Lfalex v1.1

[quote name='Stacker' timestamp='1328816220' post='1533219'] Post '61 should be .05microfarad throughout. The tone knob has a punched plate over a punched washer which gives the effect of notched control. I have heard of .03 being used prior to '62 but I cannot confirm this Can I ask where you got your data on the caps from? [/quote] An old diagram I saw once, coupled to the vagaries of my memory....!

[quote name='dub' timestamp='1328812576' post='1533133'] ....but I have been impressed by the sound of basses I,ve tried with maple boards with carbon rods in them (sadowskys / lakland) they have both brightness and woodiness with a more even tone which seems like the best of both worlds to me. Worth checking out. [/quote] If you thought basses with wood necks and graphite reinforcement were good, then check out Vigier Passion/Arpege Series III and Series IV basses. Graphite rods instead of a truss-rod.. [quote name='Rumple' timestamp='1328815566' post='1533213] I think you're right, I'm just weighing up all the various options of getting what I want, a secondhand Ray plus the cost of a Status neck is going to probably equal close to the price of ordering a brand new Ray to my spec from MM. [/quote] All too true, I'm afraid. You might be better off seeing if a s/h 'Ray 5 with a Status neck pops up. Unfortunately, you may have to wait forever for that to happen! The cost put me off, too, and I sold my Fretless 'Ray 5 eventually.

IF you have a five-string, there's no law that stops you using it as "just" a four- string for some gigs, ignoring the B string altogether. For me, the biggest caveat is finding a bass which sounds and feels like a five and not like a four-plus-one (if you know what I mean)

Am I right thinking that the capacitor values on the tone controls should be 0.22 pF and 0.47 pF for neck and bridge respectively, and that the tone controls should have notches on them rather than being infinitely adjustable?

They leave them blank in case you want to fit non-standard hardware, such as sealed tuners which are smaller in diameter than the originals (Schaller ABM?) and have fewer retaining screws etc.

Levin is cooler than most of us when he's SLEEPING.... A prodigious talent.

I had a fretless Ray 5, and looked into converting it by going down the Status route. As far as I know, the neck profile replicates the original. In terms of sound, expect a slightly more aggressive but more tonally even sound with a less compressed sound than Maple and colder but clearer than Rosewood. Do be aware that Status aftermarket necks come as fretted blanks- without hardware. If you want the factory to drill out all the holes/set it up, it does cost more than the already considerable expense. (I DO own a Status, Btw..)

At the risk of being flamed to death.... Many of these are the reason(s) that I'm either in an originals band... Or not in a band at all. I understand that these may be as a part of lucrative function/covers band arrangement.... But I'd just stand there and play it like a zombie. For some reason, I only enjoy playing something that I've had some input into, for better or worse. In the last band I was in, we did "All along the Watchtower..." and I hated it. Quite obviously my mileage varies significantly... And limits (severely) my ability to find a band...

[quote name='Fat Rich' timestamp='1328634479' post='1530434'] My '78 has screws, my late 80s Japs all have allen keys... I think they're metric too but I might be wrong (plus it's possible my bridges aren't genuine, they were all second hand basses). I know the US Fender bridges I've encountered have needed different sized allen keys.... Basically if your 70s bridge looks like a quality item I'd be suspicious. [/quote] @ the last statement. AFAIK, All MIA basses were (and are still) imperial. My 2004 Jazz is - both Truss rod and saddle grub screws. My Squier VMJ is all metric, as are Fender MIJ / CIJ As for the Mexican variants, I really don't know... though I seem to recall one I tweaked for someone 15+ years ago being metric..

