paul_c2

Yeah they'll all be okay together. Both my PA speakers have that style of socket and will accept a 1/4" jack (as well as XLR).

Its a rough guide. What's the guideline with decibels?

Regarding what power you need for a venue, as a rough guide, and it depends on genre: Jazz 1-2W/seat Rock 5-10W/seat Where 'seat' is the number of seats in venue. Eg for a 400 seater venue, plan for 2000-4000W of amplification for a rock band.

I would say that it doesn't - ie intonation doesn't matter (as much) on a fretless. On a fretted bass, it DOES matter because once you've tuned it, and you play normally, then you have little/no control over the pitch except for what the frets determine for you. Sure, you can bend up a little but it would be a dramatic alteration to technique and difficult to consistently do. On a fretless, the equivalent adjustment would be very easy to do in the moment and not at all unnatural. The relative intonation between each of the strings is probably more important than the actual intonation setting. It would need to be quite a bit out, to actually notice when playing.

We already have an Alto TX212, have been using it for 6 months and done 3 gigs with it; and its served a number of rehearsals and is well-travelled too (for a while we didn't have secure storage, so it came home with me after each regular rehearsal). Obviously it is much cheaper than the equivalent TS model, which is obviously part of the attraction. And its plenty loud enough, we are not limited by its power, but the limit is more to do with feedback. Hence, why I am considering a TX208 or three as monitors - I know the power rating is lower; and that the figures need interpreting properly, rather than believing too strongly in a power rating (especially if its a headline peak power). This isn't a rock band, we don't need thousands of watts of power; more a decent sound quality, reliability (hence why we'll buy new and be able to return/replace/etc) and a nice spread of sound amongst the large number of people to alleviate the problems faced so far. In fact, 3x B205 appeals too - they really do belt out the sound given their compact size, but the bass isn't really there and we can afford the space of a slightly larger unit now too. Also I'm aware that the TX212 isn't directly equivalent to the TS312 anyway - one claims 300W/600W (RMS/peak) while the other claims 1000W/2000W. (And the TX208 vs TS308 is 140W/300W vs 1000W/2000W). I did go to a local music shop but unfortunately they didn't have a TX208 in stock, so I was unable to look at it (or buy it) - but that was for a slightly different use case, when I was looking for some speakers for my laptop - with the appropriate cable, it would have connected no problems.

I've heard this said a few times - why? The "cheapie" ones seem to offer very good value for money and the one we have so far, performs very well.

All saxes can do "the honk" - for example 1:27 on this recording (the tenor sax, in their shared solo with alto), but it can be overused and soon tire from it. Save it for occasional moments, IMHO

The baritone sax has a very distinctive sound, I'd say the closest you'd get - and it would only be half way there at best - would be with some kind of fairly sophisticated analogue synth. But even that would only have a "fixed" ADSR so it would soon sound synthesised rather than authentic - a lot of the character of the tone comes from the small variations in each note, sometimes relating to its note length (but not necessarily). A good synth player would be able to tweak the envelope whilst playing a solo or a line, to give a vaguely similar effect. You have all the odds against you (due to the lag it takes to recognise lower notes, when using a synth or pitch-sensing type effect on a bass) and you'd be better off with a keyboard. Or an actual baritone sax player. Even then, Leo P has something of a distinctive technique and tone, so you're bound to fall short or achieve something else anyway.

Having performed a number of Bond themes (main theme tune, Nobody Does It Better, Skyfall, We Have All The Time In The World), I love Bond tunes and my favourite varies with my mood. Fav slow one is "You Only Live Twice" and fav fast one is "Man With The Golden Gun". I would love to be able to perform "Man With The Golden Gun" but the intro is exceedingly difficult for the trumpet players - its a Bm9 chord, so that means someone has to squeak out a D# (C# on concert pitch) in the altissimo register, and with the required punchy rhythm. So that's on hold, indefinitely. "We Have All The Time In The World" is exceedingly boring to play, and is make-or-break depending on the quality of the male lead singer. "Nobody Does It Better" kinda needs the piano at the start but once that's sorted, is a brilliant song which is quite approachable too.

Its Chester Big Band, and I fully understand the issue with trombone players - they are somewhat rare! I'm keen to keep it simple so I think analogue it is; the extra stuff on digital is a step too far. And the PA12 is a good call but I've kinda bought new with warranty so far, just in case something goes pop it makes it much easier to get the money back or replace it quickly.

