3below

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1470166270' post='3103822'] .... I disagree, yes light has a frequency but thats an irrelevant innate property of the transmission mechanism and there is no overt combination/splitting of a signal ergo the claim that its not AM is fair and reasonable IMO. [/quote] If there is no overt combination of the signal, how is the guitar signal amplitude (electrical) being converted to light intensity (amplitude)? As I see it, light is propagating (travelling) along the optical fibre. It is carrying the information (amplitude of guitar signal) through the intensity (amplitude). This is simply amplitude modulation by any other name. We can of course look at the patent disclosures and establish the circuits used, they may be novel and a 'new' form of non-modulated signal transmission has been developed. If this is the case they will have 'big players' in the communications technology sphere chasing them. Guitar cables will be small beer.

I am with 4stringslow on the AM modulation, not that being a Physicist has any bearing on this. Being an older git, luckydog makes the connection, what is wrong with my old cable. Yes, if I gigged rather more I would probably go wireless , then again virgin unicorns have been seen in this part of Mid Wales, so who knows. I do know I will not be forking out for the Analogue Optical Guitar Cable.

[quote name='ColinB' timestamp='1469690013' post='3100270'] There's something seriously wrong with your mains electricity for the trip to go off just by plugging in the USB lead. I'd be far more worried about that than the toneprint tbh. It might be more than a killer tone that you'll end up with! [/quote] +1 there is something seriously wrong somewhere. Try the amp - usb connection in another location (that has a circuit breaker). If it works correctly I would get your home electricity and pc checked. You can get mains testing plugs which will give you some indication (however they do not detect neutral - earth reverse).

[quote name='Pow_22' timestamp='1469602375' post='3099584'] The Mk3 Sound City's are close, the Mk4s are sh*te tho [/quote] If you get a good mk4 they are pretty decent. If you get a 'bad un' then noise is your friend . I got lucky with a 'bedroom' condition mk4 at a knockdown price. It was broke, aka needed a new pre amp tube. Bought cheap enough they make a good donor for Hiwatt conversion.

Warwick Rockbass 5er that I owned had a substantial 3 piece maple neck. I had no doubts about the stability and the build quality was also flawless. I would take a long hard look at used Warwick prices, they are a great value for buyers and depressing for sellers. A German Corvette is on here for £350 at the moment, what a used rockbass would fetch is anyone's guess.

[quote name='paul_c2' timestamp='1469130969' post='3096065'] I remember going past the 15th fret once. I think it was in 1987. [/quote] Me too and to give a lesser number, I am thinking about building a short scale eb3 / les paul double cut type bass (early EBO). To reduce (get rid of hopefully) any neck dive I would move the bridge as far back as possible. The ensuing length would be taken up in a shorter neck with less frets, probably about 3, making it 17 in all.

An architectural salvage supplier near to me [url="http://www.roofingandsalvagedepot.co.uk/"]http://www.roofingan...agedepot.co.uk/[/url] has mahogany snooker table sides at £12.50. One of these could probably make a complete bass(including neck), two certainly would . You may be able to find similar locally to you? Making your own two piece body has several advantages. If you have access to a planer-thicknesser then purchasing rough sawn timber is much cheaper. Finding a 'mate' with a suitable width planer-thicknesser to thickness the 'planks' before gluing the blank becomes much more likely. Another issue to consider is: routing cavities etc before cutting out the body shape or routing after cutting the body shape. The former in many cases gives the router base a much greater and easier surface to operate on. You might want to investigate the neck dive on a Grabber / Ripper style bass, elongate the upper horn slightly? Move bridge rearwards, shorten the neck whilst maintaining scale length.

The deception of pictures

Super skill with the control plate and a nice touch using purfling / strip to take the saw kerf up. I feel the need to bring my 335 type bass to you for some cosmetic fettling in the bridge area.

JAN3 seems good, I fitted one to a W that I bought that had suffered the JAN2 broken tabs. Am not sure the brass version is worth £££ more. Cheapest price I found on JAN3 was from Australia, go figure

Same seller has a Rockbass Corvette at an eyewatering BIN price. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Warwick-Corvette-5-string-rock-bass-guitar-/222185740093?hash=item33bb4d573d:g:h8UAAOSwygJXhptN

[quote name='Andyjr1515' timestamp='1468786114' post='3093332'] Yes, I agree - a fully rearward bridge is a must. The best example of that is the Cort Curbow - looks and feels like a short scale and is, in fact, the full 34" Interestingly, this is one of the issues faced with the semi-acoustic (ie the other new project just started). The bridge placement and resulting neck placement actually makes it pretty impossible to reach the first fret... [/quote] I have a 335 / EB2 long scale that verges on that same problem. Then again I am only 5'3" and have short arms It does balance fairly well though. The mahogany looks stunning btw.

