fretmeister

[url="https://www.darkglass.com/creations/alpha-omicron/"]https://www.darkglas.../alpha-omicron/[/url] Short vid for the moment, but no doubt more to come. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6LC1bXK1W0[/media] More detailed vids are below. Down there!

I got two 4x12 bass cabs, 3 basses, kit bag, pedal board, 16 channel powered desk, 2 PA cabs and 2 people in my old Focus estate. It managed about 40 mph then. The main issue was the weight, not the volume of kit.

[quote name='naxos10' timestamp='1504337048' post='3364140'] A very simplistic amp with instrument and pre-amp inputs only, no 'tone' controls, tuner, USB socket and speaker outputs. Then produce a range of pre-amp/foot pedals/plug-in modules for any other requirements. There could be a pre/power combination as an alternative. This gives the bassist the ability to add and change as required. [/quote] Mark Bass did that. It died on its arse.

Try the pedal into the FX return on the amp, thus bypassing the amp preamp section. You might like that too.

There are several compressor choices in there. From the basic Dynacomp type though to complex ones. I can make it match my Origin and DG pedal compressors. Also - I am in love with the GK amp model. To the point I am stupidly considering buying one!!

Official cases go in the loft. No name cases get sold or donated to the local music school. Basses live in a rack. They go in mono Vertigo bags if I'm taking them anywhere.

Just remembered the most important thing. NO BLOODY FAN! If AV guys can build 1u 2000W power amps without fans then so can bass amp makers.

There are several online serial number search sites already. But not even Fender can tell you the month that a bass was actually finished (I tried to find out for a strat I own)

Andy bought my Darkglass Duality. Quick payment - good all the way.

I love it when my callouses are like that! Means no pain in a long gig.

That would be "contributory negligence" But also - if they were hurt doing their own criminal act (such as taking your kit) then you'll be alright.

I think I know that drummer too! I never leave the gear unsupervised. It's just not worth it.

Errr... I saw Jason Newsted eating a well dodgy looking kebab at Donington in 1991. Clearly wanted something he couldn't get back stage. Like the raging shits or something. That's the best I've got.

There you go then! It could happen to anyone.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504108554' post='3362740'] I'm in the lucky position of having virtually no assets of marketable value; even to the point of owning duff kidneys and poor eyesight. Good luck squeezing pips out of this lemon..! Despite this vulnerability, my conscience prevents me from being wilfully negligent and causing harm to others, so claims for responsibility would not arise. An accident, on the other hand, is just that: an accident, and should not be the subject of a claim for anything. To paraphrase: 'stuff' happens. That's Life, and should not become fodder for leeches. I have the same outlook concerning 'stuff' that I suffer. If it's someone's fault, redress could be due. If it's not, then it's not. That's Life. [/quote] Wilfully negligence and not-wilfully negligent is still negligence. The common thought that all claimants and defendants in these situations have is identical: "It won't happen to me" And yet it does. To tens of thousands of people every year. And in 99% of those the person causing it was not "wilfully negligent" in the slightest. Just normally negligent. You are effectively claiming that those people were "wilfully" negligent and that is nonsense. The vast majority of them are just people getting on with their lives when they do something or fail to do something that results in injury and losses to someone else. It's not wilful, it's not criminal, it's not culpable (and all those things are different) it is just poor decisions by humans. Your position seems to suggest you believe yourself to be infallible. Perhaps you do have a greater ability than all other humans. Perhaps your ability to judge a situation is the greatest any human has ever managed. But would you claim that ability was fully functional 24 hour per day, every day. Irrespective of mood, illness, amount of sleep, simple distraction etc etc? Never made a bad decision about anything in your life? Everyone has.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504105867' post='3362726'] If you're the insurance company and you win the claim, what's the point if the defendant has no insurance. You still have to pay the person you insured and you won't get your £1m back. [/quote] The insurance company does not make the claim. They defend claims from others. The claimant makes the claim. The defendant defends the claim. If there is an insurance company for the defendant then they will pay out on the claim. Or they will successfully defend it at their cost. The lay defendant (the poor bass player) doesn't have to dip into his pocket for anything more than an excess. Sometimes claims are made against defendants who don't have insurance because it is still worth it. Perhaps they have a house. Or a nice car. An asset search will be done to see if there is anything worth going for.. Sometimes even a heavily mortgaged house means it is still worth making a claim - because mortgage payments will still be made, the debt can be attached to the property. So when there is enough equity in the house, then the sale of the house can be forced. Mortgage company gets their bit first to pay that off. Then the attached debts get paid off. The balance goes to the house owner. Or sometimes there is nothing left for the house owner. Or maybe it is someone who rents but has a good job. Then you get a garnishee order and a payment plan. The damages will be deducted at source - it won't go to the defendant to then send a bit per month onwards - the employer will be ordered to remove the amount set by the court before the defendant ever gets it. Assets will be assessed next to the likely spend to win the action. If that looks do-able then the claim will continue.

I was amazed - it was instantly noticeable when I picked it up. It's a bit concerning really - I was going to get the routs in my Marleaux enlarged a little bit so I could fit a pair of EMG soapbars in. But I might weigh one of the existing Delanos first to see. I don't want that bass getting any heavier.

I knew a guy who found out he had been replaced in that sort of way in reverse He was told a gig had been cancelled. He happened to go to the pub for a drink and saw the posters were still up and discovered the gig was still on. He then looked at their facebook page and noted the photos were the same, but they had been cropped to remove him. In one instance he was in the middle, so someone had used MS Paint to draw a pillar where he was! I probably shouldn't have laughed!

