| Author |
Message |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 370
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |  |
All I have to say is - dealing with wood and dealing with graphite are two TOTALLY different arenas.
Why aren't we inundated with graphite instrument manufacturers? Answer - it's so damn difficult to work with AND to get it right!
I am no engineer. But I have to ask this.
Helicopter blades travel in a circular motion. Yes, they have length and yes, they have pitch (is that the correct word?). Any strung instrument has tension throughout the length (or most of the length) of the body - I don't see too many helicopter blades that are anchored at both ends of the blade by a piece of wire with an awful lot of tension in it. Surely we are talking about two completely different applications of graphite here and there is virtually no comparison? |
j_gary
Intermediate Member
Username: j_gary
Post Number: 122
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:45 pm: | |
Hey Ed, I say go ahead and build one. Other than my Alembics, half the basses I own appear manufactured by drunken pygmies, while sliding down a mountainside in an old Buick. Some of these big name companies don't appear to have a clue how to build an instrument. Doggone helicopter blade probably sounds better than some of them. |
beelee
Intermediate Member
Username: beelee
Post Number: 116
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:51 pm: | |
W must have had some communication with JAE 's estate about the Buzzard, some kind of deal must have been made ( you know the saying money talks.....)
another quote from Rob Green prior to Status Buzzard production being stopped " John Entwistle's family gave me permission to keep producing the Status Graphite Buzzard as a tribute to JAE after his passing"
The SG BB was the last instrument John ever played, It was John's own design...... why stop Status Graphite from making them ? they are such a small company, how could that compete with W.....K ? and how many Buzzards would either company sell, its not like its a extremely popular bass anyway.
It just makes no sense to me........
(Message edited by beelee on October 21, 2005) |
811952
Senior Member
Username: 811952
Post Number: 539
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:51 pm: | |
What a discussion. Unfortunately we will probably never know the full story, even if somebody gets to talk to all parties involved. I do want to add this, though, in reference to the wood vs. graphite discussion. If I'm not mistaken, wood is strongest in compression, whereas graphite has the greater strength in tension. Wood building techniques don't work on graphite, and to a lesser degree vice versa. I have seen many everyday folk do amazing things with both. Graphite takes more time to work with, is considerably messier, requires toxic epoxy resins, is considerably more expensive as a raw material and to do the bass thing probably requires an expensive autoclave to get a good cure. Most of the people I have seen do marvelous work with graphite have been building airplanes and race cars and probably wouldn't have enough hearing left to tell the difference between an Alembic and a bucket even if they were interested in building basses. I say that if any of you have the time and resources, then you'll probably be able to pop out a lovely and mechanically sound bass of whatever design you choose, especially if you intentionally overbuild it a wee bit. I do think $5K is not too far out of the ballpark if you've got the time to experiment and have good sourcing for the tools and materials. If you work in a race car shop, then I bet you could run a far less lucrative graphite bass business on the side without much difficulty. And as Ed stated, John and Rob likely have already done the hardest part.
Flame away! ;)
John |
ed_r
New
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 10
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:21 pm: | |
I think the Autoclave would be the most expensive part, yeah;)
Graphite is not much different than working with fiberglass, honest. It's epoxy resin in both cases, and it's fiberglass cloth with a weave of some kind as a basic surface. THe carbon-fiber weave isn't any more or less difficult to work with, it's just more expensive. Well, ok, getting all the air bubbles out of the weave can be really tricky, but if you are going to go with an opaque finish that's not a problem- the gelcoat takes care of that. But if you're going to make a graphite instrument, showing the weave's the ONLY way to go;)
You certainly don't work with wood the way you do with graphite.
You guys really ought to try playing around with manufacturing processes some time. It's a lot of fun, you will definitely learn something and you POSITIVELY gain a STRONG respect for the people who do it for a living and begin to understand the true value of the products they are making.
To answer roger's question, the dynamics of a guitar vs a heli disk are way different but the technology and construction for the necks and blades are similar, and the actual movement of the blades and necks are also similar- the blades flex from the center hub, in a bow, just like a neck does, except the neck doesn't get that subjected to it in a fraction of a second and then have 100 percent the opposite force applied in teh next fraction of a second.
