Hofner and Ric owners, please speak up.

[Bob Rogers]

I'm clearing out my closet and making room to get a little GAS attack. I am thinking about a Hofner and/or a Ric. I may have to go down to Houston to try these out at Southpaw. I'd like to hear from those of you who have owned these. Comments on different models, build quality, things to look for would be appreciated.

[Dave W]

Well, my Ric 4003 is my favorite bass. I love the tone, feel, tone, versatility, tone, 33 1/4" scale, tone, string spacing and tone. Build quality is great, a US made bass at a great price (unless you buy from Southpaw at list -- there are much less expensive alternatives if you're willing to order or look for late model used).

It is not the world's most user friendly bass due to the lack of front contour, big bridge pickup rout, somewhat difficult-to-adjust floating bridge, and string mute screws. But they are traditional design features that will not be changed because traditionalists demand them.

The 4003 is the main production model, and I'm sure accounts for 95%-plus of their bass sales. There's also the 4004 which is their more expensive "modern" bass with contours and humbuckers and modern style bridge, but 4003 demand has really limited production of these since RIC is operating at full capacity. Ordering a lefty 4004 would mean a long wait but there's one for sale in Raleigh from one of the most respected dealers: http://www.the-music-connection.com/ricused.htm . And there's the even more expensive 4001C-series vintage reissues.

Avoid the older 4001 series unless you educate yourself on exactly what to look for. Many of these suffered neck or trussrod damage.

There is a large RIC forum here: http://www.brunnet.net/cgi-bin/rickr...scus/discus.pl and I moderate a small RIC section at another bass forum here: http://pub206.ezboard.com/fthedudepitfrm64

[Bob Rogers]

Dave-

I've lurked at the Ric forum on the Pit, but I didn't pick up all that info (at least not in one place). I think the 4003 (probably in Mapleglow) is what I'd want, but it's good to know the alternatives.

I think that there are enough Rics around that I'd buy somewhere other than Southpaw. But visiting Southpaw is an awsome experience for a lefty. I don't know what Jimmy's business model is. The only thing that makes his markup worth it is the ability to sit down and compare guitar to guitar. Hofners are hard enough to come by (and South paw has a big enough selection) that is probably where I'd make my "contribution to the cause."

[Blazer]

Well you can always take a look at the Rick 4004 which has a solid bridge, body contours and direct bolt on pickups Maybe not what one might call a Traditional instrument but it works.



As for a hofner, don't bother, they are fragile, a disaster to intonate and difficult to keep in tune.

As for Paul MacCartney comparing the two.

"It (the Rickenbacker) stays in tune much better and it enabled me to finally hear myself play bass, on this record (Rubber soul) I used it almost on every song. The reason why I don't bring it on the road is it's weight, the Hofners are so much lighter and thus more enjoyable to play during long gigs."

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Bob Rogers

I'm clearing out my closet and making room to get a little GAS attack. I am thinking about a Hofner and/or a Ric. I may have to go down to Houston to try these out at Southpaw. I'd like to hear from those of you who have owned these. Comments on different models, build quality, things to look for would be appreciated.

I'm a big fan of short scale basses. I've played many Hofners and quite honestly...they're junk! People don't realize that Hofners were low end instruments...that is until Paul McCartney used one. (it was what he could afford at the time) If you want to try a hollow body violin bass try the Jay Turser. I know what you're thinking...talk about low end, right? I thought so too...until I played one...and bought one! It runs rings around the Hofners as far as playability goes...and stays in tune better to boot. The pickups don't sound bad either...fairly hot for a low end instrument. The electronics could definitely use updating as the pots, switches, jacks, are all low quality items. For the money though it can't be beat. Don't take my word for it...play one. After playing mine it's hard to go back to my P-bass.
Dr. Jones

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jones

I'm a big fan of short scale basses. I've played many Hofners and quite honestly...they're junk! People don't realize that Hofners were low end instruments...that is until Paul McCartney used one. (it was what he could afford at the time) If you want to try a hollow body violin bass try the Jay Turser. I know what you're thinking...talk about low end, right? I thought so too...until I played one...and bought one! It runs rings around the Hofners as far as playability goes...and stays in tune better to boot. The pickups don't sound bad either...fairly hot for a low end instrument. The electronics could definitely use updating as the pots, switches, jacks, are all low quality items. For the money though it can't be beat. Don't take my word for it...play one. After playing mine it's hard to go back to my P-bass.
Dr. Jones

If the Hofner is junk, the Jay Turser and other clones are just imitations of junk. Hofner was never a high-end bass and never has used heavy duty components but the electronics and hardware on the Korean and Chinese clones are nearly worthless. Plus their pickups don't sound like Hofners.

