flyfisher

It means it can take an amp with a 700W peak output but only 350W rms (or 'continuous' power). As you'll appreciate, music is a highly variable waveform, so it's very difficult (impossible?) to fully characterise the actual power output of an amp when playing music. It can be measured (at various frequencies) using signal generators and other test equipment, but that's not how we use our amps and cabs, so it's all a little bit vague. But vague can still be useful and it's good practice to ensure that the rms power of the amp does not exceed the rms rating of the cab. Peak figures are even more vague and can generally be ignored as long as you follow the rms 'rule'. Like most 'rules', they can be broken if you're careful. So a 500W *rms) amp could be used to drive a 350W (rms) cab, but you'd have to be careful with the volume control to ensure the cab isn't damaged - probably not a problem when practicing at home, but more risky in the chaos of a crowded gig on a small stage perhaps. The general view is that you should hear your cab 'complaining' about being over-driven long before any damage is actually done. But again, in the excitement of a great gig it may be easy to ignore a slightly 'farty' cab and do some damage to it. So, if it was my cab, I'd be looking to use it with a 350W (rms) amp. However, there is also the issue of ohms to consider. All the above applies when the amp and cab have the same ohms, e.g. the amp can drive 350W (rms) into an 8 ohm cab and the 8ohm cab is rated for 350W (rms), so all is well. So, when checking the amp power rating, be sure to be comparing the right power figures for the right ohmage conditions. You probably also know that amps can usually drive multiple cabs but that the effective ohmage of the connected cabs will be different to the individual cabs and this also has to be taken into account. But you didn't ask about that and I'm sure I've already rambled on enough. Edit: Oops, a posting clash, but I think we're saying basically the same thing.

You could deduct the cost of a worst-case repair from your offer. The seller might not agree but at least you have a good reason for the lower offer.

[quote name='Phil Starr' timestamp='1357934598' post='1930894'] I didn't think me saying you're all wrong helps much so I put in a bit of explanation for anyone who cares. [/quote] That's a great sentiment and thanks very much for adding the background justification. For topics like this (and many, many others) a basic statement or rule is one thing but the reasons behind it are where the real understanding begins. I'm not a great one for slavish adherence to 'rules' without fully understanding (or trying to!) the reasons behind them, which leads me to question a lot of things, which sometimes makes me seem awkward and argumentative. One thing I have learned over many years though is that people who really understand stuff rarely mind answering questions and sharing their knowledge whereas the ones who don't understand often resort to 'because it just is' or 'because I say so' replies instead of the more honest 'I don't really know' or 'that's my assumption/guess/understanding'. So please don't feel the need to apologise for long posts of detailed explanations - not on my account anyway.

I don't think my playing has improved much because of BC as such, though I'd like to think that there's some improvement simply from playing regularly. But I definitely feel more confident because of the huge amount I've learned from everyone here, especially in terms of technical sound and gear issues. It's also invaluable to be able to discuss music/band stuff outside of immediate bandmates and realise the commonality of many issues - and In my particular case it's been encouraging to learn that there are great drummers out there, so my search continues I can't see me ever persevering with learning to read music, but I have been working on improving my theory thanks to some pointers to great online tutorials. There are, it has to be said, some downsides to BC. The wonderful capability to connect with fellow bassists inevitably means more exposure to some awesomely talented players and musicians and reminds me that I'm not even in the same league. Still, it gives me something to strive for!

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1357859412' post='1929813'] Good analogy.... [/quote] Thinking about this again, won't the ripples from two stones dropped in water always interfere with each other as they spread out, leading to phasing issues, regardless of the size of the stones? If so, that would suggest that any phasing issues is more to do with multiple speakers not occupying the same point in space and might also suggest that a single large speaker would be better than multiple small ones . . . except that's where the mass of the cone might become too detrimental to the speaker performance. I guess it's all about getting the best trade-off from a number of conflicting parameters.

Yes, good explanation and makes sense to me as well. Thanks.

