51m0n

The age old "loudest drummer/guitarist/keyboard player/bassist in the world" problem. First point he (the problem player) should note is that the publican is right, or you wont get asked back. Secondly when 'getting a level' for the band does the bass player determine their level by how the bass and drums 'meld' into a single instrument out front. I have lost count of the number of times I've seen average pub bands and you cant hear the kick drum for the bass "Well its not mic'ed up" they say - then you need to turn down your amp matey! Very very very few kick drums are all that loud in a room (they have to be tuned by someone very good at it for them to compete without micing them up). So the first thing the bassist will think at this point is "Cripes I'm too quiet!") - dont let yourself get carried away, this is all about discipline, stick with the plan. Then there is the rhythm guitarist, if he/she plays a short sharp E power chord it should be the same level as a snare hit. Try it, not a loud rimshot snare hit just a normal backbeat. Get the drummer to lay down a simple groove (you know the one) with snare on 2 & 4), get the rhythm guitarist to set their level so a chord played on two and four sits exactly right with the snare, you should hear both such as the snare has some chordal quality and the guitar has the punch of a snare. Get the bass in there on 1 and 3 with the kick drum (are we having fun yet?) Keys are a swine, they need to be eq'ed to not stamp on to omany toes (not easy) and in level the left hand should add something to the bass without over powering, and the right hand should be similar to the rhythm guitar, but, if they play busy you need them quieter, and alos both bass and rhtyhm guitar quieter or the drums disappear again. If in doubt put the keys back a little - if they have an amp and turn it up - sack them (I'm not joking, same for all the rest of the band). Now vocal should sit over all of this, and lead guitar should be just below the vocal (sacriledge? tough, this is all about the punters). Be super hardcore about it for a few rehearsals, see how quiet and well mixed you can get the band to sound, learn to rock out without earthquake volumes. Anyone who cant handle it can walk. Next time you gig the band no one will say you were too loud, everyone will say they could hear the vocal, and you will be the most professional sounding bancd on the pub scene. I've seen about three bands manage this in 20 years, (I dont think any band I've been in has quite managed to get every member to buy into this idea enough to pull it off, I got close a couple of times). It can be done, but it is properly tricky to get right. The results are really amazing when you do it. I really recommend using a Zoom recorder device (H2 or equivalent) and record your band normally in rehearsal then go through this process and re-record, take the recordings home, even out the volumes and send them out to the band asking them which they prefer. The volume evening process is important, just normalise the tracks to keep it simple. Everyone will prefer the one recorded second for the mix and sound quality, because it will sound better. Job done.

[url="http://www.tunemybass.com/strings/how_to_clean_bass_strings.html"]All you need to know about cleaning strings in meths[/url] - and yes it really does work.... [url="http://www.tunemybass.com/strings/bass_string_cleaning_tube.html"]How to make a nice string cleaning tube...[/url]

A search on the forum would definitely answer that. Boiling was more popular in the days of yore, those who once boiled are more likely to be using meths in a tube these days as it doesnt put the string core through a heat cycle or soak it in water, both of which weaken it. I have a few sets of DR Lo-Riders that I rotate through the meths tube whenever I'm going to gig or record to freshen them up a bit - I would probably get new and play them in for a really important recording or gig to be on the safe side now as the youngest set it over 3 years old. Its not being a skinflint, its just avoiding wastage, the money I save on strings goes into other essentials instead....

I should be there as usual. Dunno if anyone would want to put up with me banging on about anything again this year. If anyone does fancy another comical tirade about the perils of one knob compressors or the lies that abound in the world of recordings then feel free to ask....

[quote name='TomKent' timestamp='1339776926' post='1694251'] As far as I'm aware, yes. [/quote] Oh dear....

Yeah, bang on Skank, thats blatantly misunderstanding the requirements of a full band - even a 3 piece - let alone the requiremetns of a party of 16. I'd have been livid if I was in either of the offended parties....

Its pre and power section, both can be overloaded with resulting compression/limiting and pleasant distortion allowing the player to get more output into the next part of the chain. Net result more perceived output at the expense of accurately recreating the input.

Absolutely agree. 192KHz 24bit through a banging monitor system (B&W Nautilus, PMC MB-2s, whatever, driven with appropriate amps and cabling blah blah blah) in a great room sounds fantastic, I'd never be able to tell it was 'digital' in a double blind test against a 1/2" analogue master tape of the same music at the exact same volume. Not a chance, and I would love to see any digital naysayer in the world do this with anything beyond statistical average accuracy. In fact I wouldnt be able to tell them apart at all if the volumes were the same.