I'm also a fan of short scale basses but not of the Hofner (or its imitators). It has no real fundamental to speak of. That closed box of a body has a resonant frequency in the low mids and cuts off just about everything bekow that.

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Dave W

If the Hofner is junk, the Jay Turser and other clones are just imitations of junk. Hofner was never a high-end bass and never has used heavy duty components but the electronics and hardware on the Korean and Chinese clones are nearly worthless. Plus their pickups don't sound like Hofners.

I'm also a fan of short scale basses but not of the Hofner (or its imitators). It has no real fundamental to speak of. That closed box of a body has a resonant frequency in the low mids and cuts off just about everything bekow that.

Dave,
My friend, that is a very narrow point of view. I myself also should apologize for having used the word "junk". I used it in the case of the Hofner only because the cost/quality ratio is so out of whack with them. It's like paying for a Cadillac and getting a Yugo. Not that there is anything wrong with that if that's how you want to spend your money. You should just be making an informed decision when purchasing one.
Hollow bodies can't be compared to solid bodies. Apples and oranges. Sure, hollow bodies have many resonant peaks and dips (dead spots) but that's the nature of the beast. They fill a niche though. They are as valid an instrument as a solid body is. They have there own unique sound. McCartney recorded an amazing body of work with his hollow body. To suggest that what Paul did would be any less remarkable because he used an "inferior" instrument would be nothing short of insanity, right? As the richest musician in the world he could certainly afford to use any instrument he wants, but he continually gravitates back to the hollow body. Why?...because it suits him. After being involved with this business for 30+ years the best advice I can give anyone is forget about price, looks, or name. Get an instrument that suits you. One that "feels" right will be the one you'll use. Besides, working on guitars and amplifiers for as long as I have I can promise you that price has very little to do with quality. In this racket you don't always get what you pay for. Hear with your ears, not your eyes, and buy the one that feels right. There is simply no other way to be satisfied.
Dr. Jones

[Dave W]

Actually I think Paul has been pretty clear that he plays the Hofner because people expect to see him with it. Not because he thinks it's better.

I'm not trying to compare apples and oranges at all. And I'm not making any sweeping statements about all hollowbodies. I am specifically saying that Hofners and Hofner clones, with their little sealed box bodies, have no real fundamental.

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Dave W

Actually I think Paul has been pretty clear that he plays the Hofner because people expect to see him with it. Not because he thinks it's better.

I'm not trying to compare apples and oranges at all. And I'm not making any sweeping statements about all hollowbodies. I am specifically saying that Hofners and Hofner clones, with their little sealed box bodies, have no real fundamental.

Dave,
You're going to have to explain what your definition of a fundamental is? You have four guys here who between us have 120+ years musical experience shaking our heads. If you mean you aren't getting the bell like clear ringing you'll get with a solid body with roundwound strings if the hollow body is set up with flatwounds, then obviously that's true. (read below*) You don't, but that's different than saying you don't get a real fundamental. When people use these violin basses they're going after a specific tamber. They like the "thump" for lack of a better word. They have a woody, acoustic quality when set up with flatwound strings. *Although when the one I bought came into the store it had roundwound strings on it. I gave it to the Kid (I say kid...he's 22) who runs the bass dept. and told him to put it through it's paces. He was popping and slapping it and it sounded good. He had us on the floor laughing because it's just not a sight you ever see ordinarily. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone buy one for that purpose, but it sounded clear and defined when he dialed it in. I think we all tend to forget at times that the amplifier is 80% of the sound you hear. You absolutely can get a clear ringing sound out of one of these, however you won't get the sustain.
Our store recently supplied the backline for a benefit show where 10 bands played throughout the day and evening. (including our stores' band and I used the Jay Turser for a few tunes) The bass rig we supplied was an SVT-5 Pro and the SVT-410HLF cabinet. (the best 4-10 we've ever heard) Along with a Yamaha Nathan East NE-1 EQ. (it takes a battery for the buffer, but it is a cut only EQ...these are tremendously overlooked) The remark we heard over and over was that the bass (sound) was phenominal. Everyone (bass players) wanted to know how we were adjusting for the different instruments, because there were everything from Pedulla's, Fender's (American's and Squier's) Musicman's..etc., and the Turser. When we said we didn't adjust anything as far as EQ on the amps go, and that any EQ change was strictly from the NE-1, they wouldn't believe us. As a matter of fact, the only time we had to adjust the bass rig at all was to turn down the Musicman, because it had a hotter output than the rest. (which we also could have done through the NE-1 actually) You can get just about any sound you want out of any bass if you have the right strings and rig. We'd all be a little better off if we went to the music stores more often and just played different combinations of equipment and listened with our ears instead of relying on others subjective viewpoints of sound. It doesn't matter what you use if it sounds good to you.
Dr. Jones

