Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

BottomEndian

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,215

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BottomEndian

  1. BottomEndian
    [quote name='vmaxblues' post='725506' date='Jan 26 2010, 05:46 PM']In answer to the question, string spacing at the nut is approx 9mm from centre of strings, hope this helps[/quote] [quote name='wildman' post='726901' date='Jan 27 2010, 09:18 PM']Mate, It was the bridge spacing that I really wanted.....[/quote] [quote name='Happy Jack' post='727358' date='Jan 28 2010, 10:38 AM']It's 14mm at the nut.[/quote] I'm confused!
  2. BottomEndian
    [quote name='tayste_2000' post='727322' date='Jan 28 2010, 10:03 AM']Very tempted I didn't get on with my Guild one, was a little to hard to keep in tune.[/quote] I've heard the tuning stability's much improved with these DeArmond/Fender ones. I've never had trouble, once the string's settled in. Plenty of stretching before installation is the key.
  3. BottomEndian
    [b]***SOLD***[/b] Bought this when I was 18 and playing guitar, back in 1998. It's a 100W (RMS) 2x12" guitar combo, made in the UK by the with an ECC83 valve in the preamp and a solid-state power section. These things are long discontinued, but the manual's [url="http://www.britishaudioservice.com/inst/TRAMP.PDF"]available here[/url]. Here's some of the bumf from it: [quote][b]Circuit Design[/b] Guitarists have always recognised the warmth, tone and responsive character of a valve amplifier. The Tramp Tube range achieves the ‘feel’ of a valve amplifier in three important ways: Firstly, the main preamplifier overdrive gain is derived by using both halves of an ECC83 (12AX7) twin triode valve in a cascaded gain configuration (just like a high gain valve amp). Secondly, no integrated circuits have been used anywhere in the circuit design. Instead, FETs have been used exclusively. An FET is a semiconductor device that inherently has many of the non-linear dynamic properties of a valve; it has a high input impedance and a soft asymmetrical overdrive characteristic that naturally adds a lot of even order harmonics and ‘warmth’ to the sound. Thirdly, the 100% discrete power output stage has been designed to ‘couple loosely’ into the loudspeaker (akin to a valve output stage), giving a low ‘damping factor’, lots of warm bass resonance and ‘musical’ power amp overdrive. The tone networks in the Tramp Tube are all of the traditional passive kind - this type of interactive EQ was chosen as the best and most natural sounding for an electric guitar. It has been designed to ‘colour’ the inherent character and tone of the guitar and amplifier, rather than radically or artificially change the fundamental sound.[/quote] There are two channels (clean and drive) and the drive channel has a further "gain boost" that can be engaged. Included (along with the kettle lead) is the two-switch footswitch, labelled by my teenage self, which allows you to switch channel and switch the gain boost on/off. (If you stick the footswitch jack in the [i]other[/i] socket on the back, it'll let you control the spring reverb on/off and the volume boost.) The Super Tramp Tube Twin is loud. Really loud. And the tone's sweet, with a lot of room in the EQ. In my teenage band, I used to go for sizzling highs and crunchy mids; more recently, I've used it as a heavily-scooped, bass-heavy second guitar amp for my stoner-doom band. It handled both with ease. This thing's served me well over the years, but it's taking up valuable space and I'm not going to need it in the foreseeable future. It's a fairly rare beast in excellent condition (only one little ding that I can find in the tolex -- see picture), and it's just been serviced by a local amp tech (needed a new output transistor). Honestly, with the condition it's in, you'd never guess that it's been rehearsed and gigged for 12 years on and off, not to mention the hauling around every time we've moved house. I'm looking for [b][s]£200 delivered in the UK[/s] ***SOLD***[/b] -- I'm happy to deliver in person or meet up within a sensible radius (I'm in Corbridge, Northumberland), and we could knock a bit off to reflect the lack of courier costs!
  4. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Igor Gribov' post='727212' date='Jan 28 2010, 03:36 AM']Correct me please!! "first note in measure= "........ ...... "[/quote] Down-beat? Or more colloquially known as "the one".
  5. BottomEndian
    [quote name='cocco' post='727084' date='Jan 27 2010, 11:17 PM']If you still have this in a month I'm all over it. Been after a nice one for a while now[/quote] Well, I seriously hope I don't. It's a beauty in tip-top nick.
