• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Club Alleva Coppolo (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#861
Mothra2 said:
...I recently had a Sadowsky in the house to audtion and with the same strings on it and my 83 Jazz 62 reissue, the tension on the Jazz was MUCH moreso then on the Sadowsky. Chalked it up to a higher setup on the Fender, but ... more than subtle, almost night and day.
Click to expand...

FWIW (various observations while I await my AC on order) A bit off topic, but a while ago I posted the above apparent string tension disparity. Got to the bottom of it.

I changed my setup on the Jazz to have more neck relief, then lowered the saddles. This resulted in no net action height change (but did remove some neck buzzing) but it also lowered the tension just in front of the bridge pickup. It seems the steeper the string slope on the backside of the bridge, the further the string tension carries out toward (and slightly beyond) the bridge pickup from the saddles b4 things start to loosen up a bit.
I use Rotosounds and they have much less give than HiBeams for example, and with these strings anyway, the difference was quite apparent.
 
#864
Hey guys! I had a blast on my first gig with the RA5. Big, boomy room, hollow-wooden stage (the typical hell I go through at many of the gigs I play), but it sounded GREAT with the very tight Berg AE410/F1 rig. I played the entire evening with everything set virtually flat, except for the slight upper mid cut (probably 3db down at 800hz) on my F1 that I use with all my basses with that very upper mid present AE410, and just a slight (maybe 20%) bass boost on the RA for some tunes. It was punchy and grindy. It, like the LG, doesn't really do the 'sizzle' like the LM (duh), but it has much more percussive attack and 'quickness' than my LG, so again, a VERY nice voicing in-between the LG and LM.

The guys in the band (a couple of whom are very tuned into bass guitar tone) really, really dug it. It was the perfect combination of punch and growl in that difficult room and busy mix (10 pieces, including a horn section and too many damn singers!).
 
#866
JansenW said:
Sounds like you had a great time. I'm getting GASed up for an AC (RA or LM).
Click to expand...

It's really a cool bass. It's a unique tone that I don't immediately associate with a 'classic Fender tone'. Being in Detroit (the home of late 70's J Bass funk players), virtually everyone who has played my LM has said 'THAT's a J Bass'. It just speaks with that late 70's, aggressive funk tone, with plenty of snap and a big low end. Similarly, most who play my LG say 'that sounds like a REALLY old Fender J'. The RA is literally an average of both of these models to my ear.... a bit more 'snap and presence' than my LG (which is key for the busy pop mixes I play in), but much smoother upper mids (which is a good or bad thing, depending on how much you like those classic 70's J tones in the old funk recordings), and a bit more 'fatness and compression/give' to the feel of the bass (which I guess is coming from the relatively heavy alder body), that reminds me more of a 60's era J than what most consider a 70's era tone.

I still prefer my LM for 'my tone', but this one is just hard to put down. It is 'something new' for me that I've never really heard before (basically, it sounds like a really old 60's era Fender with a maple board). Interesting, and the finish is to DIE for under the lights!

IMO, as always.
 
#869
narud said:
im curious as to what cuts your mind cites as examples of 70's j tones.
Click to expand...

Virtually any recording by Slave or Pleasure back in the day. Wonderful stuff, and most seemed to be recorded on a good old ash/maple J Bass. I love that tone! If I bypass the preamp on the LM, it REALLY gets close. However, I prefer the buffering of that preamp set flat (I rarely touch the tone controls), where it just extends the low end a touch, and sharpens the upper treble a bit (kind of like a more polite Marcus Miller tone), which is what I attempt to achieve.

A lot of those classic 70's funk tones (ash/maple J's with Rotosounds) were generated using amps without tweeters, so in general, they are a bit attenuated up top versus what you can do today with a full range modern rig, but as you know, dialing in the passive tone control a touch can get you pretty close even with a wider range, modern rig without going all the way 'Marcus Miller' with that massive sizzle.

Again, as we've often discussed, I have very little interest in matching one specific instrument's tone (i.e., one specific J bass, they ALL sound somewhat different). I find there is a range of J tones, but that there is a relatively narrow range of tones that I feel comfortable calling a '70 J bass tone'. Interestingly, I've played some 70's J's that didn't get it. It's not about a specific spec (much less a specific year.... I find the brand of strings results in more tonal variation that the average difference between 'model years'), but more about a relatively small range of tones within that general area of tone that quite a few instruments can achieve and that many of us who grew up playing this music in that era call 'the 70's funk', as long as they have that ash/maple wood combination, and single coil J pickups (I don't find the actual 70's position as being that key to the tone I'm talking about).
 
