jrixn1

What's an HPF300? Sounds interesting but couldn't find anything Googling.

You mentioned previously that slow shutter speed might be a concern. What were the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed of your photos from 4th & 5th Nov? Knowing this, would it help estimate if shooting at, say, f/5.6 would be acceptable (when you go back to that same venue/lighting)?

But (quoting from the manual) "The 1/4” Output is a TRS jack so the complete SansAmp signal passes through the tip, while the ring connection carries the SansAmp signal without speaker simulation." So for example if you used a TRS jack to XLR cable, would something odd happen (I think it will reverse the polarity of the speaker-sim signal then sum it with the non-speaker-sim signal)?

I believe the cut-off frequency (in this case, 41Hz) does not indicate that the curve starts at 41Hz. Instead, it indicates the point where 3dB of attenuation is achieved. For example, borrowing the diagram from a few posts up, the green curve shows HPF with cut-off of approx 100Hz, not 400Hz. So it's possible a 41Hz HPF might attenuate a little at 50Hz.

@41Hz Temporarily remove a couple of your existing tuning machines to simulate replacing them with the lower mass ones - both for balance and overall weight.

Something like this? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Neutrik-Guitar-Extension-Cable-Lead-6-35mm-1-4-Mono-Jack-Plug-to-Socket-PRO-/281837527938

One10 is 8 ohms. Would a pedal preamp/DI setup work (eg Spectradrive), where there is PA/backline provided? Even less to carry than a head.

The other one I'd consider is a Fearless F112. More expensive and a longer build time; but it can be used as a wedge, and has a lot of customization options. http://trickyaudio.com/wp/gallery/#page-content

Have you considered you (and the other musicians?) on in-ears, but not the singers? One of our singer's preferred setup is everyone else on in-ears, apart from him - i.e. he gets a quiet stage with just his preferred (floor) monitor mix.

Was this keyboard a midi controller and VST? e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJPF82ZCRTA The issue with using a bass guitar as a midi controller is that they can't track the low notes.

Yep, this happened to me with a Rockboard LT XL. Using ~250mA of pedals, the Rockboard being rated at 6600mAh at 3.7V, it would give me (6600/250) x (3.7/9) = about 10 hours. However, one time it was not fully charged, and then to compound this I left it turned on for the couple of hours after sound check before the gig started. It died during the gig. That's all my fault, not the battery pack's - but just be aware!

Could compare/contribute to http://stinkfoot.se/power-list

I currently have a K&M 14045 stool for sale...

I'm not sure there is. I have a Zoom which I am happy with, which is only used for HPF duties. The Thumpinator is simpler in that there are no buttons. With the Zoom I have to press the buttons to make sure its on the correct preset - but as in my previous reply above, it's probably an advantage to me that I can switch between frequencies. I thought I'd be able to hide the Thumpinator under my board, for neatness - but there isn't enough room under a Pedaltrain Nano as I have a power supply down under there too. (The Thumpinator itself fits - but I can't get the jacks and power leads attached.) Having said that, I saw on the sfx website there is now a Micro Thumpinator v2, which is smaller than the original v1 I have.

My first choice is in-ears. Second choice is a 732A as a wedge - so much better than having it behind me. I only put bass through it as I can hear enough of everyone else acoustically or through their monitors. Last choice is 732A behind me like a traditional bass rig. This is if we need more bass on stage e.g. the guitarist on the other side of the stage forgot his in-ears; or if it's a gig without PA support. Are you using your 310A as your floor monitor (after you got that sub?)

I wouldn't call the Zoom a hack; it's a valid solution. The Zoom has adjustable frequency, and a gentler slope (12 db/octave?). I usually have my Zoom set up with three HPF presets - 60Hz, 80Hz, and 120Hz. The Thumpinator is fixed at 30Hz (I think?) and with a steeper slope (24 db/octave?). I have both, although I only got the Thumpinator recently - in fact only done one gig with it so far. The room was awful and I was stuck in a stone-walled corner and my double bass was rumbling a lot. I think in this case the Zoom would have been better as I could have increased the cut-off frequency. Unfortunately, I only had the Thumpinator with me; I'd left the Zoom at home.

I suppose it depends on the quality of whichever monitor system you're using. I know I'm always banging on about my RCF - but other than the volume levels, it does sound pretty much the same as FOH. I've never used a Bergantino but by all accounts they are of the highest quality. If they made something wedge-shaped I'd certainly at least take a look.

I feel a better solution to this specific problem already exists in a floor monitor wedge, which has the advantage of independent volume & eq control.

I gave up waiting (for many months overdue) for whichever Android version would supposedly control the DL32R. In the end, bought a second-hand iPad.

Yes, and just put "trade only" or similar in the title/description.

I think both are 16lbs.

Yes, exactly. I think confusion can arise because the "/" symbol is used in different ways: When discussing probability, "/" is showing a fraction. So for winning a throw of the die, where you win 1 time out of 6, the probability of winning is 1/6, or 1÷6, or 0.166667. The scale runs from 0 (something which is literally impossible) to 1 (a dead cert). On the other hand, with odds, "/" expresses a ratio of losing to winning. E.g. the odds of winning a throw of the die are 5/1, as this is saying that 5 times you lose vs 1 time you win. It'd perhaps be a lot clearer if it was written 5-1 or 5:1, but the convention for whatever reason is to use "/". Then there's another scenario. When you bet on a horse at, say, 10/1, that is not the mathematical odds of the horse winning, but the price the bookmaker will pay out for a win, again expressed as a ratio; i.e. they will give you £10 profit for each £1 you wager. The true mathematical odds of the horse winning are impossible to work out, but they will generally be less likely than the price offered; the difference is how the bookmakers make a living. With the dice analogy, it would be you (the punter) rolling the die, which mathematically has 5/1 odds of winning; but I (the bookmaker) only offering you 4/1 on your money.

I think the prize definitely matters. If it's £50 to enter, and your chance of winning is 1 in 50, and the prize is £10, only a fool would enter. But if the prize was £10,000,000 you'd be a fool not to. If you have 1 chance in 50 of winning, the odds are 49/1. It expresses the ratio of the 49 times you lose to the 1 time you win. In the same way, rolling a 6 on a die is 5/1, and winning a coin toss is 1/1.