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1357857103' post='1929765'] I only say that I have found thru trial and error that using multiple same size speakers has compelling phasing / efficiency benefits in a live situation. I don't think that is such an important issue for hifi speakers or monitors..... [/quote] I can't really see why a live situation is particularly different to a Hifi one. It's all about reproducing music isn't it? Sure, there might be loads of differences in the listening environments, but is that really the reason for choosing speaker sizes? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't really understand it.

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1357856881' post='1929757'] Most good ones don't unless they have crossovers or bi amped (are you counting tweeters as drivers?). [/quote] I wasn't excluding crossovers or bi-amping, just thinking about the overall function of converting electrical waveforms back into sound. Perhaps it's all just a matter of compromise. Some Hifi speakers have dual drivers, some have three, some have more. Perhaps the ultimate would be a crossover filter with 20,000 outputs, one for each frequency, driving 20,000 amplifiers and 20,000 drivers? Then each 'channel' could be optimised for it's specific frequency and there would be no interference between them. OK, a ridiculous extreme, but isn't that the basic idea about using multiple drivers in the first place?

If mixing speaker sizes is such a bad thing, how come almost all Hifi speakers/professional monitors are built with different size drivers?

[quote name='leftyhook' timestamp='1351207454' post='1848862'] end of his solo days it all.as he looks across.... he was just winding us up pretending he has the ultimate bass-face! [/quote] My thought exactly. He seems like a great player having a great time. I'm not a great fan of the music but really enjoyed watching them enjoy themselves and it put a smile on my face, which is what it's all about isn't it?

[quote name='gary mac' timestamp='1357665532' post='1926331'] I've been trying to get Stuck in the Middle, Mustang Sally and Brown Eyed Girl relegated to standby material but the thing is punters do request them, particularly at the social club type gigs. It's strange really, I play with a band of relative youngsters, yet they want to do all the old stuff and I keep suggesting the more modern stuff [/quote] I guess the 'old stuff' is new stuff to youngsters. Do us oldies tend to shy away from these songs because they're fundamentally bad songs, or is it just too much familiarity with them. As as already been mentioned, the punters tend to love them so they can't be all bad. These sort of topics are always interesting because of the wide range of views expressed but, ultimately, I'm sure we all know what we would do in such a situation based on our personal preferences rather than what others think. Given a likeable bunch of bandmates and an enthusiastic crowd, these songs could easily make for an enjoyable evening whereas playing orginals to an indifferent crowd can be a miserable experience. There's room for almost anything and everything out there somewhere.

[quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1357507145' post='1923830'] Funnily enough i'm the same - I wear ear plugs in bed every night... now can't sleep without them! [/quote] Mrs FF wears earplugs in bed. Something to do with snoring . . . though I've never heard it.

It also probably outlasted the lifetime of the animal that used it first.

[quote name='Donnyboy' timestamp='1357671233' post='1926466'] You can't trust anyone it would seem.... I mean to say , I bought this quality leather (Aria) leather strap about 30 years ago , as I remember for a fiver, and was assured that it would last me a lifetime . Now look what's happened !!! Think I should seek compo? [/quote] You may have understood. Lifetime guarantees are for the life of the product. When it breaks, that's the end of its life . . . . and the guarantee.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357645163' post='1925769'] 51m0n, personally I think you're over-worrying about MP3. Every time the delivery medium for music changes, you get a drop in quality because it's all that the technology of the day can manage. Then as the technology improves the audio quality improves with it. MP3 has been with us for little over 10 years now, think how long we put up with AM radio for as our main source of new music. [/quote] I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that CDs are worse than vinyl [u]as a technology[/u] because all the tech specs are clearly superior. How that technology has been used is a whole different matter. Also, MP3 is a reflection of other technical limitations of the time, namely internet bandwidth and storage costs. These days, storage is cheap as chips so data compression is not really needed any more. I used to rip my CDs to MP3 at 192kbps but these days I use 320kbps and, frankly, I might just just give up MP3 altogether and just store the raw wav data because disk space is simply not an issue any more. Internet streaming, however, still imposes constraints on file sizes so data compression remains for the likes of web-based services, but I expect that will also change over the coming years. Digital media can be a funny thing. It provides the basis for significantly higher media quality (I'm including video as well as audio here) but commercial constraints tends to push things towards more stuff at lower quality. Thus, DAB radio has been criticised as being of poorer quality than the FM it's hoping to replace because the broadcasters can now compress the data into smaller bandwidth channels and then broadcast more stations at that lower quality. The TV broadcasters are doing the same thing with their digital channels and there are all manner of artifacts that creep into digital TV as a result. But it's amazing how quickly people acclimatise to such thngs, as long as the media companies don't push things too far. Meanwhile, regardless of the actual reproduction quality, the real challenge is becoming how to choose what we actually spend our time reading, listening to or watching. We can already store more literature on our PCs than we can read in a lifetime and we're getting close with music. Meanwhile, television broadcasters such as the BBC are working on making their entire archives available online. Imagine having 50/60 years of BBC archives to choose from. Do we really want to spend large chunks of our lives reliving history?

