mcgraham

Exams in Leeds the very next day. Two of them. Shame to miss it, keep meaning to get along to one of these. Great job organising this Pris! Props! Mark

[quote name='alexclaber' post='291698' date='Sep 25 2008, 12:28 PM']Yeah, it's really hard to get past that! But even the sensitivity figure on its own doesn't tell you how loud the cab can go where it really matters - in the lows - because few cabs can handle their rated power in the lows. I'm still puzzling over how to present quantitative specs for my designs that won't sell them short whilst remaining honest! At least with all these forums you can build a fair picture of what a given cab can do based on everyone's experiences. Alex[/quote] It's true. Although it's just as easy to end up with loads of opinions/reviews saying 'this cab rocks' after trying it once, having compared it with nothing else and having never used it in a band context. And we're the ones who buy based on these sorts of reviews! Perhaps showing SPL (or whatever the relevant type is!)charts together with a simple explanation of features and understanding for interpreting what they show. DiMarzio do a simple bar graph for representing strong lows, mids and highs, perhaps that would be a more useful method of representation? Mark

+1. I have to admit, it's only after reading various articles on sensitivity that I realise how sucked in we've all been into wattage ratings... and I [i]still[/i] can't help but think "man, 1500W! that's a beast" Mark

There may be a good reason why this would not work, but could you not feasibly have an angled stand made for a given cabinet to yield your preferred angle? Something that would ensure the amp was secure at whatever angle, e.g. a metal frame/brace, wooden frame with a right angle cut into it etc. I'm sure I'd seen someone with a GK combo and extension speaker together with an angled stand for both to direct their cones more at his eardrums so I'm sure such things already exist, but the wooden block/frame idea would be a lot cheaper. Mark

[quote]But if you want to go low and loud small isn't part of the equation.[/quote] Sorry for what is potentially an off topic question, what if you wanted (hypothetically) to go low and small? From my limited understanding, it seems like that would also be difficult, as 'lows' are most easily achieved in the real world by increased cab volume. Is this correct? CK, what sort of angle would you be after in order to get the cab pointing at your ears? w.r.t. floor... Mark

Hi there I'm happy to sit down with you and discuss goals and ways to help achieve them. Please see my post in the bassist available forum for what I can offer. Mark

[quote]Is the wenge doing what it said on the tin? I mean growl-wise by the way...[/quote] +1, Indeed, it would be interesting to hear if it does the growl you were after. And congratulations on a fabulous bass. Loving the chocolatey-ness of the whole package. Mark

[quote]I think it is going to be an alder body, maple neck, plain ebony board. Still debating what top/matching headstock to go for...I'm going to see if he has anything in stock that he can offer. I'm trying to keep the custom costs down and would rather put the money elsewhere. All being good the pickups should be a customer Nordstrand and a Dimarzio vintage-p90 soapbars. I sold it to fund repairs and on the other side, to concentrate more on my bass playing. But as you have said, I am really missing playing it. Now I have a bit of money "spare" I've decided to get one made. A bit like a joint xmas/birthday gift for myself by the time it is made[/quote] Sounds good! Even though I'd said I don't think the wood will impact the tone massively, I reckon that a dark rosewood would be a safer bet, at least because of the drying/shrinkage problem that ebony has. It's also harder to work with than rosewood. Also, I think that P90s will sound great. Really digging the big single coil sound on guitars at present. Once upon a time, I had a go at the Charlie Hunter style of playing and it really benefitted my playing mentally, to do both things at the same time. In reality, the work required didn't match up to the fruits of my labour if I'm honest, so it joined the likes of the Chapman stick idea. I have more or less decided (for me) that if I want to play hold down both bass and melody at the same time and effectively, then I need to take up piano; anything else is just a compromise. Mark

The best musicians I've met and played with are the most teachable ones. That doesn't mean those that know the least, that doesn't mean those that know the most, it simply means those who are most keen to learn and most keen to play. Those who retain their humility in spite of all they learn or have learned. And from those passions they derive lasting creativity. At least IMO and IME. [quote]I think I would choose the fun path over the tedious path any day of the week, regardless of the outcome at the end. If that's short sighted, then fine, I think I can live with that...[/quote] I sincerely hope that is not your approach to all things in life. I really do. Mark

When Ped mentioned the basscube, I thought it would be a good cheaper alternative to Bergantino. Alas, it is only a good alternative to Bergantino, certainly NOT cheap Mark

Thanks for clarifying that Waldo, I do appreciate it. [quote]Back in the dim distant past, I got a guitar for Christmas. I taught myself first by playing along with blues records without having the faintest clue what I was doing, just using my ears, and figured out that certain notes worked better than others. When somebody eventually showed me the minor pentatonic and blues scales, I realised I already knew them and was applying them. I just called them something else. If somebody had asked me what I was doing, I would have been able to communicate it verbally, it just would have taken longer than saying 'G minor pentatonic'.[/quote] Great example, and exactly what I was alluding to when I was saying that if you don't use theory you can be wasting a lot of time trying to learn something that is readily available. Mark

[quote]Wow, I post my personal experience, not even an argument, and I get people jumping down my throat insinuating that i'm some sort of arrogant person who doesn't 'do' theory and have drawn comparisons with a monkey and a typewriter. That's nice.[/quote]I apologise if you felt I was jumping down your throat. Whilst your post was *more or less* one of sharing experience, it was sadly coloured by your finishing comment: [quote]There seems to be an air of 'learning theory will make you a better person' around here, that's taking it a bit too far.[/quote]Which effectively belittled all points made in the favour of theory, even the well reasoned ones (IMO). This, followed by Wil's mildly humorous but generally blunt comment spurred me on to defend my point, as your post put out the implication that my point had been badly missed by at least two of you. Whilst you may not have been intentionally arguing a point, I for one felt like you were misconstruing comments of 'theory is good and helpful', to be 'theory is everything'. Again, just my opinion... [quote]Is it actually that hard to people to accept that some people just have a good ear, can come up with things in their head and are happy to jam songs out?[/quote] Not at all. I would hasten to point out (as I've said above and in many previous posts) that knowledge of theory is good and helpful, though not essential. What is important is the ability to use what you have to get what you want. And have fun whilst doing so. Note: I hope this does not substantially offend you, I simply wish to point out where I'm coming from. Mark

