Leaderboard

So Iris is still doing well, had an offer to join a jazz band this week but turned it down as they gig every weekend and I just don’t feel like committing to that level of gigging. She got her blue badge the other day and picked her a funky ladybird cover - got to keep it stylish. 1st full review on Thursday afternoon!

Yeah, my eldest (Ella) used to act odd if I was away gigging for prolonged periods. When I separated from her Mum I got access at weekends so quit music altogether. Once I was more sorted, I got back playing. (she escaped pretty much unscathed - and is excelling at school these days)

Well I sanded the test piece from yesterday and there is a hint of greyness to the binding, easily sorted, I'll spray sanding sealer before grain filling fingers crossed that will keep me good. Even if not it was only a hint, it shouldn't be a problem. Beyond that I've been sanding and scraping, on my hands and knees looking for a nut off my mega expensive Freeway switch which I dropped and it rolled all the way to the back wall under my bench finding it's way past all the junk under there... HOW? I also routed the radius on the rear of the body but that is still unsanded I also drilled out for the jack sockets and rebated one of the jack plate in, I'll do the other in the morning. I'm aiming for getting a couple of coats of sanding sealer over the tops tomorrow if I can so I can get the grain filling started before the weekend

Ok, so, after having a bit of a lightbulb moment whilst typing in another thread, I realised yesterday I have the band's PA under my stairs, and an empty house for a few hours, soooo.... I pulled one of the RCF Art 732s out, plugged my B3 into it, stuck it on the floor in 'wedge position', annnnndddd...crikey blimey... 😯 First off, it sounded godawful: no punch, no heft*, it just didn't sound much like a bass amp at all. My first thought was 'Gawd, is this what I sound like FOH?', and it wasn't a reassuring thought. I stomped through my B3 preset sounds - I have nine which cover all the different genres/songs we have in the function band; I've mentioned (at length) previously the range of stuff we do, so I won't bore anyone, but as a three piece my tones do need to be ballpark at the least, so...nine it is. None of them really went anywhere, so I did a bit of digging into the presets: I'd created these tones using in-ears, which is a completely different scenario to FOH. While I was (I'll be honest, a bit listlessly) trying to rescue the tones, I noticed I hadn't used any cab sims on any presets. I switched them in, and boom, suddenly the RCF began to sound like a bass rig. Next salute was to roll off the low bass, and after an hour or so of twiddling (see 'nine presets', above), I've got a very very good 'bass rig' sound from the RCF, and hopefully as a bonus, I've tightened up and improved my FOH sound, too. I know this is all in splendid isolation in my kitchen without the rest of the band and at, erm, kitchen volumes, but I've a gig Satdy, so I'll report back on the in-ears/FOH results then. It's just a shame I can't try an RCF735/745 in a backline scenario at the moment, that'd be the clincher for me (the wedge thing is a bonus, too). My other Rawk band (no in-ears, just attenuators and backline**) is on a bit of a hiatus at the moment, and it'd be interesting to see if the 12" 732 would cope with two Marshall half-stacks and that gorilla from the Cadburys/In The Air Tonight advert on drums... So, the TLDR bit: yep, you can make a single RCF sound like a 'real' bass rig...and I'm very interested to investigate further. Depending how Satdy's gig goes, I might even persuade the band to do a Technical Rehearsal (normally a once-in-blue-moon event) at a big rehearsal room with the full PA and tweak from there. We'll see. I shall report back... * Noooo, don't click away, it's not one of THOSE posts... 😉 ** Someone's got to try and keep rock'n roll alive if everyone else around here is busy killing it... 😁

Out of those I'd go for the Shafty - these are excellent basses & the only obvious deviation from the original appearance is the tuners, which are generic closed-back Gotohs, used on millions of 70s MIJ basses. Re Ibanez - these were Fujigen builds (very good quality) but typically not very accurate. Fujigen Fakers pre-date the availability of accurate pickups, so for some reason Gibson-style units were used, including a massive single-coil in a mudbucker case on the through-necks. The design did change around 1976 to use accurate Maxon-made Rick type pickups & hardware but most don't have these. You'll also pay a premium for the Ibanez brand, same thing with Greco (most of which were also Fujigen) but less obtainable due to being a Japan home market brand & never officially sold in the UK. Shaftesburys typically sell for a good bit less than many other neck-throughs and are much more common - the same bass also turns up branded as CMI, Cimar, Arbiter & several other names, and are very solidly built. The Matsumoku through-necks are beautiful, incredibly accurate and unfortunately the ones most prone to neck-lift issues, because of the unusually thin body, pickup route position & dual truss rod routing. I own one which has this problem & wouldn't recommend a purchase unless you can get a good hands-on look at it first. Unfortunately I didn't have that opportunity - mine came from California via the RickResource forum, after its owner discovered it had been masquerading (quite convincingly) as a 1974 4001 for several decades... There are stunning MIJ Fakers from various other brands/factories - Kasuga, Yamaki, Fernandes etc but all ridiculously rare and pretty unlikely to come up for sale under current circumstances.

