Annoying Twit

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1413843269' post='2582779'] Practice with a metronome. You know, and especially for you guys that will be auditioning. Most of the time you will be playing along with the recording that you will be auditioning and that's an ideal environment. However, be aware that the recording is leading and driving you and you can really been thrown off when you audition with a live band. Blue [/quote] Typically at the moment I'm playing along with drum beats at first, and other layers as I build them up. Would a metronome be better because it doesn't indicate the divisions of beats so that I would have to learn to hit those on my own?

£169 is surely too much for a Spectrum. Though, there is some variability in the desirability of different versions. £150 for a Maya fretless also looks too high. Especially since I guess that this is a defret as I don't think Maya fretless basses had fret lines. [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Maya-Fretless-Electric-Bass-/321557844742?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item4ade575306"]http://www.ebay.co.u...=item4ade575306[/url] EDIT: Can't imagine this 60s looking "Teisco/Kawai" selling for the asking price. [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Raver-Bass-Kawai-Teisco-60s-70s-Japan-/321557759644?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item4ade56069c"]http://www.ebay.co.u...=item4ade56069c[/url] £550 for a Tokai Hard Puncher? I thought they sold for a fair bit less than that. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1980-s-Tokai-Hard-Puncher-precision-bass-guitar-in-white-with-hard-case-/181563716438?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item2a460a7356

[quote name='Lee Carter' timestamp='1413821066' post='2582356'] [url="http://www.dv247.com/guitars/jandd-pb-vintage-1963-4-string-bass-guitar-fiesta-red--208552"]Oh Hello [/url] [/quote] I'm not up on what makes different eras of p-basses different eras. (Apart from the early 50s ones). What are the distinguishing characteristics?

Edit: Re: sounding like heroes I've had a number of people say I must be a good player because I own basses with more than four strings. Never quite worked that one out.

Please tell us more of your experiences. Is the model you have robust? They aren't that expensive compared to what bicycles cost, and have a similar amount of hardware, almost. I wondered how long they are likely to last. I'd also like to see the photos of it loaded up. I've been seriously considering a trailer for some time.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1413745739' post='2581517'] I agree with all that as far as specifications are concerned but I wouldn't include build quality under that heading. Thus, cheaper machine heads, less expensive wood, lower spec pickups etc etc can all contribute to a 'lower quality' bass without it being a badly built bass. Paint finishes might be another example. Single colour, one coat plus a lacquer or three colour sunburst with each colour having two coats before another two coats of lacquer. A clear reason for different pricing but no excuse for the cheaper option to have runs in the paintwork - that would be poor quality and would be unacceptable regardless of the price point. [/quote] Yes, I think you have a point there. The Squier basses aren't so much badly built as lower specification. The (e.g.) Affinity basses I've seen don't have any obvious flaws. But when A/B'ing against a USA Fender, my personal experience is that the USA bass has something extra. Part of that would be the quality of the fretwork, so perhaps someone could argue that if the frets aren't as well finished, that the bass isn't as well made. Same for the nut being cut less carefully (often left high on cheaper basses). A minor point of finish, but one which has quite an effect on playability.

I've developed a product that will enable everyone to experience the tonal superiority of green basses. Chlorophyll impregnated green tape. The chlorophyll, with it's strong light capturing abilities, enables a 2" by 5" strip of tape to capture as much green light, and convert it to tone-enhancing body energy, as a bass painted entirely green. Simply take the tape, and affix it to the front of your bass. (Not the rear as the tape will be shaded by your body and be ineffective.) Strips of chlorophyll bass tape are now available from me for the very low price of only £79.28 a strip. Coming soon - mauve bass amp tape.

My timing isn't good enough. If I just play unaccompanied, it sounds fine. If I record and overdub, I can hear that my timing is out. I'm addressing this by recording something multitrack most days, usually on a looper. I'm making progress.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1413759646' post='2581678'] Even if wood can be shown to have a perceptible effect on the sound of a bass guitar, what would anyone do with that knowledge? Indeed, what [u]could[/u] they do with it, given that wood is an organic material and that every single piece will have have some unique characteristics, even pieces from the same species and quite probably even pieces from the same tree! [/quote] It would depend on how much variation there is in the one within species compared to between different species. If the intra-species tone variation was small, and the inter-species tone variation was large, then it would be sensible for instrument designers to choose the body wood species that has the desired tone. However, since the best information we have to date is that wood species doesn't make a significant difference, they shouldn't. [quote name='Bolo' timestamp='1413782507' post='2581709'] They would market materials for different types of music. Just like today, but with science on their side so you don't need to use your own ears or judgement anymore. You'd be a fool to disagree with SCIENCE! Science..ience..ence.. [/quote] The huge amount of audio woo out there (e.g. 'audiophile USB cables') shows that leaving things up to people's own ears and judgement is a recipe for widespread superstition and myth. I prefer facts. The AudioAsylum forum has banned discussion of double blind / ABX trials in some of their forums. http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/d.mpl?audio/faq.html I bet they are very happy in their foolery.

