ACG Recurve 5 fretless

[pantherairsoft]

That's the one. £900 I think it was dropped to. Silly money for a bass like that. If it had 19mm string spacing I'd get my credit card out now!

EDIT: That one - [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=85921&view=findpost&p=900797"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&sho...st&p=900797[/url]

Edited September 27, 2010 by pantherairsoft

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='pantherairsoft' post='970095' date='Sep 27 2010, 09:42 PM']That's the one. £900 I think it was dropped to. Silly money for a bass like that. If it had 19mm string spacing I'd get my credit card out now!

EDIT: That one - [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=85921&view=findpost&p=900797"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&sho...st&p=900797[/url][/quote]
Yep, it's a beauty. Right up my street with the looks. The 17mm spacing I don't mind, but I'm really at home on 33" scale now. Going back to 34" is a real headf*** for quite a while, so I'd be mis-fretting all over the shop on that one. Even more so than usual.

EDIT: Oh, and the Graft Plus line that Alan's going to be producing occasionally might prove taxing on the wallet too. Check out [url="http://acguitars.co.uk/Gallery/231/"]the current offering[/url] and [url="http://acguitars.co.uk/News/122/"]the general spec and prices[/url].

Edited September 27, 2010 by BottomEndian

[pantherairsoft]

Hmmmm... Not so sure about that body shape... Although the price is pretty fantastic! No 6'ers on offer though

I'm strictly a 35" guy now to be honest as well...

[skelf]

There are 4 body shapes so not just that one. 6 strings I am not sure about I will see if there is any interest. That 5 is a 35" scale.

[pantherairsoft]

[quote name='skelf' post='970207' date='Sep 27 2010, 11:34 PM']There are 4 body shapes so not just that one. 6 strings I am not sure about I will see if there is any interest. That 5 is a 35" scale.[/quote]

Indeed. I thought it a good idea to read the page properly!

I'd be very interested on a 35" 6 string unlined fretless, 18-19mm spacing. Harlot or Recurve shape.

Should one appear on your list to be built in the near future please let me know... And consider it sold

[eude]

Geez, I keep coming back to perv at these pics!
The whole setup balances really well with the Recurve body shape. Previously, I'd preferred some of Alan's other designs over this one, but this bass may have changed my mind.

You're a lucky lad
Eude

[BottomEndian]

Well, it's here. All I can say is... if you thought those pictures looked good, you'd be completely floored by this bass in the flesh. It's just f***ing gorgeous. Alan is like some sort of sorcerer of wood. Can't wait to get home tonight and fire it up.

I've popped it on the scales here at work, and it comes in at almost exactly 4.2 kg, which is 9 lb 4 oz. Pretty impressive for a 5er with a shedload of wenge and ebony in the neck. The body must be very light indeed. Popped it on a strap, and it balances perfectly. Having had the Skelf for a while, the neck feels familiar straight away, but I can immediately hear a subtle difference in the acoustic tone. More of a low-mid grunt, rather than the Skelf's high-mid growl. Obviously, it doesn't have the Skelf's chambered-body resonance and acoustic loudness.

I'm hoping the piezo tone on the Recurve is noticeably different from the Skelf, so I've got a tonal excuse to keep both.

[skelf]

I would be really interested in your thoughts regarding the two piezo setups to see if the chambering makes a difference. Different woods as well which will make a difference but hopefully not as much as the chambering.

Alan

[eude]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='971545' date='Sep 29 2010, 11:33 AM']Well, it's here. All I can say is... if you thought those pictures looked good, you'd be completely floored by this bass in the flesh. It's just f***ing gorgeous. Alan is like some sort of sorcerer of wood. Can't wait to get home tonight and fire it up.

I've popped it on the scales here at work, and it comes in at almost exactly 4.2 kg, which is 9 lb 4 oz. Pretty impressive for a 5er with a shedload of wenge and ebony in the neck. The body must be very light indeed. Popped it on a strap, and it balances perfectly. Having had the Skelf for a while, the neck feels familiar straight away, but I can immediately hear a subtle difference in the acoustic tone. More of a low-mid grunt, rather than the Skelf's high-mid growl. Obviously, it doesn't have the Skelf's chambered-body resonance and acoustic loudness.

I'm hoping the piezo tone on the Recurve is noticeably different from the Skelf, so I've got a tonal excuse to keep both. [/quote]

Brilliant news mate.
I don't think you need any excuse for keeping the two basses, if you have to find something, you could use the "backup bass" excuse maybe?

Eude

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='skelf' post='971552' date='Sep 29 2010, 11:39 AM']I would be really interested in your thoughts regarding the two piezo setups to see if the chambering makes a difference. Different woods as well which will make a difference but hopefully not as much as the chambering.[/quote]
The filters in the EQ01 and EQ02 are the same, aren't they? So if I set them the same on the Skelf and the Recurve (assuming I've rolled the blend to fully piezo), the preamp should be doing exactly the same thing, right?