Ned Steinberger discovered in the mid '70s that a stiff, unmovable neck made from epoxy resins will be acoustically efficient - and sound like crap. It took him a while to understand that the neck of a guitar actually NEEDS to move a bit or the higher frequencies bouncing around will create resonant pockets, ugly-sounding high frequency accents and some downright frightfully harsh tones. So he softened the mix a tiny bit, and by allowing the necks to bend slightly they sounded a lot more organic. This isn't to say that the necks on his guitars moved with weather changes, though- they were solid as a rock in that regard.
It's the same with a heli blade. You need a certain amount of flex or the first tiome you do a fast roll at a moderate speed your blades will snap in half. You don't want TOO much flex as that induces latency in control surface response and makes the heli controls feel spongfy and inaccurate. But you need SOME tiny give to it.
In this regard, guitar necks and heli blades are the same. Rick Turner ( that name ought to ring a bell or two here ) uses graphite-reinforced necks on his current line of instruments b3ecause they stiffen the neck up beyond what a normal wood neck can live with, but they still produce amazingly organic, woody, wonderful full sounding tones. It's all in the balance.
Of course, I'm not about to go into the John Entwistle Replica Buzzard business. I'm just saying it's doable with the right approach. |
zn_bassman
Junior
Username: zn_bassman
Post Number: 30
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:54 am: | |
Here's what might be the authoritative version of the Buzzard's history: http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/equipment/bass/equip-entwistlegear-86-02.html
Excerpts:
'The original Buzzard was designed by John and Warwick in 1985, with prototypes and the first models in wood. John then contacted Modulus Graphite, which made two graphite Buzzards. Modulus then manufactured six graphite necks for Warwick for use in John’s Warwick-made basses.'
From December 1996 Total Guitar interview
[Regarding the June 1996 Hyde Park Quadrophenia performance] You were playing your Buzzard bass…
“Yeah, it’s a Status Buzzard and I had the two prototypes with me on that gig. It’s completely graphite, a one-piece mould. But the second one caved in on me. They are, or were, absolutely identical in every way; they feel and sound the same, so I had to put a different colour hip shot on each of them so I could tell the difference. It has the same electronics as a normal Buzzard, but they are currently desiging a proper circuit board for it. When they have finished that they are going to repalce the ones in mine. I wanted them to adjust the sweep parametric mid-range EQ on the bass, so that it sounded like a wah when I turned the knob, and it took them a while to get that right.”
And here's Warwick's version:
http://www.warwickbass.com/news/37.htm
The Ox and The Buzzard: The Early History
By Dale Titus
With the sad and unexpected passing of John Entwistle this summer there has been an understandable interest surrounding the origin of the Buzzard, the bass he has played since 1985. The genesis of the Buzzard has, over time, devolved into somewhat vague or contradictory accounts. To clear the record and get the real story, I sought out the help of Hans Peter Wilfer and Geoff Gould, two gentlemen who were sequentially involved with John Entwistle during the creation of his first Buzzard basses.
Hans Peter Wilfer, the founder of Warwick basses, was approached by John Entwistle to create a special bass for him in 1985. John had some very unique ideas as to how the bass should look and play, so he sat down with Hans Peter and the two of them sketched out the design that the world knows today. Hans Peter came up with the idea of the distinctive "hand grip" on the lower horn, the stylized headstock and many other design specifics that make the Buzzard such a wonderfully unique bass. Then, after the basic body shape was agreed upon, Hans Peter and John sat in a London nightclub called Maggie's and decided to name the bass the Buzzard. In all honesty, Hans Peter says that many drinks were consumed that night and he cannot remember exactly who thought of the name the Buzzard, but he thinks it was John's idea. In the days that followed, Hans Peter then made a few prototypes for John to play and critique, and the design was further polished. The photo shown below is of one of those early prototypes, which shows an early headstock design. It was after the duo decided on the name Buzzard, that the headstock was changed to more closely resemble the beak of said bird.
