roman_sub

Look around for fretless Sandbergs - I was offered a 5er well within your price range (i don't think they keep their value so well (un)fortunately). That one has gone though. re: fretless - single biggest difference is that you will no longer have metal strings vibrating against metal frets. IME, unless you are shooting for a strictly upright type tone, you will want still [i]some[/i] growl / attack. Whether that's from woods, pickups / pickup placement / hard (epoxied) fingerboard - is down to each player. If you like Warwicks, I know fretless Thumbs are supposed to be spectacular. I had a fretted one, but found it a bit too much harmonically - though I can indeed see how it would have the right components for top fretless tones.

delicious looking top :-)

[quote name='Al Krow' timestamp='1509871720' post='3402149'] Guys, I'm thinking of dipping my toes into the world of fretless bass for the first time which would likely be used for some of the 'smoother numbers' in a 50s / 60s or 'lounge' / 'jazz' set. I've got a budget in mind of up to £750 to £1,000 and happy to consider used as well as new - but it would be nice to get something that could potentially be a 'keeper'. Grateful for some pointers from my fellow BCers who have a lot more experience with fretless than me on any of the following: 1) your recommendation for an excellent make / model in the price range? 2) PUPs - I'm guessing that smoother pups (e.g. Barts) make more sense than something more gritty or aggressive (e.g. Nords)? 3) I was thinking of going for a 4 string but does the flexibility of positioning on the fretboard (I guess 'fingerboard' is the more correct description on a fretless bass!) and the ability to go lower on a fretless 5 string add a lot in your experience? 3) fret (finger) board wood - rosewood and ebony seem to be the most commonly used. Any preferences? 4) does a 'neck through' make a difference? 5) I'm guessing flatwound strings are a must, agreed? 6) anything else I should be looking out for? Many thanks for your input in advance and hopefully this will be a useful thread for a number of fellow BCers in addition to me! Cheers, AK [/quote] 1) depends what you like. I'd aim for a US / MIJ Fender if you like classic sounds, or perhaps Sandberg / Warwick / Carvin for something more modern - in your price range. 2) I preferred Barts over EMGs when I had an active fretless. I wasn't a fan of hi-fi EMG tones personally, though it is nice to have some treble definition and growl via the pickups. 3) I preferred feel of ebony but not much in it IMO. 4) in my experience, neckthrough's have stronger fundamentals and tad more sustain, but less attack than bolt-ons. I prefer the sound I am getting from a fretless bolt-on. 5) You will get some wear whatever you choose, though heavy playing touch and stainless steel strings will do the most damage quickest. Not everyone likes the sound of flats - so just go with the sound that you like and don't worry. 6) get a lined fingerboard - purely in % terms (to paraphase Scott Devine) - there are more lined players who are in tune than unlined players... hope this helps!

how does this have a higher than the other two (apparently actual instruments?)

bah'gin

I 'like' the Ric inspiration. Hope JH doesn't sue.. ;-)

I've not come across 10k/100k pots before, and a quick search I just did also did not turn anything up.

+1 CTS pots are indeed very good in my experience - but do pay attention to what resistance values will be best suited for your pickups.

[b][size="5"][color="#ff9936"]HAS JACK INPUT, TRIED THIS AND IT JUST MADE A CRAZY NOISE[/color][/size][/b] I think it is trying to say... "KEEEELL ME NOW, BUUUURN ME WITH FIRE!"

nice gesture :-)

Try lowering the bass end of the pickups and bringing up the treble ends - that should tighten up lowest notes and also make D and G strings louder. Something like 30 mins with a screwdriver and your usual amp would be time well spent! Suggest you try that first then consider EQ settings, once string to string balance is sorted

It looks like the grey frequency plot was for a louder source - almost 5db difference at the fundamental? If that's the case be careful the comparison isn't swayed the perceived loudness differences, and of course plucking the string with different levels of attack may also influence the harmonic content to an extent. Assuming A=55hz, one could attempt to make some calculations / statement about relative difference in harmonics above the fundamental, but something like a Match EQ (in Logic, i'm sure other DAW's have their own versions) would be better for this - analyse the two recorded sounds and automatically plot EQ curve differences between them. To me, it looks like biggest difference is in the 500-800hz range, where some of the "growl" normally sits. Perhaps there is some difference in the 1/2k range ("bite" or extension) To be honest, trying to tell pickups apart from just looking at this chart only is tricky and may potentially be misleading. Why not post as-similar-as-possible recordings of the two, ideally level-matched? (our ears easily fool us into thinking louder is better). To paraphrase Joe Meek (?), if it sounds right, it is right.... Normally more expensive pickups are better made in an objective basis (better materials, more careful attention to detail), but subjectively you may feel otherwise ... cheers Roman