Haven't given much attention to Hofner in the past but I think this is great, they've released a bass which is 100% recyclable and has no plastic parts. Looks pretty nice to me, and it sounds good too.

For me it’s: That tone, which cuts through the mix like a buzzsaw Great build quality Optimum string spacing and playability (personal preference of course) I love Fender too. But with the StingRay, Leo and company got it spot on.

I`ve just got one, am not sure on it yet, but as am off to a festival now will have to have a good play when I get back. I`m pretty much there with the sound I want from it, and certainly for overseas gigs it will make travelling with gear easier so I`m reckoning it may just work. But the real try out is rehearsal next Tue, that`s what will make my mind up.

I think that the selling point is that a Stingray has a pretty unique tone, which works well in most genres. Coupled with this is that Musicman have always had a consistent build quality, something you can't really say about Fender over the years.

Been tempted by a double 'bucker P myself, although more along the lines demonstrated by this fine looking Lull:

Thought I'd have a go at this tune. Really cool groove on this track

"A massive thanks to everyone who voted for my tune!... I couldn't have done it if it wasn't for my mum, the cat, my agent, my PA, the office cleaner, my neighbour's gerbil etc etc …" It was extremely close this time! It's great to listen to all the different interpretations... I love a bit of diversity me. 🤩

If I can add a comment or two to this thread... Sound/Tone. So many players who own these copies are under this misapprehension that what's coming out of the speakers is a close proximity to how the original sounds. It isn't. I'm not being elitist here or anything, but just because you have something that looks similar, does not mean that it will sound like the original. Look, I know tone is subjective, one man's poison etc. but so many bass players (and I've played with a lot of other bands) seem to be under this allusion that just because they have an Epiphone Thunderbird or a Chickenbacker (shudder) that it's identical to the real thing, then you pull out your Gibson or Rickenbacker then plug in and they're literally jizzing themselves over what's coming out of my rig. They are effectively more in love with the shape than how it sounds. Sure, I'll let guys have a noodle on my stuff, but I've actually had bassists come up to and ask if they can use my basses for their slot (politely as possible, 'No, GFY.'). Irrespective of what love they may have for their copies, when they come up against the real thing, it's a lightbulb moment. You can see it in their face. It's hilarious.

Both? I think belt and braces might be appropriate if only to make it possible to change an individual string without displacing the others. Clamps that cover two or more strings at a time would be the secondary grip with individual internal wrenching machine screws holding each string tail. Whether you choose clamps, set screws or both; I recommend Torx screw heads for accuracy and durability. Allen headed screws are often used but they haven't a great reputation where they get used over and over. It's the keys that usually cause problems. Unless you can guarantee that a well made and snug fitting key is used exclusively, you will eventually cam out with one causing damage to the screw head. If it's severe enough the damage will make it necessary to drill out the screw. Torx keys drive from the flank and they're usually made to tighter tolerances than Allen keys. You can get flank drive Allen keys but can you guarantee that they are the only keys that will be used? The illustration below shows the difference between point and flank drive for bolt heads. It is the same principle when applied to internal wrenching screw heads.

OK, this has been playing on my mind for the longest time, in the end I thought I needed to get one. I figured the 25 wasn't much use because of the size but I couldn't justify the 49 (not even thought of the 61). In the end I thought I would get a 25 as it was reasonably affordable second hand, if I didn't like it I could flog it again, if I did like it I could flog it and put it towards the 49. My 25 came yesterday and it is so different to the demo units I had tried. There is no drag and it is the most expressive keyboard experience I have ever had access too. The thing is wonderful, if I had had this when i was 14 I woudl never have given up the keyboard and taken up the guitar. So I will keep it for a while and if I am still regulalarly playing it in a few months, I will get a 49.