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jones

Dave,
You're going to have to explain what your definition of a fundamental is? You have four guys here who between us have 120+ years musical experience shaking our heads. If you mean you aren't getting the bell like clear ringing you'll get with a solid body with roundwound strings if the hollow body is set up with flatwounds, then obviously that's true.....You don't, but that's different than saying you don't get a real fundamental. When people use these violin basses they're going after a specific tamber. They like the "thump" for lack of a better word. They have a woody, acoustic quality when set up with flatwound strings.....It doesn't matter what you use if it sounds good to you.
Dr. Jones

fun·da·men·tal Music. The first harmonic in a harmonic series; the lowest harmonic.

I learned that during my first week of cello lessons in 1956. And frankly I'm astonished that four guys with 120+ years of music experience don't know what a fundamental is.

Who said anything about ringing roundwound tone? Certainly not I! Bell-like upper harmonics have nothing to do with fundamental (or lack thereof)!

What sounds good to you is fine for you, and you can love Hofners or not, but they don't have much in the way of fundamental. It's a bass with very little real bass.

Now, my Gibson EB-0L strung with black tapewounds may not be to your taste, but it has boatloads of pipe-organ-like fundamental.

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Dave W

fun·da·men·tal Music. The first harmonic in a harmonic series; the lowest harmonic.

I learned that during my first week of cello lessons in 1956. And frankly I'm astonished that four guys with 120+ years of music experience don't know what a fundamental is.

Who said anything about ringing roundwound tone? Certainly not I! Bell-like upper harmonics have nothing to do with fundamental (or lack thereof)!

What sounds good to you is fine for you, and you can love Hofners or not, but they don't have much in the way of fundamental. It's a bass with very little real bass.

Now, my Gibson EB-0L strung with black tapewounds may not be to your taste, but it has boatloads of pipe-organ-like fundamental.

Dave,
Your definition is accurate only as far as musical scale goes. However your conclusions are just flat out wrong. If you took any musical instrument and stripped away the harmonics and left only the fundamental it would sound like a test signal, which I think we can all agree is a less than musical sound. It's the harmonics and attack and decay qualities that make any instrument (or an amplifier for that matter) sound the way it does. You may not like the tamber of a violin bass, but it has nothing to do with a lack of fundamental. On the contrary, it's the harmonic structure of any instrument that gives it that sound and not the fundamental. Along with the harmonic structure is the attack and decay qualities that determine the sound you hear, and that's the biggest difference between a violin bass and something like your EB-OL. The only reason your EB-OL only sounds drastically different is because it doesn't absorb the strings vibrating energy the way a violin bass does. (it's attack and decay...and the 30 inch scale length contributes to that) It has absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental whatsoever. If you can't get a deep bass sound out of a violin bass you're doing something wrong.
Incidentally, you mentioned a pipe organ. Strip away the pipe and you just stripped away it's sound. The sound (and pitch) of a pipe organ come from the resonance and the harmonics of the pipe and not the fundamental that the reed played. It illustrates my point exactly.
Dr. Jones

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jones

Dave,
Your definition is accurate only as far as musical scale goes. However your conclusions are just flat out wrong. If you took any musical instrument and stripped away the harmonics and left only the fundamental it would sound like a test signal, which I think we can all agree is a less than musical sound.

