51m0n

Stuck in a corner is a total no no, you cant compromise the stereo reproduction more than that! You can try bridging the corner with the desk to make a trianglular gap behind it though, that can help, especially if you build a bass trap into that triangle between the back of the desk and the corner. This also can work becaues the sound reflecting off the wall bounces out into the room rathre than back into your ears out of phase with the direct to your ear sound, so you lose all that nasty confusing comb filtering. Leaving the desk where it is is a recipe for disaster though, download Room Eq Wizard and get hold of a little Behringer measurement mic and test your room to see for sure, but I guarantee you wont get anythinglike a real stereo image and the comb fiultering will ruin any chance of good eq decisions too. And yes its the M1000 I use for headphones, and they are exceptional value for money IMO.

I think I underestimated the change in Nigel actually, I think he will bring at least four or five rigs to the next gig, and twice as many analog pedals as SHep's big board, so as to be able to capture all the tiny nuances in the different tones his clearly inferior POD used to nearly get right sometimes Nah, good on you Nigel, I take my hat of to you, not just for deciding to give theory, and more importantly the practical application of that theory, another go and coming to the conclusion that it isnt a bad thing after all, but also for saying as much so publicly. Well done!

Right, thats it, if this carries on, then I fully expect Nigel will be running a classic Ampeg SVT and Fridge at the next Kit Richardson gig...

Bear in mind we arent going the whole hog and suggesting or demanding the use of fully calibrated K-metering at all, we just needed a meter that behaved as close as possible to the same on all systems, and as far as I know the K-meter is about the only free one that is guaranteed to behave the same in different implementations. Not to say that the k-metering with full calibration isnt something you should all try, if you can sort it out some time, I've played with it and its pretty cool, but I dont rely on it at all, and I dont think any of the mixes I've done on here were with calibrated monitoring at all.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1372960803' post='2132213'] Right, so why can't it be set to -14 then for the purposes of this comp? [/quote] Take any piece of uncompressed (as in not dynamically processed) music - some raw vocal track for instance. Copy it to two seperate tracks in Reaper (or whatever) Compress one as follows:- Attack 0.3ms Release 25ms Ratio max Threshold so that you are getting a good 12dB of GR Make up gain so it is the same volume (but sounding very different) when the comp is off or on RMS value 1ms Thats very extreme limiting/compression btw! Render that track in place Normalise both the untouched track and the rendered tracks to the same level (-0.4dB lets say) Which sounds louder? Normalising cant take into account the average volume!

Normalising is just changing the volume of the entire track by the difference between the loudest single sample in the track to the desired normallisation point. It doesnt take into account the average volume at all. Compression and limiting raise the average level compared to the peak level of a signal. Hence two normalised tracks, one compressed and the other not (or just buy a different amount), will sound very different in terms of final volume after normalisation. The entire point of using the K-meter for these mixes is that there are specific prescirbed rules in the K-meter algorithm regarding how it detects level (ie what it is measuring, the specific time it rms signal over to get its level) and how it displays it (the 'ballistics of the meter' or how fast it tends to accelerate in any direction based upon the current detected change in level). These add up to a meter that is pretty much identical across a wide range of systems (assuming it is set to the same K meter level, arbitrarily 14 in this case). So if everyone ensures that the level of their mix never goes over 0 on a K-meter set to K14 they should all sound pretty much exactly the same level, or very close. This is completely different from normalising all the different mixes to -12dBfs, where all the mixes will then be at different levels dependant on the amount of compression used on individual parts, groups and busses etc etc. The idea being to try (vainly so far it seems) to as near as damn it remove level discrepency between mixes as a variable, since it is a hard fact that the human ear hears louder as better always.

Audacity is free and thats great but it truly is not up to the job of mixing in any meaningful way. Rule 1 when mixing is ignore the rules (actually its better put that Rule 1 is to learn when and where and how to break the rules, and dont be afraid to if it sounds better) Rule 2 is listen to the mix as you change something to hear the sweet spot - Audacity has a solo preview of an FX being applied over the first few seconds of the entire track, and the you apply it and then you hear it in the mix, you cant sweep an eq point whilst hearing how the change interacts with the mix, you simply cant mix 'properly' with it. It is for making destructive edits to wavs that Audacity has any use at all IMO, and these days I dont even use it for that! Get into Reaper, its not hard to learn the basics, it will take years to get fully to grips with (any full featured DAW), so enjoy the experience.

