4 Strings

If they'll order it for you, isn't that all you'll do online? Just let them order and everyone's happy. Flats are still way behind rounds in popularity and they'll have investment limitations in how much stock they can carry. While I buy some stuff on-line I pay more to buy in my local music shops. They normally will have a go at matching prices if you ask too. We have a great relationship with our local drum shop where my youngest buys his stuff, where they also tune his drums, repair things etc for him for no charge and know him by name. He can spend an hour gong through countless cymbals to choose one. I do my best with bass stuff at PMT but its a big shop and the staff change quickly and, to be honest, I don't buy an awful lot anyway. Yes things are changing and on-line shopping is more convenient and usually cheaper so by all means get your i-pods etc there but its not better for things like music gear. How many people on here regret buying basses/amps without trying.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1325173580' post='1480549'] I don't consider the rise of internet shopping as particularly depressing . . . it's just a matter of adapting to the inevitable change. ... I guess a lot of people still like the 'shopping experience' - which is fine, but it's not for me. [/quote] Until you want to try something.

Although the title is 'Musical Snobs?" this is really 'Brand Snobs'. My in-laws used to put 'own brand' tissues in a Kleenex box. Isn't this is same sort of thing? Boy racers putting 'Turbo' badges on their 1.1 Fiestas? Love the story regarding the Squier and the Warwick. However, I have to say, a bass with a "Fender' transfer is always going to look more cool than one with 'Squier'. I am a troubled sort, I even look for 'MZ' on serial numbers before I like the sound of any Fender but know I'm doing wrong.

Keep an eye on the recycle section, 3 sets have just gone there, also used sets they appear in the for sale section. s/h flats are more acceptable than s/h rounds.

Mr Foxen, you clearly have an easy going relationship with all in your home! There's storage and display. I must admit, amps and cabs are stored in my place. So are guitars. And cables.

I suppose a lot of it is made by production companies now. We lost a lot of Not Only But Also in this manner. Must have been difficult to draw the line between what could be safely reused and what would annoy a future generation. We are the future generation and we are annoyed!

[quote name='machinehead' timestamp='1324471341' post='1474570'] Off topic (sorry) but...alloy wheels are used to reduce the unsprung weight thereby improving handling and therefore perfomance. Hardly relevent in a family car though. Except that they look good to some peoples eyes. Frank. [/quote] Hardly relevant for any car being driven on the road. That is the point. The improvement may or may not be there but will not be noticed - unless you really want it to be and we'll all notice those things.

Nope, its like noticing an improvement in acceleration with the new ally wheels on your car. It may, or may not be there but you'd never actually notice it.

That's not it at all, Alex. The difference isn't before sounding dirty, the valve amp is incomparably louder. I know what you mean about clean, I only mentioned it as I was not comparing dirty/clipped/overdriven sounds. I'd love to know the reason why.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1324382580' post='1473561'] Yes, a 200W valve amp can sound loud but you can hear it squashing the transients compared to an 800W solidstate amp when cranked up - whether you like that or not, that's up to you. Guildbass - have a look here for enlightenment: [url="http://barefacedbass.com/bgm-columns.htm"]http://barefacedbass...bgm-columns.htm[/url] [/quote] And yet that's the exact opposite of the sounds from the two 30W guitar amps. The valve amp has much higher transients, doesn't sound anywhere near as loud (until you find that you're shouting above it) as it seems to create the sound so effortlessly and without compression. Bit like a good hi-fi vs nasty little one, the 'blaring' sound of the little one makes it appear to be louder. edit - both on a clean sound.

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1324374804' post='1473434'] Yes, it's rot. P=VI V=IR Therefore: P=(VxV)/R Amps are tested with resistive loads so you can take R to be impedance. There are established standards which PA power amps adhere to for power measurements. Bass amps don't, presumably because the figures would be rather embarrasingly poor for most of them... [/quote] So power is inversely proportional to the resistance (or, as you say, you could use impedance). Also P= I x I x R which would show the power increases with the square of the current. This makes no difference to the speaker? Why are valve power amps so much louder than ss? Is it just headroom?

Now I'm not an expert in this field at all but ...(heh!) isn't it about the different voltage in the output? We all know that Watts are Volts x Amps. We have a Laney 30W all valve guitar combo and also a Roland Cube 30 in the house. The Cube 30 is 30W and goes loud. The Laney exceeds this volume very quickly and to control the volume knob requires feint taps to touch it round a degree or so at a time as it quickly gets stupid loud. Sure the Laney could be more conservatively rated but I understood that the output from valve amplifiers is higher in Volts (and therefore lower in Amps) to achieve its 30W (I remember getting a shock from the speaker output of my old Hiwatt one once). If the higher volts excite speaker coils more readily I wondered that the output from Class D amplifiers is lower yet in Volts and so for the same measured Watts it is less effective. Is this rot?

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' timestamp='1324256065' post='1472376'] Pushing air isn't about the number of drivers, it's about their displacement. Keep the car, get a high displacement Barefaced. [/quote] Yep. Get a couple and a smaller car, petrol savings will pay for the second speaker, especially as you can now share it to rehearsals/gigs!