What on earth are you talking about??? I made no such conclusions, and I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth! A fundamental does not sound like a test signal, nor is it a less than musical tone. It's the foundation tone of the note, no more and no less.

You may not like the tamber of a violin bass, but it has nothing to do with a lack of fundamental. On the contrary, it's the harmonic structure of any instrument that gives it that sound and not the fundamental.

That is utter nonsense. Any competent music teacher would laugh you out of his class for making an absurd claim like that.

Also, you have no idea why I like or dislike the tone of a Hofner, and you have no business insulting me by telling me otherwise. I simply made a statement that it lacks real fundamental. I made no judgment about the merits of the rest of its harmonic structure.

The only reason your EB-OL only sounds drastically different is because it doesn't absorb the strings vibrating energy the way a violin bass does. (it's attack and decay...and the 30 inch scale length contributes to that) It has absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental whatsoever.

Wrong. Your explanation has to do with why different basses sound different, it has nothing to do with the Hofner's lack of fundamental. And that has to do with its box resonance sharply rolling off frequencies below a certain point.

If you can't get a deep bass sound out of a violin bass you're doing something wrong.

Look mate, I'm not trying to get a deep bass sound out of any violin bass. And you're the one who called Hofners junk. Fact is, they are shy in the fundamental department. Nothing you say will change that.

Incidentally, you mentioned a pipe organ. Strip away the pipe and you just stripped away it's sound. The sound (and pitch) of a pipe organ come from the resonance and the harmonics of the pipe and not the fundamental that the reed played. It illustrates my point exactly.

I specifically said the Gibson has a pipe organ-like fundamental. Nobody said anything about about its harmonics. Fact is most basses have real fundamental. Hofners have almost none.

If you're claiming that the fundamental of a pipe organ has nothing to do with its sound, that's beyond absurd.

Just think, earlier today you didn't know what a fundamental was, now you're such an authority that you're able to say fundamentals have nothing to do with tone.

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Dave W

What on earth are you talking about??? I made no such conclusions, and I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth! A fundamental does not sound like a test signal, nor is it a less than musical tone. It's the foundation tone of the note, no more and no less.

That is utter nonsense. Any competent music teacher would laugh you out of his class for making an absurd claim like that.

Also, you have no idea why I like or dislike the tone of a Hofner, and you have no business insulting me by telling me otherwise. I simply made a statement that it lacks real fundamental. I made no judgment about the merits of the rest of its harmonic structure.

Wrong. Your explanation has to do with why different basses sound different, it has nothing to do with the Hofner's lack of fundamental. And that has to do with its box resonance sharply rolling off frequencies below a certain point.

Look mate, I'm not trying to get a deep bass sound out of any violin bass. And you're the one who called Hofners junk. Fact is, they are shy in the fundamental department. Nothing you say will change that.

I specifically said the Gibson has a pipe organ-like fundamental. Nobody said anything about about its harmonics. Fact is most basses have real fundamental. Hofners have almost none.

If you're claiming that the fundamental of a pipe organ has nothing to do with its sound, that's beyond absurd.

Just think, earlier today you didn't know what a fundamental was, now you're such an authority that you're able to say fundamentals have nothing to do with tone.

Dave,
Relax my friend. No one is attacking you. You are entitled to your opinion as we all are, but this is pure science. To suggest we didn't know what a fundamental was gave us all a good giggle. We suspected what you were talking about when you said fundamental, and the definition you gave is correct as far as music theory goes, but when you are talking about the fundamental of a sound you're way off base. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it couldn't be more wrong. As I stated before, the sound from any instrument is 99% harmonics and attack and delay. If you could record the sound of a note from any instrument, and then strip away only the fundamental, you would barely even notice the difference, if at all. This is not just my opinion, this is fact. If I'm wrong, then so are all the Acoustic Experts in the world. If you take the fundamental out of a chord you would absolutely hear a difference. If you take the fundamental out of a single note it wouldn't make a bit of difference. It's pure science Dave. You can disagree all you want and attack me about it, but your comments tell me you just don't understand what you're talking about on this subject. Music, and the science of sound, are two different things. Get thee to a library.
Dr. Jones

[Dave W]

You're obviously a troll, so I'll just say this and be out of this thread:

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Anyone who argues that the fundamental of a note has nothing to do with its tone is a self-confessed ignoramus. And please spare me lectures about what acoustics experts say. You're dead wrong.