70s Rics & fakers: I've never seen 70s faker which is better made than a real Ric; that's based on my having owned 6 fakers and seen several more over the years. Primitive truss-rods: One of my Rics had a neck repair, because a previous owner adjusted it incorrectly, but that is their fault for doing it wrong; why should things be done the Fender way? There is an advantage in the old truss-rod system, namely that they can be easily replaced. I like the old truss-rod system. Exploding machines: I've got a 72 Ric with Grovers which seems OK (but I've got a spare set just in case!); Ric resolved the issue by replacing the machines they use and the current ones are fine. Tail-lift: Tail-lift, that's a fair criticism; the stock tailpiece is an achilles heel. But the part can be replaced like-for-like with a current one or 3rd party. many people will replace a bridge on a Strat without complaining that a 30 year-old part hasn't lasted a lifetime. It is possible to fit a fix (as I know you know!). Neck-lift: I don't know how many instruments neck-lift has affected over the years, but is often caused by not following the recommendations on string gauge/tension. Rickenbacker shifted the neck pickup to help mitigate against the risk. It is, however (and admittedly), an inevitable consequence of the whole premise of the instrument: placing a pickup there and having the body thin means that the wood at that point will be thin. But on the flipside, nobody complains that their acoustic guitar is fragile because the body's wood is thin and they have to treat it carefully, so why should a bass be any different? I've got a 70s Japanese faker with neck-lift. I suppose the basis of the issue is inherent in a thru-neck design; with a Fender, you just put in a shim or adjust the micro-tilt and job's a good 'un! Finish: I've got one 60s and two 70s Rics and the finish is fine; matured to a nice vintage feel and certainly no better or worse than any other vintage guitar. In contrast, my experience of faker finishes is that they are more brittle than real Rics and they are more prone to chipping. It's funny that owners of other brands try and emulate the "road-worn" look of their heroes' guitars and refinishing a vintage instrument is frowned upon. MIJ quality materials: I've had a couple of fakers whose binding has detached. Their tailpieces tend to be made of thinner metal than the stock Ric ones and so are equally (or more) prone to tail-lift. The materials may not be so well matched and may flex differently with age, for example forming a channel along the skunk stripe. Chickenbackers: Yep - the current ones are pale imitations, but there are folks who use the "better than a real one" line when talking about them and I don't know who they are trying to kid. Overall, Rics are undoubtably quirky instruments which are made by a company who sticks to its own path and has not become part of the homogenised Fender-a-like blandness of many others; I kindof like that. I also think that the vintage fakers are fun instruments, but the "better than a real one" really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Because Jazz basses always 'look' like they're going to be better than a humble old Precision, but they never are 😗😁

Just catching up on this thread so sorry for the late reply. In the 70s, Rickenbacker - like all of the "big brands" - didn't take the issue of (mostly) Japanese copies seriously. This is how Fender lost what slim claim to trade dress ownership they had - and what led to the establishment of Fender Japan - and it's why Gibson finally clutched the last straw of threatening late legal action against Ibanez' brand owners. Rickenbacker was - and still is - a much more niche brand, and a far more minor player, and I think never construed Fakers as a threat back in the day. What's interesting, and relevant, is that the modern Rickenbacker International Corporation (RIC) was set up in the mid 80s by John Hall, when he took over the business - if I remember, prior to that Rickenbacker was two separate companies, one handling manufacture & the other distribution (I think that was a common US business model in the early 20th century) which were wound up when Hall took over. So, RIC is a fairly young company & didn't actually exist at the time of the original 70s Fakers - you'll find this interesting: Registered RIC Trademarks So - RIC didn't legally own the registered trademark to any of their designs & trade dress before 1999. Anyone who wanted to take on JH over the sale of a verifiable 1970s Faker - and had the will & cash to go the distance - would very probably be able to hand him his well-padded ar$e. As would Hoshino Gakki, owner of the Ibanez brand, or Kanda Shokai, owner of the Greco brand, as both could demonstrate that they were selling instruments with these designs - and bearing their own brand names - back in 1972, long before RIC existed. The same would be true of John Birch guitars, who sold a Rick-based design continuously from the early 70s up until about 2000 or so. The reality is that despite the stature of the name, RIC is actually a small, family-owned business (owned outright by JH and his Mrs) and don't really have the financial heft to do much more than send C&D letters, and let their CEO prowl around the Internet personally barking at people who infringe his IP. Can't help wondering how the US' current economic situation, alongside the reputation for shoddy quality and abysmal customer service RIC is getting, will play out for them. Not a fan of the man, or "real" Ricks, tbh, but would be a shame to see them go. Any reason why you wouldn't want a 70s MIJ copy? Some of these are near-indistinguishable from the real thing and certainly better-made than 70s-era Rickenbackers. Apropos of nothing I suspect RIC is well aware that licensed Chinese/Korean Ricks would kill off their US business - the rabid RIC fanbase would consider it a massive un-American sellout/betrayal, and everyone else would choose the cheaper & inevitably better made Licensed Faker over a real one! Talk about rocks & hard places...