I've yet to hear a set of monitors in the Dog and Duck or even on a reasonable PA that could properly project bass, or was properly set up for more than two monitor mixes. I played in a band with a 5.5K rig of their own for a while, with pretty extensive monitors by large pub/small hall standards, the owner of the PA ran it as a hire firm to, and knows his beans, the monitors were typical onstage wedges (5 or 6 of them IIRC), and they were so rubbish at bass you couldnt put more than a lick of kick through them. Enough bass fo rme to be happy wasnt achievable at all, they just farted out. Also his (small) desk didnt (need to) support more than 2 aux monitor mixes, so I would have been stuck with the bv mix or the main vocal mix, meither of which really needed to be wasting the monitor power handling with a dump of bass at all. So in these cases (we were playing 300 to 400 capacity venues regualrly) the only recourse was a good rig. Glad I had one, the band could get pretty loud (drums, guitar, bass, B3 hammond with leslie on full chat, vocals and harmonica and bvs) and the bass quite often didnt go through the PA for one reason or another.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1372869274' post='2130977'] Corrected for you. I suggest normalising to -12dB or so (what are K-14 peak levels?) would likely give similar result to K14 metering. [/quote] No. Normalizing means finding the highest volume samplease in the entire piece of music and calculating the difference between that level and the desired normalised level. Then applying that difference to every sample in the track. This is very different from getting the same average level the same for all the tracks. If I brickwall limit my track and you don't and we normalised them both mine wwould average as much as 10bB louder than your track

[quote name='FretNoMore' timestamp='1372706575' post='2128942'] No, it won't. [/quote] +1

[quote name='the boy' timestamp='1372700634' post='2128802'] Wow that sounds like a cool job. [/quote] Incredible as it goes, very small close knit community, he flew the chase chopper on the Olympics opening ceremony, followed Queenie through Tower Bridge. On the downside he was a friend of the chap who binned his chopper in London....

Heh, I'll ask my mate who was flying camera chopper for the upcoming Stones film shall I?

I watched ten minutes of it, near the end of Midnight Rambler. So ropey!! I thought they seemed exactly what they are, very very old men dragging their sorry carcasses across a stage without the help of their walkers for two hours. Mick especially looked only just capabel of moving around. Such a shame, but inevitable.... I dont mind the Stones as it goes, but by gum have they overstayed their welcome. As for the pub rock covers band comment, a mate of mine plays in the Rolling Tones, a tribute band, and they are incredible, no they arent the real deal, but they certainly produce energy several orders of magnitude greater than that on the stage of Glastonbury IMO, anywhere from a pub to the British Embassy or B Palace (seriously they've played for "Her Madge" ). I turned over and was thoroughly blown away by Public Enenmy, now that was great!

They were great at Glasto werent they!

Sounded awesome to me. Can't wait to see them next weekend Killer atmosphere. Fantastic grooving incredible bass and guitar....

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1372407701' post='2125287'] Different genre of music, different [i][b]fashions[/b][/i]! [/quote] Oh and now we actually hit the nail on the head. I think my extremely blonde Roscoe looks utterly awesome for a funk band IMO (or a blues band), especially if I wear dark clothes, its a woody version of Nigel's chrome monstrosity in that it floats around like a disembodied bass on a dark stage (kind of, a bit, if you squint ). I could care less about fashion, really I dont mind what the players playing music find their inspiration on, Seasick Steve and Jack White have given guitarists a proper kicking about having to play a Fender/Gibson blah blah blah, you dont get more roots blues than Seasick Steve, and he plays a tobacco box, not a tobacco burst. Looks like the real deal rather than some fake wonk from Surrey who has to have the "in thing" and follow the crowd like all the other sheep. My guitarist plays a Fender Stat and a Les Paul (one of the 50's reissue ones with the single coil switch, sounds lovely), could care less myself, he makes a great sound, through his Marshall all tube 212 combo, which oin the face of it is definitely not a typical funk amp, but sounds fantastic the way he sets up the channel, so why would I care? Yes what you look like does matter on stage, no the brand of instrumetn is not that important as far as I can tell. And no Leo Fender categorically did not get it right first time, how many of you Jazz players have even seen a Jazz with the original [i]felt[/i] mutes on? Did you knwo that those basses really do sound more like an uporight than the P bass does with those felts? Here is a truly incredible build diary of a scarily authentic 1960 bass:- http://www.tdpri.com/forum/tele-home-depot/169606-1960-jazzbass-build.html Here is the bass played without the mutes:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6E7iSATY7M&feature=player_embedded Here it is with original period mutes on:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwYoi9G67DU&feature=player_embedded Now anyone on here claiming that the second version is what we think of when we talk about the sound of a jazz bass is deluding themselves, but that was the original intention of the jazz bass, because they were originally sold with the mutes (and tapewound strings according to Herbie Flowers), so no Leo didnt get it right first time intentionally, but he did a huge amount to get electric bass accepted and recognised and indeed ubiquitous. Still doesnt mean you cant beat a Fender, we are all allowed our own opinion, and stylistic preferences, otherwise we would all be playing the same music too. How boring!