[quote name='yorks5stringer' timestamp='1413746099' post='2581521'] I thought Warwick were the greenest bass manufacturer? [url="http://www.warwickbass.com/en/Warwick---Company--Environmental-protection--Environmental-protection--Our-commitment-to-environmental-protection.html#current_site_id"]http://www.warwickba...current_site_id[/url] [/quote] Warwicks are among the basses most susceptible to light pollution of the sound. Most logos are quite reflective, and reduce the amount of light energy that enters the bass body. Warwick, with its tiny little W logo, suffer most from light pollution. However, the old style Rockbasses with the large logo are among the best basses for reflecting incident light away from the bass. I'll be very kind and offer to swap my old style Rockbass for a German made Warwick. Form an orderly queue.

What everyone has to remember is that both sound and light are energy, and it is possible to convert from one to the other. Hence, light that is adsorbed by a bass body is converted into heat in the form of heat in the body, which is vibrational energy of the wood molecules in the body. When the strings are plucked this also creates vibrations in the body, which are converted to a signal by the pickups. While primarily the pickups pick up the vibrations of the strings, if the body is also vibrating, the pickups are moving in relation to the strings, and this will colour the sound picked up by the pickups. In this way, the colour of the bass body will affect the wavelengths of light adsorbed, rather than reflected, by the bass. In effect, the sound of the bass is being changed by light pollution. The only solution is to make sure that you always play your bass in pitch darkness. This will prevent light pollution changing the tone of your bass, and lead to a clean, unpolluted, sound.

[quote name='smaz' timestamp='1413741428' post='2581447'] Got it for £120 Seems to be about right? Never played one, but heard good things! [/quote] The prices vary quite a lot. But, that's a good price. Not gobsmackingly low, as they very occasionally don't make £100. But on the other hand they sometimes go for £160 or so.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1413736443' post='2581369'] Very good point. Different pricing based on different quality components is one thing, but different build quality is ludicrous really. Imagine buying a car and being told by the dealership that you could have one built properly for one price or built a bit shoddily for a bit less. Quite an odd marketing model when you think about it. [/quote] Many large companies will try to find a way to get the maximum amount of money out of consumers, which will often mean making different products at different prices. For cars, there are different models at different price points. With basses they can sell more or less identical products except that they are made with more care and with better quality components. With books, they can sell hardcover and softcover editions. Supermarkets will sell the same food products as 'basics', 'normal', and 'premium' versions. I don't think it stands out too much that with basses they can sell essentially the same product with a different quality. I've seen it said that the Squier Affinity P-Bass is the best selling bass in the world. There seem to be no small numbers of higher quality Squiers, Mexican Fenders, and USA Fenders being sold. If Fender has problems, it's not because they can't sell their products.

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1413733094' post='2581326'] Cheers Bolo. I wasn't suggesting anything I was saying bore any relation to a scientific approach - it's purely an anecdotal view of someone who has a few MM instruments and gigs them all regularly (including the rare Sabre)! But this really is the point - I don't buy the scientific arguments - I don't know if any of the rest of you have been around long enough to remember the early 70s tele ads claiming 9 out of 10 people couldn't taste the difference between xyz margarine and butter in a blind taste test!!! That was allegedly a scientific result (although they probably didn't tell you the sample had all been treated to a vesta curry (remember them bwahahaha) not long before - or perhaps they all had colds. I haven't concluded or articulated what I think the difference between my sabre and an ash one is but the wood looks denser - it's also one piece - suffice it to say it is quite different sounding to my ears - all I'll say for now is it sounds less compressed and has more sustain - aesthetics and playability are top notch - it's s beautiful bass. [/quote] Science is certainly widely misused for advertising purposes. E.g. you mention giving the participants a vesta curry. I wouldn't be surprised if the trial used very, very, thinly spread margarine and butter, with strong flavours to mask the spread's flavours. That doesn't mean that science, [b]properly applied[/b], isn't the best way we have for knowing what is, and isn't, true. The alternatives are far, far, worse. And, also, science is self-correcting. If you don't believe the margarine taste-test, there's nothing to stop you repeating their experiment and seeing if you get the same results once everything is properly blinded.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1413724405' post='2581215'] Uh... what..? [/quote] We could see what, if anything, Edward Van Halen has said about body wood. At least we could for middle aged stoner dudes. For younger stoners we'd have to substitute a 'guitar god' from the next generation.

I have the B1XON and am considering getting the G1XON. From your experience of the B3 and G3, would you think it worthwhile getting both the guitar and bass versions? Some of the effects are common between the two. But particularly the amp and cab models are different. Currently I'm thinking that this alone would justify having both, but would appreciate hearing your opinion.

