bnt

[quote name='SteveO' post='314424' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:15 AM']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.[/quote] OK so far - and of course I know that you vary your playing to get the desired volume. I think we're talking at cross purposes here, since 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.") 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. 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 name='SteveO' post='314406' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:44 AM']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.[/quote] 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 amplitude 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!

I suspect this book is assuming that you'll use thinner strings on the longer scale instrument. For the same strings, however, I think you're right. Here's my slightly academic take on this, thinking in terms of energy: the string doesn't act on its own, it vibrates according to the work (energy) you put in to it from your finger. The displacement (how far it moves off-centre) is at its maximum as you hit the string, and it only goes down from there (neglecting odd effects from resonance or harmonics). When the string is tighter, you will need to put more work in (as you pluck it) for a given displacement. This is because you have to use more force to move it, and work energy can be expressed as force times distance*. You'll have a more energetic string for a given level of movement. Or, to look at it from the other side: if you put in a fixed amount of plucking energy, I can predict the tighter string will vibrate less (in displacement terms). You can see an extreme case of this if you stick your hand inside a piano: those strings are much longer and tighter, and make a decent noise while barely moving at all. So, I would not be concerned. I'm not a robot - I set the bass up as best I can, and naturally adjust my playing to the instrument. * that assumes the force is constant: if not, you have to find functions and integrate them, which is a bit more awkward, but the relationship is still the same.

I think I'd rather have a piano than one of those ERBs. That 11-string has only 11-note polyphony, after all... and the piano strings have even longer scale and higher tension.

The way it looks to me, technology had a lot to do with it. Roxy Music had Brian Eno and his VCS3 making all sorts of weird noises, then there were the synth pioneers like Billy Currie (Ultravox) and Richard Barbieri (Japan). It was also the time during which it was possible to get 24 or more tracks of recording, and then digital recording took off. You had the likes of Nick Rhodes and his Jupiter 8 Arpeggiator, which was basically [b]the[/b] sound of Duran Duran. One of my favourite stories from that period was [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep99/articles/oscar.htm"]this[/url], about the OSCar synthesiser and how it landed on an Ultravox album. It was literally a case of "if you build it, they will play it".

Congratulations... you old Slapper!

Sting's a bit handy with the ol' thumb, too - check the start of this video for an example.

All together now: [i]Ebony, or Pau Ferro? Would it make a good fretboard? I dunno... [/i]

[url="http://www.linusofhollywood.com/"]Linus'[/url] bass is also discussed in an older thread on Paul Gilbert. It appears to be a modified Rickenbacker 4000, an unbound 4001, like [url="http://www.rickenbacker.com/gallery_image.asp?archive_id=39&gallery_year=1960"]this[/url].

If you ask Ed Roman, the Gaboon Ebony is [url="http://www.edroman.com/customshop/wood/gaboon.htm"]the real deal[/url], but the Pau Ferro is [url="http://www.edroman.com/customshop/wood/morado.htm"]OK but overpriced[/url].

In my case (the Tune) the neck was at the right angle, joint was flush - but once I adjusted the neck action correctly, the bridge could still not be adjusted low enough. As a temporary fix I added steps of gaffa tape to the neck slot, changing the neck angle back a bit, and I can now get a decent action. As a permanent solution I'd take it to a pro, ask for a solid shim or a lower (or recessed?) bridge.

In 1982 I acquired a stepbrother who played guitar, and he said something like "OK, you can play bass". Which I didn't think much of until a cheap P-bass copy went on sale locally, and I bought it. Stuff to learn came from a neighbour's record collection and the tape recorder on his hi-fi. I was blown away by Yes, but it was fortunate that 90125 came out about that time - the most accessible Yes album to a learner bassist by quite a margin. Then I met another bassist, who said "dude, you gotta try some Rush"... As well as bass, I play keyboards (badly), sing (badly), and learned Highland bagpipes in the early 90s (long story), but I haven't played those since 1991. Once I thought about the instrument in detail, I was horrified by its limitations. Nearly every piece of music in existence can never be played on the bagpipes - it's not chromatic, has a range of about 1 octave, no dynamics, and can only be played legato!

At a basic level, 2-pickup wiring is not hard. There are plenty of diagrams around, with the two main options being Fender Jazz style (2 volume controls) or Volume + Blend. Seymour Duncan has [url="http://www.seymourduncan.com/support/wiring-diagrams/"]plenty of diagrams[/url], including both those options, and a specific P/J diagram that is easy to follow. IMHO the big issue will be pickup selection. The P-type pickup is humbucking by itself, but a standard Jazz pickup is not. With standard Fender Jazz wiring, the two pickups together form a humbucking pair, when both are turned up, but you won't have that option. If I was in your position I would be looking at a humbucking J-type for the rear slot, such as the (Seymour Duncan again) Jazz Stack (e.g the [url="http://www.seymourduncan.com/products/basslines/cutting-edge-1/stkj1_classic_f/"]Classic[/url] or [url="http://www.seymourduncan.com/products/basslines/cutting-edge-1/stkj2_hot_for_j/"]Hot[/url]). Or something similar, with 4-conductor wiring for more tone options. Re Knobs, you could look at a Stacked knob for volume/blend, too avoid more drilling. You're totally free to drop the tone control altogether, as long as you never need it.