EDIT: In response to Wil's preceding post... If you're happy with that, then great I for one hear a lot of things in my mind, but I also hear a lot of things in music that I have never thought of, and I also see theory that makes little to no sense in the context of what I already know. Without the second and third ones, I would only be playing what I started out with already in my head, never expanding, and without the theory, a lot of the things I hear (now and prior to now) would never have made their way onto my instrument. Mark

I agree, using your ears is vital, and ultimately what tells you whether something 'works' or not. However, there is a great deal of wasted time in the method you are setting out. Say you want to do 'x' to a song, e.g. add some tension, harmonise a melody, change a chord, reduce the number of chords etc. If you have even limited theory knowledge, you will have an inkling of where to look for said 'x' factor. If you do not have any theory knowledge, it's a level playing field and you will have to noodle til you find something that works. That's only identifying the information, you still haven't applied it. That requires the use of your ears, whether you figured out something using theory or without. Therefore, by having a good idea of where to look (from a basic/limited knowledge of theory), you save yourself an awful lot of time, and cut out the noodling and hoping for something to come out of it (see below). On top of that, you are building on the shoulders of musical giants who have done most of the leg work for you. It's simply up to you to find an application for what they've worked out theoretically. Mark P.S. I fully advocate noodling with the sole intent of seeing what interesting ideas come out, I do it all the time, it's a key feature of my practice routine; but in situations where you already know what effect/change you want, it's a less than ideal method of pulling ideas out.

Are you going for electric or electro-acoustic? I have to be honest, I reckon that the wood choices for electric guitar are of even less consequence than they are for bass. Saying that , I'd suggest alder for an even balanced sound, but if you want something a bit warmer then I'd suggest mahogany. If you're lucky you might even be able to get some figured mahogany for at least a top like on that AJ Fodera. If you were going for electro-acoustic I'd recommend mahogany or rosewood. Walnut can be a bit dead sounding (IME). My favourite sounding acoustic wood combo is/was rosewood back and sides with sitka spruce top. Sounded sooo crisp and clean, it was wonderful. I thought you sold it as you were primarily focusing on bass. Have you been sorely missing 8 string playing? Mark

Forgive me, for I really feel like you've missed the point of what has been said, at least what I've said about this. [quote]My experience is that any knowledge of theory that I had before taking up bass had little or no impact on my development as a bass player[/quote] My question to you is: did you try to apply it? See my post [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=26875&view=findpost&p=280444"]here[/url], 2nd paragraph. If you [i]had[/i] the knowledge of theory, but did not attempt to apply it, it is little wonder that it did nothing for you. Information is passive; things are unlikely to just jump out at you unless you choose to apply it. Hence the mere knowledge of theory is essentially meaningless and, at least in a musical sense, worthless. Many times I've shown someone something in theory, that they've just looked blankly at me and said 'what use is that to me?'. I then give/play them numerous examples that they may know of the application of said information, or demonstrate something I came up with to give the information some substance, something they can sink their teeth into and identify as useable. Does that make sense? [quote]What did make me a better player was just simply being in a band.[/quote] That's wonderful! Playing in a band is a great way to apply what you know, academic theory based knowledge, or simply what you know you like and hoping to stumble across stuff that's good. Again, see my post [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=26875&view=findpost&p=280444"]here[/url], 3rd paragraph. Mark

[quote]There seems to be an air of 'learning theory will make you a better person' around here, that's taking it a bit too far.[/quote] [quote]"Theory snobs looking down their noses at the opinions of those who don't tread the same path - not as subtle as they used to be"[/quote] I'm just surprised that you think that is what we've been saying throughout this thread. If you think this is the case please re-read my posts. Mark

I finally got to hear the famous Maxwell Murder solo earlier this week. For the longest time I incorrectly assumed it'd be quite bland/dull. I stand totally corrected. I see [i]entirely[/i] why it's raved about so much. Cos it's great! Mark

You know, I don't think there is an emoticon that shows me hitting my head off a brick wall. I guess this post will have to do. Mark

Well, I got the album, and I'm about half way through listening to it. It starts a bit slow, but her characteristic odd/push-and-pull rhythms together with her identifying unison/harmony lines kick in, along with quite catchy phrasing. The arrangements are good, Martin Valihora [i]finally[/i] gets some solo room, Tony Grey's recorded tone is significantly better than on previous albums, Dave Fiuczynski's guitar tone fits in well with the rest of it, and Hiromi actually has some tasteful Nord sounds going on! To me, they addressed several niggling and/or irritating issues that've cropped up in albums prior to this one. It's not as intense as her original arrangements (so far) but anyone who likes virtuoso talent combined with a strong composition should have a listen to this. Mark

This may be an example of my more qualitative way of looking at things when it comes to execution of some theory, but I've found that using the altered scale (say G altered over G) is very similar to sidestepping except for that one note (being the G). Also, depending on which portions/notes of the scale you use, it can take on aspects similar to synthetic scales (i.e. H-W/W-H or full whole tone scale). And, as you've rightly said, is strongly connected to the melodic minor. As such I've not focused on that scale to a great extent, as what I've found it to offer to be more or less provided by other scales. But, I may as well look at it again! See if I can dig out some more new ideas. Mark