Currently owning an SG bass and thinking a long scale version would be rather nice I have given some thought to the neck dive issue. My thoughts were move the bridge as far back as possible and possibly lengthen the body slightly. A few inches gained this way would certainly help with the balance in addition to lightweight tuners etc. Even with the timber cut as shown in the pictures there is some length gain still available. Look forward to seeing the build

Do you have access to a luthier near to you. Get them to look at the cracks and give a diagnosis. My initial feeling from the pictures is that I would not describe it as EX condition.

Truss rod buzzes usually sorted by adjusting truss rod. Tighten slightly, or if this fails, loosen rod, give neck a gentle push in the middle whilst holding headstock then retighten rod. If this fails I am with Grangur on this one, it is something else. One of my Warwicks has a seriously irritating buzz on unfretted A. I know it is the truss rod cover and one day will sort it, one day soon

6 Ohms is quite OK. Solid state amps will just deal with that, problems start at low impedance. Some solid state amps will deliver down to 2 ohms, others get a little unhappy with less than 4 ohms. As I understand it, if you have an impedance mismatch with valve amps a speaker impedance less than amp output impedance is preferable (e.g.speakers 6 ohm, amp output 8 ohms). The 'rated' / 'quoted' impedances are not exact since they change with frequency (and quite significantly around resonance). With only 2 ohms difference between 8 and 4 with your 6 ohm cab I would not worry about it, but then again it is not my kit. If you want a 4 ohm 2 x 15 bass cab that is virtually indestructible my advice would be sell the Peavey and add your proposed replacement driver expenditure to that. Use it to buy a BF Dubster or Vintage. It will be (IMO) far more cost effective and someone else has done all the design work for you. Biased viewpoint, I have a BF Dubster and s/h it cost less than the drivers it contains.

The build speed is seriously impressive. Makes me tired just contemplating it, however it also makes me think I must do something with 3015 Kappalites and two sheets of 9mm birch ply I have in my parts store

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1468488334' post='3091223'] In my Tesco it does. Brown and bruised Vs Nice and Yellow - no contest. Sorry, I'm not helping am I? [/quote] What is wrong with reliced bananas?

I will enjoy reading the sound review after dinner

[quote name='Pow_22' timestamp='1468394925' post='3090581'] Out of the above id go either Marshall or SC120 amps, cabwise it would have to be the marshall. Barefaced just don't do anything for me, never tried a BFM or Shermann [/quote] The marshall cab was built like the proverbial outhouse, the weight of them is something else. It would survive heavy touring

If you provide the internal dimensions of the cabinet, the current port diameters and lengths, you will find that others will be along with suggestions based on the modelling software.

Ladies and Gentlemen, choose your weapons: Amps: Marshall VBA 400, Sound City 120, Peavey Firebass 700, Peavey Tour 700. Cabs : Barefaced Big One, Barefaced Dubster, BFM Omni 15 and Shermann Audio 15/6/1 (think Fearful 15/6/1) (common denominator Eminence 3015LF) and finally an old school Marshall 2x15 DBS7215 [b] [color=#222222]What was your choice? Having had all the above in my possession nearly all at once (don't ask), the Tour 700 is my first choice with all the above cabs. The VBA 400 was loudest by a long way, immense amounts of bass, The Sound City a closest second (these are obviously subjective). The key deciding factor for me was the 'tightness' / 'control' / 'woolliness' of the bass. With all the cabs above the solid state amps were much more to my taste. [/color][/b] I am not saying solid state is better than valves, far from it, what I would say is you must comprehensively try before you buy. Most valve amps are not cheap these days (unless you get lucky - my Sound City was and I still haveit ) and the market is harsh.

Snobbery? As others state, surely the 'compleat bass player' will be able to do it all. At one time I could use a plectrum reasonably well, these days (idleness etc) I am very lacking in that ability. I regard that as a weakness in my current playing.

As suggested by several others you will be surprised how much fret wear can be resolved with levelling and re-profiling before a refret is needed. If this is a long term keeper / investment you may want to think about using flats to minimise the fret wear.