharpened till the excess string vibration damps down again. I have searched the web for a scientific explanation for this apparent effect to no real avail so if you don't mind indulging me, I will attempt one! If we have a string in tune at a set tension, say the A string and we want to fret it at the 5th (D) and bend the note one tone up to the E, that will require a set effort. What we are doing is stretching the string and that stretch is spread over the entire tensioned length of the string - from ball end to tuner post. And possibly even a bit round the tuner windings as well! If we increase the length of the string by stringing through the body, to bend the note up our tone again we need to increase the tension by the same amount as the first time but this time we have to increase it for a longer length of string. Each little bit of string has to be stretched but this time there's more of it and so the effort required is that much more for the same effect. I'm guessing that the actual change will likely be in the range of about no more than 5% but in the finely balanced requirements of a guitar or bass setup, these tiny differences sometimes seem to have a disproportionate effect on the end result. By my theory, the most compliant setup you could have would of course be headless with double ball strings. All my headless basses do feel very "compliant"! And also, there will be a difference in compliance as you move up the strings on a four or five in line headstock - probably as much between strings as the difference between through-body or on- bridge stringing. Any scientists or engineers on here please chip in. Cheers Ed

Go for it. If it's unlined it should have the side dots in the correct place - ie on the fret positions, so you've still got that guide to start you off. After that it's your ear that gives you the accuracy anyway so especially at gigs, try to ensure that you will be able to hear yourself clearly in the mix. Fretless is a joyous thing! Ed

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1367755992' post='2069063'] Lovely bass . Looks a little bit earlier than 1985 to me , with the paddle headstock ect . As far as I know , Wal stopped making these in the early 1980's . [/quote] Generally true but they still took special orders for the old- style headstock. I know of at least two Wal Customs which were ordered and supplied with the "Paddle" headstock. Lovely looking bass. Ed

[quote name='EMG456' timestamp='1367367167' post='2064874'] It's as well that we're all different, eh? I can never understand a lot of bass players' attitude to Jaco. I've spoken with a few over the years who don't like the music. don't like the tone, don't like the bass playing tunes up front etc. etc. All this from players who were themselves barely adequate in my opinion - was it jealousy? Or did they really just simply not understand the music? [/quote] I thought this might happen... let me make it clear icastle, Chris b, Xilddx, Roland Rock and anyone else who thinks I am pre-judging people based on their musical preferences, that I was referring to actual discussions I have had with players in the past, not members (to my knowledge) of this forum. I had heard their bands play and had listened and formed opinions of the relative merits of each player and what I thought their musical contribution was to the overall experience. Who among us doesn't do this when they see a band/ show? After the gig, stripping the gear down or whatever, the usual discussions would start up - "I liked the sound you were getting", "That's a lovely looking bass", "What's that pedal you're using?" etc. The bass scene was changing and some of the hot topics of the time were players like Pastorius, Stanley Clark, Louis Johnson - guys who were at that time pushing the envelope. I merely observe that in general, the more basic the player, the less likely they were to even recognise the skill and talent involved in guys like Jaco, let alone admit to liking their music. And when I say basic, I'm not talking about highly skilled individuals choosing to play a very simple and restrained part impeccably well- I'm talking about people who are learning their instrument in the best way possible - by going out and doing it- but maybe still have a way to go before they could claim mastery. We're all on a musical journey and some are further down the road than others. Some are down different roads entirely and that's good - there's room for us all. And this means there's room for Jaco and his like too. The bass world would be a grey, bland and colourless place if we all had to conform to strict guidelines and I for one am glad it's not. Hope that clears things up. Cheers Ed

It's as well that we're all different, eh? I can never understand a lot of bass players' attitude to Jaco. I've spoken with a few over the years who don't like the music. don't like the tone, don't like the bass playing tunes up front etc. etc. All this from players who were themselves barely adequate in my opinion - was it jealousy? Or did they really just simply not understand the music? I suppose we are now so far away in time from Jaco's heyday that it's ancient history to a lot of younger players. So for those who weren't there at the time, I have to tell you that Jaco was a game changer. He took the humble bass guitar and turned it into something extraordinary and we had seen nothing like it. Don't forget that we had no internet, no mobile devices, no youtube - no warning. When I saw him with Weather Report in the late 70's I knew that the way I approach bass could never be the same again, simple as that. He was the most complete, rounded, musical bass player I ever expect to see and without a doubt, the bravest and most expressive. I guess the problem is that he didn't fit the mould then and he doesn't fit it again now. In an age when many players aspire to playing a Fender bass with flatwound strings which are mostly covered over with big chrome ashtrays, I can see that they won't like the totally "in yer face" sound of Jaco in full flight but hey - there's always time...tastes change and the cycle goes round again. :-) One of a kind and my greatest bass hero. Cheers Ed