After playing the Warwick-made Buzzard for a while, John became curious about the various benefits of graphite necks. He contacted his friend Geoff Gould, who was the President and founder of Modulus Graphite. John had known Geoff for quite some time and the two had worked together before, so he asked Geoff to make him some Buzzard basses with graphite necks, which he did. "What John was looking for was a combination of factors", Geoff told me via email. "He liked the fact that the neck was relatively impervious to weather changes, since he liked to play with the strings so close to the frets, they were almost laying on top of them. This was quite difficult with a wood neck because it would necessitate constant truss rod adjustments. He also liked the sonic characteristics of the neck because his dynamic playing style, from the soft, deft touches to the thunderous hammering." Modulus Graphite made at least two Buzzard basses for John, which he paid full retail for as a way to support Modulus. It was later that Modulus provided Warwick with six bass necks for them to use in the production of John's personal Buzzard basses.
So, in regards to the first Buzzard basses that were made for John Entwistle, Hans Peter designed the body to John's taste, and the original Buzzard took flight. Geoff and Modulus Graphite made the next few Buzzards for John, and later provided Warwick with graphite necks for John's personal Buzzards. Warwick has built many Buzzard for the world market since the Buzzard's development in 1986. Hans Peter indicates that Warwick will introduce the latest incarnation of his Buzzard in 2003. In more recent years John's personal Buzzards have been made for him by Status, a UK-based graphite composite instrument builder. The fact that at least three different builders have made a Buzzard is probably what has led to some of the misconceptions about its beginnings. |
beelee
Intermediate Member
Username: beelee
Post Number: 118
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:08 am: | |
Thanks for posting all the buzzard info ZN, I've seen all this before in all my Buzzard searches after finding out from Rob Green that he is no longer allowed to make the bass.
In the end it still was John Entwistle's original idea and design not Warwick's, Modulus' or Status Graphite's and John coud afford to have any bass in the world he wanted and the last bass he played was a Buzzard made by Status Graphite. He obviously chose what he thought was the higher quality instrument out of the 3 manufacturers.
in the end the small company and the public lose.
(Message edited by beelee on October 23, 2005) |
ed_r
Junior
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:19 am: | |
Not neccesarily the 'higher quality', but the instrument that fit his stated needs best. Nothing wrogn with the Warwick Buzzards to my mind except maybe the weight. The one on the cover of Bass Culture sure looks sweet. I play with a higher action than John did so neck movement isn't as big a deal with me. |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 371
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:14 am: | |
I can safely say that comparing the quality of my Status Graphite instruments with the (admittedly limited) exposure I've had to Warwick instruments - I wouldn't be spending my £ with Warwick, put it like that! Well, in fact, I didn't did I!!!!! |
zn_bassman
Junior
Username: zn_bassman
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:18 am: | |
Status did with the Buzzard what the others couldn't. They made it a light and strong 1-piece graphite instrument and added what are arguably the most versatile electronics in the world (let's not forget that we're on the Alembic site ;-) ). All one needs to do is listen to John's live performances in '96 (highly processed bassy sound), '97 (less processed trebly sound), and at the Concert for New York (less processed bassy sound) for proof of that versatility. Completely different tones coming out of the same instrument, even taking into consideration the changes in his rig and amount of processing. We have his solo album from '86 (The Rock) and live performances in '89 to compare with - although those had great bass tones, they aren't in the same class as the later (Status) ones.
Quality is a tricky issue, but the ultimate proof is in the sound and playability. The Ox roared his approval of the Status Buzzard for 10 years. That was far longer than he ever stayed with any other instrument. And he took his utterly unique playing style to its highest (perhaps unsurpassable) peak with that very same bass as he approached age 60. Old red wine indeed...
It would seem that this whole exercise is just to satisfy the greed of the lawyers, estate executors, and of course W*rw*ck. I wonder if the family either has no real say or was never involved enough to know the dynamics. |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 373
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:25 am: | |
Mica, Susan and I suspect a good few others aren't going to like this comment.
But the electronics in my SG Buzzard (and my headless Stealth for that matter) completely blow away the Signature electronics in my Dragon's Wing. That can't even get close. Sorry folks, but it's a fact! |
senmen
Senior Member
Username: senmen
Post Number: 496
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:26 pm: | |
Guys,
what shall I say? I am really ashamed by this all.
As for the W. Buzzard: I owned one, a black LE with serial number 3 and I sold it. It had a neck like a hockey stick and there was no chance to have the action as low as I need it.
I have to say that I run the same low action as John did and if you play wooden basses and even with a more than low action you have to live with permanent adjustments. That was also the main reason why John turned to the graphites.
