Coming soon; Steinbacker fretless bass

[Big B.]

Man, that's a sexy bass. I don't go for headless basses or for Rics but that bass is hot.

[JIO]

Originally Posted by Stealth

I have the OBP-2 wiring diagram from the 'net side-by-side with the above diagram by line6man, and as far as I can follow they are identical.

The ground symbol is great because it's a simple way to state "connect all these points together and finally join them to the ground (sleeve) lug of the output jack" without having to draw the actual grounding wires themselves and cluttering up the diagram. In all wirings, no matter how simple or complex, the final grounding point is the sleeve lug on the jack.

When grounding things you should know that the pot lugs don't physically contact the pot casing, so they can act as a ground. When grounding things, the bigger the surface you ground to, the better because it'll also collect stray EM noise and send that off to the ground as well, without impacting the sound.

The fact your diagram shows that you should connect the left volume lug to the pot casing is a matter of convenience - the pot casing is large and metallic and thus works well as a grounding surface. Same goes for the blend pot - ground what needs to be grounded by connecting it to the casing of the volume pot, then solder a final ground line from the casing of the volume pot to the output jack's sleeve contact. That'll be the cleanest way to ground all the pots without leaving a tangle of wires inside.

As for the colors, I'm not really sure how the wiring you got with the OBP-2 looks, but according to the online OBP-2 diagram the preamp input is blue, the preamp output is green, the preamp's ground (again, towards the output jack) is black and the preamp's 9V power is red. The output from the volume control towards the bypass switch can be any color you have at hand.

I usually use white wires for signal and black wires for ground, with occasional red/green/blue/brown if there's splitting or similar involved.

Sorry, I didn't mean the line6man diagram of the switch was different, I meant that the wiring diagram for the Aguilar preamp found online is different from my actual wiring on the harness I received. (as I described) The diagram I received w/the harness was the same as the one found on-line. Sorry if this is still confusing.

Otherwise thanks, you have helped a lot. I think I have it all sorted except for where exactly does the (color of choice) wire from the switch that is [output from volume control] go/connect to? The colors from the volume pot are L-black/center-blue/R-white. Since blue is input, I'm guessing it is white. If this assumption is correct, is it to be soldered w/the white wire on that R-pole. Not clear on this.

[Stealth]

In case you had two volumes, you'd use the R-lug of a volume pot as the output that goes towards the switch. That would normally have the consequence of making the pickups independent (so you could turn down the volume of one without affecting the other), but it makes the pickup load (the part of the volume pot facing the pickup, electrically) variable and the tone would get somewhat darker whenever the active pickups weren't at full volume, but at, say, 80%.

Since you have a blend and a volume, the output should be the C-pole of the volume pot, as this doesn't impact the pickups' tone darkness whatsoever and you're turning down the result of the blend pot, anyway.

Your best bet is to just try and see if you like how the pickups sound and behave when you roll down the volume a bit. If you like the slight added darkness to the tone, keep it, otherwise, swap the R- and C- lugs.

[JIO]

bypass switch diagram thanks to sconix!

http://aguilaramp.com/pdf/support_wiring_obp2.pdf

2nd page down

[JIO]

Originally Posted by Big B.

Man, that's a sexy bass. I don't go for headless basses or for Rics but that bass is hot.

Thanks man - I appreciate your interest. I wanted to take 2 very recognizable iconic instruments and in blending them together keep the inherent integrity of each. As I found early on, the Steinberger neck has a similar profile to a Ric neck, but has 24 frets so is longer. (a visual link) Ric's are really pretty, and Steinbergers are very techie, so I made the body very light and classic to play against the stealthy black neck/bridge/tuners. The black binding is another visual binder/link. Steinberger did recognizable guitar-bodies w/their exotic headless necks/etc, so for me it was more of a play on what is visually accepted for those of us who know both of these instruments in their "classic" form. And of course it had to play and sound good too! So in retrospect, there were challenges along the way but the result has been rewarding.

[JIO]

Installed the bypass switch and reassembled. It sounds good both ways, so just more tone-variety to play with. In passive-mode it is a bit less loud/bold/rich sounding, and the T&B controls are not engaged. I have another active/passive bass that operates in this manor, and in some ways it's ok being simple in passive mode. As in; tone is controlled by the pu blend, either favoring the big bucker in the neck position and/or the J in the bridge position. There is probably a way to engage the T&B pots in passive mode, but I really don't have room left in the cavity anyway. I use a MXR bass DI+ which also has a boost and tone controls, and of course the amp tone controls... so no lack of available tone-tweaking.

