flyfisher

WD40/switch cleaner may help for a while, but if it really is a bearing problem then it'll likely only be a temporary fix. If you can find a suitable replacement fan then a DIY repair shouldn't be too difficult. The only tricky bit is likely to be where the fan wires are fixed to the circuit board. If they are soldered directly to the circuit board then a little skill and care is needed, to avoid damaging the PCB tracks. If they are connected using some sort of plug/socket arrangement then it's likely to be more tricky unless you can find a spare fan connector and have a suitable crimp tool. In this case, I would leave the plug/socket alone and cut the wires from the old fan, leaving ample wire on the connector, then connect the new fan to the old wires and use some suitable sleeving to insulate the joints. If this leaves a longer length of wire then just be careful to tuck it away, or fix it with ty-raps, in such a way that it can't become tangled in the new fan. The amp should, of course, be disconnected from everything whilst doing such work and if it's a valve amp then be careful to ensure all capacitors are properly discharged. Leaving it unplugged overnight should do the trick. Otherwise, this sort of repair is more of a mechanical fix than an electrical one.

You mean it's one of those 'ethernet over mains' powerline thingies? Part of my home network runs over the mains wiring using a couple of Netgear units but I've never had any interference problems with anything else plugged into the mains - Bass amps, hi-fis or radios. Of course, that doesn't mean your amp isn't having problems but it does suggest it's the amp's susceptibility that's the problem rather than the home hub itself. Poor mains filtering in the amp PSU perhaps? I agree with trying some sort of mains filters.

I've got one of these: [url="http://usa.yamaha.com/product_archive/guitars-basses/qt2/?mode=model"]http://usa.yamaha.com/product_archive/guit...qt2/?mode=model[/url] (I notice this particular model is now discontinued, but there may be others with similar features). As well as a selectable timing 'click' and a beat 'ping', it has a string of LEDs to simulate a pendulum. I always found the LED 'pendulum' to be more useful because the pings/clicks were too annoying, especially when played at the sort of volumes needed during rehearsals, so we could start with the clicks but maintain time with the LED pendulum. I've since bought a drum machine and we tend to use that now, since it's less intrusive to run at the volumes needed during rehearsal. If anyone would like the Yamaha unit I could be open to offers as I don't use it anymore.

Might be cheaper to replace the hub power supply. You could try calling BT and ask for a replacement; I'm not sure of the warranty situation but they might even send you one for free, especially if you explain that it's causing interference to your other audio equipment - they probably get them for a few pounds given the volumes they buy. If the problem really is conducted interference, then adding some ferrite cores to the amp mains cable might also help, or even cure. [url="http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=32799"]http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=32799[/url] Swapping things can also be helpful in tracking down the source of a problem, although that's often easier said than done. But, in this case, if you know anyone else with a BT home hub then it would be worth swapping power supplies if you can. Also, do you have, or can borrow, another bass amp to see if that is also affected? EMC problems can be tricky to solve (especially without fancy test equipment) and it's often just a case of trying various things, or combination of things, to eliminate the problem. Also, be aware that the "fault" might be spurious emissions in one piece of equipment or unexpected susceptibility in the other, or a combination of the two - which is why it's called ElectroMagnetic [u]Compatibility[/u].

[quote name='niceguyhomer' post='1075034' date='Jan 2 2011, 09:23 AM']Can't think why you would need 2k? [/quote] That was my first thought. I've no experience of playing very large venues but I've always imagined that the PA takes over in such situations. Thus the stage gear is really for tone and for the bass player to hear, not the audience. But I'd be pleased to hear some more experienced views on this.

[quote name='JTUK' post='1075172' date='Jan 2 2011, 12:06 PM']I still think the show is worth checking out and sometimes the bill works for you and sometimes it doesn't..but hey, that's a music show for you.[/quote] Spot on. I can't think of a better music show on mainstream TV at present and its eclecticism is one of its great assets; it's hardly the fault of the show if you don't like all the music being presented. At least it's full of real musicians playing live.

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1073386' date='Dec 31 2010, 02:00 AM']I don't think fair is achievable. And I agree with your points. Any solution will have a large group unhappy with it.[/quote] Sadly, I suspect that's the real truth of the matter.

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1073388' date='Dec 31 2010, 02:05 AM']Are people getting charged for listening to personal radios at their own desk? Or do they just get charged when the business plays the music?[/quote] As I understand things, a personal radio that no-one else could hear (e.g. used with headphones) would be exempt, but a 'communal' radio in the office or a workshop would require the business to pay a performance fee. I wonder what would be the position if the workers all bought an equal share of the radio, so that it was their personal property? Would they all be able to listen to 'their' radio with a PRS fee being payable by the business?

