Leaderboard

Halfway through my little stint depping with the Stones covers band. Three down, three to go! All went well. Loads of people in and all seemed to be thoroughly enjoying it..including a few die hard Stones fans, wearing all the appropriate gear.🙂 Many thanks to our own KevB for coming along! Really nice to catch up. A good friend (also a muso) was kind enough to give me a lift in his van and help me load in and out which was much appreciated. On the way home, we stopped for a curry which I paid for out of my earnings for the night. My friend declared this made me a proper musician at last. Another milestone reached! 😎

I am finally there and 100% happy. Barefaced 6x10 is mighty sounding and super light. Aguilar DB751 same but not light. Fender P ‘69 or ‘64 depending on rotation. Incredible sound and people always comment how good it is, so must be doing something right.

I like this one but fear our lead guitarist may take it too seriously

It means that, given a starting point (a note..?) the possible 'harmonically correct' notes are calculated, such as root to fifth, or root to third etc. These 'note choices are then sorted in order of preference; as suggested next note to play. This 'next note' is then, in turn, used to suggest a third note, and so on. The 'harmonically correct' part stems from music theory; the preference ranking, too, is based on well-accepted principles. All of this is based on music theory anyway, and so one's own studies would tend to confirm the suggestions made. It would, potentially, save time over working out theoretical note choices from scratch for those wishing to compose using these 'standard' guide lines. Most experienced composers would have this type of reasoning ingrained from their own experience and studies, but it could help either those starting out, or those wishing to 'break the mould of habit' and see what alternatives could be used. Not for everyone, maybe, but an interesting exercise in combining music theory and programming skills. That, in itself, is no mean feat. Some folks climb mountains for fun, others like scuba diving. To each their own pleasures in life. Subject to completion, correction and/or contradiction from others; hope this helps.

LOL Looked at this a few times and I think it has been pretty much nailed! 'Personally' I feel the pre 91 basses were generally made from/of better quality woods and materials (other than the chocolate output jacks... buy a Switchcraft and be done with it). Why W can't role the fingerboard edges on new basses is beyond me mind, that would make such a difference. Electrics are pretty much standard now, though I did prefer it when you could have EMG, MEC, Bart, SD even Alembic. Neck profiles are so personal that it's a case of meat/poison; I have to admit to having some pretty skinny neck Wicks but also possess a very full (maple) necked 07 NT Corvette and I love the feel. I agree the whole catalogue is pretty messed up and dilution of the brand has occurred. Replaceable truss rods were a good thing BUT you shouldn't need to do it anyway and tbh the stories grow bigger in the telling, I've had basses with issues (2 out of 40+... is that good/bad ratio) but all are fixable (unlike some manufacturers). Oh and one shouldn't place 'too' much faith in the official emails/info supplied by Warwick... it may not contain 100% accurate info. Finally, never buy a new Warwick; you may as well drive down your street throwing tenners out the window.

Loving this thread. I did not realise that people still liked Warwicks apart from handful of us. Nothing sounds like a Warwick and this thread has made me want to gig my Thumb next weekend.

A friend of mine does the same to his Marshall cabs. The ply they used in the 70s and 80s was nicely grained, finished in a satin finish they look more like a piece of furniture than musical equipment. Peterson have the right idea.

Not much of a start but this is the wood I have in for these builds, messy workshop, I will have a good clean up before I start work again. I'm going to call CapitalCrispin on Monday and see what they can do in the way of constructional veneers for use as contrasting laminates in the neck. Gibson use Walnut or black Walnut as it's known over here but I'm tempted to go for something like Beech or Maple/Sycamore. Again Gibson use four Walnut laminates, I think I'm going to add another one dead centre to make it a total of 11 laminates for the centre section So without further ado.... the wood!! Doesn't look like three new basses does it?

Now then, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking - 'Yes - 25 feet is a tighter curve than you imagine. And surely he's going to run out of wood to get that X-brace to fit?' Which is why I'm splicing extensions to the four ends of the X-brace struts... Another one for the Andyjr1515 bloopers DVD, @LukeFRC ?

