Musky

There's been lots of threads about JJ's sound. Try some of these to get you started. [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=123050"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=123050[/url] [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=107133"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=107133[/url] [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=16878"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=16878[/url]

[quote name='SS73' post='1362178' date='Sep 4 2011, 08:38 PM']Ha, didn't notice that, so he says it was fitted [/quote] Must have been blue-tacked on! Also interesting that he managed to keep the cover when RIC only operate an exchange scheme.

[quote name='BottomE' post='1362055' date='Sep 4 2011, 07:07 PM']I just paid £75 for a Korean Squier Precision from EBay which i think is an 86 model. Its pretty beat up and ugly. I love it. Gets as much use as my other basses.[/quote] Korean production didn't start until 1987. What's the serial number?

[quote name='lettsguitars' post='1311027' date='Jul 21 2011, 12:03 AM']Dont make em like they used to. Applies to most things. Standards tend to slip rather than get better.[/quote] I'm really not sure I entirely agree with this. You've only got to consider some of the absolutely dire 70's examples that are out there to realise that Fender's QC was all over the shop by the end of the decade. It remains the lowest point in Fender's production. As for the Korean Squiers, it's worth bearing in mind that the Japanese Silver Series Squiers were introduced precisely because of a perceived drop in quality of the Korean models. It didn't help matters that Yamaha advertised their Pacifica 112s by showing a picture of a stripped plywood Squier. Having said that, there were three factories involved in the Korean production between the late eighties and mid nineties, of which the later Cort models are often said to be the best. But the myth that age=quality persists, and with the oldest Korean models approaching vintage status it's no surprise that the prices are starting to climb. Nothing beats trying the instrument first to determine whether it's any good, something that applies to a US Fender as much a Korean one.

[quote name='karlfer' post='1361516' date='Sep 4 2011, 08:34 AM']Can anyone give me an idea of cost over and above, ie, import duty, vat, handling charges. Cost of bass about £525, delivery about £65. Cost of same bass in Britain, £838. Any advice gratefully received. The bass I am looking at is so close to my ideal aesthetically/sound wise, that I am very seriously considering putting up my US Precision. Thanks, Karl.[/quote] As a rough guide, you're looking at about 25% on top of the combined cost of the bass and delivery charges, so around £750 in all. Duty @ £22 VAT @ £122 Handling charges @ £8 - £15

[quote name='joegarcia' post='1361085' date='Sep 3 2011, 04:49 PM']Looks like a good deal: [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Big-Muff-Distortion-Pedal-/200648806425?pt=UK_Guitar_Accessories&hash=item2eb799d019#ht_500wt_1156"]http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Big-Muff-Distort...9#ht_500wt_1156[/url] Last one in that nick went for over £90 at auction. Very tempted but I already have one and am too lazy to buy to flip it...[/quote] Only lasted 8 minutes after you posted here! Any BCer get it then?

[quote name='bremen' post='1356799' date='Aug 30 2011, 08:27 PM']Ask him if it'll fit a Squier Affinity.[/quote] I think that's the guy who's user name used to be Tune-o-matic. So there's always the possibility that it came off a Squier!

Same here - bought a pedal from Marshall. Arrived the next day in bombproof packaging, let me know when he'd posted, etc., and the pedal was in tip top condition. Don't think it could get better really. Cheers Marshall.

[quote name='delta240' post='1357024' date='Aug 30 2011, 11:33 PM']By any chance do you still have this bass???[/quote] From his profile - Last Seen: 5th September 2010 - 10:08 PM Try PM-ing him. If he's got the alerts activated he'll get an email. Though seeing as it was an ebay sale it probably sold, as he hasn't been back to plug it again.

