cheddatom

GLX are fairly well regarding boss copies I think If you're going to use another pedal in combination with the BDI 21 it might be best to use an EQ pedal, which you could use to drive the BDI into more dirty territory what Chrismuzz says is spot on - what I was talking about the natural colouration of the pedals combining. If the pedal has a mid-scoop even with the EQ flat, then two in combination will have twice the mid scoop, even if it's flat. After looking it doesn't seem, there's a mid control for you to add that back in But really, if you love the sound you're getting with a bit of extra gain, why not just get another? If you want to switch between them quickly you could use another pedal like an LS-2 to do that

well, if the frequency response of the pedal with "zero EQ" is actually flat, yeh, but I doubt it is! You could probably mess with the EQ until you were happy anyway

if you were to do that, you'd probably want to switch between them, rather than run them both turned on at the same time as this would exaggerate it's EQ curve you probably knew that, so, yeh, go for it!

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1343195297' post='1746730'] Aw, when I read the thread title, I thought someone had been trying to play without strings. [/quote] Honestly i've never laughed so loud at a quip on BC

in that case an EQ is probaby more use than a dirt pedal!

IMO for a Timmy C sound you need a blended tube screamer type pedal and a bass with jazz pups.

I've found the jackhammer very hard to tame for bass. I did get a great sound, and it's such a versatile pedal, but it did take me about 10 minutes of sitting there tweaking - compared to the normal 1 minute for your standard dirt pedal. My favorite guitar pedal is the Ibanez SS10 which is chorus and distortion. It's even harsher than the Rat, although along the same lines. Blended it sounds amazing with bass. When i'm in the studio, I actually find more often than not that a blend doesn't sound as good as compensating EQ, so i'll record straight through the SS10 pedal, even though it gives a load of low end loss, I just EQ back what I want and it works.

When I was at school and uni, he was the bass player every none bass player admired, so it did get pretty annoying when people would say "do you want to play like Flea" etc but yeh he's very good, much better than i'll ever be!

I had a GFX707 which I modded with extra footswitches so I could move up and down banks. I absolutely loved it. A friend of mine borrowed it years ago and he hasn't given it back

you need to find out how much current each pedal needs. If the PSU has seperate outs, each output must provide enough current for the relevant pedal. If you're looking at daisy chains, then the PSU must provide enough current for all of your pedals combined. In the OP you say the SB7 is 22mA but later say it's 220mA? From the net it looks like OC-2 4mA TU-2 55mA EBS 10mA SB7 22mA Total 91 which most PSUs will do with ease, but that does look very low to me. I have a godlyke powerall which does up to 3 amps and still doesn't cover all my digital pedals.

I sold my acoustic bass to Marek and it went swimmingly. A thouroughly decent chap, a pleasure to deal with.

We have a selection of good music shops in stoke! The only complaints I hear are about servicing work (and that's not at Pete's store by the way). what I like is that a couple of the shops actually have a decent amount of 2nd hand gear to look through.

I didn't build my red llama so no idea how easy it is. I love it for it's "transparency" in that nothing seems to be cut EQ wise. Normally you get a bass cut or a mid cut but this thing just seems flat. I've never had the drive on full and do use it for a fuzz sound, so i'd be surprised if it was "not fuzzy/aggressive enough" but then I do play with a bi-amp rig meaning I can hear my "dirt" a lot more clearly than through your average bass amp. Anyway, it is subjective, just trying to add useful info.

Way Huge Red Llama. I guess it's technically not considered a fuzz but I love it for high gain stuff I would personally describe as fuzz. Mine is a clone so I hope it's the same as the pedal i'm recommending!

