essexbasscat

Tim, you're more experienced than me by more than a few furlongs mate, I know you could show me more than a thing or two. You're cetainly right about that Eden WT400 head BTW, that's a keeper for sure. Thanks for everything Tim, you're a gent All the best Tom

Like all of the above, I found Tim to be a pleasant and honest guy, easy to deal with and I'd have no reservations about recommending him to anyone. Welcome at mine for a cuppa anytime.

[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1334989066' post='1624351'] essexbasscat, you could have written your experiences for mine. God bless what you did for so many Bert. [/quote] And so many others Karlfer ! Thing is, even after all this time, I still want to play House Of The RIsing Sun authentically with a band, with all the original keyboard part played as the original. You learned so much about playing a guitar (and bass) by working it out for yourself once Bert showed you the utter basics.

[quote name='thinman' timestamp='1334945583' post='1624002'] I thought I'd have a go at answering the original question... As previously pointed out if a speaker was producing a simple sine wave then the cone would move back and forth smoothly at the wave's frequency. If it is having to produce a complex wave, say the result of two sine waves of different frequencies, the form might look like the lower frequency but with ripples on it of the higher frequency. The cone will therefore follow the shape of that wave - in general moving back and forth at the lower frequency but rather than smoothly it will be making much smaller back and forth movements at the higher frequency. As I understand it that is what makes speakers imperfect (but not impracticably so) because the above behaviour introduces Doppler distortion. (The effect of a fire engine's horn apparently changing pitch as it passes you). Imagine the cone is the fire engine and its horn the higher frequency - the fact the higher frequency is being produced by something that is itself moving. [/quote] Now this is getting close to answering the original question I asked. There's no doubt however that the answer goes much deeper than I first realised, as it encompasses sound generation by the speaker, reception by the ear drum, neurological conversion and finally, interpretation by the brain. There's also the scientific analysis of sound waveforms. The BBC could make a really interesting programme exploring the journey of discovery that led to our current understanding of this topic. Could be an interesting academic paper too. Thanks for that answer thinman

I've started this seperate thread to leave the other one for notes of respect to Bert, although there's bound to be some cross over of some kind Remembering the Play In A Day book, it was just about the only book available about how to play the guitar many years ago. I've had some long conversations today with a few friends about this book and we all remember learning the chords for A, D, E, C, Then comes the F ! But after that, it was a case of sitting down and listening to the radio, the newly purchased tape deck and endlessly rewinding to suss out the chords. It was a case of listening, going through the chord charts and trying to work out what went where. Studying Top Of The Pops was frustrating, as everyone was moving their fingers too fast to be able to work out what was going on. So it was back to wrestling with the guitar and working it out for yourself. Thing is, after a while, you learnt that you could play Norwegian Wood with the D chord, the beginning of Whole Lotta Love with the E, House of The Rising Sun with the A minor and so on. In this way, you trained your ear and learned about music in the process. There were very few TAB charts to speak of that I came across, so it came down to DIY guitar lessons. With the advent of the web and all the guitar info, TAB, You Tube videos etc, the days of learning from a book such as Play In A Day are long gone now. But I certainly learned a lot by beavering away at the guitar with nothing but that book, a pair of ears and a desire to study every player I came across to find out what the hell was going on. It was a different way of learning to what's going on now. The end of an era. The reader of an article on the BBC news today said that George Harrison, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton and many others started off with Play In A Day. What a legacy. Thanks Bert

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' timestamp='1334924207' post='1623514'] We need a long skipping rope with someone doing oscillations at one frequency, and someone at the other end doing them at a different frequency. I'll post you your end. [/quote] How to create a big enough wave to reach your end ? hang on a minute, I'll just break the trampoline out Up, down, up, down, jiggle, jiggle, flick, got it ! Bugger everyone keeps driving over the rope and cancelling out my waves

That makes good sense Snicks and has the ring of truth to it. yet how to make sense of the previous posts that say all the sounds are combined ? If they're combined, then how ? edited for spellnig mitsakes

Question. Using entirely hypothetical, random figures here; If one instrument plays a note of say 240 Hz and a second instrument plays a note of 435 Hz, why does the speaker produce two notes and not the one note associated with the sound of 240 + 435 = 675 Hz ?

They sound like very good, very plausable explanations, which are no doubt informed by previous experience of considering the same question. Thanks for the replies. But I still don't understand something. When simultaneous, multiple sounds are occuring at the same time from different sources, how does the speaker recreate that ? i.e. an orchestra, or a band, or any other kind of ensemble, where [i]n [/i]number of instruments are simultaneously producing different sounds, each with their own characteristics. If the speaker tries to reproduce the sound at time point [i]x, d[/i]oes the speaker sum total the frequencies ? logically no, because that in itself would produce a sound different from the sources. Or, does the speaker give a microsecond to reproducing each sound, thereby producing Mr. Foxen's wibbly wobbly wave ? i.e. a microsecond at one number of excursions of the cone and a further microsecond for another number of excursions. I guess to clarify my question, how does the one speaker mechanically produce [i]n [/i]different sounds ? Thanks again for the replies

I'm asking as I really don't know, although I suspect the answer will probably be brain warping. How does a speaker make more than one sound at a time ? I understand that a speaker cone going in and out so many times per second will produce a sound wave of a corresponding frequency, thereby producing an audible sound. But how does the one speaker produce multiple sounds simultaneously ? I get images of a speaker going in / out / shake it all about like a jelly on recreational medication, trying to do too many things at once Anyone have any idea ? Cheers T

Took a trombone to Andy last night and we spent an enjoyable evening talking music and playing all kinds of instruments. He's a great host BTW. Andy's helped me out with the London Bass Bash in the past and we've met a few times here and there at various events. Over time, I've come to know that Andy's a good'n. I'd lend him a bass if he needed one You can have confidence in dealing with Andy folks Cheers T

Oh my.... music history right there. Where's a lottery win when you need it ?

Class H ?

What's a bass player to do ?

For the vintage angle, you could try the Roland JC120, or JC160. They're full range with a very clean sound. They do command upwards of £250 - £300 though. That said, +1 to the personal PA approach, does have a lot to offer