Annoying Twit

Thanks very much for the in-depth review.

[quote name='Ktmman' timestamp='1399462453' post='2444429'] Yeah .... As i said before i saw a fretless 320 for £150 ... They are never on your doorstep though .... [/quote] I think I saw the same fretless 320 sell for £150. Fair way away from me. One advantage my budget-inspired delay has is that I can keep my eye out. And if there's a real bargain there, I can snap it up, effectively borrowing the money from myself! That was my £41 bid on the Yamaha BB350F on ebay at the moment. Wasn't winning for very long

Thanks for the pointer, but I have to wait until my self-imposed budget builds up again. And Maidstone might be a bit far from Leicester.

I hope it wasn't me that kludged up the list. IIRC, after noticing that my status hadn't changed, I went back to the most recent version of the list posted here, and only changed my status. At least, I think I did.

I don't collect Teisco instruments, and hence don't know the selling prices for individual instruments. On ebay sold listings, the most expensive Teisco bass sale I found was this one: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Teisco-Del-Ray-EB100-bass-guitar-finished-in-green-very-rare-/291031274692?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item43c2d0d4c4 for £295. A fair bit less than the Ishibashi example would cost landed in the UK, but clearly some Teisco instruments are worth more than I thought.

[quote name='HowieBass' timestamp='1399396792' post='2443834'] Ummm, no. Think I should? [/quote] I for one would read it with great interest.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1399310362' post='2443002'] [url="http://store.ishibashi.co.jp/ec/pro/disp/1/08-326634402"]Teisco on Ishibashi[/url] [/quote] That's a very interestingly quirky bass. But Y49800 is £288. Add on postage and other fees, and that's going to be quite expensive.

This sold for £175. That seems a quite reasonable price, but not a jaw dropping bargain.

In some ways the bass community is poorer now that there is no source of appalling customer service stories to amuse and entertain all. Perhaps someone could be tasked with coming up with some bass customer service skits for the Midlands Bass Bash.

@KingBollock I don't know much about BC Rich basses, I just googled and chose a picture of a suitably pointy one. The Canyon III for £299 is a very impressive looking bass for the money IMHO. @Kodiakblair - This thread is referencing new prices. If we go second hand, then truly beautiful basses can be bought for silly prices.

[quote name='Hugh971' timestamp='1399240329' post='2442416'] I had 2, both had quality control issues. One of them had a stripped truss rod so I sent it back and the replacement was missing the string retainer completely. After this I decided to get my money back. It was a shame because they were great basses apart from the obvious issues. The Wilkinson hardware was good. If you have more luck than I did with QC then I'm sure it will be excellent. I ended up ordering a Harley Benton from Thomann which also has Wilkinson hardware so hopefully that will be better. [/quote] When it arrives, please can we have an in-depth review? Pretty please.

Most of the comments on B.C. Rich that I've seen here have been along the lines of "pointiest bass ever" and "you'll have someone's eye out with that." Less than £300 new, and I could imagine someone thinking it's a great looking bass, but not for me. I much prefer the look and finish of the mockingbird, but it's over £300

If space is tight, then would it be socially acceptable for me to bring no basses at all? I'd bring my laptop to run my looper. But, if it was considered a bit off to bring no basses at all, I'll bring one. But, I don't have anything as newsworthy as the basses being bought by many people. BTW: I've confirmed. 1. Si600 - The Bass Relay Baton - BC Bass Relay 2. Roland Rock - W&T Ergon 5, Glockenklang Soul/Barefaced Super Twin 3. 4-string-thing - '78 (77?) P, Kala U Bass and either my Acoustic 220 or Minimark 4. KevB - USA Precision Deluxe (if not sold by then) 5. Doyle - V940, ME-20B, Random self build 6. intimate-nick - maybe my Shuker, Sandberg, rack & pedalboard etc 7. andydye (if I can get agreement from swmbo) - ACG 5'er fretted and fretless, MarkBass LMIII, EAD Foundation 212, some pedals 8. DaytonaRik - Popping in to say Hi 9. seashell - Fender P 10. Norris - Ric 4003, Gibosn T-bird, StaggEUB, Combo amp 11. Eboclive - Wal 5, ltd edition Warwick fretless 12. GrammeFriday - MTD KZ6 (with Nordstrand pups), MTD AG5, Sandberg Cali fretless 4, MIJ 62 reissue Jazz, TC Electronic RH750, RS210 and/or RS212, some fx boxes. 13. Chairleg - Italia Maranello and one of those build it yourself bass kits I put together. 14. tauzero - perm any several from Warwick JD Thumb, an Antoniotsai or two, Status Series 1 (low-mileage BC bike), Sei Original everythingless, Ashbory Mk 1 and possibly Mk II, Tecamp Puma 900, TC RS112 15. Prime_BASS - Genz Benz shuttle 6.0, barefaced S.Compact some effects. 16. Cytania - cheap Moose Antlers! 17. Chris Sharman - Cake. That is all 18 Dread Bass: ACG Recurve 6, ACG Recurve 7, Alembic Epic, Warwick fortress MM ALL LEFTY (Full Aguilar rig if required) 19. Annoying Twit (self-written looper) 20. TG Flatline - Cog Effects gear + 2 x BFM Jack 15s (transport permitting) 21. Jabba_the_gut (tbc) - home made basses 22. Marcus Bell - Status Kingbass + gb4 23. seb - bass and pedals 24. Basschatfield - Yamaha RBX270J, pedalboard, Ashdown EVO II combo 25. Flex - SVT2 pro, Berg410, Sandberg VM4 26. Mantons Customs, latest MC bass

