Telebass

Axesrus used to bring them in...

Jim Deacon = SX

Try and find some SX basses and try a few. A bit clunky, but stunning value! Otherwise, I'd recommend the CV Squier...

What Delberthot said... Although, for some inexplicable reason, they are, these days, universally called thumbrests, even when installed below...you just try playing with your thumb down there. Finger rest! Additionally, the early single-screw rests were made from maple, raw, or painted black. The two-screw version was briefly on the SCPB before the split-coil debuted mid-57... [/geek]

Nonononono - meatballs EVERY time!

Yup, it's a pain. But then I've never thought there was anything wrong with the original bent bit o' metal, so, no problems!

Same p/u cover as the Marcus Miller 5, I bet. There's no bridge covers that would fit even the MM4, because it has a BAII fitted, and the standard Fender ashtray won't go over it... There's no covers of any sort ever been made available for a standard P5, because until this year, there was no such thing! Ah well...

Yellow Black Sunburst The black one is in the process of having original chrome covers fitted, then all three will be properly dressed!

Howdy!

Seen those - no bottom end...

Always some you got rid of that you shouldn't...

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='320158' date='Nov 2 2008, 02:21 PM']Telebass. Yes, i agree although with two of the band being really skint at the moment i felt it wasnt the time to talk about how i just spent £1000 so i didnt say anything. I was tempted to get a black/maple as well but ive always wanted a white bass as as Fender are kind enough to supply it with the tort PG i just couldnt resist.[/quote] One of the few things that puts me off the 5er is that I like the covers on my basses, and that's obviously not an option with the 5s... My black one is rosewood, very dark, much like one John Deacon used to play, but without the gold bits!

Howdy!

And welcome, minimolizard!

Quite correct!

nice one!

You lot know that I'm a reactionary-old-fart-Precision-loving-Fender sort of a guy. But the only bass I seriously considered buying, and more to the point, gigging, was a Washburn version of a Status S2. Balance was 1st rate, it fitted into any old guitar gig bag or case, it didn't need stupidly expensive double ball end strings, and it played REALLY well. Quite likely, if I'd had the money, I'd have got it, ripped out the actives (it didn't sound too nice to my ears), and would be playing it now. If I could have one with a single passive spilt-coil, I would. So, there is something good about headless, even for me!

I understand entirely about a well-used bass feeling good, sounding a bit 'lived-in', as it were - I've worked in a guitar shop and played them and worked on them. I just prefer new when possible, and then gig it until it feels the same as those old ones. My black MIM Precision has done hundreds of gigs, is 4 years old, and I look after it. It plays beautifully, the fingerboard has worn in nicely, and, to me, it sounds good also. Just so happens my no.1 (the51RI) was not new to me, although it was almost completely unused... What really gets my goat is the notion that the older stuff was 'made 'better'. Yes, the wood has aged, and this may or may not affect the sound. 70s 'thick-skin' Fender finishes don't age or change colour like nitro finishes (exception: some of them were even then clear-coated with nitro laquer). The consistency of build cannot have been other than more variable than it is now, even at its best. 70s and early 80s Fenders, now well into vintage territory, could be truly dreadful, and there were certainly more duds from that era than any other. But there were also good ones. As the Strad post mentioned, they sounded better not neccessarily because of wood or basic craft, but because a new method was also introduced with the explicit intent of improving the tone. Robert Benedetto and Bob Taylor have said, and proved, that close-grained tonewood, although more consistent, is not remotely needed to make a good instrument, even a craftsman-built acoustic guitar, and Mr Taylor has built several first-rate acoustics from pallet wood, just to prove the point that it's build that counts. And build today is more consistent than it ever was before. It's entirely subjective, is the point I'm trying to make. There's no science whatever that says this is better or worse than that, and no matter how hard you look, or who you listen to, it's not likely to change any time soon...

And down a semitone, too.

P with flats, lovely tone! And a pick...

[quote name='umph' post='320360' date='Nov 2 2008, 06:52 PM']imo it comes from the combination of a valve pre amd power amp, most amps with a "valve pre" still have alot of solid state stuff in the signal path. I think anything else i say about valves is going to be buyist because after my experiences with building and modding, Valves are so much simpler / easier to fix and sound so much better even when you accidentally overdrive them to much[/quote] Agreed, if you're going to have a valve amp, have an [i]all-valve[/i] amp. If you know electronics and are savvy with working on high-voltage circuits, AND you have the back of Hercules, go for it. It's like anything else, if you're prepared to put in the maintenance, they last forever. I would get something that's fan-cooled, or add a fan if not. It helps a great deal with the valve life, and might give you valuable seconds to switch off in the event of one tube blowing and taking others out with them. Me? Markbass. Back's far too gone for valves these days!

As I mentioned JO, I think I'll play along with some...Carpenters!

Tell us how good that was! I SAID...! They are LOUD!