thodrik

http://bassdirect.co.uk/bass_guitar_specialists/Sadowsky_USA_NYC_4.html?fbclid=IwAR0Ul4T-ls-8zKhj-U_lfG50LxRBX-xtQBTp7g7YNJ9sW07Kh5JA_PDgPqA Stunning used NYC in Bass Direct. Almost a four string equivalent of the five string I got from there in 2016. A lot more expensive than mine, though admittedly this one is in better condition than mine. From the numbering of the serial number I would guess mid 2000s.

Honestly wish I had thought of that. Actually I have long been tempted of installing a Sadowsky preamp into my Excess.

The walnut one is my favourite. I would love it if Vigier re-introduced that finish on their basses.

My two Vigiers. Series IV Arpege. Bolt on design, independent three band EQ for each pickup(!), phenowood fingerboard, Delano pick ups and Glokenklang pre-amp (I think), monorail bridge rather than the previous chunky bridge used on the Series III. Great bass. Currently strung to a mad tuning of B, F, B, E, A (essentially drop B). Bought it in 2011. Excess II. Bought in 2004. A few dings. Very high output bass compared to the Arpege (in my opinion the output is nearly umm ‘excessive’). I tend to always have the EQ settings in cut mode, with the treble nearly turned off. I don’t know if this is the case with all Excess basses but I find the treble voicing to be very aggressive so boosting treble requires care, Benedetti pick ups which are great but are pretty noisy when playing with a bit of gain. Currently tuned to drop C with 120-50 strings. I used to tune it to standard tuning with really light strings as it was a great slap machine. No issues with the neck in 15 years. Can destroy buildings when plugged into the EBS Fafner and Mesa 6x10. Apologies for the rubbish pics and yes I am aware that a 6x10 is entirely impractical and unnecessary.

Well, if you don't need the low B you could always string a five string E-C. However if you end up liking that tuning and decide that you need the low B after all, then you will end up 'needing' a six string. Seriously, buying a lovely four string is not something that you are ever going to regret. If you have the funds and want the bass then buy it. If you decide you don't get on with it then there is always a market for a four string Stingray, particularly the Old Smoothie version.

If the neck is straight and doesn't need adjusting, just lower the saddles on the bridge. It is really that easy. Just find a screwdriver that fits. If you lower a string too much, then raise it. Generally with setting up a bass, if you do something wrong then you can always undo it. Some people are very set on a having a certain 'set' action height that they prefer, and take measurements when setting up. There are obviously benefits to this, however I do mine by feel, as some of my basses sound better with a higher action than others. If the action feels right 'in hand' then that is all I need.

The only issue is that if you want to tweak the amount of relief on the neck, well, you can't. The interesting thing is that a lot of US reviews treat the lack of a truss rod as inherent design flaw in that 'even the fabled Modulus Graphite neck basses required a truss rod.' I think that the Bass Gear Magazine reviews score the Vigier basses very low on this basis. I really don't agree with that stance whatsoever. The amount of issues faced by necks Vigier basses and guitars is incredibly small, even compared to instruments with a truss rod. Of course, if a Talkbass favourite designer started using the same neck design, it would be considered as a revolutionary development in bass design.

After 15 years in the climates of Glasgow and the Orkney Islands and hauled around on tour, the neck on my truss rod-less Vigier Excess is still perfectly fine. Picked up a fair few dings over the years though. Also, Vigier USA did a 'torture test' by freezing and heating a guitar. While I am always suspicious of social media videos, I don't doubt that this one is real. The instruments are very very sturdy.

