flyfisher

[quote name='dean-kane' timestamp='1381793165' post='2243973'] [u][b]First ever post ![/b][/u] Recently acquired an SWR Triad cab and it is one of the newer models with the carpet finish (which is impossible to keep clean) Due to the fact that this cab is ridiculously expensive (for an unemployed 19 year old, which i am) i am looking for professional looking flight cases that don't cost more than my house. Can anyone PLEASE help me? [/quote] I'd vote for a padded cover as well. A flightcase will certainly protect your cab but it will also probably take chunks out of the doors, frames, and walls of your house! Anyway, cabs are not really delicate objects like, say, a mixer so a padded cover should be all that's necessary to keep them nice and clean - unless you're in a hard-gigging touring band with a team of knuckle-dragging roadies.

Isn't this the problem with such an eclectic music show? It's pretty unlikely that anyone will enjoy every act and sometimes even an entire show. At least it's a live music show though instead of autotuned singing to a backing track.

[quote name='gary mac' timestamp='1381819113' post='2244041'] What was the sound like in there Flyfisher? Most gigs I've been to at the Corn Exchange, the sound has been dreadful. They have been the events mixed by their own sound man though. He got the severe hump with me and my G&L bass when I last played there. He declared it far too loud and accused me of having a pre amp hidden somewhere Refused to believe it was passive. [/quote] Focus had their own sound guy and he did a pretty good job, for my ears anyway. I know what you mean about HCX but they don't seem to have a single resident sound guy. I've played their 'Sunday Live' sessions and they've used two or three different guys over the years. Other bands I've seen there have also brought their own sound guy.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1381847583' post='2244492'] . . . . big suppliers don't consider it worth their time to work in the dozens. [/quote] True, but that can sometimes work in your favour. I once needed a few large UNC bolts and went to a local 'big supplier' who was happy to give me half a dozen for free. Another time I needed some large stainless steel studding and nuts and the same place gave me four one-metre lengths and a bag of s/s nuts and washers for a tenner (no receipt needed of course ). I've also found the same thing when looking for short lengths of steel box section or angle. Find a local steel fabricator and they'll have loads of offcuts lying around. I once filled up my estate car with such offcuts for a tenner to the appropriate person. I do find it works best if I turn up in a dirty, greasy boiler suit though.

Sh*t. Or something that sticks like it . . . . . [attachment=146171:stickslike.jpg]

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1381785653' post='2243869'] I know that songs are just taste, but I really don't understand why they are called prog rock - I guess it is in the 'it has guitars and it isn't 4/4' meaning of the word. [/quote] Funnily enough, Thijs van Leer said at the gig that he didn't really like the 'prog rock' description, though he didn't offer an alternative description. Jazz-rock perhaps? Anyway, genres are only vaguely useful and the thing that really matters is if you like the music or not.

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1381781999' post='2243790'] Seen them 2 or 3 times since their 'comeback' when basically Van Leer went out and recruited a Focus tribute as his backing band. In more recent times P van der Linden has returned on drums so its got more credibility. Off to see them in Leicester on Friday all being well then Camel in Wolverhampton on Sunday! [/quote] Yes, Pierre van der Linden is back on drums and Thijs van Leer seemed to be thoroughly enjoying himself. Enjoy!

Anyone else here a fan of the vintage prog-rockers? I saw them last night at Hertford Corn Exchange. A nice small venue (200 max?) that I've played maybe a dozen times over the years so it was quite weird seeing my teenage musical heroes playing on the very same stage. They did a somewhat better job that I've ever managed though! Great evening.

Lovely video. I've seen BB King a few times and the last time (5/6 years ago?) he had to play sitting down . . . but he's still playing!

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1381760535' post='2243242'] And another depressing BC thread! If musicians won't stick up for musicians, then there is no hope. ... Or, have those advocating free access to music come to the realisation that they don't stand a hope in hell anyway, so couldn't give a toss? [/quote] It's not a case of musicians supporting musicians, it's a case of understanding why the world is the way it is. If you don't understand then it's hard to have influence. Besides, I'm not sure anyone was advocating free access to music, just acknowledging the reality . . . a reality that is seemingly encouraged by the music industry itself. We have to deal with the way the world is, not how we'd wish it to be.

