B.Flat

Hi Hazbeen. This is sounding interesting but my elderly brain is having difficulty visualiising. Do you mean cut the end off the barrel jack and thread it internally to match the thread on the 9 pole socket ? At this time I do not know the relative diameters ( internal and external) of the two sockets. Maybe you can enlighten me !

Yes, this is my only idea. I did not elaborate on the wood plug idea but that is what I thought, a metal plate recessed and a wood plug, of the correct maple and grain direction, glued to the plate and radiused to match the body contour. Only prob. is that it would be noticable. I am not OCD but before commiting to doing that I was interestested to see if anyone had a better idea, as I am afraid I am not as inventive as I used to be !

Yes, but you can't use a forstner bit inside the control well, there is no way to align it. But thatnks for responding anyway.

Hi all luthiers out there. I am looking for ideas of how to solve a problem. I am modding a Warwick bass to take the Noll TCM 3 P preamp, which requires the use of a nine-tag stereo jack socket. I can see that I can install it in place of the standard mono barrel type, if only I can remove enough wood from the inside if the control well. However, easier said than done as there is no room to use power tools. I know I could make a hole of the correct size from the outside and use a jack plate to mount the socket, or even put a wood plug of the correct thickness back in, but I would really like to preserve the aesthetic of the original design. I have thought I could make some right-angled gouges of various types to attack the job from inside the well, and I do have the persistence to do it bit by bit, but before I start I wondered if anyone can think further out of the box than I can. I am grateful for any ideas or advice. Brian

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.

I don't know if this is relevant to the thread but can anyone tell me if the neck profile of the 'Ray has changed with time ? I ask because my '77 ( purchased in 77) was stolen in 2004,, and now fifteen years, and several instruments, later I have bought a '91. which I like very much but I don't know if my memory is not accurate any more, or my old hands are not as nimble, but it does not exactly feel like the neck from heaven I remember ! To my mind it feels a little fatter from nut to about fret four. OK splitting hairs I know, but I would like to know if the old skunk stripe profile was as I think I remember it.

That is interesting. Another point is when I look at the underside of the pickup the poles are are pristine metal, and also the edges are radius-ed, not shear cut like the visible ends when mounted. I am sure non of this affects the performance but I would like to know why it happens. I have tried to clean the end of one pole with some fine wet and dry, which did remove some of the discoloration, but also reveals that the metal is not smooth but pitted.

OK, thanks for the reply. Now I did own a 1978 S'ray for 30years, until it was stolen (heartbreak) but the poles never discolored. Can anyone with some knowledge of metallurgy/physics explain why these later pickup poles do this ?

I have just bought a 1991 Stingray. The pole pieces appear "blackened", some more than others and most not so under the strings.(see photo) I cannot decide if this is natural ageing discoloration or if the poles were originally black. I seem to remember seeing photos of other Stingrays with blackened or non-silver poles. Can anyone shed any light on this for me please?

Thanks for info mcnach