BigRedX

But surely apart from the intonation and the tuning (which you need to do yourself) everything else in a setup is entirely personal and subjective? I know that what I would consider a good setup for me would be completely unacceptable to many on here.

But if the OP already has a bass then a synth or drum machine would be a good companion instrument. Or maybe a guitar?

A synth. Or maybe a drum machine.

And with significantly larger sample sizes.

Unfortunately it's just a marketing slogan. "The sound of active electronics" doesn't have quite same ring to it

Not in the early 80s. When they came out no-one wanted them because they sounded thin and weedy, as well as being less than intuitive to program. My synth band tried one and decided we'd wait for the recently announced MC202, which looked to be easier to program, had two channels of sequencing and a full SH101 synth built in. Come 1988 it was a different story... (Of course much of the classic TB303 sound comes from what happens when you clip the output rather than the unit itself.)

TBH this is probably the most iconic bass instrument from the early 80s...

Those Aria headstocks are from the late 70s.

Brilliant, thank you!

Yes but generally that's the least important factor. I would look at the different pickups and electronics used and the actual construction of the bass before worrying about the woods.

I saw this thread last night when the post post was the OP, but I didn't have time to post a comment. This morning I hardly need to as most of what I thought has already been said. So we have 4 basses that sound (slightly) different to each other. That's easy. Anybody can do that. It would be far more impressive if he could make 4 basses that sound exactly the same, and even more impressive if the luthier could predict exactly how each bass was going to sound before it was made. Maybe the bass version of "Snackmasters" where two respected luthiers are tasked with making a bass that looks, feels and sounds EXACTLY the same as a particular example of a classic bass. Now that would be something I would watch.

The main problem for me with the Super is that the neck is narrow even by guitar standards, let alone when fitted with Bass VI strings! I've settled on the Shergold Marathon/Eastwood Hooky neck width as being the ideal for me.

AFAIK there appears to be a lot of variation in the early Kramer basses. It's a pity the Kramer Forum no longer exists as it was a mine of information with several ex-employees from the days of the aluminium necks posting there. My 450B was fine for balance but it was relatively heavy (although not unbearably so for me). I can imagine that one with lighter body woods might have been a problem. The Kramer XKB10 was a problem for balance but again that was entirely due to the body shape and strap button positions than the fact it had an aluminium neck. A wooden-neck bass of the same design would have been just as bad. Basses made with unusual materials and less conventional designs tend to be very polarising. Also many of them date from a time when there was a distinct lack of consistency from one example to the next of the same instrument. All I can suggest is that if anyone is interested in one of these that they try the actual bass they want buy for themselves, and make a decision about that particular bass only on their experiences.

IME the sound is very much down to the pickup and electronics than the materials used in the construction of the neck and body. The most radical of the aluminium basses I owned - the Born To Rock F4B was also the most conventional sounding on account of it having a P-bass pickup in close to the conventional P-bass position: The Kramer basses were fitted with less conventional pickups on the early models and consequently had a more unique sound. No problem with neck dive on any of them except the Kramer XKB10, but that was down to the body shape rather than the aluminium neck. Both Kramers were fairly weighty but again due to the body woods used rather than the neck. The Tokai has a hollow body stuffed with foam so is about standard weight.

As some who plays Bass VIs only in one of my bands I'm very interested. What neck width have you gone for?

I've owned a fair number of basses with aluminium necks and/or bodies - Born To Rock F4B Hartke XL4 Hondo Alien (Kramer The Duke copy) Kramer 450B Kramer XKB10 Tokai Talbo Bass (2000 re-issue) Anything in particular you want to know? BTW IME the going out of tune thing is not a problem so long as you don't subject them to extreme changes in temperature and expect them to stay in tune (a bit like a wooden bass really).

Thunderbirds are not like the average (passive) P or J bass where it doesn't really matter who makes it, the construction, hardware and electronics are all basically the same as the original Fender version. For a start not even the Gibson Thunderbirds have been consistent over the years. Take a modern Gibson and compare it with one from the 60s and the only rough shape of the instrument will be the same. Which one is the right one for you, really depends on what you are after from this bass. You need to play them all, because they are all very different instruments. Personally I think the active Epiphone version is about the furthest removed from an original 60s Gibson, and if that's what you like, then you should probably also consider some of the Thunderbird inspired instruments from other manufacturers.

To all those affected: stick with it. As others have said these things unfortunately take time. I'm currently involved in a fraud investigation that has been going on for almost 7 months since I first contacted Action Fraud. The DC who has been dealing with it is just finishing up gathering evidence, and then it will be up to the CPS to decide if the case is strong enough to be worth going to court. In this case the money involved is considerably more than the cost of a handful of imaginary Sansamps. However it is important to not give up. Fraudsters tend to get away with it because the victims give up because it all becomes too much bother, especially if the monies involved are relatively small. Don't let this case go the same way. £100 may not be a lot to you, but it might be to others affected, and from what I have read here, there are a lot of people affected so it all adds up. For those who have contact from the Police, reply promptly and let them know all the details. If you haven't heard anything more after two or three weeks, send a brief and polite follow-up email, just to let the Police know you are still interested in pursuing this. Keep all your correspondence with the fraudster, especially any where they make threats against you - the Police really don't like that. Good luck to all those affected.

Actually it does. The ear/brain connection is a very clever thing and takes the distance of the sound source into consideration, using the minuscule delay and phase differences between each ear receiving the sound to work it out. So 5.8ms = 1.7M distance. Unless you play big stages most of us stand less than 1M away from our cabs or monitor speakers. So the latency of the wireless system is 3 times what it would be with a cable, but our ear/brain system still works out where the sound source actually is but with a delay on it. That's why IEMs are a bigger problem because it puts the sound source as close to the ear drum as possible and there is no perceivable delay or phase change between the left and right to give any sense of distance. Without that sense of distance to the sound source, the actual disconnect between what you are playing and what you are being hearing becomes a lot more pronounced, and all those slight delays become a lot more important.

Ant? Isn't that animal cruelty? Shame on you!

What's only got 1.7M(?) of latency. All the figures quoted in this thread and in the the link in the OP state 5.8ms

Quite high latency at 5.8ms. Not a problem on it's own, but will be noticeable if combined with additional Analogue to Digital conversions in your signal chain.

I've never heard any advantage to the buffer. If I really needed it I'd use the wireless system all the time.

I find it simpler to stick with passive basses. Unless you have something like a Wal or ACG filter pre-amp they don't add anything that you should be able to do already elsewhere in your signal chain.

From what I've seen and read most musicians who get replaced in the studio tend to be those who don't have the ability to play the parts accurately enough in the time allotted. If you've got a weird bass that produces unconventional sounds at the source then perhaps this is fair enough. However shouldn't the people booking him for the session have checked this out first?