Les Paul Mega thread

chromium · August 19, 2009, 09:37:44 AM

Quote from: barend on August 18, 2009, 01:14:05 PM
Man, these pictures are nice! My GAS for a Triumph is all back now. Somehow I like the Triumph better than the 'Recording' bass. I like the orange colour and the block inlays.

Thanks, Barend. Didn't you have a Les Paul Bass for a while? I don't know how the sound compares to the LPB (haven't played one), but compared to the EBs (which I know you've had) the Triumph has a lot tighter low end, more even response across the strings and up the neck, and it can be very clear and articulate when you want it to.

Basvarken · August 19, 2009, 11:49:12 AM

I favour the Les Paul -often referred to as Recording- Bass over a Triumph.
It feels more substantial. (for example: the large control plate on the Triumph is very vulnerable/delicate)

The body is 5 mm thicker and to my ears that gives it a deeper and tighter tone.
The neck of the Triumph is a wee bit thinner.

If the Les Paul Bass doesn't speak to you Barend, the Triumph will most likely not speak to you either.

uwe · August 19, 2009, 12:49:24 PM

I'm with the man speaking the medieval Middle German dialect: I prefer the LP/original Recording to the Triumph too. The neck on the Triumph is indeed suspiciously thin and the scratchplate just waiting for the bass' less than robust guts to spill out. The LP looks better (more organic) too and is able to do everything the Triumph offers (except for the redundnat higher output option).

Pilgrim · August 19, 2009, 01:55:16 PM

Quote from: uwe on August 19, 2009, 06:28:04 AM
Vol, tone and chicken head "level controller" with pos 50, 200 and 500. Plus an extra jack at the side for a really low signal for studio work straight into the board.

Does anyone know what "50, 200 and 500" actually mean? I know the sound changes with the position, but 50, 200 and 500 - WHAT? Ohms of resistance? Frequency rolloff point? Frequency boost point?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

Basvarken · August 19, 2009, 02:17:49 PM

With the rotary switch you choose the impedance.

barend · August 19, 2009, 03:34:00 PM

Quote from: chromium on August 19, 2009, 09:37:44 AM
Thanks, Barend. Didn't you have a Les Paul Bass for a while? I don't know how the sound compares to the LPB (haven't played one), but compared to the EBs (which I know you've had) the Triumph has a lot tighter low end, more even response across the strings and up the neck, and it can be very clear and articulate when you want it to.

Yes, I had a LP bass for a week at my home just to try it out. But it had some problems with the electronics so it was hard to judge the full potential of the sound and also it was a little bit too heavy for my taste.
So in the end I didn't buy it although I liked what I heard. Maybe if it was in perfect working order (soundwise) I would have bought it.

And Rob: you are probably right. But they look so beautiful! Also I don't really need it but I always had GAS
for a Triumph. Chromiums Triumph is the best looking Triumph I ever saw. It looks like a photoshoot for a magazine or so (must be a very good camera)...why did you post those pictures?..haha

slinkp · August 19, 2009, 07:00:22 PM

I've seen a few LPB-1s in this thread but I don't think I've seen one in the black/yellow sunburst finish yet, so here's mine, alongside my bandmate's LP guitar:

Pilgrim · August 19, 2009, 07:40:33 PM

Quote from: Basvarken on August 19, 2009, 02:17:49 PM
With the rotary switch you choose the impedance.

Thanks!

gearHed289 · August 20, 2009, 09:08:12 AM

Quote from: slinkp on August 19, 2009, 07:00:22 PM
I've seen a few LPB-1s in this thread but I don't think I've seen one in the black/yellow sunburst finish yet, so here's mine, alongside my bandmate's LP guitar:

Cool 3 knobber! Real Junior vibe on that one.

uwe · August 20, 2009, 10:00:37 AM

From the future, slated for Limited Run release:

Dave W · August 20, 2009, 10:05:50 AM

You've been to the future?

barend · August 20, 2009, 10:06:40 AM

wow! an LP3

Highlander · August 20, 2009, 05:14:12 PM

Thanks Dave...

Oh... you didn't mean me...

I think I saw a psychedelic megalomaniac image on this page to rival the "Tequilabird"...!!!

Stand up and claim your crown, Paul (SlinkP, with the "Blazer") ...!!!!!!!

uwe · August 20, 2009, 05:46:13 PM

Whether I've been to the future, Dave? That is a question of great philosophical implications, nevertheless I will attempt an explanation for you. The great learned English philosophers Ozzy O. And Geezer B. once quite rightly observed "that today is yesterday's tomorrow". Think about it. What it means is that while no-one of us will ever have been to the future - it escapes day after day as it metamorphoses into the present only to then decay into the past -, all of us are constantly going towards it. And the journey is more important than the destination.

I really should be writing liner notes for prog albums ...

Highlander · August 20, 2009, 06:02:26 PM

A car/train/plane/etc is a time-machine... (car - literally, in "that" movie) - if you walked the distance, how long would it take...?

and did you know that you hear the "sound" of lightning in reverse, in most cases... think about it... light/electricity travels considerably faster than sound, so the point where the "arc" is formed is the point of "creation of the sound", but as it strikes the ground (in many cases) faster than the sound from the creation point, and this could have been miles up, you hear the strike point first...

"I was here at the dawn of time, and I will be here at the end of time, but not in this form..." - the philosophy of Kennneth Stewart, circa 1981

"Time is relative, lunch time doubly so..." - Douglas Adams (rip)

I really should be sectioned, under the Mental Health Act...