  6. BottomEndian
    Up for grabs... it's my little Ashbory. If you don't know what they are, check out [url="http://www.largesound.com"]www.largesound.com[/url], but the following quote from their front page says it all: [quote]The Ashbory Bass is an 18 inch ultra short scale fretless bass with silicon rubber strings.[/quote] The Ashbory is completely unique-sounding: it's somewhere between an upright bass and a fretless electric, but it doesn't really sound like either. The controls are 2-band cut-&-boost active EQ and volume, giving a wide range of sounds from the piezo bridge, from scritchy-scratchy twang-a-lang to über-smooth dub. Great if you want an upright-ish sound without having to lug around the upright. Had it for a few years (from new), but it's never been gigged. In fact, it's only been to rehearsals a handful of times, but I'm just not playing the sort of music where it'll fit sensibly. I'll throw in 3 spare strings (A, D and G), and a full set of pahoehoe polyurethane strings (unused) so the buyer can give them a go too. Also included is the LargeSound Ashbory user guide and a pouch of finger-lubricant. No, seriously, you need to have some sort of powder on your fingers to play this thing sensibly. Talc does the job, but I've got the Slyde-Rite stuff that came with the Ashbory. It gets everywhere, but it's brilliant. [b]£150 delivered[/b] in the UK. If you've got stuff to trade, try me, but I'm ideally looking for a sale.
  7. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Conan' post='726430' date='Jan 27 2010, 03:24 PM']Recently bought one of these basses, and I'm really chuffed with it - especially for £320!! Problem I have is that I have lowered the action as far as possible, and its still on the high side! Now I usually like my action slightly high as I play very hard most of the time, but it is frustrating that I cannot lower it any further due to the curvature of the body. I have the saddles down as low as they will go!!! I suppose I could use lighter gauge strings, but this is not a route I would like to go down. Back in the 80s and 90s I used to use the Superwound strings that had a "piano wire" design whereby the part of the string that went over the saddle was not wound - just the core. This might solve the problem, but I don't know if those strings are still available. And I seem to recall that they were only available in very light gauges... Has anyone else experienced this, and is there an obvious solution that I am missing?![/quote] No experience of the Cort itself, but... [list=1] [*]What's the neck relief like? Does the truss rod need a tweak? [*]Have you tried a new set of strings? That could change everything, especially if you switch gauge/brand/construction/type. [*]Might the neck need shimming? [*]If you think taperwound strings might help, I know La Bella do the "Super Steps" range which are all taperwound (unlike most situations where only the low B and maybe the E are taperwound). Available from [url="http://www.stringbusters.com/frameset.asp?MAIN=http://www.stringbusters.com/ko-kat/BASS%20STRINGS/LA%20BELLA/"]Stringbusters[/url] (down the bottom of the La Bella page). [/list]If in doubt, wor Howard's only a PM away, and I'm sure he'd fix you up nicely.
  8. BottomEndian
    [quote name='chrisba' post='726267' date='Jan 27 2010, 01:02 PM']No, it doesn't ( at least, I've never found it ). Several solutions come to mind. Listen through a stereo amp with balance control, only use one of the earphones, use Audacity or similar to do a "with" and a "without" version of the track, build yourself a little headphone switch that cuts out one side or the other.[/quote] Cheers. All of those (very useful, ta) solutions add an extra level of faff which acts as an obstacle to the plug'n'play nature of the beast. Very tempted by the CD one now. After all, everything I've got is on CD... and if I get hold of something on MP3, I can burn an audio CD anyway.
  9. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Marvin' post='726124' date='Jan 27 2010, 10:35 AM']I'd probably have a pop at the 32'. But I'm not very big and have got crap hands[/quote] I suggest you don't try playing a 32-foot bass then. Stonehenge, anyone?
  10. BottomEndian
    [quote name='JackLondon' post='726111' date='Jan 27 2010, 10:28 AM']If you support UK businesses and buy the head from bassmerchant and the cab from gak then you'll save yourself about£120 and a lot of hassle if something goes wrong with either of them![/quote] I don't see it being any less hassle to buy from the UK. It's probably easier and cheaper to send something heavy back from Belgium to Germany than it is to send it from Belgium to the UK!
