SteveO

[quote name='OldGit' post='341727' date='Dec 1 2008, 12:18 PM']PM[/quote] Bloody hell, that was quick. PM'd back Gonna have a noodle tonight with new strings and an open mind. we'll see.

Well, that's a suprise. I always thought myself imune to trademark hype. My first bass is a JV precision (big squier, small fender, JV0570) If I'm reading your posts and links correctly then this is basically a fender made in Japan with a Squier logo on it, and is a pretty good p bass. It cost me a tenner 5 years ago, havent played it for 2 years coz in my opinion it's a bag of sh*te. so either I [i]am [/i]a victim of hype and I didn't like it coz I'm thinking it's a cheap jap copy, or fender p's really are overhyped overpriced planks... On the up-side it's in a pretty cood condition, with one small belt-buckle chip so maybe I should flog it off to boost my stingray fund. (White with tort 3ply scratchplate any offers? ... )

[quote name='Delberthot' post='332078' date='Nov 19 2008, 10:03 AM']What's next, markers that light up chords in a certain key on the fretboard?[/quote] That's been [url="http://www.fretlight.com/"]done already.[/url]

[quote name='Telebass' post='332657' date='Nov 19 2008, 10:41 PM']Natch! Seriously, the radio removes the cable loss, which was the original purpose of active anyway...[/quote] Was it? I always thought it was just to give us better control over the tone. You learn something new every day, as my dad used to say.

Wasn't this mentioned before? Not sure if I'm having Deja vu or not. There's no way that i'd ever buy one, What's the chance of a faulty system detuning you mid song? It's a lot of cash to save you about 15 seconds work every week or so. I think the problem is that it dosen't appear to be aimed at musicians (maybe this is what the OP meant by insulting) if your guitar keeps going out of tune then you'd replace the tuners. If you want to play many songs in different tunings then you'd tailor the set to minimise the downtime, or learn the songs in standard tuning. I don't think that anyone who can actually play the instrument would buy one, except maybe a few of the type who buy those tripple neck guitars or the bass/guitar-in-one. Very gimiky with no real value. I think that the people at Gibson are also looking for the next inovation (see PRoseBass's thread) Sorry guys but this ain't it.

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='328759' date='Nov 14 2008, 12:54 AM']Based on personal experience I would recommend against using rechargables in a bass unless you have a passive mode. When the rechargables lose current they collapse in minutes. With non-rechargables, the power drains more slowly giving you more warning to change. I buy 9v Durcel Procells in bulk off Ebay.[/quote] Good point, 'tis why I make sure mine are full before a gig (pre-gig ritual test with a multimeter). I also test because in every charge-drain-recharge cycle the battery holds slightly less charge (dunno why) There will come a point when a full charge will not last 3 hours, but I suppose it'll be years before that happens. Aren't they good for something like 1000 recharges? it'll be 20 years at one charge per week before I need to look at a replacement, but I'm a paranoid bugger and hence the testing.

On it's way...

I think i've only ever cleaned my bass once, well it was more of a got-splashed-by-flying-beer-at-a-bike-rally moment really, although I did use my sleve to wipe a bit off after the song. Do you people never wash your hands? my main bass (4 years old) hasn't been cleaned ever (except by beer), and apart for a bit of dust at the pickups there's no crud at all. Played for at least an hour every day, plus gigs.

[quote name='Stuart Clayton' post='328498' date='Nov 13 2008, 05:58 PM']Hi all, Does anyone have a copy of this album by Jonas Hellborg? It was his first release and I think was the very first solo electric bass album. Am researching solo bass playing for my forthcoming book and would like to hear this recording. If anyone can help, please let me know! Best, Stuart[/quote] I may know someone *ahem* who has this. Can PM a link to a not-entirely-legal website where 'my friend' found it if you want.

Hmmm Mine used to go flat every three months too, and I though that was reasonable (not having any other active basses to compare against ) These days I use rechargeables, and stick a full one in every gig. There's no reason why all preamps should have the same current drain though. I guess cheap basses (mines the yamaha 375) have cheap preamps with higher drain?.