Yes, but they just dont really work like that do they, they do have variations of 'on-ness' whereas digital doesnt. There is the number of and frequency of neurones firing to maintian a given level of 'on-ness'. Which may seem similar but I'm not sure that it is quantifiable with a simple sample rate analogy. This is not the same as the maximum resolution of the human eye for instance, which is definable as a product of the number and size of rods/cones in the retina and the quality of the lens and the distance from the object viewed.

Its really a case of a double booking isnt it. Yes it all got out of hand on the night, but if the table was so close to the band as reported here then the reality is there isnt space in the venue for both band and dinners as laid out in the venue. People eating in a group of 16, who have come a long way to see each other dont want to be sat right in front of a blues band (ie a couple of feet away), becasue we all know they would want to be able to talk to each other. So who didnt check they diary before booking them and explain that they would be right in the 'line of fire' of the band? In fact if the letter of complaint is accurate you could only accommodate the 16 guests on stools, they were unhappy before the band even were taken into consideration. Very sloppy! And if you are booking the band, do you not check to see if there is room in the venue for the band, and that the band are not going to have to pass straight through the venue with their kit to set up and soundcheck at a time likely to disturb the guests? Let alone have enough roomn to function properly. One of these two events had to happen first and the other should have been prevented or forewarned of it as a result. Or the venue management can expect there to be issues on the night, resulting in unhappy customers, unhappy bands, unhappy staff, reduced takings, and a high likelihood of the events being described from one point of view or another or both on the internet. This is the age we live in. So the root cause of the issue is a failure to understand the requirements of the two parties attempting to attend the venue (albeit fo different reasons) at the same time, and see how that could not work out without some prior thought - you would have done well to ensure that the band knew what was happening, that they could be told to turn up to load in and soundcheck early (before the tables were set up). And that can not be the fault of the band, or the guests..... Oh, and a poor effort at amateurish legalise never ever scared anyone on this forum yet to my knowledge, but it does make you look like a t*t. Finally, did the band play the gigs they were contracted to? Yes, or no? If they did, then they are in fact owed money at this point. If your sloppy organisation cost you money, thats actually irrelevant isnt it?

Thumpinator is high pass - the higher than the stated frequency point frequencies can pass through, the rest cant. OP you are living with the reality that crap acoustics are beyond your control. Hard surfaces reflect more, and that can cause real issues. Certain room shapes and sizes can cause vey obvious peaks and nulls in the dispersion of different frequencies throughout the room (nodes). You cant stop these with any amount of eq, compression, or anything else shoprt of treating the room acoustic. It is not possible. One thing that does help is a packed venue, a lot of meat imbetween the surfaces acts as a rather effective bass and full range absorber. Answer, have more people turn up to your show. If it is boom due to a nasty stage resonating then you could try a Gramma Pad under your cab - a lot of people have reported great success with these bad boys. The VLE is a low pass filter, it turns down more and more of the top end frequencies. You dont need this, it wont sort out the situation The VPF is a filter that scoops mids and bossts top and bottom. You may like this (especially for bedroom practice) but too much in a mix is a way to turn your sound into sludgey boom and click with no definiteion really quickly. Eq less generally if you can, just a bit less gain on the eq section throughout, and see if it improves things in the mix at all. Certainly any big boosts in lo and hi eq bands are probably not helping the issue. But the issue sounds like its the acoustics and you cant completely solve it from the rig.

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1339758926' post='1693811'] That was exactly my first thought He's using TI flats that are something like 43 / 56 / 70 / 100 / 136 These are the same strings that just happened to be on my '72 as well. This was how he demonstrated he could get the sound he wanted from a 43 G string. [/quote] Yes but are the strings the same age in both cases? String age affects a lot of characteristics wrt flexibility and that may well change the perceived timbre too. Just a thought!

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339753807' post='1693686'] 100w with bunch of compression and distortion and bandpass filtering. [/quote] +1 excellent response Similar to the 500w of the TC Electronic amps is actually 300 (200??) and something watts with a load of DSP processing to make it seem louder. Tubes just do that processing for you in an analogue way.

Sample rate is irrelevant, since the transducer can not go higher than 20KHz, and rapidly wears out such that by middle age you are doing well if it handles above 16KHz. It also doesnt work below 20Hz, although the rest of your body will supply other information to tell you stuff is going on down there if it is very loud. On top of whicvh it is an analogue system, so sample rate is a really dodgy phrase to use at all....