#870
KJung said:
versus what you can do today with a full range modern rig
Click to expand...

i think beyond just the rig, when we talk about recordings as reference, we look past the technology of the times as well. that happens alot with people talking about precbs or 60's tone. those instruments are just as full range as anything today but look at what they were recording through. we just think fat and no high end and those basses are capable of just as much brightness as anything today

even marcus on some of that late 70's stuff sounds closer to to the sound on just a touch of love or glide than what it turned into in the 80's. same bass though.
 
#871
narud said:
i think beyond just the rig, when we talk about recordings as reference, we look past the technology of the times as well. that happens alot with people talking about precbs or 60's tone. those instruments are just as full range as anything today but look at what they were recording through. we just think fat and no high end and those basses are capable of just as much brightness as anything today

even marcus on some of that late 70's stuff sounds closer to to the sound on just a touch of love or glide than what it turned into in the 80's. same bass though.
Click to expand...

+1 in a huge way. On the rare occasions where I REALLY want to cop as 'legitimate' a tone from this era as I can (I again. in general, go for a somewhat smoother version of that tone with more extended lows and definitely more upper treble), interestingly, I need to dial back the low end of the LM, since that specific execution of what I call loosely '70's funk tone' is quite attenuated on the low end (probably from those little GK's and Acoustics we were using back then blowing through their clean power ratings, and also those horrible speaker cabs of that era blowing through their xmax or whatever). Also, to your point, a lot of those guys really dug 'broken in' Rotosounds, which were dead as a doornail, but still have enough going to grind in the upper mid range. No matter how good the mixing console, if you had dead Roto's on a J Bass, it was going to sound low end attenuated and grindy more than sizzly.

It's amazing how compressed in the highs and lows that particular tone execution is, but oh, that aggressive, grindy upper mid, lower treble thing (that from what I've learned from the EE's on the site is at least partially due to a speaker exceeding xmax and/or a solid state power amp clipping a bit), just speaks to me.
 
#872
narud said:
im curious as to what cuts your mind cites as examples of 70's j tones.
Click to expand...

PS Per you earlier comments on your dislike of the RA spec, I hear what you are saying. That bass sounds MUCH more like my LG than it does my LM. I really like it a lot for what it is, but it does not really fit even my 'loose' definition of a '70's J Bass tone' (i.e., that more aggressive later 70's J type tone we discussed above). Even with the maple neck and single coil pickups in 70's position, at least my RA sounds more like a '60's J on steroids' than that quick, bright, upper mid aggressive grind that I associate with ash/maple J's.

If my RA is representative of that spec of bass (which I assume it is), I'm actually quite blown away by the impact of the alder versus ash body on the AC basses, since, for example, on the Sadowsky basses, I don't really notice that much difference as long as the board is constant.

Interesting how different the RA sounds from the LM to my ear!
 
#873
KJung said:
+1 in a huge way. On the rare occasions where I REALLY want to cop as 'legitimate' a tone from this era as I can (I again. in general, go for a somewhat smoother version of that tone with more extended lows and definitely more upper treble), interestingly, I need to dial back the low end of the LM, since that specific execution of what I call loosely '70's funk tone' is quite attenuated on the low end (probably from those little GK's and Acoustics we were using back then blowing through their clean power ratings, and also those horrible speaker cabs of that era blowing through their xmax or whatever). Also, to your point, a lot of those guys really dug 'broken in' Rotosounds, which were dead as a doornail, but still have enough going to grind in the upper mid range. No matter how good the mixing console, if you had dead Roto's on a J Bass, it was going to sound low end attenuated and grindy more than sizzly.

It's amazing how compressed in the highs and lows that particular tone execution is, but oh, that aggressive, grindy upper mid, lower treble thing (that from what I've learned from the EE's on the site is at least partially due to a speaker exceeding xmax and/or a solid state power amp clipping a bit), just speaks to me.
Click to expand...

yeah, it im now realizing that you might be going for more of a "recorded in the 70's j bass tone" as opposed to me looking for what those basses sound like going direct. the pickups fender used back then just did not have the immediate lower treble grind that say the aeros did in the daryl jones lakland. all of the 70's j's ive owned have been like that and the extra set of pickups i bought from that era are like that too. when i sent them off to carey nordstrand, he commented on how i wouldnt find a replacement pickup these days wound with resistance readings that low.

now if i plug my bass into an amp like a amp bh420 or something with that voicing, than i get that exact grind with my 70's j that youre talking about. i sold that amp though:D. the mia fender 75 ri with the stock pickups is kind of voiced like the old school recordings. i think in ed friedland's review of that bass he called the highs more "strident" than the highs we might be used to hearing from marcus.
 