"That bloody thread must be the most misunderstood piece of confusing 'evidence' about wood and tone ever. It is entirely irrelevant, except for perhaps demonstrating the unsurprising fact that the same pickup position and strings on two different pieces of wood have the potential to sound similar, especially through computer speakers. What it doesn't do is prove that wood has no effect on tone. It is n of 1 with no info on wood resonant frequencies, densities etc etc and the lack of consensus doesn't even preclude the possibility that people can hear a difference,just that they can't ascribe it to one or the other." >>> Agree, and it also shows that a 'better' sound was not had by the 'superior' wood being used (the plank was pine, btw, very soft indeed.) He did three samples so you couldn't simply guess right. No-one got it as the differences were so slight. I played it through the hi-fi, as I'm sure many others did. But I'm sure any subtleties were lost, bit like using different pups, amps, speakers etc. "For a string fixed between two points, unless the mounting bar (read: body) is perfectly rigid (which is impossible) then some energy will be imparted to the bar, transfer of which will be most efficient at resonant modes eg the primary resonant frequency. This in turn leads to faster decay of the string note envelope in a frequency-dependent fashion and this is itself amplified via the pickup." >>> Hence my granite cliff bass example An unambiguous demonstration of the role resonant frequency plays is to take a Fender guitar with a dead spot at a particular fret and put a small c clamp on the headstock. The node causing the dead spot will shift as the mass of the clamp has altered the resonant frequency(ies) of the neck. Headless basses were designed in part to address this phenomenon, so it's important to recognise that both material and construction contribute - if the latter didn't, xylophones would only be able to play one note. >>> To improve sustain you add mass to the headstock so why would a headless neck improve anything when one with infinite mass is the ideal? Fixing wings onto this type of material won't make much of a difference and you'd expect such an instrument to sustain very well with an even decay envelope. Similarly, laminate neck-throughs are typically going to be very stiff and strong. But take a non-laminate, lightweight neck and bolt it onto a medium density bit of wood and now you have the potential for significant resonance modes in the mid-range which will affect the tone of the instrument more noticeably. Anything that then alters the way the [i]system[/i] resonates, which can be making a bit of wood thinner, or stiffer, or a high mass bridge, has the potential to be audible. Acoustic guitar builders have more tricks up their sleeve here ... >>> ... because they are acoustic instruments! All correct in theory but the potential effect on an electric bass is too small to be measurable nor audible.

I was brought up on big stacks and this reached a heady height with a Hiwatt on two 4x12s. Always put the amp on top. Not quite so many years ago I my SWR was in a rattly flightcase and so I put this on end on the floor so it didn't rattle. I've done so ever since despite no longer using the flightcase. More recently I use a stand angling the cab back so no change required. Anyone else put their amp somewhere other than the top of the (top) speaker?

Great stuff. Need a chair for your amp Townshend style.

Pics are great, thanks very much. The amp is still quite a lump, b interested to compare it to the Matamp. How's it sound?

[quote name='machinehead' timestamp='1324238786' post='1472203'] It does the job so no disagreement there. And yes, it can be adjusted to cover manufacturing tolerances so that's all good. Except for the original two saddle version of course which couldn't. But I think "good engineering" has an elegance to it that is lacking on the BBOT. But never mind. It's all just a matter of opinion anyway and mine happens to differ from yours. So we're possibly both right and /or both wrong. Frank. [/quote] Potatoes and, oh... The BBOT is actually elegant in its simplicity and cheapness. The Yanks are great at this sort of thing, crude but effective. Other fender examples include a string tree instead of angling the headstock, neck joint by simply screwing it on, setting frets into the neck. All elegant in simplicity and not necessarily improved by more aesthetic and expensive alternatives. Mass production, don't you love it! My car has the standard steering wheel.

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1323946743' post='1468924'] Once I get the Hammers fitted into my J copy I look forward to contrinuting to this thread! [/quote] Yes please.

[quote name='jackers' timestamp='1324230396' post='1472090'] but what do you use to cover those up?? [/quote] Guess what?!

Get bigger stickers to cover the mess.

I have a 2.5 (2x10) and it is pretty amazing. Very deep and can bite your head off if needed. Really nice, I imagine the 4.5 is the same but bigger!

Started with a pick many years ago, practiced with fingers as I thought it was better. Still think it probably is and have used a pick only a couple of time over the years and have no desire to go back. Its a different sound so, as others have said, its up to you, there's no right and wrong but I would say using fingers is more versatile.

[quote name='machinehead' timestamp='1323997653' post='1469743'] I think the BBOT is cheap and nasty and poor engineering. I know most people love them and that's fine. I just don't. [/quote] BBOT certainly looks cheap and nasty but its not poor engineering. Just simple. We're used to over-engineering (ally wheels on a family car for example and, dare I say, complex guitar bridges), the BBOT can't be accused of that. It allows adequate adjustments for the tolerances of Fender's mass production, is easy to use and dead cheap with no accurate machining required - its very good engineering albeit ugly.

[quote name='TheRev' timestamp='1324120545' post='1470955'] Why FFS? He's going to spend the next hour twatting them with lumps of wood! They're percussion and therefore designed to be hit - I don't think a fingerprint will break them.... [/quote] But the acid in the fingerprints stains the finish and won't come off. Exactly.