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1372376776' post='2125167'] With respect, I would dispute that... audiences couldn't care less and don't know a Fender from a hole in the ground. In fact, they don't even know (or care) what the difference is between a guitar and a bass guitar. Either they like the band or they don't. That is all. [/quote] But band leaders and stylsits and image consultants think they do know best. I didn't get into a band a couple of years ago because o didn't play a Fender! Their loss as it goes

The composition comp is amazing, and as for the recording forum being all backslapping, read some of my thoughts in the mix comp, I try not to be rdue but I don't pull any punches either.... Which comp is best for metal?

Nah, its a perfectly good instrument, I'm sure, but it aint the one for me. A J can sound awesome in the right context, a P can sound awesome in the right context, my Roscoe sounds awesome to me in the contexts I play in, it is also far easier to play than any Fender bass I've ever tried, certainly than any 5 string I've ever tried, and I've never picked up a Fender that was even close to as light.

RME UFX lets you record to an drive via USB as a backup, it can be a fat USB stick if you like, getting expensive at this point though!

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1372190513' post='2122742'] The first step is to try moving your speakers. And buying 'a better cab like a Bergantino' is never the solution. [/quote] Excellent point, bass below about 300Hz is omni directional, signal bouncing off the back wall interferes with direct signal from the cab causing all manner of comb filtering Stay as close as you can to the wall or over eight feet away (IIRC) to minimise their effect in bass sensitive areas Then get a Bergantino cab

Use an esata cable to an external hard drive or raid array mounted in a suspended rack... I've had no trouble with Alesis HD24s recording very loud stuff, that's 24 tracks right there, you'll need Mic pres too though...

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1372178199' post='2122544'] [url="http://www.halfmoon.co.uk/"]http://www.halfmoon.co.uk/[/url] I've not played there myself (chance would be a fine thing) but I've been to plenty of gigs there, and recent Basschatters who have played there include Clarky with ATQR and Low End Bee with The Jetsonics. [/quote] Cant really tell from the photos because there are drapes everywhere, but I would be surprised if there were any attempt to improve the acoustics. Lowest D on a (4 string) bass is about 73Hz, sound travels at about 343m/s, so the wavelength of that lowest d is 343/73 = 4.6m (or close enough) so if any of that room's dimensions is 4.6m or a multiple of 4.6 meters then you are going to get a nice fat node somewhere in the room around that frequency, if two dimensions divide by 4.6m then its going to get really obvious. Of course its not that simple, rooms aren't simple shapes, and the additive and subtractive quality of the interference from [i]all[/i] the boundaries in 3 dimensions is what we experience. Simply put if you find a place in a room with a big fat peak in it, move, you will wander out of that node and move into another area where the problem isnt evident, in fact you may find that in that space the note disappears altogether! Hence the need to sort out the acoustics to get the nodes controlled properly, EQ cant work everywhere in the room.... Of course it can also be the harmonics of the note, and an octave higher D gives a wavelength of around 2.3m, hows that for near the height of the room???

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1372173352' post='2122450'] Incidentally, and FWIW, the Half Moon in Putney has a really bad resonant frequency around the low D on a 4-string bass. That's a serious venue, played at by plenty of big bands, but every time a bass player hits a D or a C# it feels like a brown note. My point is, sometimes there is NO fix that will work. [/quote] Well a serious notch filter would help, you may need several though, and the chances are you would wreck your tone trying eq as the solution, ringing in a room is not something you can fix really with eq, since it is a time domain phenomena rather than a frequency domain phenomena. You say its a serious venue? How big (roughly) is it? What work have they done on the acoustics in the room? The larger the room then (very generally) easier it is to get the room nodes to be less of an issue. Also the more space you can afford to give up to acoustic treatment. Most simple DIY solutions to bass notes ringing are fairly cheap but very large and target quite wide frequency bands (superchunk corner bass traps for instance). Targetting specific frequencies with helmholtz resonators and so on, but these require more skill to create as a rule, and more time, they are however, often smaller than big absorption based bass traps. If this venue is serious about sound then it ought to have serious about sound acoustic improvements, clouds hung from the ceiling, basstraps in the soffits and corners, absorption on the walls, and even some diffusers wouldnt go amiss. It wouldnt cost tehm more than a couple of grand to do a seriously great job on the room, the diffference would be massive too! Heck where I rehearse now every single rehearsal room has broadband absorption on the walls and clouds, they are clearly DIY, but the rooms sound fabulous as a result (compared to many places I used to use back in the day), its a pleasure to rehearse there, [url="http://www.brightonelectric.co.uk/rehearsal-BE1.html"]have a look[/url]. [url="https://soundcloud.com/mistersuperjuice/what-it-is-and-what-it-aint"]Here is an example of a bit of a jam[/url] whilst the horns were working out some parts at the last rehearsal, Zoom H4n as drum overheads and two Line Audio CM3s in the room to pick up bass, guitar, and horns - not bad for no close micing at all!

[url="http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/"]Room Eq Wizard[/url] is great free software for plotting waterfall graphs etc etc...