• 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.

John Paul Jones's Bass?

#61
He'll actually be on American television tonight playing with a singer-songwriter on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. He was playing a Invalid Link Removed which you can check out at Link Removed. It was quite a sight to behold watching him lock in with ?uestlove on the drums.
 
#66
Stickk said:
He created the Alembic Triple Omega:
3440342756_c45bfe8ba8_o.png
Click to expand...


I don't know if Rick is still around on TB to confirm or refute this, but my understanding is that while JPJ's 4-string Alembic pictured earlier in this thread was indeed built by Rick Turner when he worked at Alembic, JPJ's triple-omega 8-string pictured above was built by Bruce Becvar...and there's some question about whether Bruce was still technically employed by Alembic when he built it! (Oooh, the intrigue!)
 
#71
theaterbass29 said:
Rick Turner,
If youre still out there, can you tell us the difference between Series 1 and Series 2 Electronics. I know you havent worked with Alembic for years, but some insight would be nice on this awesome but complicated electronics scheme. JPJ could rock on a First Act from WalMart if he had to, its the man, but the nice basses are the gravy, for sure!
Click to expand...

I'm not Rick Turner, but I do own a Series I and a Series II so I think I can help...

On the left: Series II 5-string. It has 8 knobs

On the right: Series I 4-string. It has 5 knobs, 2 switches

AlembicsRus.jpg


There are 2 primary differences between Series I electronics and Series II electronics......

  1. The "8th" knob on a Series II is the Master Volume. Series I does not have Master Volume
  2. The two switches on the Series I are Q-switches. One for each pick up. There are 3 preset frequencies for each Q-switch. The Series II has continuously variable Q instead of 3-position switches

Setup for the Series II:
  • Master Volume
  • Bass Pickup Volume
  • Treble Pickup volume
  • Pickup Selector
  • Continuously Variable Q (CVQ) Bass Pickup
  • CVQ Treble Pickup
  • Q-Boost Control Bass Pickup
  • Q-Boost Control Treble Pickup

Setup for Series I
  • Bass Pickup Volume
  • Treble Pickup volume
  • Pickup Selector
  • 3-Position Q Switch Bass Pickup
  • 3-Position Q Switch Treble Pickup
  • Q-Boost Control Bass Pickup
  • Q-Boost Control Treble Pickup

That's it....

Peace,

James

BTW - The Triple Omega pictured above appears to be what is typically called a "Series 1.5" It has Series I electronics plus the Master Volume. The switch on the lower horn is the pickup selector. Eventually Alembic moved that down to be closer to the other controls. As people started slapping more, there were too many complaints of knuckles hitting the switch and/or unintentional switching.
 
#73
malthumb said:
The two switches on the Series I are Q-switches. One for each pick up. There are 3 preset frequencies for each Q-switch. The Series II has continuously variable Q instead of 3-position switches
Click to expand...

Would it be fair to say that this is a somewhat misleading nomenclature? I.e., in a traditional parametric equalizer "Q" refers to the width of a bandpass filter and/or the resonance at the turnover frequency of a hi- or low-pass filter. (Strictly speaking "Q" a numerical representation of the center frequency divided by the bandwidth or something equally arcane...I never bothered to look at the math too closely, just know that a high Q = a narrow bandwidth and vice-versa...or, wait, have I got that backwards? Anyway...)

And yet Alembic seems to be using "CVQ" where what they're really CV'ing is the turnover frequency of a low-pass filter, no? The two filter controls (per pickup) are the equivalent of Frequency and Gain, right?
 
#74
Hoover said:
Would it be fair to say that this is a somewhat misleading nomenclature? I.e., in a traditional parametric equalizer "Q" refers to the width of a bandpass filter and/or the resonance at the turnover frequency of a hi- or low-pass filter. (Strictly speaking "Q" a numerical representation of the center frequency divided by the bandwidth or something equally arcane...I never bothered to look at the math too closely, just know that a high Q = a narrow bandwidth and vice-versa...or, wait, have I got that backwards? Anyway...)

And yet Alembic seems to be using "CVQ" where what they're really CV'ing is the turnover frequency of a low-pass filter, no? The two filter controls (per pickup) are the equivalent of Frequency and Gain, right?
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess the answer is "Right", Meredith.....Final answer.

I really don't know jack about amplification or equalization. I just know when I like what I hear. What you describe seems to coincide with what the good folks at Alembic tell me. I'm not certain that "Gain" is the right word or if "Boost" is a more accurate word. I typically associate "Gain" with an increase in volume. That is not the case with the Boost Control Knobs.

I do know that one control defines the center of the frequency band to be boosted. The other control boosts.
 
#75
Hoover said:
Would it be fair to say that this is a somewhat misleading nomenclature? I.e., in a traditional parametric equalizer "Q" refers to the width of a bandpass filter and/or the resonance at the turnover frequency of a hi- or low-pass filter. (Strictly speaking "Q" a numerical representation of the center frequency divided by the bandwidth or something equally arcane...I never bothered to look at the math too closely, just know that a high Q = a narrow bandwidth and vice-versa...or, wait, have I got that backwards? Anyway...)

And yet Alembic seems to be using "CVQ" where what they're really CV'ing is the turnover frequency of a low-pass filter, no? The two filter controls (per pickup) are the equivalent of Frequency and Gain, right?
Click to expand...

yes, more or less, you're correct. the earlier poster's description is in fact misleading, I think the term he used for the series 1 continuously variable filter controls was wrong, maybe he was confused, or maybe alembic just used the wrong term back then.

they are low pass filters, however the q switch affects a resonance peak at the crossover point. I used to crank that switch to have the most peak and set the neck pup at a lower frequency cutoff and the bridge pickup at a middle frequency cutoff. the result was an amazing slightly scooped very hifi and very funky tone that I couldn't get on any other bass, and I recorded DI all the time with it like that back when I owned my vintage series I.

