fretmeister

What firmware did it have on it when you bought it?

My Sharona Nutbush City Limits Red House Sir Duke Big Bad Moon We’re not gonna take it The Real Me.

For small gigs and practice I use my main amp. It has a volume control.

The very moment the bass was sold the old owner doesn't get a say in what happens to it anymore. That could be if it was repainted, split for parts, used as a baseball bat or sold on for more money. It doesn't matter if that was the buyers intention or whether on the morning he got the bass he lost his job and needs some cash fast. To complain about what the new legitimate owner wants to do with his property is pathetic and infantile. A few years ago I sold a pair of Markbass cabs on here to a guy somewhere in europe. Might have been France. Can't remember. Anyway - after about 6 months he decided they weren't for him and put them up for sale. I didn't notice until a prospective buyer sent me a PM to demand to know what price I had sold them for (and it was really a "demand" and whether the current owner was ripping me off. Turned out that the prospective buyer didn't even think about shipping costs to another country (seller was doing an inclusive price) or market changes (the cabs had been discontinued and there was a bit more interest in them) or any other factor - like changing in shipping fees or even the use of a different speed of shipping service. He also seemed amazed that I genuinely did not give a flying flip at a rolling donut about the new price for the cabs, and he got quite upset that I wouldn't tell him the final sales price or the shipping cost to get them abroad in the first place. Apparently not divulging the content of private discussions is "against the community spirit" or some other bollocks. Absolute tool.

Nice. Looking forward to pics of the finished article.

It really is a cracking bit of kit. You can even decide to split each path again and have 1 sub path with a Cab model and 1 without. Or run your XLRs to the desk but then set the USB to do something different to record straight to a DAW.

What colour hardware are you having? Going to look lovely. Alas I reckon the chance of getting anything cleared by customs and delivered now before next weekend is exactly flip all.

You can run 2 instruments - use the main input for one and the Aux in (full fat) or a Loop return (LT) for the other. Then Just set Path A for 1 instrument, and Path B for the other and keep them completely separate. Just remember to also set the outputs separately as well so they go to different board channels. If neither path is stereo then just split left and right on the XLRs. If, for example the bass is mono but the guitar is stereo then use the 1/4 outputs for 1, and the XLRs for the other

Quite. My fingers don't have compressors and envelope filters in them. And for some strange reason my fingers can't make a set of rounds sound like flats.

There's always the Doug Wimbish model for a jazz neck option, and the Ian Hill is smaller front to back.

They both have their own sound and you'll probably like one more than the other. Great bass work has been recorded with both. That being said I don't think I could ever own a Ricky. I find the owner far too objectionable. If I did find one I really wanted I'd have to buy used to make sure he didn't get any money. And then I'd probably change the logo to make it look like a copy.

You need to remember that about half of them will be creationists and thus don't get an opinion on anything to do with maths.

'm using a Yamaha DXR10 for both and am finding it very good. As with most at that price point it has a fan which can be a little annoying if playing when watching the TV I'm halfway wondering whether to upgrade to the Barefaced FR800 but I want to try that with guitar first. At some point I'll have to arrange a trip to BF and take my Helix with me to find out.

IVe got the Red strings on my countryman and it’s a big improvement

Go read the policy terms and try again. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm Effectively if you do something which you *think* might be a pertinent / material fact then you must disclose. While there can be innocent non-disclosure do you, as a policyholder, really want to be dealing that sort of argument (which might eventually involve the Courts) while you are needing to claim on a policy? The practicalities outweigh the technical arguments. If the insurer refuses to pay it may well take you months or years to get the Ombudsman or the Courts to find in your favour.

Nice to hear that one again!

It's not just "is it professional" or "is it a hobby" etc. it is a combination of all factors. That is what the underwriting process is for. Financial journalists often don't get a policy loading because they sit in an office all day. Music journalists get shafted because they are expected to be out at gigs when thousands of drunk people are around. Like I said - it's up to the insurer to decide if it's important. Not you. Either they will say they don't care, or they will tell you it is pertinent. You won't know if it is unless you ask them.

Not true. My accountant took me through the details of this common misconception. However if you do submit a few years of loss showing accounts then the HMRC do sometimes tell you to stop bothering them with it. You have to show that the books aren't being cooked to look like a loss.

Probably right in that regard - but if you were booked to give a presumably professional talk - then insurers will view that as having a second place of work. That's the issue. That could be viewed as non-disclosure, particularly if it is a regular occurance. Why is the talk being given? Is it for fun? Or is it because you hope it will lead to business opportunities? Like a sales fair - or offering "Free" training in the hope of getting new customers? As the insurer sets the terms of their own products they get to define what "non-disclosure" means. That also means that not all insurers have the same definition - it will be close but not exact. What is the point of risking it over a trivial extra amount? (Cue those saying it is not "trivial" while having the equivalent of 3 months mortgage payments on their pedal board)

Payment = job. Even if you make a loss, as no doubt most of us do. That is the only definition the insurers will care about. Not the "I do it for the love of it" or the "I'm just happy to cover the cost of a set of strings every now and again" type explanations. The amount of hours you put in has no bearing on it at all. I only perform magic for a few hours per month. Nevertheless that involves travel to different venues and I get paid for it. Some years I make a little profit. Others I don't. It's still a job. The fact that I have a regular Mon-Fri job as well also has no bearing on whether the magic is a job. Musicians (and magicians) tend to perform in the evenings. Travel Time of day changes policy risks. Rush hour - higher risk. After 9am and before 4pm - lower risk. 5pm onwards - higher risk again etc. Also - if you are travelling with others they want to know if the policy might be called upon to cover loss if earnings - not just for you, but anyone else you might damage. That all goes in the underwriting decision process. While a forum poll would be interesting, all it would do is show the number of people putting themselves at risk of their insurers not paying out. It won't have any influence on policy terms or underwriters decision process. A far more useful poll would be to ask whether people actually check the policy terms before paying for the policy to see if it actually meets their needs. I'm betting most will buy on price alone and then complain later when it meet expectations.

You weren't booked as an act for an open night.

If I get paid then I declare it. Doesn't matter if that is a music or magic gig, same applies.

Nope. you're not getting paid for it. If you get any money at all then it's a job. Paid Hobbies are still jobs. "Doesn't even cover the overheads" is still a job. If you want to get really picky - free beer and crisps for the band = payment = job.

That seams entirely reasonable to me, after all the policy cost was based on the information provided. It also seems to be a lack of common sense to not tell an insurer things that you suspect would change the price or the cover available. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who fail to inform an insurer of all pertinent facts and then complain when the insurer won't pay out. If you were buying a policy for your favourite bass you wouldn't be leaving out information that might mean no cover - so why take a different approach for the car?