itu

Once tested a very similar pair of basses in a store, a cheaper basic SB and another with these WR pickups. The latter had a better setup and sounded better - but I do not play or sound like the late Mr. Pastorius, no matter which pickups my basses would have.

Basics A pickup is a coil-magnet component. If you do not know why are them there, it is because the magnetic string moving in the magnet field induces electrical signal (AC) in the coil around the magnet. The original coil-magnet idea is relatively old, Michael Faraday invented this system in 1831. Some physics related details (simplified) A coil can push more power to the output, if the coil has lots of windings. At the same time the frequency response will be reduced the more there is rounds in the coil. Less winding = wider response and weaker output. The magnet (simplified, again) A magnet affects the output the same way as the coil: the stronger it is, the stronger is the output. The distance to the coil and strings is very important, as the power of the magnetic field weakens really quickly. Even fractions of millimeters can affect the output. The materials are many, and if something is to be remembered, the magnetic material tells us only, that it is some named material. The "power" of the magnet can be nearly anything from zero to its maximum possible. If bigger amounts of magnets are sourced, you can choose the "power" level. Because of this, the name does not tell the exact "power". It only tells about the materials there are. Neodymium can be weaker than a AlNiCo, if they are magnetized to different "powers". (disclaimer: I use the word "power" here only in a descriptive way. I want this to be easy reading in stead of raw physics.) Pickup frame The frame is the support for the coil and the magnets. As the distances and shapes affect the output and response, the plastic frame is designed to support the named parts. Plastic material itself has no effect on sound, only the shape may have a bit. Most likely the difference in shape is inaudible. Wired, like Jeff Beck The wire has to be tiny - like the signal is - so that the manufacturer can put enough of it to a small pickup. To get enough of signal from the pickup, we have two choices: high impedance (hi-Z) with lots of wire, or a buffered low impedance (lo-Z) output (like EMG) with somewhat less. There has been many, many trials on different types of winding types, wires, shapes etc. but there is no holy grail. Sorry, now I have said it. Production Hand winding can be a good choice if the production is small. If the production is modern, efficient, and the products have to be equal in quality, machinery is a viable option. But again, neither is superior. Just different. Sensation You want to hear a difference? You hear it. Make it a blind ABX test in controlled surroundings, you probably can not repeat your findings. A J/P/MM/humbucker/else has a comparable sound if the electronics after the pickup are constant. Of course there are overwound, as well as lo-Z options, and by their nature, they are different. Conclusion Pickup is important part of the sound, whether it is a basic coil-magnet, piezo, optical, acceleration sensor, or anything. One part of the sound is also coming from strings. Different pickups make it possible to use different types: nylon strings on a bass, and a coil-magnet is not a feasible solution. Piezo on the other hand... Magnet "power" and coil winding are the main parametres, but there are few details that can be tweaked with certain choices. As it has been said here several times, we lack good terms in describing qualitative details of the sound. My good may be your good, or not. This is really an issue, we do not have a decent solution available. Discussion continues.

A local class played The final countdown with recorders. Every time I hear that song, I hear the recorders.

If you use a break-before-make switch, the 1 M may stop the clicks. But yes, that override switch with the battery powered section needs a resistor or it should only be used while the cable is disconnected. By the way, the Noll Mixpot did make a substantial difference in sound.

The straps are handmade and similar, the picture shows both sides.

This is one of the few step attenuators I have made. No clicks. It is make-before-break.

If you know the phasing of the pickups, you can use this basic bass signal chain: pickups - blend - vol - tone stack - output You can use a coil tap switch before the blend if there are 4 wires in the MM. If you need a new blend, use a hi-Z Bourns 250k MN or a lo-Z Noll Mixpot (which is slightly complicated to solder). As you can see, the mixing is done before vol, so you need one wire going to the preamp (which is practically the tone stack) from the vol pot. Check that all ground wires are well soldered in their respective places (pot covers, ground contacts...) before the first trial.

Make-before-break is sure one option that helps. It is also possible to use a 1 M resistor to ground. I had a preamp override in my Modulus, and the pop was negligible with that 1 M. By the way, Kubicki had a five position switch with stdby after off. That way the output did not crackle.

Use a pot with a switch. No need to drill extra holes. I use rotary switches. Here are two in my dear fretless: an 11 position step attenuator (metal foil resistors, naturally), and a three position coil tap switch.

I have built a rotary switch to the XTender. I have all three option, but only the series/parallel is in use. The difference between the single and the parallel is negligible. A slight difference in level, but that's it.

Fodera is not in my interest. => Question isn't valid. Do I like/hate Fender? I ignore them. => Question isn't valid. Should I or OP invest on music lessons instead of a new bass? => Question may be valid. I have to play more to be able to keep time. Is some new instrument related to this? Hardly.

Well, I have a few filters (Onkart Gromt, Iron Ether, Subdecay), and I can see that the user interface itself is not the most suitable to an envelope unit. It is quite common that I need to tweak few parameters every now and then. One pot, although there can be few parameters, is spartan. For me that is.

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.