Absolutely, I would agree that the Sadowsky bass is very much Roger Sadowsky's take on a bass. However, Roger Sadowsky's take on a bass is very much based on the original Fender designs to begin with (primarily out of necessity as detailed in other posts above). To me, the Sadowsky J bass is a very specific and modern take on the original passive Fender Jazz bass design, to the point that the finished instrument is pretty much unique to Sadowsky. The Sadowsky single cuts and Modern series with big Singles are definitely less Fender-like, though there is still element of Fender DNA there. On a basic four string Sadowsky Jazz bass, the basic nut width, number of frets, pick up size, pick up spacing , pickup blend, four bolt neck join, and 34 inch scale length are all based on the classic Fender designs. Yes, the bridge, pick up voicing, electronics, neck carve etc are all different from a passive 1960s Fender, but so are the bridge, pick up voicing, electronics and neck carve of a lot of other Jazz bass designs (including active Fenders). I just happen to think that Roger Sadowsky's take on a Fender Jazz delivers pretty much everything I could want out of a bass guitar that uses the Fender design as the basic template. Similarly, the Mike Lull active Jazz designs to me are Mike Lull's take on a bass but also using a Fender Jazz as the basic inspiration. Though, I actually think that the JT series of Mike Lulls is actually less Fender-like than any of Sadowsky's output (I think that they look brilliant as well). The passive Lulls though are far more like the classic passive Fenders than any Sadowsky for sure. Sadowsky's generally don't do that 'vintage' passive Fender sound. You can get close-ish with the VTC rolled off and in passive mode. However, if you want a vintage Fender sound, then I wouldn't recommend a Sadowsky. A Sadowsky is definitely not a Fender, but it is far more like a Fender than a Warwick Thumb is like a Fender. So calling people calling a Sadowsky a 'super Fender' or even worse, a 'Fender on Steroids' isn't something that bothers me. Though long time Sadowsky user Jason Newsted described his Sadowskys as 'turbo Fenders', so if he described them as such I'm not going to disagree (mostly because even in advancing years he is a big scary dude).

He would probably still be working on the first one brought to him... Edit: It was a joke, I like Rickenbackers, don't sue me Mr Hall.

Wouldn't that make the original Fender basses that Roger Sadowsky worked on 'super Fenders'? I think that Sadowsky's own basses, while rooted in the original Fender design, definitely have a different voicing from any Fender I have played. However, the links between the Fender designs and Sadowsky basses are so inter-linked that I would not get upset if someone called my Sadowsky a 'super Fender'. For me, it is just taking the original Fender design into a different direction. Same with a Sandberg, Celinder, Xotic or a Mike Lull take on the Fender designs. The difference is that Roger Sadowsky was really the first one to do it and his take on a Jazz bass is pretty much the reference point by which all other subsequent boutique Jazz basses are judged. Basically, I think that the Sadowsky Jazz bass is a classic in its own right at this point. For the record, I would love to hear a 60s Fender with Roger Sadowsky's improvements, just to compare it to a 100% Sadowsky build.

The neck on a five string Sadowsky is already pretty wide as it is. This isn't a criticism as I think it is clearly a design choice to provide string spacing that isn't too dissimilar to a four string, which makes slapping and popping and double thumbing much easier than if there was 18mm (or narrower) string spacing. I think that a Sadowsky six string with the similar kind of neck carve and string spacing as a Sadowsky five string would be a pretty challenging playing experience. I think that a Sadowsky six string would need to be designed from the ground up as a six string. It would need a different type of neck carve and perhaps even a revamped body shape as simply adding an even bigger neck to a 60s or 70s-type Fender body shape would result in potential ergonomic and weight considerations (Sadowskys generally never weigh over 9lbs). As the single cuts have shown, I wouldn't rule a Sadowsky Six string out. However, I think that it would need a lot of R&D before Roger Sadowsky would consider the design 'good enough' to be released. Roger Sadowsky's philosophy is rooted in the original 4 string Fender designs. In my opinion, the best six string designs are basses that are designed as being a 5 or 6 string bass from the outset rather than taking a Fender Jazz bass design and trying to fit two extra strings on. I have a five string Sadowsky and a five string Vigier Arpege. I love them both equally and would consider the fit and finish of them as equally top notch. However, if you asked me if I wanted a six string Vigier or a six string Sadowsky based on the designs of the two basses I already have, the answer would be Vigier every time. I will say though that my main gigging bass for ten years has been a four string Sadowsky Metro. Indie, Rock, Jazz, Stoner/Doom. It covers pretty much every genre and the process of being able to 'find a decent tone' generally takes about 30 seconds after turning the amp on. I love it.

Sounds like an awesome amp. I have the little brother Big Block 750. It doesn't have the tonal variation or headroom of the Titan but I am very happy with the general tone. I think that the bass and low mids on all of the Mesa amps I have tried have been brilliant. I also owned the M6 for a while (too clean and clinical for me) and I still own a Walkabout (lovely but very limited clean headroom).