[quote name='lowdown' post='1072621' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:13 PM']So Business A [BBC] pays to broadcast to it's public/customers/clients whoever, Business B-Z does not pay to promote/sell/advertise to it's clients, just piggy backs/uses what Business A has paid for? Business A might not be happy. There is different rates for different business's, then take into account what usage, IE - looped music, CD's, DVD's,just occasional jingles, Radio etc etc... It is a bit more complicated than "it's already been paid for once".[/quote] Fair point. But a single broadcast of a recording is surely just one performance? The PRS seem to take the view that if someone listens to that single broadcast performance on a radio in the privacy of their home then there is nothing else to pay - which seems fair. But if that single broadcast performance is listened to by someone on a radio in a workplace then the PRS regards that as a separate performance, so a fee is payable by the owner of that workplace. That seems to me to constitute charging more than one fee for a single actual performance, i.e. the actual recording is only played once by the main broadcaster, however and wherever people listen to it. However, I entirely agree that locally played CDs, DVDs etc are a difference case. Any business playing a CD/DVD in the workplace is, indeed, making their own single performance of that piece of work, so it would seem fair to pay a performance fee. [quote name='lowdown' post='1072621' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:13 PM']It would be ok for person[s] B-Z to illegally download music, because somewhere along the line person A has already paid for it then?[/quote] 'Illegally' downloading music seems to be a whole different minefield altogether. It's already been mentioned that it's perfectly possible to legally download music (e.g. Spotify), so I confess to being thoroughly confused about what's legal and what's not. From an end-user perspective, listening to the radio isn't illegal so why should it be illegal to listen to something via the web? OK, making a local copy of something, either by recording a radio broadcast or by saving a web file, might possibly be construed as 'stealing' something, but the ever-increasing number of "music on demand" websites (e.g. spotify) make it unnecessary to keep a local copy anyway. So, to answer your basic question, I'd say yes, it's OK to listen to any music I choose via (say) Spotify for free because I presume Spotify has already made the necessary legal arrangements and payments. And this is precisely the sort of mixed messages the music industry is struggling with. They want people to buy music yet they also do deals with the likes of Spotify that enable people to legally listen to their choice of music on demand for free. Who needs a personal music collection when they effectively have an infinite 'jukebox' at their fingertips? [quote name='lowdown' post='1072621' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:13 PM']I am not trying to be Argumentative, just trying to get my head around it.. [/quote] Me too. And the music industry!

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1072376' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:47 AM']If you don't look at it as double charging but sharing in the charges by all parties benefiting it seems more reasonable.[/quote] I see what you're getting at but I'm not entirely convinced. The broadcaster pays a fee based on its listener figures. Fair enough. But a portion of those listeners (i.e the commercial ones) are also being charged a fee. I suppose the PRS could argue that they remove the commercial listeners from the broadcasters audience figures, thus reducing the broadcasters fee (i.e the fee sharing you mentioned), but I'd be sceptical about how they could achieve that in practice. I guess it's just too complicated to really define a performance, especially when it comes to radio listening, so the PRS just do whatever they can get away with. Thus, businesses are easy targets, but someone having a party and blaring out music to 100 guests is more difficult to target. But, again, I'm not really having a go at [u]why[/u] the PRS do what they do - given their remit, their behaviour is perfectly understandable - my issue is whether what they do is fair. Many businesses do things that are legal and which they can get away with, but that's not the same as being fair. [quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1072376' date='Dec 30 2010, 12:47 AM']How would you feel if you were hired to play at a pub and they recorded your performance and played it over and over without paying you or even letting you know. Would you feel you have the right to double charge them for your work?[/quote] I don't think that's the same thing because each replay would surely count as a separate performance. I've always understood royalty payments were based on each discreet performance - the more performances the more the royalties. But playing a recording once is a single performance of that recording regardless of whether the listeners are at home or at work.

