51m0n

Hopefully be able to get up to see it in the new year, absolutely snowed until then!

Me!

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1320176818' post='1423445'] Not sure if you're having this issue with your current rig at rehearsal, but it's one reason why vertical arrays (such as a 2x10 or two) are a better option than something like a 4x10. So when you are off axis, you still get a decent volume. I dare say you probably know this, but it might come in useful for those that don't. [/quote] Absolutely, but for various reasons of practicality I went with the 410. However my current rig has no isssues in a reheasal room because its just immensely punchy and louder than the loudest loud things...

[quote name='razze06' timestamp='1320141085' post='1422701'] Fair enough, we can't all like the same things. Shame that so many people end up having to judge kit only based on the skip-worthy stuff that is usually found in most practice rooms. Peavey stuff is omnipresent and cheap, and they get all the flak. I am equally guilty, having yet to find a piece of Trace Elliot gear i enjoy playing through. [/quote] True this is based upon a lot of kit in reheasal rooms, some kit on gigs, and trying out some kit in shpops (where it gave the impression it might do the job to be fair). Personally I think a reheasal room is a harder space to 'fill' than a pub or stage, its to do with the acoustics, the massive SPLs due to the tiuny room size, the fact that everyone is on top of each other (so you end up way off axis to your cab) etc etc etc Even then Peavey gear ranks lower than the nasty woefully underpowered Hartke stuff you also find in reheasal spaces. Yes I am spoilt with my rig, but my opinion of Peavey comes from way back when all I had was a Laney G300 and a couple of 8ohm 410s, which blew away the Peavey kit (for me at least).

Nah, sorry, voice of dissent here, never heard a decent sounding Peavey rig. Oh it will last forever, and produce an horrific farty punchless bluuurgh of a noise that in no way relates to what my basses have ever sounded like and absolutely will not keep up with a hard hitting drummer and a couple of loud guitarists. And that isnt any particular Peavey rig, it is every single one of the joyless misused and abuses piles of rank plop I have ever had the misfortune to find waiting for me at a gig or in a reheasal space. From mark 3s and 4s through 215s, 210s and 115s, 810s, dynabass heads the daft 2x8 +115 thing, all of it. Rubbish to a rig. I hate every single one....

I really want to hear that room, I love the design elements that went into achieving it, and the no hold barred attention to acoustic detail, I just wish I could hear it is all.... It looks superb too by the way!

[quote name='steve-bbb' timestamp='1319975632' post='1420648'] the other bass player is pretty good too [/quote] Yes, pretty darned awesome, but it only shows how good a bandleader she is that she lets the other bassist take center stage for large sections of that.

Saw Gong at the Zap in Brighton in the early 90's, superb gig, very, errr laid back, as it were

Totally utterly killer bass player, singer, songwriter and bandleader.... Check this out at about 3:30:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_0SU2jLTjY

You aren't alone, the sr300 series are very very low output for active. If you amp has a passive input you can and may as well use that. Using the gain control is perfectly OK too. It is a bit of a PIA but look at it this way, you probably change battery less as a result....

Pats self on back and feels smug for coiling cables properly for years.....

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1319726664' post='1417819'] We should all turn up somewhere wearing them. What's the collective noun for a bunch of monumental bell-ends? [/quote] I think you'll find its a mixing desk of knobs....

Mine turned up today too! Woot

[quote name='ironside1966' timestamp='1319713163' post='1417540'] Then use the Di sparingly possibly with heavy compression with a fast attack. but just because you have recorder with a DI it doesn't mean you have to use it. It seem to be standard practice to record every instrument has close has possible ,this is not always the best method and in the right acoustic space moving the microphone back can produces a much more natural sound, in short If you like what you hear then record what you hear. Condenser microphones have a faster transient response then dynamics so a condenser may make the problem worse. My advice to anybody recording is get the sound right in the first place if you find a floor in your technique use the opportunity to learn and improve has a musician lastly it is worth listening to the sound in the context of the full track before making the final decision. [/quote] In this case though the issue is it is already tracked and the OP is looking for solutions other than rerecording I think. The problem with moving the mic back are the room has to sound very very good, the bass in the final recording will have a far more distant roomy sound (which wont work very well on a large number of genres as a rule) the bass will be 1ms late for every foot awayt from the cab you place the mic, which may well change the feel for better or worse. There is no problem capturing the bass sound close mic'ed and with a DI, however you need to listen very hard to what you are capturing and make proper judgements about how these sounds all will stand together in the mix. Tracking and mixing is a huge set of compromises which you have to sift through to get the best overall result, it may be that moving the mic back is the right compromise ( or not even a compromise ) when you next track, but right now some careful peak management will sort out the tracks as they stand.

