P-T-P

Yeah, the rhythm on Maggie May is a bit loud on the mp3s, not so much on the CD copy though, but was thinking of taking it down a smidge. I think you're right on the compression pumping, certainly on Keep on Running, the hi-hats in particular noticeably jump up and down depending on what else is going down. I'm also thinking of bumping up the vocals across the board by a wee smidge. Agreed on the drum parts, at the end of the day they are all synthetic in one way or another! Should have spent more time thinking about them before we recorded. Thanks for the compliments on the bass playing, I was very pleased with the way it came out. And thanks also for taking the time to listen and give some thoughts, I appreciate it.

[quote name='chris_b' post='173934' date='Apr 10 2008, 02:11 PM']After being inspired by a £2000+ Ken Smith are you really going to be happy with any £300 bass? I'd get a bank loan to make up the difference and go for one of the, at least half a dozen, top 6 string basses currently for sale on BC right now.[/quote] Well the Smith wasn't the inspiration behind me wanting a 6 string, I'd dabbled prior to playing that, but there's no doubt it was a fine bass to play, as is the FBass 6 I played when on holiday in Florida last year. I don't ever see a scenario where I'd spend £2000 on a bass though to be honest, maybe if money was no object.

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the drums are a bit odd. They're all electronic in one way or another. Pretty Woman was a DT Express kit, all on one channel. Hero was me actually writing and weighting dots for all the percussion parts for the soundcard's onboard synth to play. The other three ar on a DDrums kit which gave us bass, snare, toms and cymbals/hi-hat on seperate channels. We should have spent more time checking the drum recordings from the DDrum as it turns out that the mesh is so sensitive it was registering vibrations from the speakers as being a strike, particularly on the kick drum. I had to gate the kick drum quite heavily so it's lost a bit of its boom. The actual performance on Angels is not our drummer's finest hour. Because he could, he also used different sounds for each song and that wasn't really wise as many of them had already been treated, would have been better trying to pick one good kit sound and getting it right. Definitely a lesson learned for next time. I think te overall compression I used on the master may have brought out the hi-hats too much in a couple of places too. When you say the intro is rushed, do mean the timing or the quality of the recording? It is ahead of the beat a bit and his subdivisions aren't great, but I didn't feel it was too noticeable (though I've listened to it for three years now, maybe I'm immune). Getting him to concentrate on playing in time isn't an easy task and when he does we often lose the energy of the performance - I think Maggie Mat's rhythm parts suffer a bit from this, that and the fact we should have used an acoustic. When we've recorded in the past, I've actually snuck back to re-record a lot of the guitar parts for this reason. On Hero, the guitar solo and vocals are the only thing which aren't me. Cheers for taking the time to listen and reply though.

So have recorded some tracks with my cover band which can be found here [url="http://www.thick-as-thieves.co.uk/thick_as_thieves_wedding_function_band_song_list.html"]http://www.thick-as-thieves.co.uk/thick_as..._song_list.html[/url] These are ripped from a cd (except Hero) and naturally sound somewhat different to the original as a result. I also haven't quite figured out how to get the final master to ignore the silence at the start and end of the tracks! The first four were all recorded, mixed and mastered on a Korg D3200 with no other true recording gear used. Vocals and guitars just using SM58 and SM57, final mix done using not particularly flash hi-fi speakers and my decent but a bit artificially bassy PC speakers. The last track was done an age ago and is me recording or programming the tracks on my PC in Cakewalk Home Studio. Vocals again done using SM58 but with no pop filter and a bit of green mic technique from singer and lack of recording knowledge on my part! There's issues with all of the tracks, whether it be the feel of Maggie May performance (a bit lethargic), tuning of guitar in part of Pretty Woman and the Angels' vocal. What I'm interested in mostly is opinions on the quality of the mix (too bassy, too muddy, levels etc) and advice as to what I could/should have done differently, either at the recording or mixing stage bearing in mind the equipment I have at my disposal and the quality of singer's voice, guitarist's inability to play in time etc.