Suggest checking this methodically, if you haven't already: Does your bass sound loud enough compared to other instruments, or through an amp? Just to establish whether there could be a problem with the bass itself - e.g. wiring issue where some signal is being lost to ground, or does the battery need replacing? Next, check the cable isn't shorting out. Finally the interface: are you using an instrument / DI input? Impedance mismatch could be an issue here. If you are trying to use a Line input, there may not be enough gain available. It sounds like you may need something to perform the function of a pre-amplifier, and boost your bass signal - whether that's through the interface, or via another unit, before the interface. The only other thing I can note is that "unboosted" bass signal would indeed be quite low, especially if it's a) passive bass and you are comparing it to a mixed / mastered backing track, which is designed to be quite loud.

Ask your FOH soundman what he thinks of the bass tone / volume during this slap section. He may already have a solution to have these audible or working within the mix, eg using a compressor. However, whatever you end up doing rig wise, consider whether it would affect what FOH would get via DI - what serves stage volume may or may not serve him (/her)...

Sonarworks does look pretty good in concept admittedly. However, don't be convinced you can't mix without it: once the biggest room problems have been addressed, it is still very much possible to make great mixes even in sub-optimal spaces. The key is lots and lots of referencing and getting your ears used to how music you know sounds in your particular room; then mix with that in mind. Did I say lots of referencing to commercially released tracks? :-) Misjudging low end is definitely all too easy - not helped by often-utterly-excessive amounts of super lows contained in drum samples or stock synth patches... I suspect this is done to sell software / hardware, not help you mix well! But that's another rant...

Subject of many books - but with 4 mics, I'd do 1 +2 - small diaphragm condensors on overheads, measure and check they have the same distance to the snare; play around with angles to get optimal kit and cymbals coverage. this takes care of most of the drum sound 3 - close mic the kick; dont worry about phase too much - but experiment inside / outside the skin. more 60/70s sound outside the shell, tighter more modern sound inside it. suggest a dynamic for this one, ideally one that can handle the loud SPL 4 - mono room mic, ideally large diaphgram condensor (ideally set to omnidirectional pickup) - set somewhere 3-7 metres away; depending the room. get the cohesive sound of a kit in a room this way. mics 3 and 4 can be time aligned by mixer later, as needed. crucially you must have the two overheads in phase with the snare reaching them at the same time! if you have more mics, I'd do snare, toms, hi-hat / ride in that order... but more mics aren't necessarily better (as sounds like you discovered). may sound obvious - but you do want new skins, properly tuned drums and a decent sounding room (I prefer bright-sounding rooms with wooden floors) - and try moving the kit within the room to find the best place possible. as noted above! good luck!

Thanks a lot, EBS_freak, exactly what I was looking for. I did speak to John East earlier, who was kind enough to offer to send me a similar pot as a freebie, but we came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be a perfect replacement and the original manufacturer probably gets custom order pots from Bourns. This means that doing this properly and having the original factory do the work is the only real viable option if I ever need to resell the unit...

[quote name='jazzyvee' timestamp='1509573455' post='3400069'] In the past I bought a guitar with some some alembic electronics in it on ebay and had to ship the electronics back to the Alembic for repair as it wasn't working. It was out of warranty and they told me that they have to declare any new parts fitted and you pay duty on that cost. Also if you have current insurance on the item you can ask if it includes insurance for common carrier which will save you having to insure it separately through the carrier. On fixing the electronics, have you tried giving John East a call to see if he can fix it. He's designed studio gear and might have/or be able to get the parts you need and fix it. [/quote] Thanks! If declaration has to cover new parts only, hopefully this will be very low, as value of the pot itself shouldn't be too much. Cheers for heads up on John, I'll give him a call.