[quote name='Gwilym' timestamp='1328368880' post='1526103'] I guess they might filter out the neighbour-annoying sub-sonics anyway. I'm guessing it would probably be quite good with my ACME cabs, just to optimise the work being done by my amp. The ACME's are tuned to -6db @ 31 HZ (i.e. the low B fundamental), and quite power hungry, is the Thumpinator going to clash with that 31HZ tuning in any way? Thanks! [/quote] It'd surely remove the subsonic components- using the hpf on the QSC stops any unpleasantness when if/when (delete as per playing style) a string touches an open pole-piece. Remember that one of the salient points about cabinet response is the level at which it reproduces the quoted frequency. Presumably, it's referenced against the level produced at 1kHz for the same power input (under anechoic conditions and without boundary reinforcement - so hardly "real world" as we experience it) If it is -6dB @ 31Hz, it'll be about 4 times quieter at that point than at the 1kHz level, leaving aside any issues due to low-frequency insensitivity of the human ear. Using some sort of hpf will help save the driving amp's power by not having it try to reproduce lower frequencies that are; 1) relatively difficult to hear (if not feel!) 2) hard to reproduce at realistic levels compared to (for example) the midrange. 3) taxing for equipment to reproduce At lower levels (as previously stated), it's less of an issue, as the amp has more headroom to spare, and this can be used in lf reproduction without flapping cones or compromising the systems reproduction of other frequencies.

I tried a NOS one in Pmt. I was distinctly unimpressed. Well made and set-up, but ultimately rather dull and bland. They wanted 600 notes for it (as a further disincentive)

My qsc power amp has a built in hpf, selectable on the rear panel. It can be switched off/30hz/50 hz. I leave it on 30hz, and even that improves the sound by conserving power that would otherwise vw wasted in trying to reproduce frequencies the cabs can't handle well.

I had begun to realise that I was nearing the lower limits of adjustment, but it happened all too quickly, and the end result with non-taper-cored strings is barely what I'd call acceptable. Even though one adjustment is maxxed out, it shouldn't prevent the other s being changed, especially as the rule of thumb (no pun intended) is truss rod > action > intonation. What I'll probably do is measure everything and adjust the intonation with the bridge "up" to give the correct result when I lower it again.

[quote name='janmaat' timestamp='1326224381' post='1494130'] I'd guess it be a good idea to use two castors which turn and two which don't (there must be a better way to put this but I hope you get my point) [/quote] I know what you mean. All four on mine swivel, but two have brakes. I moved them both to one end to avoid the tendency to tip over that having them on a long side causes. Instead, if knocked, it spins around....

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1327668480' post='1515044'] Sounds like the backline is as much about the image as eQ the instruments. I'm guessing from what you've said so far this is old-school rawk, so it's got to be a valve Ampeg with one or two 8x10 cabs. Or perhaps if you want to be a bit more radical an Acoustic amp with one of their folded horn cabs? [/quote] Or get a nice pre, dummy cabs and use in-ear monitors?

Unfortunately, there's only a 5mm gap between the tailpiece and the head of the D string screw! This increases for A,E and B because of the curvature of the tailpiece. I doubt I could get even the bendy screw driver in there... I can't file many of the saddle slots lower either as the strings are already very close to the saddle blocks. I think the answer may be a lighter gauge (for lower action) with taper-cored E & B strings. That'd allow the bridge to come up a bit more. On the subject of woodwork butchery, there's an answer there, too- Deepen the rout for the tailpiece, and screw it down further into the body. Thanks for the help guys.

[quote name='Low End Bee' timestamp='1327684208' post='1515418'] ( I'd) never buy a Fender untested.. [/quote] Or, in fact, any relatively expensive instrument (£300+) AaahhhMEN.

Thanks for that speedy response! However... No, they're at their lowest point. Yes. Still as per factory (I'm the original owner. No shims or that sort of stuff. And finally, Tried that, but the only way to do it is grab the thread of the string with a pair of thin-nosed pliers and twist/pray. Which still doesn't solve the problem of the B string running out of saddle travel. Don't get me wrong. Its MUCH better than it was, but right it is not!

