Beer of the Bass

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.

Each wire on the Hiwatt is cut to exactly the right length, bent at right-angles in precise locations and neatly tied together. The wires in the Selmer are left longer than they need to be and left to lay any old way, which makes the assembly much quicker. The Selmer approach still works and works well in most cases. I feel I should add, nice work, Baxter. A lot of these old amps have been subjected to all sorts of abuse over the years, so it's nice to see them being kept running. The Selmer I used to own had suffered at the hands of a mobile disco, and had "DISCO" and "MIKE" scratched into the front panel above the two channels! When I got it, they were generally regarded as nasty old tat, quite unfairly IMO.

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1363807111' post='2018030'] The Selmer looks like it requires more skill than the Hiwatt. [/quote] I've built a couple of valve amps, but I consider myself still a novice in such things. The Selmer looks much closer to the standard of lead dress I can achieve! Getting things as neat as the Hiwatt requires meticulous planning and more time spent in its assembly. The Selmers are still nice solid, serviceable amps though - it's just that Hiwatt and the like were real premium stuff.

[quote name='Dom in Somerset' timestamp='1363760494' post='2017047'] "PASSIVE CIRCUITS ARE ALL ABOUT WHAT IS TAKEN AWAY FOLKS." - but do crappy pots take something away? Think of a hose pipe, think of a leaky or twisted pipe. [/quote] They would have to be crappy to the point of being faulty, which is unusual even in the cheap ones. Since they're just a variable resistance, you can check 'em with a multimeter. Turn the knobs to zero and measure the resistance between the two outside contacts of the pot- this should be reasonably close to the value printed on the pot. Then turn the knob fully clockwise and measure from the centre (wiper) contact to the one at the clockwise end of the track - this should be very close to zero ohms. If this is the case, the pot is working as it should and will not sound different to another pot of the same value IME. As long as they work and they're not an inappropriately low value (<250K), I don't think the pots are the problem. It's possible you have a bad solder joint adding some resistance where there shouldn't be any, or that these pickups are just voiced differently to the ones you used in the prototype.

I do wonder how useful a test the plank bass above was, as it's looking at "cheap versus expensive" rather than any innate property of the wood. The density and stiffness of the bit of scrap and the alder might be fairly close to one another. If I really wanted to test whether the wood used for a solid body contributed to the tone, I would use pieces of wood which had wildly different properties - say one very soft and light wood (like poplar) and one bit of something hard and dense (like something in the rosewood family), swapping the same neck and pickups between the two. If nobody could hear a difference between those, threads like this could be put to bed.

So you haven't heard these particular pickups in this bass before? It might just be that they're different sounding than the Lindo pickups! Vintage style alnico pickups like the 64s are quite likely to be mellower than ceramic magnet jobs, which I'd guess the Lindo pickups are.

Just in case I seemed a bit negative there, there are still plenty of reasons to go for good quality pots over the real cheapies; they last longer, feel better and often have a smoother taper.

[quote name='KiOgon' timestamp='1363717337' post='2016505'] I have to disagree with you on all 3 counts there - many of the kits I supply have made a terrific difference to what comes out of the bass, the pots etc are a vital part of the signal path & if you replace pots which are in any way less than 100% - there can be a huge improvement. The proof of the pudding is in my feedback. The tone is affected by the capacitor - but only if the tone control pot is at less than full, (assuming standard wiring). I use Black nylon GHS strings regularly on 2 of my basses 1 fretted & 1 fretless & there's no way they are 'less bright' than the equivalent flatwounds, just different, more mellow perhaps. Cheerz, John [/quote] There is the whole confirmation bias thing though - when someone makes a change they consider to be an upgrade, they're going to perceive it as sounding better whether there's any quantifiable difference or not. It's a well documented phenomenon. As far as I'm aware the only properties of the pots which could affect the sound are their resistance and perhaps a tiny (negligible?) amount of stray capacitance between the track and casing. How is the "quality" of the pot going to change the sound unless there's a difference in a measurable electronic property between the two? And if that property isn't resistance, what is it? Subjectively, I have noticed a difference when changing pot value, though I will concede this was not measured and there could be a touch of the bias I alluded to earlier. Anyway, this is a bit of a digression from the OP. If a bass sounded worse with new pots, I would first be checking my work and second checking that the values are correct.

