B.Flat

Thanks for all responses, especially itu and passinwind. On balance I think I will abandon the onboard three band semi-parametric route and just continue to use the Yamaha PB1 true parametric as a room-tuner.

Your comments are correct Hellzero, especially about the "Q" control. Fortunately the Yamaha PB1 has all three, sweep, gain & Q, and is perfect for room ambience corrections. The slope on the Noll is not at the extremes either way However my main question is what, if any, does anyone think the audible difference is between applying PEQ at the initial signal (instrument) or at the preamp stage of the amp. Of course the other tone settings at either end of the chain will have a big influence, but I am assuming "flat" in both cases. Ultimately the only thing to do is to try it, but I thought a bit of exploratory enquiry might throw up things I have not thought about, or indeed others experience.

Hi leschirons, interesting view. I also have a parametric on my elderly Yamaha PB1, which I do find very useful to tune my rig to the room I am playing in. I also have a Vigier Passion ii with semi-parametric mids, again useful. The reason for my post is that I have a Noll three band full parametric preamp which I would like to install in something like a p/j configuration bass, but am wondering if it will offer any advantage over my existing rig

I am interested in opinions and technical facts regarding parametric equalisation, particularly with regard to where the eq is applied, i.e. on-board or at the amp preamp stage. Should a certain frequency cut, or boosted, by the same level of db, on-board or at the amp produce the same audible result, all other eq being equal. Any views on pros and cons re. on-board versus at the amp would also be of interest.

Thanks for replies, I will probably stick with my Vigier

Yep, another good idea !

Thanks for your reply TheGreek, could be very useful. The fibre mat is intact, it is just the clear resin that is chipped. Is there anyone out there who has actually successfully made a repair of this kind? If yes matbe you could share some help.

I have a bass with a carbon fibre neck, which is great, but there is a chip on the edge of the fingerboard. Not a problem but I would like to restore the cosmetics. How, and with what can I repair this chip ?

Is there anyone out there with experience of Schack carbon fibre necked basses ? I am trying to get a handle on the possible differences between them and Vigier basses with the same necks.

I forgot to say that both the Warwick and Vigier are standard production models, no bling or fancy timbers,, both in very good condition for their age, Warwick with Rockbass hard case, Vigier with non-vigier flight case in good condition

OK y'all ! Happy New Year. Thank you for the views and advice ! I am about to pull the trigger on the px deal, Warwick for Vigier Passion II. I have a final question, which is what do you think are the comparative values, in £s, on each bass. This is not all important but I am working on the idea that if the Vigier does not work out for me I could maybe px it again to retrieve a Wick $$, does this sound in the bounds of reason? As a retiree I do not have much disposable income and this possibility would take some of the chance out of the operation; I will be interested to see the response, if any , to this. I have scoured the net to make my own mind up on this but there seems to be a wide range of asking prices for both basses.

Thanks for all the replies and advice so far. Main prob. for me is that I can't play the Vigier before I buy and the Warwick has to go in p/x. Would Vigier owners say that the 'modern' side of the intrinsic sound can be eq'd down, or out, with a parametric preamp ? I have a Noll three band, fully para; preamp I could install.

I am looking for advice from anyone with experience of these basses. I have a 2008 Warwick Corvette $$ and have the opportunity to aquire a 1988 Vigier Passion 11, carbon fibre neck. Which way to go ? All advice and views on this welcome.