itu

I like the idea, that this lacks fuzz/OD/dist. I can concentrate on freq and time based effects and add my favourite fuzz to the chain when in need. I can not see this unit the same as many Moulinex-all-in-one-here-now are. It has the possibility to function as a multi-fx unit, but where to find another unit that can be configured to a three delay flanger octaver? Say what?

Piccolo strings, anyone?

The big thing is to use the set in a big venue. Small clubs will be filled with mush, not lush. Weight is naturally one issue. If I was you, a bigger good quality bass cabinet and an amp, and you could omit the heavy sub. A bigger cab and a powerful amp could provide you the headroom you need. Then you could tweak the frequency response to the needs of the music. If you want to tweak the signal, consider using a crossover. Clean lows, processed highs, or vice versa.

Likewise there are the footswitch and headphones connectors. Some deoxit might help here. Take a look at the switches (tones, chorus, speakers etc. on both sides), too. When you open the unit, check the speaker connector close to the caps... some deoxit, again.

How about a (semi-) parametric preamp/eq? Buy a cheap Artec parametric pedal and make some trials. That circuitry seems pretty simple and the parts are very basic. I am not sure whether the amplification is adequate here, but you can use the second half of the opamp (TL071 is single, TL072 has two opamps in a single package) to amplify the result.

Spectracomp - mainly to bass players Hypergravity - to bass and g-word players - requires diving into the editor - if you find the existing parameters of the Spectra, you can transfer them to HG - versatility because of the 4 assignable knobs and a three position switch Hypergravity mini - like its big bro except: * three assignable knobs * no switch * smaller footprint, smaller knobs (usability) I use compression or then the unit is off. I find the blend useless. For example rate is far more usable with a good comp like these tce units are.

As you have done exactly right, it is wise to buy some headroom. A 55 W tube amp may consume quite a lot more power than the mentioned amount. I checked a 50 W MESA tube amp, and its power consumption is around 200 W according to its specs.

Good stuff, thanks @Bilbo! I know I cannot make it even close, but I have liked the song since its release.

Let's take a short look at the history of the bass. Then it might be easier to choose some groundbreaking instruments. Gamba family: fretless or frets, multi-string instruments double bass: fretless or frets, multi-string instruments 1910 Gibson: Mandobass 1931 George Beauchamp & Adolph Rickenbacker: frying pan and the horseshoe pickup 1936 Audiovox: fretted electric bass 1940's Ampeg (amplified peg) 1951 Clarence Leo Fender: Tele bass, bolt-on, single coil pickup, simple electronics (scale length is now 9" longer than in a g-word and 8" shorter than of a double bass') 1953 Gibson: glued in set neck 1956 Danelectro's baritone g-words, masonite bodies, and 24-fret necks 1957 Rickenbacker: neck-through-body (Rick-O-Sound came later) early 1960's: Ovation develops a piezo pickup 1963 Burns makes trials with active electronics 1964 Bob Murrell makes an instrument - Guitorgan - with split frets, and six voice polyphony 1966 Vox: V251 (G-word Organ) 1966 Rotosound and roundwound strings 1966 Fender produces the first long scale five string bass (tuned: EADGC) 1966 Ampeg's fretless Ampeg AUB-1 1967 Hagström H8 1969 Ron Hoag presents an optical infrared pickup in NAMM 1970 Ampeg Dan Armstrong (perspex) 1971 Alembic and its electronics 1974 Travis Bean: TB2000 (Al neck) 1974 Carl Thompson: piccolobass 1975 Carl Thompson: six string contra bass (tuned: BEADGC) 1976 Alembic: 5-string (tuned: BEADG) 1976 Geoff Gould: Modulus Graphite neck-through-body, no truss rod 1976 Alembic: stainless steel fretless fretboard 1976 EMG founded 1976 Ampeg and Hagström: Patch 2000 1977 Ned Steinberger designs an ergonomic NS-1 to Stuart Spector 1977 Roland produces bass synthesizer 1978 Steinberger makes a wooden headless bass, which is a disaster - covering it with glass fibre helps 1978 Steinberger releases active L-1, and L-2 (EMG) and passive H-1, and H-2 (DiMarzio) models early 1980's: Philip Kubicki Ex Factor early 1980's: Vigier fretless Delta metal fretboard 1985 Steve Chick: split fret neck and a functional MIDI bass (remember: Guitorgan) 2002 Line6 Variax: modeling instruments Novax fanned frets, Auerswald, Lane Poor Minima, Gittler, Stash, Lightwave Systems optical pickups, Spalt, Little G-word Works - Torzal... Now, what would you choose to your list?

