BottomEndian

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='549905' date='Jul 24 2009, 10:47 AM']brute force simplicity[/quote] This sums it up beautifully in three words.

[quote name='bassman2790' post='549709' date='Jul 24 2009, 07:55 AM']Does anyone here gig with Peavey gear I'm particularly interested in [list=1] Old Peavey Heads Mk IV - MkVI Peavey Nitrobass / Firebass Heads Peavey 410TX / 410TVX cabs [/list][/quote] As you know (cos you've been eyeing my rig in the For Sale section!), I've used a Max 700 head (IIRC, same as the Firebass apart from the fascia) with a 410 TVX and 115 BVX BW for the last few years. It's served me well. It pushes out a silly amount of volume for an astonishingly low price, and lasts forever. Seriously, my old Max 450 (same as the Nitrobass) fell out of a car moving at about 20 mph. I thought, "Oh well, that's f***ed, but it'll be cheap to replace." Nonsense. Fired it up at rehearsal, and not a thing wrong. Just a slightly dinted metal corner. Sold it a couple of years back and AFAIK it's still going strong. It's a very clean sound, with not a great deal of its own character, but that's exactly what I was after. And the bottom end is pretty impressive, even just with the 410. Actually, the 115 doesn't add that much bottom to it, but it does have a lovely "grind" through the mids. Brilliant stuff for rock and metal, and it's nice having a huge black monolith of bass behind you. The downside is the weight, especially with the 410.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='548717' date='Jul 23 2009, 11:24 AM']Line6 is not Doom.[/quote] No, but it's a spinal compromise. Hold on: Spinal Compromise = Doom band name.

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='548646' date='Jul 23 2009, 10:31 AM']So that means there's a potential 14 dB increase at my fingertips if I run a TRS input into the Tapco (if I correctly remember the difference between balanced and unbalanced signals)?[/quote] Actually, I've just had a think and that's not right, is it? There is a level difference, but not 14 dB. Isn't it just that there's a 14 dB difference in the s/n ratio? Aaargh. It's been too long since my HND. Can't remember this stuff. EDIT: A quick Google shows I'm way off the mark here too. Hmmm.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='548631' date='Jul 23 2009, 10:16 AM']As you're using a VXL to drive the power amp my guess is that you have a lack of gain so you're not reaching full power.[/quote] But as I say, with all things being equal. In other words, when I've been testing the Peavey against the Tapco, I've been running the VXL directly into the Peavey's power amp input. Oh, hold on. The Tapco is, of course, designed to ideally accept a balanced connection (but I'm running a TS jack into it at the moment), while the Peavey's power amp input is happy with standard TS jacks. So that means there's a potential 14 dB increase at my fingertips if I run a TRS input into the Tapco (if I correctly remember the difference between balanced and unbalanced signals)? That could compensate enormously. The VXL's about to be replaced in the chain with a Bass PODxt with a TRS output, so we'll see what happens. Sonic death, I suspect. [quote name='alexclaber' post='548630' date='Jul 23 2009, 10:15 AM']The Peavey may have higher distortion levels which will make it sound louder. It may also have less flat frequency response, with more mids and less bottom, again making it sound louder. However your Tapco power amp should still go louder, just need to EQ it for the same sound and keep turning it up and up.[/quote] That might explain a lot too. So there's no apparent disparity between the ratings of bass amps and power amps like there is between valve and SS? (And yes, I say again: I know a watt is a watt, but there's all that lovely distorted headroom with valves.) [quote name='alexclaber' post='548630' date='Jul 23 2009, 10:15 AM']I do know that some of the old Peavey heads actually used the same power supply and possibly the same power amp module as their PA power amps (hence the weight because the power supply was enough for two channels but one wasn't there!)[/quote] That explains a lot as well. Especially my spinal pain. When you're 5'6", lifting a 25kg head onto a two-cab stack is... troubling.

