The lowdown on the hoedown that's goin' down in sound town

[bigredbass]

FWIW, I was quoted $175 (and I furnish the new strings, same as currently installed) and a 2-3 week turnaround by Joe Glaser's shop (a first-class tech, and interestingly, the USA distributor for PLEK), which I thought was just crazy.
 
Forest I understand the basic process, but I suppose my real question is that for the life of me, I can't imagine that it replaces a first-class tech's set-up who's willing to tweak with the player to get it just right for that individual.  Nor do I think that it's beyond me (bearing in mind that my two axes are in good shape with no fret issues or serious twist/relief/grooves in the fingerboard) to maintain my own axes in their current shape.  And I'm always quick to point out that my own method is ENTIRELY derived from Dan.
 
Joey

[bigredbass]

FWIW, I was quoted $175 (and I furnish the new strings, same as currently installed) and a 2-3 week turnaround by Joe Glaser's shop (a first-class tech, and interestingly, the USA distributor for PLEK), which I thought was just crazy.
 
Regarding the capacity to intake a compound radius, wouldn't it just automatically store the changing radius as part of its' initial survey?
 
Forest I understand the basic process, but I suppose my real question is that for the life of me, I can't imagine that it replaces a first-class tech's set-up who's willing to tweak with the player to get it just right for that individual.  Nor do I think that it's beyond me (bearing in mind that my two axes are in good shape with no fret issues or serious twist/relief/grooves in the fingerboard) to maintain my own axes in their current shape.  And I'm always quick to point out that my own method is ENTIRELY derived from Dan.
 
Joey

[bigredbass]

Oh yeah, I forgot to include  . . . .
 
I had a friend who was a fabulous fiddler who worked on his own five-string violins (he wanted to include the low C to mimic viola timbres in spots), and he would sand / flatten out the high end of his fingerboards after reading about that sort of things on guitars.  Is that common with fiddlers?
 
And, delving into Tales from the Bench . . . . I learned to adjust my own axes after several really good techs just could not understand why I wanted lower strings on a bass.  I just didn't understand why would you NOT want an instrument (that's already harder to fret) to play as easily as was possible with any given axe.  I heard ' . . .but it's gonna buzz . . . ' once too often.  Are most bass players THAT ham-fisted technique-wise, or do the techs just hide behind the 'well, that's adjusted to the factory spec' reasoning?
 
Joey

[ed_zeppelin]

As Mark Twain said; I was born humble, but it wore off. My last shred of humility is all that stands between me launching into a rant about why you can't get - and don't want - the action on your bass to be just like your Gibson 335, here, on Alembic's forum.
 
It would be like marching into a Learjet factory and announcing in a loud, clear voice; you're doing it all wrong! It costs too much! Take off those flat things sticking out of the sides!
 
Don't worry, I'm not calling anyone a moron, except me. There are forces at work here far beyond our ken. (The Foghorn is Scottish, y'know. She actually says stuff like that, and after centuries of marriage, I do too.) Alembic are the acknowledged masters of uniting the forces of wood and wire to perfection.
 
There are so many factors at work in matters of string, scale and sound - and Alembic's solutions address each in their own unique way, such as the adjustable nut, or that masterpiece of engineering: the Alembic bridge, and even the slotted tailpiece for those of us who change strings a lot - that I'll just admit my ignorance right up front and get it over with.
 
Besides, no other musical instrument maker has gone to such great lengths to make sure you can adjust every single factor of your action (nut, neck and bridge), so if the action on your Alembic bass isn't perfect - PERFECT - that just means you ain't tryin'.
 
Here's a little glimpse through a window into just one of the main factors that musical instrument makers confront (with nifty animated gifs, my favorite part.):
 
https://plus.maths.org/content/why-violin-so-hard-play
 
I don't know how they could have explained that without the animated gifs, y'know?
 
As for fiddles, hold up your left hand and spread your fingers as wide as you can (mmbaby). On a violin, that's an octave, pretty much. No frets. It's like playing whack-a-mole with fleas. And bowing (arco) is a whole different beast, that instantly maximizes a string's oscillation and unleashes harmonics you can't imagine. Not all of them good. Taming those suckers is an art in itself.
 
I'm too lazy to find the link (it's somewhere in this thread, I think) to the National Musical Instrument museum in Vermillion, South Dakota, but I noticed that in their notes on a Stradivarius or Amati violin that it was the ONE violin by that maker that had the original, unaltered neck. (It was virtually untouched.) That kinda floored me. For hundreds of years, guys with varying degrees of skill and knowledge thought nothing of ripping the neck off a violin and doing this to it:
 
 

 
 
... and you're asking me why your pal takes sandpaper to his fiddle? No repairman in his right mind would tell him not to, either. Go ahead, knock yourself out. Wanna borrow my belt sander? Here's a hammer.

[lbpesq]

My last shred of humility is all that stands between me launching into a rant about why you can't get - and don't want - the action on your bass to be just like your Gibson 335, here, on Alembic's forum.
 
I suspect the late, great, Mr. Entwistle might have disagreed.  So long as the intonation works, there is no universally wrong way to set up an Alembic.  Wrong, in this context, is an individual assessment.  What is wrong for one person may be the epitome of perfection for another.  The beauty of Alembics is that they can relatively easily be adjusted to each person's own style.
 
Bill, tgo

[tubeperson]

Here, here Bill TGO.  So very true!

[ed_zeppelin]

I'm surprised you don't understand the most fundamental difference between bass and guitar, Bill. A .105 string on a 34 scale neck is going to oscillate a lot more than a .64 on a 24.5 scale neck. For instance, Clapton likes .064 action at the 12th fret on his Strat (we measure that with these: http://www.stewmac.com/Luthier_Tools/Types_of_Tools/Straightedges/String_Action_Gauge.html )
 
Try to set the action on an Alembic bass to .064 Bill. It'll sound like somebody set a rabid ferret loose in your cutlery drawer. Just because you can doesn't mean it'll sound good.
 