If they're a lower value than the ones they replaced (say 250k in place of 500k), the bass will be duller sounding. Has anything else about the wiring changed?

The whole culture around tabs reminds me of this old French & Saunders sketch. "But it hasn't got those little dots, for your fingers".... [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FroICbwvJII"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FroICbwvJII[/url]

A very useful review. Thanks for taking the hit so that we don't have to!

[quote name='Spoombung' timestamp='1363442800' post='2012781'] Having a 5-string and playing below the E on the B string [i]for most of a song[/i] is a quick way to make your bass playing anonymous and it will reduce all your efforts to inaudible padding and rumble IMO. That's what I tell my students! [/quote] Yep, I definitely agree with that. Though I enjoy my five string, notes below the E on the B string are a rare occurence with my band. We have songs in the key of B where I don't use the low B at all. Out of our whole set, I think I have a few instances of the low E flat and a couple of D natural, and they tend to be part of a line rather than pedalled on. Although I could use a four string with a Hipshot (or just tweak my lines a bit), I like the reduced shifting and the "full length thumbrest" I get with the B-string. Oddly enough, four strings still feel natural to me on my double bass, but that's an entirely different instrument.

[quote name='Spoombung' timestamp='1363432243' post='2012607'] A 4-sting will often sound a lot bassier and a lot clearer- even in the upper octave. Its.... Strong fundamental, weak harmonic mids (low stung instruments like 5-stings) versus Strong mid harmonic, strong fundamental (a 4-string) An upper octave instrument is usually perceived as bassier because of the accompanying mid harmonics that lower pitched instruments don't possess. In short, it's more audible and more textural. I would encourage any bassist to do themselves a BIG favour and 'downgrade' to a 4-string and return to audibility. [/quote] I'm really not sure about that. I don't hear the top four strings on my five string as sounding any different to a similarly configured four string. My ash bodied, bolt-on necked 5 string with passive Jazz pickups just sounds like a Jazz to my ears. If there is a difference due to the heftier neck, increased tension or differently shaped pickup coils, I think it's smaller than the variation that exists within differently built four string basses. The only difference I have noticed is that the type of right-hand stroke you can use on the E string is different, as you now have a lower string limiting your finger movement. EDIT; I read your post again - I guess you're talking about the sound of a higher octave note versus a lower one, not comparing tone of the same note on a four string vs. a five string. If so, ignore the above! Although by the same logic, perhaps we should all "upgrade" to guitar and ditch those bass notes entirely!

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1363363937' post='2011906'] The got EU protection of the headstock a few years ago. [/quote] Ah right, I missed that! I'm surprised there aren't more near copies with alternative headstock shapes out there, as seems to be the norm with Fender copies.

As far as I can gather (and feel free to contradict me if you're clued up on the legal stuff), their trademark protection on the headstock shape, toaster pickup covers etc. applies in the USA only. Ebay and Gumtree will co-operate with their requests as they are American owned companies, so could be taken to court successfully. I don't think they have the same sort of influence where the instruments are made and sold outside the US by non-US companies.

Discontinued, and didn't most of their five strings keep the four string neck width and pickups? Otherwise, one of those in mapleglo would be great! Actually, I may have to build myself something some time in the future. It doesn't even need to be Ric-shaped, just imitating the construction and functional bits so it gets a similar sound and feel...

There isn't anyone doing with Rickenbacker style instruments what Sandberg, Nordstrand, Sadowsky etc. are doing with Fender-esque basses, except perhaps John Birch who isn't around anymore. I can understand the rationale behind buying their instruments, as they provide the functional attributes and much of the appearance of the Fenders, but with far more options available and a degree of personalisation that a larger company would struggle to provide. The currently available Ric copies are all cheap knock-offs, but if a small company was to offer a quality bass built like a Rickenbacker except with a sensible bridge, no uncomfortable pickup surround and the option of five strings, I'd be sort of tempted to save up my gig money for one! It'd be even better if Ric themselves offered such a thing, but I can see they have little incentive to.