EBS_freak

[quote name='Phil Starr' timestamp='1453795364' post='2962719'] We do the usual thing, backline set up to match the drums with vocal only through the PA and monitors. It works and everyone understands it. I've given up on trying to get everyone to turn down to give us a cleaner sound but one local band uses an electronic kit and no backline. Even their monitors are at stunningly low levels, standing behind them it sounds like they are practising acoustically, you'd have no trouble hearing yourself talking at a normal speaking volume. Out front they sound very much like any other pub band, though with a noticeably cleaner vocal sound. That has to be down to a mixture of better singing because they can actually hear themselves, and a lack of bleed from the instruments into the vocal mics. To me it seemed weird having such a low level but I'm sure you'd learn to get used to it, obviously they could turn the monitors up to any level they wanted. You'd be stuck with the electronic kit of course. I'd find it hard to develop the energy to really perform at really quiet levels but it'd be great to look after your hearing like that. People tend to brand different approaches 'right' or 'wrong'. I don't think that's fair, each approach has advantages and disadvantages though extreme volumes on stage make it all but impossible to get a really clean sound. It's possible to get a really poor sound whatever system you go for though, the problem is usually the squishy organic bit between the ears. [/quote] Good post. Your point about developing energy is very valid. Can't get into a gig when a drummer is being limp waisted! One thing which I don't think has been mentioned - in terms of keeping things quiet on stage and letting the PA do the work... How many amateur bands realistically carry around a PA that can support that. Nobody wants to invest or carry the thing!

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1453789425' post='2962686'] ... but they would still be happy to mic up a guitarist using a board of dodgy old pedals and a valve amp with a vastly higher probability of kit failure in the signal chain ??, makes no sense whatsoever. About the lamest excuse for not wanting to take an amp output I've ever heard (and not one I've come across in real life). [/quote] In any mission critical gig, it will be normal. I'm not talking your average originals venue where a guys DI box is likely to go missing. I played on a live TV broadcast and they were insistent that I was pre amp DI - and to be honest, it's a good move. I don't want to look like the dick making no noise when I should be because my amp has gone down. As for the guitarist, well, as you say, their signal chain is more complex - but that's why if you watch any big gigs, they have two heads ready to switch should anything happen to the primary head. Don't even have to move the mic off the cab.

Again, sound guys will want pre eq. With di before amp, they know exactly what they are getting - as opposed to a bass player sending "their tone" with a shed load of bass which is just going to be mud through foh.

[quote name='sunburstjazz1967' timestamp='1453759718' post='2962592'] Any links to your new band please JTUK? [/quote] Did he get booted for causing the band much embarrassment with sound guys? Or was the band's monitoring solution not up to spec?

[quote name='Ghost_Bass' timestamp='1453744334' post='2962380'] Now (a bit more) serious. I don't count on wedges for my bass monitoring. I don't even use the suplied DI as my amp's DI are professional grade. [/quote] Here's your first problem. Any sound tech worth their salt would never use an onboard DI. The amp dies, so does all direct signal to the desk. Chance of a DI box failing? - very low in comparison.

Just what gigs is JTUK doing anyway? I'd be interested to see what sound engineers say to him when he phones up about their respective rigs?

If a monitor is good, use it and keep your rig low. If it's not, rely on your backline. Phoning up and getting the PA spec? Ridiculous. I've specced PAs in the past and worked with the hire team to get things right ahead of the performance - when I've been told to do so. For all else, you get what you're given - and like all pros, you work with what you are given. Anything bigger, you are touring with your own PA company anyway. I can just imagine the abuse I'd (justifiably) get if I phoned venues asking for the spec of their monitors. If you want your monitoring out of the question, invest in a monitoring (in ears or wedges) rig and a bank of XLR splitters. Mind you, I would expect similar abuse if I waltzed in with my own wedges.

Am I the only one that seemingly doesn't phone venues ahead of the gig to get the spec of the monitors?! Seriously?

There's plenty of great class D products out there, many with "heft" but they seem to be exclusive to the PA arena... everything in the bass amp world, seems to be derived from hi-fi products. Having been sat in front of some fairly serious 18" subs run from class D power amps, I would dispute the comment that all class D amps lack heft.

Not my bag :-/

[quote name='Twincam' timestamp='1453395248' post='2959141'] We wanted the best sounding amplifier period: louder, more versatile and articulate. [/quote] Didn't somebody's mummy not say, "I want never gets"?

Great result!

That's only half the story...

But can you phantom power it from the XLR?

[quote name='elephantgrey' timestamp='1453378247' post='2958868'] If i where marketing a product, i would look at endorsements less as "people will buy whatever [bob] has" and more along the lines of exposure (i know i know, its a dirty word, but hear me out). Giving a bass/combo/pedal to a well known musician to use increases the amount of people who see the product, for allot less and more effective way than any advert will.Id much rather give a guy a [thing] and tell him to use it at his next gig/recording than get him to stand there and read off a load of lines about how much he likes it. [/quote] Isn't that what most companies do?

