Mr. Foxen

Its big powerful clean amp, super heavy, fan is noisy. Don't really use it, have valve amps. Its a power amp probably intended for PA, but used it for bass a bunch with various pres.

[quote name='Phil-osopher10' timestamp='1362009539' post='1994582'] Will they ever do a solid state amp? [/quote] Did them in the 80s. Have one sat here.

Both pickups on full gives a mid scoop on the jazz, back one off to even it up a bit.

Chances are the tweeter is just high passed and attenuated and doesn't have a crossover at all, so the woofers get full range signal, minus whatever is tapped off by the tweeter, which probably won't be anything audible. Disregard if you know there is an actual crossover in that particular cab.

Ebay isn't very safe for the seller (which in this case is both, but it ends up screwing everyone as soon as you don't use ebay exactly as intended). Safest is travel and go in person, not cheap though.

[quote name='hunt the shunt' timestamp='1361992121' post='1994187'] I am reminded of when I was a hifi geek and some of the reviews had technical and listening tests. The number of times they ended up saying "measured great, sounds pants" and "measured pants, sounds great" was probably why they stopped measuring. [/quote] This just means someone doesn't know how to apply test results to reality.

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1361977967' post='1993943'] I (and I assume others who have participated in this thread) was asked yesterday evening by a mod not to participate any further in this thread. That is their privilege and I will respect that. [/quote] Good logic, consistent with previous posts. [quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1361978371' post='1993954'] ....anyway - how do these cabs sound in real life? Anyone? [/quote] Depends on the room. Much like the magazines tests.

More prone to microphonics, because the plate is bendier. Also push a bit more current. Also magic.

Mid scoop is kind of a fact of the sort of EQ it has.

One of those is a long plate Mullard, which are stupid money, from the 50s/early 60s so don't come up very often, and people get excited about them.

[quote name='stevie' timestamp='1361888030' post='1992467'] It looks accurate enough to me. [/quote] Based on what? As in you've heard the cab and walked about hearing the crossover and breakup behaviour in controlled conditions and it matches the chart? Or that it looks like a chart?

This is that taken out of context thing again, like when you isolate a solo bass bit from a concert, and make fun of the bassist for being widdly. Whole album of this vocal style, but a Rush cover for a change of pace, or juxtaposition, or jsut because they think it is funny.

Being a bassist is associated with being ugly, often bald, an fat. Being a musician is associated with pulling above your game. So keeping one, as a bassist requires so concessions.

Only real difficulty with selling things not via ebay is you have to know what price you want.

Put the band logo in a rectangular inlay, then you can gouge it out and put a new thing in if necessary.

What are the speaker setups? Might be them that need to be louder.

Too many people thinking string pitch is same as sound travelling in air, but the string is mechanical, so the medium the sound travels in later isn't relevant. If its in tune out of water, and in tune in water, they'll be the same. Dunking your bass is likely to make it out of tune though.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361648573' post='1988863'] You actually quoted me saying a recording. [/quote] The fact that a Patent needs to be on something original is a pretty important distinction. Edit: and if you really want a recording dominating: the Amen Break.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361638037' post='1988661'] I struggle to imagine a situation in which a single recording monopolises the entire music industry. [/quote] A single musical idea monopolising the industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361618431' post='1988293'] I'm aware of the differences in practicalities, I'm asking you what the difference in the concept is. Both patents and copyright are based on someone creating something then having the ability to control it's use. [/quote] The idea of Patent is that it ensures all the design details reach the public domain eventually,so that the technology can be exploited by others, the short term protection is in exchange for that. Plus you has to be actively done and you have to establish that the design is new and unique in a very real way (the office will take your money though, but it won't protect an unoriginal design). Apply that concept to music copyright, and see how they are very different things.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361583422' post='1988068'] What is the difference between the concept of a patent and copyright? A patent protects the creater (or owner) of the concept from having the thing that they've invested time and money being used by others for their own means without permission. Copyright does exactly the same thing. I'm not sure of the relevance of what racing cars do though, music (the actual art) isn't about staying ahead of the competition. Are you saying that if there was a centralised way of copyrighting something where you paid your money and sent in a copy of the material that you should be given better protection by law? [/quote] They are full on different things. To have Patent protection, you have to have filed all of the details that make something unique with the Patent office, including having established it is new and unique, and paid a fee to the office. You have to pay and make an effort to acquire a Patent, and establish its new in express terms that can be published. If that was a requirement for music, then there would be no protection for music, because nothing really new is going on there, and to get the protection, you'd have to state what makes it new and different to anything that has gone before. And once the period has expired, anyone if free to work with that idea however they wish. You can go and browse all the designs for anything patented right now, and use them as you wish.

MM buckers have big magnetic poles, pretty sure. Not sure how much benefit there will be to swapping magnets, new different pickups is often cheaper (because you still have the old pickup), more predicatble/known quantity, less effort, and you haven't destroyed your old pickup if you don't prefer.

Barefaced with a mid driver, and good EQ skills.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361487613' post='1986629'] IMO copyright follows the same kind of logic as patents and intellectual property. If someone's created something that other people want, it should be within their control to do as they want with it, including selling it or sharing it for free. For me it'd be no different if (for example) Microsoft took apart a PS4 when they get their hands on one then reproduced it using their own factories and sold it for less money. Sony haven't had anything go missing but it'd definitely impact on Sony's sales and the effort that went into designing the PS4 by Sony would be a total loss as no one would buy their consoles so they wouldn't see any profit from it. [/quote] Patents are a different thing because the purpose of of Patent law is that you pay for the protection, both in money, and by submitting all the relevant design info to the patent office, in exchange for short term legal protection of the IP, and at the end of that period, the information becomes public domain (its public already, but protected) so that everyone can benefit from the technology. That's why in fast technology sectors like racing cars and such, they don't do the Patent thing because they are trying to keep a season ahead of each other, and by the time the patent stuff is done with its already too late, so better to just keep your stuff a secret and actually keep it out of competitors hands.

Listening to lots of music is the problem. More stuff for new stuff to sound like.