I'll try to throw together some rough soundclips at some point soon so we can all compare and contrast.

[skelf]

Yes the filters are the same and if you take the treble filter right out as well. On the Recurve the treble path is coming from the mag pickup. Inside the cavity there is a trim pot on the main board that allows the treble feed to come from either of the two inputs. This can be varied to any point between the two. I usually put it fully on the mag because the piezo can be a bit over powering in the treble department. If you feel you want more top end moving this more towards the piezo will give you it.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='skelf' post='971588' date='Sep 29 2010, 12:12 PM']the piezo can be a bit over powering in the treble department[/quote]
That may be the understatement of the year! Someone (I think Peter?) described the high-pass filter as like adding "gravy" to the "meat" from the low-pass filter. With the piezo on the Skelf, it's like horseradish. A little bit goes a very, [i]very[/i] long way. Great for bringing out that crystalline "rasp", but I never take it more than about a fifth of the way up from zero.

[xilddx]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='971545' date='Sep 29 2010, 11:33 AM']Well, it's here. All I can say is... if you thought those pictures looked good, you'd be completely floored by this bass in the flesh. It's just f***ing gorgeous. Alan is like some sort of sorcerer of wood. Can't wait to get home tonight and fire it up.[/quote]
Congratulations

It does look lovely!

[BottomEndian]

OK, here's an initial, rough, rather embarrassingly bad Recurve-vs-chambered-Skelf piezo comparison I threw together as an afterthought in ten minutes last night.

It's the same little five-note figure played on each string, from G down to B. Each figure starts with the open string, then some stopped notes and a slide, so you can get a little hint of the different core tones of each bass. The Recurve was rolled to piezo-only, the low-pass filters were opened up fully on both basses (with the cutoff-frequency boost rolled fully off), and the high-pass filters were entirely off on both. I plugged into my Bass POD XT (using the "Tube DI" emulator with everything flat; no drive, no compression), direct to the computer via USB, into Audacity.

You hear the Recurve first, then the Skelf, both playing the figure on the G-string; then the Recurve again, then the Skelf, both on the D, then Recurve/Skelf/Recurve/Skelf... all the way to the bottom.

Just so we all know the specs...
Recurve: [b]Solid[/b] black limba body, neck of wenge and black limba (mainly wenge), fingerboard is acrylicised macassar ebony.
Skelf single-cut: [b]Chambered[/b] ash body, myrtle top and back, neck of ash and wenge (about 2/3 ash, 1/3 wenge), fingerboard is plain black ebony with maple lines.

Some notes, caveats and apologies:
1. TI flats on both basses.
2. Bear in mind that the strings on the Recurve are brand new, and the strings on the Skelf have been played in for a good while. That said, listening acoustically, the Skelf's strings don't [i]sound[/i] noticeably deader (I find that TI flats tend not to deaden down as much as some other flats), so I think the main difference in tone is [b]not[/b] coming from the strings.
3. This is [b]not[/b] a tone I'd choose to use in a sensible musical situation. I've just set the filters to fully open, which is something that I can easily duplicate across the two basses. Electronically, the signal path should be absolutely identical (although I did notice that the Skelf is easily twice as loud as the Recurve! Need some trim-pot adjustment, I think, but I've normalised everything for this recording), so there's an easy, direct comparison. [b]This is certainly [i]not[/i] a "demo" of the tones that either of these basses can achieve[/b] (well... OK, it's [i]one[/i] of the tones...), and I don't want to do Alan's work a disservice. Again, this is just a test.
4. For some idiot reason, I play all the minor sevenths on the Recurve slightly flat. Still need time to adjust to the unlined board.
5. The action on the Recurve is a touch low for me on the heavier E and B strings, so they rattle, buzz and choke like an S&M bee with a loose screw under my cack hands, I'm afraid. If it wasn't already two hours past my bedtime when I did these recordings, I'd have done a retake with a softer touch. It may have some bearing on the tone that the Skelf's action is a [i]little[/i] higher than the Recurve's, but the neck relief's almost identical: within a gnat's bollock of dead-straight.
6. You'll notice the masses of finger-noise and the sort of "scrape" as my fingers pluck the string. Again, in a sensible situation, I wouldn't have the filter this far open, and that noise wouldn't really be noticeable. You might even detect the odd creak of the strap-end leather against the body of the Skelf (although I think I stayed pretty still doing these).
7. I tried to pluck in roughly the same place along the string's length.

Right-o...

