Author Topic: New member, new owner (Read 1111 times)

palembic · « **Reply #30 on:** September 19, 2005, 01:50:39 PM »

Huhuhuhu ....let's hi-jack this thread agian.
Fellow beer-drinkers all over the world.
Put the volume of your computer-speakers full throttle!
Click this:
http://www.bigad.com.au/
then click yes in the dialogue box, than click high depending on your internet connection speed.
And ...just enjoy!
I think Aussie original??
But really good!

Paul TOBO

Hmmm ..i didn' taste it.

keith_h · « **Reply #31 on:** September 19, 2005, 03:01:37 PM »

Sam,
Thanks for the background on the name.

Keith

bracheen · « **Reply #32 on:** September 20, 2005, 03:11:59 AM »

Paul, great ad! thanks

Keith
I figure when something comes along I actually know about I better jump on it.

guineapig · « **Reply #33 on:** September 29, 2005, 06:43:14 AM »

Today my second Spoiler arrived, which I bought from another club member. A 5 string from 1985. Since it's a 5 string, I can use it for the band I'm in. It's, again, a very good instrument and it's in a very good shape.
See how nice they both look on my wall! :-)

palembic · « **Reply #34 on:** September 29, 2005, 06:52:52 AM »

Hmmmmmm ...those beauties doesn't belong on the wall ...get out playing fellah!!!

Paul the bad one

David Houck · « **Reply #35 on:** September 29, 2005, 07:00:12 AM »

Maybe it's an optical illusion, but the five string looks like it has a string spacing that is narrower than the classic spacing that's standard on a Spoiler five.

That's a nice looking pair of Maple basses!

(Message edited by davehouck on September 29, 2005)

guineapig · « **Reply #36 on:** September 29, 2005, 07:22:16 AM »

Don't know about the string spacing. It is quite narrow, but I have no other Spoiler 5 to compare it to. Maybe this picture will tell you more.

george_wright · « **Reply #37 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:29:59 AM »

quote:Maybe it's an optical illusion, but the five string looks like it has a string spacing that is narrower than the classic spacing that's standard on a Spoiler five.

That's no illusion. My Spoiler five has very narrow string spacing. (I'm at work now, so I can't measure. Day jobs!)

george_wright · « **Reply #38 on:** September 29, 2005, 04:55:48 PM »

Sorry, dual post.

(Message edited by george_wright on September 29, 2005)

george_wright · « **Reply #39 on:** September 29, 2005, 04:56:47 PM »

OK, I'm home now. String spacing on five-string 87S4286, all center-to-center, left-to-right, to the nearest .25mm, as measured by 60-year-old eyeballs:

At the nut: 4.5mm, 4mm, 4mm, 3.75mm

At the bridge: 6mm, 5.5mm, 5.75mm, 5.25mm

Total at nut, center-of-B to center-of-G: 16.5mm

Total at bridge, center-of-B to center-of-G: 22.25mm

David Houck · « **Reply #40 on:** September 29, 2005, 06:24:29 PM »

George; that doesn't seem right. 16.5mm is a little less than 2/3s of an inch. If you don't mind, measure again in inches, the nut width and the 24th fret width. The standard classic taper for a five string is 2 at the nut and 2.5 at the 24th fret.

adriaan · « **Reply #41 on:** September 30, 2005, 03:56:09 AM »

If George has been reading the imperial side of his ruler as if it were the decimal side (you're looking at just a couple of markings at close range, so an easy mistake to make) I guess his 4.5 reading would correspond to 3/8, which would be 9.25 mm.

That's just over half as wide as the spacing on my Spoiler, which is 17 mm center-to-center both at the nut and the bridge - which I always thought is the classic Alembic lack of taper.

The total width at the nut would be roughly 5 * 9.25 = 46.25 mm, which would make it slightly narrower than my 4 * 17 = 48 mm. The problem is that if you see the picture of the 4 and 5 together, the 5 does appear to have a wider nut than the 4 - not much, but still.

(Message edited by adriaan on September 30, 2005)

adriaan · « **Reply #42 on:** September 30, 2005, 06:50:43 AM »

Oops, there I go chastising George on his poor eyesight and make two stupid miscalculations all of my own making:

Obviously 4*17 does not equal 48, but 68.

And to calculate the total width at the nut you multiply the average string spacing with one less than the number of strings, so I should have used 3*17=51 mm.

Never mind that ... For George's nut width to be wider at 5 strings than mine at 4, it must have at least 51/4=13 mm average string spacing, and that's about 0.51.

Hm, did I just manage to go from 51 mm to 0.51? Magic number time!

george_wright · « **Reply #43 on:** September 30, 2005, 04:20:34 PM »

Adriaan is exactly right, of course. I was reading a ruler with major subdivision in imperial inches and subdivisions in tenths. All my numbers are tenths of inches, not millimeters (mm). Good thing I'm not an engineer; all my bridges would fall :-(.

David Houck · « **Reply #44 on:** September 30, 2005, 04:42:03 PM »

Don't feel bad, the guys at NASA get this stuff backwards too.