flyfisher

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1401821971' post='2467300'] If that were the case why do they still have graded passes ? Surely it'd be fairer to just have a pass, and get rid of 2.2, 2.1 etc. [/quote] Well, I was being 'broad brush', but ultimately it's the employers who set the value of grades and grade-inflation plus so many graduates these days means the CV of anyone without a first ends up in the bin, hence increasing graduate unemployment and why so many graduates end up with non-graduate jobs. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/19/half-recent-uk-graduates-stuck-jobs-ons Understandably upsetting when you've just collected a £50k weight around your neck.

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1401817360' post='2467225'] It's also discovering that you can do things that you didn't realise you could do, things that you wouldn't maybe have thought about doing. [/quote] Fair point. Being amongst like-minded people who can encourage you to try new things is all part of that whole university 'experience' thing and a good thing too. Trouble is, it comes with a £50k price tag these days so it's an expensive choice. And when money people are paying out that sort of money they start to EXPECT to get a degree at the end of it all, regardless of their actual ability. Did anyone hear the R4 prg today about students increasingly suing their universities because of poor teaching causing them not to get the grade they expected. One student was moaning about getting a 2/2 after his tutor went away somewhere from Jan to May. never mind the rights or wrongs . . . . £50k sets a lot of expectations.

This is what happens when we dislike achievement and 'winners' . . . . . Everyone has to be 'equal' so no one is allowed fail . . . . Decline of competitive sports in schools . . . . Unintended consequences, etc etc etc. I'd also suggest that much depends on why someone wishes to go to music school. If you want a job teaching then I suppose you need a piece of paper to prove your worth. If you wish to be a good player then perhaps the time would be better spent just practicing and practicing. You may not end up with apiece of paper but you might be able to blow away anyone else at an audition. The other aspect is contacts. I only know one person who went to uni to pursue a music performance career. At the end of the first year the labels come around to talent scout and a number of people get signed up and promptly leave uni, so they obviously don't think a piece of paper is worth that much - the musicians or the music business! Two years on and George Ezra seems to be doing pretty well - he's certainly enjoying himself a lot more than if he'd stayed at uni.

Surprised no one has posted this lookalike video yet . . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-gYOrU8bA

News to make one smile. Go Wilko!

That's exactly my earlier point. You already have a 'Dr Dave Signature bass'. Should Mr WiseGuyMarketingType wish to market your sig bass to the wider world then he would certainly have to pass your palm with silver, but there's no reason why you should compromise your gear . . . . otherwise it would no longer be [u]your[/u] sig bass would it? Most of the other posters here have really only described their 'wish-list' bass, not a true signature model.

If I was going to go to the trouble of making some nice bespoke cabinets then I'd look for suitable design for the chosen driver and start from scratch, not base it on a sawn-0ff 210 cab.

All good points, though I'd pick up on the example of 'worse materials' for the moving coil/diaphragm. I agree that worse materials would likely have a deleterious effect but my real point was than over the course of 30/40 years there's a very real chance that better materials are actually available, possibly also at lower cost, making it possible to build a counterfeit mic that actually performs BETTER than the genuine article. Anyway, interesting subject.

The issue of 'best' is an interesting one, especially in the context of the SM58. Do we really believe that a 30/40 year old design is still the 'best' these days? And why should a cheaper mic be inferior? Pretty much all other electrical/electronic goods have become ridiculously cheap over the past 30 years, so why not mics?

I did wonder about the possibility of a typo, but surely the first thing anyone does when posting an ad is to read the ad themselves? Still who knows who is out there and what might happen? Decades ago, My F-I-L acquired a very valuable Purdey shotgun from a small ad. The advertiser had inherited it but had no interest in shooting. But he knew it was worth a few bob and was also a photography enthusiast so advertised it as exchange for an expensive Leica camera. F-I-L phoned immediately to ask exactly what model of Leica the chap was interested in and confirmed that he had that exact model in new condition and verbally confirmed the deal. He then went out and bought a brand new camera before completing the transaction, with both sides presumably being delighted. For those not familiar with Leica and Purdey prices, a Leica will run into a few thousand pounds but a Purdey will run into many TENS of thousands of pounds.

I fear you may be a bit behind the times old chap - I'm pretty sure tea trolleys went out of fashion in the 70s (unfortunately). But other than that, you're bang on, as usual.

I'd love to know how these people get on with such ads. For that sort of money it would have to have a pretty bombproof provenance of being owned and gigged by a legendary player, which tends to transform such objects into pieces of art rather than just a bass. Still, fools and their money and all that . . . .

