Clarky

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='889725' date='Jul 8 2010, 05:58 PM']Don't worry about what it is! It's just the video file... You drag it off the camera like you would an mp3 from a folder. Open up Youtube, select 'upload video', browse to the file, and BINGO! You're an instant INTERNET SENSATION! [/quote] Cool I could be the next Pixie Lott, only fatter, uglier and with male bits (allegedly, I am married so who would know?)

[quote name='Clarky' post='889719' date='Jul 8 2010, 05:49 PM']Thanks WoT! Scurries off to google 'AVI' (yes I have no idea what that means - I really am the village idiot when it comes to tech-y things )[/quote] Oh sh*t, shouldn't have bothered. Wikipedia on AVI (may as well be in Cantonese): Audio Video Interleave, known by its acronym AVI, is a multimedia container format introduced by Microsoft in November 1992 as part of its Video for Windows technology. AVI files can contain both audio and video data in a file container that allows synchronous audio-with-video playback. Like the DVD video format, AVI files support multiple streaming audio and video, although these features are seldom used. Most AVI files also use the file format extensions developed by the Matrox OpenDML group in February 1996. These files are supported by Microsoft, and are unofficially called "AVI 2.0". Format AVI is a derivative of the Resource Interchange File Format (RIFF), which divides a file's data into blocks, or "chunks." Each "chunk" is identified by a FourCC tag. An AVI file takes the form of a single chunk in a RIFF formatted file, which is then subdivided into two mandatory "chunks" and one optional "chunk". The first sub-chunk is identified by the "hdrl" tag. This sub-chunk is the file header and contains metadata about the video, such as its width, height and frame rate. The second sub-chunk is identified by the "movi" tag. This chunk contains the actual audio/visual data that make up the AVI movie. The third optional sub-chunk is identified by the "idx1" tag which indexes the offsets of the data chunks within the file. By way of the RIFF format, the audio/visual data contained in the "movi" chunk can be encoded or decoded by software called a codec, which is an abbreviation for (en)coder/decoder. Upon creation of the file, the codec translates between raw data and the (compressed) data format used inside the chunk. An AVI file may carry audio/visual data inside the chunks in virtually any compression scheme, including Full Frame (Uncompressed), Intel Real Time (Indeo), Cinepak, Motion JPEG, Editable MPEG, VDOWave, ClearVideo / RealVideo, QPEG, and MPEG-4 Video. Metadata As a derivative of the Resource Interchange File Format (RIFF), AVI files can be tagged with metadata in the INFO chunk. In addtion, AVI files can embed Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP). Continued use Since its introduction in the early 90s, new computer video techniques have been introduced which the original AVI specification did not anticipate. AVI does not provide a standardised way to encode aspect ratio information, with the result that players cannot select the right one automatically (though it may be possible to do so manually).[2] There are several competing approaches to including timecode in AVI files, which affects usability of the format in film and television postproduction (although it is widely used). An equivalent of the Broadcast Wave extensions, designed to standardise postproduction metadata for wave audio files, has not emerged. AVI is not intended to contain variable frame rate material. Workarounds for this limitation increase overhead dramatically. AVI was not intended to contain video using any compression technique which requires access to future video frame data beyond the current frame. Approaches exist to support modern video compression techniques (e.g. MPEG-4) which rely on this functionality, although this is beyond the intent of the original specification and may cause problems with playback software which does not anticipate this use. AVI cannot contain some specific types of VBR data (such as MP3 audio at sample rates below 32KHz) reliably. Overhead for AVI files at the resolutions and frame rates normally used to encode feature films is about 5 MB per hour of video, the significance of which varies with the application. More recent container formats (such as Matroska, Ogg and MP4) solve all these problems, although software is freely available to both create and correctly replay AVI files which use these more recent techniques. DV AVI DV AVI (aka DV-AVI) is a type of AVI file where the video has been compressed to conform with DV standards. There are two types of DV-AVI files: Type 1: The multiplexed Audio-Video is kept in its original multiplexing and saved together into the Video section of the AVI file Does not waste much space (audio is saved uncompressed, but even uncompressed audio is tiny compared to the video part of DV), but Windows applications based on the VfW API do not support it. Type 2: Like type 1, but audio is also saved as an additional audio stream into the file. Supported by VfW applications, at the price of little increased file size. Type 1 is actually the newer of the two types. Microsoft made the "type" designations, and decided to name their older VfW-compatible version "Type 2", which only furthered confusion about the two types. In the late 1990s through early 2000s, most professional-level DV software, including non-linear editing programs, only supported Type 1. One notable exception was Adobe Premiere, which only supported Type 2. High-end FireWire controllers usually captured to Type 1 only, while "consumer" level controllers usually captured to Type 2 only. Software is and was available for converting Type 1 AVIs to Type 2, and vice-versa, but this is a time-consuming process. Many current FireWire controllers still only capture to one or the other type. However, almost all current DV software supports both Type 1 and Type 2 editing and rendering, including Adobe Premiere. Thus, many of today's users are unaware of the fact that there are two types of DV AVI files. In any event, the debate continues as to which – Type 1 or Type 2 – if either, is better.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='889715' date='Jul 8 2010, 05:45 PM']I use a little Canon point-and-shoot camera that has a video function. Sometimes I edit the clip beforehand, but for something like this I just play it back to check it's OK, and upload it straight to YouTube as an AVI.[/quote] Thanks WoT! Scurries off to google 'AVI' (yes I have no idea what that means - I really am the village idiot when it comes to tech-y things )

Sorry to be the village idiot but how do you record a clip for YouTube? I presume you need some form of PC-top camera, recording software and a YouTube account? I have none of these but think it may help me sell my fretless '76 Precision on eBay (sadly no takers on BC). So are the camera and software expensive (maybe there's a free download for the software)????

Erm, I haven't a clue how to even go about recording a sound clip! Hasn't stopped me buying and selling an embarrassing number of basses on BC (on third page of feedback )

[quote name='Rayman' post='889271' date='Jul 8 2010, 09:20 AM']That's gorgeous, not your usual fayre though mate? I had you down for a slightly more traditional style bass?[/quote] I see it as a bit of a retro nod to the early 60s pastel P-basses (sort of seafoam green-ish). Plus it means I get the option of a Jazz sound essentially through a P bass body and neck, which I have always preferred ergonomically. The pickup and electronics configurations allow you to sound like a traditional P or J bass, or alternatively a 'modern' active P/J bass. Its kind of a one-bass-does-all as well as looking the sh*t!

I just acquired this from molan (Barrie) in a trade. It had to be something special to dislodge my lovely Nash '63 Jazz and this sure is! Superb array of sonic options, beautiful colour scheme, really solid build, and it was played by the great Willie Weeks on one of Eric Clapton's recent tours. Will give it a proper play over weekend and take some photos. In between times, here is the shot from the AC website [attachment=53785:WW.jpg]

Just did a trade involving my Nash '63 Jazz and Mesa Walkabout combo as part-ex for Barrie's lovely Willie Weeks model Alleva Coppolo. Everyone who knows Barrie on BC says he is a total gent to deal with and they were absolutely spot on. Hope you have as much fun with your new toys Barrie as I will!

John just bought my '86 Alembic Spoiler. It's a wonderful bass but too pretty for my punk band (so I bought the exact same bass in stealth black!) Was a pleasure to deal with John, as before, and we finally met in the flesh for the handover, if all too briefly (I was under orders from she-who-must-be-obeyed!) Very trusting chap as he paid in advance with no guarantee that I wouldn't abscond to Brazil with my I'll gotten gains

Congrats on finding your bass nirvana Mark. The Ps look great together

[quote name='tredders' post='887194' date='Jul 6 2010, 12:35 PM']Bloody hell, Clarky - I thought it was true love this time.... That Nash is lovely - I played it in BassDirect, so the incoming must be something a bit special. Look forward to hearing about the new addition...[/quote] The Nash is wonderful but the incoming bass really is something special. Won't get it until later this week when all will be revealed!

Post the same question on a drummer forum and they would eat the PC

Depends, don;t think you can generalise. An archtop Jazz guitar can be a thing of stunning beauty while a Ritter bass can look like a pile of spaghetti on a plate. But if we are talking about the more common instruments I too find the longer neck and proportions more pleasing on a bass

[quote name='BassKS' post='886670' date='Jul 5 2010, 09:08 PM']ANd you obviously rate them? Im just thinking of putting them into my warmoth which is currently housing a set of Wizard trad's[/quote]they have more oomph than trad J pups but I am guessing that they are fairly similar in tone and output to Wizard 84s. As a mainly Precision man I am not too au fait with the different J pups. Incidentally I am sure I read somewhere that Ultrajazzes have some kind of humbucking property compared with plain J pups

[quote name='BassKS' post='886656' date='Jul 5 2010, 07:47 PM']DOes your Nash have Ultra Jazzes, Clarky?[/quote] yep, it does although I should add that, wonderful that this bass is, it will soon have a new owner (as part of a trade for a genuinely unique and stunning bass I have coveted; details later this week)

[quote name='cetera' post='886176' date='Jul 5 2010, 11:40 AM']VERY nice! You don't see many of those around so that's quite a find! [/quote] Yep, rare as hen's teeth - I spotted it FS on the Alembic Club forum and imported it from California

'Little ghetto boy' by Donnie Hathaway from the live album. Fantastic bass playing by Willie Weeks, especially the little fills between each verse

[quote name='yorick' post='886140' date='Jul 5 2010, 11:00 AM']Time to get your flares flapping, and grow yer hair.[/quote] Long(ish) hair - check Flares - sorry, just can't do it!

[quote name='Beedster' post='886096' date='Jul 5 2010, 10:11 AM']My Mesa full-range cab gets a tone that to my ear is close. Funny ho I hear talk of folks loving Phil Jones gear for this application, but I can't see how, without using a lot of his gear (i.e., several cabs), you'd ever get close to that real power that the DB offers acoustically?[/quote] Isn't there an SWR combo that comes highly recommended for DB? This one I think [url="http://swrsound.com/products/search.php?partno=4460600000"]http://swrsound.com/products/search.php?partno=4460600000[/url]