That's my thoughts already - while in theory we could amplify a lot of stuff, in reality we shouldn't really need it and should be able to "cling onto" playing just acoustically, just like an orchestra or smaller group would do, at least until we play bigger venues. So its very much a case of "less is more". And that's where we are now - the singers need to be amplified, and the system is actually very simple, not much more than a mic plugged straight into a speaker - for example there is no EQ at all, except for the "contour" button on the back of the active speaker. The next 2-3 gigs will be outdoors, so I'm guessing any issues of being unable to hear others will be most prominent there. Hence I have the plan that the electric stuff can be put thru a mixing desk, an aux output (or two) can be used to have a monitor mix (or two), meaning that their backline amps can be turned right down so they aren't trying to do 2 things at once. Or even...we could eliminate the backline amps (at least for keyboard and bass). Using a proper mixer with everything adjustable means we aren't messing around trying to compromise the various levels in one or another area.

Yep that's about right. As for layout, its a kinda moveable feast, but this is what we've done so far and seems to work quite well. The vocals are deliberately near the keyboard to help. Previously, it was 2 long thin rows of wind instrument players with the rhythm section as a 3rd back row but this was never going to work once the singers are here; and also recently we've had guitar AND piano/keyboards; previously it was either/or.

ETA we would probably in the future want dedicated instrument (ie decent condenser) mics/channels for soloists rather than sticking a vocal mic in front of them too. So that's 7-9 XLR inputs needed, depending on how the keyboard connects.

Singers definitely need a monitor. 2nd would go to a number of monitors around the band. I'm kinda used to knowing that what I hear isn't what goes out to the front, so I don't worry about what I hear. And I sit near the keyboard player (IMHO, out of the 27 or so players, piano/drums/vocals are the useful ones to hear), so I'm not 100% sure of what others are struggling with, although this is now the 2nd gig in a row where its been an issue of some kind or another. Regarding the inputs: 2 possibly 3 singers, another mic for announcements, then some XLR inputs from DI boxes from bass, guitar, keyboard (stereo) although I guess these could go into 1/4" sockets if needs be. May need to further mic up everything else in the future but that's a different kettle of fish! It is a big band but not limited to 30-40s stuff, we do all sorts of more modern stuff (think, Amy Winehouse, Zutons, Beyonce, etc) and the saxes are doubled or tripled up.

Yeah, I've resigned myself to getting different cables (or adapters, then a bunch of XLR-XLR cables) for the monitors. I think realistically it would benefit to have 2 (or more) different monitor mixes, so I'll look for something with 2 (or more) pre-fade aux outs. I'm 99% sure the Behringer X2222 can do that. Now I'm wondering if I should be looking for something which can do 3 different monitor mixes.....

Currently we have a little Behringer B205D which has 2 mic inputs and serves as a monitor so the singers can hear themselves; it also has a balanced XLR line out from which we send the signal to a 300W 12" active speaker. Oh and its a bit of a different scenario, its a big band - there were 27 of us: 11 saxes, 4 trombones, 4 trumpets, 2 clarinets, drums, bass, guitar, keyboard and 2 female singers. So the PA is only used to amplify the singers (and occasionally soloists who stand at the front to play), the guitar/bass/keyboard all have their own backline amps. After a reasonably successful gig last night, I think its time to bite the bullet and actually go for a proper mixer + monitors. The sound was pretty good but we faced a few issues: the guitarist didn't really cut through at FOH but once turned up enough, his own amp was exceedingly loud and dominated what the saxes etc could hear on stage; and the hall was quite big and "dead" sounding compared to our rehearsal venue which is very echo-ey, so some of the sax players were struggling to hear much of anything except those nearest to them. I don't want to go down the route of mic-ing up the entire band - there's 27 of us.... but it might be worthwhile being able to run 3 (or 4) mics, plus the guitar/bass/keyboard/a bit of drums through the PA (and we might get more FOH power anyway). So, realistically the minimum is 8x XLR inputs. I'm not sure I want to be messing around with XLR-TRS adapters for some of the inputs, just because the mixer doesn't have enough of them. So, the Behringer Xenyx X2222USB seems to be the ideal thing. Its ~£180 vs ~£120 for something with 4 XLR inputs so its not massively more anyway, just makes sense to go for that now). But one thing about it....sure, the mains come out on balanced XLR, but the sub outputs (it has 2, plus the 3rd which is FX - we might not use the built in effects so that's another output channel usable for a different monitor mix etc) are all unbalanced 1/4" TS. Realistically, does everyone just not worry about this, and get a suitable lead to connect up to the monitors? Or do some better mixers have all balanced XLR out? (It makes sense to standardise, if for no other reason than to not have to use adapters or different cables etc). Regarding the monitors, obviously cost is a concern, we don't have much budget, so I was thinking to try the Alto TX208, at ~£90 it seems good value. And we really aren't in the same SPL as a rock band so don't need high volumes, in fact it would be good to keep the on-stage volume as low as possible. And obviously with 27+, IEMs are out-of-budget!!!