Hmmm... you may be able to approximate the envelope (attack, sustain etc.) using major compression. However, if you're really looking for a change to the fundamental waveform, no conventional effect is going to do it, in my opinion. Could something like a Roland VG-88 do it? PS: did you post this question in three different sections? Why?

If there's someone here who knows exactly what's inside, and how it's wired, then it might be possible to say more here. Based on the descriptions I read, my [i]guess[/i] is passive pickups wired to an active preamp/EQ circuit, so if someone was to install a bypass, it would leave you with volume and pickup blend, but no EQ.

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='300067' date='Oct 5 2008, 07:30 PM']Me too. A waste of time if she turns out to ba a "bean flicker" all this time though. [/quote] I don't believe you guys. Short hair = "bean flicker"? A look at Suzanne's [url="http://www.suzannevega.com/news/"]web pages[/url] would have told you that she used to be married to producer Mitchell Froom, and is now married to a bloke named Paul Mills, a lawyer & poet. Her hair's quite long, these days.

If I imagine myself in that position, I think I would see myself as more of an ambassador for the product. Maybe that was done, too, but isn't shown in that video. Slapping alone, no matter how good, is a poor advertisement for Rotosound strings, in my opinion. They play an important role in the history of modern bass, as the first roundwounds, and they have the whole Entwistle / Squire / McCartney legacy to hark back to. By way of comparison, I saw Stu Hamm demo Hartke amps at a show, years ago. He actually talked about the amps, demonstrated tones and settings - then showed off a little. The funny thing was... I'd heard him play before, so it was nothing new to me, but I was impressed by the way he changed the strings on his Fender before the demo. All four strings swapped and tuned, in under a minute!

[quote name='Mr Fudge' post='299691' date='Oct 5 2008, 12:39 AM']s she a bean flicker now?[/quote] "bean flicker"? I think you mean "bean counter" - at least I hope you do, if the search results for that are any guide. No, Suzanne is still making music, though she also does a bit of writing. Have a look at her recent NY Times [url="http://measureformeasure.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/toms-essay/"]essay[/url] about [i]Tom's Diner[/i] - where it came from, the impact it had, and how it led to her being called "the Mother of the MP3".

I think that's Michael Visceglia, who's been with Suzanne for ages, at least as far back as [i]Solitude Standing[/i].

According to comments on that, it is Nigel Clutterbuck, a demo for Rotosound. There's an older thread on him, [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=10803&hl=clutterbuck"]here[/url]. Not my thing, to be honest - turning bass in to a spectator sport.

[quote name='uptonmark' post='292055' date='Sep 25 2008, 06:03 PM']leave that thing alone.... by rush[/quote] I had some great fun with that one - I honestly don't know how Geddy comes up with that kind of phrasing. I recently pulled out Level 42's Physical Presence live album, and re-discovered [i]Kansas City Milkman[/i]. Mark's playing in drop D, and gets a kind-of Tower Of Power 16ths feel going here, which is quite tough on my slow fingers. They played it on the 2006 Retroglide tour, just another reason why I'm kicking myself for missing it.

Now, now... I'm not clear on what you mean by "track builder", but I use [url="http://audacity.sourceforge.net/"]Audacity[/url] for general multitrack audio duties.

Spare bass, several changes of strings. Stage Clothes. Socks & Underwear, plenty of; Earplugs: not just for the gigs. Books. Nurofen, Imodium, Durex, Germoline. Protein bars, muesli bars, nuts (meal replacements). Flip-flops or similar - if you'll be using showers in odd places e.g. Yoof Hostels. ..?

The way I see it, the key to home recording is: know your signals, and how to treat them right. For example, you generally can't plug a normal passive guitar directly in to a computer. Why not? Because computers tend to have two kinds of inputs: - mic input: for cheap mikes, the kind you'd use for Skype or voice recognition. - line level inputs: for signals from other equipment, that are already buffered (low impedance) and have a high level. A passive guitar has an unbuffered low-level signal that is "high impedance", which means that it has no "oomph" behind it. If you plug it in to a low impedance input, it would be like trying to start a car from a 9V battery: it's too heavy a load on the signal, and the voltage at the source will be drained away. So you need something else to "buffer" the signal, which could be an onboard preamp, a FX unit or preamp with line out, or anything else with an input marked "guitar" - mixer, sound card, or USB-Audio interface. I record through a Korg AmpWorks B unit (see link below), a little box that takes an active or passive bass, runs it through amp & cab simulators & basic FX, and gives me a nice Line Out signal that can also drive headphones directly. I found the guitar version for something like £40 at a show a couple of years ago, so I grabbed that too, even though my guitar skills are negligible. If I was starting out now, however, I might get something like [url="http://www.native-instruments.com/index.php?id=guitarrig3"]Guitar Rig 3[/url]. The state of computer-based recording is pretty amazing these days, but hardware still costs money, and Guitar Rig includes a foot controller / guitar interface that hooks directly to the computer, which does everything in software.

A quick scan through my collection has these: [i]Psycho Killer[/i] (Talking Heads) [i]Flame Of The West[/i] (Big Country) [i]Sons Of Pioneers[/i] (Japan) [i]Under Pressure[/i] (Queen & David Bowie) [i]Sleepless[/i] (King Crimson) [i]My Favorite Headache[/i] (Geddy Lee) (from the cracking album of the same name)