If IKEA hires science geeks as workers, that raises them in my estimation. Given the nature of this thread, a certain degree of geekery is necessary. Imagine if we were discussing this topic in 'stoner' mode.

My bid is low enough such that it would be worth going to London to pick it up. The chance of winning? I would say < 1%

Sold for 99p! Randythoades, was that you?

[quote name='Paul S' timestamp='1413710994' post='2581002'] Westone Thunder 1A just listed, collection only SE London. Currently at £10.50, looks a bit scruffy but probably end up being a bargain. [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Westone-thunder-Bass-Guitar-Made-in-Japan-Matsumoku-/131325287032?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item1e9398da78"]http://www.ebay.co.u...=item1e9398da78[/url] [/quote] I can't believe that my ridiculous lowball bid is currently winning.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1413711409' post='2581008'] 1-Afaik they are no different to a 3 eq ray with a RW board but with a mahogany body instead of ash. 2- that is true but they made 783 of them and the punchy comments have come from lovers and haters of the brand rather than fan bois only. They are however strung through which is a whole fresh debate! [/quote] 1 and 2. I presume that these are not blinded comments. Hence, the spectre of placebo effect has not been extinguished. One thing we do know is that the placebo effect is very strong. [url="http://pharmacology.ucsd.edu/graduate/courseinfo/placebarticle.pdf"]http://pharmacology....acebarticle.pdf[/url] I'm surprised I can't find an article on the placebo effect in audio domains, but the abstract of this looks VERY interesting: [url="http://sss.sagepub.com/content/34/5/783.short"]http://sss.sagepub.c.../34/5/783.short[/url] In short, we'd need to know if the differences between these basses are still detectable once a double blind experiment is performed. If there are other differences, which could be as small as different components, slightly different pickups, through stringing as you mention, etc., then there are other plausible explanations for potential sound differences, and it would be a poor experiment to compare body woods that way. Furthermore to the numbers of basses, number of people claiming a difference in sound, etc., that again is far from proof. In the audio mastering world many claims are made for different dithering techniques. See the following page [url="http://ethanwiner.com/dither.html"]http://ethanwiner.com/dither.html[/url] which discusses dither, including this relevant quote: [quote] Some engineers even argue over which type of dither is best, claiming this algorithm is more airy sounding that that one, and so forth. [b]But just because everyone believes this, does that make it true?[/b] [/quote] (my emphasis) Summary of this post: We still need experimental evidence even if many people, even experts, believe something to be true.

I think that this is a difficult situation all round. There is no way that the immigration people can 100% reliably tell the difference between someone who has come here for a holiday, and someone who arrives on a tourist visa intending to disappear into the black economy. As mentioned before, various reality TV shows show that people arriving can be questioned, and that immigration officials will check that they have the money to support their holiday, look through personal materials etc. Not having money to support hotel stays, nor the ticket with her may have been what caused immigration officials to reject her. The problem we have with this is that we need to look at how the situation could be improved. If the immigration officials started giving arrivals more benefit of the doubt, then more people who do actually intend to work illegally will slip through. Would everyone be happy with this consequence? Because if not, then we have to accept that sometimes immigration officials will get it wrong and refuse genuine tourists entry to the country. This is not me assuming that UK customs (immigration, surely) are nice chaps who always apply the rules correctly. It's me assuming that UK immigration people are fallible, and that the rules are also less than perfect. But, they have to do something. We have a populace a significant proportion of which is frothing at the mouth about immigration, voting for reactionary anti-immigration parties. In an environment like that, is it any wonder that some genuine tourists are refused?