Well yes true, the topic has diverged - I am not sure if thread drift is necessarily a bad thing though. Another way to look at it might be that simply nobody does have suggestions on how to improve tab? Or more realistically, a realisation that even if tab did improve, there is still a large body of work "out there" and published in printed books etc with what you might call "unimproved" tab. Going forwards, yes it would help (tab readers) but it would not really be able to address the issues with existing. Or that tab is a "dead end" and in fact its better to invest time in (improving for bassists) normal notation. There is already a convention in string instrument music on additional notation for suggested fingerings, perhaps normal notation + fingerings where relevant would be good for you?

Respectfully, I disagree; I think this topic HAS been discussed sensibly. Those putting counterarguments to TAB have been moderate and given good explanations as to why normal notation is able to do the job. So I think its a little unfair to label it unobjective. Given the above, the conclusion might be drawn that others, who have a lot of experience and are able to share their wisdom with the OP, have suggested normal notation is better than tab, simply because it IS better.

Yes you can (with notation), its just a little bit more involved. For example, if you see 4 notes on adjacent blobs or lines, you know its an arpeggio because there's a bunch of notes split by thirds......and you know the first note. Say for example you have no sharps or flats key signature, you know its probably either A minor or C major. If the first note is A, then you know that in that key (of A minor....) the 7 chord on the root is minor 7th - third is minor and the seventh is minor. Similarly (if you know your music well enough) you know the quality of all the other seventh chords B C D E F G. And similar to how you instantly/quickly recognise the "shape" of a 7th chord (no inversion), you can also quickly recognise the "shape" of the inversions of the chord too. It sounds involved but its just a bunch of chords and shapes which you use day after day and see again and again and again in basslines, so you quickly twig those little shortcuts. With TAB, you'd need to read each number and do mental arithmetic to know the quality of the chord given 4 numbers in quick succession. Some people are better at figuring things out with shapes than numbers, so for some people the TAB will be a confusion.

Based on a similar experience, I'd say "less is more" and you really don't need loads of; or any; effects. If you're going to be switching basses (might make sense to take a fretted and fretless) then some kind of mute pedal is handy though. If anything, what you WOULD take is an entirely separate rig - amp, lead, bass - just in case something goes wrong with the first and you can do a quick swap over.

Pretty much all acoustic (as in, they GENERATE the sound acoustically, not electronically like a synth - so by that definition an electric guitar generates the original sound acoustically, then its amplified electrically) instruments change pitch with temperature. I have a theory that at a particular temperature if its in tune, then going cold then warm, it will go out of tune but should return to being in tune. The theory being based on the expansion/contraction of wood, metal, whatever. So yes, being sharp when cold, then going flatter as it warms up is the normal behaviour of a bass. More noticeable in winter, when you go to a rehearsal and the bass is in a (cold) car that probably didn't warm up inside that much, then you arrive and tune up to find its sharp compared to last time. I'm sure we've all noticed in a particularly hot or lively gig, things get hotter and hotter and everything gets a bit out of tune and needs re-tuning. Its also why sometimes its pointless to tune up for the first song, what you should do is play a song then tune up. Or better still, tune up, play a song, then tune up again. All told though......basses don't have a real problem staying in tune compared to guitars. Its a bit of a non-issue. Its in theory better with some instruments (eg violin, cello, trombone, etc) because they can adjust the exact tuning because they can vary it. In practice its worse....because they can vary the tuning while playing. Flutes are the worst.

Hmmmm, probably a few myths floating around.....here's some facts: 1. The vast majority of people can't hear more accurately than +/- 5 cents anyway.....(but you can hear the effects of being out, eg the beating between nearly-the-same pitches or intervals) 2. Apart from a tiny handful, almost all guitars are fretted so they play in "equal temperament" anyway - so they'll be ever-so-slightly out of tune on all but one note, to varying amounts, but the out-of-tuneness in itself isn't ferociously unpleasant. 3. When you pluck a string, the laws of physics means that the string vibrates at different frequency (pitch) upon initially being struck, then as it decays, anyway (string instruments when bowed don't do this though). So unless there's user error or you're massively far out or a tuner is faulty/wrong, then its not really a worry.

There's a few I'm amazed are still alive, or who lasted that long before they died.

But we don't play chromatically, we tend to play music which is diatonic, or not too distantly related. I agree that chromatic (or atonal) music has the issue that the conventional stave (and key signatures etc) aren't a good fit - which makes reading it much more difficult - but that's not the case for a lot of the time.

It makes perfect sense to me - do you understand the concept of what is "diatonic"?