The difference is not so big after all. You need lots of sounds, lots of pickup configurations is not the way. I think that a single coil and a humbucker (with coil tap) is the way. Beyond that it would be feasible to check the preamp. If you want not to drill more holes to the spalted top, buy a push-pull pot.

Although there is the option to have parallel and single coil on top of the series, I would choose only two out of three: series - parallel OR series - single coil Parallel and single are so close to each other that the difference is next to none. And how do I know this...

True, there are not many. I do remember one Burton and his black bass. If we widen the brands to Jabanez, there are a few more, like G. Willis, G. Sumner, V. White, and P. Lynott among others.

Just like Teles, Ps and Jays, although these have to be on their second or third round.

You should see our gigs in the rain and snow... hey, swimming pool is still a possibility!

A basic J or P is not the instrument for me. Those old bulky and heavy logs do not interest me at all. A modern lightweight Sadowsky, maybe, but no. CNC is a tool that one has to master. Combined with the knowledge about woods means that a machined instrument may be good, or not. It is the same with any basic hand tools. I like carbon necks. Their pricepoint is higher than some J bass, but I have been ready to save a bit longer and get better performance. This includes weather resistance among others. Quality is a set of features.

IR is the ultimate MIDI instrument, but my bank account says: "NO!"

If the height of the pickups is low, the output is low. Magnetic field gets weak really quickly. If you are using the same strings on both basses, and there's no big difference between the electronics, then the height should be your help. If you have a capo, this is slightly easier, but it is not a must. Push the strings to the fretboard at the fretboard's last fret (20 something?). Then raise the pickups until they touch the strings. Now this is too much, so depending on your playng style and personal preference, please turn the screws so much back, that the vibrating strings do not hit the pickups. Use the same amount of turns to both basses. Fine tune later on. Please note, that the bridge pickup sees smaller vibrations, and can be a tad higher than the neck PU.

Actually, nearly any tape is pretty good solution for that "fur" (XD) removal.

A short scale compared to a long scale differs only a bit. If the tension and the pitch are equal, gauge has to be different and so on. There are only very few materials available for stringed instrument strings (certain steels). The extra weight (what is wound over the actual string) can be nearly anything: metal, plastics... and its function is simply to make the string heavier. If the tension and the length of the string are the same, but we need a higher pitch, the only way to make it happen is to reduce the weight. Piccolo strings, anyone? If the tension and the weight (/ft) are the same, to change the pitch equals the change of the length of the string, take a look under the bonnet of a grand piano, or a harp. Here I wrote weight/ft, because it has to be even. I would not love to play with a string that was not equal in thickness over its length. Nor would I love to adjust the fretted neck accordingly. Twanginess (?) is more about the function of thickness and tension. Very thin string has to be tuned to lower tension compared to its thicker bro. If you ever tried a 30-90 set after a 45-105, you get my point.

This was an issue some years ago, but musical instruments - and basses - have been excluded from this regulation. There are exceptions like certain specific woods (check CITES), but I am sure you can not get them easily nowadays. They have been banned for years, if not decades.

The change of pots will be minor compared to the change of a new set of strings. Leave it that way.

Alpha or Mec are not true blend pots. As the tracks continue from the start to the end, it reduces the signal, also in the centre point. Bourns MN has a track that ends at the centre detent, like I said earlier. That way the signal is going straight from the blend to the vol. OOOoooC--------- (neck pu) ---------CoooOOO (bridge pu) C = centre O = ohms - = 0 ohm track Others are like OOOOOOCoooo.....- -.....ooooCOOOOOO Probably you get the point. I need to remind you, that if the bass has a battery powered ("active") tone circuitry, it does not automatically mean that the pickups are battery powered. Therefore the blend may be 500k although the tone stack uses a battery. signal path: pickups - blend - vol - tone -> output Any single part of this path can be battery powered ("active", or rather low impedance = lo-Z).

...and certain Ned S. started to minimize the size of the headstock. The deadspots moved further up, until they vanished, hence L-2.

As people seem to love pedal tuners, I could suggest a pro setup and some modern strings. I usually tune my bass before rehearsal or a gig and the instrument stays in tune at least for the next few hours. A simple tuner costs maybe £20. It does not take any space from the board because it would be worthless there.

The original AFR controls are: Vol - Blend - TrebleBass (concentric) The electronics in the cavity include four trimmers for four individual piezo levels.