[quote]Regular users of our guitar cables include; Dickey Betts, Lou Reed, Joan Armatrading, Mike Rutherford, Sir Paul McCartney, Bryan Adams, Mark Knopfler, Sting, David Gilmour, Iron Maiden, The Stereophonics, Jimmy Page, Kula Shaker, amongst others[/quote] Never underestimate how obsessed some people can get over replicating their hero's set up. [quote]Makes you wonder when we'll see the first boutique plectrum selling for £50.[/quote] You may scoff, but I remember a thread on some forum where a guy seemed determined to find out [i]exactly[/i] which pick Eric Clapton used in the 60's and get hold of one. Not an identical pick in the same gauge, made of the same material by the same maker, but an original vintage 60's one. Muppets, the lot of 'em.

[quote name='ahpook' post='1356881' date='Aug 30 2011, 09:18 PM']sounds like microphone feedback to me[/quote] It does, doesn't it. But it seems to tie in with when he steps the pedal on and off. Actually I'd assumed the bongo like beats that occur at the same time were his doing as well. Though now I'm thinking they might actually be bongos. Edit: Yeah they're drums. It helps if you don't just leap in at 2:33.

Sounds like a delay with the feedback turned right up, maybe with some kind of looper in there. Edit: There's a recent thread with a diagram of his board [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=151235"]here[/url]. DD-3 - with a hold function. Mind you, there's also a Bass Whammy on there, which also does squeely type noises, so maybe he's triggering both. Definately delay in there though, because there's a weird pulsing going on as well.

It's 'crafted in' rather than 'made in', so it's 1996 or later. My guess would be 1997 just going by the first digit, but I don't remember seeing any Squier serials without a prefix before. Weird.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1354433' date='Aug 28 2011, 04:08 PM']It is disappointing that so many people have so easily adopted "lynch mob" mentality over this issue. I agree that correct specs should be published, but as that routinely doesn't happen I fail to see why TC has been attacked in this way. [b]Eden cab specs were always held up as impossible but no one cared because they sounded so good[/b]. In my opinion TC are in the same category.[/quote] To be fair, it's been widely pointed out that cab specs are very often wildly misleading and sometimes outright lies, so it comes as no surprise to me that Eden are following suit. This is what led Alex to compare his Barefaced cabs by saying things like "similar to a 8x10 fridge", rather than resorting to dishonesty. As far as I can see though, with a few exceptions like Behringer, amp manufacturesfigures seem to bear at least some relation to reality. I can think of a few amps that people have doubted the published RMS figures, but these seem to have issues with the preamps rather than the power section. And I still don't see that it would justify a manufacturer being so misleading, especially as the TC doesn't seem to be a quiet amp by any stretch. This whole thing has more to do with peoples' perception of the relationship between Watts and volume, which is skewed (ironically, probably from the marketing efforts of various amp manufacturers over the years).

So to sum up - compression at high volumes aside (which, to be fair, it's seems designed to do) nobody's actually disappointed with the volume! I gave up on the TB thread I linked to towards the bottom of the second page as people were starting to get into a tizzy over the whole thing - something I'm glad hasn't happened here. For the conspiracy theorists, I do think TC have acted unethically over this issue and they could have phrased their marketing in a much better way that wouldn't have worked to their detriment. Although perhaps I'm expecting too much for a marketing department to act ethically. It does show up how quoted wattage figures are such a poor way of of relating volume though. Maybe we can now start answering questions about minimum wattage for gigging with '236w'.

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1351960' date='Aug 26 2011, 07:38 AM']Might be proof at last that watts doesn't = volume? The quote "300 watts minimum" is a bit like surround sound systems that say "25000 watts", it's nonsense. It's down to how efficient your cabs are & how good your amp is at running them.[/quote] This is what I've always thought, but as watts have become cheaper there have been enough people who have raised the bar to a 500w 'minimum'. I've noticed how some people have managed small gigs with the 30w Little Bastard - I've no idea what they were using for cabs, but it does kind of show up how pointless watts as a guide to volume is.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1351933' date='Aug 26 2011, 01:25 AM']Fact: my 230/450 watt Staccato sounds every bit as loud as my 550 watt Thunderfunk. So what is the problem? A bunch of Americans have got their knickers in a twist, that's all![/quote] No problem at all. After all, plenty of people accept that valve amps can sound much louder than their wattage would suggest. I've never noticed anyone complain that the RH isn't loud enough, but thought it threw up a few interesting questions. Like whether a lower quoted figure would have affected peoples' buying decisions; is perceived volume a valid way of quoting power and will this make people revise the oft quoted opinion that 300w is a good minimum for a gigging amp? We're quite used to cab manufacturers being optimistic with their quoted frequency response, but this doesn't seem to happen so much with amps. Given the number of amps that people have noted are quieter than the wattage would suggest, is there another viable method of measuring perceived volume?

