Der JD

Big 'Deth fan here too...well, at least their early stuff. After that, it's hit and miss. Peace Sells is my favorite. Absolutely love Chris Poland's guitar work. By the way, anyone who is a Chris Poland fan should check out OHM. He's more of a fusion player now. As a bonus, OHM features incredible bass work on a fretless 6 string by Robert Pagliari.

I'm not a fan of the MEC 2-band preamps. You're right, the treble center frequency is much lower than most preamps (2.5k, I believe). The MEC 3-band frequency is much higher. I prefer preamps with treble frequency points much higher than 2.5k. I find that with it higher, there's not as much harshness. Adding highs seems to open and clear things up, adding "sweetness" vs. harshness. I've had good luck with Bart and Aguilar preamps in Warwicks, as have many others. For pickups, you probably won't notice a huge difference in tone unless you choose something with a really unique EQ curve. I like MEC, Bart, and Nordstrand PUs on Warwicks. With EMG, it really just depends on the bass. I had some on a Streamer Stage II that sounded great. Tried some on a Thumb BO and a Corvette Fretless and I found that on those basses I lost a bit of the "woody growl". The EMGs were just too hi-fi for those two basses. Sometimes with pickups it's just trial and error. One model of pickup might sound good on one bass but not on another.

[quote name='throwoff' timestamp='1430392809' post='2760918']Like I said before, I would happily pay a lot for a heavily flamed Warwick Streamer, but make no mistake, I pay that money firstly for the build quality, secondly for the looks. If I just wanted the tone I would buy the MEC J set, the 3 band active EQ and put them into a Squier.[/quote] Sorry, but that's just insane. A Squier with an MEC J set and 3 band EQ will not sound like a Streamer. It will still sound like a Squier (or Jazz bass if you will). I've had Warwicks that I've experimented with different pickups and preamps. MEC, EMG, and Bart. Guess what? No matter what PU/preamp combination was in them, they still sounded like the same bass- a Warwick! There were subtle EQ/feel/output differences, but the "voice" the bass stayed the same. My Thumb always sounded like a Thumb. The Streamer like a Streamer. The Corvette like a Corvette. I've also had the exact same pair of pickups (Bartolini) in a Jazz bass and a Corvette. By your logic they should sound the same, correct? No, when they were in my Jazz, it still sounded like a typical Fender Jazz. In the Corvette...still sounded like a Corvette (both had passive electronics). People put way too much stock into how much the pickups influence the overall tone of a guitar/bass. One of the major reasons why people spend 10k on a Fodera is that there's little else out there that gives you that particular tone. If you want that exact tone you either buy a Fodera or get a custom built copy of a Fodera.

I have tried swapping pickups between instruments, and I'm not talking about just the same brand/model, I mean THE exact same pickups. Same pickups in 2 instruments that are nearly identical in terms of woods, construction, etc.= nearly the same tone. Same pickups in 2 instruments that differ in terms of woods, construction, etc. = massively different tone Pickups are basically like microphones. If I take 2 different mics and I speak into them and another person speaks into them, we'll still know who is who regardless of what mic is being used. The mic might have subtle EQ characteristics that influence the overall sound of our voices but the point is that the instrument itself (woods, hardware, construction, etc.) is like our voices. The pickup just "mics" the "voice" of the instrument.

I've done plenty of pickup experimentation with both guitars and basses. If you take 2 pickups, same brand and model, machine-wound, and think you can hear a difference between them then wow, you've got some really good ears. Even with 2 pickups of a different brand and model, assuming same size/type (e.g. standard J pickup true single coil), I find there's just subtle differences in the overall tone. Now, if you change the type (soapbar quad-coil vs. J single coil), sure, there will be a noticeable difference. If you change the PU placement the differences will be even more apparent. Same thing with electronics. If you simply change the wiring/brand of pots good luck hearing much of a difference. Change the pot values, a little more difference. Change how it's wired (e.g. parallel vs. series), a little more. For active basses- change the preamp (e.g. Aguilar to Glock), even more difference. Woods matter. The construction matters. Pickups and electronics matter. All of it does. The tone of the bass is the sum of all its parts. As mentioned before, you're not going to get Fodera tone by sticking Fodera PUs/preamp in just anything. If so, everyone would be doing it.

I love playing just about anything by Rush, Iron Maiden, Jamiroquai, and Chic.

Yesterday I just started learning Havona by Weather Report. Tough song, but I've found that I only progress if I pick things to learn that I find really challenging. I only made it a few measures in. It's going to take a long time to nail that fast arpeggio lick up to speed.

