Killerfridge

The Japanese Metros are some of the best basses in the world, regardless of money; glwts

Also, please ignore everything ChatGPT says about chord progressions. It's pretty awful at that sort of thing, and regularly just makes stuff up. For instance, here's its take on Red Baron (which just goes G7, C7, and a unision line):
 

Quote

 

A common form of the A section is:

∣Am7∣D7∣Gmaj7∣Cmaj7∣

| F#m7b5 | B7b9 | Em7 | Am7 D7 |

The B section, or bridge, often shifts keys, perhaps to the relative major or a related dominant. A typical bridge might be:

∣Ebmaj7∣Abmaj7∣Dm7∣G7∣

 

2 hours ago, solo4652 said:

Right - I've run it past Chordify a few times, I've re-read Terry M's and Burns-bass posts (thank you both), and I've tried to trust my non-musical cloth ears. This is what I've come up with so far. Three main things to check - 2nd bar in intro (Cm? Bbm?), Bridge chords, and last bar in chord sequence after the key change (G# or B?) Here goes - please be gentle - my music theory is very limited, as you'll see.

 

Intro: |Cm      |Bbm      | F          | G#  G | 

 

Verses and chorus: | Cm       |Cm       |F         | G#  G |  

 

Bridge: |E         | E        |A         |A        

             |E         |E         |A         |A

             |D         |D        |G         |C#

 

Thereafter: |C#         |C#          |F#          |A  G#  |

So minor correction, I think it's:
Intro: | C   |Bb/C   |F    |Ab Bb|

Verse: | C   |Bb/C   |F    |Ab Bb|

Prechorus: |F   |Ab Bb |

Chorus: | C   |Bb/C   |F    |Ab Bb|

If I get time tonight, I'll see if I can't transcribe it for you when I get home

22 hours ago, bassmayhem said:

Today I got a response from them:
"Hey Roger,

Thank you for checking in and I hope you are well.

After some testing we have verified that the Luminal block is working and there is no bug causing a malfunction.

If you would like an aggressive compression with the FET compressor and especially if you are using a potentially low output bass,

an additional boost with a Gain block or another one of preference might be needed before the compressor, in addition to turning up the Input control setting.

Can you please verify if that is the case?"

 

Well, I ain't that pleased with the answer. The BUS Compressor works fine in comparison, but the need of an extra gain stage, stealing place in the signal chain, just to bump up the signal so the input in the Hyper Luminal will work well feels a bit unnecessary. They could trim the input gain control on the compressor block and save some space. I got an answer. Or - we all got an answer, since it wasn't me who brought up the matter in the first place.  

 

And - I don't want an aggressive compression; I want compression.  I think I'll stick to the BUS Compressor; it makes what I want it to do...

 

DG have responded on TB that the engineer is perhaps mistaken as they are still investigating the issue:

We’re still investigating the issue.

The message Chris shared was a response from one of our engineers, forwarded in good faith. Yet this is not a final verdict.

Anagram is thought to be a community-driven platform, which means we listen rather than set and forget.

Just reading through the other forum, and saw something interesting around the Hyper Luminal compressor, and that is: it doesn't compress. No matter than input level, threshold, or ratio, there is no gain reduction. Seems like a bug, but a very weird one!

Like everyone else, not last night but Monday; first jam night since my first child was born (and probably further than that) at the Woking Monday Night Jam. Had a great time, ran into @TrevorR and got to experience his excellent playing (and the generally very high quality of players there).

Note for future me: when the crazy fusion guitarist running the jam asks you "do you know Spain?" the correct answer is not "uhh, yeah I think?", because that's how, 4 songs later, you find yourself frantically trying to fumble your way through it! Still, would probably do it again

47 minutes ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

Probably mentioned already,  but the lack of a 3.5mm stereo audio in or Bluetooth connectivity for audio is a bit of an omission as far as I'm concerned.  Never understood why manufacturers add a headphone jack, but not the means to mix in external sources. 

Apparently Bluetooth is "coming soon", it was supposed to launch with it but a last minute bug was found

2 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

So is this part of the same story or has the world gone a little mad? I hadn't heard of the Old Time Sailors, so I did a search on them and it seems they are tied up on a modern day slavery probe in devon? I mean that sounds a bit worse than just nicking a few songs.

 

I'm sorry, what?!

14 hours ago, joeabass said:

the SVT thing, which I think I mentioned, is clean but I think I’m confused around why this is so surprising? 300W SVTs (at least the two I’ve had) don’t break up on their own without monumental volumes so I don’t find it that surprising that the model wouldn’t have a drive section.

It's surprising because every other implementation of an "SVT in a box" model models the breakup e.g. SansAmp VTBass, Origin Effects Super Vintage, Ampeg SGT-DI, QC Ampeg Model, Helix Ampeg Model etc. That's one of the key advantages of a model over the real thing, I can get the very aurally pleasing breakup without needing the monumental volume. But even the SVT Classic has a gain control that creates the SVT drive sound (albeit, quite loudly):

I genuinely don't understand what's so surprising about our bewilderment that the amp models don't have a gain control, or apparently model breakup in any way?

