Beer of the Bass

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1366215194' post='2049733'] But he had the pickup below the skin of the banjo, so it would obviously pick up a different sound. Also not to mention scale length and strings. I don't know much about banjos but I wouldn't think they use guitar strings. [/quote] The skin is not magnetic or conductive, so would be "invisible" to a magnetic pickup, and the pickup was mounted to the relatively rigid dowel rod. Other than having loop ends instead of ball ends, typical banjo strings are made in the same way, from the same materials as electric guitar strings and tenor banjo scale length is usually around 23" for a long scale, again not very different from guitar. Short of mocking up something in a workshop, it's about as good an example as I've experienced of mechanical differences in an instrument affecting the sound obtained from a magnetic pickup.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1366211633' post='2049676'] Well yes, but that's why the difference between an acoustic instrument and an electric instrument is so different, and I only ever referred to electric instruments here when talking about tonewoods. Acoustic instruments are a completely different ball game. [/quote] Yeah, that was a bit of an extreme example, but I found it interesting. If you are listening to an instrument solely using a magnetic pickup under the strings, it is not an acoustic instrument in that application - it's just a mechanical structure which can affect the string movement the pickup sees, depending on how much energy it absorbs and disperses from the strings at various frequencies. If attaching strings to a wildly different structure can produce a wildly different sound through a magnetic pickup, then surely smaller differences in that structure (like changes in material) could make some difference, it's just a question of how significant we judge that difference to be. Since music is an art form, subjective judgements are where all the good stuff happens! FWIW, on the two basses I've built, I chose the woods on the basis of appearance and availabilty. Of course, none of this really adds anything new to the discussion - it's all there in the first couple of pages, but hey, what else are bass forums for? I suppose thinking about the nature of our instruments is useful to some extent though...

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1366209690' post='2049636'] 2 different acoustics with the same electro-magnetic pickup will sound more of less the same, but it's a completely different ball game. [/quote] Just to throw a (friendly) spanner in the works, I was at a gig last night where the headliner was playing an old open-backed banjo amplified using a Strat pickup attached to the dowel rod, just under the skin. It sounded like a banjo and not in the slightest like my bandmate's Strat. Both instruments have a similar scale length, nickel roundwound and plain strings and necks built similarly from similar materials. To me this suggests that the vibration of the string as "heard" by a magnetic pickup is strongly affected by the mechanical properties of whatever the bridge and neck are attached to. So, while two different lumps of hardwood will probably have a smaller difference in sound than comparing a tensioned skin to a lump of hardwood in the above example, I'm not sure I could say that there can be no difference. Ultimately, it's up to the player and listener to decide how significant these properties are to them, making it one of these subjective discussions which can run and run...

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1366140647' post='2048936'] Ooh! Make me one! [/quote] Not sure I'd want to offer that, being busy with various other things including sorting out my marriage next month. You could get a kit from www.pedalparts.co.uk though, I reckon the Superfuzz goodness is worth the effort!

The pickups in cheaper instruments can be pretty good now, since they're often copying the original designs more closely than they used to. I have a £99 Axl guitar which came with "EMG designed" alnico single coils. Out of curiosity I put in a pair of Seymour Duncans, which have the same DC resistance (I'd guess the same gauge and number of windings) though the Duncans have weaker Alnico II magnets, flatwork rather than a moulded bobbin, and are scatterwound. The difference between them is really quite subtle, with the Duncans being a bit mellower and less peaky in the upper mids but still quite open sounding. Comparing recordings made before and after, nothing about the cheaper pickups sounds obviously worse, they just have a slightly different character.

On the width thing - I had a Carlsbro 100 watt PA which was 50cm wide - the same as a Super 12. Plenty loud for my needs too - I never had to turn it up to the point where it started to sound dirty at a gig, although my band may be less loud than some as our guitarists both use 1x12" valve combos.

It's finished and working. It does absolutely nail the Soft Machine fuzz bass thing! It's got that real sandpapery edge that the Muff lacks. I find I prefer the mid-notched setting on bass - it's centred high enough at 1K that there are still some mids going on below that. The normal setting is very midrangey and focussed, though with a little less low end than the notched setting. It'll be fun trying it with the band. We've got a gig tonight, but I should probably try it at a rehearsal first...

I just had a look at the eBay listing, and it looks like you've got a valve rectifier in there, so that's one less thing to change. A push-pull EL84 amp could be good for 15-18 watts depending on the amp design and the output transformer, but I think domestic audio stuff like this didn't run them as hard as instrument amps tend to. With speaker impedances, the usual rule of thumb is that you'll get the most output and least stress to the output transformer using the same impedance speaker as it was designed for, but if you're going to risk a mismatch, a lower impedance speaker is less likely to cause damage than one with higher impedance.

Personally, I'd be tempted to rebuild the chassis into something resembling a classic guitar amp. With an EF86, 12AX7 and a pair of EL84s, you could probably base it on the 60's Vox AC15 normal channel. I've got an old Fidelity reel to reel I'm planning something similar with, though mine is a smaller single ended amp so it'll end up resembling an AC4. If you don't fancy a full rebuild, you should at least replace the electrolytic capacitors to keep it reliable and safe. Also, what kind of rectifier does it have? If you're lucky, it'll have a valve rectifier, but some of these old tape decks use Selenium rectifiers which have a limited life and give out bad smelling fumes when they go - I'd change that if you have one.