Problem now is that the prices of the remaining Status Buzzard 1s will go up.
As for me I love the design of the Spyders really much and I play both my Spyder 4 and 8 with my WHO tribute. Soon there will be the Dragon Wing "Tears for John" also played live as well as another bass that it currently in the make for me, but no Alembic but classy JE.
Oliver (Spyderman) |
ed_r
Junior
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 23
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 2:03 pm: | |
I think he stuck with Alembics for more than ten years too.
I love a Steinberger bass, and I know I'd love a Status Buzzard. Hopefully Rob will come up with something siomilar , or already haas.
I seriously don't need my Status Graphite to be a Buzzard, if I want extremely low action and entirely stable neck, body shape isn't going to have all that much effect! I would definitely NOT rule out Status as a bass maker just because they aren't allowed to make a Buzzard any more for whatever reason ( I suspect the state and/or its attorneys more than anyone at Warwick ) . |
beelee
Intermediate Member
Username: beelee
Post Number: 119
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:55 pm: | |
Boy did I start an interesting thread !! ( for lack of a better description) LOL
Yeah I'd love to get a Status Graphite Buzzard bass, and its really a CRIME as to what has happened.
I was planning to get a custom one made, graphite color, front and side LED's, 5 or 8 string maybe even having a tremolo unit put on it.
Would I rule out Status Graphite as a bass maker just cause they can't make the Buzzard anymore NOT A CHANCE, that would be pretty foolish now wouldn't it ?
I'm not really into or have anything against headless basses but their Kingbass Artist looks really nice and I'm also interested in having a custom one made, as I previously said about speaking with Rob Green about both before the Buzzard incident occured.
I was attracted to both the Buzzard and Kingbass not just because of who used/designed them, but because I like unique and one of a kind looking instruments and always have.
All the basses I've owned & still do were chose for the way they look and I liked the way the played and sounded as I learned more and my tastes changed so did the basses I played.
I prefer wood over graphite ( buckeye burl, cocobolo etc look sooo nice !!) but I haven't ruled out playing a bass made of graphite/ graphite neck. I recently found a Modulus Prototype 7 string fretless bass that sounds/plays awesome.
I just feel its so wrong for Status Graphite not to be able to make the Buzzard anymore, If John Entwistle was still around this wouldn't have happened, and if it wasn't for him there would be no Buzzard at all.
Like I said before the small company and the public lose.
nothing personal against "W" or whomever was responsable for this happening....its just not right.
If whoever was responsable for this really thought things out they should have let Status Graphite, Modulus and "W" continue to make the Buzzard bass and everyone would make out good on the deal.
Bruce
(Message edited by beelee on October 23, 2005) |
ed_r
Junior
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:34 pm: | |
I want me a Stealth headed 4-string. Yep. |
zn_bassman
Junior
Username: zn_bassman
Post Number: 32
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:38 pm: | |
John used Alembics exclusively onstage from the second half of 1975 until Live Aid. He used his Fenderbirds for his 1975 solo album 'The Ox - Mad Dog' and tour, and on the '75 Who album 'Who By Numbers' he apparently didn't use the Alembic at all ('Success Story' is reported to have been recorded with a Rick prototype 8-string). He started with the Series 1 and then had his Spyders built from 1976. He used various basses in the studio until 1981 (most of 1978's 'Who Are You' was recorded with non-Alembics), when he switched to Alembics-only in the studio as well. It's quite likely that he wasn't 'allowed' to use the Alembics on Pete Townshend's songs on the albums until they went for a new sound after Moonie's death following Who Are You. The studio albums on which he played only his Spyders are The Who's Face Dances and It's Hard and his solo album Too Late the Hero. His subsequent recordings were all with the Buzzards (Warwicks for his '86 solo album The Rock and the live Who album Join Together from '89, and Status for the Who and John Entwistle Band material from then on).
