Lfalex v1.1

On further viewing of the Dingwall site, it appears that only the Super P and Super J would fit my scale length preference. And they aren't cheap! I wonder why the "cheaper" models only come in 34-37 inch scale? And there seems to be a lot of emphasis around on their being a Hard Rock/Metal instrument, which I find odd.

Let's hope no-one brings up "Fenders", then.. That gets really confusing.

It is difficult to establish. The best sounding two low strings I have are on an NS CR5 EUB (42" scale and who knows what gauge- it's big) And the low C on my Chapman Stick (36" scale but smaller gauge than you'd think. It's a mix of design, materials/construction, string gauge and scale length. I'd hope that electronics and string choice (in terms of manufacturer, material and type) would make less of a difference.

Ah.. I read the combustion specs. Figured they'd all be the same..

I understand the idea of Fanned Fret or Multi-scale instruments, and I guess that the various manufacturers (Dingwall, Ibanez and RedSub to name but 3) have all done their research. But I can't help but to think they've all gone a bit long on the scale front. All the manufacturers seem to start at 33.25 to 34 inch scale for their G strings. Most then run to 35.5 to 36 for their B strings (on a 5-string), with Dingwall having a whopping 37 inch B Surely string choice is reduced by this? I'd love something with a 32-35 inch scale as a 5 string. I'd relish the sweetness of a shorter-scale G and D string coupled to a marginally longer E and B. Maybe even centered around a 34" A string for a familiar feel. I'd guess that almost every regular 5 string set would fit, giving the user a broad choice of gauges, types and materials. Edit- looking further, the Headed ff Ibanez are using different scale lengths to the headless models.... ???

I just read an article about this. Definitely due to Borer Beetle impact. There are Ash species that are resistant, but the timber is heavier than they'd like- resulting in 12-13lb jazz basses. As a result, they're looking at chambering to cut the mass to be more manageable. Beyond that, Fender are looking at Pine (Roasted), Cedar and Sassafras as replacement body woods. Historically significant reproductions can be ordered in the original Ash, as can custom shop instruments, but there's a restricted amount of Ash available.

(Not an expert) Presumably it's possible if you can open up the old pots and replace the tracks and wipers using parts of the correct value... You'd likely have to scavenge those from new pots that you'd bought and dismantled. Someone might be willing to do it. I presume you want to preserve it's originality? Consider this, though; were you buying a classic car, would you expect it to have the same tyres and exhaust as when it rolled out of the factory? Have you cleaned the offending potentiometers with a contact cleaner? If so, did it work?

Alder and Poplar are fine woods. My Vigier and Yamaha were Alder. My Stingray 5 fretless was Poplar. They're all finished in solid colours. Alder and Poplar don't often exhibit much figuring or grain. Ash would be preferable for aesthetic reasons under clear or translucent finishes (IMO) Maybe they'll switch to Maple or Walnut. They'll potentially be rather heavy, though!!

Out of the left-field... Ever tried a Bongo? I know the aesthetics are "difficult" for some, but I've yet to encounter a poor one in terms of finish and tone. Otherwise.... G&L?

Another vote in favour of Ampeg amplification. Mine always sounded best with my Jazz or Ray5 plugged into it. Less so with non U.S. instruments. I wonder if that's deliberate?

Alas that I don't own a 31-band EQ! Nor would my bandmates relish the time it'd take to set up... I'd prefer a system that plays a bit of pink noise and calibrates itself.. I don't really like modellers, and the compression, distortion and phase anomalies I mentioned was an oblique reference to FX messing everything up again. I think my issue is that I've spent so long playing exclusively though good quality headphones fed from a small mixing desk that nearly everything sounds a bit skewed by comparison.

Whilst I accept that an FRFR system will be noticeably less coloured (or have deliberate "voicing") than a traditional bass amp/cab or combo, they still have a couple of issues. One is generic to all sound reproduction using loudspeakers, one is more specific to bass guitar/single instrument amplification; Achieving a flat response in an anechoic chamber or other controlled environment is one thing. Achieving it on a hollow wooden stage when the system has been shoved over to one side or to the rear because there's no space at the front is another altogether. These systems don't generally lack headroom, so it'd be nice if there were some way of EQ-ing out some of the more severe artefacts and getting back towards the design goal of a "flat response" (but in a real-world scenario) I once experimented with an old Trace Elliot head/cab and used a mobile phone app to produce a corrective curve to EQ out the worst of the room effects. That took about 2 minutes, and the results were surprisingly good. Having done our best to achieve an appropriately flat in-room response, do we then have to start "chopping out" the undesired frequencies >12kHz probably doesn't have much useful content in the context of bass guitar save for some harmonic content. Conversely, gently rolling off the LF below about 30-35Hz helps take the strain off of the drivers and amplifier/s, leaving more clean headroom for any big peaks. Then, of course, there's the signal chain before the FRFR system, which in many cases may deliberately compress, distort and mess with the phase or frequency content of the original signal... But that's another story. The point being- I understand the design goals and breadth of applications for such systems. They may also be more compact and portable than traditional bass-specific amplification solutions, but it seems that, on the one hand, we are applauding the designers' efforts and on the other doing a significant amount to undermine them by the way in which we use the product..

This one does well to accommodate all that hardware...

And they'd better be passive. It's not like you can go and get spare batteries. Edit: And no US Fenders. Y'all know where they're made..

Does it have to look like a 'Ray? If it's only the sound that you're after, have a look for some Warwick Streamer Pro M models or Fortress Masterman.. They'll all be late 90s instruments.

At a venue in Leicester Square, I ended up with a Hartke HA3500 and 4.5XL 4x10. That was a nice surprise. Post-gig, some lovely gentlemen pursuing me with the intent of parting me from my Infinity SN4 was a less pleasant surprise.

Almost exactly what I do. Except most of the (light) pressure from my thumb is directed towards me into the body of the bass. The downward pressure is enough to damp the top string. There's a slight upward shift to allow the top string to be plucked, then back down again.

I did it with my H122smx (2x10) combo and re-sleeved the head. I also managed to make the cabinet work separately as a 2x10. There was even enough covering left to re-do the top of the cab.

Good reviews, thanks. Definitely a "try before you buy", then. Particularly at £1400+

Hmm. That didn't tell me much about how it would behave when attacked by my meaty mittens!

Body shape is quite similar. String count is wrong, but they do/did a 4.

Looks like a Spector Rex... Kind of.

Grateful Dead?

I think Colin Moulding may have played one on this XtC album..

Might be kinda heavy?