Mediocre Polymath

If you already have the tuner and DI, you could probably do worse than the combo of an LMB3 and an EHX Bass Soul Food, which is the pairing I use. I'd say @Homatron's estimate of £60 is probably a bit on the high side for the LMB3. I got mine in mint boxed condition for £40 a few years ago, and there always seem to be a few kicking around. The Soul Food is a little more rare, but they show up on here from time to time.

Speaking as someone who finishes instruments in a plastic greenhouse in my garden, using spray cans I buy from the local DIY shop – that's not an acceptable standard of fit and finish for a pro-level instrument. The discoloration on the binding isn't great, but forgivable, likewise even the light chipping around the neck pocket, but those tool marks in the finish? No. Even making an instrument for myself, I think would have probably been a do-over.

Weird coincidence. On the day that it was announced G&L were no more, a scrote in France stole all The Beths's touring gear, including the G&L Fallout that Liz Stokes has been playing since the band started. They're all playing Fenders for the rest of the tour, borrowed off their support act.

Interesting little postscript to the general sentiments about G&L being a bit crap at marketing/artist relations. I saw awesome kiwi pop-punk band The Beths at the Roundhouse last night (they were amazing). For the last seven or eight years, their singer/songwriter Liz Stokes has exclusively played a black G&L Tribute-series Fallout (I'm pretty sure it was the only electric guitar she owned). As far as I know, G&L have never mentioned her or done anything with her. On this tour though, Liz was playing something new – a coral pink quirky looking sorta fenderish thing that I don't recognise. The Fallout was relegated to a stand at the back of the stage and only used for one song (presumably in an odd tuning). Feels like an opportunity that was missed.

Thick from front to back. At least, compared to my own custom basses. I think those have a pretty normal profile, but it's been years since I made them, and they might be thinner than normal. The nut width is 38 mm, like a jazz bass. At least, it is on the one I have.

Neck thickness is one of those things that I don't actually have a strong opinion about. I'm as happy playing a thick neck as a thin one, it just took me by surprise.

That's sad to hear. I agree with what has already been said though, about how they've always seemed a little held back by their sort of internally contradictory relationship with the idea of innovation. They pitch themselves as high tech and the final refinement of the Fender-style design, but they're also trying to trade on their connection to the broader Fender history to an equal or greater extent. As a side note, I've always found it odd when people have such visceral reactions to headstock shapes. Unless it's something deliberately oversized or covered with overbearing ornamental flourishes, I really don't much care. It would never have occurred to me that a little kink in the lower curve of an otherwise conventional four-in-line headstock could elicit such strong reactions one way or another.

That could certainly work, especially if combined with the cauls to distribute the pressure. The existing bridge could be used as a template to mark the holes you'd need to drill in those pieces.

That makes things a lot easier. Here's what you'll need – – Two or three long-opening clamps. I used a pair of clamps I had lying around with a 12.5 cm depth – Various grades of sandpaper (up to like 400 grit) – a very sharp and quite small scraper – perhaps a scalpel or craft knife – tools for making simple camping cauls (saws, rasps, etc.) – decent masking tape (like frogtape or similar) – some cheap chopsticks (ideally PTFE rod or something like that) – Some offcuts of shelf timber or something for making cauls. – a round needle file (can be cheap and crappy) – Some double-sided tape (the weaker the better) As for glue, you could certainly use hide glue, but it is a pain in the arse to work with. I've not touched the stuff in a long time. When I did the bridge replacement, I just used standard, red-label Titebond, which is what I use for all my instrument building work. The first thing you'll need to do is carefully clean up the area under the bridge. This is what it looked like on the guitar I was working on after I'd heated and levered the old bridge off. You'll want to mask off the area of the finish that isn't under the bridge, and then carefully scrape and sand away the old glue and any finish that's under there (you want the bridge to go onto bare wood). You don't want to go too hard, because the wood is thin and pretty delicate. Here's an "after" photo from the instrument I was working on. You'll also want to do the same for the underside of the bridge, being very careful not to sand a curve into the base. I didn't have to do that on the instrument I was working on, because I made a new bridge from a rosewood blank (the old one was mangled by having been originally right handed, then adapted badly to play left handed, then adapted slightly more competently to play left handed and in tune, then finally adapted badly to play right handed again). To glue it up you'll need to make two clamping cauls. One sits on top of the bridge and has essentially the inverse of the shape of the bridge carved into it, the other sits inside the body on top of the bridge plate (the solid piece of wood, usually maple, that supports the bridge. I don't have any clear pictures of the top caul, but you can sort of see it in this picture of the gluing up process. It doesn't have to be perfect, just roughly the right shape to make solid contact in the middle and at the ends. It has some cork sheet glued to the underside to spread the force more evenly. This could be replaced by anything soft really – a piece of an old tea towel, some carboard, etc. The inner caul is a maddeningly fiddly thing to make and fit. It's a little triangle of wood that you need to keep the clamps from crushing the x-braces that meet just in front of the bridge. I made mine by shoving a piece of modelling clay into the back of the x-brace joint and using that to very roughly guess the angle the braces meet at. The whole process of making the caul, stucking masking tape to the inside and then sticking the caul to the tape is fiddly and frustrating. It helps to have a mirror or to put your phone inside the guitar with the front-facing camera turned on. You'll end up with a lot of pictures on your phone that look like this. It you have some PTFE rod you can cut some short lengths to go in the outer string holes to line the bridge up prior to clamping. I remember lining things up using some chopsticks, but I can't remember if I kept them in (cut down) during the clamping process. If I did, they would have been liberally smeared with wax or vaseline and possible wrapped in baking paper to stop them getting stuck. After brushing on a fairly generous layer of glue on both surfaces, clamp it in place (wiping up the squeezeout) and leave it for a day or two. Once it's set, get a needle file and clean the excess glue out of the holes, taking care not to get over-enthusiastic and stab a hole in the top.