#874
KJung said:
PS Per you earlier comments on your dislike of the RA spec, I hear what you are saying. That bass sounds MUCH more like my LG than it does my LM. I really like it a lot for what it is, but it does not really fit even my 'loose' definition of a '70's J Bass tone'. Even with the maple neck and single coil pickups in 70's position, at least my RA sounds more like a '60's J on steroids' than that quick, bright, upper mid aggressive grind that I associate with ash/maple J's.

If my RA is representative of that spec of bass (which I assume it is), I'm actually quite blown away by the impact of the alder versus maple body on the AC basses, since, for example, on the Sadowsky basses, I don't really notice that much difference as long as the board is constant.

Interesting how different the RA sounds from the LM to my ear!
Click to expand...

i really like the sound of 60's basses (hence me having the slab board), put that early 70's thing kind of robs what i like about it. i like the light alder's resonance with the bridge pickup further from the bridge and the rosewood boards smoothness. but, that light resonant alder with the clack of maple and the 70's spacing isnt a great match imo. there's some guys here that swear by that sound though and hate the heavy sustaining late 70's jazzes.
 
#875
narud said:
yeah, it im now realizing that you might be going for more of a "recorded in the 70's j bass tone" as opposed to me looking for what those basses sound like going direct. the pickups fender used back then just did not have the immediate lower treble grind that say the aeros did in the daryl jones lakland. all of the 70's j's ive owned have been like that and the extra set of pickups i bought from that era are like that too. when i sent them off to carey nordstrand, he commented on how i wouldnt find a replacement pickup these days wound with resistance readings that low.

now if i plug my bass into an amp like a amp bh420 or something with that voicing, than i get that exact grind with my 70's j that youre talking about. i sold that amp though:D. the mia fender 75 ri with the stock pickups is kind of voiced like the old school recordings. i think in ed friedland's review of that bass he called the highs more "strident" than the highs we might be used to hearing from marcus.
Click to expand...

+1, and makes total sense. My reference is based totally on recordings that I dig, not necessarily on exact reference basses in a pure listening environment.

The TF420/550 was a little too much of a good thing for me also (too much low end attenuation, too much upper treble attenuation, but also, VERY smooth in the mids... it didn't really translate that 'grind' very well in a live situation, at least with my more aggressively voiced J's, like the LM, the Sadowsky ash/maples with singles, and especially the Celinder Update).

Cool discussion. Lot's of ways to 'skin a cat'!
 
#876
narud said:
i really like the sound of 60's basses (hence me having the slab board), put that early 70's thing kind of robs what i like about it. i like the light alder's resonance with the bridge pickup further from the bridge and the rosewood boards smoothness. but, that light resonant alder with the clack of maple and the 70's spacing isnt a great match imo. there's some guys here that swear by that sound though and hate the heavy sustaining late 70's jazzes.
Click to expand...

+1 I actually dig it a lot, but it's much more 'different' from the late 70's J thing than I would have ever dreamed, given that the body wood is the primary difference in the spec.

It's another flavor that, so far, I'm enjoying, but it surely is different!
 
#878
KJung said:
+1, and makes total sense. My reference is based totally on recordings that I dig, not necessarily on exact reference basses in a pure listening environment.

The TF420/550 was a little too much of a good thing for me also (too much low end attenuation, too much upper treble attenuation, but also, VERY smooth in the mids... it didn't really translate that 'grind' very well in a live situation, at least with my more aggressively voiced J's, like the LM, the Sadowsky ash/maples with singles, and especially the Celinder Update).

Cool discussion. Lot's of ways to 'skin a cat'!
Click to expand...

our disagreements kind of make sense to me now because when i hear some of those old cuts i go "yeah i can tell thats 70's jazz but i can tell it was recorded in 1976".

a lot of the stuff these days has that grind right out of the box so when plugged into a hifi modern rig, it sounds right. through a thunderfunk, it could be too much of a good thing. however when you take a stock old fender through a modern rig, it can sound thin to people these days. there was a reason the aftermarket pickup business got created:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back