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340292094' post='1702415'] But would they know it was worth doing? I always check out the websites of bands I like, but that's just me. Most of my friends never bother. [/quote] Hmmm, in my experience people do google bands they like

I'm pretty sure that if anyone downloaded some terrortones they would check out the website. Half the appeal of the CD for me was the little comic that you get. If all you did was download a torrent then obviously you'd miss out on that extra connection, but most people investigate IME, especially as it's so easy with google.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340277882' post='1702085'] ...Surely we can all agree that this is a bad thing? No one wants to work without being paid for it. [/quote] I think we could all agree on that. it's a bit more complicated though. If a band is a self-marketing entity, what about special offers or free giveaways, which are seen as acceptable in most industries.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340275275' post='1702022'] Remember when I was arsing on about music radio earlier? And that it was dying? This will be one of the reasons why... It's only a small step beyond the historic arrangement, except it puts prattling DJ's out of a job. [/quote] Personally, I think that's a great thing, but obviously not for struggling DJs

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340271703' post='1701930'] The owners of Spotify have monetized it very nicely thank you at the expense of the artists to the point where their royalty rate is much less than that of the the old selling recordings model. [/quote] So the major labels should set up their own version and distribute more profits to themselves and their artists. Or negotiate with spotify. I like last FM but no idea what their royalty rate is. These services which predict what you'll enjoy are great, and people really do find new music from them.

I would suspect many more people listen to music on streaming services than actually download torrents. Some of these streaming services are illegal but that's not obvious to the average consumer. It seems to me, artists and labels should be demanding more revenue from these new mediums, as opposed to arguing about file-sharing which is much less common IME

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340206964' post='1701070'] Don't knock it. If the swashbucklers of the 60's hadn't bullied, bribed and cajoled their acts onto the airwaves and news pages we'd still be listening to Doris f***ing Day.[/quote] I totally disagree. I can recognise good sh*t, even when it is sh*t. There has always been a lot of sh*t sh*t marketed by major labels, and depending on the marketing, people buy it regardless of the fact it's not even good sh*t. Not every act needs a development budget, and i'd argue that the best acts don't need it at all. I'm in over my head here (if it wasn't obvious) so shall now bow out of the thread, crushed under the heavy desire to get the f*** home and sink a beer.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] ...Even when I worked on a specialist music station... Anything that wasn't signed didn't get on...[/quote] And you would admit that a great number of sh*t bands have been signed up and pushed to radios, right? [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] Anyway, back OT, Same as with multi-channel TV, the internet hasn't opened things up or improved matters. It's just lowered the barriers and the quality threshold's gone with it. Which is what makes me laugh about illegal downloading - 25,000 tracks on the hard drive and only thirty-odd are any good. [/quote] so you're saying that record labels filtered out the sh*te, but you also seem to agree that the record companies ensured the sh*te got played.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] So, bands that broke through off the back of the internet? Arctic Monkeys? and - er ... [/quote] I'm actually very interested in this question. There was a lot of suggestion that the Arctic Monkeys owed more to major labels than they did the internet. Personally I have heard a hell of a lot of new bands through Spotify and friends, and I can only assume these bands would not have come to my attention if it weren't for the internet. Perhaps the majority of "airtime" on spotify is taken up by major label acts though - I don't know, it'd be very interesting to see the relevant statistics.

when I was at school we used to complain about how the radio stations always played the "commercial crap" and how little merit there was to the acts that were "broken" by the music industry. Rightly so! There is some sh*te on the radio and always has been. Getting more acts out there is only going to open up the possibility of there being less sh*te on the radio. Getting less acts out there will reduce this possibility. Isn't it simple maths? Obviously if you want to be in a famous band and get rich from it then the fact that every band can market itself is a big downer. But if you ignore the economic side of the debate, the internet is clearly exposing more people to more music, and this can only be a good thing in terms of "musical merit".

From what I have read, the 60s and 70s saw an explosion of festivals and touring bands, and a lot of bands were able to make a reasonable living from their music. (we can argue about whether the music was good or original or if there was much variety between acts...). This began to decline in the 80s and there has been a steady decline since - totally un-related to the internet. At the same time the number of musicians and actually recorded music has increased almost exponentially, due to developments in technology. [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] ...The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever... [/quote] Well, yeh, and I don't think anyone can really disagree with that.