itu

Then you need to check Line6 who had a pedal platform with programmable unit. They only sold it in the States. No success. Yes, I sourced the stereo unit. The group of programmers was small enough not to be interesting enough, so no commercial success. Price was reasonable and there was a forum where people changed ideas and code. Fail. No commercial success. Tell you a story of custom slalom skis: A European ski company started a custom program, where you could get any graphics to your skis you want. Delivery time: 2 weeks only, minimal xtra cost (like £20 or similar). "Do you want these?" "Yes, please!" "When shall you buy them?" "Well... I have been saving for the ultimate holiday in Alps for three years. I have good boots, I shall consider the investment near the holiday." What happens then? The customer goes to the shop one week before the "ultimate holiday" and buys the set looks and feels good at the shop. The company representative said to me that they have tried this service twice with exactly similar results. When you have a product or a service, it has to meet customer needs and habits. Otherwise it will just fail. My idea of an ultimate idea may be good for me (I think?) but if I am the only customer, no go. Risk to put £100k to a complete waste drives the top management decisions. Been there, seen too much.

Again, I partly agree. If there's a project of 18 months, you may get the money to it. If there is something substantially bigger, 3 years is really, really long development time for any project. I did never get any money to a longer project while working in an internationally known electronics company. Neither did my colleagues. Usually the schedule was shorter, like 10 - 15 months. Research needs those resources which produce serious daily income. Guess who wins? Longer term development is like taking small steps at a time. If the product would be a world class invention, that everybody would buy, sure that would receive lots of money. But how would you be able to say, that this is it? From the famous crystal ball? Source Audio made the best possible volume pedal so far, the Reflex ( https://www.sourceaudio.net/reflex-expression-controller.html ). The production was short lived. Practically impossible to find one. How about their ring that can control pedal parametrics ( https://www.sourceaudio.net/hot-hand.html )? Is everybody using it? I do not know how poor income these units produced, but I think that these were really good inventions. The main question behind all development work is how to predict the future? If you know what will interest people, you can get the top management and marketing behind you. But Goddess Fortuna is hard on us mortals.

I partly agree. Development costs and testing, too. Most of the effects we use nowadays are from the 1970's or '80's, as we can see from this thread. A serious processor and a case and some hardware around the box. Yes, why not. But again this gets back to development and testing. It is far more easy to test just few effects and check their reliability, than some PlethoraX5 type of thing. The price tag tells it, too. An ultra capable unit would still lack adjustments, or would be big, or the usability could be really complex (although it is true most of us do some adjustments very seldom). I could see a monitor connector (or at least a USB) in an FX unit, just like there is one in a modern digital mixer. That way the adjustments would be reasonably easy, and those few pots could be addressed to the parameters needed. Serious set up takes time and the computer/tablet/phone UI is usually better than a pedal. After all basic adjustments the big screen is needed rarely. I think this path is seen with modern units, like tce and its Toneprint, Eventide, Source Audio, and alike.

That 120B looks neat! What is that Xvive chip there? Are all others opamps?

Louis Johnson used flats. Mark King uses 30 - 90 RW SS set which is really twangy and fun. The higher placement of the bass may help you in the beginning. I tended to slap against the fretboard. My big finding was to hit the E twice with my thumb. Then pop once with my index and later on, twice with index and middle. Slap it! by Tony Oppenheim is still decent book (check YT videos), @Joe Hubbard Bass did a book Basslines (Amsco publications, 1985, ISBN 0.7119.0622.X) which has Rio funk, Heathrow and others. I used to play with a 4-string that had 19 mm bridge spacing. My next bass was a 5-string with 17 mm bridge spacing and I never learned to slap with it. Now I have a 5-string with 19 mm bridge, but there are practically no songs where slapping is needed. All parties are happy...

...cheap. But not so reliable. I seriously doubt that John East would rely only on copper foil. Copper foil is relatively cheap, and the tapes can be connected together with soldering. Lifelong solution.