[quote name='OldGit' post='321104' date='Nov 3 2008, 06:26 PM']This has been mentioned before but practice in the dark so you have to hear and feel your way around the tunes ... Then you won't miss staring at your frets when you play live.[/quote] Has it OG? I don't recall seeing this tip before, but then again my memory is comparable to that of a goldfish. Good tip tho. I'm well past the staring-at-the-fretboard stage, but I have a fear of playing a gig so dark that I can't see the fretboard. (Never happened yet, just one of them phobias ). Gonna play through our standard set in pitch darkness tonight* to see what happens . *along with the cd's. Can't do a rehersal in the dark. Peder (singer) needs crib-sheets (well for the songs in english anyway) and I don't wanna be in the same room with Arvid (drummer) in the dark .

[quote name='-m-' post='319659' date='Nov 1 2008, 04:28 PM']That's the swedish chef... [/quote]

Hei, Jeg er ikke norsk, men jeg bor i Norge også.

Not too sure if this is posted in the right section, but I suppose if you're looking to improve your playing then you might be considering watching an instructional vid... Whilst not a huge fan on Flea, I have been playing a lot of Chilli Peppers recently so I thought it worth checking out his vid, [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flea-Bass-Jamming-Techniques-NTSC/dp/B00007AJEP"]Flea - Bass Jamming and Techniques[/url] to see if there's any pointers in there... It's done in an interview style with River Phoenix asking some pretty pointless dumbass questions, which is pretty odd, but I suppose at least it's different from the other way of just treating your audience as students and trying to show them things, which has been done to death in the whole genre of instructional videos. Anyway... What a knob. The whole vid is a total self indulgent 'look how good I am' pile of crap. I'm only glad that I didn't buy this. Incase theres anyone thinks about buying it (or stealing it, follow [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=8191&view=findpost&p=86200"][b]Paul, the[/b]'s link to Bassko.com[/url] and have a look in the videos section.), here's the sum total of the instructional bits... 'I only play with pick when I have a pick in my hand' Q: 'What about your fingers then?' A:'well, there's this one' [[i]lots of rapid alternating of index and middle finger on left hand[/i]] Q: 'Do you always do it left right left right?' A:'I always do it LRLR, although I'm sure there's other ways to do it. you can use your thumb aswell' [[i]plays a bit using thumb to pluck with, classical guitar style[/i]] 'left hand is pretty simple, there's exercises to make it stronger and stuff, and you just press down on the strings. There.' 'Q: What equipment do you have'...'A: Well, equipment is really meaningless.' [[i]yeah, thanks mr Flea, I agree with the sentiment that a good musician can make a plank with a string on it sound good, but it doesn't help if you're trying to work out how to get the 'flea sound'[/i]] [i]useful bits to take away...[/i] 'You have to listen more than you play... if you don't listen to what's around you, you might as well shut up.' 'Above all, don't be lame... If someone says something, and you don't think it's right, then just don't deal with it.' [i]OK, at least we agree on that....[/i] [Click]