[quote name='Stacker' timestamp='1366713286' post='2056230'] Which shop did you work in? [/quote] Jimmy Grant's in Edinburgh and then Glasgow - I was there probably about '81 - '85-ish. If I insulted you or chucked you out for timewasting, I apologise! Ed

[quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1366574440' post='2054390'] Compression can remove all dynamics, so the signal will seem to be all one volume, then with some EQing you can make the signal seem very large and punchy as there is no dynamics, hope that helps [/quote] [quote name='D.I. Joe' timestamp='1366583779' post='2054611'] While this is true, it depends how you set it up. I use mine just to level off harsh peaks and even out the sound sonewhat, but not as to squash it and eliminate dynamics completely. That would be silly [/quote] Some of us don't find that compression in the signal chain gives a more "punchy" sound. It will certainly give you a more even sound in terns of levels and do things like simulate longer sustain from your bass but I prefer to have the original dynamics in my playing preserved as much as possible. With strong consistent technique, you can eliminate the use of compression from your live playing altogether and reduce it's use in the recording environment to a bare minimum - after all, the less gubbins between you and the speaker which will finally reproduce what you're playing, the better, no? The use of compression as an effect is of course something different. (Runs for cover) I see he plays mostly fingerstyle but throws in a bit of slap for effect - some basses (yes even high end ones) do not produce consistent volumes between fingerstyle and slap techniques so he may have used the compression to help mitigate this. Anyway, at least part of what makes this a nice punchy sound is the cleanness of the playing and in particular regard to note lengths and dampening. Not only is the start of each note nicely judged and executed but also the end of each note - gives that nice contrast between note and space and helps give great definition to the rhythm and groove. My tuppence worth! Ed

Play what you like and try anything but also try not to be affected by pre-conceptions - difficult I know, in the largely fashion and image driven music biz. My logic went something like this... Used to use detuning or bass pedals to reach down to the depths. Wanted the convenience of being able to do that without all the paraphernalia. Ordered my first 5 string from Wal in '92. Liked it a lot. Used it quite a bit but still used 4s a lot too. Ordered a milestone birthday bass from Alembic in '98. Obviously, it would be a 5 :-) but then the extra cost of making it a 6 was inconsequential - so why not! Liked it a lot and the transition from 5 to 6 much easier for me than the transition from 4 to 5. I now have two sixes, 3 fives and the rest are all fours. I use them all coz that's what they're for. One thing to note - if you're not completely rooted in the traditional bass role as a player, once you start to make up parts using extended range basses, it's relatively easy to paint yourself into a corner and find that there are one or two songs in the set that you can't physically play without the extra range. This goes against my own ethos as I like to be able to choose what basses I'm going to be playing that night almost as I go out the door. Suddenly, you are restricted in choice because you "need" a 5 or 6 for certain songs. Hey ho - it's all part of the endless conundrum that is being a bass player! Open minds are good. Cheers Ed

[quote name='McBass' timestamp='1366154408' post='2049150'] It was Mark Lickley not Brad Lang. [/quote] You're right and I stand corrected! Both good players. Ed

[quote name='fireblademalc' timestamp='1359992440' post='1963111'] Worst bass I ever owned was a 1964 Hofner Violin Bass, complete sh*te. I actually own an early Encore Precision, which plays and sounds every bit as good as a Fender, and a Hohner Rockbass copy of a Precision which sounds an plays BETTER than a Fender!! I had a 1972 Jazz I bought new in '72 and thought was the dogs danglies for 25 years, then I discovered active basses - wow! Having said that, I have an Attila Balough Odessy with 2 Di Marzio p.b. sets which is awesome, but I have graduated to 6 string basses now so it doesn't get played so much. [/quote] Just reading through this entertaining thread now... On topic - my worst and really the only bad bass I've ever owned was my first - the apparently popular Avon EB0 copy. I thought my misery was solitary but now find that many shared my woes! Don't know what happened to that bass now but I do recall that when I got my first decent bass the Avon was the subject of my first bass butchery experiment and had the frets taken out. Unfortunately, this revealed that the nice dark ebony looking fingerboard was in fact black painted maple! That then meant the neck had to be stripped, revealing a multi- laminate maple construction kind of like a poor man's Kubicki X-Factor! Strange but true. Off topic - Fireblademalc - I'd love to see that Odyssey! I used to work in a music shop in the early eighties and we sold a couple of Odysseys. The ones we had had Bartolini humbuckers and the deluxe model had chequered binding like the early Rick 4001s. I should have bought one at the time but didn't have the cash - same old same old! Cheers Ed

Nothing wrong with liking ABC for to like ABC you must like Trevor Horn and there's nothing wrong with that! Yes, the main bass part was "performed" using a Fairlight CMI - the daddy of digital sampling workstations but the part to which you allude was I believe, bassist Brad Lang. If you want to get it accurate, there's only "popping" or as we oldies used to call it "snapping" - no slap. Cheers Ed