East suggests copper shielding, but the carbon paint is a functional alternative. If it is there already, I see no need to change it. https://www.mouser.co.uk/ Find "Bourns" and "conductive plastic". Those blue pots cost quite some more than carbon Alphas, but the quality is far higher. You may not notice any change in the sound, but conductive plastic does not create noise, like carbon, and the lifetime is longer.

I think the channels have been saturated... to be honest, I think we heard it quite a lot during the 70's, 80's and even 90's. Wasn't it enough? Why do we not hear Small faces, Free, or some 50's rock more than they are played today?

Backing vocals by Linda Ronstadt:

How about some serious misuse of the Suhr? Turn the front pickup down. Down to zero. Use the bridge pickup only. Put some eq and compression and push the signal chain to its limits. And then some more gain. How close can you get? It is true a 4 is not a 5. But try and push the boundaries.

Exactly. This is it. Only thing we need anymore is the costs for those points R-x. These could be certain pieces of equipment, as well as a set, like a bass and an amp. I can see that this would be helpful to those trying to understand wattage, too. Like R-13 is 300 W, R-19 is 500 W and R-38 is anything above the previous mentioned. (NOTE: Numbers above are purely fictional and random, and they have nothing to do with real life events whatsoever. JOKE ends.)

It helps a lot with piezo pickups. The higher, the more universal. A lo-Z input needs an extra buffer if a piezo is used.

The best is relative, and a better word could be "suitable". I have been thinking that there should be a diagram of prices. The rising part of the curve should show the subjective change in quality up to a price where the quality does not change so much anymore. Where the sweet spot should be? I do not understand questions like: "What's the best xxxx?" and then there's a limit in the price later in the text. "What's available in this pricepoint £xx?" is more relevant, as the most suitable is also so subjective.

Var stannar du i bilden... sorry, where do you stand in the photo?

Wooden neck, Al body. Different. I have tried few, but was in need of the 2 x 12" cab, which is light and powerful. You have a question, Polly is very helpful.

Valves/tubes may ring i.e. become microphonic (construction starts to become loose), the heater may break (no more glow, instant death), the glass may break and leak, the legs may become oxidized (turn off the unit, take the tube out and put it out and back a few times)... Take a look at this incredible video and you know what is inside and how did it went there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzyXMEpq4qw

Dear Sir, Your work and cost estimate is in line with the work a luthier did with my fretless. I wanted some local wood (birch; through neck and the body) to the instrument and he made similar calculations to me later on. The work estimate was only a bit on the high side, but very decent - the fretless is unique. Another thing is that this man made me an exceptional bass which is priceless to me. I know yours is priceless, too. Hoping to see your next project become reality!

Priceless. Love this analysis. For anyone who wants to get a rough idea of the costs, this is it. 240 hours of work @ £8.91 / hour = £2138,40 ( https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates ), and I can easily see that the work with this beauty should be rated higher. Total cost of the instrument is naturally in the hands of the luthier, but here £3000 would be the calculated absolute minimum. Based on these, someone could make a similar calculation of a basic Precision. All machinery and development excluded.

There's a picture and conversation about this same topic somewhere here. I do not remember the exact headline, but I am sure you can find it in a breeze.

Not the first time ever when the manuals are done by people who do not understand much about the unit itself. A pity.

Dear @Quatschmacher: Craig Anderton made the Quadrafuzz already in 1980. https://craiganderton.org/multiband-signal-processing/ http://ironether.com/wp-content/uploads/QF2-manual-RevB.pdf https://dpw.se/product/mog-d1-4-band-distortion/

You will learn about the SWR Mo'bass and then you are in trouble in wanting and finding one. Bi-amp Trace Elliot, Mesa 400+, ampeg, tce 1140 and Alembic preamps, LAB Gruppen power amps, Hellborg... I am sorry to inform you dear @javi_bassist, the list is endless.

I tried the Aguilar 12". The sound was kinda boxy, nearly honky. I think it would have needed a good amount of foam inside it. I did not want to start a trial and bought a 2 x 12".