Right. Something's been puzzling me. For the last few years, I've been using a Peavey Max 700 head, which runs 475W into 4 ohms. When I compare the Peavey's power amp stage against my recently acquired Tapco Juice J800 power amp (that's 800W bridged into 4 ohms) with all other things being equal (same cab, same stuff running into the power amp inputs), the Peavey's noticeably louder at full volume. So, my question is this: is the power rating for SS power amps (designed for PA applications) calculated differently from the power rating for the power stage of SS bass amps? I know a watt is a watt, but is this a matter of headroom? We all know that valve amps are rated for their "clean" output, but that you can get much more out of them with a little bit of "nice-sounding", musical distortion from the valves. Is there a similar but lesser thing with SS bass amps? And presumably a power amp designed for PA applications will be designed to be completely clean all the way to the top of the volume knob, so there's no headroom available to push into that slight distortion. (Don't get me wrong -- 800W into my Barefaced Vintage is more than enough... it's just not as loud as 475W from the Peavey.)

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='547432' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:41 AM']Will this fit a SUB? [url="http://www.wdmusic.co.uk/product/STINGRAY_BASS_-_CHECKERBOARD_STGB-5315"]http://www.wdmusic.co.uk/product/STINGRAY_...BOARD_STGB-5315[/url][/quote] If you find out, will you let us know here? I've been thinking about the same thing myself. Not in checkerboard. Obviously.

Cheers, Jake. I'm in the bizarre (or maybe quite common... who knows?) situation of being absolutely comfortable reading and understanding chord symbols, but quite often struggling to decide what chord symbols to use when I'm transcribing stuff. It never helps that the stuff I'm trying to transcribe is quite harmonically dense with all sorts of fruity numbers thrown in. Actually, now I come to think of it, it's quite a lot like my relationship with German. I can read a fair bit of German, and understand a lot of spoken German, but my own spoken and written German skills are really basic. There we go. Evidence that music is indeed a language.

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='546087' date='Jul 21 2009, 10:21 AM']Had the people posting on this forum been American, I would heartily agree! I'm just fighting the corner for good old English English. It's not going to be around for long...[/quote] And hold on... you're a Geordie, right? We divvn't use English English roond the Toon, y'knaa! [/thread hijack]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='546087' date='Jul 21 2009, 10:21 AM']Had the people posting on this forum been American, I would heartily agree! I'm just fighting the corner for good old English English. It's not going to be around for long...[/quote] There'll always be English English, but (IMO) it'll probably shift more towards neologisms and slang-words that enter common use. As long as I can insult an American without them realising, I'm happy. "Hello, y' w***er. Had a bollocks time with you last night." That sort of thing. [size=1](I am, of course, joking. I love our American brethren with all my heart, soul and groin.)[/size]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='545983' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:10 AM']Also, to go off on a slight tangent... [size=3]Grill:[/size] [size=3]Grille:[/size] Sorry... it's been eating away at me for a number of months now. [/quote] I've looked into this at some point in the distant past. Indeed, the cooking device is a grill, no matter where you're from. But a lattice-work protective covering is not just a grille -- it's also a grill as an accepted spelling variant, especially in US English. I'm known among friends and family for my pedantry and anal corrections of spelling and grammar, but I'm also very accommodating when it comes to language change, so I have no problem with protective grills. The context always supplies the intended meaning. Of course, when Mesa start including a George-Foreman-style (cooking) grill on the top of their heads... well, then we're in trouble.