The BBC pays a PRS fee to broadcast music and businesses have to pay a PRS fee if they use a radio to receive those broadcasts on commercial premises. For example.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1071929' date='Dec 29 2010, 05:16 PM']The point is that the listening public is [i]not [/i]double-charged by the PRS. The listening public is not charged [i]at all [/i]by the PRS whether at their desk or in the comfort of their bijou suburban living room. Hence there is no anomaly.[/quote] I don't believe I ever said, or suggested, that the listening public is charged. Clearly they are not (unless a portion of the BBC licence fee goes to the PRS, but that would be a slight digression). And just because no body is double charged does not mean that revenues are not collected twice, only that they are collected from different bodies. Charging one body to broadcast something and then charging another body to listen to that broadcast is, in my world, charging twice. Nice business if you can get away with it, which the PRS obviously can, and do, and all power to them in their quest for maximising musician revenues, which is their sole purpose in life. My issue is whether such a practice is fair by any reasonable interpretation of the word. I don't think so. others may. [quote name='skankdelvar' post='1071929' date='Dec 29 2010, 05:16 PM']And, afaics, no-one's proposed a detailed, workable alternative yet to the PRS.[/quote] Nowt wrong with the PRS, except for its unfair (IMHO) charging practices. No need to reinvent the whole wheel just for a broken spoke. [quote name='skankdelvar' post='1071929' date='Dec 29 2010, 05:16 PM']Mind you, it's the debate that counts.[/quote] Unworthy.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071628' date='Dec 29 2010, 12:06 PM']I agree, and I'd go further and say this illustrates why these conversations are worth having between thinking individuals in whatever format is available. I just don't see any worth in complete character assassination for the purposes of holding up a point, not least because the integrity of the (entirely possibly) correct observation can be lost in the ensuing to and fro. Again I'm not directing that at you specifically but to the tone that is so often held by so many in these threads.[/quote] Well said. Intelligent, well-tempered, debate is rarely a bad thing whereas a personalised slanging match is usually just a waste of time.

Bass in hard case Ashdown Amp head in flight case (not a rack case though) Ashdown 115 cab Ashdown 210 cab Aluminium 'Photographic' case with leads, tuner, wireless, spares, & other stuff I can get all this easily in my estate car. Sometimes I'll only use one cab. Sometimes I'll use my Ampeg combo instead of the Ashdown rig Plus, we tend to share out bits of the PA system: 2x Mackie SRM450s 1x Mackie SWA1501 sub Soundcraft 12-ch Mixer in flightcase 2x speaker stands in carry-case Yamaha StagePAS 300 mixer/amp (for monitors) 2x Yamaha passive monitors Small flightcase full of speaker cables, plug blocks, tools, gaffa tape, etc Wheelie Peli-case (1630?) full of PA signal cables and assorted adapters Aluminium 'Photographic' case for 10m snake Wooden cable drum for 30m snake My bass gear is not really a problem. A full PA set-up is a right b*gg*r. Fortunately, there have only been a few occasions we've needed to use it all.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071591' date='Dec 29 2010, 11:40 AM']Because they have to hold a license for a public performance of IP, I agree there is an overlap (now I understand your point, my fault not yours) the vast majority of broadcast material has been received, to all intents and purposes, privately.[/quote] If the licensing model is based on the broadcasters paying to transmit stuff to the entire listening public then it's clearly unreasonable (or anomalous at best) to double-charge a portion of that listening public just because they happen to be listening to the broadcast at their workplace. It's precisely this sort of anomaly that generates bad feelings of unfairness in the first place. And once such feelings take hold it certainly won't be changed by laws and prosecutions.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1071579' date='Dec 29 2010, 11:33 AM']I for one find listening to music on a PC uncomfortable. Sitting there for hours looking at Spotify or Youtube does not appeal to me one bit (and the sound on the Tube is not great.[/quote] I tend to agree with you there, although if you record the YouTube audio and slap it into iTunes it can be included in any playlists in the usual way. If I'm practicing for a gig, I compile an iTunes playlist - mostly from CDs I already own, but usually with a few YouTube songs - and then play that via the PC through the hi-fi and play along. But all that is just personal preference. The key point is that pretty much all music is legally available for free these days - and it's that very fact that is changing public perception about the value of music today. For better or for worse.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1071547' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:56 AM']If I need to learn a track, I buy it as a cd or downlaod or access it on Spotify or Youtube.[/quote] That's a good example of the confusion surrounding this whole issue. On the one hand music is legally free and on the other it has to be paid for. Basically the public has the choice of either buying music or listening to it for free. Given that both options are seemingly perfectly legal, it's a wonder that anyone buys music at all these days.

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071533' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:44 AM']I don't see in your post where you have pointed to multiple charging. you say that it's wrong that broadcasters are charged "as well"... as well as what? The payment is made by broadcasters for the purposes of licensing a public performance. I don't think you have demonstrated to any reasonable degree that this is multiple charging.[/quote] If the broadcasters are charged "for the purposes of licencing a public performance" then why are shopkeepers and factories also charged for having a radio in the workplace? That seems like multiple charging to me. The franchising and charging-for-shelf-space examples are interesting but are really only voluntary commercial arrangements, whereas my multiple charging example seems to be enshrined in law.

A lot will depend on the sensitivity of the meter, but it could be useful for comparison purposes. Don't forget to use an AC range though.