You may prefer to think of it like that, and manufacturers definitely prefer you to think of it like that, but the facts of the matter are that no mass produced items are 100% reliable over their intended operating lifetime and the costs incurred in fixing those that do fail are included in their list price. Otherwise, why would expensive, high quality products need to be offered with a warranty at all? So no, you don't have to be confident that your products won't fail in order to offer a lifetime warranty, you just have to be confident that your list price includes enough to cover the cost of repairs/replacements. In short, customers are paying for an extended warranty insurance policy - in exactly the same way that you can buy a warranty for a used car. But of course manufacturers like to wrap it all up in PR guff to promote customer-friendly feelings of high-quality, reliability etc. I'm not suggesting any of this is a bad thing, just explaining the way it is. Some people like 'reassuringly expensive' things, others will prefer to buy cheaper - the market will cater for all tastes.

Yes, I've often wondered about that but I'm sure I've read new reports of shipments of counterfeit goods being confiscated by police in 'pursuit of their enquiries'. Certainly, anyone thinking about selling on a fake SM58 should think twice . . . http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/env_services/tradingstandards/fake_goods/punishment.htm

[quote name='essexbasscat' timestamp='1401476186' post='2464086'] I've taken a few mics to Shure HQ at Waltham Abbey, Essex (not very far away) for authentication. They've been first class and more helpful than many. Highly recommend their service. [/quote] Do they let you keep the mic if it turns out to be an illegal counterfeit?

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1401471713' post='2464019'] Yeah, the thing with a genuine flawed item is that you can phone up the manufacturer and say "what the hell!?". You're very unlikely to be able to do that with a fake one. [/quote] Of course, which is why the genuine article is usually so much more expensive. Manufacturers don't offer warranties out of generosity - they keep careful track of returns and costs of repairs/replacements and simply include those costs in their pricing models. Not much different than buying expensive extended warranty insurance really.

. . . in a box.

Surely [i]everyone[/i] already has their very own signature bass? It's the one they mostly use isn't it? - by definition.

I'm not trying to deny or defend fake products in any way. My criticism of that programme is that it was superficial fluff (at best). The above comments alone suggest that fake SM58s are not (always) as bad as that programme tried to make out, which is hardly surprising since 30+ year old technology is unlikely to be particularly difficult to copy. As for fake products having serious faults and flaws, well yes but that's not confined to fake products is it? Plenty of genuine products are recalled every year because of manufacturing or design faults. Here's just one example from yesterday's news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27628484 So, buying genuine is no guarantee of a perfect product - as this website shows: http://www.recalls.gov/ I'm just trying to inject a bit of perspective.

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1401450290' post='2463741'] If they were so close, surely the differences wouldn't have been so obvious? The fact that the fake had a lot of feedback (the real had none), the fake didn't work when dropped (the real did), the fake had a much less focused polar pattern (the real didn't). I'm not sure I need a drawing of the polar patterns to notice the differences after viewing the video. I do agree that a visual of the frequency response and output might have been useful but the other tests were so clearly different I can't really see how detailed graphics would have given a clearer picture. It's also a daytime show. If it was in sound on sound or similar, I'd expect that kind of detail as it's aimed at an audience that would understand it enough for it to be worth the effort. [/quote] The drop test was pathetic. It means nothing unless both mics hit the ground in the same place at the same angle. The fact that they had the leads attached meant this would have been impossible as they would have been flailing around on their way to the ground and would have hit in a random manner. The polar pattern test was equally pathetic. If you sing into the side of a genuine SM58 in a quiet room then you'll here exactly what that video showed, the sound level will be lower than when singing directly but still audible. Such tests mean nothing without proper measurements across a suitable sample. But you're right about it being a daytime show. It's light entertainment for those who like to have prejudices reinforced without having to ask probing questions or do any thinking.

[quote name='paulbass' timestamp='1401401491' post='2463397'] Hi Flyfisher, this could prove expensive and a lot of work. We would just rather play at venues that cater for Rock bands. [/quote] Someone has to go to all that expense and trouble. Perhaps the difficulty in finding suitable venues is an indication that it's becoming too expensive and too much trouble?

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1401447631' post='2463693'] Did you watch the whole clip? I thought the tests they did were pretty comprehensive... [/quote] Yes and I didn't think they were very scientific tests at all. I was thinking more about a proper measurement of the polar response pattern from each mic, for example, rather than simply singing into the side of the mic. Also, output level and frequency response would be very easy to test. As for the drop test, it would be hard to think of a more useless test in terms of equivalence and repeatability since both mics would have struck the ground at different places and angles. Lazy journalism and propaganda really as well as a missed opportunity to really show the differences between the fake and real products . . . . Unless of course the differences are actually insignificant. But who would want to broadcast THAT story ?

Let's hope they remember your generosity when they make it big and are multi-millionaires

But is the fake really an inferior product? The SM58 is a decades old design so I doubt it would be particularly difficult to make a well-performing copy. Has anyone ever conducted detailed comparative testing?

Hire a suitable venue and put on your own show?