I wasn't aware of the spalted GSR205SM. The red finish makes the spalting difficult to see in a photo. Hopefully I'll see one in real life at some time.

£75? That's very reasonable. Does it include the materials? Or just the labour?

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1399212407' post='2442104'] What should be believed is the evidence of your own ears. Science finds it very different to measure aesthetic criteria, especially when what improves audio equipment is euphonic distortions of sound , rather than measurably more accurate reproduction of recorded media . Yes, your mind can play tricks on you, but I have heard cables and power supply upgrades make such a difference to the sound of some audio equipment that it is incontrovertibly changed for the better. If it doesn't make that kind of improvement, where you are left in no doubt whatsoever, then don't invest in the upgrade . [/quote] You have said several times that you have heard cables and power supply upgrades make big improvements to the sound, as in the bold bit above. However, for the purposes of this discussion, what we really need to know whether you identified actual, perceptible, improvements in the sound, or whether you imagined you did. Just repeating your claims does not help us distinguish between these two possibilities. You are very welcome to make purchasing decisions however you please, and you have extended the same courtesy to me. My understanding of this thread is that for the nth time (*), we're discussing whether certain types of audiophile equipment actually improve sound, or whether the improvements are imaginary. For these two cases to be distinguished, the evidence of "my own" ears is woefully inadequate unless the testing is undertaken as part of a very robustly designed experiment. That I can easily fool myself, and that many other people are similarly easily fooled, is something that I have noticed over and over again throughout my life. (*) This shouldn't be read as exasperation, I quite enjoy debate, even if repeated Edit: Concerning: [quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1399212407' post='2442104'] Science finds it very different to measure aesthetic criteria, especially when what improves audio equipment is euphonic distortions of sound , rather than measurably more accurate reproduction of recorded media . [/quote] I don't agree. If we have a fancy power lead that is claimed to change the quality of sound compared to a normal power lead, then this is very easy for science to measure. If there was found to be a difference, then we would have to look further into how we should further describe the difference. But, we're still looking for any perceptible difference at all, hence there are no such problems.

The seller is doing quite a lot of other interesting stuff. https://www.facebook.com/PatchworkAxes

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sattelite-Fret-Less-Precision-Bass-Thru-Neck-Fender-Flatwound-Strings-/171319754313?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item27e373fe49 Performing standard Satellite P-Bass ebay listing analysis. Claims that this bass is MIJ .... NOT FOUND Unrealistic BIN or starting bid .... NOT FOUND Finally a reasonable seller of one of these. Until "I will remove the neck prior to shipping." Ooops! (The seller has already modified the listing to explain why s/he won't be removing the neck before posting)

Out of curiosity, what was the Chinese 7 string that you were really enjoying?