[quote name='kurosawa' timestamp='1357641266' post='1925676'] For critical listening, I have a ratty old pair of Sony MDR-V6 (ready for yet another pair of cushions) and a jogger-sized Philips CD player (tried Sony and something else, [b]but the Philips algorithm is the best, most mercilessly accurate I've found[/b]). I wouldn't be able to replicate the level of performance they give for at least $30,000, and I wouldn't be able to afford even a fraction of that. [/quote] What sort of algorithms are used in CD players? I thought it was just a simple DAC process to convert the uncompressed digital data back into an analogue signal.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1357598690' post='1925298'] Our backline is designed to be heard all over the stage [/quote] How do you achieve that? I've played on stages where I couldn't hear one guitar except through the monitors.

Yes, I've wondered about IEM volume control. Can they not be limited to prevent hearing damage? Agree about the 'playing at rock bands' thing though, and a vocal-only PA/monitor certainly makes things simpler and quicker to set up and break down. All depends on the venue I guess. I've played small pubs with a vocal-only PA but also outdoor gigs where we've had all day to set things up and play around with the sound (actually, a very good learning exercise). But the more I learn, the more I realise how much I still have to learn!

Interesting point. I've wondered about trying some budget IEMs, but is a simple headphone amp/splitter really adequate? I'm thinking that everyone would have to share the same mix . . . or perhaps that wouldn't matter with IEMs because there would be less 'spill' from other sources? In which case, I can see the attraction.

Now that's just being greedy!

[quote name='essexbasscat' timestamp='1357589890' post='1925053'] Hi FF. Am I correct in thinking that the post fade aux. outs are the FOH signal ? if yes, I'd understand why that wouldn't be suitable for on stage sound as they are two different sound requirements. [/quote] Not quite - not on my mixer anyway. Also I may be using the wrong terminology because I'm also still learning about such things (which is why this is a great topic!). My FOH signal is from the 'main output' of the mixer, as mixed by each channel fader and then the overall master level controls. The 'post-fade' aux outputs are separate mixes of all the inputs but the levels are also affected by the main channel faders. The 'pre-fade' aux outputs are also separate mixes of all the inputs but they are not affected by the main channel faders. Basically, if the FOH signal is turned right down, the monitors driven by the 'pre-fade' aux outputs remain unaffected. I believe that 'post-fade' aux outputs are mainly used for effects processors, but I don't really understand the details (I'm sure others here will!). I found it quite tricky to get my head around such things (and still do in some respects!) but found that the block diagram in the mixer manual was very helpful in understanding the signal paths involved. For my simplistic needs, I thought that a 16-channel mixer with 4 aux outputs would be fine. I was right about the 16-channels but I was caught out by the pre/post aux output thing and my vision of simply connecting each monitor to its own separate aux-out mix wasn't possible. Having said that, two monitor mixes hasn't been too restrictive in practice, but I think it would be easier to be able to give each band member their own monitor and individual mix. I may well be missing some trick though! [quote name='essexbasscat' timestamp='1357589890' post='1925053'] Also begs the question, why make a desk with a limited number of aux outs ? [/quote] Cost and size I suppose? I've wondered the same thing myself, which makes me think I may be missing a trick somewhere! [quote name='essexbasscat' timestamp='1357589890' post='1925053'] The 30 band eq.Connected between the desk and the main PA ? not sure what this entails TBH. Do you mean the desk for the monitors and the FOH PA ? if yes, how do you do this in practical terms i.e what wire goes where ? forgive me for asking what must seem like obvious questions. [/quote] In my case, I take the main desk outputs (L & R balanced line levels) and plug them into the dual equaliser unit. The equaliser outputs (balanced) then plug into the stage snake and thence into the powered PA speakers. That's how I do it anyway. As far as the monitors are concerned, I don't have separate Eq units for these but if I did then I guess I'd connect them between the aux outs and the powered monitors in a similar way. I've never had any feedback problems with the stage monitors though. I hope that's understandable. Diagrams would probably be more informative but I only have pdfs. PM me with an email address if you'd like me to send them to you. Again, let me stress that all this is what I've picked up by trial and error - it may not be 'best practice'!