Anybody who wants to buy a Status Buzzard (the only Buzzard with the midrange frequency sweep) can still buy the wooden-body version, now being called the B2. This model was built for John by Rob Green as a birthday present, and I don't think it was ever used commercially. I think there's footage of John rehearsing with it with the John Entwistle Band in the tribute/eulogy footage on the John Entwistle Band - Live DVD. It costs significantly less than the all-graphite Buzzard 1, the body shape isn't as radical, and it has the blended tone of wood and the graphite neck. The elecs and neck are exactly the same as the B1. I want one myself, and the moment I get rich and famous (or at least rich), I plan to buy one. ;-) |
kmh364
Senior Member
Username: kmh364
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:36 am: | |
Bruce:
Wow! You really started some sh*t with this thread, didn't you, LOL!
Zvi:
Personally, while I'm not a huge Buzzard fan, it does look cool! I do prefer the Alembic aesthetic (i.e., the dragon wing), but the Buzzard does have a unique look...as unique as it's creator, LOL! While I'm sure the B-2 is a more versatile in that it's partially wooden and less radically-styled than it predecessor, I'm just not bowled over by the look. Just my $0.02.
Rog:
Just for Sh*ts and Giggles, what makes the Status electronics superior to the Signature Alembic electronics? As I have no experience with either, I'm just interested in your take on both of 'em
Ed:
I'm with you, although I probably wouldn't buy a Warwick per se as I just don't particularly care for them. I do prefer wooden-necked/bodied instruments because of the feel and tone. I don't play with my action low enough to justify the loss of "woodiness" you tend to get from non-wooden necks in order to gain stability. I'm also not a Pro player, nor is my skill level anywhere near the same galaxy as JAE's. Just my $0.02 again.
Cheers,
Kevin |
borisspyder
Junior
Username: borisspyder
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:22 am: | |
I have both a B-2 and a B-1 and they both sound great. I used to own the #3 W buzzard Oliver sold. He was the 3rd owner. Nuff said about how happy we are with that instrument. My only Alembic experience was with a Distillate about a decade ago & I just couldn't get the neck to stop moving. Great instrument, totally impractical for me. The Buzzards have no truss rods (not even the B-2 it's an early model) I just pick them up & play them. They sound & play beautifully. Though I would like to get a 4 string Spyder made to original specs...but it won't happen soon. About $33K according to Mica, twice the cost of BOTH of my Buzzards combined. |
kmh364
Senior Member
Username: kmh364
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:02 am: | |
Good points all, Irwin. |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 374
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:20 am: | |
There's a truss rod in my SG Buzzard. Not that it gets much use. A quarter of a turn in the spring and a quarter of a turn the other way in the autumn.
Kevin (and any one else who's interested) - electronics. I writing this at work so I don't have the spec sheets to hand, so some of this is from memory.
Alembic's Signature electronics work like analog subtractive synthesis to my mind. That is (Q switches aside) - there is no way to ADD to a sound. So, if I want to add (for example) a little more bass to a given sound, there is no way of adding that bass. All the Q switch does is add a peak at the attack portion of the note, a little like the Resonance on a synthesizer.
The Status electronics allow you add to the sound (as well as subtract). I think the bass is +/- 12dB and the treble +/- 14dB. In addition, there is the parametric control which, on the Buzzard anyway, is switchable between off and +5dB and allows a sweep from 300Hz to 10kHz.
The range of sounds is so great, I can actually play either the Buzzard or the Stealth without the graphic equaliser on my set-up and they still sound pretty good. Everything else I own sounds pretty awful without the graphic.
The Alembic Signature electronics are flexible, don't get me wrong there. They're just not as flexible as the Status ones.
I hope this goes some way to giving an idea of how the Status electronics work - I've never been much good at explaining things in detail!
Cheers,
Rog |
adriaan
Senior Member
Username: adriaan
Post Number: 636
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:33 am: | |
Rog,
When you say "everything else sounds pretty awful without the graphic" - well, what kind of graphic EQ in what kind of rig are you talking about? Call me prejudiced, but if you need a graphic EQ to get an acceptable sound then you're probably compensating for the rig's inherent sound. To be a little blunt: you might be better off with a different rig. |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 375
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:35 am: | |
I told you I was hopeless at explaining things!
What I should have said was - without the graphic, everything else sounds pretty awful when compared to the Status instruments.