My kids bought me this T shirt years ago - I've even worn it at gigs

You cannot beat getting hands-on with the instrument. Some good points in this thread, but all to be taken with a pinch of salt unless they're referring to the bass you're looking at. I've owned a few Warwicks made between '94-'04 (SSI, SSII, Thumb BO, Streamer BO, Streamer Std), 1 was a dog, 1 was a gem that I shouldn't have sold (the one that got away!) and I was reasonably happy with the others. All played differently though... you need to get hands-on with it to really have any idea what it's like.

Very good questions! I'll try. This will be a bit long :-) Yes, the cost of pedal steels is high, and sadly cheap "beginner" models can be as much of a hindrance as a help. Back in the day, newbies used to start on basic models with "pull-release" changers (as opposed to all-pull, eg. pro-level Sho-Bud and a hundred other brands, or push-pull, eg. Emmons) steels to keep costs down. Vintage examples (such as the pull-release Sho-Bud Mavericks) used to be gettable for about £500 but they're a bit of a pain, to be honest. Stay away from the Carter Starter, the mechanism is made of cheese and the knee lever stop design is a joke… they're bad enough to put you off playing for good. TL;DR; buy a pro-level pedal steel or be prepared to want to throw the thing out of the window. Yes, 8-string laps exist (as do 10-strings, though they're uncommon). A six-string is probably the best way to start. You can easily and cheaply experiment with tunings… open E or A for rock, blues and some Americana, then maybe a C6 tuning for traditional '50s country/roots, then, oh, about a hundred others. Eight strings really expand your options and make other tunings such as 11ths worthwhile. With any tuning, though, pros are balanced by cons… you just need to pick one (or two, hence double-neck lap or "console" steels). The E9 sound on lap steel conundrum… players have been battling this for decades. On lap steels with no levers at all, it IS possible to partly replicate the E9 PSG sound, and this is done by a combination of selecting certain voicings to trick the ear and by slanting the bar (bloody difficult). But really, lap steel is potentially so much greater (and better) than just a pale E9 imitator. It's a brilliant instrument - and it also encourages the player to understand and use the whole fretboard, as opposed to pedal steel, which tempts you with so many (often corny) licks via pedals and levers without moving the bar. But I digress… B-bender type rigs can be found. The off the shelf solution is the Duesenberg Pomona lap steel, which costs nearly as much as a very used pedal steel. Luckily, the bridge, the Duesenberg Multibender, is available separately for about £200, and can be fitted to a regular six-string lap steel (as long as it has enough body behind the bridge… the Gretsch lap is a popular victim for this mod). Main problem: having levers sticking out over the bridge slightly hampers your picking, and also your blocking (the art of silencing unwanted strings). The Multibender comes with two levers that can be applied to any two strings. It's raise-only, no drops. Three levers can be rigged up, but that makes it much trickier to operate; two is enough to replicate the basic "classic pedal steel move", which is to raise the 5th to a 6th (this also gives a relative minor chord) and to raise the 3rd to a 4th. Used together, these change the open (no-bar) I chord to a IV and, like a pedal steel, give you a I chord at the 7th fret. Bingo. There are a few Multibender demos on YouTube, but bear in mind that you may very likely be better starting on a plain six-string lap steel and thinking about a bender later. There's so much to learn and have fun with in terms of bar control alone. Am I making sense?! Happy to try again if not.

Here she be. And a jolly nice ramp it is too, well finished to my exact spec, inc fingerboard matched curve. Indian rosewood. Cheers to Toby, whom I have no interest in promoting other than that he's a good craftsman who may be of use to other members. Affixed with double sided tape, should you ask.

