The Last Bass Outpost

And that's relevant how exactly?  I only posted that comparison to show the diversity in his tone over the years.  The one that sounds more Ampexy to me, was recorded at Hitsville, so if anything, it helps, so thanks for pointing that out.

Yeah, the older (60s) cabs were just guitar cabs with almost the same speakers in them (stamped frame Celestions with either heavier or the same guitar cones but coated - to to provide stiffness and lower resonance).

They later used actual bass drivers (not sure exactly what) in the 'bass' 4x12s and had a larger volume to match as GoT says, but the old 4x15s used some sweet cast frame Celestions.  I'd love to try one of those sometime.







They also used Goodman drivers at some point and I know I really like those - you can get those in a 12" (even though Marshall didn't use the 12s as far as I know, which is not far) and they'd be a good candidate for your project I think. 

If you do get an empty 4x12 and put bass drivers in there - definitely stuff the cab as it'll match the drivers better and help damp internal resonances.  You'll have to play with stuffing density to get it right -what ever that is for you.

(Granny, sometime would your PM me your exact set up for that Jamerson tone.  Unfortunately you would have to splain it to me  like I was a six year old. You guys are light years ahead of me in knowledge and experience.  I understand D.I. in theory but I have no experience with it)

It's not exactly Jamerson nailed to a T, but gets you in the neighborhood - if anything, a more modern/hihfi version of that tone:  Triumph with flats, tone position 3 into any 60s era Ampex tube preamp.  This is how most Motown bass was recorded; even when micing JJs B15 an Ampex preamp was always in the chain, and they definately add a certain character. JJ did also went through DI - the Ampex and a P with deadish flats were the only constants to his (recorded) tone in terms of gear.  Mostly the studio was using an Ampex MX10 (tube mixer with 2-4 mic pres depending on options), but I find the PR10 (which is a reel to reel 2 track recorder with a very nice tube preamp section ) or 354 (same preamp as the PR10, but larger chassis - easier to work on -  the PR10 is cramped as it was the 'portable' model) sound pretty much the same (they use the same "plug in" preampmodules based on the miniature Nuvistor tubes, to convert the inputs from unbalanced line to mic level).  The Ampexes only have a gain knob so use the treble/bass knobs on the Triumph to dial it it to your liking (probably bass on full or close to it and treble rolled off at least a little).  The Ampex will add that low midrange girth.

I have 2 PR10s (preamps only racked up and slightly modified for stand alone use as mic preamps -the tape transports were broken and not worth fixing - horribly/notoriously unreliable machines).

I saw one of those cabs IRL once in a store. The grill was gone though.  Just so massive and impressive looking - I woulda grabbed it if not for the HUGE!  God damn having to hump 3 of them around.

Also r right next to it they had a similarly shaped (but not horn loaded?  can't recall) 4x12 (Bassman cab I think).  I was very surprised at how quickly those got sold (they weren't there more than a week or 2 - I lived around the corner from the store at the time so I popped by on the regular), which was the even more amazing thing.

Yeah - I love the basic Marsland alnico 12s for guitar (I had a pair of their deluxe ones, Lamplighter or something - sold them because they were worth some serious coin vs what I paid and I don't like what happens to the top end with metal dustcaps... and the later ceramic ones suffered in terms of quality - worse the later it got; a real shame), but I am definitely not a fan of any flavour (so far encountered) of them for Bass - very similar to those Eminence 15s  that were stock in the 115RH, though they take more power (both are rather Jensen-like).  I would have thought though, due to the power handling spec (I've seen 90 and 100 watts posted online in various places for the Traynor) that it can't be a Marsland in there (the ones Traynor/Garnet used were usually the 25 watt variety, with some  50 watters for the bigger amps; these were identical looking but for larger magnets).  Traynor did use some "better" speakers here and there (Norelcos, RCFs, other things with cast frames) and I assumed one of those would be at play here.  

Can't actually find any good info on what the driver actually is aside from the very misleading (from a PDF Yorkville history document; 1980 section ) "The TS-115 (100 Watts, 8 Ohms) was a single-fifteen cabinet added as a more compact alternative to the TS-215 for use with the TS-50B."  The 215 was sealed not ported and did use a pair of (later; ceramic IIRC) Marslands (for about 100 watts handling) vs the TS-115.  Ever since they made a separate website for Traynor (vs being under Yorkville) they eliminated the awesome 'vintage Traynor' info section that was so great for checking specs and config of the old gear - it even listed drivers models most of the time.  There's some info on the new Traynor site, but not all the stuff that used to be over at Yorkville.  A real shame - that was a resource I referenced often.

Never been a fan of any JBL 12s for guitar, though I did like the E120s I had for a bit for bass,  though I only used them at low volumes before selling them off.  Never used their 15s.

Anyway, it seems I'll just keep my eye out for these guys at my local gear places where I could get a good look at one - though I would totally risk it if the price is right (like the auction).  If they're as large (internal volume) as it appears to me that they are,  I should be able to get a driver I know I like sounding good in there and the original speaker should be worth something  to help fund the replacement (even if it is a Marsland - I remember when I was buying all of them up on ebay  - $10 for the 25 watters and no more than $40 for the 50 - those were good times, but no longer, the word got out).

That's not ugly at all, reminds me a bit of the Evertilt in look which wasn't so much an ugly bridge as it was a non-functional one (unless of course - Dave's Hypothetical Stringholder Theorem - it would have had a stringholder, but then it didn't). Not that I have issues with the Holy Immaculate Trinity Point, but there are obviously sinners, heathens and pagans out there who do! 

That's exactly what I was thinking.  Surprised that there is no tilt (despite string holder) due to the offset mounting, but if it works then great.  I like it.  I just  have no issue with any of my 3 points, though if I had to install a bridge on a new bass I probably wouldn't use one if I had other options (it's so much easier when the mounting posts are in line with the saddle-travel's midpoint).  What I do especially like about the 3 point applies to archtops only (or , I suppose any flat top with a similalr drastic neck break angle) - due to the tri-mounting, you can tilt them to be parallel to the neck/strings, vs the body.  The bridge seems to perform better this way.

I love it, Blended.  LoZ stuff always look so damn good in white.

4003W
...
I kind of like it - I wonder if the fingerboard is unfinished?

Unlikely - maple.