[quote name='Buzzy' timestamp='1381660033' post='2241830'] Just watched it, great playing by Darryl Jones but he seemed to use at least 4 different basses ( Lakland DJ, Precision,Music Man and something that looked like a Burns) [u]but I couldn't hear any difference between them[/u]. [/quote] What a nightmare for all the 'tone heads' out there - how will they ever find the right bass with the right tone? (perhaps it really is all in the fingers? )

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1381587832' post='2241041'] On an acoustic instrument I can see the benefits of selecting and using different wood types to achieve a particular tone. On even the simplest of electric instruments you have a tone control of some description and at that point I have to question the validity of getting hung up on wood types to control tone. [/quote] That just about sums it up for me. Indeed, it's not just simple tone controls but can be full-on graphic equalisers and a whole bunch effects pedals, never mind harmonically-rich valve amps. That's not to say that a bit of wood might not make some difference, in some way, in some part of the audio spectrum, but my guess is that it'll be so slight that no one could ever tell (unless it was brought to the fore by using high-grade oxygen-free uni-directional unobtainium instrument leads of course ).

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1381674355' post='2242084'] This thread makes me think about what constitutes 'ownership' of an idea in the first place. I've often read something along the lines of 'I'm just channeling the universe into my music' or 'The music is all around us, I was lucky enough to grab a piece of it' etc. I don't argue against the necessary skill to bring these ideas to life, but there is nothing 'written in stone' to suggest that you consequently own that idea once you write it down. The idea that the musician is due some renumeration is because of the consumerist society we live in - make something, own it, sell it. For the past 70 years (ish) the record companies, publishers and musicians have made billions and billions of pounds from this system. But it looks like its not going to hold up for much longer. I think long term we are heading towards a society where there is [i]no money at all to be made from creativity of any sort[/i]. What do we do then?! [/quote] Very interesting points.

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1381593456' post='2241176'] But I would go back to my original argument - the music industry sat by and let Apple and Spotify create online models that worked and the music industry got stiffed by them both. What were the labels doing whilst those companies were innovating? Oh yeah, they were suing their customers and fans. So the music industry have created this problem themselves. I'd like to swing criticism of the low revenue from streaming services back round to the labels. As I mentioned before, they negotiated the rights. No one had a gun to their head to sign the deals and without those deals Spotify would have nothing to sell and no business. [/quote] Agreed. And presumably the industry also negotiates the deals that allow newspapers to give away CDs (and DVDs) of stuff for free - and other similar 'promotional' initiatives. I appreciate such things mean that someone else is effectively paying for us to listen to the music for free but my point is that it's creating a society in which people are becoming used to being able to access/obtain/download/listen/whatever music pretty much for free and on demand. It devalues music. When I was a teenager I had a modest record collection and it was a thing of great value to me - not only because I had paid good money for it from my paper round and saturday jobs (i.e. it took me significant effort to acquire) but because it was the only way I could listen to my favourite music. Today, all anyone needs is a smartphone or PC and there is a whole world of music at their fingertips for free. Better or worse? Well, certainly worse for the music industry and struggling musicians I suppose but I don't detect a huge amount of public sympathy or support for them so I can't see draconian laws being enforced anytime soon in an attempt to turn back the clock. Like it or not, the world has changed. I also think that these sort of discussions are usually too introspective. Not really a criticism, given that this is a musical forum, but most people here are passionate about music and many put in a huge amount of their time and creative energy into playing and creating music that is incredibly important to them. Their whole world revolves around music - which is a fine and wonderful thing - but it's sometimes easy to lose perspective and forget that musical skill, creativity and commitment doesn't impart any special rights to the artist or obligations to the listeners. You can spend a year (or even years) writing a bunch of songs, spend all your available money on recording, mixing and publishing them, invest all your emotional energy into the project, spend even more time and money marking and publicising them and . . . . . the likely result is that 99.9% of people will listen to it for a few minutes (if you're lucky), say "yeah, that's OK" and then go back to chatting with their mates or whatever they were doing before being so rudely interrupted with the fruits of your labours for the past year or so - perhaps even a lifetime. It's an asymmetric relationship in which the artist invests far, far more than the vast majority of the listeners. Now make that music essentially free and it becomes even more 'throw away' for the listeners. Music is everything for the dedicated musician but it's just a bit of life's froth for everyone else.

So, pretty much any band that stays together for more than a couple of years then?

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1381582198' post='2240933'] Now this really ins't about Spotify in the slightest. Can we not cloud the issue by discussing illegally downloading music? Spotify is not an illegal download service. Any qualms about how much the artists get paid or not should be directed to their record labels who negotiated the money with Spotify. [/quote] Sort of. I agree that the royalty issues with spotify is a separate issue but from the listeners perspective there's not much difference between downloading a file for free and streaming it for free. The legal technicalities might be different but the end result is the same - people listening to music without having to pay, and that's the world in which people are growing up today.