Hmmm. I can think of a downside to the speakon locking system. Back about a year and a half ago we played at the New Inn, Ton Pentre which is a place we've done a few times but the stage isn't exactly massive and the floor area immediately in fron of it serves both as dancefloor and the shortest route between front door and bar so we can't use stands for the FOH speakers 'cause there's basically no room for them. No problem, we simply stacked the normally stand mounted tops onto some bass bins. The whole stack was about 8 foot high and pretty solid barring WWIII type impact. The sginal from our powered mixer goes into one of the tops and then the other (same process for the other channel). Speakon connection out of the mixer and into the cabs. We used a relatively short lead for the stack on the mixer side of the stage (about 15ft). All sorted until mid first set, slightly worse for wear punter arrives and wanders to the bar, gets accidentally clocked by someone dancing, loses balance and manages to crash into the PA stack, sending both of the (not light at all) tops flying. Because of the speakon cables, the powered desk rapidly followed until the cabs hit the floor and was only saved by my intervention. By the time it was all over, the speakon socket on both the desk and cab had been ripped loose from their mounting and the subsequent and sudden loss of load caused the power amp on the desk (for that side) to die. Amazingly, no one was hurt by the flying cabs and eventually the insurance company paid out on the desk, but we were still a bit stuffed for about 6 weeks and had to use some very old and dodgy amp/mixer gear to keep us gigging while we waited for the insurance. In that particular instance, jack leads would have probably served us better.

Thanks for all the input guys, not actually in a position to purchase right now but the info will serve me well. Thinking back, I owned a Toby Pro 6 for a brief few days following a part-ex deal. Was a nice enough bass but was definitely lacking a bit tonally for my taste. This is actually all crazykiwi's fault for letting me try his Smith 6 at the SE bash back last year, it has haunted me ever since.

I feel very much at home on my 5 string basses, but it's taken a long time to get there in terms of finding the right instruments. I've wanted to get into 6 string bass for a while now, to the extent that I've owned both a TRB1006 and an early TR6 but neither really worked out for me. I enjoyed the freedom of being able to reach more notes from one position as well as the greater fun available at the dusty end, but when it came time to just be the bass player in a covers band, I found the TRB's were just that little bit too big (body and neck width) and heavy for me. I'm looking for suggestions then for alternative 6-ers I should consider and the only real guide I have is to look at what I like about my 5 string basses and don't like about a lot of other bassses. In general I dislike fat necks, and by that I mean the depth from back of neck to fretboard. I prefer a more oval shape to the neck profile. More this "("than this "C" and definitely not this "D" I prefer the fretboard not to be overly flat. I like the 19mm string spacing at the bridge on my Laklands and also like the more tapered effect that has on the neck. I particularly dislike Fender Vs for their lack of this, to me they feel like I'm playing a blunt instrument. I like the feel of the smaller than normal jazz body of my DJ5. I know when others ask similar kinds of questions, budget is always something that respondents cite. I don't have one as such. I likely wouldn't spend more than about £800 but would be more comfortable spending in the £300-£500 range and would always be more inclined towards second hand rather than new. Any suggestions much appreciated.

On the click track not being essential... ...yes and no. If there are parts of a song where there is no rhythm to follow, unless you all have a very solid internal clock, overdubs can be tricky or end up needing to be chopped about a bit which all takes up time so it's good to have a reference. And that kinda leads neatly on to playing with a click/metronome. Personally I would never advocate thinking of it as a strict measure of time anyway - though obviously it is - it should be treated as a framework, a skeleton that the body of the song is built around. Maybe the song is a taut and nimble little minx, maybe it's a big fat momma, using a click well prevents neither from coming into being.

+1 on knowing the material inside out before you get there +1 on click track practice for the drummer, comfort here is essential If you're using a click track, everyone (vocalists especially) should be able to play/sing with it to a reasonable degree. If you can, put a bit of time aside before the record button is pressed each day/session to just play together - get yourselves warmed up and comfortably in the groove. Singers generally don't deliver well if they have to do take after take after take so have the words printed out in clear type and in easy view, even if they know the words perfectly as that will hopefully eliminate one of the main causes of having to do a re-take. Make sure there's a plentiful supply of water/tea/strepsils/honey or whatever it is works for them on hand. Think through potential problem areas of songs and how you'll address them when it comes to recording, make sure everyone is on the same page as to the solution. If someone keeps making the same mistake, just step away from the process and forget about it for a few, try not to pressure them by going over what they should be doing, chances are they know already, you pointing things out isn't going to help. Always be positive, especially when it coems to the vocal takes. Confidence is key here. If someone delivers a crap take, they'll know, just ask them how they felt about it and give them the opportunity to redo it if they aren't enthusiastic about the take.

Steinbergers only to be played at McDonalds during Oktoberfest? SX basses only to be played in white stilettoes? Ashdown's popularity up since the smoking ban? Stingray's only to be used while following proper precautions and yelling "Crikey!" ESP's only to be played if you can feel their presence? Encore's only suitable for repeat performances? Buzzard basses exclusively for people called Leighton.

If I'm buying, it's worth about 25% less than the asking price and if I'm selling it's gonna be at least 50% of the difference between what you've just offered and what I originally asked for more than what you offered! lol Joking aside, the only thing you can do is look around and see what similar items are selling for (not the asking price, the selling price). Failing that, if you're selling, sell it for what it's worth to you and be prepared not to make a sale and if buying, pay what your prepared to pay and be prepared not to make a purchase.