It's a Trace Elliot AH250 with a TE 4x10" and 1x15". |
adriaan
Senior Member
Username: adriaan
Post Number: 637
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:54 am: | |
I was afraid you were going to mention Trace Elliot - that's the inherent sound I was thinking about. The Status electronics allow you to compensate for that inherent sound in ways that the Alembic electronics just can't do, but I'm pretty sure if you take a rig that has a more neutral base sound then the Status will still be very flexible, and you can start using the Alembic without excessive EQing. My tuppence worth ... |
the_mule
Senior Member
Username: the_mule
Post Number: 560
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 9:49 am: | |
"...but I'm pretty sure if you take a rig that has a more neutral base sound then the Status will still be very flexible, and you can start using the Alembic without excessive EQing."
I agree, I never use the EQ on my Glockenklang (it can be switched on/off) and the EVH sounds fabulous. The same amp is used by many double bass players. Glockenklang is famous for its pure/natural/neutral sound.
Wilfred |
kmh364
Senior Member
Username: kmh364
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:48 am: | |
I'm only familiar with the EMW set-up I have on my Orion IV as I've not experienced other Alembic electronics. I do believe I have treble and bass boost as well as cut (on the order of +/- 12dB or 16dB...something like that). I also have a "Q" and filter knob, as well as a p/u "blend". I rarely use the eq on my Eden head...it stays flat and I play with the gains and the "sweet" knob. The rest is done on the bass. I guess it depends on the type of electronics you have. I can't speak for other axes, but my particular bass was intended to be a "Swiss Army Knife"-type bass, and it is. Unfortunately, with that kind of versatility, and no control knob detents other than flat (tones) and middle (blend), it makes it very difficult to attain repeatability of settings. Sometimes, a vol and "tone" is enough, LOL!
Cheers,
Kevin |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 376
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:56 am: | |
This discussion just goes to prove that there is no right or wrong way of doing things and we all have our own ways of achieving what we want to achieve (or try and achieve). |
kmh364
Senior Member
Username: kmh364
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 11:10 am: | |
Absotively! What's cool is that everyone is friendly, and everyone gets to see what everyone else has, knows and is in to. That way, we all get info we wouldn't otherwise be privy too, and then you can do with it what you will and make-up your own mind about whatever it is.
Vive L'ALembic! |
ed_r
Junior
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 11:30 am: | |
Oh YEAH?! Well yer all just a buncha.. oh, wait, sorry, wrong forum.
;) |
adriaan
Senior Member
Username: adriaan
Post Number: 638
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:31 am: | |
In case you didn't already know how to spot a Dutchman, it's me - duh.
Rog, if you need to EQ the hell out of your rig - whatever make it is, and whether it's the built-in EQ or the tone controls on your bass - then your rig is the limiting factor in what you can achieve sound-wise. |
borisspyder
Junior
Username: borisspyder
Post Number: 15
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:45 am: | |
Living & gigging in NYC I often have to use a house backline or use far less in terms of cabinets & amps than I would like. Therefore, I try & do all of my processing in front of the amp. I find that for most situations the Sans Amp D1 bass driver covers it. I set the amp as neutral as I can and amp model pretty much anything I want with the Sans Amp. I am pretty envious of you guys that can regularly run multiple cabinets though. |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 377
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:54 am: | |
I don't use the EQ on the Trace Elliot, I have a 31 band rack mounted EQ I use instead.
I use it to add a little bottom end, remove some of the middle and add a little top end. It's a pretty flat curve really. It's set-up to optimise the sound of the Dragon's Wing, but playing the Status basses (they have to share the same channel as the DW) has made me aware of the fact that sometimes I might want to add a little more bottom or a little more top, and the Signature electronics don't allow that. Just the same way that analog synthesizers and passive basses don't allow you to add things to the sound path either, by and large.
I just find the Status electronics more flexible. I'm not saying I don't like the Signature electronics, I'm saying that sometimes I'd like a little more from them. |
adriaan
Senior Member
Username: adriaan
Post Number: 645
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:41 am: | |
So you like the smiley EQ? Well, what do you expect from a Trace Elliot - it's loud, it's punchy and it cuts through very well, but you need that EQ to blow a little life into it. Ever tried an SWR rig with the same basses? |
rogertvr
Advanced Member
Username: rogertvr
Post Number: 378
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:58 am: | |
Nope. |
jacko
Advanced Member
Username: jacko
Post Number: 384
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:09 am: | |
Here's an interesting little TE anecdote. I usually use a Trace 4x10 combo and 1x15 extension cabinet. During gigs and rehearsals, the rest of the band are always complaining that it's too loud! A couple of weeks ago, I put it into a workshop to have a hum looked into and borrowed MMike Pisaneks rig for a rehearsal. It's an F1-X into a QSC PLX2402 into two Eden 2X10s. Amazingly, I was able to play alot louder than I ever have before and the only comments were favourable, along the lines of "what a fantastic sound, when are you getting one". Seems the TE sound just doesn't suit. Anyway, I'm changing over to eden and markbass now (mainly because the trace is getting old and tired).
