fretmeister

You're a Health and Safety advisor and you don't think your OP is a problem? I am speechless! What next? Consultant Oncologist Smith says "Chemo doesn't work" DCI Plod says "The Offences against the Person Act wasn't enacted properly so it doesn't apply" Accountant Mr Jones says "Don't pay your taxes" In those regulated positions such a statement would be enough to get the person in trouble with their regulatory body.

The NHS website confirms they assist. Earplugs are sold with attenuation specs that have to be supported by testing to comply with advertising rules and Health and Safety Regulations. Thus there is ample proof they are effective. You have also been provided with analogy such as the crash helmet that still means a wearer is at risk of head injury. To sell earplugs "that do not work" would be a criminal offence of fraud, as well as contravening the various Sale of Goods statutes and Consumer Protection Regulations. Using standard dictionary definitions of the words you used in your title and in your original post there is no other way to read it. It is obviously and demonstrably inaccurate. If this forum was subject to newspaper oversight from the PCC a retraction or correction or clarification may well have been ordered. No earplug maker claims they protect against 100% of hearing damage. No PPE maker of any type would make such a claim. But they do have to show that what they claim about their product is true - particularly for any formal safety standards markings. A steel toe boot is very protective - unless you drop 3 tons on it. Does that mean it doesn't work? No. It will have specs as to impact resistance and deformity under load. I do not have a habit of making demands on anyone and I am not bullying you. I am however arguing robustly and pointing out the flaws in your position. The only personal thing about that is that you make the original claim. Please do not assume robust argument is anything other than robust argument. You may find my tone strident. Frankly I am unconcerned. I am far more worried that someone might take your initial post as gospel and stop wearing earplugs. That reader might not read the rest of the thread where you either ignore questions, move goalposts or backtrack from your original post. You are a moderator on a site where the members are often exposed to high volume levels. Claiming that a proven method of noise attenuation doesn't work, without caveat, is irresponsible. When I, and others - including your fellow moderators - have asked you to clarify what was said you have ignored those requests. Even the simple request from WoT "Did he tell you they literally don’t work?" you have ignored. Perhaps you didn't see the post. Now I have drawn your attention to it. It is a simple question. If the "expert" literally said they don't work, then this would be an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence to over-turn decades of accepted medical advice. If the "expert" did not say it then you expose the inaccuracy of your Original Post. It must be one or the other. It is not unreasonable to expect you to answer such a simple question that is of great importance to anyone who gigs at volume. Perhaps there was additional information. Perhaps the expert said "They literally don't work.... if you are using a road drill all day." That would be a very pertinent matter you neglected to mention and would massively change the applicability of the information in the Original Post. As a moderator, presumably you would delete medical advice posted by others that was demonstrably harmful? Breaches of the Cancer Act for example? Claims that some home-made concoction can cure a condition? Some idiot claiming that a mash of herbs is a better choice than chemo? Are you not concerned that your Original Post might cause others to abandon ear plugs, thus leading them to harm? This is a forum of noise lovers. It's of interest to everybody here. I think that brings additional responsibilities as to the accuracy of what is passed on as an expert opinion about hearing protection.

I don't have a .47 so I'll try with the .22 then. On P basses without this silly circuit I tend to adjust the tone control quite a lot for different songs. Hopefully the .22 will do the job.

That in no way affects the validity or more to the point invalidity of the OP's comment "Ear plugs don't work." That is demonstrably incorrect and yet instead of addressing it or editing the post he avoids the question. This is not an issue of whether ear plugs are perfect or not. No Personal Protective Equipment item avoids risk 100%. The point is whether they assist in lowering risk and damage. There is no other way to read "Ear plugs don't work" than as stated. If the comments of the unknown audiologist have been conveyed correctly they were irresponsible.

No idea!

Sandbergs are slightly smaller than a Fender, not quite Fender shape though. And if weight is the issue their Superlight series weighs under 7lb.

He's the only reason I'm tempted. He's a great actor.

I haven't seen that yet. Not a fan of M Night Can'tspellhisname films.