Hmmm, doesn't sound like something I'd want to risk just going on opinion. From my experience, the biggest problem with the Low B on many basses is that they often don't sound like they belong to the same bass as the other 4 strings and the only time I've not noticed that is on basses with a longer scale length than standard 34". I have very small hands and have no problems with the 35" scale on my Lakland 5s. However, on the JO5 I used to own, the extra length was more obvious because of the way the bass sat on a strap. Compared to a DJ5, the JO5's bridge is about an inch further form the edge of the bass, hence when it was on a strap, fret one was an inch further away than I was used to. The extention of the upper horn will also make a difference in the way the overall length of the neck feels, the longer the upper horn, the closer the nut will be. The extended scale length of 35" over 34" I've never really noticed in terms of distance between the frets and that makes sense as we're talking about a very small distance increase on each fret. Like you, I don't like the TRB 5 and 6 necks or the Warwick ones. I don't like the Fender ones either. I did however like the one on my Status 5 (offset oval profile) and I was quite partial to the neck on OldGit's Shuker P5 which, IIRC, was based on an Ibanez BTB-5 neck. In the end, the conclusion I've come to for me is that the profile of the neck and the way the bass sits on a strap is far more important to me than the scale length. Maybe Mr. Shuker could comepensate for the extra scale length by placing the bridge as far back as possible and/or drawing out the top horn by an inch or so. Maybe a shallower profile on the neck and closer string spacing at the nut would combine to give you the tonal benefits of 35" scale but with sufficient comfort. Interestingly, Lakland also make a point about the arrangement of the pegs on their 5 string headstocks with a full 2" between nut and Low B, plus their hefty string retainer right behind the nut. How much they contribute to the tone I have my doubts, but might be another consideration to make.

[quote name='Mikey D' post='156884' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:54 PM']Of course it was well intentioned, I see the forum as a place for learning and only answer if I know something about a subject (I wish only everyone did this), if they wanted to read more they can, they don't have to.[/quote] Yeah, didn't mean to sound like I was having a go if that's how it came across. I agree it would be nice if more people contributed (myself included), just think the additional info might confuse matters more than it might help! [quote name='thedontcarebear' post='157218' date='Mar 14 2008, 09:28 AM']I am amazed this thread is still going![/quote] Yeah, look what you started.

[quote name='Broken Hero' post='156675' date='Mar 13 2008, 01:00 PM']In theory you can quite happily have the key of D#... sure it is Eb but it's a different way of thinking and I have come across it in an audition before.. it is just a shift in thinking. The circle of fifths eliminates the need for double-sharps but they certainly exist in music theory. Maybe it does confuse the matter but hey, I'll stick to my guns and may be shot down.[/quote] Theoretically of course, but it's the kind of thinking that, IMHO, makes people turn their nose up at learning music theory. Absolutely there are double flats and double sharps but is it really useful to introduce them in trying to assist someone who's theory hasn't yet advanced that far? Similarly (if no moreso) with others talking about temperaments to be honest. Saying that enharmonic is the term used when describing the E#/F relationship is perfectly justified when trying to help someone trying to grasp the concept of why it is written as E# and not F. Referring back to a system(s) of tuning which was superceded in popular music over 100 years ago and where enharmonic carried a different meaning doesn't really help at this point. In more advanced study or even out of sheer interest if you're that way predisposed, then great, but in the context of answering the particular question, I just think it fudges the issue, even though I'm sure it was well intentioned.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='156169' date='Mar 12 2008, 04:32 PM']you haven't, it was on the tip of my tongue and is the correct way to describe the difference between the two/one notes/note.[/quote] Actually, you both missed it! I'll claim first use, think Mikey D mentioned it too.

