isaac42

Cool. I think a lot of people get hung up on the windings. Makes sense, as we can measure the DC resistance of the coils easily. That gives us something we can talk about and compare. But very few of us have magnetometers or gauss meters to measure the magnetic fields of our pickups, so we can't compare the magnetic strength of different pickups, leaving us with nothing to talk about. I have enough electric theory to know kinda how pickups work, so I've known for a long time that magnets were important. It was driven home to me a few years ago, when I changed out the pickups on a P-style bass. Frankly, I couldn't hear all that much difference, even though the windings had very different resistances. With similar basic construction but very different windings, the magnet strength had to be different, too. Anyway, I'm having fun, and it isn't costing me much.

Not sure what you're asking. The magnets are stuck to the bottom of the pickup. Here's a picture of a pickup with four circular magnets stuck to the bottom: So, they are outside the pickup. The magnets I bought are rectangular, each one taking the place of two of the circular ones shown above.

I got positive feedback from the band, too.

The so-called magnet trick is a simple, easily reversible mod for Rickenbacker 4001 and 4003 basses. Could be done on guitars, too, I suppose. Works best on their high gain pickups. Background first. As most folks know, the amplitude of a vibrating string is usually greater farther from the bridge, closer to the neck. If pickups are identical, then the neck pickup will be louder than the bridge pickup. Some manufacturers will simply lower the neck pickup so that it's farther away from the strings, reducing its output to better match the bridge. Others will use different pickups. The Rics have always had different pickups. Originally, they had a horseshoe pickup for the bridge and a toaster for the neck. Later, both had high gains, but the bridge had a larger magnet. Now things get a little tricky. The Ric bridge pickup came with a capacitor in series with the pickup. That cap reduced its bass response and thus its volume. That was okay, because the neck pickup picked up the slack. The neck pickup ismounted in such a way that it can't be brought too close to the strings, limiting its output, so the two match pretty well. But a lot of players would bypass or remove the bass-blocking cap to get a better sound from the bridge pickup. Once that is done, the neck pickup can't keep up. What to do? Well, I recently learned that some players will put a neodymium magnet underneath the neck pickup. This increases the magnetic flux and thus the output. Conveniently, it does this without increasing the electrical noise picked up by the single coil pickup. One guy complained that, after doing this, his strings buzzed on the frets because the magnets were pulling them down! Fortunately, I didn't have that problem. Anyway, I opened up my 1979 4001 MG (mapleglo) bass and put a couple of neo magnets on the bottom of the pickup. Put it back together and tried it out. Noticeably higher output from the neck pickup. No increase in fret buzz, no other noticeable effects people sometimes get when the magnets are too strong. At least one guy said that he had to lower his neck pickup because it was overpowering the bridge pickup, but I didn't have that problem, either. On some models, the pickup leads come out in the middle of the pickup, so the magnet has to be broken in the middle, but I used two smaller magnets, so that wasn't a problem, either. I think my smaller magnets are also weaker, so I didn't get too much of an increase in output. So, I'd say that this was a success. I'm looking forward to trying it on my 4003W.

Cool! Glad it worked.

I don't see why not.

Gutsy call, Perfessor!

I thought as much.

You're not around all that often yourself.

That's why I guessed that it was made in the Samick factory. Most were badged as Hondo II, this one was badged as Harmony. Same bass, different brand. Happens all the time.

Did a little digging on Google, and now I'm guessing. It looks pretty much exactly like a Hondo II H830 bass guitar. Those were made in South Korea in 1980 (or so. Sometimes 1979 is mentioned, but sometimes they say that production didn't start until 1980). Probably made in the Samick factory, or what became the Samick factory. Very early models had a Maxon pickup, which looks like what is on your bass. Not long after, they switched to a split P pickup. So, my best guess is that it's a 1980 Hondo II H830 bass, rebranded and sold as a Harmony H830S. Is the S for Samick, a company that ran a factory making huge numbers of instruments for multiple brands? Your guess is as good as mine. What's it worth? Who knows? Ultimately, it's worth what someone will pay for it. Here's an ad for a Hondo II H830 with Maxon pickup for $300. https://www.batonrougemusicexchange.com/products/1980s-hondo-ii-h830-bass

Fenfer sux!

This thread hasn't even reached 800 pages. It's still a baby!

Where would it go?

But again, that was Victor in a band context. Personally, I'm not familiar enough with Wooten's solo work to have an informed opinion on how musical it is or isn't.

Alvin Lee!

No, it never really did. I miss the Portland bass meetups. Those were good parties.

In the absence of any actual evidence to the contrary, yes.

Nope.

Gene Wilder is.

Originally Posted by lug Bump Youze still alive?

According to the FEC, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing or spending money in domestic elections. The term "foreign national" includes foreign corporations. I don't know if the decision today changes any of that, as it is very long and I haven't gotten through it yet, but I'll be looking into it. An American corporation can be held in large part by foreign interests and still remain an American corporation. I could be wrong, but I think what determines whether or not a corporation is American is where is is incorporated.

I'm actually doing my law review article on this decision, so it's been interesting to see what people have to say. Some things to consider: 1. The overwhelming majority of corporations in the US are very small, with only one or a few shareholders. 2. This decision only strikes down the ban on corporate expenditures that are made independently of a candidate. A corporation can not contribute a dime directly to a candidate, nor can it coordinate with a candidate about an expenditure. 3. The only sufficient reason for limiting political speech is the prevention of corruption or the appearance thereof. The Court ruled long ago that independent expenditures did not contain risks of corruption. 4. The NRA and the ACLU were both on the side of Citizens United urging the Court to rule as it did today. I figure it must be a damn good argument for these two groups to agree. I'm not so sure. The ACLU is not necessarily on the side of the people, but of the Constitution. If one assumes that corporations are people for purposes of speech, and that money = speech, then this was the correct decision, and the ACLU is bound to support it. However, I think that both of those premises are wrong. The NRA, I suspect, simply wants to reduce restrictions on its ability to influence elections, which only makes sense.

This is why I started this thread. Do you think that we will see even more ads than before? It's already bad. Not necessarily, but the price of ads might go up, leaving only those with deep pockets able to get their message out. Or there might be more ads, having much the same effect.

It's troubling to me that the Court feels that corporations and similar entities should enjoy the same status as individuals when it comes to political spending. This has the potential (IMO) to turn political races into contests of who can get the most corporate support, completely shutting out the voices of the electorate. In short, he with the most money wins, and corporations can now be legally regarded as "he." This, and that money equals speech. Corporations having the rights of people and money equaling speech are, in my opinion, the two biggest hindrances to government, of the people, by the people and for the people.