itu

Kool, lots of information in these pictures and notes. Thank you, sir. Had to look after the Cyberbass/Midibase -thing and I found this from Talkbass: "My name is Mick Donner and I was the design engineer for the Midibase and Cyberbass projects while I was at Peavey. Hopefully I can answer some of your questions. There wasn't actually any trademark conflict with the guys at 360 systems. We just talked about it and came to a gentleman's agreement that changing the name was the right thing to do. There were several reasons for the physical changes from the Midibase to the Cyberbass. The Midibase body was based on the Peavey B-90 which had been discontinued. We wanted to bring the Cyberbase in line with the current bass shapes which were like the Palladium and Axcelerator basses. The Midibase note on and velocity sensors were built into the bridge pieces. Steve Chick and I found that if we moved the sensors away from the bridge pieces, we would get a more accurate read of the string so we put them into half of the bridge pickup. The software had several upgrades including a total reset, faster tracking and a "fretless" mode that blurred the note on/off triggered by sliding from one fret to another. Bending from one fret segment to another on the neck was done in the software. This was partially accomplished by making the cuts in the fret at a diagonal which caused the string to connect with both frets for an instant. This told the engine that the string was moving to another segment. This was not available on the Wal or Valley Arts versions of the basses that had cuts perpendicular to the frets. You had to play accurately. During my time as a product specialist for the Cyberbass my technique improved a lot because it had to. I still have one of the first Cyberbasses along with a rack full of Peavey sound modules and everything seems to be working just fine." AND this one (question was about suggested string types): "The two concerns with Stainless (steel strings) are the excessive overtones generated by the SS string and fret wear. The bass just seemed to track better with the nickels because the center of the note seems to be more dominant. As you can imagine, a fret job on one of these would probably be beyond a nightmare. The nickel strings are softer than the stainless so it would take a lot longer for the strings to be part of the problem."

Moses has these carbon necks, too, but they are pretty rare here in Europe. Comments on my Modulus Graphite Quantum 5 SPi (bolt-on neck, not a TBX): a bit on the heavy side, I would love to have a wide neck version (17 mm is just not quite suitable for me). But with a hardshell case it is a ultimate travel bass. Stays in tune, and with a good case it can withstand all the abuse it gets at the airports. Modulus and G Gould both produce instruments nowadays. Prices seem to be sky high. A used one might be a reasonable alternative for those interested.

Chris 2112 put a good basic list of carbon / graphite basses, and there are few more like B-quad and G-bass from Peavey (with MG necks). German Basslab. Status necked private builds...

Yes, and more pictures, please! Neck attachment, electronics...

By the way, went to see this "kilowatt amp". Its backplate clearly states, that the unit's input power is 200 W and 200 watts only! How could they explain this kilowatt if not using the word "peak"? Funny stuff. https://www.trickfishamps.com/amplifiers/bullhead-1k/

I stand on your side: there should be numbers (not just one, because it does not exist) that could be compared to each other. It is far too easy to write down too huge marketing numbers. To be honest, this standardization should be taught to customers, too. We are the ones to use those test method related numbers. I am so tired damn whizzed to read someone demand for a 4 ohm cabinet "because it is so much louder" rubbish cow poop. If the amp is not capable of delivering watts to the lo-Z cabinet, how on earth a young bloke can make a buying decision in the shop? And if we are talking about tubes/valves, there are even more magical words there flying back and forth: this impedance thing seems to be very important for tubemasters. Impedance is not constant. This is just basics. The ability to push power to a cabinet relates to few other parameters, than just impedance. But no. Music making equipment is so "magical". "I want 4 ohms!" OK, please do so. Buy an inefficient speaker box that has reflex/ported/open/vented/closed/hype word design just because you have an illusion that it is so much louder and better. Once more: as long as manufacturers produce only incomparable marketing hype, the best and only tool you can use and rely on, is your own ears. It really does not matter, what others say. It is trial and error, or in a more technical term: just A/B-testing.

What is the body material of the Resolite? Is it something else than wood, like glass fiber? I have seen a (Canadian?) bass in 1990's that had a wooden neck but a black hollow body and looked like a jazz. Godin, no?

Maybe my Ibanez Affirma (maple) and Misa Tri-Bass are closest to rare, if the latter is also considered as a bass. https://misa-digital.myshopify.com/products/tri-bass No, I do not own these, but some I would love to have: Mouradian CS-74 fretless Ampeg (1966) Vox Stinger IV (1967) Overwater C (1985) 5-string Parker Fly (1992?) Atlansia, any model Zemaitis, any bass any doubleneck: everybody remembers Rics, Wals and Pedullas but how about a Gretsch Bikini (1961)? Lane Poor minima (late 1980's and 1990's) Neuser Claudia / Clawhammer (1990's)

Well, I have seen and felt similar problems with certain pedals. A fuzz or an od needs just few mA, while some DSP based units may need nearly 500 mA. In a pedal format, yes. Some distortion/od/fuzzes like this "battery dead" type of use but not anything that is far more complicated and/or digital. The situation could be compared to a Ferrari with a Trabant motor. Cool looks, sad sound and terrible performance. A powerful transformer can be a low cost unit after all, so please consider carefully if you really are unable to invest few coins to one. I have three of those cheapo onespots for three boards.

