brensabre79

You are a patient man.

9/10, don't know how i managed that

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1404489293' post='2493167'] Unfortunately this isn't how Pantone printing inks work at all. When a printer makes up a particular Pantone colour they are following formula to produce the ink (not like a mix of CMYK) but from a neutral base and then various colour pigments to give you the desired ink colour. However that colour makes no allowances for the substrate it is printed on hence the need for coated and uncoated colour guides. The ink is exactly the same all that changes is the type of paper, but the result is entirely two different colours. Remember that printing inks and paints are subtractive colours and the material that they are printed (or painted) on to affects the final colour perceived. [/quote] I hear ya, but it's 1000%[sup]*[/sup] more accurate than an RGB code for mixing paint innit? plus, there are paint makers out there who will produce paint to a PANTONE colour - which is what it sounds like the OP needs. Even process printing CMYK on the same stock with the same mix of ink on two different days isn't going to be exactly the same. It's not an exact science at all. But the colour matching systems like Pantone do help a lot. Of course whatever something is printed / painted onto will affect its outcome. If you print Red on to blue paper it'll look purple... I was trying to point out the differentiation between a Pantone "Formula Guide" which tells you how to mix a particular colour out of CMYK - vs- the Panton matching system whereby you can buy a pot of ink/paint etc. in that colour - you don't mix a 3 or 4 digit Pantone colour, you buy it ready mixed. You're right that you can approximate some Pantone colours by mixing CMYK inks though. (* I can't back that figure up)

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1404476646' post='2492966'] And this is exactly why RGB is such a poor model for colour matching. Every computer set up has the potential to give different results depending on how you have set up your colour management and how you have colour calibrated your monitor. Even Pantone isn't that brilliant because it only describes how to mix the printing ink to a set formula. The reason that Pantone produce both coated and uncoated books is to show the difference when printing on coated and uncoated stock. The ink used is exactly the same for a given Pantone number, the differences in colour are due to how it appears on the different types of paper. Spraying onto wood will give a different result again. [/quote] Ah that's a good point BigRedX, the translation from RGB to CMYK or Pantone etc. will depend upon which RGB colour standard (eg. sRGB, PAL, NTSC, Adobe RGB, Apple RGB, etc.) you are using on your machine AND the conversion engine (Adobe/Apple). Whew! It's a minefield! I say go back to your designer and ask for a PANTONE reference. This is the most reliable way to match a colour exactly. Incidentally, the PANTONE system is not just to tell you how to mix inks (this is one use for the Pantone Formula guide to mix from CMYK inks). They also make the actual ink in the specific colour (some of which cannot be mixed). SO... you can get a consistent colour reproduction using Pantone inks (not formula guide)...

I just have one that says "Lots of expensive music equipment inside - Go on, steal me!"

[quote name='Bloodaxe' timestamp='1404425180' post='2492630'] See if they'll mix to Pantone 5005 C, according to Photoshop that's the closest match. The next one down (4995 C) looks pretty good to my eye too. Agree on the printed swatch idea too, but the bigger the better. P. [/quote] What version of Photoshop and Pantone are you using? I just got Pantone+ Solid Coated 7614C... CMYK: 30,46,36,16 but if you're after Metallic it would be Pantone+ Metallic Coated 8441C [url="http://customfilledaerosols.co.uk"]These[/url] guys do Pantone Aerosol Paint

[quote name='Pow_22' timestamp='1403852586' post='2487010'] During my quest ive just stumbled across a very nice looking small amp - Fender Rumble 500 V3. Anyone tried this? Looks very nice but doesnt appear to be too many stockists round my way [/quote] Looking at the back panel of these i think it's very similar to the Genz Benz shuttle I had, however the font panel is distinctly Fender, and the Pre-amp seems to be completely new. They seem pretty good value too, on paper at least. [url="http://www.dawsons.co.uk/fender-rumble-v3-500-bass-amplifier-head?gclid=CO3V28Cepr8CFa_LtAodyDYAIA"]Dawsons[/url] have them in stock with 14 day return...

[quote name='Deerhunter1331' timestamp='1404232167' post='2490603'] there are just so many things! [/quote] The setup of your instrument is such a personal thing. And with so many variables it can take a long time to get it just right. There are lots of guides around on how to do it, the Gary Willis one is pretty good as I recall. Its a case of trial and error really. Get it close to how you think it should be, and go from there.

Depends how far you're dropping. If it's just E to a D for a couple of songs I wouldn't worry. You could try a set of DR DDT Strings for this. If its down to a C or B though you'll probably need a heavier string or it'll flap around like a drama queen. If it's a permanent drop of all the strings you could use the bottom 4 strings of a 5 string set - If you go for thicker strings you'll probably have to make some adjustments to the bass set-up though (Nut slots, intonation, truss rod maybe) and it's not so easy to put it back to 'normal'