Is the current bridge still sort of attached or has it come completely off? I've only done one bridge replacement, so I'm hardly an expert, but I can probably provide some tips.

Interesting. I had considered wiring a variable resistor into the series position, so I could adjust the output. I decided that a) I quite liked the "onboard boost" effect, and b) I couldn't be arsed. This is a recurring problem with me and instrument wiring. Generally by the time I get to the wiring stage on one of my instruments, I've put in 40-60 hours of work over several months and I just want the damn thing to play. Finesse tends to go out the window.

I don't think so, no. I've not done any serious electrics stuff in a while, so I can't make sense of either diagram right now (despite drawing one of them myself). I just know that this works and that I wrote it down at some point. One bit of advice I would add is that the sealed plastic rotary switches that most vendors sell aren't very robust. I've had two fail now – not catastrophically, but annoyingly (having to wiggle the switch to get position 4 to engage, that sort of thing). I don't know if you can get heavier duty three pole switches anymore though.

Aha. Found it. I had a copy buried in my photos folder for some reason.

I've done exactly this on a few guitars. I'm not near my computer, but I have diagrams somewhere. I'll have a look in the morning.

It's an interesting subject, I've answered based on my past experience. One thing I'd mention is that the current questions make it hard to explain a position like mine, where I had problems with pain in the past but they've largely cleared up now.

Not sure, probably break even on my costs but I'd be surprised if I got anything more than that. I have no immediate plans to sell though. I had a look online while I was working on this thing – checked out various listings on reverb, ebay, etc. It seems that no-one is really sure how to price these basses at the moment. Some slightly manky ones are on offer for £250-350, while others are listed for as much as £800. The Bass Gallery has one that they recently got in for £550, though it looks to be in very good condition. Almost every listing has a decription that is riddled with bizarre inaccuracies, and there doesn't seem to be any significant difference in pricing between the active, passive and later "Custom" models (with the J-style pickups). Curiously, Hohner's own website says these basses were first made in 1988 but this one has a 1987 serial, and there are a lot of posts online from people who claim to remember seeing/owning/selling them as far back as 1986. I think the rather forgotten nature of these instruments reflects the abrupt cultural shift that happened in the early 1990s. The eighties were, I'd argue, the last period (in the West at least) when "new" and "hi-tech" was generally considered to be automatically better than "old" and "traditional". The headless bass was a classic example of that sort of technological optimism – it was marketed as the improved, more rationally designed and technologically advanced form of the electric bass. The bass of the future! When grunge hit the cultural mainstream, that was all flipped on its head. The most important thing (certainly in music) was the appearance of authenticity, which meant a sort of outsider aesthetic complete with old, second-hand guitars, clothes from charity shops, and so forth. A glossy, hi-tech futuristic bass suddenly looked corporate and lame. As a result, I think these models experienced a calamitous fall from the height of cool to deeply, profoundly uncool in a matter of a few years. I suspect that, despite being really well made instruments, their value on the second-hand market is still – even now – recovering from that initial blow to their reputation.

Some better pictures. Perhaps one day I'll re-do the chemical blacking on the metal hardware. I probably could get the finish a bit shiner and less scuffed looking, but I've been working on this thing for about two months, and there comes a point where you just don't want to sand things anymore. I feel good for having revived this bass and, if I may say so myself, made it probably a bit nicer than it was when it left the factory when I was about 2 years old. I think, all told, this project has cost me something like £250-300, so not a sensible financial decision but still not a huge outlay for a very nice instrument.

