BigRedX

That looks lovely! What's the panel on the back for?

Schaller used to make an acoustic guitar pickup that was designed to attach to the end of the fingerboard by screwing into the sides. I have one fitted to my acoustic guitar and it's slim enough to fit between the soundboard and the strings. I don't know if they still make it because their site won't load for me at the moment.

Here's mine which I still own: It's Burns Sonic from the early 60s which I got second hand in 1981 for £60 including the original Hard Case and a Fender-branded strap thrown for good measure. It's far from original, although most of the modifications were done before I got it, and all of what I have changed - replacement bridge, machine heads potentiometers and capacitors were done to keep the bass playable as the old parts had worn out. I used this with the first two bands I played with including the demo recordings that nearly got my second band signed to CBS records! It doesn't get much use these days as I play 5-strings and Bass VIs, but I'm toying with the idea of using it as a basis for a custom Bass VI build.

Here's mine: As you can see it's hardly in original condition. However what I consider to be the essential components of the Burns Sonic sound the pickups and their placement, and the overall construction of the bass are all original. The other electronic components although replacements were done with the same value components and wiring layout as was on the bass when I bought it. Mine also had the latter style fully adjustable bridge, so although the 80s brass version looks like an anachronism, it's probably closer in overall mass and break angles of the string than some of the alternatives I could have fitted at the time. You can also see how the heelless set neck construction works. This cost me all of £60 in 1981, which included the original Burns Hard Case and a Fender branded strap thrown in by the shop to sweeten the deal! Regarding playing the bass through a guitar amp that's what I did on all the recordings I made with this bass including the demos that almost got my band signed to CBS records back in 1982. Maybe that's as important to the sound as the pickups their placement and wiring!

I would be suggesting this: Plus if you believe that construction is important, the Burns Sonic has a unique heelless set-neck design, and no adjustable truss-rod.

Different pickups and from the looks of things different pickup placement - IMO the extreme closeness of the pickups to the bridge and neck respectively is an important aspect of the sound. I don't know for sure but I would imagine that the all-important 2 pickup selection will put the pickups in the more conventional parallel mode rather than series as it does on my Sonic bass. Also if you think these make a significant difference; neck and body woods are different and the overall construction of the two basses is completely different. About all they have in common IMO is the Burns name and the scale length.

But the original tuners would have been very similar in terms of size and design. Also for the scale length, since this bass has a zero fret you should measure form the centre of the zero fret to the centre of the 12th fret and double it.

I actually have one of those, and what gives mine its unique sound is the fact that when you have both pickups on together they are wired in series (but not humbucking) rather than the more normal parallel mode. So you could try rewiring any bass with twin single coil pickups in series, although the extreme pickup positioning of the Burns may also be a big contributor to it's sound.

Here in Nottingham there used to be a shop called Wayne's Guitar Shack. They sold entry level instruments. Behind the shop was a rehearsal room that doubled as a recording studio. Wayne also put on local band showcases in various pubs around town and ran his own PA hire. So not only could he sell you you first instrument, but he could provide your band with somewhere to rehearse, record your first demo, and get you a couple of gigs. Unfortunately AFAIK the business went bust and that was that...

I think the thing with modelling devices is not to get bogged down with the amps/cabs/effects they are supposed to be modelling and just play with the sounds. None of my patches use a cab sim and only two of them use an amp sim and that was because I the drive sound of that particular amp gave me the right tone for the song.

I've been using the Schaller Strap Locks since the mid 80s and never had any problem with them. As others have said, the trick is to make sure the holes in the strap have been enlarged and then use two adjustable spanners to do up the nut (one the hold the lock and the other to turn the nut). Unlike the ones fitted to my Warwick StarBass which failed after a couple of months and have since been replaced with a set of Schallers.

So much misguided hate... So Nick Rhodes might not be the greatest technical keyboard player in the world, but he's most definitely the right synth player for Duran Duran. In the same way that Adam Clayton is the right bassist for U2. I had a listen to Jordan Rudess, and while he's got plenty of keyboard technique I don't think much of his sound design abilities. He'd be completely wrong for Duran Duran. And if the OP thinks it's so easy why doesn't he apply for the role?

If they could afford it they were. My first synth - a very basic monophonic EDP Wasp - cost me £200 in 1981. For the same money I could have got a guitar or bass plus a gig worthy amp and cab. In those days if you wanted something with polyphony and patch memories you were looking at the same price as that of a small 2 bedroom terraced house! The cost taught you how to be creative with what little you could afford. Now when I listen to all those electronic records from the late 70s and early 80s I'm always surprised by how many of the sounds on them aren't synthesisers but cheap electric organs and guitars put through a couple of effects pedals and subtly blended in to complement the actual synths.

Try any/all of the following: Mobineko Disc Wizards Media Hut While I've not done exactly what you are looking for I have had CDs and Vinyl produced by all 3 companies and been very happy with the results.