I disagree. Wenge definitely looks better most of the times, and has a snappier more maple-ish sound, Ovangkol is mellower and not as beautiful, but sounds great. And it feels good to my fingers too. I have to say I prefer having Ovangkol in my 2007 Streamer Stage II. It sounds and looks amazing and it doesn’t need any more snappiness or clarity to its sound. Neck is massive, but you get used to it, I find it more comfortable for my hand, in fact. It feels a more natural ergonomic position for the hand. I have a 2003 Corvette Fna jazzman too, and the neck on the SSII is even chunkier, specially when in the upper frets. Not a problem, just a different design, you may like it and get used to it or not I have a 1987 cherry Streamer with slim wenge neck and is gorgeous looking and sounding, and you can feel it’s been hand made and unique. Love the sound and feel of that bass, though the routing of the pickups is not great, much tighter in a 1983 matsumoku I have. But you can definitely feel the difference between 80s Warwicks an 2000s. And yet, the Jazzman and SSII are amazing basses with its own voice. I like that. I’d like to play one of the new ones, but strangely lately I find I only want used, well played basses, with years of gigs if possible. My latest purchase was a 1982 Ibanez Roadster that sounds completely different to a Warwick and has many scars on it. I wouldn’t change it for any new Wick, no matter how shiny and great sounding. I guess I’m getting old. ovangkol on a 2005 SSII I traded some years ago:

I have a Thumb 5 BO, 2004 or 2005 (I can't remember which, 90% sure it's 2004), ovangkol neck and body, ebony fingerboard. Supposedly the worst of the worst for Warwicks, but it sounds amazing and plays beautifully - the action is lowest out of all of my basses, if it was fretless you'd be able set it up almost impossibly low. It is brighter and growlier than the all bubinga Thumbs, so it's probably not to everyone's taste. Just about the only upgrade I would make would be a brass nut but given that it only affects the tone on open notes I just don't think it's worth the hassle, not when it sounds and plays like it does now. Maybe I should be worried that the nut will snap, the neck will warp or the truss rod will break. Maybe I'll just keep playing it and enjoying it. If you've never played a Warwick, don't be put off by the "baseball bat neck" stuff. Sure, they're not Jazz thin, but they're more ergonomically designed than a tradition P bass neck, they have been made with the form of the human hand as a consideration. I was playing a Fender P this morning and couldn't get over how blocky the neck was. That said, I'm of the opinion that if you're of the right mindset, you can adapt to any neck type - I've got a Peavey Palaedium that makes a Jazz feel fat and I've got a Raro 6 string that is huge and I don't struggle on any them. If you can cope with a 4 string P bass you can play any Warwick without issue, as long as you have good left hand technique. If you tend to let your thumb slip over onto the fretboard you might have issues, but I think that would be the case if you were playing a 5 or 6 string from any manufacturer, not just Warwick.

It could be interesting on here for a while if you lot decide to go for a Rickenfaker

You're riding on the late bus / Trying to find your way back home / Darkness falling round you / Can't see ahead to where you're going You may be riding with whores and gamblers / You may be riding with the lonely and insane / Some of you may be laughing, some are crying / You're all trying to get home just the same

I actually wrote a song called "The Late Bus" as soon as we chose the name - a gospel-style take-off of "This train" - "The late bus ain't no train to glory / Them iPods ain't playing no gospel song / And when the wheels come off the late bus / Tell me how are you going to get home?" Turned out to be prophetic 😞

If you've got a Tool shaped hole in your life, Soen are probably the closest thing to it, they have former Opeth drummer Martin Lopez and the first album has Steve DiGiorgio on bass