  11. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Bass-ic' post='725759' date='Jan 26 2010, 09:22 PM']Tascam MP-BT1 Works a treat![/quote] Does that have the feature that the CD-BT2 does whereby you can monitor a single channel of the backing track? I've got loads of those tuition-type CDs with the bass panned hard to one side and the accompaniment to the other. On the CD version of the Tascam, you can listen to just one side, with your bass signal playing along. It'd be really useful to have that option on the MP3 version, but I can't find any mention of it in the Tascam bumf or the manual.
  12. BottomEndian
    [quote name='51m0n' post='724267' date='Jan 25 2010, 04:50 PM']15/16 is theoretically as viable as 11/8 or 7/8, but I've never knowingly heard 15/16 (could be cool though!)[/quote] 15/16 and 19/16 have been favourites in my band. We play them like 4/4 and 5/4 respectively, but with a semiquaver missing off the end. It's like you're adding a semiquaver "push" into the next bar, but the "push" [b]IS[/b] the start of the next bar. Even more fun when you stick in a full bar of 4/4 or 5/4 into the groove every now and then... so the push becomes a real push, just for that bar. Here's a much-simplified version of our 19/16 groove (unfortunately MuseScore is a little recalcitrant when it comes to beaming, so the fourth beat of each bar won't beam over the rest ): Another one that crops up a lot for us is 9/8, but not as a compound signature. More like 4/4 with an extra quaver, so it might be more easily written as something like 2/4 + 5/8. Sounds like a normal riff gone wrong. Sorry -- none of this is related to the OP.
  13. BottomEndian
    [quote name='OldGit' post='724881' date='Jan 26 2010, 09:52 AM']She's not that good, Fender have never made a "Baby Blue" precision. [/quote] Only cos a hard-hitting, rock'n'rolling Fender player would never be seen dead with a "baby blue" instrument: "What, that baby blue one? Pah. That's for wusses... What's that? It's [i][b]Sonic[/b][/i] blue?! Ah, gizza strap, fella. I'm firin' this sonic bad-boy up!" Yay for marketing.
  14. BottomEndian
    [quote name='BottomE' post='724209' date='Jan 25 2010, 04:02 PM']Hi, having two young kids at home its difficult to get the rig out and use it for practice. This means i am normally practicing the bass without amplification and i have noticed that it is adversely effecting my technique. When i get into a gig or rehearsal with the rig the things that sounded great "acoustically" don't sound so great. What machines/tools/methods are there that you can recommend that will let me practice effectively? Thanks.[/quote] You've described my life perfectly too. As others have said, something with a headphone output does the job. I use either my Bass POD or my little Marshall practice amp. The only complication comes with having the two young kids. If they're still using baby monitors (as both of ours are), we just take one each (toddler for me, baby for Mrs Endian) and I stick the receiving unit on my music stand as I practice. If there's a toddler-noise to be heard, the lights on the monitor flash up so I know about it, and everyone's happy. Apart from the toddler, obviously. Waaaaahhhhhh...
  15. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Mateybass' post='722744' date='Jan 24 2010, 12:23 AM']Regards the VAT element, I realise they have to charge VAT on each ticket and that money is then sent to HMRC. But what they have then done is charge VAT again to us on the ticket sales and stated that on the itemised receipt. The way I see it is that they have to send that money also to HMRC since it is clearly stated as a VAT charge. If that is the case and they legally can't keep any money charged as VAT, what was the point in taking it off us to send straight to the government if the VAT already accounted for on the tickets goes there too? 35% VAT rate?[/quote] If it's stated as a "VAT charge", then that's clumsy language on their part and someone should point that out. But they haven't actually charged VAT twice, if what's happened is as you described in the OP. The "takings" on the door were £902, right? That's the amount of money the venue took from the punters? Then that's made up of £767.66 net (actual) takings and £134.34 VAT (17.5% of £767.66). If I were in the venue's shoes (and I intended the 70/30 split to be of the net takings after deductions), I would have told the band the takings were £767.66. It makes it much simpler and avoids confusion like this. £767.66 - £32 (dodgy PRS fee) - £100 (expenses) = £635.66. Your 70% split of that is £444.96, as you said, with the venue taking £190.70 (plus £132 in deductions, of course ...taking it to £322.70). If the venue had split 70/30 on the £902 gross takings (ignoring any deductions), they still would have had to pay HMRC the £134.34 VAT [i]out of their share[/i]. In that case, you the band would have walked away with £631.40, while the venue took £270.60, but after they'd paid their VAT return they would only have £136.26 left. So in effect the split would have been 82/18, not 70/30 (£631.40 is 82% of £767.66)... which isn't what the band agreed with the venue. Honestly, the VAT thing looks completely sensible to me, and I've been running VAT-registered retail businesses for a few years now. When we've sold on commission for small (non-VAT-registered) manufacturers, the VAT element of the sale has always been completely disregarded. If I've sold something for "£9.99" to Joe Public, I've actually sold it for £8.50, and the commission charge (or split or whatever) has been based on that figure. If I agree a 50/50 split, then that's £4.25 each. Easy and accurate. If the 50/50 split was on £9.99, the manufacturer would get £5 and I'd get £3.50 after paying the VAT return. Not a 50/50 split at all. Sorry to blather on, but a lot of people don't understand how VAT works. Us VAT-registered people are simply tax collectors for HMRC, and it's not a good feeling a lot of the time.