Interesting to see a p-bass with veneer for a low price. I'd guess that the makers get the veneer for much less than we would pay to buy them. Then again, Thomann sell a PJ for much less than even £70. @TheGreek - it's not just Washburn Taurus T24 basses that don't get mentioned much. I've noted that ESP/LTD basses aren't discussed much here. Personally I believe that there are just too many brands (and models) of basses for all of them to get the attention they deserve. If the Vintage V1004 (and similar basses are being discontinued) then it might be a symptom of a crowded marketplace in that price bracket. However, looking at the current Vintage range, there is the V10004. The V1004 and V10004 appear to be different models - as well as visual differences, the pickups are differen. http://www.jhs.co.uk/vintagebass.html I don't think these look as good as some of the V1004 models above. But perhaps market forces are making them cut a few corners, and it's better IMHO that they cut looks rather than playability/sound. On the other hand, it could be that middle aged me's tastes are getting out of date and that younger people prefer the looks of the newer models/finishes. But some of the newer (at least to me) models don't look all that wonderful, but they might of course play excellently. E.g.

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1399185390' post='2441765'] I had to hit my ipad with a stick to beat the ugly out of it. [/quote] I think that is the worst headstock I've ever seen.

@kodiakblair I don't know what it is, but the Oregon basses from Gear4Music just look a bit ... 'wrong' to me. The six string, to me, looks even more wrong than the four string. This is just a personal opinion, and I'm not saying that others should agree with me. It has an unusual body shape, similar to the Taurus T24. But somehow to me it looks right on the T24, while it doesn't on the Oregon. IMHO the Vintage V1004SP is the best looking bass posted in this thread so far, but it is over the £300 so doesn't count in this superficial looks are everything thread. In real life, I thought the Squier VMJ fretless looked really nice. Not so much in photos though. Looking at the Antonio Tsai posted by Tauzero and the Aria posted by Bassassin, it's started me wondering if the decrease in number of internet brands selling a variety of weird and wonderful basses has reduced our choice. I'n not sure how much the HK instruments were before they were blown out. Reviews have said that some of the finishing (and hardware placement) left a little to be desired, but they absolutely looked wonderful. Who is filling that niche? Skylark guitars sell some interesting and original instruments, but I'm not sure I'd call them attractive. http://www.skylarkguitars.com/skylark-bass-guitars-746-0/Skylark-Guitar-Electric-Twin-Retro.html I'm sure that there used to be more internet brands, some from Germany, that sold cheap instruments which did look very attractive. I'm surprised there aren't some el cheapo spalted instruments, or other fancy tops. How much can it cost to add a thin veneer or photoflame? And wouldn't it nowdays give a brand a bit of a slightly USP to have a fancy top.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1399151729' post='2441650'] [i] Conclusion The clear conclusion is that ABX testing does not back up many audiophile claims, so they become audiophile myths as they show cables do not inherantly change sound. Any change in sound quality comes from the listeners mind and interaction between their senses. What is claimed to be audible is not reliably so. Blind testing is also sometimes passed off as ABX. But blind testing is not really testing, it is a review of a product without seeing it, and that allows claims to be made about sound which have not been verified. If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product from another by only listening. But time and agian we cannot. So you can either buy good but inexpensive hifi products such as cables, amps, CDPs and be satisfied that the sound they produce is superb. You do need to spend time with speakers as they really do sound identifiably different. Or you can buy expensive hifi products such as cable tec and luxuriate in the build and image and identify one hifi from another by looks and sound. But you cannot buy expensive and identify it from cheap by sound alone. Here is The Institute of Engineering and Technology's conclusions on audiophile myths http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/11/believe-in-better.cfm which backs up the above conclusions. [/i] http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths [/quote] I think this link describes 'blind testing' quite inaccurately. Blind testing is a general concept in experimental design, and many very different experiments can be designed that include blind testing. Describing blind testing as just 'reviewing' equipment is incorrect and highly misleading. [quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1399154761' post='2441672'] Why do you accept these essays as being incontrovertible truths? They are just as prone to being mythologized as the myths they are supposedly debunking. [/quote] What should be believed is the repeatable results of properly designed scientific experiments. If the claims of audiophiles and those who sell products to them were true, then they would be easy to demonstrate in well designed scientific experiments that other people could then repeat, and confirm the results.

Dispelling Audio Myths by Ethan Winer: http://ethanwiner.com/myths.html BTW: If there was any truth that an expensive power cable could noticeably improve the quality of audio, the companies making the cables would pay for independent properly designed tests to demonstrate that they do. Then, they'd advertise the results far and wide.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Westone-Thunder-lll-Fretless-Electric-Bass-Guitar-1987-Very-Good-Condit-/301173170545?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item461f51e171 Very nice, and more interesting as a fretless. That's quite a high price though, will it actually sell at that?