cheddatom

[quote name='Finbar' post='286105' date='Sep 17 2008, 06:03 PM']Working that day. Sucks :/[/quote] Sew the seads of a dead relative! do it now so they can have their funeral on the 11th.

This is deffinitely me, but it doesn't look much like me, and I have no idea what that t-shirt is!

If they've agreed to collect it you should now be able to get your money back?

Is it done?

I got mine for £85 but that was a private sale, not an auction.

[quote name='1976fenderhead' post='284877' date='Sep 16 2008, 11:40 AM']Don't we both agree that a limiter or a compressor with 0ms attack and infinite ratio would solve his problem? [/quote] Yup But that's not what you were saying earlier? A compressor with 0ms attack and infinite ratio = a limiter. You were saying that a compressor does compress attack, "That's kind of half of all it does". I said it doesn't, unless you set it exactly as a limiter, which would make it a limiter. There's a reason there are two different names for these things. Not trying to make an argument, just explaining my reasons for posting

The reason I said this was because his amp is clipping, so the loudest peaks are affecting his amp. If he wants to reduce those peaks he would do better to get a limiter, an/or a compressor set to 0ms attack and infinite ratio. The he can set the threshold so than only the loudest peaks are limited, and it will stop the amp clipping. If he uses a compressor with a slower attack than 0 to do the same thing, then the attack portion of the note will always come through and will always be the loudest, and the "peakiest" and wont stop the amp clipping at these points. This "a compressor, in principle, makes loud bits quieter and quiet bits louder" is not neccessarily true when you correspond the dynamic response to time. Yes, you can use a compressor to make loud bits quieter and quiet bits louder, but the attack part of the note will still be avoiding any compression, and wont be made any quieter. If the compression is so great that the rest of the note is brought up to the same level as that of the attack part (i'd say it'd sound awful!) then the amp would constantly be clipping, although seeing as his perceived level will be louder, he can turn down the amp and it shouldn't clip. So basically, although your post makes sense, I think that a limiter could solve his problem, where a compressor wont.

Don't worry about my shoes! I don't have any gigs on bass for the forseable future I was on about at the end of the chain, because I read that a long cable can degrade your tone as much as a non TB poor buffered pedal, I tend to have a cable at least 20m at the end of my chain so...

Heh, I find it interesting too! I deffinitely do hear differences on my board, being that there are 20 odd crap buffered pedals on there. So you are best to have one decent buffer at the start of your chain, and one at the end then?

[quote name='1976fenderhead' post='284811' date='Sep 16 2008, 10:27 AM']er... since when doesn't a compressor compress the attack? That's kind of half of all it does...[/quote] A compressor will compress the attack if you set the attack time to 0 seconds - but then you might as well call it a limiter without the infinite ratio. The attack control on a compressor sets how quickly the compression kicks in, so if you have a slow attack time, or anything other than 0ms the first portion of the note will not be compressed. Unless again I am talking out of my arse? I thought I knew about this kind of stuff but maybe not?

So it's the fact that the first pedal in your chain will interact with passive pups, and putting a pedal with an output buffer first in the chain means it won't interact? I think I need to do some reading up before I can understand this.

If the clipping is caused by peaks in your playing, yes a limiter will help! The compressor probably doesn't help that much because it wont compress the attack - often the loudest portion of your notes.

[quote name='timmyo' post='284381' date='Sep 15 2008, 05:25 PM'] A buffered signal is inherrently far more resistant to the adverse affect of long cable runs or the sh*tty cable that people often use in patch leads (mostly a prob when you have lots of TB pedals) or the top-end loss you get with a pedal with really bad buffer circuit (or odd input or output impedance). A buffered signal will be less (if at all) affected by these things - so better to buffer up front (or us ea unity gain buffer/line driver or active pickups if that's your bag) than to be affected then buffer the adversely affected signal back up to the correct overall level (but with top end missing, for example)[/quote] I don't understand why a pedal that has a sh*tty bypass would affect a buffered tone less than an unbuffered tone? I don't think the problems arising from the poor pedal would be solved by feeding it a stronger signal? I.E I have a couple of pedals that "suck my tone" when bypassed. They do it if i'm using a passive bass, or if i'm using an active bass (buffered or non). If I send the signal after the crap pedal to my amp using a 30m cable, then it sounds a bit dodgy, if I put a buffered bypassed pedal after the crap pedal, then a 30m lead, it sounds fine but still with the crap bypass from the crap pedal. EDIT: If I am completely misunderstanding what a buffer does please explain!

I would take the jacks off the board by using some wire, if that doesn't solve it, replace the jacks, if that doesn't solve it........... no idea.

If I could have a little bit more than three I would want.... input - split - A into compressor with attack, threshold, and volume control - B into a two stage overdrive i.e low gain grit, going into fuzzy teriotory with a footswitch - Mix the two into a limiter with just threshold control, going into a digital delay. Perfect! Any modulation etc that you want as extra can be put before the pedal, swapped about etc, but that would be an excellent unit to have at the end of your chain with a DI out etc.

If a pedal adversley affects your tone when it's bypassed, it's more than likely to do with it's sh*t design, and not a lot to do with the input signal. So, yeh, you can feed it a buffered signal, but then if the pedal destroys the input signal anyway, out will come a sh*t signal, and you'll need another buffer to get the signal up to the level required for the amp. Or am I talking balls?

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='284340' date='Sep 15 2008, 04:21 PM']It's hard for them to find their way to the top.[/quote] LOL! Nice one, I almost laughed really loud in the middle of the office.

I wish another blind person would get famous.

[quote name='SJA' post='284260' date='Sep 15 2008, 02:27 PM']RHCP's Californication sounds awful to my ears, but I'm unsure where the problem lies- over-compression/loudness maximising etc. at the mixing stage or the mastering stage, and/or just a lousy mix to start with- which would suggest Rubin doesn't even know what makes a good mix.[/quote] I really like the sound of Californication. Yes it's very compressed, and yes you can hear some awful distortion at one or two points during the album, but it's a great drum sound, and all of the instruments cut through and sound great and.... Well I haven't heard it recently so it's hard for me to justify me loving the mix.

Yeh that's my point - Respect to Rubin for finding the right engineer, knowing how to call people up, make sure they're on time, tell them to shut up or whatever, but he's not actually doing anything to the sound.

XP-100 is generally the cheapest one you can get off Ebay, it does all the whammy stuff, some cool harmonies you can't get on the WH-4, it has a footswitch to scroll through 6 user-saved settings, and you can do that while you're in bypass. Also, if you're into that sort of thing, you could read up on the "XP-1000" and make yourself a fun noisy pedal!

I wouldn't really know about that. I was way too out of it during my degree.

Really?!? That's quick isn't it? Can't wait to see it!