Onto the installation of the rosette and purfling circle. This is a bit scary because it's got to be spot on. And it involves routing a couple of mm out of a top that is only 2.7ish mm to start with! First was to use the asymmetric holes in the centre of the cut out rosette as the template for a couple of similar holes in the top: Then remember not to cut out the centre until I've routed all of the other bits! First I routed the edges of the rosette - the inner using one of the pivot holes and the outer rout using the other one : So - what's going on on the right hand side? Well - it's a good illustration of a little tip for acoustic guitar rosettes: leave the join lines / gaps and test the rout position always at the neck end of the circle. Why? Because that will be covered by the fretboard And so if you pink torpedo up your measurement, measuring from the wrong side of the router bit: ...then you can correct it for the full circle and the pink torpedo up won't show because the fretboard will be over it Anyway - trying to remember which pivot hole to use far which area, I indexed the router a couple of mm each time each way to clear out the wood in the centre so I could fit the rosette Then a 1mm slot on the outside for some purfling: Then installed the purfling - it bends easily round this kind of radius dry and cold - and then some very careful scraping to bring the whole rosette down to top level and finally a deeper rout to cut out the sound hole. And here we have it: It's lucky that the c**k up slot is going to be covered, otherwise I'd have had to have added another piece of laminate as a 'feature' But luckily, on an acoustic, the fingerboard (or in my case it will be a stick on end magnetic pickup from a Shadow dual system) goes right up to the sound hole: I've said it before. Many regular builders will agree that we still make as many c**k ups as when we were beginners - it's just that we get more skilled at sorting out the consequences and hiding them!

Freshly roasted coffee. I was unknowingly drinking crap coffee for years until I found a great quality, freshly roasted coffee.

Superglue. Most definitely superglue. Looks quite spectacular from the photo! Good luck 👍

Thanks for that recommendation, excellent. I skipped around a couple of their videos and landed upon this. I shall be playing it every morning before breakfast for the next while.

I’ll bare that in mind if you ever visit this part of the world! @warwickhunt ? Legend has it he sold all the Warwick’s after he realised he had owned every bass they had made between 1982 and 1991. Possibly he’s now focusing on playing prog rock on overwater 6 string fretted and fret less double necks ...

The well known scam is buyer pays by PP. They arrange collection in person with seller. Buyer collects item and when they get home, they do PP charge back, saying seller was not home when they turned up Seller cannot prove buyer took the goods. Paypal refunds buyer

Without wanting to appear sarcastic it means use your ears and watch the volume and bass controls.In reality if you manage to blow a 400 watt cab there is some serious volume going on, but it can happen. Markbass do an 8ohm version, in your position I`d look at that one, less potential for accidents, even though your amp puts out 500 watts at 8ohms.

You're going to cost me money....again!!!

A decently long while ago (when this was mere music theory speculation) I mentioned this here: Well, lots of time has passed and I've obsessively pursued this rabbit hole niche within a niche through multiple fields of technical and theoretical practice and what's come out the other side is something quite special (very possibly only to me) .. .. I've just finished Version 1.0.0.0 of the project as an interactive algorithm that you can explore and utilise as a performance/study/composition aid for working with the overtones of the electric bass! It's actually a lot more versatile that that (and even in that use case, can work with any stringed instrument in any tuning) but the core functionality was designed with that usage in mind. On top of that, it incorporates a recommendation system with a 'learned' deterministic intuition for favourable 'next' harmonic choices that ingests data derived from J.S.Bach's Chorale harmonisations and then applies the trained model to data generated by the 'Harmonic Algorithm'. You can check it out in it's current form, including detailed usage examples (with video clips) and installation instructions for anyone inclined to try it out: https://github.com/OscarSouth/theHarmonicAlgorithm "The Harmonic Algorithm, written in Haskell and R, generates musical domain specific data inside user defined constraints then filters it down and deterministically ranks it using a tailored Markov Chain model trained on ingested musical data. This presents a unique tool in the hands of the composer or performer which can be used as a writing aid, analysis device, for instrumental study or even in live performance." If anyone has any comments or feedback -- please let me know! I'm going to add the ability to view where the overtones of each recommendation are located on an instrument in the currently defined tuning in the next update. Thanks! Oscar

The seller has sold some other items and as a BC'er I had few qualms as it all appeared to be an easy transaction. The guy just doesn't want to be out of pocket and I get that and had it been a smaller sum I may have split the losses but I'm needing the full refund to finish my bass build.