I think there's a theme developing here. I don't know all of the names mentioned here, but the ones I do are captivating performers with or without a looper.

I don't think it's restricted to bassists. I can only think of one or two musicians of any sort (Thomas Truax is one) who do anything inspiring using a looper - most of the time they're a bit of a gimmick and the novelty wears off quickly for me.

I always used to stay higher up the neck when I had an OC2 - not so much because of the tracking but because that was the sound I was after and my small combo at the time couldn't handle going lower. I loved it on fretless or EUB, but could never bond with it on a fretted bass for some reason.

Since a couple of guitar amps have snuck in, I thought I'd stick up a couple of pictures of my home built job. It's based on a Fender Princeton Reverb - it does about 15 watts with a pair of 6v6s, and is in a birch ply cabinet which I tried to make as light as possible. My lead dress isn't up to the standards of the really good stuff like Hiwatt yet, but it works just fine.

Surprisingly, it may have been Hofner, as they were offering active circuitry in basses from the mid-late 60s. [url="http://www.vintagehofner.co.uk/factfiles/active/electronics.html"]http://www.vintagehofner.co.uk/factfiles/active/electronics.html[/url] The guys who founded Alembic were also early adopters of active circuitry, but I guess they don't come under "mass produced".

I've seen pictures of an adapted child trailer on Talkbass, so I guess it could work, but I'd want to use a cheap robust bass. I never cycle on the road with a couple of drinks in me, just the same as driving.

For me the big problem is lugging them up tenement stairs. My 2x12" is lighter, goes through doors more easily and has the right proportions for the boot of a Fiesta! If I lived on the ground floor and played places that had parking, I'd be happy with a good 4x10".

I would say the guys who do setups and minor repairs only (sometimes attached to guitar shops) are guitar techs, not luthiers.

Searching around this forum and a couple of others, I'm going with the idea that it was the Shaftesbury Duo Fuzz, which AFAIK is another incarnation of the Shin-Ei FY6 and Univox Super Fuzz. I googled Hugh Hopper and Shaftesbury together and came up with this interview where the man himself confirms it: [url="http://www.myspace.com/thesofts68/blog/233186822"]http://www.myspace.com/thesofts68/blog/233186822[/url] So I'm going to build a Super Fuzz clone and see if it gets me there. I'm using the PCB from Poodle's Pedal Parts and adding a blend circuit. If all goes well, I'll post some pictures in the DIY pedals thread.

I've found a later interview where he mentions the Shaftesbury Duo Fuzz as a treasured old thing of his, but no indication of whether or not that was the Soft Machine fuzz. The plot thickens...

I was listening to Soft Machine's second album the other day, and really enjoying the Fuzz sounds. It's got a more abrasive, raspier edge than I can get with a Big Muff, and it's not so mid-scooped. Does anyone know what he might have been using? We're talking late '60s England, so I guess there weren't that many choices around. Since the schematics for most things are available nowadays, I'd like to build myself a copy of whatever it was!

Erm, I suspect this thread may not stick around long either at this rate!

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1363903041' post='2019373'] So much for free speech. I was taking an interest in Music Man basses after watching the factory tour. Not any more! [/quote] Yep! The fret slots being marginally deeper than the tang doesn't bother me (it's a pretty standard way to do things), but idea of a company who do all in their power to prevent free discussion of their wares really puts me off. Way to go, EBMM...

I've never found plastic cased pedals to be a problem either. I have an Ibanez TS-5 tubescreamer which was a 12th birthday present - I'm 32 now. I've used it on and off quite a lot in that time. It needed the power jack connections re-soldering a while ago, and I'm about to replace the switch, but neither of those things are related to the plastic case. The case itself is fine! Looking at the plastic Behringers, the build quality looks similar, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of them lasted about as well.

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1363877213' post='2018779'] I found it sad to read from teenagers who have no money talking dismissively about their "crap Squier" (that they saved up for, or their parents bought them), just to fit in with the group... It's even sadder that some might feel... I don't know, embarrased even about using a Squier and a Behringer. That is sad. [/quote] Agreed, especially as a lot of the cheap stuff is quite good at the moment and no-one should feel inferior for using it. In my "guitar" band I gig with a £99 Axl, which was great for the money - solid body, alnico pickups, tuners that work and a nice feeling neck. I've compared it with a friends US Standard Strat side by side through the same amp, and while the two guitars have a different character from one another there's absolutely nothing about the sound of the Axl that shows it up as the cheap one. Sure, the fit and finish are better on the Fender, but the £99 guitar does the job. Being happy playing less revered brands is a matter of having confidence in your own judgement, so I can sort of understand why many want to make safe choices (i.e. trusted brands like Fender) when starting out.

I've seen and used a few bits of Behringer kit which have given good, dependable service, especially the rackmount gear and some of the mixers. The mixers tend to develop problems after a few years of heavy use, but then so does most other gear in the same settings (I've seen just as many Mackies, Yamahas etc. with dead channels). The DIs seem to do an OK job too, but I've been a bit underwhelmed by the Behringer combos I've plugged in to so far.