CheddaTom is on the right track. A carefully set up limiter to catch the peak, a notch on the offending frequency and even som fast compression (softknee) to swell into the note slightly can all help control this. If you can find one a dynamic eq can be a godsend here too, or even a multiband comp set to virtually duck out the nasty part of the transient. Lots of tools out there to hel pyou out if you know what you are doing. The difficulty is not immasculating the performance whilst fixing the issue...

Thats vey hard to say really. I like the Zoom series, I have an H4n, mainly because of the mic configuration which is one that I particularly like for stereo (no phase issues between the two mics) The question you need to ask is what is this for? If the answer is taking a note of what we did in rehearsal, then a Zoom H1 plus the goody bag with the extras is a very good value for money solution, if you need more options wrt mic placement in the room, faux omni directional recording the H2 is good, the H2n is a better device (easier to use blah blah blah) but watch out because you only get the power supply in the extras goody bag on that one (which is more than a bit naughty IMO) If you would like the option of 4 tracking things a bit the H4n is ok, but very fiddly to use, if I had the money again I would get the R16 as I could easily use 8 mics getting drums down....

Dependant on the style you are after I would say dont boost the top end. Guitar is a funny old thing, if you are in a genre other than the super scooped metal thing then avoid adding top to it, it usually doesnt sound great IME, especially for lead tones. It will also fight like hell with the rest of the mix if you make it too toppy. There is a lot of presence to be found in the mids rather than top, I find myself using a very gentle shelving filter to remove at least a couple of dB of top (ie >4KHz) off most guitars in a lot of genres. I know this can be differnt live from in a mix, but try it, listen to a lot of stuff in your chosen genre and concentrate on the guitar tone and top end and use that as a clue. An issue I find with a lot of fx units and their delay/reverb is you often cant eq that fx. If you can then roll off more top and a fair bit of bottom (not so much as it gets honky) on delays and reverbs, it will help the original stuff sound up front and will put the delayed/reverbed effect back behind it. If you are running into a nice bit of valve gear try setting it up so that it supplies the overdrive, ie get a clean tone at a level on your clean patch such that its right on the edge of overdriving, then use another couple of patches each with more level to cause the amp to break up. Combining this with some mild overdrive off the fx unit can lead to more overdriven sounds still, with loads of sustain.

Right thought I ought to update this. Daf has been immensely kind and posted a few pickups to me to try out, a Bassmax, a Fishman and another K&K jobbie (the name escapes me). And we have a winner, the Bassmax on this bass just sounds superb, pizz is pretty much the bass but louder, arco needs a slight adjustment to the eq to deal with a little scratiness, but its close enough given the nature of the material for which it needs amplification for it to be completely acceptable. I'm sold! So, a massive and very heartfelt thank you to Daf for saving me endless hours of trying to recall what sounded like what in a continual part-ex cycle of doom. You are, as they say, the man....

Ibanez soundgear sr300

Does it take into account the mic, and the pa and the room in any way? I dont really see how it could work otherwise.....

[quote name='Clarky' timestamp='1319126433' post='1410347'] You are the man 51m0n! [/quote] <FONZIE>Heeeeyyyyyyyyy</FONZIE>

A transient is the leading edge of a signal (ie a note). It is significantly (often very significantly) louder than the following note. It is of very short duration (several ms in length, maybe as much a 20, more often less) It contains very little true pitch information, often being largely a percussive noise It has a far higher ratio of high frequency than the tone making up the body of the note that follows it (the harmonic content lives in there) Every note you play however gentle, however hard whatever technique has a transient at the front of it, it can also be considered the attack phase of the signal in envelope terms. Hope that clears it up a bit!

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1319124563' post='1410298'] 51mon, I could see in very high SPL environments with bad positioning of various sound sources that compression could exacerbate feedback issues, but I've never encountered such issues (also an example of where it's important to learn about your craft and take responsibility for your sound). That said, in any case T1 is a very subtle device, it just smooths off peaks and troughs rather than squashing the signal, and the eq is adaptive to respond to whatever is going into it. It is likely strokes for folks, but I'm a big fan of it as I've found it really can enhance a vocal performance whether solo or with a full loud band. [/quote] Anywhere you are close to the point of feedback if you apply compression you will get to that point sooner. I have done small venues with horrendous feedback with a small (loudish for the venue) band, and larger venues where the sheer number of mics on stage required to capture the large band involved meant the feedback threshold was very low. Typically if you have a monitoring setup for a loud rock band the chances of feedback get pretty high, pretty quick - even with a decent 31 band geq. It is perfectly possible to use compression in these cases, but you should be aware that it will raise the average level and therefore make feedback happen sooner. I have no idea what an 'adaptive eq' is or how it would work, fascinating, please explain!