Regarding the original post 2006 SSI, I guess any faulty tuner have already broken and have been replaced, I wouldn’t worry about that, it happened to my 03 Corvette, replaced 4 tuners that broke over 3 years, now it’s been ok for 10 years, so no problem with that, they should’ve stick with Schaller though. I have two spare tuners just in case. The barrel socket ends up failing sooner or later, cheap replacement, like strings have to be replaced now and then. If the neck and truss-rod is ok, it sure is a great model. Of course the late 80s Streamer were supposed to have better woods in them, but you can’t hand pick wood for thousands of basses when your company grows that big. You can when it is a small factory. It happens to many builders. Apparently maruszczyk is having the same problems lately, as many have in the past. That’s why my 1987 Streamer looks and feels different to my 2007 SSII. If you find a good one... they are really really good. @Al Krow

I had a 2003 Corvette and a 2005 Corvette $$ and both were superb... but the necks had an unusually clubby profile (and I like chunky necks) which is the only reason I sold the $$. I'd enquire about the neck profile on the 2006 one you've seen, as chances are they were still using the clubby necks and you might not like them.

Also - can I request the poll be amended to include a "maybe" or "it depends" option? I'm probably not alone in being into the idea in principle but it really does depend on what - if anything - we can agreee on.

Thanks Luke - but I think you meant "more" in your post? If so please feel free to correct to avoid us mere mortals getting confused. But a great illustration of when "less is more" right? 🤣

I don't think they have ever been through a rough patch, but the post 2000 period was probably a low point for them, because... 1) The JAN II just wasn't good enough. I don't think I have ever seen a used JAN II model that didn't have the tabs on the side of the nut snapped off. That's easily sorted these days but at the time, it was clearly inferior. 2) The move to ovangkol necks away from wenge. The wenge necks looked better, sounded better and felt better. The ovankgol necks not only sounded worse, but they were cut much fatter too. I had a 1998 Thumb BO 4 string with a wenge neck and a 2005 or 2006 BO 5 Broad Neck. The sound and feel was remarkably different. I once played a violin-honey colour Corvette FNA Jazzman at Howard's and it had a disproportionately massive, clubby neck and miserable tone. I can get on with most any neck so it takes a real stinker to stand out. I never found any reasonable explanation as to why Warwick shifted from a slim C shaped neck to a fat D profile. Perhaps the ovangkol couldn't be cut as thin as wenge. Whilst Warwick have clearly upped their game, they're still in a bit of a range-mess. Aside from the master built stuff, I'm not sure what's German and whats Korean. Their prices have ballooned but they still tank in value massively on the used market.

I guess rarity is going to be the issue. There’s a few others I’d like to try listed above but in my budget it’s used, and it seems that the better they are the more people hold on to them and don’t sell them

The one place in any venue where bass sounds worse than anywhere else is right next to the cab where the bass player stands....

they'd better be just bought a lefty off ebay, 15%off today, paid £200

Recommendations Here’s what I’d suggest as first steps: Make sure that all future acoustic measurements are taken at a higher dB level. The current batch are around 56-57dB which is way too low… bearing in mind that the typical noise floor of a quiet room is around 30-35dB. So we’re probably losing some of the detail in these measurements. Shoot for around 70-80dB from now on. Wear earplugs if necessary (or better still, vacate the room!). Before we start planning any acoustic treatment, we need to find the optimum listening position for this room. That is: the best possible location for the speakers, desk and chair. Acoustics favour symmetry and so the current set up (with the listening position in a corner) is not ideal. My suggestion would be to swap the position of the desk with that of the sofa: i.e. move the speakers/desk to the rear wall (where sofa currently is) and move the sofa into corner where your listening position currently is. The line to take with your partner is that the sofa will be nearer the window which is better for fresh air and feng shui Position the desk at the centre point of the rear wall, push your speakers as close as possible to the wall (within a few millimetres) and take another set of REW measurements. Also take a set of measurements with the door open - my guess is that may help tackle the modal ringing around 30Hz (free bass trapping!). Keep repositioning the speakers and re-measuring in REW until you find what seems to be the ‘sweet spot’. Given that your reverberation and decay times are already very workable, what you need to focus on here is finding symmetry between the frequency response of your left and right speakers. Keep moving and measuring until the two graphs appear the same (broadly speaking). Finding the right listening position is half the battle with acoustics… if not most of the battle. Once you’ve got your listening position sorted, post the new REW results here (and email me with a copy of the .mdat file). We can then look into what acoustic treatment is going to be most appropriate and practical, mindful that it’s a shared space.