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504104478' post='3362713'] In a 4 piece band you're looking at another £120 a year. Not a great deal I suppose. The thing is, it does make you easier to sue and it give some the venue an opportunity to side step its responsibilities. No doubt the request that you have insurance is from the venues insurer who realise that a bunch of penniless musicians is going to be impossible to recover money from or even if they have money but no insurance will end up in a protracted legal battle where they can only recover £200k at most. [/quote] It does not make it easier to sue in the slightest. It might make recovery after suing easier but it does not make it easier to win the claim in the first place. When I see (sorry but I must) bollocks like that the person saying it has never heard of QOCS either. Qualified One Way Costs Shifting. In the good old days if you successfully DEFENDED a claim for injury then the claimant would be ordered to pay your costs back. They lost, they pay the costs. Sounds quite fair. For injury work that does not exist anymore So someone comes after you. You defend the claim. You don't have insurance so you get a local solicitor involved. He does a good job and you win. Since 2013 your opponent DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY YOUR COSTS BACK. So you've spent 3 years defending it and probably paid £20,000 in fees WINNING the action. Tough. you don't get it back. And there's no legal aid for injury work anymore. You've won and still £20,000 out of pocket. If you've got PL then they will pay the costs of defending it. Win or lose.

That's the way I look at it. It's also what I don't understand sometimes with attitudes to policies. None of us like buying insurance and we all bitch about the cost. But we can easily be on the other end of it - and the economic reality is a choice: do I want an insurance policy that is £10 cheaper? Or do I want policies that would properly compensate me if I happened to be the injured person?

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504098832' post='3362670'] So when the drummer punches someone, you're all responsible? Where is the line? [/quote] Nope. That's not negligent. It's criminal, but not negligent.

Wedding gigs can be like that. Especially the posh ones.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504092265' post='3362594'] No, that's my point and position. That's the Law, not Justice. If I did no wrong, then I refuse to be held responsible. As to the 'ambulance chasers', of course the victim(s) of another person's fault should be compensated. Why is that even in doubt..? The daft part is when folks put in spurious claims, not because they're just, but because the Law allows it. [/quote] Myth buster alert. Spurious claims hardly ever happen. In fact the reason why they hardly ever happen is because the lawyers won't get paid.Those claims do however appear in the press every time one does happen because the insurance industry use it as an excuse to increase premiums with someone to blame.Those claims make up less than 6% of all claims made and yet they get 100% of the press coverage. In fact there is even a thing called "Fundamental Dishonesty" Example. You have a car accident. You break a leg and need 6 months off work. You have physiotherapy and other stuff. Within the small bits you claim for taxi rides to your physiotherapy treatment. You can't climb on a bus with the cast on and you can't drive. so you use a taxi. nothing wrong with that. Except you claim for 20 taxi rides round trips and your physiotherapist confirms you only had 10 appointments. This was easy for you to check. You might not have all the receipts, and some cabbies won't give receipts. But you remember always using a taxi for physio visits. You could have called the physio to ask how many visits you had, and then claim for the same number of taxi round trips. But you don't. You don't even try. You claim for 20 because you want to. In the old days when the claim reached court, or the other side discovered only 10 physio appointments you would lose the extra 10 taxi fares and not recover them. Now - it is deemed to be "Fundamental Dishonesty" and it causes your claim to fail. Not just £100 for the taxi rides you didn;t have - but for the whole lot. Even the stuff that can't be argued about. your loss of earnings and the fact that your leg was broken. Doesn;t matter. You get nothing. you took the piss so you get nothing, and you pay the costs of the other side insurance company for trying to take the piss. Admiral Insurance broke ranks a year or 2 ago and really pissed off their fellow insurers. They admitted that over 50% of their turnover was NOT generated by the sales in of insurance products, but was generated by selling claims referrals. Referral Fees are now banned. Admiral admitted that insurance policy costs would have to increase because they can no longer sell the information. So when you see an insurer complaining about ambulance chasers, it was them that set up the first Claims Management Companies, and it was them who argued against Claims Management Companies being regulated. They are now, and they get shut down fast for breaking the law. Don't confuse the Claims Management Companies with those who actually represent the parties (either side) - they are not the same thing. The "arguments" trotted out in the press are not new. They are the same as they have been since 2000. Point is - the entirely valid concerns at the time were addressed in 2003 with fixed fees for many low value claims. Then again by increasing the max claim size that would have limited fees. And then again. And then the type of low value claim was expanded to include public liability, employers liability, occupiers etc etc. And yet the same arguments from 2000 are still used. The insurers have no choice of course - they exist for the benefit of their shareholders and must find new ways to both increase prices and profit margin by lowering payouts. But they don't need new arguments because the old ones still work. Recently a thing called the "Discount Rate" was adjusted. It was in the paper. Basically if you have a catastrophic injury and get all of your future earnings as a lump sum, that sum is subjected to a discount because you got it all at once and you are supposed to invest it to make it last.The amount of discount is set by law - worked out to move with inflation and investment strengths and that sort of thing. The government, with lobbying by the insurance industry, decided not to adjust the Discount Rate for about 10 years, even though the discount should have been lowered (injured person gets a bit more money). Despite that being the Law, the govt(both sides of the house) "never got round to it." Recently they did. The rate is linked in law to various financial factors. It's an easy calculation. Investment is currently negative so the "discount" is actually negative. So If you were going to get £1000, now you get £1100. This recognises the sh*te economy. The rate should have been adjusted 10 years ago. But it was in favour of the insurers so they kept very quiet. Now it has been adjusted accurately they are complaining about it hurting their profit levels. They haven't once mentioned that for 10 years every person who had a catastrophic injury (doesn't affect small claims) has been Under Compensated - quite possibly by millions for birth brain damage cases. Not a single mention of that.