If I could draw a "Chad", he would say; "[i]Wot? No[/i] P "

Hi all. For once I'm going to post a query on here... I'm pretty competent at set-ups. I know what I like and how to achieve it (in terms of playability) on most basses. I will even slightly alter the set-up to get the best from the bass/myself given the intended use for the instrument. Inspired by a charge into the dusty end on a fiver that culminated in "running out of frets" I elected to dust off my sixer, a 1997 Warwick Streamer LX6. I took one look and thought "I can do better than this" and cracked out the allen keys. Truss Rod done. Check. Action lowered (by lowering the whole bridge, as the individual saddles were already well down in their holders). Check Strings adjusted to match the non-existent fretboard radius? Yep, I even did that! Intonation... er. No. The bridge is now SO low (I'd actually want it lower, but the intonation screw heads were touching the surface of the body!) that access to the intonation screws is completely blocked by the tailpiece that holds the ball-ends of the strings. What am I to do? Raise the bridge, guess the adjustment and lower it again? That's a lot of trial and error! I note from comparison with my Fortress MM5 and Infinity SN4 that the tailpiece is further away (and dramatically lower on the SN4) so that the screws aren't occluded by the tailpiece on either instrument. The Streamer is currently running 30-130 (non tapered) Rotosound (they were cheap) Steel Rounds. Main issues are with A,E and B strings, with the added bonus that the B string's saddle has run out of rearward travel. Any help would be gratefully appreciated, as there's a good instrument lurking in there, albeit hidden by clumsy design. Will a change of gauge for the the next set of strings help? It was supplied with Warwick Yellows of 25,40,60,80,100,125 gauge. I might revert to this, but don't want Nickels and loathe Warwick reds. Any suggestions on string choice? Thanks in advance! Alex.

Waaaay back in the mists of time, before I discovered bass, one of my favourite tracks was from Bryan Ferry's [i]Bete Noire[/i] album, entitled "Kiss and Tell" Upon reviewing this track, I found a bass tone to die for, a laid-back but punchy groove with tidy technique... Oh and a bass credit for one Marcus Miller... Super player.

[quote name='Doctor J' timestamp='1327653401' post='1514678'] If you want consistent quality, try a different manufacturer. Forget about the badge and buy a good bass instead. [/quote] Yes and yes. G &L? Sandberg? Lakland? Dingwall? Spector? Not heard many Qc related gripes about any of these.Then there's the likes of Status, Vigier, Modulus, Alembic, Sadowsky and so on. Btw, has anyone ever had a naff Yamaha?

[quote name='funkle' timestamp='1327653056' post='1514671'] Fender. You can take it anywhere, and no-one will look at you oddly. Everyone knows what to expect and what it sounds like. You do want the gig, don't you? [/quote] Not only do I want the gig, I can do without the worry of who's legging it out of the fire exit with my 6 million dollar Fodera when I'm at the gig. On that basis alone, a Fender. Although perhaps not a particularly mainstream one. Maybe an Urge or Roscoe Beck...

I find FX deeply frustrating. I've been through loads (fortunately no boutique units) and I can't even find an OD that I like. The only OD I've kept isn't a pedal, it's an Ampeg SVP-PRO! I have an MXR M80 as a stand-alone DI, but run that "clean" Why don't chorus pedals have the equivalent of a tap-delay to accurately sync the rate to the tempo of the music? I've never seen one that has.. Tap-delays can be quite nice, and I can see the value in a looper with plenty of memory. I like to use a variety of different basses, and find that they interact very differently with FX in some cases (the low impedance output of the Vigier's on-board pre really throws some units) I think my main cause of consternation with some kinds of FX is tone related. Why spend ages in pursuit of a bass with "the" tone (and, let's face it, most of us on here do, or have) only to smother it with modulation effects or somesuch. I know they've got an "off" switch, but for me, I just relish the simplicity of the clean approach. I guess it depends on what type of noise you want to make... YMMV, of course.

[quote name='chaypup' timestamp='1327510203' post='1512617'] Sorry, but in my experience from working with touringbands this is incorrect. Great (and even halfway decent) originals bands know exactly what they're going to play and have rehearsed it to death. Even the between song banter is the same each night and is scripted and rehearsed. Ad-libbing simply leaves too much room for things to go wrong. [/quote] I agree. The best band (originals) I've ever been in played everything the same each time (within normal limits) We'd change the set list/running order for each gig according to what we thought would suit the venue/audience, but rehearse the agreed list in advance to make sure it worked and time it, making any adjustments as necessary. It made everything so much easier (and more predictable) when it came to the actual performance. On one occasion, our entire set was recorded. When you listen to it back, it simply sounds like a more energetic rendition of the original recordings (which formed the basis of our individual practice regimes anyway)