itu

There is the tce SCF, so why bother? If there is a good idea and a neat sound comes out of the construction, then go.

On top of the basic settings, the must - that I see it - would be an adjustable X-over and a LPF. That would be the ultimate bass version compared to whichever other pedal available.

1 hour ago, Al Krow said:

@GisserD if you're after 19mm spacing, check out the BTB range. Neck through and 35" scale to boot.

...or buy a six string SR and modify it to a 5. A new saddle, a new bridge and - that's it. You can remove the extra tuner, too.

2 hours ago, Marcoelwray said:

I stick with my too long & slim head. I find it sexy.

I suppose you are not alone:

https://www.facebook.com/harjunpaabass/

Have to say, that I really like this understated looks of the instrument. I also love the comment on fretless. She certainly should have a plain dark fretboard, thank you.

The fretless in the following pictures was made by a local luthier Kristian Ukkonen. The knobs control pickup coils (single/series/parallel) and a step attenuator. The 36" neck is very close to a block with rounded edges, a joy to play.

https://www.basschat.co.uk/topic/136517-fretless-porn/?page=14&tab=comments#comment-3590248

https://www.basschat.co.uk/topic/160340-vigier-porn/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-3590237

It is very true, that the design is always very difficult but some key ideas I discussed with him were: long upper horn for stability and reach, an Alembic-like boattail to get the bridge as far back as possible, passive, and hollow to get the weight down: 3.12 kg (under 6.9 lbs) and 3.66 kg (8 lbs) with a strap. Finnish birch, walnut and blackwood (https://www.madinter.com/en/). It plays far better than I do but this was a chance of "once in a lifetime".

This is one kool instrument! 

Q5 SS had the basic neck, but Q5 had (and probably still has) the Q5W available as an option. It is Quantum 5 Wide, where the company uses six-string neck mold. This way the string spacing is around 19 mm. 

The company is up and running but the production is somewhat small, mostly custom orders. Take a look, neat instruments. 

Hopefully the cutter is designed for piano strings. Otherwise the jaws will be short-lived. I cut excess by bending the string back and forth. And then bend the cut string end to the tuning post with those cutters.

By cutting the old strings, you lose the possibility to use an old one if the new set has a defective unit. Not good outside your home or close to the store. That store which is open.

If I have any extra time, I will dust the fretboard and the area of the tuners, minimum.

I put some extra tension to the strings, one by one, to stabilize the string length/tension/tuning. If someone remembers that 1980's Billy Sheehan/Rotosound advertisement "Get to grips"... Then tune once more.

https://www.ebay.ie/itm/1987-VINTAGE-5-5-X8-PRINT-Ad-FOR-ROTOSOUND-SWING-BASS-STRINGS-BILLY-SHEEHAN-/162923767136?hash=item25ef036560

Bought an AKG 40-series used wireless for 50 € / 45 £. Our band has a wireless mixer (Soundcraft), so now it is possible to make mixing / sound check from the front. If the unit works well, our guitarist or I might use it on stage. Let's see...

Sir, sure, and I should stop writing at night. 

By the way, I like the looks of your instruments.

On 13/12/2018 at 15:03, Marcoelwray said:

But I want to make a 5 strings broadneck fretless .... Is that making any sense?@Henrythe8

 

Is there any sense in making a thinneck fretless? P-bass nut and 19 mm bridge widths, please.

So, I want even string width to all my basses, no matter how many strings there are. I do not understand what is behind this tight string spacing thing. It is not comfortable in any way and it just makes me think the fretboard over again when changing basses. Why on earth / Pourquoi / Vad i helvete / Mitä helvettiä?

Shouldn't you just build evenly spread strings to all of your basses and offer the thin neck as an extra option and for very special extra price? Quelque chose très cher, n'est-ce pas?

(Monsieur: no fretboard markers, no fretlines, please! They are not usable anyway.)

I think that Bacchus is a serious Japanese bass brand. Their woodworking is at such a high level, that I could invest on them with confidence. Overall, Japan has quality standards somehow built in to their community. My (limited) understanding is that Bacchus, moon, Sadowsky et al. who produce these jazz-on-steroids, play in a different field than Fenders, maybe custom shop excluded.

I'll try to express the previous in another words:

My expectation for Japanese quality level is very good, so I won't get a bad product, if not otherworldly flashy either. Americans (the F-word and some others), on the other hand may have a good day or not. So their quality is more prone to occasional defects that lower the overall expectations. I just have seen far too many pricey US basses that do not meet with their expected quality: neck pockets, loose parts, soldering problems, messy electronics, low quality components... I have felt like the quality check was not done properly or at all. Cost cutting?