Ok, time for some analysis of Pete’s results, posted earlier. Firstly, here’s a rough plan of Pete’s room, which I’m guessing is around 3m square: This is a classic ‘small room’ set up that’s very typical of most home studios; so it makes a great case study for anyone else starting out with acoustics. As such, I’ve tried to include some general advice along with the detail, because much of what’s being discussed is applicable to any small space… so thanks to Pete for providing the data and being our guinea pig. It’s a long read, but it’s a big subject and as the kids would say: “go hard or go home” Right, that’s enough preamble. Let’s get to work…

@Les Elvin Compression is a really useful tool, and despite what has been said earlier in this thread, it definitely has its place in a live situation as well as for recording. The trouble is that it is a subtle effect, if you are thinking of it as an effect like a chorus or drive pedal, then it is not at all obvious when set up correctly. They are used to control the dynamic range of your bass signal. As such, they are not always apparent - but that doesn't mean that it is not doing its job or isn't working. The job of a compressor is to keep your signal in check, not to wow the audience with a sonic gimmick. If you trawl through some of the other bass chat threads on compression you'll see there is a lot of talk about about the subject including a number of widely repeated misconceptions e.g. compression killing your dynamics. They don't. Not when they are set up correctly. But if you have time, read through some of these other threads because there is some great information in there that may answer your original question. And here's the obligatory link to the most valuable resource on bass compression on the net - http://www.ovnilab.com/ I'd definitely recommend you read the FAQ section before going any further - http://www.ovnilab.com/faq.shtml Compression is a bit of a dark art and if you want to use one it's worth doing some homework to get an understanding of what they do, how the various controls interact with one another, and how to set one up to its optimum settings, so it is keeping the signal spikes in check whilst still giving you control over your dynamics. Once you have found the right settings, they are hugely rewarding in terms of what they can do for your bass sound. Some are transparent and will keep everything in check and stop the big spikes in your playing overloading your amp, some can colour your sound in a useful way, others will give your sound a real punch - where every note from the highest to the lowest will stand out in the band mix. Some will do all of these things. For the record, a decent compressor is an essential tool for me, it is the only bell or whistle in my rig. Bass into a compressor into my rig. That's it. And you don't need to spend a fortune either, the various Zoom pedals have some cracking compressor models, the Boss LMB-3 (which is actually a compressor and limiter) and the TC Electronics Spectracomp are all excellent compressors that don't break the bank.

I have a lot of Pre amp DIs. Tried the B7K, sold it. Have the AmpegSCR DI and like it. Have the Tech 21 PBDDI and like it. Have the MXR M80,it's ok. But the one I'm using to record our album is the MXR M81. That mid frequency selector knob is the magic. That is where all the good bass notes live

Just realised my mum and dad have an oak dining table which is too big after they moved house to a bungalow... Thickness is about that of an electric bass. Could get two body blanks out of it easily... need to think more seriously 🙄

I had no idea that a Burns could be so massive and heavy. I like the look. But I've never even seen one and I've seen many basses in my life. I know someone from the Netherlands who has mentioned how much he likes them several times, though.

Yeah, go on then. Let's see what everyone wants out of it.

It'll be 8 years tomorrow. Eight. And there's still a Simon-shaped hole here that will never be filled. Luv ya mate.