chriswareham

Hadn't realised that Alex had moved on. Always found him easy to get on with, not a hard selling salesman, which I really appreciated. He and Martin have always been helpful and never condescending or snooty about my choice of equipment as someone on here claims to have experienced. They even appeared genuinely interested in my Hondo Rickenfaker when I took it in for a set up. Sadly the cat is now living at home with one of the guys rather than in the shop, but still the best bass store I've ever been to.

[quote name='3below' timestamp='1450541338' post='2933786'] Just let a good technician sort it and enjoy real transistor Watts (rather than D type Watts). How did we ever gig with 100W transistor heads? [/quote] :-) I've read that Acoustic rated their amps according to what is nowadays referred to as "program" levels rather than the "peak" levels of most manufacturers. So when an Acoustic 140 is officially rated for 125W, it's comparatively more powerful than most transistor amps with that rating. At least that's what I've read, but it would explain why so many people find Acoustic amps surprisingly loud.

Many thanks to you all for pitching in with advice, and 3below in particular for finding the schematic. I'll see if the guy who customised my Sound City is up for doing the conversion (Theo Argiriadis http://www.tube-electronics.co.uk/).

Hi folks! I've just acquired an Acoustic Control Corporation 140 amp from the States. It's currently winging its way to me, and I plan on initially using it with a step down transformer. Longer term, I want to replace the internal transformer to work directly from UK mains voltage. Does anyone know how difficult it is to do this properly? I wonder if this is complicated by the difference in frequency (50hz versus 60hz) as well, which I guess is particularly important for audio gear. Not going to attempt any conversion myself, as I don't go near mains level voltages, but would appreciate any advice from those who have converted stuff themselves or has someone do it for them.

No updates for a while, as my wife's puppy chewed through the speaker cone! I left a door open while I went to fetch something and the little horror sneaked into the room. The speaker is now with Wembley Loudspeakers for re-coning

When I was a teenager, no one wanted a keyboard player since everyone wanted to do guitar bands. Most people wanted to be a singer or guitarist, and since a drum kit wasn't a practical proposition I took up bass.

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1450033669' post='2929014'] I've never heard of half of these people. [/quote] Well, take the suggestions as a starting point then. If not, then stay in your Jazz/Fusion ghetto. [quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1450033669' post='2929014'] Not sure any truly punk players have contributed vastly to the combined dictionary of electric bass patterns. Maybe Jean Jack Burnell with the riff to Peaches on the Beaches and one or two others (some Oeter Hook parts spring to mind). [/quote] That's because unlike Jazz/Fusion and its ilk, it's not about improvisation (or more accurately being able to apply a bit of theory in order to endlessly noodle over a couple of standard chord progressions). Take the debut album by New Model Army - there's more invention in the bass parts on that than the entire back catalogue of any Jazz/Fusion outfit. [quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1450033669' post='2929014'] Surely punk, perhaps more so than most genres, is all about the overall group sound rather than any of its individual components. [/quote] Quite possibly, but that may be because Jazz/Fusion was about providing a platform to show off with tedious displays of what's then passed of as virtuosity, rather than true invention. Many punk and particularly new wave bands were looking for something new, having tired of the bloated pomposity of coke fuelled mid 70s dross.

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1450030782' post='2928950'] I think I'm probably one of these muso bores who noodles around and has had an open enough mind to have been influenced by a vast range of musicians and genres over the years - and thus am able to play a range of styles etc. [/quote] I've got pretty broad tastes, but what I actually play would not be a lot of peoples cup of tea. That's fine, and if what you do floats your boat then that's also fine. But there a a couple of people on this board who seem to take great delight in belittling others with their dick swinging comments. For them the gloves are off. And just for the record I can enjoy a bit of slap and fretless (Bootsy or Mick Karn for instance). Pastorius leaves me cold though.

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1450029592' post='2928920'] If your going to bash those of us who chose to play covers that's ok. [/quote] I don't care what they do until they tell me I'm not a "real" bassist because I find Jazz/Fusion boring. Or those like the bassist from a tribute act that supported us recently, who told me I should burn my Greco because it "isn't a real Rickenbacker". [quote name='blue' timestamp='1450029592' post='2928920'] Would you like to here my opinion of most local original music? [/quote] Not really.

[quote name='TKenrick' timestamp='1449499681' post='2924074'] He was our Hendrix - regardless of whether you think he was a genius or a hack you can't deny the fact that he totally reinvented our instrument and that almost every single 'big name' player today takes influence from him in one form or another. [/quote] Bollocks. The vast majority of bass players today don't play Jazz or noodle around, mostly on a fretless, or even play without a pick. I was utterly underwhelmed by Pastorius and in particiular the tedious elevator music of Weather Report. Quite amused by the usual suspects on here who arrogantly claim that someone shouldn't play bass if they can't appreciate Pastorius. They tickle me pink (or possibly blue), since judging by their other posts they're playing in cover or function bands. The typical muso bores who seem to have never written their own material but just mimic others. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH7JBgIHWjs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH7JBgIHWjs[/url]

[quote name='HowieBass' timestamp='1449941979' post='2928263'] Tina Weymouth - never played more than was necessary and it always suited the song. [/quote] And didn't play on the early records since she was so bad!

[quote name='Roger2611' timestamp='1449919381' post='2927935'] Stuart Morrow, New Model Army to name but a few [/quote] He was superb on the first two NMA albums. I'll add: Peter Hook of Joy Division David J of Bauhaus Martin "Youth" Glover of Killing Joke Barry from Southern Death Cult Dave Allen and Sara Lee of Gang Of Four Dave Roberts of Sex Gang Children

[quote name='MacDaddy' timestamp='1449782356' post='2926872'] IIRC in an interview with BGM he said no distortion just cranked mids. [/quote] Lemmy's settings are pretty much full gain, full mid, no bass or treble. The result is overdriven, so I guess it's down to the difference between overdrive and distortion.