10 hours ago, agedhorse said:

Total audio power at lowest rated impedance is 2 x 180 watts (total of 2 channels) = 320 watts. The NRTL agency testing power will be (320 x .125) = 40 watts total.  Say the efficiency is 35% for the amp and 75% for the power supply, the rated average power being drawn will be 40W/(35% x 75%) = 152 watts which is what the agency will be looking for as the "rated average input power".

...

With class D, you can run the same calculation but substituting the average efficiency of about 90%, and with an SMPS the average efficiency is typically about 92%. Thus: 40W/(90% x 92%) = 48 watts rated average input power. 

...it's all about how the regulations require that we state the input power, and in reality the 1/8-rated power is not too far off until we get into heavily overdriven or compressed tones where the crest factor decreases. IF the amp is designed specifically to support such operation, especially if it is advertised as such, the 1/8-power factor may be increased to more accurately reflect the expected operation of the amp.

This sounds reasonable. If I use the stated 8 ohm power level of 110 W per channel, I get 220 W / (.45 x .85) = 575 W which is in line with that 650 W input power.

Those regulatory bodies have done something that I was not aware of - at all. Your examples and notes clarify this issue, also in a scientific manner, thank You, Sir. I think this power level comparison between amps could be more clear to help us customers. At least I like to make decisions that have something to do with reality, not only marketing based jargon.

3 hours ago, agedhorse said:

I think you are misunderstanding what the rated input power number means and why it's required of any amplifier that is sold in the EU, as it must be tested and certified to EN60065. This regulation specifies that the rated power input be based on a minimum of 1/8 rated audio power (in RMS units) at the lowest rated impedance.

OK, so if the amp has linear power, the situation is totally different than with switching powers? My understanding may be outdated, because SMPS has pretty much different behavior compared to linear, transformer-based supplys. I would say, that linear needs quite a lot of power to produce the claimed numbers - in RMS.

I have an old HiFi amp from the 80's that can push 2 x 110 W RMS continuous to 8 ohms (tested) and its maximum input power is 650 W. I understand losses and the power consumption of the other components, so the amount of input power makes sense. But if an amp says 1 kW and the input power is 200 W, I feel like I have fallen from the train. Sir, please, open up this a bit more; I do not have reasonable access to that standard, as it costs 300 € + VAT. Can this SMPS class-D amp push continuously 1 kW RMS to 8 ohms or not?

Meridian has the Funk-u-lator and Iron Ether has FMeron. The first is probably closer to an envelope but the FMeron surely is synth.

On 11/12/2018 at 11:56, Conan said:

1048 (4x10") and 1518 (1x15").

So it was 10" x 4 and 8 ohms, as well as 15" x 1 and 8 ohms. I remember a friend of mine had this 1818X monster (18" x 1 and 8 ohms but it also had a 10" "tweeter") with funny handles. Nobody could lift that alone without breaking back or something else sooner or later.

Oh those colors and UV-light... at least setting the amp had to be easy in a dark stage. I never had the chance to own one, but if it was any lighter... Another interesting unit was from Steve W. Rabe: Mo' Bass.

This is the first neck-through Wal, that I have ever seen. Like someone (C. Thompson, really?) has built wood around the Wal parts. Strange.

Well, I went to a store that has several headphones to test. My budget was 100 € / 90 GBP. I tried probably 12 - 15 pairs with music I know (Oleta Adams - Circle of one). Sennheisers were better and better after 160 € pricepoint, to my surprise Sony did not have anything reasonable (they usually have at least something). AKG is common for some reason but the sound has not offered me anything. These fashionable rap headphones (Dres et al.) were mostly just plain sad. Then tried Beyerdynamics. DT 770 PRO made my day for two reasons: they had a discount that met my budget and the sound was reasonably good.

I took the 80 ohm model. It had better sound, if less volume (may save few hair cells) than the 32 ohm version. The highest ohms (250) did not offer more sound quality.

If you need to buy headphones, try them first. One thing is how comfortable they are (will you use them?), the other is the sound quality (will you listen to them?). It is good way to test several pricepoints to understand the quality in every sense. My other set is Stax, which needs an extra power amp and is a strange animal but that is another story.

So plain physics, low notes take time to be recognized. Several vibrations, that is. If you need really fast tracking, tune your bass two octaves up and then shift the sound down low during the synth process. P2M is possible but not very good technology for us bassists.

