Killerfridge

You can find all the videos on Youtube as well: I'm actually really liking the "Amazon" bass. If only it came in 5 string

[quote name='deepbass5' post='1343792' date='Aug 17 2011, 10:47 PM']... but I think they would be out of business by now if customers thought they were a waste of time.[/quote] No-one ever said that the customers thought they were a waste of time. Homeopathy has been proven to do nothing, yet it is still a multi-million pound industry.

I'm looking to try them out at some point (hopefully in the next week or so), depending on when I can be bothered to drive to Warwick. And I will be going with some mighty high expectations - today I was out testing the following: [list] [*]Lakland 55-60 [*]Fender Jazz V [*]G&L 2500 Tribute [*]Sandberg TM [*]Sandberg VM [*]Sadowsky UV70 Metro 5 [/list] Out of all of them, the Sadowsky really blew everything away. The Lakland wasn't that well setup, so the B string was super loud, and there was a lot of fret buzz, but it just didn't have the same presence as the Sad. The Sandbergs were big disappointments - the VM sounded fat, but I couldn't get any useable tones with the hum-bucker, so I reckon a standard P-bass would have been just as good. The TM I just didn't like at all. The G&L has a huge variety of sounds, and in a band I'm sure would sound amazing - but up against the UV70 it sounded just ... I don't know. It lacked attack, and I had trouble figuring out the controls! It may just have been that the strings were dead, but I really had to boost the treble in order to get any sort of articulation out of it. And the Sadowsky just growled like a beast, with a super Marcus Miller slap tone. I love that thing - I hope the Jabbas come close to it!

[quote name='noelk27' post='1342605' date='Aug 17 2011, 12:29 AM']You're right, in that the amount of tension required to bring a given mass of string up to a given pitch is a known quantity and is not altered by the method of string anchoring, but there are other perceptible/measurable qualities, one of which is influenced by the break angle at the witness points, another of which is influenced by the total contact area - string to saddle/nut - at the witness point.[/quote] Assuming your bridge is working correctly, the break angle would not be a problem, nor the total contact area be significantly changed. [quote name='"chrismuzz"']With stringing through the body the string is less likely to be lengthened when playing, especially bending the string, which pulls excess string from past the bridge saddles. Because of this you are less likely to get floppy string syndrome, and of course you're less likely to experience fret buzz because of this. This would definately contribute to the sustain.[/quote] Wha?

There will be no perceivable difference between string-through body and top-loading, other than the placebo effect. There will certainly be no difference in string tension, as the string tension is not affected by where the string goes after it has gone past the saddles.

[quote name='Grand Wazoo' post='1340203' date='Aug 14 2011, 11:54 PM']There's 3 of them on one of the stands right at the back by the repairman, you can't miss them.[/quote] Really? Wow, I must be completely blind! Either that, or when I get back there I am too busy being dazzled by the Wal

Ahh so that's from the GG in Epsom? I spend so much of my life in there now it's opened - Fantastic shop (I think I may have met your friend as well - at least I was very well served by what appeared to be the manager while I was testing Sadowskys!) Great looking instrument you have there - I am in the market for a P style bass as well - where did you find the Sandberg?

My favourite is this one: "I think it's a Gibson" "I think the dots are to do with long tuning" I know laughing at kids is a bad thing, but I am a terrible person. So... Yeah.

- Wow. That looks incredible.

I don't know where to put mine - but here seems good enough

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1336268' date='Aug 11 2011, 11:48 AM']Out of interest what made you pick the studio that you did? Did you get to hear anything that had been recorded there previously? Also what do you mean by getting the tracks back from the producer? Were you not there for the mixing? By "producer" do you mean studio owner/engineer?[/quote] B (guitarist mix) does sound horrible, and to make it worse, either our guitarist or vocalist has just uploaded it to our Facebook site yesterday along with a message stating that it was finished . I have since deleted both message and recording. I have a feeling I may have to take them off the admin list for the page We picked the studio purely from convenience, as well as price. No, we hadn't heard anything by him, although some big(ish) names had used him before. It was also a bit of an experiment to see whether a 'professionally' recorded and mixed track would sound significantly better than the stuff we recorded on our own. We were there for the mixing, but due to time constraints (we had to go before we'd finished a couple of the tracks) we didn't have time to hear the mastered tracks, nor retrieve the original recordings - we will be picking the originals up at a later date. The track that was mixed entirely by the engineer sounds atrocious; I may have to upload that for you to all hear! During the mixing I pointed out that cymbals sounded strange, but neither he or the guitarist could hear it - I asked him to take the gating off the overheads, but they both said it sounded fine, so I got overruled. I think this was down to the engineer being deaf, and the guitarist assuming that he knew what he was doing. I also wasn't too keen on the vocals sounding like they had been recorded underwater, but I assumed that was to do with the studio setup, and not the actual track, because when I asked to dial it back a bit, the reverb was taken down by one notch. And also, yes, studio engineer who thinks he's a producer, rather than an actual producer. Thankfully I have access to some willing producers who will have a crack at the original recordings in September . Also, what sort of EQ-ing might you recommend for C (home recording), as it is currently the only one I can play with? Cheers guys, you've all been a great help