I agree that the majority of bass demos out there are just too flashy and involve too much slapping and tapping. In most cases, spending more time on less-flashy grooves would serve the purpose better. However, everyone has a different style. The demo wasn't created just for YOU. Not everyone plays the way YOU do. Personally, I want a little of everything in a demo. I want to hear everything the instrument can offer. Simple grooves/patterns/scales down low, a little slapping, chording, soloing in the higher register, possibly even a tiny bit of tapping. AND, I want to hear it all with different pickups selected and with different variations on the tone controls. I do a little of everything and although simple grooves down low are the bread and butter, a demo just limited to that would be of little use to me. Wouldn't show me what the instrument is capable of. I suppose that's why I like Ed Friedland's demos a lot. He does a little of everything without it being a total w***fest.

I had GAS for one of these for a while. One day I tried stringing one of my current 5 string basses E-C. Sounds great and the only adjustment I needed to do was intonation. Now all my 5-string basses are E-C and I have crossed this one off the GAS list.

Since the OP already said "played this beautiful bass" I'm assuming it looks modern with nice woods. The more "coffee table" it looks, the better. Can't stand the vintage look. One of my basses is a Fender but I still can't stand the way it looks. First and foremost has to be the sound. It needs to have definition and be articulate. I'm not a fan of undefined,round, big, fuzzy tones. I know they're what's needed in certain situations but I like it when the notes are immediate and jump right out at you. If you play a fast, notey passage all the notes need to be clear. If there's some woody growl to the tone...all the better. The bass would also need a good active preamp, preferably 3-band. Or, it would need to be priced at a point where I thought I could buy and install one and still have it be a good value. String spacing would need to be 18mm or less. I prefer 16.5 or 17. Not a fan of "broadnecks". I've never really understood wide spacing preferences. Seems really inefficient to me. If I'm driving to or from work I don't take the long way. I don't really care about neck dive or neck thickness. Neither has ever bothered me. As you can probably tell, my preferences are just about the exact opposite of what's the "in" thing amongst most bass players right now!

I'm having fretless GAS too...and also for a Thumb, but I'd prefer the NT version. I've had a couple of fretless basses in the past but they just didn't quite have the tone I was looking for. One was a German Corvette passive. The other was a Carvin. I actually wish I still had the Vette. I think if I'd just put in a good onboard active preamp I would have been a lot happier with it. I've owned lined and unlined. Lined is probably easier but I was surprised how quickly I adapted to the unlined. I think a lot of it is just how good your ear and muscle memory is.

Set your bass and treble controls flat. Then start by cutting the mids quite a bit. Put the mid freq. selector all the way down and play for a while. Move the freq. selector up in small increments and repeat. Preferably, do this while playing along to a backing track so you can hear what it does to your tone in a mix. Then, set the mid contol to boost and repeat the process. You may need to do this several times over a period of days. The important thing is to try to remember what each setting does to your overall tone. Once you're completely familiar with how the controls affect your tone overall you'll be able to use the tools. In any given situation, think to yourself, "what is my tone missing", or "what do I have to much of in my tone". Then you can make adjustments. The great thing about a good onboard preamp is that you can set your amp controls flat and do all your tone adjustments right on the bass.

I have noticed a difference between different fretboard woods. Maple boards do seem slightly brighter to me. But...what accounts for that perceived brightness? There are a lot of factors that could lead that besides just an increase in "treble" frequencies. If there is less low end or low mids that could do it (that's the explanation my ears are telling me). Or, if the notes have more attack and definition. Ebony is altogether different. It's by far my favorite fretboard material, for several reasons. It seems brighter than rosewood for sure but I think that's strictly due to ebony boards having more definition and being very articulate sounding.

It's interesting how what happens to be the "in" thing varies between modern and vintage every few years. I'm very much aware that Fender or Fender copies are the "in" thing now and it seems like they have for the last 9 or 10 years. However, back in the 90s (when I was first learning bass) it seemed like it was all about modern. Flip through a bass magazine from back then and you'll see one modern bass after another. "Vintage" type basses certainly have their place and ,of course, certainly sound good but because I grew up in the "modern" popularity time period, that's what I'm drawn towards. My favorite basses are Warwick, Roscoe, Modulus, MTD, Spector, and Fodera. I have a Fender Jazz and sometimes it's just what the doctor ordered but I rarely play it.

I've not noticed a difference in clarity between active and passive basses in general. I don't think it's possible to generalize. I think the factors lie more with the individual pieces of equipment and/or how they work together. I'm personally not a fan of passive basses. I prefer to leave my amp fairly flat and adjust my tone at my bass. Works better for me. The controls are within inches of my hand. I can switch between basses that are very different from each other without touching my amp's controls. Also, some active preamps do colour the tone a bit, which I actually like. Gives it a little extra mojo. I also find passive basses tougher to dial in. With a passive tone control, it seems like it's either too bright or too dark. I prefer individual controls for bass, mids, and treble so I can really get it exactly where I want it.