It feels like it's been a long journey from acquiring the Steinberger neck on eBay which started the ball rolling, to fine-tuning the resulting concept into a very unique and playable instrument. (in the meantime, I even sold my Ric!) I want to thank all the tb'ers who followed this build and offered their knowledge and opinions along the way. This site is such a great resource for like-minded guitar geeks like myself! Again-thanks for following!

I will be picking up where I left off w/my Custom Performer/Supersonic bass project very soon, possible by weeks end when it returns from Pat Wilkins w/a Supersonic Firemist Gold Metallic paint-job! Stay tuned!

[JIO]

As anyone who has followed this build knows exactly what was going on, I would like to open this up to discussion less than a debate. What it is is that I have made two hybrid basses (this Steinbacker and my fretless Teardrop) firstly for my own enjoyment and secondly as a means to showcase my new business Gildaxe, in which I provide custom gilded finishes on instruments. I am slowly listing my prototypes for sale on eBay to get them out there and realistically to recoup some funds I've put from my own pocket to get the biz started. So I listed the this Steinbacker and after less than a week Rickenbacker contacted eBay for;

Infringes registered trademark for shape of body.
It's against the law to sell fake, counterfeit, or pirated products.

... and eBay pulled my auction.

So here's where I stand. Yes, I did use my '86 4003 as a template for the body. I completely understand Rickenbacker wanting to stop fake, counterfeit, or pirated products. Is what I created that? What about the infinitely endless array of Fender P-bass copies that flood the market? And that's the production market, not a totally one-off custom like the Steinbacker. So as much as I am not against Rickenbacker protecting its trademark, I feel homage is more at play here than imitation. I have no intention of mass producing this instrument and have ultimate respect for Rickenbacker as a US company that remains so in the face of outsourcing. Yes, I could have altered it sufficiently to pull it out of an "exact" replica (whatever that would have been), but as I said - I was dedicating this build to two designs I respect and admire. (Ric & Steinberger) I'll continue to explore other avenues to sell this instrument outside of eBay so it's just a hiccup in the grand scheme of things. If you have an opinion I'm open to discussing it, but like I said, I'm not bitter or angry - I'm just wondering where the line in the sand is drawn and if it is reasonable.

At the end of the day I respect original design, being an artist/designer myself, so I won't argue over attempting to steal an original design. But in art as in music, homage is the highest form of compliment - which was my intent. My goal was creating the hybrid successfully and I would feel happy if another creative person was inspired by my build to strike-out on their own to build something unique and special. (just stick with another P-bass copy~)

[HaMMerHeD]

Fender tried too late to defend their designs. By the time they started getting serious about it, it was too late to defend much of anything but their headstock outline with litigation. If they had been more mindful in the past, they would have a defensible position and we wouldn't see the flood of P and J copies. But they waited too long, and their designs became industry standard, so now they can't protect them.

My impression is that Rickenbacker has always been more aggressive, and even though there is no chance a purchaser would mistake your bass with a genuine Rickenbacker, that's not eBay's problem. Their problem is that Rickenbacker made a legal request, so they chose to honor it. If you took Rick to court, you could probably win on the basis of it being very unlikely that a consumer would purchase your bass unaware that it wasn't a genuine Rickenbacker. That's how PRS won against Gibson's suit. But it's a prohibitively expensive fight Rickenbacker's lawyers know you won't pick, so they can get away with that kind of bullying behavior.

In the end, it is easier and cheaper for eBay to simply comply with lawyers than it is to not. So when a conflict arises, they just take the thing down.

[pilotjones]

Just wondering - did you use the words "Rickenbacker" or "4003" in the listing?

[JIO]

Originally Posted by pilotjones

Just wondering - did you use the words "Rickenbacker" or "4003" in the listing?

I did originally, as in "based on..." but someone (an individual) clued me that Rickenbacker had a history of clamping down on people, so I changed all copy removing any name reference. The only name reference I had in the copy was that it had a chrome pick-up surround from a Rickenbacker bass, which is absolutely true. I think instead, it was as the statement reads, "trademark for shape of body". If they police eBay that closely, they would see my bass and see a Rickenbacker shaped body.

HaMMerHeD - well put. For a while there were all the "Fender law-suit" this and that over time, but look at the brand new (retro) La Bella Olinto Bass and it's clear there is very little difference between it and a classic P. And how about a Fenderbird? As far as Ric goes, I respect the intent, but I have no respect for any corporation that uses it's overwhelming legal power to bully (to use your words).