Hmmm. maybe this is where I eat humble pie. I can't find any specific equations relating the Energy of a vibrating string to it's displacement, and I can't be arsed to derive from first principles, so lets assume that the displacement of a vibrating string will increase as the energy going into the string increases. (seems reasonable, if you pluck harder the string will move more) From this, we can say that the displacement is directly proportional to the energy put into the vibration (the strength of the pluck) Putting that aside for the moment, we can also say that a long string vibrating at the same frequency and displacement as a short one will have a greater energy content due to it's greater mass (in the same way that a 10 tonne truck traveling at 30 mph has more energy than a mini traveling at 30 mph) Putting these together, it follows that if we have two vibrating strings with the same Energy input and the same frequency of vibration, the one with the greater total mass (i.e. the greater length) will have a smaller displacement. So, Gamble. Ignore everything I've said. I think you're right in so far as that a longer string should mean a smaller action, not bigger. Apologies bnt, you were on the right track after all But.... (I'm not doing this on purpose, honest ) here's something else to throw into the mix...Can we agree that the output level of the bass depends on how much string displacement there is over the pickup and that the player will pluck the string however hard is necessary to get it to generate a set output level? I'm gonna assume that the pickup position on a longer scale bass is in the same relative position to the scale (i.e on a 34" p-bass the pup is about 1/4 of the way up the 34" string. I'm assuming that on a 36" scale the pup is about 1/4 of the way up the 36" string this may be a big assumption to make, please correct me if this is wrong) If the displacement at 1/4 of the length of the string is the same (at the pup), then the displacement at the centre of the string will be the same, regardless of how long the string is. The displacement at the pup will always be equal to sin 45 X the displacement at the centre. If the displacement at the pup is 1mm then the displacement at the 12th fret will be 1.41mm regardless of whether the string is 34" or 34 miles long. So now you don't need more action with a longer string. So, we now get into the specific harmonc content of the vibrating string. as Alex mentioned, the fundamental is relatively stronger in a longer string, which is the greatest contributor to the maximum displacement at the 12th fret, so more fundamental should equal more displacement. Maybe this is why your book recomends a higher action? but calculating that is gonna be a real brain-ache, and I've got a gig to go to.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='314808' date='Oct 26 2008, 12:24 AM']Higher tension equals less excursion however you achieve it, be it through higher tuning, heavier strings or longer scale.[/quote] OK, to take this to an extreme, you're saying that a 1cm length of string at a tension of say 75N will vibrate at a higher excursion than a 100m length of the same string under a tension of 76N?. I take it that we're assuming that the same force is used to vibrate the string (the strength of the pluck) and we're ignoring the fact that the string is heavier? (cos it's longer - there's more string being vibrated) and assuming that all other factors are also insignificant? You know what, with those assumprions you're probably right. however longer bass strings [i]are[/i] heavier than shorter ones of the same gauge, and you can't just ignore the effects of string mass and say [i]higher tension equals less excursion[/i], and nothing else matters. check out the MIT link from bnt, or the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_string"]Wiki[/url] on vibrating strings. From those you can see that even a small change in mass has a significant change on the vibrational properties. You can see from the same equasions that it has a greater effect on the vibrating string than tension does. Now let's have a coffee and see if we can come up with an equasion that includes maximum amplitude/excursion/displacement, as well as frequency, length, mass and anything else that might be significant, and see how they interrelate to each other. Have you measured that string yet Gamble? [quote name='Gamble' post='314807' date='Oct 26 2008, 12:16 AM']You boys need to chillllllllllll....................[/quote] lol. I thought we were quite chilled. We're just throwing ideas around to see what sticks. you wanna see what we're like when we're arguing about the folding of multidimentional space in the [i]other[/i] string theory when common sense goes right out the window. I'm quite enjoying this, I didn't realise just how much classical physics i'd forgotten

[quote name='alexclaber' post='314593' date='Oct 25 2008, 06:05 PM']...The greater the mass per unit length and the tension, the less the excursion for a given pitch and energy input. So longer scale high tension strings will exhibit less excursion than shorter scale low tension strings for a given player...[/quote] yes, thicker strings and higher tension will mean less excursion (displacement/amplitude) we can all agree with this from experience of playing, but how do you make the leap from that statement to say that longer scale length and higher tension also equals less excursion. lets try to be a bit practical here. Is there anyone out there still reading this who has both a long and a short scale bass? do us all a favour and try to measure the maximum displacement whilst you're playing. I've never modded a bass so I have no idea about this, but when you buy bridges, do you buy a special one for longer scale basses which allows you to set a larger maximum action than a regular bridge does? I suspect not, which would imply that the difference is really not worth worying about.

[quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']OK, but how else do you imagine finding out the actual effect of the change, other than an experiment?[/quote] yeah, hence the comment on it being easier to try it and see rather than trying to calculate it [quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']I wasn't just doing a "thought experiment", I was imagining how a real experiment could be done. Yes, I [b]know[/b] an experiment is not "real world", but if you really expect to define the relationships between variables, as you did, it pays to be rigorous about what changes or not. Otherwise, you can not expect people to believe you when you make sweeping statements about "how it is". That's all I was saying.[/quote] fair enough. If i was posting on a physics forum I'd be as rigorous as I thought neccessary, but in trying to shed some light on why the info in gambles book goes against his intuition I don't see the need. [quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']The frequency formula I quoted covers mass, length and tension. You don't need to talk about compensating one thing for another - why introduce more variables in to the problem? I'm happy that the formula works. When I tried it earlier (spreadsheet [url="http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/85261/stringtension.xls"]here[/url]) on a solid steel string, it gave me results extremely close (< 0.5%) to those quoted by D'Addario.[/quote] Hmmm. OK, maybe I should clarify my point about compensating. I'll use your calculations to illustrate if you don't mind (I'm not trying to be condacending here ) The string mass in your calculations [b]does[/b] change with the length the string (cell H11), so if you want to "Change the scale length only, change nothing else while doing the experiment" then you're going to have to change the string diameter to keep the 'mass of string' constant, (or the density of the metal in the string). hence me saying "...however in practice you cannot increase the scale length only..." [quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']I would modify that assumption a little: I'd say that the energy goes up proportional to half the square of the amplitude, not linearly. I'm basing that on the energy equations for [url="http://ccrma.stanford.edu/realsimple/lab_inst/Background.html"]damped strings[/url]. Again, these are ideal theoretical calculations, so don't bother complaining that they are not "real world". I'm in no position to fully analyse the complex movement of a chunky bass string attached to a piece of wood, and I doubt anyone is. Hence, the idea that you'd want to run experiments - but if you're OK with guesswork, I'm not bothered either.[/quote] half the square of the amplitude... yeah, sounds about right, but the point was that the equations on the MIT page don't deal with amplitude (and neither does your spreadsheet), which of course was the whole point of this thread. I'm not complaining that an equation is not real world - no physics equation is, yet i'm happy to use them as close approximations to reality if they can be used as such. So, to try and use all this info to answer the question "What is the relationship between dispacement at the centre of a vibrating string and the length of a string at t=0 given that the vibration frequency, the force applied to the string at the moment of plucking and the diameter and density of the string all remain constant?". 'Buggered if I know, It goes up a bit' is as close as i'm going to commit to without taking time to reduce the equations properly. I'm also in no position to analyse the complex movement of a chunky bass string attached to a piece of wood, and also advocate trying it and seeing. (do I really need to requote the "probably easier to build it and see" bit again?)

[quote name='Gamble' post='314541' date='Oct 25 2008, 04:08 PM']Easier to build a bass than use a calculator? You should read the manual mate! [/quote] lol. thank's for reminding me... what's the book? any good? and while we're at it, how much more action does the book say you'll need? While all this theory is interesting, It's a safe bet that the bass builders out there know the answer from trial and error (OK, not easier to build it and see, but at least your measurements aren't gonna be wrong cos you didn't take into account something that you thought would be insignificant (what about the effects of the earths magnetic field ? )

[quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']I think we're talking at cross purposes here[/quote] yup. [quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']...you made what looks like a simple scientific statement with no qualifications, no reference to playing style or anything like that. ("Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude.")[/quote] yup, I was thinking about an arbitary string. I think we'd agree that without changing the tension, if you play a note at the 1st fret it will vibrate at a lower frequency than if played at the 12th fret. Lets ignore the effects of string mass for the moment and assume that the string is played with the same force. We're saying that we have three variables. to consider - Frequency, Amplitude and the energy of the vibrating string. If in our thought experiment we keep the energy constant and the frequency decreases then the amplitude will increase, hence the unqualified "Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude." [quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']To answer a question like this, I was thinking in terms of an experiment: you change only one thing at a time, keep everything else the same, and measure the effects. Change the scale length [i]only[/i], change [i]nothing else[/i] while doing the experiment, and see what happens. You would have to decide whether your pluck has a fixed amplitude or fixed energy, over the experiment: that would change how the results look, but not the underlying physical relationship.[/quote] I see where you're coming from, but we're talking about two seperate things at the same time - the theoretical physics of a vibrating string and the practical application on a bass guitar. These thought experiments only work on paper. I'd agree that on a longer string with the same mass vibrating at the same frequency with the same energy put into the vibration and ignoring all other factors as insignificant (momentum, air resistance etc. etc.), then the amplitude of vibration will be the same, however in practice you cannot increase the scale length only. as mentioned earlier you will increase the string mass by using a longer string. you could of course stretch the string to increase it's length, but this increases the tension. I suppose that you could decrease the string gauge by the exact amount to compensate for the increased scale length so that the string mass remains constant. In this case would the amplitude of vibration be exactly the same? I would guess that it probably would. To get back to tho OP though, I would say that when building a bass guitar with a longer scale length you should assume that the bassist will use 'normal' gauge strings, and so you should build it with a higher action than a shorter scale bass with the same 'normal' gauge strings. How much higher? I dunno. probably easier to build it and see rather than spend ages messing with a calculator, but i'd guess that increasing the length by 10% from 32" to 36" is gonna increase the action by 10% from 2-3mm to 2.2 - 3.3mm [quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']If you want some general equations for string tension and frequency, try [url="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/gtb/LectureNotes/7/7.htm"]this[/url] (from MIT). When you pull a string to one side, you're increasing its length a little, which is why the tension increases and resists the pull.[/quote] Interesting, but no mention of the energy of a vibrating string or amplitude, which of course is at the centre of this. Until we find it i'm gonna continue to assume that the energy is a function of Frequency multiplied by Amplitude multiplied by Mass, and that all other effects are minimal.

[quote name='bnt' post='314412' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:55 AM']Sorry, I just don't see where you get that conclusion from. Why does a longer string length automatically mean a higher amplitude / displacement? I was trying to explain where the displacement comes from in the first place: from the energy your fingers put in. The longer neck might help to preserve that energy for longer, but the neck does not put any energy in to the string. In questions like these, it helps to look at the energy. It always has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. Nothing happens without it! [/quote] yup you're right, you will need to put more energy in to get more displacement, but (to go off on a slight tangent) as there is more string mass to move from a longer string, you will need more energy to move it anyway. I'm coming at a slightly different angle in ignoring the energy going into the string as in practice we'll change that constantly to get the same volume of tone at different frets. I'm getting to hunch teratory here but I'd be interested to see the equaions for tension, length, frequency, mass, amplitude etc and how they change. I would guess that with constant frequency and changing tension, length and mass, it would be unlikely that the amplitude will remain constant, but I'm prepared to admit my error if that's the case. ps. edited my 1st post whilst you were replying, but I don't think anything significantly changed with the bit you're on about

Don't forget that there's a balancing act between frequency and amplitude here. Increasing tension will mean lower amplitude (as bnt explained above) but will also increase frequency. Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude. To keep the frequency at 41Hz for an E sting (for example) if you increase the string length you also have to increase it's tension. OK so far. The clincher is that the increased amplitude from longer length is [u]more[/u] than the decreased amplitude for having a higher tension. The result is that longer strings = more amplitude = higher action. Having said all that, I believe that we're talking tiny amounts here. I would guess that the difference between 32" and 36" scale length will be less than 0.1 mm. [Edit] Oh, and on top of that you've got the effects of string gauge, so if you're that bothered, use lighter strings . [/Edit]

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='313653' date='Oct 24 2008, 12:20 PM']so how do we go about this then? Does anyone know anything about publishing/designing something like this? Just thinking that there’s not much of the year left so we’d have to get a shift on if they were going to be ready for shipping out to people before Christmas/new year…[/quote] One idea is to use someone like www.foto.com* they have an onlne editor, if someone took the time to make a calendar then they could post the file on here. then anyone who wants one can download the file, log on to the site, upload and order their own calendar. I think they're about 8 quid or so, but this means no bulk buying, and worrying about covering the costs of mass production, no hassle for anyone to post out to members etc. *just an example, there's probably loads of print-houses who do this