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Dave W

You're obviously a troll, so I'll just say this and be out of this thread:

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Anyone who argues that the fundamental of a note has nothing to do with its tone is a self-confessed ignoramus. And please spare me lectures about what acoustics experts say. You're dead wrong.

That's the death knell of the truly ignorant Dave. You're attacking me instead of proving me wrong, which you obviously can't because you have no idea what the fundamental of a [b]sound[/b]is. Any note from any musical instrument is made up of the fudamental, along with the harmonics, resonance, attack and delay, and other acoustic properties of the instrument. Why do you think different instruments sound different? Even by your own misguided understanding suggesting any musical instrument lacks any real fundamental is astoundingly ignorant. Get a clue or quit giving advice on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
To anyone reading these threads I urge you to go to the library and do your own research. The amount of misinformation on this subject being spewed forth on the internet by guys like poor misguided Dave spreads like the clap. Just because it's in print here or anywhere else on the internet doesn't make it gospel. Do your own real research and become knowledgeble from the real experts in the field. Then you'll be able to tell the difference between those of us who know and guys like poor Dave.
Dr. Jones

[Tim Armstrong]

We don't get into pissing contests around here. If you guys want to have an argument, exchange private emails. Really. In fact, if I were either of you, I'd think about deleting my posts before Paul shows up and does it for you.

Tim

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Tim Armstrong

We don't get into pissing contests around here. If you guys want to have an argument, exchange private emails. Really. In fact, if I were either of you, I'd think about deleting my posts before Paul shows up and does it for you.

Tim

Take notice of who made it personal Tim. Anyone who provides bogus information on a subject should be prepared to be called on it and able to back it up without making it personal. I defended my position on a subject and only told Dave to get a clue after his personal attacks. The proof is in the reading. If I've offended anyone I apologize, but you can't expect anyone to ignore a personal attack. If anyone wants to show up and kick Dave, or I, off then that's the webmasters prerogitive, but I defend both Dave's and my right to express our views on any public forum...as long as it's kept clean and not personal.
Dr. Jones

[Bob Rogers]

First, I bought a lefty Jay Turser on eBay yesterday. The chance to be able to find one to try out here in the sticks was close to zero, and at the price it was worth a go.

Second, for all the heat that this argument has generated, it seems to me that you guys are actually saying almost exactly the same thing. Yes, you guys are arguing about math and physics, but you are trying to do it without equations and are talking past each other. My interpretation of the statement "Hofners have no true fundamental" is that Dave means that the fundamental is relatively weak compared to other harmonics and that it decays more quickly. The term "pipe organ fundamental" refers to a strong fundamental that sustains as long as you hold down the key. In both cases the literal words are exagerations, but are bascially in agreement with the statement that "attack and harmonic structure" determine the timbre of an instrument. Similarly, while it's correct that you can leave out the fundamental and the human ear will still percieve the same note, it is an exageration to say it doesn't matter since the timbre of that note changes as the fundamental is added back in and it's strength is increased and decreased. (Try it with a synth or a signal generator.)

[Bob Rogers]

In my last post I said that the strength of the fundamental "mattered," but on second thought, there is a common situation where it doesn't - when recorded music is being put through a "low frequency cut off" either in recording or playback. We are used to Hi-Fi equipment with 20-20kHz fidelity, but engineers of the 50's and 60's were mixing records to be played on a much more limited frequency spectrum. I like a strong fundaments from my bass, but the fact is that a lot of the music I've loved (including early McCartney and Jamerson) really doesn't have much strong frequency content below, say, 100 hz. (By the way, if you are listening to a device that rolls off below 131 hz, it is killing the fundamental of every note below the fifth fret.)