I'd call the variable control a cutoff frequency knob for each pickup, and the switch is a Q control that also as a side effect works as a resonance amount control.

amazing setup. now I'll say that this is from my own personal use, not from documentation. It could well be that it actually is working like this: the variable filter knobs on the series 1 might in fact be Q control, the filter cutoff freq. might be fixed. and the switch might be a resonance level at Fc. so if that's the case, the end result for the player is similar, and I would have been able to dial in the settings the same way, the method of what's really going on may have been different from what I thought was happening but it the way it controlled would be similar enough for my confusion.

so that could well be it. but if the switch is q, then the knob is Fc. if the knob is in fact Q, then the switch is resonance @ Fc.

either way, amazing bass, wish I'd never sold mine.

cheers,
Don
 
#76
oh yeah, and for the early JPJ tone, I once heard a led zep recording session outtake that hadn't been really mixed at all, just basic levels in mixing, no processing or eq done yet.

in that mix the bass sound was HUGE and BRIGHT and totally in your face rotosounds. amazing, intense, like totally modern and hifi. DEFINITELY a very high quality fender jazz (as it would have been back then) with brand new rotosounds on it (the kind with the piano string ends). the eq, at least if that session was any evidence of how he normally recorded, would have to have been added in the mixdown (would have to be compression plus a TON of lpf). however it may be that he was just going for it and having the time of his life ,and actually would have turned down his amp's treble a lot when it came time ot really track the song. I know it was authentic since it was 100% obvious all of the players were original and plant was singing, it was one of their earlier songs, like maybe from album 3 or something, but I can't recall for certain.

and by the way, even with that intense bright loud (louder than anyone else in the mix LoL, just as it should be) tone in that outtake/warm up take, his playing was 100% flawless, not a single buzz ,misfret, uncertainty, great playing and improvising that as always sounded 100% finished and rehearsed even though he was making up the lines as he went.

just great stuff. one of the greatest bass players there has ever been in history. back then he had so much originality and improvised so well... still a great player but in the earlier blues/rocknroll/R&B led zep style tunes he had so much room for freedom....

cheers
Don
 
#77
Alvaro Martín Gómez A.;2879148 said:
...including an 8-string, most notably used in "Achilles' Last Stand".
Click to expand...

That's actually a BecVar bass, made by an Alembic employee, most likely in the Alembic factory and with Alembic parts. It's usually listed as an Alembic though.

They talk about it here:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

43817.png


Let's not forget his Gibson EB-1 either.

gibson-eb1-1.gif


Here's a listing of his basses, which also included a Fender Bass V.

Link Removed

Link Removed
 
#78
dkelley said:
oh yeah, and for the early JPJ tone, I once heard a led zep recording session outtake that hadn't been really mixed at all, just basic levels in mixing, no processing or eq done yet.

in that mix the bass sound was HUGE and BRIGHT and totally in your face rotosounds. amazing, intense, like totally modern and hifi. DEFINITELY a very high quality fender jazz (as it would have been back then) with brand new rotosounds on it (the kind with the piano string ends).
Click to expand...

He did use Rotosounds when they were first available, but they didn't make the piano string version then.

That might have been a DI feed, because most of the time you can hear his bass through the Acoustic 360 cabs, that woody folded horn tone.. not really clear at all. Even with his 8 string.
 
#79
dkelley,

Thanks for setting the record straight. As I mentioned, I know less than squat about amplification and EQ. In fact, here's how your description sounds to me...

dkelley said:
yes, more or less, you're correct. the earlier poster's description is in fact misleading, I think the term he used for the series 1 continuously variable filter controls was wrong, maybe he was confused, or maybe alembic just used the wrong term back then.

they are low pass filters, however the q switch wahh wah wah-wahh wahh I used to crank that switch to have the most peak and set the neck pup at a lower whaa whaa whha bridge pickup at a middle wahh waah. the result was an amazing slightly scooped very hifi and very funky tone that I couldn't get on any other bass, and I recorded DI all the time with it like that back when I owned my vintage series I.

I'd call the variable control a whaa wahh wahh for each pickup, and the switch is a Q control that also as a side effect works as a whaa waaw wwhhaa.

amazing setup. now I'll say that this is from my own personal use, not from documentation. It could well be that it actually is working like this: the variable filter knobs on the series 1 might in fact be Q control, the filter cutoff freq. might be fixed. and the switch might be a whaaaa wha waah. so if that's the case, the end result for the player is similar, and I would have been able to dial in the settings the same way, the method of what's really going on may have been different from what I thought was happening but it the way it controlled would be similar enough for my confusion.

so that could well be it. but if the switch is q, then the whaw whaa if the knob is in fact Q, then the switch is whew.

either way, amazing bass, wish I'd never sold mine.

cheers,
Don
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be so bad, but I have an engineering degree :D :D :D (Manufacturing Engineering, NOT electrical engineering, though!)

Of course, the stuff in bold is what I understood best!

Thanks again,

Peace,

James
 
#80
malthumb said:
dkelley,

Thanks for setting the record straight. As I mentioned, I know less than squat about amplification and EQ. In fact, here's how your description sounds to me...



Wouldn't be so bad, but I have an engineering degree :D :D :D (Manufacturing Engineering, NOT electrical engineering, though!)

Of course, the stuff in bold is what I understood best!

Thanks again,

Peace,

James
Click to expand...

LMAO :-)

thanks for that, loved it!

and ps - yes, that may have well been a di feed from his bass.

and interesting about the non-piano-string design back then, it always seemed to be around when I grew up playing bass in the 80s, just figured it was part of the original signature design.

learn something new every day, cheers all!

Don
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back