[quote name='PlungerModerno' timestamp='1413681042' post='2580913'] Aye - You'd need to account for playing mechanics just as you'd have to account for setup e.g. pickup height. A mechanical solution might be consistent enough. Plectrum stuck on a sliding "hand" that moves across the strings completely consistently. Could probably rig an inkjet printer arm or something to do it. The real challenge is getting the dosh together to do the 100's of tests needed in controlled circumstances. It's no harm to hash out the details of a potential experiment here. My suggestion would be: (i) Consistent playing & setup ( as well as the same pick, same strings, same pickups, same hardware, same place (electronically shielded space with controlled temperature & humidity). (ii) Testing for wood type: Use bodies / necks / fretboards / etc. (the component you want to test for influence) of exactly the same dimensions or weight - and finish if any. 30+ examples of each for statistical reasons - better make it 50. I'm sure there's room for improvement in this experiment. If it's a simple proof of concept ( that wood species / type influences the tonal characteristics of a solid body instrument in an audible manner ) it could be done simpler... Custom rig with space for readily interchangeable body blanks. I suppose the pickups & the bridge would have to be connected solidly to the body, as would the neck. some sort of clamp system should be doable - depending on your definition of consistency it might be pretty simple. I'd imagine the differences would be very hard to measure & analyze accurately - and how to conclusively decide if it's wood type without lots of good data I have no Idea. What I do know is that it needs to be replicated several times, and it needs to include a double blind standard - at least for the listening component. For the actual testing, as long as the rig(s) are totally consistent it shouldn't need too much planning. Just careful recording & recording (audio & notes!). EDIT: had to change a & b to i & ii ... coz it went all [/quote] Any experiment can always be improved, no matter how many details are accounted for. Science is officially never finished with any question we ask, all we can say is that the most robust experiment we've yet performed to answer any question has given us a certain result. Until someone performs a more sophisticated experiment, we go with what we have. That's the whole history of science. For this experiment, a mechanical plucking device could be used. E.g. see those robots created the the Japanese team who worked with Squarepusher. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkUq4sO4LQM"]https://www.youtube....h?v=VkUq4sO4LQM[/url] However, I personally think that a professional musician or musicians asked to play the instruments identically would probably be sufficient to produce a sufficiently robust experiment. I had a look through the experiments that found no statistical difference between different body woods, and there was no mention of mechanical plucking in research that I could find this morning. E.g. [url="http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf"]http://www.stormride...guitar_wood.pdf[/url] However, if someone now did an experiment with mechanical plucking devices, that would certainly help. Furthermore, I would say that even imperfect experiments such as having a human play the guitar (introducing further variation) should easily provide the result that the guitars sound different if the difference is as much as people claim it is. If we're thinking that small shortcuts in the experimental technique might be enough to invalidate the results, then we're already talking about very small differences that can be lost in too much noise. As a reductio ad absurdum argument, consider if we were asking the question 'can humans tell the sound of a tuba from a piccolo?'. How bad would the experiment have to be before the results would be unreliable? If we're talking tiny, tiny, differences between the sound of different body wood species, then that difference could be lost in the noise of experimental design. But, if the differences are that tiny, particularly if the difference in wood tone on average between two species is small compared to the variation of tone within those species, then there is little practical significance (as opposed to statistical significance) in the difference between species. Finally we need to consider whether experiments might lead to a false positive or false negative result. Looking at the research linked to above, which I don't think was all that well performed, they only had two guitar bodies. This would mean that even if there is no real tone difference due to different species, there might be a detectable tone difference due to variations within a species. I.e. even if there is no real difference between the tone of alder and ash, if there is variation within these species then it could be that one body is randomly 'bright' while the other is randomly 'mellow' for example. If these differences are detectable, then we get a false positive, where other variation is incorrectly attributed to be an effect of body wood species. In the experiments that have been performed, the results seem to be negative. Hence, we don't need to be so concerned about limitations in current experimental protocols that could lead to a false positive, as we aren't getting positives. We only need to look at experimental limitations that could lead to a false negative. This could be, for example, too small an experimental sample. Or perhaps that variations in human playing or variation between pieces of wood are drowning out a tiny average differences due to wood species. In those cases, I'd ask the question of whether that puported difference in tone due to wood is of any practical significance. As either you still would need to test for the desired tonal qualities (if drowned out by variation between pieces of wood) or you could simply get whatever tone you wanted out of any wood species body by adjusting your playing style. There comes a point where the difference due to wood species is so small that the correct conclusion is 'who cares?'

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1413674995' post='2580890'] Well this took longer than I thought it would to get all haughty. Well done Basschat. [/quote] Who is being haughty? I see a reasonable discussion.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1413667977' post='2580832'] But what I am saying here is that there is no proper research done to see whether the wood used or the construction have the most impact on the changes in sound (or even if both are equally important or irrelevant). [/quote] There is a whole lot of research that hasn't been done. This thread was specifically started to ask the question of whether body wood species alone can significantly change the tone of a solid body electric bass. If you're interested in other questions as well, then there's nothing wrong with that. But it isn't necessary to address those questions in order to answer the question that is the central topic of this thread. [quote] When people say that wood species X has more "growl" in the tone than species Y what we don't know is all the other characteristics of the basses that are being compared. It might just happen that it is possible to get blanks of species X that allow the bodies to be made in two parts whereas species Y blanks are narrower and the bodies need three parts and what people are actually hearing is the difference between a two piece and three piece body. That's why we need to go right back to basics and start with single piece bodies and work from there [b]CHANGING ONE THING, AND ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME[/b]. And do it with a decent sized sample group. Until then I'll have to maintain that everything is simply personal opinion, and there is no conclusive evidence for any of the claims being made. [/quote] The bit in bold is exactly what I've been saying to you all along. Same for the concept of a 'decent sized sample group'. Hence, you're agreeing with me. But, the way you write your followups to my posts make it look as if you are constructing a straw man argument (e.g. that I'm "introducing variables" that I never did), and then disagreeing with that straw man.