Graeme |
ed_r
Junior
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:03 am: | |
At home I run things very cheap and simple- A Berngher X6000 or whatever mode it is- a 60 watt amp witha 12-inch speaker. I run it flat, no 'shaping' or 'ultrabass' or octave' stuff, and it sounds just fine for the living room- it go boom real good. For gigs I don't go overboard either- a GK rb400 head and a 2X10 Ampeg cab and a GenzBenz 1X15 if I need it. Been thinking of turning the head and 2X10 into teh $750 combo but I've already got it so why bother? I also have a 1970 V4 but rarely use it. I fire it up every now and again to keep the plates in the ( stock and original ) bottles viable. It gets a tiny workout once a month. But what else do I need? |
zn_bassman
Junior
Username: zn_bassman
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:02 am: | |
Looks: to each his/her own. Personally, my priority list is sound, playability, reliability, and looks - in that order. The Buzzards do look pretty funky, but even the greatest bass players need a little extra noticibility onstage. ;-)
Sound: One of the reasons I got a Rogue is the bass and treble boosts. The bass boost rounds out the bottom end and helps push through the wall of guitar and drum sounds, and the treble boost adds growl and a lot of the tasty Alembic wood "personality". At least one club member has upgraded his SC Sig with these boost switches, which probably makes for a great sound pallette. I found John's Buzzard sounds to be a bit "sterile" for my taste (the same holds for other graphite players like Michael Manring), so when forced to choose my upgrade from my 11 year-old Epic, I went for the Rogue. I hope to get a B2 at some point, knowing full well that its wood/graphite construction will probably sound less "sterile" than the all-graphite B1. |
ox_junior
Advanced Member
Username: ox_junior
Post Number: 293
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 4:42 pm: | |
Graeme,
I'm having the same issue with my TEs right now in rehearsing for our Quadrophenia production (www.thewhoshow.com/quad1.html). I'm using 4x10 and 1x15 in rehearsal. My output volume is on "1". The band, cast, and crew are all after me to turn it down. How can I go down from 1? Also, no matter how much I tweak the smiley EQ, at that volume I can't get anything over the 12th fret on the G string to sound like anything more than a dull 'dink'. I think I'll start from scratch on dialing the EQ section to better suit the room and go from there. But...I'm a creature of habit and not yet willing to dump my TEs!!!
More on-topic - I've never owned a graphite bass, so I don't have a common frame of reference. They certainly do seem convenient. And light! I think my body is starting to resemble that of a caveman after playing my Spyder for longer than an hour a day. However - I still prefer Entwistle's Alembic/Stramp/Sunn sound over his Buzzard/Ashdown/processor sound. It's just a matter of preference, don't you know?
Irwin - don't be jealous of us lugging our cabinets around town. They're friggin heavy!
(Message edited by ox_junior on October 26, 2005) |
borisspyder
Junior
Username: borisspyder
Post Number: 19
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:15 pm: | |
Mike,
I just want the opportunity to be abusively loud...like you!