1 hour ago, Sibob said:

Oh sorry, I misunderstood then. Yeah I’d expect a dynamic amp effect to break-up in the standard way. If it doesn’t, that is somewhat odd.

 

Si

No problems, it's been a confusing topic because it's a bit weird. There's been lots of "well maybe it's a capture", "if you add a distortion block in front of it it sounds great", "I only use a clean sound anyway" answers, but nothing clarifying what's actually happening

22 minutes ago, Sibob said:

I’m not sure I quite understand your first sentence?! In that case, you’re not making the amp break-up, you’re just introduce a drive circuit before it, which is then being amplified. 
The test would be putting a significant clean boost in front of the amp capture, and seeing if that drives it.

 

With no horse in the race, I too would not expect an amp capture to break-up, as it doesn’t have the information to do that in the same way a dynamic, controllable effect does, it’s just a snapshot of a single sound. I’d probably expect digital clipping (bad) before you achieved anything useable. But happy to be proven wrong of course.

 

Si

But we aren't taking about a capture here, but a traditional model such as you would get on an HXStomp or plugin i.e. it has all the expected controls of an SVT (bass, mid, mid selection, treble, ultra low switch, ultra high switch) except gain, and apparently has infinite headroom (within digital limits). It just seems like a bit of a weird design choice not being able to make the amps break up in any way beside digital clipping

I think my most "sizzly" bass is my Warwick Thumb with EMGs and John East UniPre

30 minutes ago, krispn said:

All these things can be worked out in updates etc. There’s many things folk want to see implemented day one and they possible should have been but look at the potential. 
 

Not gonna convince everyone but if feels like a strong start that will get better.

This is what I mean by "mistake" - as in, not working as intended. It feels like such an obvious omission that it can't be intended 

45 minutes ago, joeabass said:

Captures are a still image of how the gear was set at the time. If you wanted a capture to be distorted you’d be best capturing it in that state. Most captures come with multiple versions which are the gear in different states. 
 

the drives sound great in the anagram though I’d just use the SVT model and drive it with pedal models/NAM captures. 

I don't doubt it sounds great. It just feels like a bit of an oversight that you can't get a model known for it's driven sound to "drive" without additional models or using captured.

It's like they added a SansAmp BDDI pedal model, but it didn't have the drive knob. In that case, I don't think "Well, the clean sounds are great, and you could just a distortion pedal before it/capture of a BDDI if you want a driven sound" would be considered an acceptable answer.

It feels to me like a mistake rather than an actual design choice

Yeah I mean if you compare it to the Quad Cortex models and captures:

Model: has "input" and "master" controls that both introduce distortion in slightly different ways (master sounds more wooly, like the power tubes overdriving). They are essentially simulations of the underlying circuits, so they simulate the effects of the preamp tubes and the power tubes

Capture: has a generic "input" that sounds very similar to the input control on the model, like changing the volume control on the instrument going into an amp set at a certain level. I can use it to clean up a "driven" SVT capture, or drive a "clean" capture. I imagine the NAM captures do the same thing/something very similar

@Dood I'm keen to understand if the rumors about not being able to get a "driven" sound out of the SVT amp model is true

8 minutes ago, tauzero said:

 

Is that obligatory?

I don't think so, but I think it's quite an interesting etymology of a very commonly used term

3 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Thanks, especially for this^^, which brings sense to the use of the term. 

Do all that use the term know and understand from where it derives..? 

I'm going to play the "I knew what it meant and where it came from before it was cool card", but only because I found myself doing research to understand what the Steely Dan son "Gaslighting Abbie" was about, many a year a go

I just heard from Ivan that the Ampeg and GK models don't have a gain control, and you can't push them into distortion. Seems like a bit of an oversight if true

If you want an example of his improv skills, check out this one. Genuinely funny:

8 hours ago, kwmlondon said:

That was a really good take. Enjoyed that. Cheers for sharing.

 

If you can stretch to a nearly 55 min video, Adam Neely's PhD thesis-level discussion of miming and authenticity is incredible. It also shows all the tricks of how you can knock up a faked video - it's an eye-opener. I knew about comping, that's been done since the first days of multi-track recording, but this is amazing:

 

It's good, but I think it misses some key points. Janek and his wife Chelsea address it very well here, especially around how "we have no evidence that fakery is bad for self esteem", except we have a litany of evidence in young women and facetuning:

33 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

More.

 

 

Seems to be a real ‘hole.

I think this one was the most damning. Just a total ding-dong as described by someone who it sounds like tried to work quite hard with him. Like, why would you do no promotion for a gig that's been setup for you; even a basic bar band will promote a basic bar gig. If you've got a following of millions on Insta, how difficult is it to say "hey, I'm playing at X&Y tonight, come down and see me"

2 hours ago, mrbdfunk said:

To have a back-up cab?? 😅😂 No one has even tried the cab out yet. I’m amazed. I’ve advertised it at £400 now. 

Madness

2 hours ago, Old Man Riva said:

… who says there’s no fun in music anymore?!

 

 

Debra is one of my all time favourite songs, it's great seeing him do it live