Pleased to say Iris came home after 6 weeks in hospital and 5 operations (the first of which at 2 days old was a gruelling 9 1/2 hours). She’s doing great and it’s lovely to have her home.

In the thread about the Scott’s Bass Lessons giveaway Trickfish’s power ratings came up. In a recent thread I was asking about a posh Di and one thing I did consider was getting a very good amp head and using its DI, Trickfish consequently crossed my radar. So I decided to PM them about the RMS and got this reply- ‘We really prefer not to get into those discussions because there are no set standards for how companies come to their RMS ratings and the number Itself doesn’t really mean much on its own. We use the ICE 700 power module in the BH.5 and the Pascal SPro2 in the Bullhead 1K and they both have detailed specs online. I wish I had a more satisfactory answer for you as I know the RMS value is a popular number to use to compare amplifiers. But unless the number is achieved using identical testing procedure the number really confuses more than helps.’ I thought I’d share seeing the debate going on a few days ago. Harry

Hello guys, This is Ryan Owens from Trickfish. Thanks for talking about the giveaway and the Trickfish Bullhead .5K! You are correct that we do not publish an RMS rating for the amplifier. We do this for the very reason of not wanting to publish confusing information. The fact is that there is no set protocol for establishing an RMS value and because of that you never know if comparing the RMS of two amplifiers is actually an apples to apples comparison. We have chosen to publish the most accurate specs we can to allow the user to be informed about the amplifier: 8 Ohms - (continuous power 235W @ .13% THD, 365W @ 1%THD), (peak power 506W @ .13% THD, 730W @ 1%THD) 4 Ohms - (continuous power 312W @ .13% THD, 702W @ 1%THD), (peak power 625W @ .13% THD, 1404W @ 1%THD) I will also add that the power section of the Bullhead .5K is the ICE 700ASE, the same power module in several other amplifiers in this price range. There is detailed info about this power module available online. I think there was also a question about the frequency selections on the Bullhead .5K. Let me describe the preamp a bit to help you get a better idea of how it works. The bass and treble settings on the amplifier are shelving EQ's. For the BASS setting you select you will be adjusting that frequency and everything below it..... for the TREBLE frequency you will be adjusting that frequency and everything above it. The LOW MID and HIGH MID are variable band pass EQ's. We have the width dialed in depending on which frequency you have selected. These frequency settings and widths are all very carefully dialed in for a bass instrument. To me, that is what makes the Mike Pope preamps so musical. The frequency selections are labeled on the amplifier so you will know exactly which frequencies you are dealing with. They are: Bass: 40Hz or 80Hz Low Mid: 333Hz or 473 Hz High Mid: 1kHz or 1.8kHz Treble: 4kHz or 8kHz I am happy to answer any other questions you guys may have and hopefully some more guys who have first hand experience with the amplifier will chime is to give their impressions. Thanks guys and good luck for those of you who entered the giveaway. Ryan Owens Ryan @ trickfishamps.com

In case anyone else has one in 4 or 5 string and is looking for a gig bag to fit such an odd shape - a BSA rifle back pack 43", intended for a scoped rifle, fits almost exactly. Offers fairly good protection, too.

In my view and experience, after owning a few MMs and Fenders, the HH MMs are possibly the most versatile basses out there. I’ve owed mid-80’s and early 2000’s single H 4 strings and now my current main squeeze which is a 20th anniversary SR5 HH. Purchased over a 20 year period and all have been beautifully built and finished. I’m afraid to say I can’t say the same of the various Fender Jazzes I’ve owned. Whilst prices have increased in recent years I think they’re still cracking basses at a reasonable price point. You are still getting quality, absolutely no doubt. For those questioning versatility with ‘that sound’ in a live band context and fitting in the mix, get hold of a HH. You won’t be disappointed...

and Ampeg.....not entirely sure if that helps or not 😁😁

Ignore me

Got three basses equipped with them (if you include the pins coming as standard on Ric 4003). Always worked fine.