[quote name='Merton' post='545684' date='Jul 20 2009, 08:05 PM']Updated manual when it's ready please! Oh, and I spotted a smelling pistake in the last one but can't remember where it was. Can I proof-read the new one and get a free Midget?! [/quote] There's a manual? No manual with my Vintage. (No port plugs either, but I assume Alex is beavering away on them now he's clearly back with a vengeance. )

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='544110' date='Jul 18 2009, 04:35 PM']Actually I used the wrong term here - I should have said "voicing" rather that "inversion". The chord symbol method does not indicate the "voicing" of a chord. It simply states what the constituent notes of the harmony are at that particular moment. And writing the chord C 6 /9 would automatically remove the dominant nature of the chord so that the 9 is not allied to a b7 (dominant 7th). This is one of those anomalies of the chord symbol method (see my previous thread on anomolies etc). Yes you are right that the chord symbol I suggested ( C 6/9 no 3rd) if taken literally would give C G A D when actually you want the A an octave higher. But that would be in the "voicing" of the chord for the particular set of instruments playing. In this case its better to actually write the notes for each instrument as you intend it to be played leaving no room for interpretation. Putting the chord symbol underneath would just be a helpful crosscheck on your intentions. The chord symbol method has always been open to abuse - and a good arranger will always use it with care. The Major[/quote] I'm with you now. Thanks for that. I don't know why I'm particularly worrying about it -- I'm only transcribing it for my own purposes.

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='544054' date='Jul 18 2009, 03:24 PM']Another option would be "C6/9 (no 3rd)" When we write chord symbols, the inversion (ie the placing of the notes) is not directed. Although the A in this chord is effectively the 13 note of the C scale, the very term 13th would give most players the idea that it was a dominant chord which it is not as there is no Bb. So to use 6 and 9 would be clearer.[/quote] Thanks, Major. Trouble is with C6/9, I have the same problem as you mention with seeing a 13th -- I see the 9 and assume there's a Bb as well. Also, the A is definitely a 13th (certainly in the upper structure of the chord, voiced into the second octave); playing it as a 6th (within the first octave) muddies it up quite a bit and changes the "feel" of the chord. Minefield.

[quote name='The Funk' post='543927' date='Jul 18 2009, 12:41 PM']Is it also the third inversion of D7sus4? Or just Dsus4/C?[/quote] I suppose it is. Or Gsus2/C. :wacko: [quote name='The Funk' post='543927' date='Jul 18 2009, 12:41 PM']Naming chords is such a weird thing sometimes.[/quote] Yeah, a lot of the time I just go with what I "feel" fits in the context. That's the only way I can decide whether to call something Ab6 or Fm7/Ab -- look at the chords around it.

[quote name='The Funk' post='543921' date='Jul 18 2009, 12:25 PM']Well, would it be Csus2 add13?[/quote] Gah! Of course it would! I've been looking at it for too long. Cheers, Funk!

I'm in the middle of writing out a chord progression that our guitarist's come up with, and I just don't know what chord symbol to use for a couple of the chords. They're constructed simply of ascending fifths: e.g. with C as the root, you'd have C-G-D-A. (I believe it's called something like a quintal chord, but I could just be making that up.) The closest thing I can think of is something like Cmaj13 (I've gone for "maj" because the minor third and seventh really wouldn't fit in the context), but that might lead you to expect the E, B and F to be in the chord as well. And they're not. Any ideas?

[quote name='Skactus' post='543372' date='Jul 17 2009, 04:40 PM']I forgot I have another problem... Portugal voltage is 220V, not 110V[/quote] That's not a problem. It doesn't take AC from the mains -- it'll run off a standard 9V DC power supply like any Boss pedal (or pretty much [i]any[/i] pedal at all). And it's supplied with a battery.

[quote name='Skactus' post='543374' date='Jul 17 2009, 04:43 PM']That's something like 1/3, 40€, £35 ...[/quote] Yikes. Over here, it was £22.88, and that includes the extortionate £13.50 "handling charge" that Parcelforce whack on it.

[quote name='iamapirate' post='543355' date='Jul 17 2009, 04:25 PM']why do i feel physically attracted to this?![/quote] Because you know it would respond physically to every noise you make. Seriously, if you hummed your way up through an octave glissando and back down again, that thing'd do some sexy dancing.

[quote name='Skactus' post='543335' date='Jul 17 2009, 04:12 PM']Portuguese duty is not the best in the world.... lol but I'll check it out... thanks [/quote] It works out to about 110 Euros plus whatever customs stings you for.