Dan Dare

Dirty Poops

The M (MOSFET) version is about £70 cheaper than the T and there is little difference (basically a 12AX7/ECC83 valve on the input stage of the T). I had the M and could hear virtually no tonal variation between it and a pal's T. Great value amp.

If it's a backup and you don't want to spend big bucks, lemmy's suggestion above of a Veyron is hard to beat, imho. They can be had for between £200 and £300 new. I had one as a backup and it was very good. Mine was the M version, which is less expensive than the T (it doesn't have the 12AX7 preamp valve of the T), but still very competent.

"If you find another seller for the same item, please contact us so we can lower the price". Another bleddy drop-shipper. eBay is stuffed with them these days.

This is what I do. Our singer likes Eb. I've never broken a string (thus far, at any rate) or needed a back-up instrument on a gig.

Today's SM58 is the same mic', to all intents and purposes, as it has always been. It's interesting to read Stub's post above, which reads as if copied straight from Shure's publicity material. Of particular note is the line "The SM58 is based on the Unidyne III microphone element developed in the late 1950s by Shure engineer Ernie Seeler", which indicates that the SM was a refinement of an earlier model. Nothing in the post speaks of any major change in the design. Sure, components may have been updated, but the fundamental design is exactly the same as it was in the 1960s. I have a Unisphere from the 1960s, which was the first mic' I ever bought. It's a nice old mic' that has served me faithfully. It still gets an outing occasionally, usually for speech/announcements, when its on/off switch comes in handy. I still use a SM57 for guitar cabs, snare, etc and carry a SM58 because it suits some voices (and because some singers insist on one). However, I have more modern dynamics - EV n/dyms, AKG D5 and 7, Sennheiser 838 - that easily out-perform the SMs. They have better clarity, more resistance to feedback and a more extended frequency response. Even Shure acknowledges that the 58 and 57 can be improved upon. Why else did they introduce the Beta versions of them? As I said in my original post, the 58 was great in its day and still has a place now, but it is no longer the best game in town.

Substitute "Fender P bass" for SM58 in the above and would you still agree? The 58 was a great mic' in its day and it's still serviceable, but the model was first introduced in 1966. At the time, it was pretty well the only show in town (as was the P bass in its heyday) at its price, but technology has moved on. A lot.

Having found cabs I like the sound of, I've bought several, so I can take out as few or as many as the job demands and know the result will be consistent.

Yes. I carry an additional bass tuned a semitone flat because our singer has a penchant for E flat, so some songs are in that key. I could jump up an octave for the tonic, but some bass parts don't sound right without the low root. Chic's "Good Times", which we play, is an obvious example. She also sings some in B, so again, the flat-tuned instrument is handy because it puts those numbers in C fingering.

Could you explain the physics to me? I'm always keen to learn. Thanks.

In my experience, the best people don't usually have the biggest egos. Often, it's the wannabees who do. It's one thing to reach a negotiated agreement that works for everyone and another to cave to one person's demands. If you have experience and a reputation, you have more to offer a singer than many bands and can afford to hold your line. Someone good enough to fill the role is not necessarily with a band right now. They could be between bands (when I left The Smoke 3 years back, I had no band for a year or so). They may be in a band, but not happy or looking for something better. Etc, etc. If you have an established style and repertoire and an audience, someone joining has to accept and be content with that, at least in the beginning. By all means be open to suggestions for new numbers, etc, but if he/she doesn't want to play your existing repertoire, he/she is the wrong person. Thank them for their interest, move on and kiss a few more frogs. Glass half empty is the phrase hopeless idealists use to describe the way those of us who are realists view the world. Remember, an optimist is constantly being disappointed. A pessimist is occasionally pleasantly surprised.

Phil's advice above is good. Do you have anything to show prospective recruits - recordings, etc - of previous incarnations of the band? Are there gigs in the book, or are you re-grouping and on a hiatus? I agree that painting too rosy a picture is not the best policy. No point in getting someone on board, only for them to move on swiftly because it wasn't what they envisaged. As Phil points out, do you want someone who will be a drop-in replacement for their predecessor, or will they be able to stamp their own character/style on things? Covers or original material? How flexible are you willing to be to accommodate a new singer? Whilst Myke is correct that you cannot base your offer entirely on what went before, bands and musicians do have a style they are known for/good at, which, whilst it can be modified, is usually not possible to change completely. Beware the Spinal Tap moment "We hope you like our new direction". The only way really is to get together with a few people to see how things go. Kissing frogs and all that.

So it sounds as if this will be a new, custom-built instrument that you'll be looking to sell for £2k plus. If that is the case, it isn't possible to advise. Prices and desirability of custom instruments are heavily affected by the fact that one man's meat is another's poison. If a builder owes you money, I'd suggest you get the cash back from him/her and forget about accepting and trying to sell on an instrument.