I use them too. No problems, ever.

I use the Mutant Filter (the Mutron) in a parallel loop set up with a Crossover at 80Hz

I love my Stingray. It's the only bass that I prefer round wounds on. Every note sounds very rich and cuts through the mix perfectly. The build quality is top notch too.

Can’t get better than all round excellence! top work all!

there is an oft' quoted phrase on Basschat that you may become aware of: Pics or it never happened!

I don't suppose Paul can afford PP these days?

Sod the gigs mate, spend the time with the little cracker. i came back from a 3 week tour of Japan when my daughter was a year old, I picked her up and she screamed and cried, not nice.

Looks cool!

Alex has some interesting this to say about excursion for bass drivers, the units he uses now are designed for extreme excursion specifically to handle the sub 60Hz content. The reason a lot of studio guys (and live I believe) hard filter the LF is that LF below 50-60Hz is very difficult to hear accurately and causes all sorts of problems. Most studio monitors roll off quite dramatically below 50Hz, and as the saying goes, if you can't hear it you should fear it...

OK, obi 2 kenobi, what we really want to know is what exactly were you searching for to get this as a result ??? Traditional untainted German culture?............... Ahem..... Tight leather shorts????..........Cough............. Band vacancies in Bavaria ??????????????

You don't need to reproduce 30hz in order to get a great sound out of a 5 string bass. SVT810's cut off at 40hz and so do many other cabs. 5ers can get a good solid tone , at high volume, out of most cabs. You want low end without mush? All the top quality cabs should do that, if you EQ them right. BF cabs will always be capable of performing towards the top of that list.

Sure thing - "stupid o 'clock" is never the most accurate of descriptions I find.... Turns out its actually open 24 hours a day every day. Nice.

If it hadn't been for you pesky kids I'd'a got away with it etc! Anyway, well done Mr Bleat...

Hiscox. Used nothing else for years. Don't trust soft cases.

Well... I'm not convinced that the notional extra sustain available from an aftermarket bridge is even a desirable trait. Especially given the number of people who shove foam under their strings to reduce it. Sustain may well be sought after in the guitar world, but not bass. And I've never tried a bass and rejected it on the grounds it didn't have enough sustain. Also, I certainly wouldn't take a manufacturer's word on their own products - especially aftermarket bass components and the wild claims made for them. These people are in business to make money and they're not going to tell you their spiffy new bass bridge does bugger-all, are they?

I see what you mean about the neck it looks really blurry 😋

I'm glad you took the time to look through the video so you have a load of information on which to base a fully considered response. In regards to explanation, maybe you should watch the whole video... but the York notes is that the drivers and the subsequent crossover point that they allow for, are only found in setups that are vastly more expensive. The 4" VC on that horn alone takes it well beyond the specs of cabs that are in it's vicinity. If the 745 is too rich... then the performance of 735 will also outdo competitor cabs. Back to the vid - It's not really marketing material - Trinity take apart every single cab they get hold of so they can show people exactly what they are paying for. They are very fair and point out places where cost savings have been made for example. Going for the tech spec is fine - but the trouble is, not all tech specs are equal - and as an engineer, you should know that. Out of all the published technical specs, there's no independent validation. Think that you cab puts out 140dB. Put that down. Nobody will question it.... and if they do, so be it. The point is, the OP wanted - " Preferably light (naturally) with as faithful a response as you can get. In an ideal world, what I want is the signal which goes in sounds exactly like what comes out." - and that shout more of a FRFR cab than a passive bass cab that has a sound baked in. As you've stated, the DSP engineers out the inconsistencies in the response curve of, in this case, the RCF speaker... and that in itself is why the cab is flat response.... and in keeping with the OP's brief. I don't expect passive speakers to match a setup... but that's exactly why I offered it up as a suggestion... after all, the OP did request "Thoughts? Opinions? Missed anything?" And I'm not sure what the fascination with going deep is either... because for the vast majority of gigs, you will want to roll off a great deal of bass in that area anyway... unless you like listening to unprocessable mud. Your closing statement is probably more fair... and whilst I understand you are clearly a fan of Acme, when comparing size, the 745 actually appears comparable (and even smaller except for depth) than say, the Barefaced offering.

Send me a PM of where the court is and I'll do my damnedest to get there. I don't care where it is in the country, I enjoy a night out and hotels are cheap enough.😉