I don't know the specific answer for your specific circuit but it can be calculated by a number of tried and tested methods. Reliability engineering is a huge and specialist subject so we're not going to do it justice here but even if you did go to all the time and trouble of doing a reliability analysis you'll end up with something like a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) figure that might be useful for a manufacturer but is almost useless for an individual product. A product with an MTBF of 25 years might be more reliable than one with an MTBF of 10 years but individual samples of either (e.g. the one you happen to own) can still fail next week without affecting the statistical figure of 10 or 25 years. Circuit design is also a consideration. A mechanical switch will typically have a shorter operational life than, say, a resistor, but only if the circuit design is such that the resistor is operating within its rated conditions (temp, voltage, current, etc). There are plenty of examples of circuit designs that have a "weak component" that often fails, but it's usually a circuit design or component selection issue and can be significantly improved by using a different component. In other words, it's a hugely complex subject and 'proper' manufacturers spend a great deal of time and money designing and testing the reliability aspects of their products - the more complex the product, the more complex the process, which is usually reflected in the price. A battery-operated £25 effects pedal is going to be pretty simple and unless you're going to be tap-dancing on the footswitch or using it in the middle of the Sahara desert I'd say you shouldn't be losing any sleep over how turning it on and off might affect its serviceable lifetime. Just use it and enjoy it (while it still works ).

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1381455599' post='2239467'] You can find out they suck without having given them money first. That's a terrifying thing for those who make commercial music that's reliant on you being distracted by the new shiny before you realise. [/quote] Now THAT'S the real issue here. No wonder the music business is panicking about the internet!

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381438844' post='2239256'] Because you're depriving them of their ability to get paid? [/quote] How? If I was distributing a free download to loads of people then, yes, I'd be depriving them of money. But if I download a file for which I would not otherwise pay for myself then how does that affect the artist? Perhaps I'm abnormal but I've not stopped buying music since the internet arrived. What I have done is listened to a much wider range of music than I used to. The stuff I don't like I don't buy but the likelihood is that I've bought stuff [u]because [/u]I've discovered it while listening to free copies. If it wasn't for terabyte hard drives I'd probably delete all the stuff I've only listened to once and never will again - would that make things any better?

The owner will go first.

No problem. I suspect Yamaha might not stock the individual connector parts but only a complete cable assembly, though the only way to be sure is to call them. As for the pins from China, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are the same parts in the original unit anyway, so if your repair has worked for a few weeks then it may well last for years. One thing about crimp connectors though is that the correct tool should ideally be used for a really reliable joint as a good crimp connection should be gas tight and almost like a 'cold weld'. Unfortunately, a good ratchet crimp tool is usually a bit pricey (£40-ish) so the occasional DIYer can be tempted to use pliers (my hand is up!). In most domestic applications this will be fine, but in a 'rougher' environment (temperature extremes, vibration, shock etc) the connection may not be quite as reliable. What this means in practice is hard to quantify. It might mean the joint lasts only 10 years instead of 25, who knows. If you've already fixed the amp then I'd probably just leave it be. At least you have the spares to fix it again!

Fair point. In that respect there's no real practical difference between copying music or streaming is there? Spotify pays artists hardly anything (as previously noted) and youtube is full of unauthorised uploads. Actually, youtube is another good example of how someone can browse loads of stuff, downloading as they wish, without any intention of ever paying anything. If youtube disappeared tomorrow I doubt that many people would suddenly rush out and buy loads of DVDs so, again, how are the artists actually losing out?

But it's not so obvious if you really think about it. There is loads of music out there that I would never ever buy but I might download a copy for free, listen to it once and then never again - 'take it or leave it' music. How is that depriving an artist of any money?

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381415269' post='2238756'] But whatever, I think you're wrong, I'm entitled to think you're wrong, and you are entitled to feel the same towards me. [/quote] Wrong about what? I've been asking someone, anyone, to explain how an artist loses out if someone who wouldn't normally buy their music makes a copy of it instead? I'm genuinely open to an explanation.

The trouble with all these sorts of discussions is that people tend to confuse 'good' with 'like', i.e. people tend to think a musician is really good if they really like them (or rather their music). I can't see any connection or correlation myself.