For those who are not familiar with it, the psychoacoustics of the cut off phenomenon are pretty amazing. (And it is a subtext of a lot of the discussion above.) Say you are playing an open A string. The fundamental is 55Hz, but the full sound of the string is made up of the fundamental and the higher harmonics at 110, 165, 220, 275, 330,.... The various strengths of the harmonics and the way those strengths decay or sustain tell you whether the A note was being played by a Hofner, Ric, P, J, piano, tuba. Now, suppose you listen to that note through an old transistor radio that cuts off all frequencies below 100 Hz. The lowest frequency is 110, the fundamental of the open A on a guitar. But your brain doesn't register the cut off sound as being one octave higher. Since it detects the frequencies of 165, 275, etc, that are not multiples of 110, it "knows" that the note being played must have come from one with a fundamental of 55. We "hear" the note as a low A even if the fundamental is missing.

This is not to say that an old transistor radio sounds the same as a good sound system with 18" woofers. Adding the fundamental back enhances the sound and drastically changes the feel. But it does emphasize the importance of the low mids in making a good rich bass sound, and it is good to be reminded of how much good music was made without using any direct contribution from the fundamental. (The fact that we now have sound systems capable of reproducing frequencies generated by a flagpole swaying in the breeze is probably responsible for the blight of detuned five-strings currently assaulting our ears.)

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Bob Rogers

First, I bought a lefty Jay Turser on eBay yesterday. The chance to be able to find one to try out here in the sticks was close to zero, and at the price it was worth a go.

Second, for all the heat that this argument has generated, it seems to me that you guys are actually saying almost exactly the same thing. Yes, you guys are arguing about math and physics, but you are trying to do it without equations and are talking past each other. My interpretation of the statement "Hofners have no true fundamental" is that Dave means that the fundamental is relatively weak compared to other harmonics and that it decays more quickly. The term "pipe organ fundamental" refers to a strong fundamental that sustains as long as you hold down the key. In both cases the literal words are exagerations, but are bascially in agreement with the statement that "attack and harmonic structure" determine the timbre of an instrument. Similarly, while it's correct that you can leave out the fundamental and the human ear will still percieve the same note, it is an exageration to say it doesn't matter since the timbre of that note changes as the fundamental is added back in and it's strength is increased and decreased. (Try it with a synth or a signal generator.)

Hi Bob,
I'm glad someone else joined the conversation. I knew what Dave was trying to say about lacking fundamental, and you hit it pretty much on the head. What I was trying to do (and did) was expose how much he knew about what he was talking about. When attempting to educate someone you first have to learn whether or not they have a foundation in fact, and their willingness to be open to the idea that what they know may be wrong. I think we can see how that went. It's a shame it deteriorated to the point it did.
As for your comments about the synth and signal generator let me say this. A signal generator emits what amounts to a pure fundamental, so you can't strip away the fundamental without losing the signal completely. That's why we use one to determine what's going on inside an amplifier. You send the fundamental through it and watch a few things on the scope. One is how it increases the amplitude of that signal, (or doesn't if the amp's on the blink) and the other is how the amp reinforces odd and/or even order harmonics. You can actually see on a scope with a great degree of certanty whether or not an amp will be a champ or a dud if you know how to read the harmonics on the scope. Although, obviously there is a little more to it than that.
About the synth part, using a synth to illustrate the point about fundamental and harmonics is a good example. I would contend however that the difference you hear by stripping away the fundamental has more to do with a difference in amplitude. If you adjust the volume to make up for the amplitude you lost by stripping away the fundamental it's doubtful you would hear a difference.
Dr. Jones

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Bob Rogers

In my last post I said that the strength of the fundamental "mattered," but on second thought, there is a common situation where it doesn't - when recorded music is being put through a "low frequency cut off" either in recording or playback. We are used to Hi-Fi equipment with 20-20kHz fidelity, but engineers of the 50's and 60's were mixing records to be played on a much more limited frequency spectrum. I like a strong fundaments from my bass, but the fact is that a lot of the music I've loved (including early McCartney and Jamerson) really doesn't have much strong frequency content below, say, 100 hz. (By the way, if you are listening to a device that rolls off below 131 hz, it is killing the fundamental of every note below the fifth fret.)