Another vote for the EBS Multicomp here. I have no problems at all with retaining high end.

After reading your post, I have to consider myself very fortunate. I have a '91 Modulus Quantum 5-string with no truss rod. Luckily, I don't need it. It has just a slight amount of relief and I'm able to get the action very low with no problems. The neck NEVER moves and that's one thing I love about it. I never have to make any adjustments and it always feels the same. Had a '07 Quantum as well. That one did have a truss rod but I never had to touch it. I'm guessing that when it comes to graphite necks, if it's built right from the start and it hasn't been violently abused there should never be any problems aside from potential fret wear related issues.

When I was 12 I wanted to learn how to play electric guitar (because it was just "the thing" to do, of course). My dad helped me with buying my first guitar and I began lessons. Shortly thereafter, I noticed that when I listened to songs I enjoyed and concentrated more on the bass. When I went in for lessons I spent a lot of time looking at the basses hanging on the wall and listening to people try basses out. So, I ended up getting a bass and loved it. Probably the bands that got me the most interested back then (late 80s) were Iron Maiden and Dio. I've been back and forth between bass and guitar ever since but bass always feels like "home" to me. In fact, I've decided to concentrate just about all my efforts on bass from this point on. I just don't have the time to try to get really good at 2 instruments.

I've been using a Little Mark II head for years now and still love it. Never had any issues with it. I've played through the 210 combo and it was great as well. Absolutely loved a Markbass 410 cab I played through in a store one time. Possibly the best tone I've ever heard coming from my own fingers! If I had the money that day it would have come home with me.

I play bass and guitar, although I'm a much better bass player. Playing guitar can certainly be beneficial, though I definitely don't think it's necessary. You do need to be aware of the role and sounds of any instrument you're playing with in a band, whether it be guitar, piano, drums, flute, etc. Personally, I think ear training is highly beneficial in this context. Sure, I could look at a guitarist's hand and realize he's playing a B7 chord, but I kind of look at that as cheating. Much more beneficial if I can hear the chord and know it's a B7. I definitely couldn't recognize a B7 on piano so there's an instance where ear training really helps out.

I would consider myself a hobbyist at the intermediate level, though I do play every week in a band at a small church. My story is similar to yours. I've been playing for about 25 years but there has been a few hiatuses (mainly from switching back and forth from bass to guitar). I've always had a good ear and I find it easy to learn songs that way. I always just memorized the basslines without really thinking about what I was playing in terms of key, note choice, what note I was playing, chords, etc. I've known a small amount of theory but always had difficulty applying it until just recently. I always concentrated on shapes (especially scale shapes), which never really got me anywhere. Looking back, I think I reached a plateau when I was young and haven't made very many jumps from that plateau since. The jumps I have made have been small. Just recently, I've started thinking about things differently. Thinking about playing in terms of intervals, chords, and chord tones has opened up a new world to me. Instead of just memorizing the bassline when learning a song or flying through scale patterns when improvising, I'm thinking "what's the chord progression, what are the chord tones, what key is this in, what scales fit?" Focusing on these things and knowing the intervals on the fretboard has helped me to better understand how to create more interesting basslines, know the notes on the fretboard, and be confident all over the fretboard. I still have a long way to go. These things only come with a ton of practice, but at least I'm moving on to a new level. Sometimes you just need a fresh perspective when it comes to learning things. If your current ways aren't working you have to search for new ways. What works for one person may not work for another.

I have a SR1605E, which is similar in specs aside from being bolt-on vs. neck thru and the scale length. It's an incredible bass. I have basses that cost way more (Roscoe and Modulus) and while I cannot say it equals them in quality it comes very close. Low action, great fretwork, versatile electronics, very easy to play. I was expecting more of a Jazz-on-steroids tone from it too but after receiving it I wouldn't say that's an accurate description. I suppose it sounds somewhat Jazz-like but its way more modern sounding and has more of a woody growl to it. I think a lot of that is due to the wenge/bubinga neck. Sounds somewhat similar to some MTDs or old USA Tobias basses I've heard. Very "boutique" sounding. At times I even hear a bit of German Warwick in there too. The pickups are great. "Neutral and full-range" is probably right on the mark. Just be aware that since these are single coils they are prone to a bit of hum when panned toward one pickup or the other. Could be an issue for some. Thanks to the electronics (especially the mid control with switchable frequencies), it's extremely versatile and can handle just about any style. It can be very aggressive or fat and mellow. Great slap tone too.