EBS_freak

[quote name='spongebob' timestamp='1363863743' post='2018510'] I'm a big Ric fan, and TBH, I don't see the problem! (Goes and hides in the bushes.......) [/quote] You are John Hall and I claim my £5.

Done lots of research into this and I ended up with both the Sony DWZ and Shure ULX-D systems. They are ridiculously good - and the Sony transmitter smacks all the other transmitters in terms of build quality, including the top flight Shure ULX-D and Senn system. Stay digital to keep your lows intact by staying away from the compounders used in analogue systems. Basically, any Line6, StageClix, Sony or Shure ULX-D (pricey) system is going to see you alright. Chose which one you cosmetically like the best because they all perform to a high standard.

Those new Line6 offerings looks pretty tasty.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1363788574' post='2017615'] Thanks! Loads of information there and it will take some time to work through it all. At first glance the Shure ULXD system looks the best bet for me. Front output is absolutely essential though. This will fill the last empty space in the front of my rack and so far there is no space between the other units to feed even the thinnest of cables through. I don't understand why the manufactures of rack-mounting wireless systems don't offer a unit with at least a duplicated instrument level output on the front. The front panel is after all where the input jack of the next piece of equipment in the audio is chain is most likely to be! [/quote] Just been thinking about it, with the ULX-D you will be able to pass a cable from the back to the front of the unit quite easily - where the BNC attached aerials attach to the rack mounting kit, you could easily drill another hole through the rack mounting (e.g. on the right panel in the pic) and feed a cable through or drill another hole for the aerial and use the hole on the left of the unit for an input... I did this on one of my rack setups and bought a nice rubber grommet in the hole to finish it off nicely. Something like this - You get the idea anyway... The ULX-D is an awesome unit. I will be upgrading to it at some point in the future. That way I can nicely rack my PSM900 next to it! Anyway, here's the pic to which I'm referring.

[quote name='joeystrange' timestamp='1363775924' post='2017279'] I never had any problems with it although, to my ears, it seemed to add a bit of top end to the sound. [/quote] That's because there isn't the capacitance of a long cable rolling the top end off your sound. Some systems, for example, (and I'm sure it's on your line 6 system, or it could be the G50) have a cable tone function to emulate that roll off.

Off the top of my head. 1. That puts you in the digital camp 2. Shure ULX-D is the obvious rack option given 1. Also the Line 6 G90. Otherwise, look at the Sony DWZ-B30GB (non rack but I'm sure you can velcro it somewhere) or the DWZB70HL (rack but lavier system which can be used for instruments, when it comes out). Stageclix. 3. Shure is 1/2 width. Line 6 is full width. Sony is 1/2 width (but you need to buy rack kit) or the "brick" that is designed to go on a pedal board. Stageclix is like a Maplins box! Output on the back is not an issue if you use thin George L's to take the output back to the front as you can tease it between rack units. 4. ULX-D system available as seperates. Sony parts available as seperates. Not sure about Stageclix. Not sure about Line6. 5. Jack plug is a cable so make up as you wish otherwise Stageclix you can but so it uses a cable - avoid the "bug" type system. 6. Shure is metal case, Sony is metal case. Line 6 is metal case. Stageclix is robust enough. I have had a leather case to match my strap to hold my transmitter but there is a very good neotech pouch out there if you don't trust the clips on the backs of the unit. I would clip the unit to my belt or tops of trousers if you are concerned about having it strapped to the strap. 7. Out of the game. Both Sony and Shure are seperate PSUs. (Annoying isn't it?). Line 6 is IEC "kettle". Stageclix is also seperate PSU I recall. 8. AAs. Stageclix has it's own rebuilt batteries. Annoying if you forget to charge it. 9. Seems fair enough. All will fit the bill. There are other digital offerings but I'm not up to speed with them - but they are more designed for lavier mic application. Be wary of high latency figures in the digital world. All of the above are low enough. Shure if you are feeling rich, Sony or Line 6 if not. Otherwise Stageclix.

Not had any problems. I have three wireless networks running at every gig I play plus never had any problems when combining them with the wifi networks present at the hotels I play at all over the country. OK they occupy the same band so theoretically could be a problem... but my Sony unit has not failed me once. For instances like that Id resort to a cable. We run an analogue wireless iem on the open band and that is prone to rf interference. I use the licensed band for my iems and never had any issues on that.