In any radio broadcast from the BBC the amount of broadcast multiband compression/limiting would mean 12 bits was enough - ergo it isnt truly 'audiophile' which would suggest the most precise and natural of representations of the live gig, with no attenuation of the dynamic range allowed.

Man up and get a bigger g string? What strings are on you old P?

So how many of you listen to your favourite bands on a really great hi-fi? And, how many of you want to try and get tones like they do, for the drums, guitar, bass, singer, glokenspiel? And just how often is that tone coming off a CD? Yeah, thought so......

Some nice eqs... http://www.j1000.in.rs/

Groooovy Babyyyyy

You can listen to any piece of music in your collection in your head without needing any form of electronic device to help you at all - and its all exactly right in its entirety, and to pitch...

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1339594635' post='1691107'] I think sometimes the human ear just lends itself to more forgiving sounds... Valves...for example.. might round off harsher sounds more naturally or blur them and the ear accepts that as 'better' or more pleasant. [/quote] Nice sounds are nice sounds. We all like nice sounds. Digital is nto by default a less nice sound, if digital is recorded to correctly then it is a way of capturing your nice sounds, it doesnt detract from them. Where I think a lot of the 'digital = harsh' thing comes from is that back when the switch over to digital was happening in big studios (ie very early 80's when the first digital tape machines were beginning to be used, by engineers thrilled that they werent damaging the the sound of the master just by overdubbing to it) the techniques used to capture the sounds were squarely aimed at recording analogue. Recording to tape has a very definite feel, and a sound, and the great recordings made to analogue used techniques that helped make up for shortcomings in tape, for instance they were often recorded over bright (trebly) so that you could then turn that down later, turning down hiss at the same time. Tape speed has a massive impact on the frequency response and sound of the final mix. If you record to digital with all the same techniques and philosphy as you did to tape (because, dammit thats how we have done it since 1950) then you end up with a fairly harsh and nasty sound. Add to this the sudden influx of 8 bit and 16 bit synths as opposed to all the older analogue gear and their very specific super dry sounds then you get a lot of records produced to CD (which no one really new how to master to best at that point) then you get a really really harsh sound. Nowadays I think digital as a recording medium running at at least 48KHz (preferrably 88KHz plus if you have the players/instuments/rooms/mics/preamps/converters/computer horsepower/monitoring chain to make it worth while) and 24bit with all people know about adding interesting colour with preamps and everything else adding 'warmth' or whatever you like before hitting converters absolutely clean is without doubt a methodology for getting a wider choice of final possible sounds than analogue to tape s. But analogue tape still has [i]that[/i] sound

I'm not sure I entirely agree with all of those examples, as blues bass goes Jack Bruce was a long way from the average blues bass player at the time of Cream IMO, it was virtually a second lead instrument when he played it.....

Oh and when it comes to amp based one knob or on off comrpession - do yourself a favour and leave it turned off.

You're looking for the wrong solution to the problem IMO. You dont [i]need[/i] fx, I've played that set list too, and only used a compressor because as the resident BC compressor fetishist I'd never live it down if anyone here ever saw me play without one (or saw me play actually, but I digress). The answer is not really more fx, a good fat sound is a matter of eq, and technique. Not wildly pushed bass, just a dab (3dB) of low mid (at 250Hz ish) will fatten up any sound - careful you dont descend into mud though. Play more gently, but turn the amp up, this will lower the ratio of the transient spike level at the beginning of each note in relation to the rest of the note, alot like a compressor can, giving you a far warmer, fuller sound. you can also use a touch of well set up compression to give your bass a bit more impact when playing like this, and get a really punchy weighty sound, but this isnt really necessary. Filling the gaps effectively when the guitarist goes toward the dusty ended flights of fancy that are his want are more about the [i]arrangement[/i] and the rhythm section as a whole working together to keep the groove fat and and underpinning the guitarist. Also study the rhythm guitar part and modify your bass line at those points that "Captain Finger Lickin Good" wanders off on his own to incorporate some of what the guitar had about it - rhythmically, or a double stop chord or two thrown in, it doesnt have to be alot, or even more notes than before, just a hint of what is now gone. You will be amazed at how far a couple of licks from the rhythm part can go toward reminding the punters (and guitarist) of what was there. Just dotn lose the groove at that point!

Digital is capable of wider frequency range than vinyl, cassette tape. Very high sample rate digital, it can be argued, has better frequncy response than large format tape too, although many people swear by that still due to the other things it gives (yes tape compression is really that nice). Using noise reduction systems a la Dolby even high end ones on multitracks, always sounded like arse to me....