After a couple of weeks with it I think I can add my Markbass Marcus Limited to the "awesome" list. Took me a while to get the hand of the VERY powerful EQ. Even tiny little movements can drastically adjust the sound. It's also very sensitive to different basses. P with flats needs a completely different EQ than my 'Berg with steel rounds. The differences in different basses comes through very clearly. It is the punchiest class D amp I've ever heard. Very dynamic indeed. I usually use my Helix and a pair of studio monitors in the house but I've left this amp set up for easy use. I like it!

This again contradicts your posts. You literally said earplugs don't work. Without any caveat. I'm beginning to wonder if the "Billy Apple" account login information is known to several people who don't agree on anything.

Nice and click-baity again. You should write for the Sun. How about: "One professional out of hundreds has suggested that ear plugs are not as protective as we might think as other factors might be involved. I have only heard this in passing from 1 audiologist so I don't know if it is a widely accepted view or whether this doctor is the only person with this view. However for clarity I should point out that I was in a consultation with an audiologist for a medical issue so there is a distinct possibility that I didn't hear him correctly."

Section 3 - wearing earplugs. That's the bit your mystery specialist seems to be against. And against common sense.

Moving the goalposts in a discussion is not a technique that works. This is not a conversation about ear infections. As you well know. Are you still standing by your click bait thread title?

If they assist then they work. If they reduce the damage done to the ear they work. They might not work as well as expected but they work. This is not semantics. Crash helmets work. Up until the point where the impact means that the person would be killed whether they were wearing the helmet or not. Thus they still work even though the person is still at risk from head injury. No neurosurgeon would ever be so unprofessional as to to claim a helmet didn't work.

That's a very different explanation to your click-bait "Ear plugs don't work" thread title. It's also very different to your opening sentence of the thread: "I was talking to a specialist audiologist Doctor last week and he says ear plugs don’t work." That is a definitive declaration. It is not an "ear plugs don't help as much as we think" or "Ear plugs only help for some sound levels but not all because of bone transmission." You claimed that an expert told you they "don't work." If a point has been missed that is due to your inaccurate title and opening post. Considering how important hearing is to musicians the last thing this topic needs is sensationalism.

Perhaps the OP should go back to the same doc and ask him if he is advocating not wearing ear plugs at all. I will bet a shiny £1 that the answer will not be "do without - it will all be fine"

I have a lovely Fender American Special with the Greasebucket tone circuit. The circuit is crap. In fact I've had 2 basses with it on, and it's crap on both of them. I've seen various diagrams showing how to turn it into a regular tone control using the existing capacitors. As I understand it, the 0.1uF is the vintage choice and the 0.22uF is the modern one. I've found a few ebay demos of the capacitor swaps but either they have not been recorded very well or my ears can't tell the difference. Is there really much of a difference? Which one to I go for?

Actually in the M900 I quite like to stack them. If I'm using a tone that needs a touch of grit on all the time but then needs to be increased then a pedal is far easier than knob twiddling. I did like stacking the original AO into a B3K (pedal or amp) too - I much preferred it to the AO on it's own. But I don't play that sort of metal so I sold the AO in the end.

I keep coming back to my B3K V2. I like the simplicity of it, and it takes up minimal space on my board.

christmas show only - big band mostly. But I'll jump in with any of the ensembles as needed. There is a rock one - but it's 1970s ish rather than brewtal metal!

Speak for yourself...

I've not tried that approach as I've tended to use EQ rather than filters, but I might give it a try this weekend. The filters in the Helix are very good so it will just be a matter of sketching out the signal path. Assuming 1 input to Helix I'd probably split the signal straight away, then on 1 path into the filter and a compressor, and the other path for dirt. Then combine them. That would allow 1 big long chain with double DSP. Or have the 1 input go to both paths entirely separately. 1 for filter / compressed low and the other for everything else. Then send them to the same outputs to combine or keep them apart for more FOH control, or 2 FRFR cabs etc. What freqs would you set the filters at?

It's the only bit of kit I've never thought about selling.

Probably a divorce!