  16. BottomEndian
    [quote name='JackLondon' post='722366' date='Jan 23 2010, 05:46 PM']You do know that the VAT is 17.5%?[/quote] Of the net figure, yes. Not of the gross £902.
  17. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Mateybass' post='722297' date='Jan 23 2010, 04:33 PM']Having managed to attract a reasonable number of punters for a cold January night, we were quite looking forward to the split. However, when we were presented with the breakdown, things went pear-shaped. Deducted from the ticket sales (£902) was the VAT element of the total ticket sales income (£157.85), then PRS (£32), then a charge for venue expenses (£100) then the remaining money was split 70/30. We ended up with less than 50% of the door money in the end. Now I don't mind paying PRS since the original artist has enabled us to create a tribute band so fair dos (though I thought the venue had paid a PRS licence fee to cover this), and I can live with paying the venue expenses because we were provided with a meal and a box of beer and water (though we weren't told about charges for these before we consumed them) but what I can't understand is why the venue deducted the VAT on the ticket sales from the gross income before anything else. Effectively, they have charged the punter VAT on the ticket and then charged us for the VAT on the ticket... in my book that's charging VAT twice on the same item.[/quote] If they removed £157.85 VAT from £902 gross takings to get the net figure, then whoever's doing their books should be shot at dawn. To be fair to the venue (unless it was agreed otherwise in advance), there's no problem with them removing the VAT element of the takings before any [b]agreed[/b] further deductions and splitting. After all, the VAT element is never [i]really[/i] part of their income -- it belongs to HMRC, who'll get it in the venue's next VAT return. It'll never go into the "Sales" ledger in their accounts. But if the gross takings are £902, the VAT element of that should be £134.34. £157.85 is 17.5% of the gross figure. So someone's screwed up the numbers. As for the PRS, that's what the venue licence is for -- you shouldn't be charged for that, unless there's some weird thing with tribute acts I'm unaware of. The venue expenses are cheeky, but it's the unfortunate nature of verbal agreements. So I'd say you were partially screwed and also the victims of an arithmetical error.
  18. BottomEndian
    [quote name='BB2000' post='722260' date='Jan 23 2010, 03:52 PM']Bugger. These are as scarce as hen's teeth...[/quote] [url="http://www.stringbusters.com/frameset.asp?MAIN=http://www.stringbusters.com/ko-kat/BASS%20STRINGS/LA%20BELLA/"]Stringbusters[/url] have them in stock.
  19. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Doddy' post='722236' date='Jan 23 2010, 03:22 PM']Again,writing the chart in A major cleans up the chart because of fewer accidentals and makes it simpler to read,but I'd have probably written it in E major and written the D naturals as accidentals.[/quote] Thank you. I'm glad I'm not alone.