[quote name='chrismuzz' post='1335934' date='Aug 11 2011, 12:16 AM']Kind of a hijack here... but my PBDDI hisses a bit. Would the same apply?[/quote] I can only assume so - I mean there is some inevitable background noise when I have the drive cranked, but in most 'normal' situations, I get no additional noise. For instance - at this sort of drive (warning, fat bass sound contained within ) [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noY9WlMCDAY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noY9WlMCDAY[/url] I get no additional hiss or noise. I would guess that if you do, you should contact Tech21 over on TalkBass and ask them about it.

Like above - use the level knob to match the levels between bypassed and on. Regarding the hiss - I use a Stingray as well, and it's whisper quiet. From what I've read on TB, Tech21 reckon that noisy ones are defective. Possibly look into trying another or contacting T21?

[quote name='patch006' post='1333322' date='Aug 9 2011, 10:40 AM']Hi all I have just purchased a mac with the intention of recording some stuff. I am a total novice and have no idea about any of it so any advice would be greatly received. What I want to do is..... Create and write tunes. Create backing tracks so I can perform live. Visually record my self playing to create my u tube page. Record rehersals with my band. So the questions are........... Most suitable software logic? logic express ? gargeband etc...... Most suitable interface to connect bass. Any other tips would be useful.[/quote] Garageband should be able to do everything you need, that and the inbuilt camera (for Youtube videos). As for interfaces, I quite like the Focusrite Saffire Pro 24, but it's up to you really. How many tracks will you be recording at the same time?

[quote name='Bankai' post='1333110' date='Aug 9 2011, 02:13 AM']I'd recommend a Flip HD model with the upgraded condenser microphones, if you're looking for something simple.[/quote] I've found the FlipHDs don't cope with low-light particularly well - but then no cameras are great at it. I'm also fairly certain that you can't plug in external mic's. If you want it for promo material, I would suggest getting someone to do it for you.

[quote name='Skol303' post='1333097' date='Aug 9 2011, 01:45 AM']For some reason I can't get track A to play on your SoundCloud page (could be my bandwidth or something...?!). But regardless, I'll stick my neck out here and take a punt on track A being the studio cut, even though I can't actually listen to it! Why? Because: -> I'm guessing that track C is your own version, only because it's more subtle than... -> ... track B, which I'm guessing is your guitarist's version, only because it's quite overdriven and distorted with the levels set too high (in my humble opinion); hence his reason for thinking it sounds better than the studio version - because it's loud! Which is typical of a guitarist! So, by the power of deduction alone, I'm going with track A being the studio mix. If it's not track A then seriously, I'd find another studio to work with. I'm certainly no "pro" myself, but I'd be disappointed if I'd paid money for mixes B or C (no offence meant by that at all).[/quote] Spot on - and no offence taken at all, I know I have no abilities to properly mix anything Especially spot on with B! And yes, A was the studio version, although they appear to be going for, shall we say an underwater sound? This track wasn't actually that bad from them, other than some phasing issues on the Hi-Hats, and the noise gate that occasionally cuts out the guitar and bass. The gripe we have with them is another track that sounds like it was produced by their deaf cousin! Hopefully when we get the masters back from them, we will be able to give it a decent punt ourselves!

Little bit of a back-story to this one. I have been doing the demos for my band for a few weeks, recording using 2 condensers and whatever dynamics we had to hand in our rehearsal space (all no-name brands). As I have literally no experience recording or mixing, this seemed like an interesting experiment. Anyway, after having 5 or so songs recorded like this, we decided it would probably be a good idea to get them recorded professionally, as my mixes aren't exactly what one might call "pro-quality". However, once we got the tracks back from the producer, we were a little surprised at the quality of the final product. This may be to do with the expectations we had going into the session, so I was wondering if I could get some constructive criticism about the mixes, and whether you think that the studio mix is better (or at least, worth paying for in the future). To avoid any biases, the tracks are all unnamed (other than ABC). One of them is my mix, one the studios, and one our guitarists take on it (which he is convinced is better than the studio). All feedback greatly appreciated (Listening with headphones probably a good idea) [url="http://soundcloud.com/killerfridge/sets/basschat-studio-challenge"]http://soundcloud.com/killerfridge/sets/ba...tudio-challenge[/url]

Well, I know that UK session master Phil Mulford uses a pair of Squiers (both 1980s, one J one P) which sound [i]amazing[/i].

