machinehead

I took on a similar gig last year. I had to learn 38 songs only a handful of which I knew before. It was bloody hard work and I spent hours and f***** hours practicing the songs. In the end I just about got away with it but in no way did I feel like I came anywhere near doing the genre any justice. I did learn a lot though, mostly that after 40 years as a musician, I still have a hell of a lot to learn. I think it will improve you as a player and should be quite enjoyable. But do expect to spend hours learning and practicing. Frank.

Thanks for all the advice everyone. Much appreciated. I seem to be leaning towards the Classic because I honestly don't think I would ever use the extra functions on the RH so I might as well save the money. Like dave_bass5, I tune before sound check and during the break only. Also, I tend to use one setting unless it's a reggae song and even then, I might just play at the neck. I'll report back when the moneys been spent. Thanks again. Frank

[quote name='Muzz' post='1132308' date='Feb 18 2011, 03:02 PM']I'm the same. Except for the 'warwick thumb' bit... [/quote] Hehe. Excellent. Frank.

I don't think I've ever commented on threads like this because it's horses for courses but... silly money for highly modified old basses just because there are still a few old bits left. I fully understand that lots of people are into old Fenders but 10995 dollars for the remains of a stack knob jazz? It will sell without doubt, but not to me. And I think I could fake an old Fender well enough to fool lots of people. There must be thousands of people more skilled in faking than me so how the hell can we know what we are buying? And why does it matter? If we believe our old Fender is a 1965 or whatever it really doesn't matter if it's a fake. If there really was a difference in sound or playability I would see a point. But it's just wood and metal. If it's your thing then you'll never agree with me and I do understand that. I'm not looking for an argument, just pouring out my thoughts on the link. No offence intended. I love old cars. Frank.

I'm still not clear if the Classic is the same amp as the RH without the presets and fancy lights. Can anyone confirm this 100% please? Frank.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1125593' date='Feb 13 2011, 12:41 AM']I would investigate using a split speaker lead rather than adding sockets.[/quote] Funny, I was just looking at the specs for the RH450 and saw that it too has only one output to the speakers. It just occured to me that making a split speaker cable would be much easier. You'd think after 37 years in electrical engineering that would have been my first thought. Thanks for the idea chris_b. Frank.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1125374' date='Feb 12 2011, 08:12 PM']Two inputs/speakons/whatever would have helped on your cab![/quote] Agreed. As would two outputs on the amp! Frank.

Thanks very much for all the replies. The photos were particularly useful because I would have to fit a second speakon socket. Both my Barefaced cabs have only one speakon so daisy chaining them is out. I have to use two cables - one to each cab. it looks like there is space for a second speakon although I see the one in there is straight off the PCB and no cables making the job a little more awkward. Is anyone certain that the two models are identical amps? I mean with the exception of the obvious extra features on the RH450. I see some people are wondering why I would think of changing when I'm happy with Markbass. The truth is I wonder myself. It's just curiousity regarding trying different sounding amps. Regarding the advice about changing playing style, strings etc. I agree 100%. I actually just changed strings on my jazz bass and it's like having a new guitar. I love it even more. I do love the zing from round-wound steel strings. I think I only like flats on fretless. Any other advice appreciated. I still fancy trying a TC amp........ please put me off and save me money. Frank.

I have a Markbass LMII which I bought new and have loved it for every moment I've owned it. I'm thinking about changing just for the hell of it. The LMII does everything I need and more and I love the sounds I get from it through my Barefaced Compact or Midget or both together. I was thinking about either a TC Electronic Classic 450 or the RH450. There is quite a hugh difference in price between them and I wondered if owners thought it was worth the extra few hundred quid? I'm not one for changing EQ. My LMII stays roughly the same unless the room requires a change in settings and I don't use pedals. I like a deep smooth tone but with a middy growl - perfect Fender jazz territory! I'm a 99% fingers player. Mostly covers, blues, ballads in pubs etc. This leads me to think that the Classic 450 would be fine for me but, am I missing something? I know you get the presets and a tuner on the RH450 but I don't want them. So am I right here or is there a good reason to spend the extra for the RH450? I'm not exactly flush just now but I expect that to change soon so I might change in a few months if things look up. I don't want to regret not buying the more suitable amp and lose more money to change again. All experience and informed opinions most welcome. Thanks. Frank.

Hiscox Liteflite. Good price and very strong. Frank.

Thanks gaf. That's actually the answer I expected but I just wasn't sure. It's just that I think you can make the Midget sound quite different for different situations. Frank.

[quote name='gafbass02' post='1107926' date='Jan 30 2011, 10:52 AM']For carrying around I rely on my midget T. I'm not a fan of the tone at all, it's just not 'me' -a bit too 'traditional' I guess. But for having a cab I can literally carry in one hand for twenty minutes into town, with my bass, amp and cables, even a cheap, light zoom multi fx on my back, and KNOW will be loud enough when I get there, it's unreal!![/quote] Hi gaf, I wasn't sure reading that if you meant your tastes are too traditional or the Midget sounds too traditional for you? Frank.

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='1107563' date='Jan 29 2011, 07:49 PM']I feel it necessary to mention that my L-1000 was built in 1980 because it was one of the first G&L basses ever built and therefore it proves beyond doubt that I have the largest swinging dick out of all the G&L fanboys.[/quote] Haha. That's the sort of response I deserve. Frank.