[url="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/429522/ACG%20build/acgpiezos.mp3"]Click to listen[/url]

My thoughts: The Skelf is immediately "woodier", with a low-mid emphasis (maybe even slightly "boxy"?), while the Recurve has more sort of "bark" in the higher mids. The obvious difference in the high end may be attributable to the newer strings on the Recurve, and a certain amount to the setup, but I think a large part of it comes from the fingerboard. It may be the acrylicic impregnation; it may not be... whatever it is, the Recurve's board feels noticeably smoother than the Skelf's, and absolutely, impenetrably hard. In terms of feel, it's almost like a synthetic or poly-coated board, compared to the natural ebony of the Skelf.

In summary...
Recurve: bright, growly, lively
Skelf: woody, organic, sweet
To put it in crude terms, it's like the difference between a Jazz and a Precision, just from the piezos.

My conclusion: I can justifiably keep both basses. And I can justifiably sell my SR5, because the Recurve's magnetic pickup cops the StingRay tone pretty well (and does so with more finesse, IMV).

Coming soon: soundclips in a sensible, musical context, with sensible, musical tones from the preamp.

Edited October 1, 2010 by BottomEndian

[eude]

Very nice dude, great comparison.
I personally quite like the buzz and clatter on the lower strings on the Recurve, sounds that little bit more like a Double Bass, to my ears anyway.
You can definitely hear the "woodiness" of the Skelf cutting through, there must be some magic in that chambering after all.
I promised to do a comparison of the Series/Parallel/Single Coil modes of the pickup on my ACG and I've failed to do so thus far, must pull the finger out sharpish!

Any more pics of this lovely bass on the way?

Eude

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='eude' post='973836' date='Oct 1 2010, 12:42 PM']Any more pics of this lovely bass on the way? [/quote]
If I ever get some decent natural light. So, er... probably April-ish?

Nah, I'll see if I can dig the bounceable flash out tonight and lay it down on the bed for some proper porn shots.

[eude]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='973853' date='Oct 1 2010, 12:54 PM']If I ever get some decent natural light. So, er... probably April-ish? [/quote]

I know what you mean, I thought when I moved down to London I'd be in shorts all year round, it's baltic and raining like a b**tard today!

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='973853' date='Oct 1 2010, 12:54 PM']Nah, I'll see if I can dig the bounceable flash out tonight and lay it down on the bed for some proper porn shots.[/quote]

Looking forward to them dude, almost too much...

Eude

[Spoombung]

Nicely done. Thanks for posting

[BottomEndian]

[url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=104998"]Behold the porn[/url].

[eude]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='974655' date='Oct 1 2010, 10:14 PM'][url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=104998"]Behold the porn[/url]. [/quote]

Oooh oooh oooh...

Eude

[BottomEndian]

Suddenly had a thought yesterday: Audacity has a frequency-spectrum analysis tool built-in. So I went into geek mode. More so than normal. Behold the results!

Both of these are the open A-string notes from the recordings posted above, analysed over the whole length of the notes. This might be a bit skewed, because I let the Skelf ring out for longer, but the rough idea should be there. The fact they're open strings means that the fingerboard material is essentially removed from the equation.

First, the Recurve:



Next, the Skelf:



Doesn't look enormously different, does it? But it's easier to see the differences when we overlay the two (ignoring the fact that the Skelf curve is around 6 dB quieter at the fundamental):



The Recurve remains in purple, while I've recoloured the Skelf as a sort of beige. (If you have trouble separating the two then, basically, the curve that stays louder in the higher frequencies is the Recurve.) As you can see, they stay pretty similar in the lows and low mids, but then the Recurve suddenly has this whacking great peak in the higher mids (around 1.4 kHz), which the Skelf just doesn't have. The Recurve then just stays higher all the way up (and follows roughly the same shape) to where the sound just disappears. Note also that the Recurve appears to have almost a full octave of highs that the Skelf doesn't (and remember that this is just the low-pass filter -- there's plenty of highs left in the high-pass if you wanted to dial it in), even from the same filter at the same position.

So that kind of matches up with the difference you can hear. The Recurve has that high-mid peak which works really well with the fretless growl/mwaah.

[eude]

Very nice dude, great to see a comparison of the tone in a visual form.

Eude

[pantherairsoft]

Very smart. I never thought to use Audacity for that!!!

I shall be comparing GB to RIM when they arrive now! :-)

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='pantherairsoft' post='987151' date='Oct 13 2010, 05:04 PM']Very smart. I never thought to use Audacity for that!!!

I shall be comparing GB to RIM when they arrive now! :-)[/quote]
Not going to be long for either, is it? I've been following their progress.

[pantherairsoft]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='987161' date='Oct 13 2010, 05:18 PM']Not going to be long for either, is it? I've been following their progress.[/quote]

No long at all.Robbie due to start oiling the finish today, and Bernie, whilst running behind lie always has waiting for the spray shop to finalise the finish n the GB, so then its just electrics.

In theory, a matter of weeks for both. But I'd add a little longer on the GB ;-)