[quote name='Killerfridge' post='1328357' date='Aug 5 2011, 10:08 AM']Whether or not that would be significant enough to hear, or to even bother to take into account once to add the squishy unreliability of humans playing, or tone shaping etc is up for discussion.[/quote] Wait...what? What the hell did I write there? Wow, I am actually embarrassed now I read that back! That should have read - "Whether or not that would be significant enough to hear, or even bother to take into account once [i][b]you[/b][/i] factor in the squishy unreliability of humans..." There, that makes more sense...doesn't it?

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328175' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:21 AM']I'll bet you can't, mainly because none of these gifted golden ears even specifically defines what the difference they are hearing is. It's always some vague easily modified touchy feely nebulous term like rounder or more friendly to cats. I would dare anyone who feels they can perform auditory taxonomy (and that has to be true, just look at the size of those words and how confidently they were written) to put their neck out and give anything of a scientific definition to these wondrous things they can hear. Like a frequency response that would identify a species, or genus as most don't even know what a species is.[/quote] Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the differences would be predictable in the sense that they are currently used. Just that if you attached 1 string to a length of plywood, with a nut/fret/bridge at each end, with a pickup in a determined position, and plucked it with a mechanical finger providing a designated amount of force - you would potentially see a difference in the recorded wavelength to one attached to a board made of ebony. Whether or not that would be significant enough to hear, or to even bother to take into account once to add the squishy unreliability of humans playing, or tone shaping etc is up for discussion. I personally don't think it does (see previous post about susceptibility to auditory illusions). I think that people who claim to be able to 'hear' things that science cannot detect are suffering from standard auditory illusions (like how a healthy human brain should), but refuse to accept that they can be fooled by such illusions. If you want a great example of this, please go and read the TB ESP Power Cord thread.

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328177' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:25 AM']Thank you for sharing your understanding of the scientific method Thank god for the internet huh?[/quote] I'm amazed that you're even attempting to reason with the people who say "I played these two different things, and ignoring the fact that I knew the differences between them, I also totally heard the difference...and it was me playing". I really didn't want to get into this with those who don't understand the scientific method, years arguing with homeopaths has made me a little weary of it. Basically, of course they sounded different - you were playing them and thought that they were going to be different. Ignoring the obvious question of the strings etc. you also have to take into account the problem of you playing it differently. This is exactly the same point that came up with people testing the ESP Power Cable - when the players knew which cable was which, they could totally hear the difference, and so could independent observers - they were unconsciously playing differently. When someone changes the cable, and doesn't tell either which one it is, suddenly they lose this uncanny ability to hear the differences. The problem with the TB experiment was [i]not[/i] that they were relying on players 'hearing' rather than 'playing'. It is necessary that the people being tested are blind to them, so that they can't be influenced on anything other than the sound. This experiment didn't prove anything, but it was interesting.

