BigRedX

Got to have the image that suits the band and the music. Besides it would be boring if I was still trying to look like I did 50 years ago.

1975: 1978: 1982: 1986: 1997: 2000: 2014 2021: 2024:

Maybe I didn't explain it properly , but AFAICS a "capture" is still just a single state of the captured device with the controls at fixed positions at the moment of capture. It's all very well having gain and 3 band EQ embedded into that capture, but are these fixed in their actions or can they be altered to accurately duplicate any gain and EQ controls that might be on the captured device? I suspect that I'm not the sort of user this facility is aimed at. I've just had a look at what is "built-in" to my modelling device (Helix) and there are 43 distortion "pedals" plus over 100 more distortion/gain effects built in the various amp models. That's more than enough for me. If I can't find the sounds that I want from these options then there is something very wrong with me. I also don't believe that only one device can produce the perfect sound for me, and I gave up "chasing sounds" in the early 80s. Mostly when I change my gear it's because the new version does what I want quicker or is in a smaller/lighter form factor, or integrates better with the other gear the band uses. If I can get exactly the same sounds out of the new device, that's great, but if I can't then I'm sure that I will be able to find something that does the same job in the context of the band sound, and that's the important thing for me, not how close it sounds to a particular old device.

To me it seems very similar to trying to capture the sounds of a synthesiser using samples. You'll get each individual capture pretty much spot on but you'll never be able to get every nuance and setting, and for me a "generic" EQ and drive models that have complete variation on all the controls is far more useful than a handful of super-realistic snapshots of a device, as I can guarantee that once I no longer have access to the original I'll be needing a capture that I didn't make. I know this from experience of spending the best part of a day sampling a set of Simmons SDSV modules before selling them. Within a month I wanted sounds that at the time I hadn't thought to sample because I didn't think I'd need them.

But surely all devices are to some extent time-based in that the effect they have changes as the input signal fades away?

Thanks for putting me right on the capture process. I suppose what I really meant by the last question was when will the tools be available to allow users to create their own fully adjustable models which duplicate the way all the controls on the original work?

I've just been reading up about Capturing the sound of a device. Unless I'm mistaken it's just a snapshot of a single setting of the device you are capturing and how it reacts to whatever you happen to playing during the capture? A lot of sound processing devices will react quite differently depending on what the input signal is doing, whether it is how hard you are playing or whether you are playing single notes, simple or complex chords. I see a lot of the "how to" guides recommend playing 1st position chords (for guitar at least) as hard as possible, but surely that will only result in a capture for full chords played hard? And if you need multiple settings from your captured device you have to save each one individually? How quickly does each IR load? If for instance I need to switch to a different setting mid-song? How much processing power are we going to need in order to be able to model the action of each individual knob on the captured device?

Here are my two favourite tracks from the two bands I play in: "Parlance" by In Isolation: "Tilting" by Hurtsfall:

I used to have what sounds like a similar set up to what you are intending in the attic room of a victorian semi-detached house. Research showed that doing an effective room within a room would be completely impractical as it would firstly make the interior space too small (this was for a room that started off 5.4 x 3.7 x 2.5 metres (length width height) before I considered how much additional space acoustic treatment would remove, and secondly because it wasn't on a solid ground floor there was no realistic way of properly decoupling any interior structure from the rest of the building. There was also the worry that the additional weight of any serious sound proofing might be more that the structure of the building could carry. In the end I settled for approximately 1 metre of heavy duty sound-proofing structure on the wall separating this room from my neighbour's, filling the side walls with RW45 and two additional layers of chipboard and plasterboard and "dead sheet" covered with heavy duty underlay and carpet for the floor. However this still left the ceiling/roof and opposite end wall (that contained the window) largely untreated and as definite weak spots for sound leakage in both directions. Given enough time an budget I would have been able to sort out the roof and ceiling, but there was no workable solution for end wall that wouldn't also compromise the only access stairs to the room. It was impossible to have acoustic drums in the space, and even an electronic kit had to be positioned on top of an isolating platform to prevent the mechanical action of the kick pedal transferring through the whole structure of both properties. However it was fine for vocals, guitar and bass (DI'd) and mixing provided I only worked between 10.00am to 10.00pm and stopped whenever my neighbours wanted me to. I recorded an EP and most of my band's album in this studio, but on reflection the money I spent on building work and studio equipment would have paid for about a month in a proper studio with a good engineer and producer and would still have had enough left over to press a few thousand copies of the album and pay for some decent promotion. Instead I have seven songs whose mixes I have never been 100% happy with another five that never got properly finished before the band split. Since then the sound proofing has mostly been removed as part of a general refurbishment of the property, and most of the still functioning studio equipment sold for a fraction of what I originally paid for it. If I was going to have an actual fully functional recording space again, I wouldn't consider anywhere where the floor wasn't solid and at or below ground level, and where the sound proofing properties of the overall structure were not compromised by the building it was housed in. Probably not what you would like to hear but based on my practical experience.