Going back to the original post... [i]I didn't think E# was in the chromatic scale[/i] There's no absolute way of writing the chromatic scale. The convention in music tends to be that if you're going up to a black key on a piano you use the sharp symbol and if you're going down to it you use a flat symbol. So an ascending chromatic scale could be written C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B C A descending chromatic scale could be written C B Bb A Ab G Gb F E Eb D Db C But there's no right or wrong and where you get people who've not studied theory but still play music you can find a mixture. I'm sure the guitarist from my band would write a chromatic scale as being... C C# Eb E F F# G G# A Bb B C ... and use the same names for the notes whether ascending or descending. As to the E# in an F# major scale. None of the major scales are built from the chromatic scale, they come about as the result of the way key signatures -the sharps or flats at the very beginning of a piece of music, just after the clef - are defined. The easiest way to explain that is a thing called the cricle of fifths. As the C major scale is C D E F G A B C so the C key signature has no sharps or flats. Moving clockwise we go up to the fifth note of the C major scale - G. The G major scale is G A B C D E F# G so the G key signature uses one sharp, F# Moving clockwise we go up to the fifth note of the G major scale - D. The D major scale is D E F# G A B C# D so the D key signature uses two sharps, F# and C# You continue moving up a fifth until you get to C# which requires seven sharps in the key signature to construct a C# major scale. That's the sharps taken care of, so for the flats we go back to C. Moving anti-clockwwise we go up to the fourth note of the C major scale - F The F major scale is F G A Bb C D E F so the F key signature uses one flat, Bb You continue anti-clockwise, moving up to the fourth note until you get to Cb which requires seven flats to contruct a Cb major scale. Notice that the major scale pairs of B and Cb; F# and Gb; C# and Db actually sound the same. They are enharmonic. You play the same combination of white and black keys on a piano or frets and strings on the guitar. They are distinctively named however and while you'll rarely see a piece written in C# or Cb, it is useful to be aware of their existence and the reason for it. Going back to your E#/F question again... If we didn't use E# instead of F, every F and F# note would need to be written on the same line on the stave and have to be proceeded by the use of a sharp or natural symbol which would make for a messy and confusing piece of notation.

Sounds like we could do with a "Circle of 5ths" diagram to explain the key signatures (which leads us to the scales that go with them). I think the "D# scale" mentioned is just adding to the confusion as there is no key of D#, only Eb. The term that needs to be brought up in reference to the E#/F and Cb/B issue, and indeed Ab/G#, Bb/A# etc. is "enharmonic." The notes sound the same, but are named differently in order to maintain the integrity of the theory which usually results in a cleaner, easier to read, sheet music. For example, if the key was written as D#, you end up with 9 # symbols in the key signature whereas Eb has just 3 b symbols in the key signature, much easier to deal with.

If we're talking simply in terms of serving the song well without being complex... With or Without You - U2 Town Called Malice - The Jam Long Train Running - Doobie Brothers Alright Now - Free Upside Down - Diana Ross None of these are particularly tricky in terms of notes or fancy runs but none of them work unless you nail the feel - be it the urgency of TCM; the slow-burning pounding of WOWY; the bounciness of Alright Now etc. Personally, I think feel is the most overlooked aspect of bass playing. It's something that's hard to teach, tricky to explain and difficult to grasp but I think it's the thing that sets apart the great from the good and if you're transitioning from another instrument, techniques and scales and arpeggios will come fairly easily so focus on understanding feel and how the bass contributes to the groove and mood of songs.

[quote name='barneythedog' post='152975' date='Mar 7 2008, 11:51 AM']I've been looking into just such a set-up for our band - what size par's did you go for (56 or 64?), and how are they performing? I've been a bit wary of LED's as I guess they're not as bright as standard halogen cans? Your advice would be appreciated [/quote] I know the question is not addressed to me, but our band have just gone from normal Par 56 cans to LEDs. The LEDs definitely aren't as bright and dont seem to have as wide a flood as the traditional types we were using - you can buy lamps for the traditional ones with different flood levels, I'm guessing ours were wider angle. Our old set-up was two t-bars with 4 x 56 cans on each and a floor controller for each which enabled different chase patterns, all on. all off and a tap tempo. However, most places we played didn't really have the room for these plus they were a bit of a hassle to set up. We now have 4 x Par 56 LED cans which we just put on the floor, one for each of us and set them on their auto colour change pattern. It's small and easy to set-up and so we use them at nearly every gig. We also purchased a bunch of lighting effects for use at weddings and functions which consists of two t-bars and a 3m truss which we set-up behind the drummer and backline and from that hang a bunch of room-filling moving lighting effects. The 4 LED cans aren't quite bright enough to compete with the back-lighting but certainly the stage isn't dark and we aren't totally in shadow, however I think I'd like to add another 4 of them at some point and probably stand mount them in front of the band for gigs where we use the "disco" lighting.

[quote name='OldGit' post='152936' date='Mar 7 2008, 10:58 AM']I've started a wiki entry but haven't quite got the Wiki formatting thing sussed so its there at the top level rather than being a "chapter" or whatever wiki speak fo rthat is .... It also needs input from you knowledgeable lighting people on more sophisticated systems[/quote] I wouldn't profess to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination but once the Wiki is ready for input I'll add my own research/buying/using experiences. Somewhere in the world someone should have produced a guide to DMX written in plain English and without making giant assumptions about the reader. If I could have found it, I would have bought differently I'm sure!