I disagree. The recipe for a loaf of bread can embody IPR as much as a piece of music. Of course IPR should be protected and remunerated, but you're missing (or evading) my basic point - the fairness, or otherwise, of charging [u]multiple[/u] royalties.

Apologies if my post sounded like a criticism - was certainly not the intention. I was just curious, having never seen such a thing before. I guess I was confusing a pre-planned set list with what you actually ended up playing. Overall, it sounded like a good gig. Anyway, if the audience are asking for a repeat then why not?

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1070984' date='Dec 28 2010, 02:36 PM']PRS levies are not particularly exorbitant compared to the other overheads necessary to run a broadcasting operation. They are regarded by most broadcasters as being quite reasonable. And, as I'm sure you know, UK terrestrial radio is free-to-air. It costs the mug-punters [i]nothing[/i] beyond the initial cost of their radio and their TV license - the funds from which support the BBC.[/quote] Price has very little to do with fairness. Given that the PRS only exists to collect money for musicians then it's reasonable for it to do whatever is legal to maximise such revenues. This is clearly a good thing for musicians - but don't confuse this with fairness. One of my earlier points was the 'fairness' of charging both broadcasters AND shopekeepers etc. Of course it's good for the musicians, but is it really fair? I suppose such a practice takes a lead from well-established government practice to tax us on the money we earn and then tax us again on the money we spend. I'd argue that's not particularly fair either. [quote name='skankdelvar' post='1070984' date='Dec 28 2010, 02:36 PM']It is probable that shopkeepers include their PRS license in their overhead budget. Much as they do the cost of heating, light etc. Research has proven that in-store music "enhances the retail experience". Anyone who plays music in their premises - be they the mighty Tesco or old Mr Bun the baker - flogs more product. Why should they evade remunerating the musicians who have contributed to their incrementally greater success?[/quote] That's a very fair point, and paying for the musicians who happen to help contribute to the success of such businesses seems perfectly reasonable. The 'consumer' of the music thus pays for the music - what could be fairer? But why charge the broadcaster [u]as well[/u]? Indeed, it could be argued that the musicians should pay the broadcasters, since it is they who are instrumental in getting the musicians' work out to the consuming public in the first place. Imagine a 'bakers rights society' that collected a fee from shops just for the privilege of stocking their products in the first place, in addition to collecting a portion of the actual sales [u]as well[/u]. I suspect most people would think that rather unfair. The 'singing shelf-stacker' is a prime example of what happens when a single-minded organisation sets about its business with no concern to fairness, only it's prime objective - in this case to raise money for musicians. Good for musicians, certainly, but not necessarily fair.

I was interested to see a few songs repeated in the second set. I've never thought of this before but can see how it could work. Is this a fairly common practice? Is it generally positive, or does the audience sometimes complain?

[quote name='EdwardHimself' post='1070889' date='Dec 28 2010, 12:30 PM']Sorry. I forgot to mention that it's all copied off my main PC up in my room.[/quote] Yep, that'll do it. Now you just have to worry about all your PC stuff being nicked. ;-) Seriously, it's a big issue these days. People keep vast amounts of really important stuff on attractive electronic gizmos, which are easy to break, lose or have stolen. Fortunately, it's also cheap and easy to maintain multiple copies. My lad's at uni and also uses a separate hard drive for all his music and photos. Whenever he comes home, we copy all his stuff onto the 'home server' PC, which is itself backed up to three other hard drives, one of which is kept at another house. Paranoid? Perhaps, but I've never lost anything yet! I guess we all have tales of people losing things but the worst I know of was a not-very-PC-literate neighbour who was doing her PhD. She was writing it on a laptop and was aware of reliability issues and asked me to help her with a backup scheme. She only had 3.5-inch diskettes at the time, but that was OK, and I implemented a scheme that would rotate three diskettes and she would run a simple backup script after every writing/editing session. Having three diskettes allowed her the possibility of going back to an earlier version if she screwed anything up plus she could leave a diskette at home while she went to the British Library for her research. Everything was fine . . . until she left her laptop and ALL the diskettes on the train, never to be seen again. Fortunately, she at least had a printed copy at home, although it was about a month out of date.

[quote name='EdwardHimself' post='1070833' date='Dec 28 2010, 11:16 AM']+1. I don't even have any music on my laptop but I just listen to music on it off my 1tb backup drive which i got in a maplin special offer for £60...[/quote] That's certainly a decent solution for storing and playing music, but if all your music is on a single, external "backup" drive then it's not actually backed-up at all is it? You need to have copies of all your stuff on more than one physical device to be safe.