This is why I am cautious with my old Trace Elliot V6 with 2 and 4 ohm taps. I have seen Trace Elliot documentation saying that the V6 and V8 will run fine with an 8 ohm cabinet (which is just as well given that the matching 4x12 cabinets were 8 ohm). Given what little I know about valve amps it just doesn't make sense to me. Given how expensive the V6 is to repair and how little actual information there is on the V type line, I am not taking any chances.

This actually got me thinking. Most of the amp techs I really trust are in their 50s and 60s. I used to think that the ability to repair vintage amps would suffer when the supply of replacement parts, power supplies, tubes etc became more scarce. I confess that I totally forgot about the supply of people who actually repair them! Asking a tech 'can you fix my old Marshall JCM 800?' will be a lot more difficult in 20 years time than it is now.

Frantic by Metallica. It is great for about 1.5 seconds until the first snare hit.

Agreed, I am sure that there are some naturally right handed people who would be more suited to playing bass guitar left handed as well but are never advised that this is a possibility and never get the chance to try it out. In terms of my assumptions to treat right handedness as a default, this is more down to practical realities rather than a teaching ethos. When I was growing up there were not a lot of left handed basses to try (or left handed violins...). The only ones in school were right handed, so if you wanted to play bass (or generally any stringed instrument) you either (a) played right handed or (b) played left handed with the bass turned upside down. Ideally any prospective player should have the opportunity of trying a left handed and a right handed instrument to see which one comes more naturally to them. In practice that is not always possible, so statistically most people who try a stringed instrument will initially try it out right handed. That is how I started violin, bass and double bass. A tutor who doesn't make assumptions as to handedness would have been welcome at the time, as would the option of actually trying to play the instruments left handed in the first place. Would I have ended up playing any of the instruments left handed? I really don't know. Would I have ended but being a technically better player as a result? Honestly, I don't think it would have made any difference whatsoever.

I think we are speaking in similar terms here, given that my subsequent sentence to the sentence you have quoted is: "If the player thinks 'this is all wrong and I hate it' then this becomes apparent pretty quickly (usually within a few moments of picking up the instrument)" To me that is the equivalent of your suggestion of 'carrying out a basic check right at the start'. I'm certainly not in favour of an automatic 'you must play right handed because that is correct' approach. Particularly when one of my favourite bassists plays left handed but with a right handed bass turned upside down. However, I am also not in favour of a 'you are left handed so you must automatically start out left handed' approach. I suffered that approach growing up when I was actually pushed into doing things 'left handed' without any thought or consideration as to whether I would be better suited doing things the right handed way. All in all though, it just turns out I am equally rubbish at bowling, tennis, boxing, golf and playing drums irrespective of whether I approach the disciplines with a left handed or right handed approach.

I am left handed and play right handed. However not all left handers are alike. Some people are very left-handed to the point that doing anything 'the right handed way' feels like an unpleasant and alien experience, some are ambidextrous to the point that they are essentially right handed but choose to write with their left handed. In terms of the sliding scale, I am definitely towards the latter. I think that the 'left handers should play right handed' view (or stigma) comes from bowed string players or musicians who have grown up in an environment amongst bowed string players in symphony orchestra seating arrangements. Most orchestral violin/cello/viola players play right handed even if they are naturally left handed. Playing left handed results in the bow going in the different direction to right handed players and leads to potential awkwardness with regards to bowing space, which can be an issue with a crowded orchestra on a small strange. I was poked in the eye by a leftie bow on a few occasions growing up... Left handed musicians should be able to play in orchestras and some do, but it is a small minority compared to the amount of people playing in orchestras who are naturally left handed. Taking an 'you are left handed so must automatically play left handed' approach from the start is not something I would necessarily endorse. Personally, I think that it is worth starting out getting left handed people to play right handed in the first instance. If the player thinks 'this is all wrong and I hate it' then this becomes apparent pretty quickly (usually within a few moments of picking up the instrument). The fault is then on the teacher not noticing that the player is not enjoying the experience and would be far better suited to playing left handed. This really shouldn't be an issue on bass guitar though, given it isn't an instrument that is going to be used in an orchestra in large numbers anyway.