I would defo go for a digital over analogue system - the compounders destroy your low end unless you are paying some serious money for the real top end stuff.

I thought for a minute old JJ got burnt.

[quote name='hubrad' timestamp='1363700208' post='2016047'] I think that looks alone don't generally get you the gig with a decent band (thank goodness! ), although I vaguely remember a Bassist mag interview with the guy who was, at the time, Terence Trent D'Arby's bass player. He said he turned up for the audition, walked in the room, and the management said 'yes, you'll do nicely'. 'Don't you want to hear me play?' says he.. 'Nope, you look the part and you wouldn't be here if you couldn't play.' [/quote] That would be Cass Lewis... also of Skunk Anansie and Gary Moore fame. He can play a fair bit.

[quote name='chrismuzz' timestamp='1363651766' post='2015454'] I wonder what he thinks of this? [/quote] Probably plays better than a real one...

[quote name='Lynottfan' timestamp='1363688913' post='2015747'] I notice that a lot of really good women players all seem to gravitate towards the J style bass to. [/quote] May have something to do with the top contour...

Sony DWZB30GB. Sorted.

Purpleheart pickup covers?

Closeish to Birmingham... [url="http://www.timtoftviolins.com/"]http://www.timtoftviolins.com/[/url]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1363277859' post='2010946'] Tesco Cola is easily distinguishable from Coca Cola. The identity of the product (ie the can/bottle) is what people recognise. If I were in the soft drinks business and put out a cola drink in a red can with 'Steve's Cola' in a swirly silver (or is it white?) font (Coca Cola stylee), then I would fully expect a missive from Coca Cola's legal dept. [/quote] You should take a walk round Aldi! Plenty of the above in there!

From the title I thought that this was another Mr Hall Rickenbacker thread.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1363275913' post='2010891'] In what way is it not relevant? I fail to see any ethical difference between buying a cheap bottle of Cola that says "Tesco" on the label and tastes a lot like Coca Cola and buying a cheap bass that says "Rockinbetter" on the headstock and looks a lot like a Rickenbacker. [/quote] Give them a lick. A Rickenbacker and a Rockinbetter probably taste very similar too. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong... but the precedent has already been set.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1363274628' post='2010864'] It's been discussed - or at least suggested & shot down in flames - on Rick Resource a few times that Rick should do a budget range along the lines of Squier & Epiphone which would destroy the copy market. [/quote] Trouble is, they can't get their top flight basses right, let alone a budget one. That's fundamentally the problem - the copies are probably better than the real mccoy. It happens - it build the Sadowsky brand when Fender were going through woeful QC issues.

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1363273992' post='2010851'] But a Rickenbacker [b]doesn't[/b] look the same as any other bass... [/quote] In which case, there's no problem with the Rockinbetters.... A Rickenbacker copy looks like a Rickenbacker. A Jazz bass copy looks like a Jazz bass copy. A P bass copy looks like a P bass copy.... A Steinberger copy looks like a Steinberger copy.... A Hofner violin copy looks like a Hofner copy tedious, tedious, tedious... OK, lets look at the Piano. There are essentially two types. An upright and a grand. Same can be applied to the bass but there are more than two types. Lets say, there's a J bass, a P bass and Rickenbacker. They all sound like basses, they all look similar - traditionally they have a body, neck, headstock, 4 strings - they all fundamentally sound like basses (OK, difference in tone but an upright piano has a different tone to a grand)... and also, ask a bassist to play any of them, they can. How is a Ric that different... really? It's only *some* bass players that care. The public wouldn't be any the wiser.

If you can be arsed.... bore yourself silly - [url="http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno=246"]http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno=246[/url]

Odd isn't it? Nobody bats an eyelid about pianos, trumpets, violins, acoustic guitars etc all looking the same... but the second you slap some paint on your instrument and put some primative electronics in it, the world is up in arms... It's almost as ridiculous as claiming the 3+1 machinehead headstock design...

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1363258752' post='2010507']I'm sure Rickenbacker have, in the past, spent a lot of time, money, blood, sweat and tears designing and manufacturing a quality product.[/quote] So why did this product never come to market?

They'll never win. Far Eastern law means the manufacturers are untouchable.

[sup]The sadistic humour in me thinks it would be funny to set up thousands of fake ads of non existent fake Rics all over the net. Should keep the Ric patrol busy for a while.[/sup]