Anyway for your Quad problem why don't you try an amp modeler like the Sans Amp, run direct to the board from the Sans Amp with the sound you want & use your amp as a monitor for you only. Or try the Ashdown MAG 300 with the DI built into it. $299 bucks and it really kicks. |
88persuader
Intermediate Member
Username: 88persuader
Post Number: 167
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:03 pm: | |
I run an Ampeg SVT ProV through an Ampeg 4X10 bottom for my Alembic, Modulus and all other basses and it kicks! I've never played a FULL graphite bass however my Modulus has a full graphite neck. It's fretless so it has it's own sound regardless of materials but i have to say it has a mean rich low end presence through the Ampeg. And the guys in my band thinks it sounds great BUT the sound man hates it because I push so much low end off the stage he can't mix me and I sound muddy 10 feet past the amp. I'm actually considering going with NO amp and using in ear monitors to hear myself. (Has anyone here tried this?) And of course the other guys on stage will need to have me in their ear monitors as well. It get's OLD very quickly being told I'm too loud all the time. And it's NOT too loud on stage, it's just too loud to mix properly through the front end in the small to med. rooms I play. |
zn_bassman
Junior
Username: zn_bassman
Post Number: 35
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 12:00 am: | |
1 more comment about the design of the Buzzards for those who might not know: John had the B1 designed to make it easy for him to use his "tapping" technique (where he struck the strings with his right-hand fingers in a typewriter-like manner, usually on frets on the high part of the neck - this gives harmonic overtones and creates a universe of possibilities for percussive dead notes, 1- or 2-handed hammerons/pulloffs and chords, and astonishing speed). Hence the big "wing" armrest on the B1 and the corresponding lopsided upper part of the B2's body. He said he developed that technique when he was playing Fender Ps (mid-late '60s), and he used it fairly often on his Alembics (the Spyders, of course, also have an armrest). He didn't fully break out with it until his Buzzard era - in particular, from '96 on, when he was using the Status models. The Status Buzzard's neck specs were apparently also specifically designed to optimize for this technique. |
ox_junior
Advanced Member
Username: ox_junior
Post Number: 294
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:12 pm: | |
Irwin,
The problem is the set designers and the director do not want amps of any kind on stage...they say "it's too loud for the actors"...I may end up losing the battle with them on that. So yeah, I might end up with my pre-amp and my distortion box (although it won't be "my" sound without my TEs), and my sound only coming through the wedges, sidefills, and FOH.
It just ain't THE WHO without a wall of amps behind you!
88 - funny how I have the OPPOSITE problem as you. My amps, at low volume, sound dinky up close, but you get 10 feet out and they sound great! |
ed_r
Junior
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 48
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hey, Mike, you know rockstarguitars.com has most of Entwistle's late '70s rig for sale, including the rackmount stramps, the SUnn cabs, and a few other fun items. No idea how much they want for them but it's the real deal! You and Oliver can have fun with those;) |
ox_junior
Advanced Member
Username: ox_junior
Post Number: 295
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:08 pm: | |
Ed,
Yeah, I've seen it. And yeah, I want it. But...no place to put it, and I'm told that there is no guarantee the gear is in working condition (it was out in John's garage, basically. Open to the elements for 20 years).
Well, maybe I can get a couple of the Sunn cabs...  |
senmen
Senior Member
Username: senmen
Post Number: 498
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:36 pm: | |
MIke,
plse send me a mail (senmen@web.de)
I have something for you...
Oliver (Spyderman) |
locutusofborg10
Member
Username: locutusofborg10
Post Number: 77
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:12 pm: | |
although ther are no more status buzzards being produced in graphite, thank god that Alembic will come up with something similiar and probably a lot better |
senmen
Senior Member
Username: senmen
Post Number: 501
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 11:42 am: | |
Guys,
and to make things more confusing:
after our first gig on November 12th I will change my rig completely to Johns last setup and the "modern" sound but combined with the Alembics....
Oliver (Spyderman) |
ed_r
Member
Username: ed_r
Post Number: 52
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 12:48 pm: | |
Oliver- I think you'll find the Ashdown/Alembic mix to be wonderfully warm, organic, and dynamic, without being too harsh. You'll probably have to dial down some top end but that's about it. I wanna hear it! |
jacko
Advanced Member
Username: jacko
Post Number: 392
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 3:45 am: | |
Oliver.
I had a gig last night in Edinburgh where the house Bass amp is an ashdown ABM300 with a 4x10. I've played there a few times and have never got an onstage sound I've been happy with - the stage is very small and I'm right on top of the amp. However, Ian Petch - another of our scottish brethren was there and said the offstage sound was excellent and he'd be more than happy with that amp setup - For comparison, he has the last pre-gibson Trace elliot 4x10 combo. Interestingly, He said he couldn't really tell the difference between my fretless rogue and my fretted epic ;-(
Graeme |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page