I'll have to look into Newtone strings, thanks. I'm glad I booked the day off work today, as I'm just sitting around playing it. I have to admit, I'd not expected it to sound this good. It's also even more comfortable to play now that my hands aren't all cramped up from spending a day sanding and working with a soldering iron.

Interesting. I've just been pondering the question of strings, as the ones that came with this bass are properly knackered. I boiled them in some vinegar, so they don't sound totally dead, but they're worn and don't seem to be particularly consistent in terms of string-to-string and note-to-note volume. The front runners from what I've seen of double-ball-end strings so far are Stadium Elites, because they're a) apparently made in the UK, and b) not £50+ like most other sets.

Oh, more importantly, it's finished! I'll take some better pictures tomorrow when I have some daylight, but here's a decent enough shot of the completed bass. I think it looks rather nice, and it sounds good as well. I've attached a quick bit of noodling, recorded direct into my interface with no tinkering. It's neck position, both pickups on, and bridge position. I've since raised the bridge pickup a little, so it should sound a bit less feeble. Untitled.mp3 Thanks to @Chienmortbb for being willing to part with this project bass, @PaulThePlug for his Hohner/Steinberger knowledge and @Jackroadkill for his 3D printing work. Also, special thanks to the cheap white-and-orange beach towel/workbench cover that stars in many of these pictures. My mum bought from a Leclerc in Brittany during a family holiday about 30 years ago, and it's only recently occurred to me that I have no idea how or when it ended up rolled up in a cupboard in my house.

Mostly wiring and electronics stuff today. I started by sawing the old broken tabs off the front pickup and installing the replacement baseplate suplied by @Jackroadkill. As this isn't going to be a visible part, I didn't bother doing any prep or refinement here other than cutting off a corner to accommodate the cable (which was in a slightly different position to where it was on the baseplate) and using a soldering iron to press some threaded inserts into the plastic. With that done, and the 3D printed surrounds sanded and lacquered, I started putting things together. I don't have any pictures of this, because anyone who has ever wired up a guitar will know that the process is extremely annoying and requires intense concentration. I did it without burning myself, and only had to desolder the whole thing, make a cup of tea, and start again once. Which is good going.

Righty, I'm back from a week's holiday on the Devon coast (lovely) and ready to put the finishing touches on this project. In my time away, the lacquer has had time to fully cure. So the first thing to do was the both tedious and nerve-wracking process of wet-dry sanding the bass to get rid of all the brush marks and runs. This is always a fairly scary process, as you just have to keep sanding (constantly checking things) and trust that you applied the finish thickly enough to be able to smooth out all the imperfections before you go all the way through the clearcoat somwhere. If you blow through it, particularly if its in a very visible spot, you essentially have to just throw up your hands, do a lot of swearing and start the whole process again, which can take a week or two to cure. It's maddening, but I've gotten pretty good now. No issues with this job. Here's what the bass looks like now – I've sanded and polished and polished and polished and polished and polished. I then applied the shielding foil to the control cavity and added the ground wire before attaching the bridge (with thurst bearings fitted now, thanks for @PaulThePlug for the recommendation). I boiled the strings and gave it a rough set-up for intonation and action. No electronics yet. One of the great advantages of headless basses (especially double-ball end ones) is that you can string them up and de-string them over and over again without any problems. I've just spent the last half an hour or so playing it unamplified and it seems pretty damn good. No fret buzzes, and it's really surprisingly loud even with just the wood for resonance. One thing that has thrown me a little is just how chunky the neck is – I'd taken measurements and so I knew in theory that it was a big boy, but I was still a little taken aback when I got it in my hands. It feels more like my dad's 70's EB3 than the jazz and stingray style necks on my custom basses. I'm assuming I'll get used to it in time. Even with the chunky frets, the action could probably go lower than its current position (with the saddles decked on the G and D strings decked) with no fret buzz. Not that it isn't playable now, probably low enough for most players, but I'm picky. I think I can file the bridge saddles down a smidge without problems. Tomorrow I'll prep the 3D printed components from @Jackroadkill and put the electronics together. My plan is to put a basic vol-blend-tone circuit in it for now, and then replace it with something esoteric, filter-based and active down the line if I like the general sound and playability.

That's an interesting thing, good luck. I very nearly bought an SR500 that was in a similar condition and going for about 80 quid, but chickened out at the last minute. I think one of the eras of this bass (I think the mid-to-late 2000s) had a weird matt brown finish that looked like stain, but was actually some sort of extremely thin and fragile lacquer. I think this probably is one of those basses that someone tried to fix. It almost always wore away around where people's hands/picks touched, and as you say, once the protective finish was gone the wood itself wasn't very resilient. The one I was looking at had a 1-cm deep gouge, like a valley leading down to the pickups. Nice basses though, despite all that.

Think this statement doesn't really need any qualifications about effects. Just generally true.