fretmeister

I've owned a couple of Jap and US Jackson guitars in the past and they've all been superb instruments. Lovely necks and easy to play.

Piano scores. Loads of low b stuff then

I don't like mixing speaker types. EQ settings for 1 cab won't necessarily be right for a different cab. If you have something you like and want more of it - add more of the same. Don't add different.

I was not aware of these. great idea. Quite tempted for my P Bass now.

GHS Pressurewounds are very nice. As long as you don’t play a 5. The B is awful. 4 string sets are excellent though.

It’s an ineffective tone control, that doesn’t do a lot. Or at least does nothing like the description of it about letting clarity through as you turn down the tone. It’s crap.

After the age of 30 the top treble freqs start being very muted anyway. That's why those "mosquito" teenager repelling noise makers work for teenagers and not the middle aged.

Nice narrow nut on the 5 string - 44.45mm That's stingray 5 land! I am interested - if it's light enough!

There won't be a winner. That is not my intention at all. I just want all the information. That's it.

Neither. I am not clutching at pearls I am genuinely concerned that the original thread title (and first post) would be taken as gospel. This forum does have old and experienced members and also has young and inexperienced ones. I can assure you I argue the same way with everybody, friends, family, everybody.

New title "John Hall sez ear plugs don't work" You used the name of someone known to be massively litigious? Strewth.

Do you care for the others that asked the questions? Or do you not care for any of those who question you?

Just as much chance as you answering the questions asked of you. Questions that you definitely have the answer to but have decided not to answer.

If I'm looking at the crowd I don't have to care what it looks like! Last night I put rounds on my P bass for the first time in years, just to experiment with the MB. I liked it a lot. Might leave them on for a while until I can get back in a band setting.

The Digitech Polara has a "Halo" mode which is their shimmer and it's pretty good, but it certainly doesn't have a great deal of tweekable parameters. I mention it because it would probably help you rule it out if that effect is what you really need.

You're a Health and Safety advisor and you don't think your OP is a problem? I am speechless! What next? Consultant Oncologist Smith says "Chemo doesn't work" DCI Plod says "The Offences against the Person Act wasn't enacted properly so it doesn't apply" Accountant Mr Jones says "Don't pay your taxes" In those regulated positions such a statement would be enough to get the person in trouble with their regulatory body.

The NHS website confirms they assist. Earplugs are sold with attenuation specs that have to be supported by testing to comply with advertising rules and Health and Safety Regulations. Thus there is ample proof they are effective. You have also been provided with analogy such as the crash helmet that still means a wearer is at risk of head injury. To sell earplugs "that do not work" would be a criminal offence of fraud, as well as contravening the various Sale of Goods statutes and Consumer Protection Regulations. Using standard dictionary definitions of the words you used in your title and in your original post there is no other way to read it. It is obviously and demonstrably inaccurate. If this forum was subject to newspaper oversight from the PCC a retraction or correction or clarification may well have been ordered. No earplug maker claims they protect against 100% of hearing damage. No PPE maker of any type would make such a claim. But they do have to show that what they claim about their product is true - particularly for any formal safety standards markings. A steel toe boot is very protective - unless you drop 3 tons on it. Does that mean it doesn't work? No. It will have specs as to impact resistance and deformity under load. I do not have a habit of making demands on anyone and I am not bullying you. I am however arguing robustly and pointing out the flaws in your position. The only personal thing about that is that you make the original claim. Please do not assume robust argument is anything other than robust argument. You may find my tone strident. Frankly I am unconcerned. I am far more worried that someone might take your initial post as gospel and stop wearing earplugs. That reader might not read the rest of the thread where you either ignore questions, move goalposts or backtrack from your original post. You are a moderator on a site where the members are often exposed to high volume levels. Claiming that a proven method of noise attenuation doesn't work, without caveat, is irresponsible. When I, and others - including your fellow moderators - have asked you to clarify what was said you have ignored those requests. Even the simple request from WoT "Did he tell you they literally don’t work?" you have ignored. Perhaps you didn't see the post. Now I have drawn your attention to it. It is a simple question. If the "expert" literally said they don't work, then this would be an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence to over-turn decades of accepted medical advice. If the "expert" did not say it then you expose the inaccuracy of your Original Post. It must be one or the other. It is not unreasonable to expect you to answer such a simple question that is of great importance to anyone who gigs at volume. Perhaps there was additional information. Perhaps the expert said "They literally don't work.... if you are using a road drill all day." That would be a very pertinent matter you neglected to mention and would massively change the applicability of the information in the Original Post. As a moderator, presumably you would delete medical advice posted by others that was demonstrably harmful? Breaches of the Cancer Act for example? Claims that some home-made concoction can cure a condition? Some idiot claiming that a mash of herbs is a better choice than chemo? Are you not concerned that your Original Post might cause others to abandon ear plugs, thus leading them to harm? This is a forum of noise lovers. It's of interest to everybody here. I think that brings additional responsibilities as to the accuracy of what is passed on as an expert opinion about hearing protection.

I don't have a .47 so I'll try with the .22 then. On P basses without this silly circuit I tend to adjust the tone control quite a lot for different songs. Hopefully the .22 will do the job.

That in no way affects the validity or more to the point invalidity of the OP's comment "Ear plugs don't work." That is demonstrably incorrect and yet instead of addressing it or editing the post he avoids the question. This is not an issue of whether ear plugs are perfect or not. No Personal Protective Equipment item avoids risk 100%. The point is whether they assist in lowering risk and damage. There is no other way to read "Ear plugs don't work" than as stated. If the comments of the unknown audiologist have been conveyed correctly they were irresponsible.

No idea!

Sandbergs are slightly smaller than a Fender, not quite Fender shape though. And if weight is the issue their Superlight series weighs under 7lb.

He's the only reason I'm tempted. He's a great actor.

I haven't seen that yet. Not a fan of M Night Can'tspellhisname films.

After a couple of weeks with it I think I can add my Markbass Marcus Limited to the "awesome" list. Took me a while to get the hand of the VERY powerful EQ. Even tiny little movements can drastically adjust the sound. It's also very sensitive to different basses. P with flats needs a completely different EQ than my 'Berg with steel rounds. The differences in different basses comes through very clearly. It is the punchiest class D amp I've ever heard. Very dynamic indeed. I usually use my Helix and a pair of studio monitors in the house but I've left this amp set up for easy use. I like it!