http://stringtensionpro.com/ D'addario have actually recently launched an app to replace the string tension chart PDF. I have been using it lately and it is utterly marvellous. Simply find out the tension of your favourite 'standard tuning' gauge (in my case, 100-40). Then simply insert your preferred 'alternate' tuning (in my case C sharp standard aka 'Sabbath tuning') and then work out your preferred gauges from there by approximately matching the tensions. The app even works with fanned fret designs as you can set the scale length for each string. No more mental calculations from the PDF! For what it is worth, for drop C (C F C F) I use a gauges of 120, 90, 67 (70 will do) and 50. For a low A string under that, I would be looking at 145 at least, probably tapered. However, both of the OPs basses have longer scale lengths than my 34 inch scale basses. With the fanned fret design of Dingwall, I would suspect that you would not need to use as a large a gauge as I do. For the Spector, any standard Five string set with a B string of 135 would probably achieve a good solid low A.

That is gorgeous! Looks like an almost satin finish rather than a gloss finish? I love it. Also, I see that it has got the big high mass bridge like on the Excess models. When the new line of Passions and Arpeges were first launched back in 2009 or so, they all had monorail bridges, i.e. a tiny individual bridge for each string. My Arpege has monorail bridges. I much prefer the big single bridge though (trying to clean and getting rid of dust in between the monorail bridges is a pain!). Wonder if that is now the standard Vigier bridge replacing the monorails?

Nice, does that have Benedetti pickups? I think that the earlier neck through Passion and Arpege models are really state of the art instruments, even more so than the newer bolt on models with Delano pick ups. Not that there is anything wrong with the newer models, they are still great too (I own a bolt on Arpege five string). I already have an Excess and Arpege, so the Passion is the only one left for me to get to obtain the full Vigier set...once I have the funds...

Yes, not the types of amp for people that think that 'all settings to 12 o'clock' is correct and that EQ should only be used to suit the room. I like those types of amps, but the V6 is not one of them.

I think that the CTM is a passive tone control EQ, so 'flat' response something like bass, treble and mid settings at '2-10-2' rather than the 'all settings at noon'. I would accordingly start on the 2-10-2 setting and work from there. Also, the gain and master settings are essentially another layer of EQ, as some EQ settings will sound great on one gain setting but sound horrible on another at a different volume. The settings and features on the CTM are eerily similar to those of my Trace Elliot V6. On the V6, if I dramatically change the mid setting it can also change the character of the bass and treble entirely. It sounds like it might also be the case with the Ashdown. On the V6 I find that the best tone is to just ignore the 'Bright' and 'Deep' switches altogether. With the V6 it is pretty much trial and error for me. It is either the 'charm' of an all valve amp, or evidence of why smaller lightweight 'flat response' amps are now so popular!

Best: Mesa Big Block 750 . I had wanted one for over ten years, but could never afford one and by the time I could they had been discontinued. Not an amp for those that need a clean, flat response or really clinical EQ settings, but for driving rock bass tones, it is brilliant. The amount of gain on tap on the overdrive is brilliant. I had a big clear out at the start of the year to fund the Big Block and a really guitar amp (a Mesa Single Rectifier). Most pleasantly surprising purchase: I have been using the D'addario balanced tension 120-50 set for gigging since they were launched around 2013. I have recently decided to make up my own set of Elixirs using the same gauge as I am going through so many sets of the D'addario when gigging, rehearsing and recording. I must confess I think that the Elixir strings are absolutely brilliant and they are not dying on me as quickly as the D'addarios. Over the long term it should save me money. I am going to switch my five strings over to Elixir as well. Worst: Darkglass Alpha Omega pedal. Great pedal, but the Big Block now pretty much does the overdrive/distortion sounds I need without me needing another pedal. Is it sacrilege if I say that I actually prefer the B3K/B7K drive circuit? I probably won't move it on, but it isn't really getting used at the minute. Should have bought years ago: Purchasing a replacement Babicz bridge for my 1974 Gibson EB3. I had resisted buying a replacement bridge for years on account that getting rid of the original bridge would devalue the bass. However the 3 point Gibson bridge is worthless so it had to go. It took me ten minutes to fit the new bridge with no additional routing needed and I can reinstall the original bridge if I decided to sell it. I can now actually set the intonation properly for the first time in 18 years. It still sounds like mud, but a more in tune mud than previously.