[quote name='dood' timestamp='1453376948' post='2958845'] Wow, who found piss in their Bran Flakes this morning? [/quote]

[quote name='Graham' timestamp='1453222310' post='2957585'] I used to have a K5, it was my second bass, when the neck was damaged falling off a stand I bought another one with the insurance money. They were the older natural finish ones, before they added the chambers; looking back they very well made instruments, I wasn't wild about the 12th fret inlay, but lived with it. I'd happily have another one so long as I could budget in an electronics upgrade as neither the stock pickups or pre-amp were spectacular, but it would make a great starting point for a project instrument. [/quote] Indeed - its actually really hard to buy a really poor bass nowadays. I'm just wondering though, what made you buy a K5 in the first place? Was it something about the bass... or was it Fieldy?

Looking forward to seeing this one.

[quote name='Lw.' timestamp='1453201782' post='2957279'] I've seen quite a few of those K5's (but the natural colour ones) being used out in the wild so they must be ok basses. [/quote] I think so - Ibanez don't really do bad basses at any price point. From what I've read, they don't sound like Fieldy unless you roll all the mids out... which I wouldn't do anyway. Trouble is, even if I did like it, or even find one to try, there's still the issue of that inlay. It's a complete deal breaker.

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1453157600' post='2957046'] Yeah, that would be my guess for now. These guys who are better at it have surely spent the time getting to know all the "landscapes", as well as (important!) the different peculiarities and artefacts. When I hear people discuss how a sound is made, they'll often narrow it down using the sound's artefacts. That demands experience, I'd think. In general and roughly speaking, I think it's safe to say that the older the original sound, the easier it will be to replicate. New sounds would generally require the same type of hardware or software, if not the exact same. BTW, tools like Fourier analysis, spectrum analysers and oscilloscopes come in handy as well in many cases. . Stuff I was thinking of whilst preparing my posts, and I don't mean to unjustly treat you as a beginner - I just don't know what you know: - FM-synthesis performed on a modular subtractive is a wholly different ballgame than the same settings (using the term loosely here) in a digital FM synth. One either needs to understand well-written descriptions of the differences in sound (seems near impossible to me) or one needs the raw experience. - A wavetable waveform morphing into another wavetable waveform whilst being filtered through one of a gazillion different comb filters seems near impossible to recreate to me, unless you've heard exactly these combinations and know which synth can do it. - Even the synth in Van Halen's "Jump", a simple subtractive patch you replicate in minutes if you have an Oberheim, cannot be done on a Polymoog or a Prophet 5 (which would probably come closer), and even a synth plugin with good virtual analogue capacities would need to have the right type of filter to pull it off. So just listening to the sound is not enough - far from it. All the best with this! Have fun! [/quote] Hey - I wouldn't necessarily say I'm a beginner but I am far from competent compared to others out there! At the moment, my method is basically identifying as much of the core component sounds as I can - sine is pretty easy and I'm getting better at square and saw tooth identification and then working from there. With the two sounds side by side, I can usually hear and get pretty close, especially now as I'm getting a lot more savvy with the detuning and fine tuning options on those waveforms - from there, it then goes into the realm of trial and error... playing with attack, release etc... and the LFOs themselves. It sounds to me that experience is the key player here - guess I'll just keep plugging away. I had hoped that there was some sort of more pragmatic approach, but like anything, the more your practice, the better you'll get! EDIT : Forgot to say, yes, have long been into applying chorus, flange, delays etc to the resulting synth sounds... and even multi layering with different EQs, rates of modulation etc. As implied from others, trying to unpick all of this can be a nightmare... especially when you hear a phaser effect and mistake it's phase rate as the synth sound LFO!

Whats the finish on your bass? Got a pic of the damage - it may be possible to get a good (=invisible) repair. Of course, that you can your drummer to pay for. This is what p1sses me off - it's never you that damages your instrument, some other clown will make sure that they do it for you.

[quote name='Subbeh' timestamp='1453134819' post='2956710'] I feel much the same way about the Paul Grey/Slipknot sig Ibanez ATK. Always fancied an ATK but the lefties don't come up too often. I've seen a few of the Paul Grey ones crop up but no way could I live with the inlays. [/quote] Just googled. Man, that's some hideous inlays going down.

[quote name='Jellyfish' timestamp='1453128308' post='2956599'] Adding on from this, I reckon it's the signature sound of the player that really pushes the sales more than anything else, especially in the rock/metal side of things. Fieldy from Korn and his Ibanez K5 comes to mind as well! [/quote] I'd have bought this K5... if it didn't have K5 tat at the 12th fret and that shizz on the headstock... I wouldn't have wanted to sound anything like Fieldy either...

The standard method is 1200 wet and dry - used with water and washing up liquid... with everything taken off the body... trying to think of a way if I've seen anybody do it differently.

Is this for the body or the back of the neck? Or both?