martthebass

This could be me! Had to check that it wasn’t 😂

Tell me about it. Occasional trapped nerve between 5th and 6th, rotator cuff, tinnitus and over active bladder (that can be fun on a longer set....). As me mum says, getting old ain’t for the squeamish.

I think we could make the same comment about many of the US bass manufacturers..... But to be fair, when a supplier makes an 'improvement' how often is it met with criticism? With Ric, the 4004 (cii and Laredo) arguably addresses many of the issues with a 4003, (proper bridge, no ironware, profiled body) but I bet the 4003 outsells it 10 to 1. Not sure what the issue is supposed to be with the dual rods - I've always found them easy on a 4003 (but wouldn't have a 4001 for love nor money). Fender still sell shed loads of AVIs despite the improvements on the modern lines. I own a couple of MMs and a 4003, the MMs get a lot more play than the 4003 but it doesn't stop me enjoying the latter when I decide to use it

5'8" here.....so a short derrière

If this is the 'minty fresh' version of the JMJ Mustang (which it certainly looks to be other than the fretboard) then it will sound awesome. The wife would kill me if I brought another Mustang into the house so GLWTS

Just had to sniff mine.......I’d never noticed this but you are totally correct it does smell of maple syrup lol.

I was referring more to the stiffness rather than the movement of the neck with change in moisture (linked to expansion/contraction) but I see your point. If the stiffness has increased significantly then there could have been claim that deformation under load would be reduced and therefore stability increased - less need for rod turning with string load changes. Claims of graphite like improvement (non-hygroscopicicity not withstanding).

That's interesting. A loss of 30% in MOR would make you think that durability would be reduced with respect to tensile stress induced cracking (and subsequent propagation). If these results are carried over to hardwoods then the minor change in MOE wouldn't help stability though - I guess Sterling Ball wouldn't want to hear this. I suspect that in the typical loadings on basses however that the effects are minimal.

On the one side, in comparing my roasted neck (Ray Starry Night) to non-roasted neck (Sterling), I would say that most of the differences are cosmetic and that any sonic differences are over-ridden by the electronics package and possible the fretboard material (ebony on the Ray, one piece maple on the Sterling). As a materials engineer, I'm also interested by the material properties, they could have a bearing on the dimensional stability and the durability (ignoring sonics here). Strength is a vague term; I was concerned that the brittleness might be higher in the roasted; so far I've been lucky and my neck hasn't suffered impact to demonstrate failure due to brittle fracture. On the normal maple neck a couple of dings (later steamed out) showed no such tendency. I'd be interested to see figures for difference in strain/stress to failure (tension - as I'd assume the predominant failure mode would be flexural/tension) and MOE between roasted and non-roasted but I'd assume there was a lot of variance as wood is hardly an homogenous or isotropic material. In the meantime I'll admire the looks and play it with gusto.

Lovely Ray Dan, and in excellent condition as always. If I could bring myself to part with the Starry Night I’d be over at yours for a test drive (again).

I can’t rule out the rig, but the 4003 sounded fine through the same set up. Apparently there was a pot/harness swap that would’ve sorted it but the I’m happy with the swap.

I did but I hated the sound - indistinct fuzzy and no definition. Traded for a 4003 about 6 years ago. Still have it.

The Glam Rock Mustangs of doom!

Used one on over 130 gigs over the last couple of years. Generally been happy with the performance, good battery life, good indication of battery life, good indication of the level of interference. Latency has only expressed itself when I stray far from the cabs (>20m) so it's more sonic velocity than electronically induced delay. Construction is great other than the transmitter battery cover which is a bit fragile (as stated above), however Chris sends new ones out if they break so it's not really an issue. The receiver box is fine construction - I just Velcro it to the side of a cab. Would I buy again, yes.

I've got both though the LM3 is an earlier class AB Italian build, the LM3 is now in back up position and the MM the main. TBH the core sound of both is very similar to my ears and both are equally usable in gigging situations - I'd be surprised if many in the audience would detect the difference. I don't tend to stray too far from 12 on the eq either so I guess I won't notice the differences in the frequency centres too much - I generally use the 'Milleriser' or VPF filters which get me where I need to be quite easily. The only thing I prefer on the MM over the LM3 is the mute switch (and associated visual indication); they're both great amps.