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1449532082' post='2924502'] Mellotron tapes are a hell of a lot longer than a few centimetres. [/quote] Yeah, I was being a bit facetious, but the time it takes the tapes to reset means that sometimes a subsequent press of the same key will restart a note playing with an annoying click.

Loved the bit about how they recorded the "choral" sounds on "Not In Love" (the only song I knew by them before watching the show). Three weeks of recording tape loops for each note, and then playing the mixer like a keyboard. Of course, now it would be trivial to do on a sampler, but incredible imagination to come up with that in the pre-sampler era since even a Mellotron wouldn't be able to do it (no long sustained notes due to the tapes only being a few centimetres long).

Someone has mentioned Primary by The Cure, but it's worth checking out the album Faith which that track was from. Most of the songs are either Fender Precision and Fender VI, or the Precision and some minimal keyboards. The title track in particular features the Fender VI as lead.

[quote name='The-Ox' timestamp='1449019974' post='2920205'] Thanks again! My main concern is whether I'll be able to get the range of tone that a real rick gets. Will it in essence be able to produce the same sounds? [/quote] The pickup placement is the same as a real Rick, so it should sound very similar - I have a Greco (Matsumoku built) copy of a similar age and it has the sound. If it has a capacitor on the treble pickup you'll get what's called the "vintage" tone that pre-1984 Ricks had. On modern 4003 Rick basses you can switch this capacitor in our out to get either the modern or vintage tone. I'd guess that being a 1970s Rick copy the Shaftesbury would have this capacitor. [quote name='The-Ox' timestamp='1449019974' post='2920205'] Also what does the single truss rod mean compared to the dual truss rod? [/quote] In theory, the twin truss rods of a real Rick (and some copies) would allow you to correct a twist in the neck. In practice they just make it more difficult for normal neck relief adjustments.

Bass -> Compressor -> Distortion -> Chorus -> Amp Although I do roughly half of my band's gigs without the pedals if I'm not in the mood to lug the fairly hefty pedalboard case along.

Went to buy some strings from my local music shop (Soundgarden in High Barnet), and had a quick browse around first. They had quite possibly the most ugly "faker" I've ever seen. It's the Stagg BG400, which is clearly supposed to be a Gibson EB0 copy, but with the single pickup up near the bridge rather than the neck. Pictures don't do it justice, as it's a slab with none of the "pointy" edges that make the Gibson look quite elegant - the picture below gives a false impression that it's tapered off quite a lot at the sides of the body. The body and headstock are also much wider than they appears in pictures, which make it look like a something someone knocked up in school woodwork class!

Jack's instrument services did a scratchplate and truss rod cover in b-w-b three ply for one of my instruments. Very pleased with the results.

Just remembered a gig that I'd pushed to the back of my memory. Type O Negative at the London Astoria roughly 2005. The mighty Peter Steele was in a bad way, having succumbed to drug abuse and his inner demons. I read later that he'd been pressured into the tour because the cancellation fees would have been financially disastrous, and that he'd collapsed after the Birmingham show the night before. They came on very late, having had the Birdy Song on a loop for roughly an hour. He had to sit on the drum riser, and barely sang or played bass. About a year later I saw him on the one off Carnivore tour upstairs at the O2 Academy in Islington. He was out of shape but back in fine form. Then came the shock a couple of years later when he passed away at 48.

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1448065859' post='2912925'] Funny to think he was in Thin Lizzy [/quote] Watched a Thin Lizzy documentary once, and even Midge Ure was wondering how he got that gig. He had to learn approximations of the guitar lines on the plane to the US tour.

Ultravox a few years back at the Roundhouse. Half the set was later Midge Ure penned stuff, with his terrible guitar playing up high in the mix. Turns out he only agreed to the gig if he could play his songs and the sound woman who does his acoustic shows could mix. Walked out about halfway through.

I think it's worth drawing a distinction between the Juno 106 and the rest of the series.I had an Alpha Juno II and MKS-50. They were the later models with very "smooth" sounding filters and really like the more up market JX-8P, JX-10 and MKS-80 but with very limited interfaces. On the early Juno models, the chorus was a must for thickening up pad sounds, although not essential for bass or lead sounds where unison was fine for f you needed a "fatter" sound. As to bands using the Juno or others because that was all they had access to, plenty of people would disagree. The FM and other digital synthesis were sods to program, and sounded very thin. People like Depeche Mode, Vince Clarke, Nick Rhodes and many others either went back to their analogue synth or moved onto samplers like the Emulator II (with its analogue filters).

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1447878644' post='2911231'] Well having played all of them and owned a JP-6 I can't think of any sound that a JU or JX series synth might make that I couldn't have done with any of the JP series synths (except for the JP-4 which was a completely different synth to the other JPs). At the time (early 80s) I doubt anyone would have bought any JU or JX series instrument if they could have afforded a JP-8 or JP-6. Certainly none of the people I knew who had a JU or JX would have hesitated for a moment if they could have swapped their synth for a Jupiter. [/quote] The Juno 106, JX-3P and JP8 have very different oscillators and filters. The JP8 filter can't be pushed into self-oscillation for example, but that machine has a much more sophisticated voice architecture. I hope to get one of the boutique versions, but I'm undecided between the Juno and Jupiter (I do have a Jupiter 4 though, and it does seem to have a filter that's closer to the one in the JP-8 than the ones in the Juno 106 or JX-3P). My JP4, piccie courtesy of the wonderful Hammond Hire who fitted MIDI to it: