Beedster

Excellent stuff, might even bring the SJ back into fashion

I always knew the day would come when someone would be brave enough to ask

Good man for approaching it so positively. PJB are pretty good, I received replies from Phil in person, I'm sure they can help re parts?

That's probably the best bit of advice so far, also means that there'd be others to help the OP familiarise with it

Ah, OK, fair enough, apologies if that came across as rude. I've tried to teach some non audio folks how to use recording software recently and language was a real problem, and it's not just language, its the concepts that the language refers to, because many of those are completely alien to many folks, a bus being a good example!

You've just disproved your own point there Rik, you're using classic studio terminology found in so many of the manuals and tutorials for DAWs that to many people, including the O/P perhaps, means it might as well be written in Lithuanian

Agree, but none of them are easy to set up if you're new to this stuff. I'm using Pro Tools daily at present to edit voice tracks, a few weeks ago the workload got on top of me and a colleague said "I'll pop over and do some editing for you, it'll only take me a few minutes to get to grips with the software". The long silence on the call following that required no editing or processing at all

Hey mate, are there any serial numbers you can check, if so a quick email to the manufacturer might confirm whether the one you have is the one you bought. Sound however like they've done a table top repair without protecting the unit. I had that exact same issue with a manufacturer very popular on this forum, fixed one thing, broke several others through sheer lack of care

Are you talking about the software such as Garageband or the interface that's going to get your sounds into it? If the former, Garageband is free and easy to use (if you are on Mac of course)

Thanks as ever BRX

The most dangerous drug I believe is still technically Aspirin! Points taken, but there are always arguments the other way, for example THC effects the brain extremely quickly compared to the effects of nicotine, especially in adolescence, which is where it is most problematic and is associated with serious problems as little as 10 years later in some people. As you suggest, data can be a double edged sword, it depends what question you're trying to answer by using it Jack, speak to any decent consultant and they'll tell you that medicine is not an exact science by a long shot even with diseases we have known about for years (BTW more people still die daily from AIDS than Covid). You mentioned that you have spent a lifetime analysing financial data, lucky you, I've spent a lifetime analysing data on humans. First lesson I learned in my PhD, all data relating to humans are an approximation at best, completely lacking in value at worst. Nothing you have said is wrong, and this is the problem, but none of it gives us a chance of moving away from Covid. As a scientist, I have to conduct a controlled experiment to test a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported, we move to a more refined stage of the experiment and get closer to solving the problem. If however the controls are breached, it's back to square 1. In my view, the government are doing the same, they are running different controlled experiments to see what works and what doesn't (a process that absolutely DEFINES the history of medicine by the way, with the exception of the pure chance discoveries), but the controls are being breached so often that they cannot get a handle on what does and doesn't work, and square 1 is lockdown in this case. They have made a major error however; if I want to study a certain population, I need to either control it or know how to motivate/encourage it to do what I want. The government got it wrong, and on both counts. It's possible that this factor alone explains why the UK and USA have had things so badly given the resources (time, money and expertise) we had at our disposal to deal with it. Nothing you have said is wrong mate, I just think you're looking in the wrong places to apportion blame, or at least all of it.

So, a government is having to rely on poor analysis of incomplete data. Not the first or last time that's going to happen! What solution do you propose Jack?

The biggest problem with the statistical analysis of data is that the outcome is nearly always a function of who's running the numbers in the first place! Good post mate, interested in knowing your thoughts on the data and where we are/should be going?

Jack, re the 91% quote, it's an emotive one and banded about as if it were based on hard data. Mass infections take the weakest first, and often those people are weak because they already have a serious illness. In this case Covid arguably accelerated the effects of flu, pneumonia, sepsis etc in many people who were already ill. But it's about exposure as well as vulnerability, the weak had low exposure but were vulnerable, but many doctors, nurses, carers and allied health professionals died as well, they weren't vulnerable but had high exposure; they also weren't well protected. Protection is two way, stop the virus others might have getting to me, and stop a virus I might have getting to others. If people keep passing on Covid through breaking guidelines in areas where there is high risk, a percentage of even the previously healthy, let alone vulnerable, will end up in hospital, denying treatment to others with less serious illness and prompting further tightening of guidelines. This is the reality at present. In the old model, go to the pub, have a few too many, end up in A&E for the night for whatever reason (fight, passing out, falling over). In the new model, go to the pub, ignore guidelines, end up in IC for two weeks. It's why at this point, until we know more, distancing and masks are so critical. Sorry for going on, I'm going back to work now

Ha ha, fair enough mate

Yes but Jack, that is all well and good and I agree with the sentiment, but the OP is suggesting several pub gigs in a high risk area, and there are lots of data that indicate it's exactly these types of events that are the a main problem, that is one infected person in the same room for a few hours with several uninfected people. Right here right now things are only going to get worse economically if everyone feels that it's OK to ignore the moderate steps the agencies are taking. EDIT And quite a few very informed scientists agree completely with all of your points, they're not mavericks or outliers, they are major players. The problem is that it would be a brave government now, that is after all of the messaging and sacrifices, simply said sod it, let's just accept it's here to stay. In part, this is because there is still real fear that we haven't seen anything like the worst of it, the 'second wave' was more the effect of the relaxation of restrictions and kids going back to school/university than the anticipated seasonal increase that is expected soon. There is also the reality that the NHS have a legal and ethical responsibility to treat ill people, and do so in terms of urgency. A simple look at the data around delayed treatments for cancer and many other serious illness, which are to a degree alluded to in what you said, can be seen differently; every one who ends up on a ventilator or in IC probably stops a person with another disease receiving treatment, potentially fatally. I just don't think it can all be waved away with 'we'll just have to learn to live with it'. It's quite likely that the only way we will is via a vaccine, and that is still apparently a long way off.

I think it's simpler than that Rick. If you don't know whether or not your band is professional, it isn't

The problem is that in a world that tells us that we can have what we want when we want it, common sense is nearly always inhibited by self interest. The stats argument I alluded to above came at the end of a conversation in which a whole lot of agency blaming had been used as justification to ignore the guidelines. I was trying to point out that if people followed the guidelines, the agencies would be effective; that you can't ignore the government's guidelines (15 is the new 6) and them blame the government when those guidelines appear not to have been effective

I totally agree, I was trying to explain the way the statistical modelling of disease works to a friend the other day, after she said, quote "As far as I'm concerned, if the government says six people can get together, so can fifteen, we're either in lockdown or we're not". I've spent most of my life trying to be socially minded, to do what's best for everyone, but at present my view with my family is 'look after number 1" because there are people out there who fail to realise that every time they ignore the guidelines they put themselves and, more importantly, therefore everyone they subsequently come in contact with, at risk, and I don't want my family to fall into that category. I had to take my youngest daughter to hospital in London last week, I was absolutely shocked by how many people ignore social distancing, mask wearing, number limits etc. And it's not just students, it was across the board. People who put playing gigs over safety should spend a few hours on a Covid ward, see that there are previously healthy people in their 20's, 30's etc on ventilators - some are there because they went to the pub by the way - and speak to the nurses who have to risk their lives treating them about their views on society's 'Oh but my case is an exception' response. The above in part a response to my anger that I was asked to play a 'discrete' gig recently by guys who should know better.

Frankly I would not be going anywhere an indoor gig at the moment, as musician or punter

Why is that considered a bass, the fact that an instrument can reach low notes doesn't make it a bass instrument per se. It's more like a bloody harp

I'm sorry, but why would anyone choose to use this bunch of clowns is beyond me, the warning signs are too obvious, they struggle to get things going in the first place, but should things go wrong you are flipped. The conversation I had with their customer service department was one of the most extraordinary I have ever experienced in that context, everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - was my fault, their website wouldn't allow me to enter the correct collection details, and he said 'are you sure you have your address details correct?', my home address this is. The total price was £200 for a UK-UK delivery and he told me that, if that's what the website says, then that is correct and there was nothing he could do about it - again, I must have done something wrong. And from there the conversation went downhill; the guy grabbed a spade, dug a hole, reached rock bottom in customer service terms, and then bought in a mechanical digger and dug himself in further. It seemed his starting position was 'On no account accept that we have done anything wrong, that there is any problem with our systems, and make the customer feel like they are at fault with everything". And then, if the customer has persisted and persisted and persisted and logic determines that simpl;y could not have been the customer's fault, they call in the small print T&Cs Ped, seriously, you are letting down the community by pushing this partnership

Anyone, there must be a workaround?