itu

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.

Try bolting a string to concrete wall or to a very big rock. The string will not move the very stiff, hard and heavy base. The base (body) will not absorb the energy from the string. Bass as an instrument cannot be very heavy, like a rock. A bass has a neck and a body. Both shapes have to be stiff for not to absorb string's energy. But both shapes have their resonances (Chladni patterns, anyone?). Therefore the components form a system. The system has resonance frequencies, because deformations need energy: that is away from the vibrations. If the resonance spectrum is wide and small, that probably produces pretty even response. If narrow and big, there may be dead notes etc.

The original AFRs were made in Japan, reissues seem to be from Indonesia. AFR's serial is in the abalone insert between the piezo bridge and the magnetic pickup. The old 4 has a detuner bridge (E), which is missing from the newer ones. My understanding is that the originals have ebony fretboards. What I do not always like is the sharp lower horn while playing sitting down. I do like the light weight. The playability has been impeccable within those two I have owned (previously a fretted flame maple 4, now a fretless 5). I have not been able to try a new one. I think few custom fretless instruments were built to Percy Jones. There was a line of basses made from luthite in between these two wooden series. The construction and the electronics were cheaper.

I am not sure, what does this mean? A Bourns blend pot (type MN) has two tracks, which end at the centre detent. Therefore the pot acts electrically exactly like two separate vols.

"Nah, not a new bass, it has been in the garage for years..." I do like the idea of several cases, like @Jonesy just wrote. But I already have quite a few, I need to refine the idea. "I have so many basses I need to buy few more empty cases."

Excellent. Although the stock strings are 45-100, I would try a 40-95 set instead. It is slightly lighter and might help with the fingerings. This set is one of my personal favourites - please find yours via several trials. The lightest I have used has been 30-90. Really twangy. https://www.daddario.com/products/guitar/bass-guitar/xl-prosteels-bass/eps220-prosteels-bass-super-light-40-95-long-scale/

Has the bass been adjusted by a seasoned luthier? Are the strings very old and thick? How about a professional setup and a 40 - 100 set?

First of all, the preamp needs to be piezo compliant = sufficient input impedance. If the preamp can not handle the impedance, the lowest frequencies will be sacrificed. Artec makes some attractively priced units including a preamp, but I do not know the input Z. Trial seems to be reasonable pricewise. Practically any preamp is a possible choice - if you have any at hand, please try one. @Passinwind has a very interesting and attractive design presented here in BC. If you like tinkering...