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1327675' date='Aug 4 2011, 07:38 PM']How is it faulty though? I have never said 'alder sounds mellower' because I think it's likely to be more idiosyncratic than that. In fact I have explicitly said that I think often the tones will be very similar in the real-world. I only stepped in because people appear to be over-extrapolating this to claim that wood has no effect on tonal output of a bass, which would defy the laws of physics. By the way the resonant chamber acoustic is actually in some ways a far more complex model to examine the effect of wood type, because the chamber size, shape and construction will have a really big effect on its properties - a solid body is in that sense much simpler.[/quote] I can agree with that. [quote name='LawrenceH']There are lots of cases where the basic tone of the instrument is so buried under electronics that of course you can barely even hear what instrument is being played - but a clean tone into a reasonably flat, low distortion system, well it would be astonishing if a change in something that contributes significantly to the vibrational decay characteristics of the string wasn't audible when looking at the extremes of variation in what constitutes 'normal' wood. Whether it's important to you is another matter - a bridge pickup will nearly always sound like a bridge pickup because it has a characteristic comb filter property that is dependent on it's position relative to the string. It can only pick up what the string actually outputs though (which means obviously that strings are very important).[/quote] I am pretty confident you could pick up the differences out between different pieces of wood with scientific equipment - I just question how audible it would be when you take into account the pickup placement, windings etc (not even getting into tone shaping with amps and preamps). I accept that with extreme wood variations, there should be an audible difference (say, between ebony and pine - I could be wrong though, my knowledge of wood is a bit poor). [quote name='LawrenceH']Why is the simple example of a dead-spot shifting with altered neck mass not enough to demonstrate that the properties of the thing the string is mounted to make a significant contribution to the sound? I was pleased with that example because I thought it was so straightforward! [/quote] I'm not saying this to be difficult, I've just never really experienced the problem of deadspots! I'll have to take your word for that. [quote name='LawrenceH']The £50,000 figure for initial studies: a typical post-doc researcher wage is over £30,000. You will need a budget for materials, test equipment and an appropriate space to do it in, which would involve among other things an acoustically treated listening room. Then at the end you have publication costs of several thousand (yes, even though the journals are expensive to buy, scientists have to pay to publish their data). Basically, most of the money would just get eaten up by overheads and set-up costs. You could do it for a lot less if you already had a university department or similar to do the work in, and just gave it to a hapless PhD student! But I honestly can't see anyone supporting this because the data on wood properties is undoubtedly out there commercially and the rest is reinventing the wheel. It's too much of a school 'science project'[/quote] That sounds reasonable - when doing my mini calculations I didn't think to include the salary of the researcher. I was going from an assumption of myself having access to university equipment. Thinking about it, I clearly didn't think it very far through! [quote name='LawrenceH']A final point - why are people so focused on the contribution or not of the body wood (eg in that talkbass video) when the neck makes up such a notable proportion of the total vibrating length?[/quote] Because necks aren't as pretty, and it goes counter to peoples view of the biggest bit of something makes the most difference? I honestly don't know. I would have thought the fretwire would have a fair impact on the sound, but most people don't seem to care at all about it. They would rather worry about what power cable is powering their amp, and whether it makes them sound 'fatter' (this is something at least that is demonstrably false). TBH, I think we have fairly similar views, that are potentially polarised by the sides of the fence that we land on! I can agree that the wood probably has some effect on the string vibration, but if I gave someone an Alder Jazz bass, and told them that it was Ash, I am sure that they would 'hear' the Ash rather than the Alder (if that makes any sense, I have a feeling I am not being very clear). I would also like to add that I am just a very sceptical person. The amount of crap people try to sell me on a day to day basis, has sort of bred in a "don't believe you until you can show me a study" mentality! There is a very real chance I am just being over sceptical.

[quote name='bremen' post='1326992' date='Aug 4 2011, 02:10 PM']Someone on Talkbass did just that - the pine was literally just a lump of scrap timber, no attempt made to make it 'guitar-shaped' and posted sound samples. Result: some folk couldn't tell the difference, some could, but those that could guessed wrong 50% of the time.[/quote] That's basically what happened, but I would disagree with the analysis. 50% of people said that they couldn't hear the difference, and of the remaining 50% that said they could, over 2/3 got it wrong. This amounts to the same percentage you would get if everyone just chose an answer at random. Unfortunately, people are proud of their ability to be right, and everyone else wrong, so the ones who happened to guess correctly claimed that this was because [i]only[/i] they could really hear the difference, and the ones that believed they could but guessed wrong must just be worse at hearing. Saying that, the test itself was flawed, and can't really be claimed to be of any real scientific standard. It was a fun experiment to see how people's preconceptions affected how they posted. [quote name='"LawrenceH"']Not exactly, because this is not new science in that sense...it is an applied model where all the science that describes the system is already defined and tested and there is an awful lot of direct measurement data on vibration analysis as applied to wood. So in this case Occam's razor applies. You expect the model to behave as predicted by it's component parts.[/quote] No-one is claiming that the strings do not vibrate the wood; one could reasonably assume that this would in turn affect the string. The problem is when people start making claims that this difference is audible (alder sounds mellower, ash sounds snappier etc) when put up against the plethora of different electronics and hardware that are involved in shaping the sound of an electric instrument. I understand that acoustic instruments have resonating chambers, and that this has a real effect on the sound of the instrument. What I feel (IMO) you are doing is over-extrapolating from this, and coming to a faulty conclusion. And as a side note of interest, could you explain how you got to the figure of £50,000 for a pilot study? (not doubting you, I would just like to know where figure came from).

We must not also forget the null hypothesis - until someone provides data to show that tone-woods have an audible effect on the sound of an electric instrument, we should assume they do not. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not those who don't believe it. We don't believe in ghosts just because nobody has categorically shown that they don't exist. And I have to agree with G-string - you can't just assert your way into a conclusion. That's exactly how pseudoscience works (see water fondlers and spine wizards - if you follow what they say to their conclusions, they must be correct, but actual scientific evidence points to the contrary)