My dream choice would be an Industrial Radio but as I am a poor bassist (in every sense, maybe), my second solution was to buy a Misa Tri-Bass. It is somewhat odd... but the tracking is not. I first tried an Alesis nanobass with the Misa but it has not any ADSR settings (read: only ON/off) and I turned to BassStation II.

What's the difference between blending and using a X-over? Well, think blend as having two signals in the same frequency band. This means that you get possible phase issues and cancellations because of the same "channel" for two different signals (clean + processed).

X-over divides clean and processed to two separate frequency bands = tight bass and effects on top.

My idea is a bit different but that was mostly covered in fretmeister's answer...

Bass (no g-word)
Octaver (for the tracking)

(X-over starts)

Muff (for that sound)
Synth (for some space sounds)
Chorus (and some extra wobble)

(X-over ends)

Compressor (let the comp level everything)
Amp

I tried this blend stuff for few years but disappointed with every unit. Have two boards with X-overs now.

Active board (it is for active basses) has the Tyler and the passive has Iron Ether's Divaricator. Both are working fine but are somewhat different animals. IE even has some extra effects and is smaller but needs an insert cable (a TRS plug to two TS plugs). Tyler actually took a bit more time to set up but has two adjustable loops (hi & lo) in stead of one. Please take some time to study the manuals to understand their differences.

My choice for X-over frequency is around 400 Hz. Lowest E is 42 Hz, and 4th E is close to 330 Hz. So the fundamentals are not affected but higher frequencies, i.e. harmonics, can be tweaked - a lot! I did not know before that flanger or fuzz knobs could be turned so far right, to south-east.

So the passive board starts with this very small but powerful COG T-16 octaver. In the IE Divaricator loop there is a Spruce Effects OGF and a mooer Pitch Box. After the IE loop there is the Daring Audio Phat Beam (that includes a comp and an effective LPF - especially mt fretless loves this box).

Active board starts with the KMA Tyler. High loop has amptweaker Tight Fuzz - tce SCF - IE Xerograph. Low loop has IE Frantabit, because Franta can be adjusted far more with Tyler's LPF. Then after the Tyler comes an IE Nimbus and a tce HyperGravity. These last two do not need the X-over and I like them to be at the end of the line.

The best thing with the X-over is the possibility to really play with different effects and sounds. All settings can be adjusted far more than ever before. If the band is very small, I think that the effects would give the bassist lots of sound seeking possibilities and new space without ever losing that low end.

Are all cables shielded, i.e. is there possibly a speaker cable in the set?

If the power starts to die (condensers dry or die), the OneSpot may act as a hum generator. Can you measure it or test with another power supply? There should not be lots of AC voltage.

Last thing is if you have loose parts. Check every effect, cable, connection...

36" fretless is a joy to play. The one that gets this beast will do a once-in-a-lifetime investment.

Good answers from Stevie and Phil Starr.

A basic triangle to consider when thinking of speakers and cabinets is:

Volume - Lowest frequency - Efficiency

If you make the cabinet bigger, it can have better efficiency or it just goes lower. If you want to keep the volume as is, you may affect the lowest frequency if you want better efficiency.

This is pretty much the same as with cameras, where you have ISO - Speed - Aperture. Alter one, and at least one of those two others is altered, too.

TH350 has 175 W / 8 ohms. It is not extreme, especially for stoner, I think. BUT if you want more, I would consider a more sensitive speaker.

Impedance has quite a little or nothing to do with loudness. Sensitivity has a lot. Next thing might be to read some of the manufacturer's sites to find out this particular number. It is of form XX dB / 1 W / 1 m. That means that when the speaker gets 1 W in, it produces XX decibels measured from 1 meter distance. This is a common way of telling something about the speaker's ability to transform the electrical energy to sound. Example: Aguilar cabinets' lowest sensitivity is 95 dB / W / m and highest is 104 dB / W / m. The difference is a lot, 9 dB! Try to compensate this with watts and you get the idea.

1) 1 watt produces 95 dB, 2 W 98 dB, 4 W 101 dB, 8 W 104 dB ... 128 W 116 dB, 256 W 119 dB (this is already more than the TH350 can produce; the threshold of pain is 120 dB)

2) 1 watt produces 104 dB, 2 W 107 dB, 4 W 110 dB ... 32 W 119 dB, (here in between is the threshold of pain) 64 W 122 dB, 128 W 125 dB, 256 W 128 dB

Naturally power from the amp has something to do with loudness. But the speaker's sensitivity together with the power handling capacity tells a lot about loudness. Impedance is just one poor number that is often overemphasized. If you double the power (by halving the impedance), you get only a bit more loudness (3 dB) but if you can get a total of 9 dB extra through a more sensitive speaker, go for it!