For those who are not familiar with it, the psychoacoustics of the cut off phenomenon are pretty amazing. (And it is a subtext of a lot of the discussion above.) Say you are playing an open A string. The fundamental is 55Hz, but the full sound of the string is made up of the fundamental and the higher harmonics at 110, 165, 220, 275, 330,.... The various strengths of the harmonics and the way those strengths decay or sustain tell you whether the A note was being played by a Hofner, Ric, P, J, piano, tuba. Now, suppose you listen to that note through an old transistor radio that cuts off all frequencies below 100 Hz. The lowest frequency is 110, the fundamental of the open A on a guitar. But your brain doesn't register the cut off sound as being one octave higher. Since it detects the frequencies of 165, 275, etc, that are not multiples of 110, it "knows" that the note being played must have come from one with a fundamental of 55. We "hear" the note as a low A even if the fundamental is missing.

This is not to say that an old transistor radio sounds the same as a good sound system with 18" woofers. Adding the fundamental back enhances the sound and drastically changes the feel. But it does emphasize the importance of the low mids in making a good rich bass sound, and it is good to be reminded of how much good music was made without using any direct contribution from the fundamental. (The fact that we now have sound systems capable of reproducing frequencies generated by a flagpole swaying in the breeze is probably responsible for the blight of detuned five-strings currently assaulting our ears.)

Hi Bob,
The transistor radio analogy is the one I use when trying to explain the differences between various bass cabinets in the store, because it's a good way to illustrate the the phenomenon frequency roll off. Too bad the speaker industry insists on using 1Kz as their test signal to test the SPL of woofers. Any woofer with a nasty midrange honk can test great, but have no bottom end whatsoever. Help spread the word that spec sheets mean nothing. Psychoacoustics is all about hearing what you think you hear...and hearing with your eyes. Let's all learn to just plug it in and play. That's where the magic is.
Bob, after you spend some time with the Turser let us know what you think of it. To me they fill a niche. Nothing more, nothing less. After all these years it's still fun to pretend to be a Beatle.
Dr. Jones

[Bob Rogers]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jones

About the synth part, using a synth to illustrate the point about fundamental and harmonics is a good example. I would contend however that the difference you hear by stripping away the fundamental has more to do with a difference in amplitude. If you adjust the volume to make up for the amplitude you lost by stripping away the fundamental it's doubtful you would hear a difference.
Dr. Jones

You have got to try this. I used a program called Mathematica to generate the two series. I used Fourier coeficients of 1/n to generate a sawtooth. I left out the fundamental in one of the series and normalized so that both series had the same RMS norm. You definitely can hear the difference, but it's kind of spooky. You don't really "hear" the lack of the fundamental as much as "feel" it. The volume is the same and at least on the surface the timbre is the same, but the sound is different. I have to figure out how to use Mathematica to generate MP3s.

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Bob Rogers

You have got to try this. I used a program called Mathematica to generate the two series. I used Fourier coeficients of 1/n to generate a sawtooth. I left out the fundamental in one of the series and normalized so that both series had the same RMS norm. You definitely can hear the difference, but it's kind of spooky. You don't really "hear" the lack of the fundamental as much as "feel" it. The volume is the same and at least on the surface the timbre is the same, but the sound is different. I have to figure out how to use Mathematica to generate MP3s.

Hi Bob,
I'm not familiar with the program, but I would be interested in hearing it. You brought up an interesting point also when you said "feeling it". You will also notice that the lower in frequency you go the more that phenomenon is noticeable. One of the tricks used in concert sound systems today is to use sub-harmonic frequencies from subs other than the ones for the concert mix onstage. (did that come out right?) You feel the effects from them, but obviously don't hear them because they're subsonic. They can also at times give you nausea and make people just feel all kinds of strange effects. Look around the next time you're at a concert and see if you can spot the people getting weird. It's not always from the chemicals going around.
Since we've been talking about Frequency rolloff and how it affects what you hear from speakers, I wanted to mention that I have been blown away by what the new BBE 482i sonic maximizer can do to even out the effects of rolloff from any cabinet. I was skeptical about these when they first came out because frankly the first ones weren't very good. The science behind then intrigued me though. When I heard what the new ones sound like I bought one for my own rig immediately. It's as if you can tune the cabinet to your instrument by just turning two knobs. It is nothing short of amazing. I can see in the future we will be getting rid of our big cabinets and getting practically the same sound using smaller drivers and cabs with this type of technology. Anybody else used the new ones?
Dr. Jones

[feojack]