  20. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Doddy' post='722198' date='Jan 23 2010, 02:38 PM']Writing it in A major and starting on the 5th degree is a little neater because of fewer accidentals, but pretty much every chart I've been given has been written in E major with the accidentals written(D natural in this case).Consequently,I'd write the chart in E major-for me it makes it a little simpler, because I never really look at blues modally-I prefer to approach them chordally.[/quote] Yeah, maybe blues was a bad example. How about something like [i]Sledgehammer[/i]? If you [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=39474"]click here[/url] you should get a transcription that someone posted on here a few weeks back. Putting aside the fact it's a semitone higher than the recording, after the E-minor intro the verse is written in E Mixolydian, so three sharps. I've always heard this song as being in E major (well, E-flat major, but... y'know ), so that just looks really odd to me. It does mean they can get away with the same key signature through the chorus too, where I would've switched from four sharps to three (F-sharp minor). To me, if you need to whack accidentals on the flattened sevenths, it draws attention to them as flattened sevenths, thus highlighting the nature of the harmony.
  21. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Sarah5string' post='722040' date='Jan 23 2010, 11:39 AM']Basses do seem to be quite expensive at the mo. I bought my Dean last year for £599 and was told that I was buying at a good time as prices were looking like they were going to jump anything up to 25% in 2009... [/quote] 25% is nothing. The Ibanez BTB I bought (new) early this year for £425 is now £599. That's a 41% jump.
  22. BottomEndian
    If someone said to me, "Write out a basic rock'n'roll-style 12-bar blues bassline in E", I'd think, "OK, E major, four sharps," and write it out with four sharps and accidentals on the D-naturals (blues being based around dominant seventh chords). But recently I've been seeing blues-style basslines (and other things based around dominant sevenths) written with, for example, three sharps for a blues in E. I see the thinking in this: blues is based on dominant sevenths, and the simplest mode for dominant sevenths is the Mixolydian. So a blues in E is really a blues in E Mixolydian. In fact, I've seen this at the top of some transcriptions: "Key: E Mixolydian", followed by three sharps because E Mixolydian is the mode on the fifth degree of the A major scale (three sharps). I've rushed off a couple of examples; the first is how [b]I'd[/b] write that "basic rock'n'roll-style 12-bar blues bassline in E", and under the big black line is the same line with three sharps: Obviously the line's the same. But the problem is that, for me, "three sharps = key of A major or F-sharp minor", and I'd expect something written with three sharps to have a tonal centre of A (or F-sharp if it's minor). Blues in E doesn't. To me (and this may well stem from years of ABRSM theory based on the classical repertoire), the key signature is dictated by the tonal centre (tonic, whatever, call it what you will) and whether the third degree is major or minor. So if something was based around D Dorian, I'd see D and F, call it D minor (one flat) and stick accidentals on all the B-naturals. Even with something like A Locrian, I'd look at A and C, call it A minor (no sharps or flats) and litter the score with B-flats and E-flats. Is my position sensible, or do I need to shift my perception? EDIT: Or, to put the question more concisely, does a key signature tell you only the sharps and flats, or does it convey more information?
  23. BottomEndian
    [quote name='warwickhunt' post='721766' date='Jan 22 2010, 11:32 PM']WHO? ...and your looking for this kind of band in Newcastle! A tip from a resident North Easterner; learn a bit of Thin Lizzy and Free, then Robert's your Mother's brother... you'll be a part of the NE music scene. [/quote] Pah... us young'uns are making a fair old noise around the town. Here's a couple of my friends' local noisy bands at the moment: [url="http://www.myspace.com/thatdefensivearm"]tda[/url] and [url="http://www.myspace.com/knuckledraggerrawk"]Knuckledragger[/url]. There's a healthy streak of doom going on as well... ah, there's loads of stuff. Get yerself to the Head of Steam, the Cluny or the Dog & Parrot. Lots of noise to get involved with. And not a Free cover in sight.
  24. BottomEndian
    [quote name='Huwberry' post='721314' date='Jan 22 2010, 03:35 PM']I have no idea who designed them, so I thought I'd ask - anything by Rickenbacker?[/quote] Good question. A quick Google-hunt says Roger Rossmeisl designed the 4000 (and quite a few other Rics too), and I'm pretty sure he [i]was[/i] a player. Could be wrong though. (Apologies for this huge thread-hijacking tangent we're drifting off on here...)
  25. BottomEndian
    [quote name='retroman' post='721323' date='Jan 22 2010, 03:42 PM']Spot on [/quote] So, given that the nut width on a Ric isn't outrageous, the string spacing at the bridge must be pretty tight, or at least much less than the Fender-standard 19mm. Do you know what it is in mm?
×
×
  • Create New...