Also looking at the fingerboard wear it's obviously been done by someone who has never actually played bass in a band. As everyone knows all the really fat notes are up around the 12th fret on the E and A strings.

I remember it being advertised for sale on here. I was considering buying it just so I would have something to piss off anyone who wanted me to use a P-Bass!

Actually before drilling anything check that the bridge is in the correct place. Measure from the nut to the 12th fret. It should be the same measurement from the 12th fret to just past the lip of the bridge. I also notice that you are missing an intonation screw for the D string. It might be worth replacing the whole bridge assembly although that will mean losing the quirky character of the bass.

It's the Bas Extravaganza Punk Rock Bass, and is/was owned by someone here on Basschat.

Thanks. I think your problem is that the adjustable bridge part looks like a repurposed guitar bridge. I suspect that the original saddle part had no intonation adjustment and was either a solid bar or had wheels for adjusting the string spacing but not the intonation. These were common on guitars and basses of far-eastern manufacturers in the early 70s. Those saddles would probably be OK if they were in the right place. Would it be possible to drill new holes for the intonation screws so that they were properly spaced?

They are 2.4G wireless rather than 5.8G. More likely to fail in current WiFi heavy environments.

Like this?

Bloody auto-correct. I've edited my original post.

In that case Googling "Wireless DMX" brings ups a number of results specifically aimed at DMX systems. I don't know enough about DMX to know exactly what you'll need, but if it's working in the WiFi spectrum I'd go for 5.8G rather than 2.4G as at the moment it's less congested and seems more robust. You're probably looking at £200 per connection.

Can you show some photos of the whole bass with the strings in place?

The important question should be what are you going to do if your wireless connection fails mid-gig? I can see the convenience of wireless in terms of reducing the number of cables carried and speed of setting up and breaking down. However IME consumer-grade wireless simply isn't robust/reliable enough for anything that can't be connected with an appropriate cable in seconds should it fail. I'm happy to use a wireless system for my bass - it makes sense as I want to move about on stage. However there is a jack lead kept coiled next to my Helix Floor ready should I need it. If you are using wireless for connecting the PA and/or lights, how much of a problem will it be if the wireless connection fails and how long will it take for you to replace it with a wired connection mid-gig if it proves to be unresolvable?

One of the reasons for flat-wound strings is that they make the bass guitar occupy a different sonic space to round-wounds. IMO if you want the bass to "cut through" you should be using round wounds.

You need to consider very carefully what features you want from your mixer other than just the number of inputs and outputs/aux channels. The EQ on the Zoom looks quite limited with just a fixed high and low and preset frequencies for the mids. On a digital desk I'd expect at least two fully parametric EQ controls plus low and high shelving. Again on the Zoom the effects appear to be all presets. Fine if one of them is right for your singer, but not as seemingly versatile as the A&H mixer.

You are right. What I should have said is that the cover should be either in your genre or arranged/reworked to be in your genre.

I think the point being made is that most of the time the two devices will be less than 40m apart. However if you've only got a 40m leads you'll always be coiling up 40m of cables. If instead you have a selection of 10m and 5m leads you only need to use enough to get from A to B and the rest can stay coiled up in your lead bag, and you'll only need to coil 40m of cable when you actually need 40m of cable. I makes sense to me.

For the moment. However as 5.8GHz devices become more widespread I suspect it will eventually be as flakey as 2.4GHz systems. Enjoy it while you can.