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='1107546' date='Jan 29 2011, 07:33 PM']Simply by giving me the date of your SSII I've ascertained that it has a neck profile which some won't like when compared to say an 87 and it has a headstock volute which I don't like as much as I like those without volutes from the SSII inception till about the mid 90's... I think you already know the answer to your question really! [/quote] 'Course I know the answer. I was drunk when I posted this thread. However...... my 97 SSII has a lovely slim neck and NO volute. And I actually prefer the volute. It feels more solid. Frank

[quote name='MOSCOWBASS' post='1107186' date='Jan 29 2011, 01:45 PM']Can't wait to try the Compact/Midget combination, should be stunning![/quote] Oh it is. it really is. Frank.

[quote name='icastle' post='1107331' date='Jan 29 2011, 04:23 PM']No you can't. The 'earth' provided by a generator is actually the Neutral. As there's no way that two generators are going to run in synch without a suitable interlink control (big and expensive) your earth would end up all over the place![/quote] We need to be careful here. Safety first and all that. Electricity can kill. icastle, The earth and neutral conductors might well be connected together but the earth isn't the same as a neutral. I agree that if you are going to use two or more generators, then don't try to connect them together. Use one for say, the PA, the other for guitar amps etc. There would be no harm in bonding the metal parts of a two or more generators together. chris_b, Where you said "I am not an expert here but I was told that multiple sources of power are the reason we need an earth. A single generator is the safest system and a third wire (the earth) is not needed. Because of this a surge protector won't work either, because it needs the third wire!" Be careful of listening to amateurs when your life and health is at stake. Nothing you've been told is correct. The earth is there to ensure your safety by automatically disconnecting the supply if a fault occurs. The earth wire should be regarded as the most important wire. I won't go into more detail. To the OP - thinking about it, you would be best to get an electrical engineer or even a good electrician to sort this for you. Don't take risks with internet advice because you don't know if the poster is a professional or a DIYer. I've been in this business for 38 years and I've designed and commissioned loads of systems but I still think you need someone experienced to actually be there. Much safer than mucking through it based on internet advice. Frank.

Add up all the maximum power requirements (watts or kilowatts). That will give you your kW figure for the generator you need. EDIT Be careful to use the kW consumption figure, found on the nameplate, not the amp rating as in say, a 50 watt Fender amp doesn't actually consume 50 watts, it will be a higher figure consumed. However, sudden increases in demand cause the engine to slow down and it takes time to recover to its normal running rpm. This drop in engine speed causes the supply frequency (hertz) to drop. The voltage will also drop under sudden load increases. This is called speed and voltage droop. (cue jokes about drinkers droop). More expensive generators deal with these issues better than cheaper ones but I assume you will hire a Honda or similar when a diesel one might be better. So you need to get a generator that has a kW rating of at least twice your max kW requirement to avoid frequency and voltage droops. Doessn't really matter if its several times your kW requirement although if it's underloaded, it will be inefficient and tend to need more servicing. I hope this helps. Frank.

I have been rejecting Fenders for 25 years based on my experience of them in the 1980s when I changed from 6 string to bass guitar. I'm a recent Fender convert and now appreciate their qualities, as a glance at my sig will tell you. (I always loved Fender strats and teles though) I have been selling gear recently to raise cash. I sold gear both on basschat and locally and if a buyer had turned up for my Warwick Streamer stage 2 it would have gone. Thankfully, I still have it and I hope I can keep it. It is in a different universe for build quality and the sound is pure Warwick. I've always lusted after a stage 2 because, as much as I love the Thumb sound, I prefer the Streamer feel and looks and the stage 2 bridges the gap between Thumb and Streamer for me. I have sold 4 basses in 2 months and miss them all. My thoughts are : keep your Warwick if you can afford to. It really doesn't matter about fashion and market values - they are just fantastic instruments. Frank.

I've noticed in many threads that people state the date-of-birth of their basses. For example, " I was playing my 1978 P" or " For Sale, 1974 Fender P" or " My '90s jazz". That got me thinking about why people do this. Clearly, it's done in For Sale threads to justify the asking price, so I can leave that out of my thoughts. But what is the real relevence of the manufacture date? Especially when you see people mention a 1985 jazz bass etc. Why is 1985 relevent? Surely you can still buy the same model new today. I love old cars and I see the point in giving a date for an old car. But guitars? Fender, Gibson and the rest, still make and sell the same models that they made and sold 40 or 50 years ago. So why is the date important? Aren't they still pretty much the same? And isn't it easy to build a bass to look any age you like? Who would know the difference? I've never done it myself, but the only reason I would maybe buy an old guitar would be as an investment with a view to selling at a profit at a future date. Much better than 0.5% interest in the bank. So what is the reason for this obsession with age? Just some late night musings. BTW, I have a 1997 Warwick Streamer Stage 2. Not a crappy new one. Frank.

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1098595' date='Jan 22 2011, 01:01 PM']IYO[/quote] Agreed! And I do understand people buying gear based mainly on looks. For myself, I doubt if I'd buy a guitar if I really hated the looks. I have to say though, I do find it hard to understand why anyone would knowingly pay a higher price for a lower specification cab and accept a lower performance just so they can turn round and look at it and think " That's lovely". But I know they do. So it just goes to show that we're all different and surely it would be a boring world if we were all the same? For a start, I would be robbed of the opportunity of feeling smug about my gear. Frank. Editted to add smily. My tongue is firmly in my cheek with the above.

[quote name='bumnote' post='1098058' date='Jan 21 2011, 08:16 PM']I am very tempted to build a Bill Fitmaurice jack 12 or Jack 2x12. I have had the plans for a while but its cold in my garage[/quote] That's something I've been thinking about for ages. It must be very satisfying to gig with a cab you've made yourself and know it's a superior cab to almost all commercially produced cabs. Frank.