If the splitting does not feel too good, you might try a x-over. Iron Ether Divaricator, KMA Tyler or similar. You can divide the sound from adjustable frequency (my choice is around 400 Hz) and put effects to those two different bands. I have fuzz and flange up high.

My leather straps are around pi" wide. Inside is cotton (kente from Ghana) that keeps the bass in place. There is some felt in between which absorbs sweat and keeps the strap always warm.

Yes, I know, if I choose from those two. Could you please tell me, where can I find a system that has all three parameters and the price is reasonably flat, too? For those interested, my stereo system has a pair of Gradient Helsinki 1.5. They should be reasonably flat, I think. Except the price. http://www.gradient.fi/en/

Yes, that should fix the issue.

It is also good to understand that flat response and full range mean that the system is everything but efficient. Ordinary PA system has an efficiency that can reach 2 % while hifi systems can be as low as 0.01 %. This difference can be seen so that FRFR could be 200 times less efficient than an ordinary bass system. So you need LOTS of POWER to drive a FRFR, if it really has the features marketed. Two drivers do not automatically equal flat response, but maybe a slightly widened response. Few simple equations: Hifi system has 2 x 100 W / 8 ohm power output. Efficiency is 0.01 %. Maximum sound (not power!) output in watts is 2 x 0.01 W = 0.02 W. Active bass speaker has 200 W / 8 ohm power output. Efficiency is 2 %. Maximum sound (not power!) output in watts is 4 W. FRFR system with 4 W sound output with pretty good efficiency of 0.2 %. Needed amplifier: 2000 W / 8 ohm.

P: SB body + black plate J: dark fretboard + black plate MM: SB body + dark fretboard + black plate

Understood. But if you hate the sound "as is", would it be any better live?

This is only partially true, because the impedance is not constant. You can put nearly any speaker to the output as long as you drive it with relatively low power. Keep the volume at 9 or 10 o'clock max and try every speaker one at a time and then in pairs. Remember to turn off the amp before changing the speaker. Level volume and try every possible configuration. Keep the impedance selector at 4. If the amp starts to become too hot, turn down the volume and let it cool down.

Mr. Starr elegantly points out pretty much the same facts as I have but not as theoretically as I did. Marketing is one area (this goes to 25 Hz!) and technical facts another (@ -23.5 dB). There are standardized ways of telling efficiency, frequency response, power rating (at 8 ohms!) etc. but not everybody is using those numbers. And this is probably the biggest reason, why people think that a 4 ohm speaker equals far louder system than 8 ohms, when it is far from that. Try to put a one ohm system after your amplifier and turn it up. What happens? Do you get so much more power? I remember reading a brochure maybe some 20 years ago about a 7.1 home hifi receiver. This big company claimed that the unit can provide 7 x 100 W speaker output. OK, fine, but the input power was 325 W! This would mean that the system could create an additional 375 watts to speaker outputs neglecting the fact that other parts of the receiver need some energy, too. Actually the amplifier section could push 100 watts to ONE SINGLE speaker output at a time. So this is a 7 x 100 W system, isn't it. My 2 x 110 W / 8 ohms amp takes 650 W to push my two speakers. There are cold, comparable facts and there is marketing hype. My suggestion is also that you go and test the stuff and find the winner by using your own ears.

So sorry, sir. Let's play it again: I gave you but too many ideas. Some studio guys have these switch based P-basses with two switches: on/off, tone on/off. That is probably the simplest configuration that exists. It also provides straight line from pickup to board without any pots or tones in between if needed. Stellartone's solution is close to the all on solution but has more sound options, too. I am pretty confident that you would be happy with it. If you are not after the very trebly sound, this studio type on/off -thing is probably not yours. Anthony Jackson's Fodera has just the pickup and an output jack. He will have some high end rack effects and a studio mixer after the bass and cable. That's why he doesn't need any cheapo adjustments in his bass.

Life saver: http://alexplorer.net/guitar/mods/shock.html

If you have this switch, do you need anything else? You could do studio version, i.e. no pots, only switches. Three position mic switch, tone switch & vol switch (which is also On/Off). Can be done with a multiple position rotary switch, like: Off - quiet & tone On - loud & tone On - loud & tone Off - quiet & tone Off - Off (6 positions) OR loud & tone On - quiet & tone On - Off - quiet & tone Off - loud & tone Off (5 positions) Or just one switch for tone and a step attenuator. I have maths for a step attenuator if you want to do quite a few solderings...

...that can be treated with ozone.

I do have a single (very nice) and a double pack (heavy and a bit thick with two basses!). They are somewhat pricey, but the similar competitors had similar prices. Have to say, that they are well thought. There are pockets and compartments to notes, tools, cables etc. But I will not give that to any airport executive... prefer hard case for flights.

VFE pedals?