IME it almost definitely will be. The OP hasn't actually said which if any of his MIDI devices are used as controllers and which are just sound sources, but it may be that what he needs isn't a merge box at all, but a MIDI thru box. However, a proper multi-port MIDI interface is far more flexible in its routing, doesn't add any latency, with enough ports can let you put a single device on each port for maximum timing accuracy, and many will also act as stand alone MIDI patch pay router, if you need/want to run your set up without a computer. For the OP, I'd recommend any of the Mark Of The Unicorn MIDI interfaces except the Fastlane which won't have enough ports for his requirements. The MotU Micro Lite is only about £20 more than the device that Dad3353 suggested and is many times more versatile.

That looks like a cymbal stand with a mic thread adaptor.

Adding a MIDI merge will add more latency to your MIDI signals. Get a proper multi-port MIDI interface from someone like Mark of The Unicorn.

Then my work here would be done!

I always wanted to release an album that not only was it not recorded at A=440 but each individual track was off by a different amount. And then to mess with people's minds even more the tunings of the individual tracks would also be different depending on the format - CD, Vinyl, iTunes download, Amazon download, Spotify stream etc.

But if you were going to complain about the effect, would it not have been a good idea to do some research on the band behind it before kicking up a fuss? And had a look at the general boutique pedal market where this sort of thing is fairly common place? Also I can't help but wonder what an electronic band like Braids are doing looking into an effect primarily aimed at guitarists? It all makes me think they must have tried fairly hard in order to get offended in the first place. None of this IMO does the anti-sexism cause any favours. EDIT: I've never heard any music by Steel Panther and I'm hardly a metal fan, but I have heard of the band and know that they are a complete parody of that genre.

Less than 30 seconds with Google will enlighten you. The first search result is their Wikipedia entry which starts: There is absolutely zero excuse for being uninformed these days.

Sibob is completely right... But what worries me about this situation is why now and why this particular pedal, a pedal with a parody name from a parody band, when there are plenty of pedals from other manufacturers who appear to be far more serious about their sexism when it comes to naming their products. And while many of these companies are far too small to have generated this level of attention for their inappropriately named products, the "grandaddy" of them all Electro Harmonix are hardly insignificant in the musical equipment business and have been "offending" since their Muff Fuzz pedal in the late 60s. I can't help but think that this is more about publicity for a rather dull and anonymous band and ultimately will do the cause of fighting sexism in the music industry more harm than good.

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to this thread Christine! So do you have a preference for the positioning of the truss rod adjustment or does it depend on the overall design of the instrument? Regarding the brass nut, when I first became interested in guitar construction there was nothing like the wealth of resources available now, and my information was mostly gleaned from Stephen Delft's excellent series on how to build an electric guitar which was published monthly in International Musician magazine and included a whole section on making your own truss rod from scratch. His philosophy was that you made the most easily accessible part from the softest metal, so that if the mechanism was abused, the nut would fail before the rest of the truss rod and could be unscrewed and replaced with a new one. At the time that made a lot of sense to me. Is that still the case with modern construction methods where it seems that the whole truss rod can be easily removed and replaced if necessary?

I'm a great believer in good design and good ergonomics, and while having all the working parts on show might have been interesting in the 80s for post-modern architecture, I 'm not so sure that it has as much relevance in 21st century guitar and bass design. Besides IME truss rod adjustment shouldn't be something you need to do on a regular basis so it makes sense to me, to hide the mechanism away so that it is only accessible if you really need to use it. The only times I have needed to adjust the truss rod has been when I have changed to strings with a radically different tension, or when I have bought a guitar from somewhere that has a significantly different climate to that of the UK. In these cases the adjustment has always been best made in several increments over a period of days. I would never want to adjust the truss rod while wearing the bass, mostly because I find that I also need to encourage the neck to bend in the correct place which can only be done by placing the the bass with the relevant area on my leg and pushing down either side. If you don't do this I find the neck will bend either at the weakest point or mid-way along the truss rod length which is not always where you want it. I think musicians are too prone to fiddle unnecessarily with their instruments and making the truss rod adjustment easily accessible only facilitates this behaviour. I don't have a problem with the volute, and besides the volutes on most modern instruments are so tiny to be almost negligible. Most angled headstocks are either multi-laminated layers or scarf-jointed which makes them far stronger than that of a single-piece neck, so the absence of a conventional large volute is less important than it use to be. There is no longer the requirement to build everything big and clunky as it was in the 50s. And the reason I asked "a random selection of bass makers" is that I suspect that they will know a lot more about the process and the various pros and cons of where to have the truss rod adjustment., than a random selection of bass players. Besides I am interested in the process and hopefully I'll learn something from them.

Is that based on replacing the bridge on one of your basses, or two different basses with different bridges?