I thought this was about Rics & Hofners, and sounds & tones.
Heck, I just plug whatever I got , into whatever I got, twiddle the knobs to get some tone I can live with, and then play. Nothin' high-falutin'. I've got an Epi Casady, a fretted P bass and a fretless P bass. I just plug'em into a SF Showman with either a PV 18'/2-10"cab, or a PV 15' cab, and run with it. I'd do the same with a Ric or Hofner or anything else for that matter. For me, it just comes with diddling with the knobs & finding something workable. I've always gotten a sound I could live with, then just go ahead & play. That's the ideer, ain't it? To Play?
I like to keep it simple :)
Cheers, feo

[Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by feojack

I thought this was about Rics & Hofners, and sounds & tones.
Heck, I just plug whatever I got , into whatever I got, twiddle the knobs to get some tone I can live with, and then play. Nothin' high-falutin'. I've got an Epi Casady, a fretted P bass and a fretless P bass. I just plug'em into a SF Showman with either a PV 18'/2-10"cab, or a PV 15' cab, and run with it. I'd do the same with a Ric or Hofner or anything else for that matter. For me, it just comes with diddling with the knobs & finding something workable. I've always gotten a sound I could live with, then just go ahead & play. That's the ideer, ain't it? To Play?
I like to keep it simple :)
Cheers, feo

Hi Feo,
That's the spirit my man! That's what it's really all about. With that attitude you are on your way to nirvana my friend. Playing is where the true joy comes from. My hat's off to you. Rock on.
Dr. Jones

[Oster]

In my first band, back in '87, our Bass Player used a really nice Hofner. He was a little guy so it wasn't short scale to him. Our band was (surprise, surprise) very '60s informed. We recorded our EP with that Hofner - It was new by the way, The Hofner - and listening to it now it has a good Bass sound. On another note, I remember clearly how well-made an instrument it was. Definately not junk. I would say there's more craftsmanship involved there than with, say Fender (I play Fenders so no attacks, please). Those Jay Tursers seem kinda cool. Owning one would probably only make me want the real thing even more, though. As far as DEEP bass goes, neither the Hofner nor the Rick are renowned for that. I think of great Chris Squire sounds when I think of the Rickenbacker Bass: Twangy and Bright. If you're into '60 music, both of these Basses have few equals in terms of vibe, appearance and sound. You're going for things outside of Music Science.

[Bob Rogers]

Originally Posted by feojack

I've always gotten a sound I could live with, then just go ahead & play. That's the ideer, ain't it? To Play?
I like to keep it simple :)
Cheers, feo

Well, that's one way to go. And if you are a pro it's probably the best way since anything else you do pulls you away from your music. But I'm not a pro, and one of the things I like best about my hobby is the number of aspects it has in addition to playing - music theory, electronics, woodworking, finishing, metalwork, business, and yes, math and physics. I'm having a great time getting into all of this. I might worry about it distracting me from grading papers and writing articles, but not from playing.

[Toms68]

Hi Bob,I've owned a few different basses(hollowbody&solid) they booth sound different,although with the amp you're using you can dial in some very similar tones.I have a '68 Hofner right now & it's great for the gigs I use it at,I play in 2 bands & use the Hofner in the originals only band.I play it through an old ('72)Ampeg B-15N,I see everybody or just about everybody is telling you they're junk,I'm not writing this to argue with other's opinions,but they're right about the McCartney thing if he bought a Framus or what ever they'd be big.As far as I can see these are not junk,I'd like to know how many people can carve arched tops&bottoms,and put on bindings,that are still there unrepaired 37 yrs. later& been played!My hofner I believe is the first year they stopped the staple pole pick-ups& put on the single fin pu's,which sounds great.The one gripe I have with the Hofner& I know everyone is wanting to hear this is the floating bridge.This is where all the tunning problems arise from,but I played with mine& got it almost perfect,I then brought it to a friend tech & he tweaked it,to the point where there are a few fretted notes that are within cents of being right on.There is a great fat, round,warm sound with the neck pu,that just adds the bottom to all the midrange in the band,alsoI'll use the bridge pu for some punch. All the other features like the lightness& shorter scale,make it very playable for a couple of hours with no break,my precision would kill me after 2 hours.Play one, a competent tech can correct any tunning or intonation problems.Listen to all those old Beatle tunes,I know it's Mr Mac playing great riffs,but they're comming out of a Hofner.I hope this is helpful.Toms68