[quote name='ZenBasses' timestamp='1357582553' post='1924861'] Yup I agree that the marketing machine is more centric to ipod this and connectivity that etc etc.. Very rarely are products on the shelves these day geared towards sound quality...This is based upon the plethora of electrical retailers and not the small but important hifi retailers such as richer sounds [/quote] I'm getting a mental picture of a mastering suite comprising of the usual massive desk but with an ipod dock in the centre as the reference monitors.

[quote name='Stan_da_man' timestamp='1357583025' post='1924875'] And one to be thrown at drummers who constantly speed up. [/quote] What about the ones who slow down when they play quietly and speed up when they play loud?

If you can still play for half an hour or so then surely that's enough for recording purposes? Perhaps now is the time to embark on your 'studio years', concentrate on your writing and crank out a bunch of albums? Whatever you choose, good luck with it!

Good topic! I'm certainly no expert but I've faced a similar situation. Also, as 'expert' can be a relative term, I seem to be the 'expert-elect' in the bands I play in, either through their lack of knowledge or lack of interest by my band mates. Initially, we had a vocal-only PA with passive speakers and no monitoring at all. For small venues this could be OK but was often difficult to get a good mix . . . especially if anyone actually turned up and the venue acoustics changed a lot from when we did the soundcheck. So I got a separate mixer and PA (2x powered Mackie heads + one powered sub) and used the vocal-only PA as monitors. I've also added a Wharfedale powered wedge monitor. I paid attention to the number of mixer channels but not really to the number of aux outputs, so I've ended up with two pre-fade aux outs and two post-fade aux outs. The post-fade aux outs are not really any good for monitors so that means I can only have two monitor mixes. This is just about OK but if I was buying another mixer I'd be looking for 4 outputs (one band has 6 members). I've also sometimes used a small guitar combo as a separate monitor for the drummer. I'd say powered monitors are the way to go because, apart from reducing the number of boxes and cables involved, they enable volume levels (if not the mix) to be adjusted on stage if necessary, which gives the performers a bit more feeling of control - though this can be a double-edged sword of course. Also, it means that only balanced line-level signals need to be routed from the desk to the stage (though that can also be achieved by putting any separate monitor amps on the stage somewhere) and makes it less likely to mix up speaker and instrument jack cables. Ideally I'd aim to only have speakons for speaker cables, jacks for instruments and XLRs for everything else, but I'm not quite there yet. I've also got a dual 30-ish band equaliser that I have connected between the desk output and the main PA but, to be honest, I'm not very adept at using it and tend to leave it switched into 'pass-thru' mode most of the time - but we're not really all that loud so are not often battling feedback problems. Still, it looks good in the mixer rack. The same applies to the Behringer Feedback Destroyer I bought but have never used in anger.