[daveman50]

I don't think this is "bullying" by Ric. A trademark can be lost if it's not protected. You can say this is just Ric being diligent. This is why there aren't Ric copies/derivatives all over the place - and perhaps plays a role in why Ric is the last major manufacturer that has been able to continue manufacturing only high-end products, and only in the USA.

I was actually kinda surprised to see your e-Bay listing and was waiting to see how long it would take for it to be pulled.

BTW, I love your bass - it's very creative.

[JIO]

Originally Posted by daveman50

I don't think this is "bullying" by Ric. A trademark can be lost if it's not protected. You can say this is just Ric being diligent. This is why there aren't Ric copies/derivatives all over the place - and perhaps plays a role in why Ric is the last major manufacturer that has been able to continue manufacturing only high-end products, and only in the USA.

I was actually kinda surprised to see your e-Bay listing and was waiting to see how long it would take for it to be pulled.

BTW, I love your bass - it's very creative.

Thanks daveman 50 - Like I said, I understand their, as you say, being diligent and have no beef with Rickenbacker the product. I support their US made instruments and respect their long history. I'm just trying to understand the legitimacy of their concern in this specific regard. I question their lack of being able to distinguish/separate a legitimate trademark threat from a one-off project bass. I pose no direct financial threat to Rickenbacker making and attempting to sell my bass. I have this one bass, I have no intention of making another, and it may/will be sold for a finite amount. End of story. It bares resemblance to their bass, but I was not attempting to pass it off as a Rickenbacker. It was an intellectually/visually sophisticated exercise of bass design cross-reference. (a blending of classic/vintage and modern high-tech) In my way of seeing it, the bulling comes in related to a big heavy hand over a considered nuanced response. Squash the bug w/o considering if it was in fact harmless. This is the aspect that I question.

[daveman50]

Not to get into a heavy legal discussion, but... the problem is that the trademark functions as an indicator of source. If someone other than the owner uses the mark, that function is diluted, and at some point the mark can be deemed abandoned. So the legal "drill" for trademark protection is that any unauthorized use of the mark (in this case, the shape/design) should be challenged. It's not practical to have to make judgment calls as to the unauthorized user's intentions, etc. It can seem heavy-handed for sure, but that's how the lawyers look at it.

(Note that Ric wouldn't necessarily have to prove in court that a buyer actually thought that Ric had made the bass; it's more complicated than that.)

[dmusic148]

Bummer. I would have warned you if I'd known you'd intended to sell it. I'm sure you could move it, quietly, on TB classifieds.

[JIO]

Originally Posted by daveman50

Not to get into a heavy legal discussion, but... the problem is that the trademark functions as an indicator of source. If someone other than the owner uses the mark, that function is diluted, and at some point the mark can be deemed abandoned. So the legal "drill" for trademark protection is that any unauthorized use of the mark (in this case, the shape/design) should be challenged. It's not practical to have to make judgment calls as to the unauthorized user's intentions, etc. It can seem heavy-handed for sure, but that's how the lawyers look at it.

(Note that Ric wouldn't necessarily have to prove in court that a buyer actually thought that Ric had made the bass; it's more complicated than that.)

Got you - thanks for the legalese of which I am relatively ignorant of.

[JIO]

Originally Posted by dmusic148

Bummer. I would have warned you if I'd known you'd intended to sell it. I'm sure you could move it, quietly, on TB classifieds.

my next focus... thanks - I just want to make sure selling it on tb is kosher.

[JIO]

Just now getting familiar w/a new photo-downloading service as photobucket upgraded its site and I no longer have access due to having an older Mac G4. (thanks photobucket )

So here's a few final pics to wrap-up this project build. Enjoy!

[SallyGrowler]

brilliant!

[BarkerBass]

looks amazing and shame about the ebay thing (I'd have been watching that bidding process with a green eye) but man that action looks high

[JIO]

Originally Posted by BarkerBass

looks amazing and shame about the ebay thing (I'd have been watching that bidding process with a green eye) but man that action looks high

Yes, very observant - the action is a bit high in the pics. The pics were taken a week of so ago. In the meantime I replaced the bridge/tuner platform with a narrower one to further dial it in. It's lower/more in line now. Also shown in the pics is the single-ball string adaptor. With all my final adjustments, I was able to install and 3-point intone double-ball strings (La Bella flats), which it is now strung with. The adaptor is now an option rather than a fix. Such is the tweaking of a new instrument. I'm going through the appropriate channels to offer it through tb, and hope to have it posted soon on the tb classified section. For now I'm very much enjoying playing it!