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but it seems from an ongoing [url="http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/tc-electronics-quasi-wattage-ratings-discussion-thread-801140/"]TalkBass thread[/url] that TC have admitted that the RH450 is actually measured in 'quasi' watts. The actual RMS wattage has been measured at 236 watts @ 4 ohms. Now TC wouldn't be the first to lead people to believe the RMS rating of their amps are higher than they actually are, but have any users noticed any problems in practice? TC seem to be claiming that the RH is more like a valve amp and sounds louder than the measured wattage would have you believe. So, anyone disappointed with the levels their RH450 can achieve?

Thermal power handling will be way above what the limit of mechanical excursion is - if it's a decent speaker it'll probably only take 50% of the rated RMS at the bottom end. Less if it's not so good. Use your ears, and if it distorts turn down the volume and/or the bass EQ.

[url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Right-Handed-Semi-Acoustic-Bass-Guitar-/190568454172?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item2c5ec3d81c"]Old semi[/url]. I've seen basses like this branded Commodore (I think Nick has/used to have something similar) and it appears to be a Mat build. It's got a BIN of £150 at the moment, but I'd suggest someone within easy reach of Aberdeen goes for this - I don't like all this talk of bubble wrap and brown paper!

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1348604' date='Aug 23 2011, 12:19 AM'][url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Ricky-Replica-4001-Bass-Guitar-Jetglow-Jam-/330604696558?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item4cf99353ee"]Looks like my CMI, claiming it is 'Ibanez', but it isn't the mudbucker.[/url][/quote] [quote]The orignal bridge and saddles were replaced by previous owner with p bass type saddles so you'd need to buy a rick bridge from ebay to put it back to orignal condition but it plays fine with the fender type saddles.[/quote] By the looks of things those saddles are just butted up against the string mutes. So it'll play fine, just so long as you don't need to play in tune!

Well said Nige. Although I prefer knackered strings, and dispensed with my brain ages ago.

Hmm... I'm sensing a theme to these threads. I know it's boring technical stuff, but you really should try to wade through the wiki. [url="http://wiki.basschat.co.uk/info:amps:impedance_and_wattage"]http://wiki.basschat.co.uk/info:amps:impedance_and_wattage[/url] - it's not too bad if you ignore the odd equation! A short summary for the time challenged: [list] [*]Speakers are rated by their power rating in “Watts” and their impedance in “Ohms”. [*]When matching a speaker to an amplifier you should obtain the power ratings (in Watts RMS) and relevant impedance (in Ohms) values of both. [*]For a transistor amp, as long as the impedance (in Ohms) of the speakers is the same or higher than the minimum impedance of the amp you're safe to use them together. [*]You can use any power output amp with any power handling cab. If any of these combinations makes bad sounds (like distortion) then turn down and/or stop cranking the bass EQ excessively or damage may occur to the speaker. [/list] But to answer your question - you will be fine with that combination. *Edited to clear up a possible source of confusion.

Yes, they'll work together. Bear in mind that although the LG1000 is rated at 1000w, it's output is split into 2x500w outputs at 4 ohms. With one 8 ohm cab you'll be on the receiving end of 300w... and the Little Giants have something of a reputation for sounding a bit quiet for their wattage.

Shame. Have you started working on that dummy load then?