As for John Entwistle and Alembic, roundwounds were virtually unheard of until Entwistle and James How developed the Rotosound Swing 66 set. I'm guessing they knew how much more a bass string oscillates than a guitar string, and that a P-bass E string needs more clearance from the frets than a low E on a Gibson 335 (which was my point). How much more? I dunno. Alembic made his basses, ask them. Only an idiot would come to their forum and claim they knew exactly what he wanted.
 
The animated gifs were cool, though, weren't they? That fourth one, that shows the confluence of multiple waves up and down the string simultaneously, is exactly the same theory as the production of rogue waves in the ocean that can sink huge ships. Think about that next time you go out on a boat.
 
It blows my mind that a bowed string oscillates in a triangular pattern, or how Helmholtz could figure that out 150 years ago, using mathematics. Anybody want to venture an opinion on how those Helmholtz things apply to an Ebow?
 
(Message edited by Ed_zeppelin on October 19, 2015)

[elwoodblue]

It sure seems the Vo-96 belongs in this thread-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psqPViFKkjg

[ed_zeppelin]

Wow! That thing is amazing!  I use a Godin ACS (Buster Jones style) with a Roland GR-1 for that acoustic/synth thing.  
 
http://www.godinguitars.com/godinacsp.htm
 
You're right, though. This is the right place for the VO-96 because he completely re-thought the whole thing. Have you seen the sliders on the control panel, with LEDs that vary in brightness according to the setting? Holy cow, what a brilliant, completely original design. And so elegant and simple.
 
http://voinventions.com/
 


 
 
It looks a little clunky, but the only visible part is the surface, and the controls are worthy of Michelangelo or Frank Lloyd Wright. Absolutely unique, from the ground up.
 
 I bet that whole thing will be the size of an iPhone in a couple of years. It actually is an acoustic synth, too. It's digitally processing the acoustic properties of the strings and guitar (that's why it takes him ten minutes to explain it).
 
Did you see the other product he makes, the Wond (my award for lame name of the decade, though, especially because it was called the Vo Wand, a far more euphonious and mellifluous appellation). It's like an eBow on steroids. I was just talking about eBows, too.

[elwoodblue]

I've done the Cletus method that involves an extra amplfire with a speaker duct taped to the back of a mexican strat.
I can simulate controlled stage level feedback at headphone level(with a nice HF roll-off since it's re-amped through the body).  
  That moog really adds a crazy amount of control; dampening as well as driving!  
 I'll have a look at the Wond, I missed that.

[adriaan]

@ed_zeppelin - John Entwistle's preference for extremely low action is well documented, and it was unplayable for most people.

[keith_h]

There are a number of people here who are well versed in John Entwistle's basses, Alembics in particular, and how he liked them setup.  
 
As far as bass setups go I guess mine is setup wrong as I set my E string to 1.7mm to 1.8 mm at the 24th fret. That would be .066 to .070 inches making it pretty close .064 inches. The neck itself is fairly straight with minimal relief and plays just fine for me. I'm not the only one here who sets up my bass in that territory. You could make an argument for an acoustic bass where the volume is directly related to how hard you pluck. However with an electric bass there is no need to pluck hard for anything other than dynamics as the amplifier handles the volume. I think Bill stated it quite succinctly when he said, there is no universally wrong way to set up an Alembic. Wrong, in this context, is an individual assessment.    
 
Keith

[ed_zeppelin]

Sorry about taking so long to respond, but I was struck by the irony of setting off a controversy over whether a bass string oscillates more than a guitar string - here, on Alembic's forum - and the shock wave knocked me off my chair, out the window and into my neighbor's rosebushes.
 
I suspect it was this comment that sparked off the controversy:
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As for John Entwistle and Alembic, roundwounds were virtually unheard of until Entwistle and James How developed the Rotosound Swing 66 set.  
 
-> I'm guessing they knew how much more a bass string oscillates than a guitar string, and that a P-bass E string needs more clearance from the frets than a low E on a Gibson 335 (which was my point).

[elwoodblue]

Did you notice the future mystery connector on the Vo-96 diagram?

[ed_zeppelin]

I didn't realize until I tried to find it that unless you go to http://voinventions.com and select VO-96 (under products), nobody would know which video I was talking about. Here's the YouTube address, to save you the trouble: http://youtu.be/rDaKfG3-dtA
 
He demonstrates the touchpad/slider/LED thing at 2:38. Tell me that isn't one of the most elegant, simple, unique solutions you've ever seen. I can see putting one on the back of a guitar neck, to control volume with your left hand (or to switch functions, whatever. Sky's the limit.) Especially because the brightness of the LED indicates the position of the slider. All the zillions of mixing boards, amps and other stuff with sliders out there, and nobody ever thought of that (as far as I know).
 
Speaking of inventions, I'm still working on understanding Kaz Kwzywckxwk's inventions. His site (on tripod.com) hasn't had any activity in eons, but you have to wade through the acoustic stuff to get to his electrics, which are just stunningly innovative.
 


 
 
Here's the patent (pdf) for his acoustic arm design: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5661252.pdf
 


 
 
He was really onto something with the arm taking all the string tension everything else about the guitar could change, since the bracing doesn't have to bear any stress other than keeping a vaguely guitar-ish shape. The trick is in how the strings' vibrations are transferred to the soundboard, and that part isn't particularly clear. (Plus, you really don't know if it's bogus unless you can actually hear it, y'know?) Kind of clunky headstocks, as well.