[quote name='SubsonicSimpleton' timestamp='1404136185' post='2489582'] Isn't there a big difference between how an oldschool amp (tranny or valve) can cope with these transients compared to modern class D offerings with switch mode supplies - my understanding is that a well built old school power supply with it's big heavy transformer and enormous smoothing caps can supply the sudden demand for power at the big transients far in excess of it's rated ability to deliver continuous output. [/quote] I think you're probably right there, I know that valve amps tend to naturally compress the signal, which I think is why many modern amps have a compressor / limiter built in to get this desirable squashing of the signal. There's also the entirely different debate over 'marketing watts'. Some manufacturers give their amps model names that suggest much higher power than they are capable of, some list the Peak power (not RMS). Many rate their wattage under specific conditions (e.g. 1Khz sine wave for no longer than 3 seconds). Some even use their own terminology (e.g. 300 watts Music Power). There's also other ratings to consider (e.g. THD - total harmonic distortion) This is basically a measure of the signal breaking up into distortion, not very desirable from a HiFi, but guitarists love it! So we're not exactly comparing apples with apples anyway. Bring in other factors - like with valve amps. I nearly doubled the output of my valve amp when I biased the valves 'hotter' - I was able to adjust the bias so that I was getting around 30W (calculated) out of each tube instead of the conservative 20W per tube it was delivering beforehand. That said, it is rated at 160W on the badge, it was getting 120W max before, but now capable of 180W at full chat. It's nowhere near as clean sounding, or as loud as my 500W Class 'D' amp though.

Here's my take on this. Actually power is logarithmic, so to get twice as loud (+3dB) as 10 watts, you need 100 watts, twice as loud again and you'll need 1000 watts etc. etc. However you don't need all those watts all of the time. Look at the sketch below, you'll see the hypothetical bass note being played and the amount of power required for a fixed volume. The 100 watt amp copes with most of the wave, but will clip a little bit at the attack of the note- this is hardly noticable, to some it'll sound a bit dirty (lovely on a valve amp, a bit unpleasant on a SS amp). This is basically what a compressor does too but in a more gentle way, so a SS amp with a well set-up compressor would be passable. The 10 watt amp is clipping quite a few of the wave peaks so it will just be farty and distorted. The 1000 watt amp copes with all of it, including the attack which is why it sounds super clean, although it's barely ticking over for most of the duration of the note... PS: the diagram is not well scaled!

I use a 160w valve amp through my Barefaced Super12, although we are on the louder side as pub bands go, it can usually just about cope - although it can get a bit overdriven sounding when you push it - it sounds awesome, but doesn't suit some material. When we play in larger places than a pub I'll tend to take my 500w Carvin instead - which is just clean at any volume. A lot depends on your tone though, I like lots of lows, which use up way more power than mids and highs...

I have had the exact same issue with the Ritter Swordsteel strings. Resigned myself to using Elixir's now as theyare the only ones that seem to last as long, but they don't sound anything like as good.

Carvin BX Series gets my recommendation every time. The BX700 is the current model, but based on the BX500 I have. In your case, the review on [url="http://www.carvinworld.com/products/BX700"]their site[/url] from Eddie Currents (surely not a real name) might be helpful as Eddie also uses an Ampeg VST. More and more people are discovering these hidden gems, and one of very few American amps actually made in the USA these days! Brand new for £430 too! http://www.bassgear.co.uk/product/carvin-bx700-mono-block-700w-head/

I like, I think it's great that a manufacturer is pushing things forward in this way, except it's Hofner, still trading off the back of a band that are more than 50 years old to some degree with a design even older than that. And as for their other models, they all look like the 1960s. I'd like to see them pushing things forward with the shape design and spec.

Nice to see another Carvin convert. Mykesbass converted me to the Carvin BX500 a couple of years ago. I borrowed his for one set on a saturday evening and placed the order at Barrie's place on the Monday. Awesome preamps in these things, I love mine. The only weak spot on mine (grey face) is the ribbon connectors inside (hopefully they have sorted this in the new (red) ones). Occasionally the signal will drop significantly and distort - pulling the ribbon connectors and giving a quick spray with contact cleaner fixes this though. When I'm next due a new amp I'll be getting one of these (and keeping the grey one as a spare)

I've never heard that. To be honest when I used to take my instruments in for maintenance/set-ups they would usually add the cost of a set of strings and ask what i used. Or if they couldn't get them they'd ask me to supply a set. i think it's customary to take it in with old strings on and they will change as part of the setup process because they would need to come off to do any work anyway...

Everyone is responsible for their own equipment. The only exception in our covers band is that I own the PA/lights now - it was split between original members and I bought them out when they left. As such I charge a 10% of gig fee to 'hire' the PA to the band. In return I cart it around, set it up and maintain where necessary (I've had to buy a new desk and power amp in the last 12 months). It's not an ideal situation - I'm the only one who doesn't sing through the PA as it happens - I firmly believe that the singer should have their own PA (it is basically their amp, and they haven't had to shell out for their actual instrument either - unless you count £100 for a mic). But I understand that where there are 3 people also using it for backing vocals the PA costs should be shared in some way. It just happened that way for us where I ended up with the PA/lights. Incidentally, snare drums ain't all that cheap either. But consumables or 'gear' should be covered by the person using them.

Start with Killer Queen. [url="http://youtu.be/g_N_zNcuL0c"]http://youtu.be/g_N_zNcuL0c[/url] You're my best friend.... [url="http://youtu.be/68ka0Af87dI"]http://youtu.be/68ka0Af87dI[/url] ...and don't stop me now [url="http://youtu.be/1ReSk1nNdz8"]http://youtu.be/1ReSk1nNdz8[/url] to get you started

I'm not so sure about this. Made in USA is on a sticker whee the serial number usually resides on a Gibson. http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/1969gibsonEB0.php Although it looks a lot like this one http://www.gbase.com/gear/gibson-eb-0-1973-cherry-red#

The last one I did I used all of 2 large halfords cans for the colour and 2 similar size for the nitro clear coat (R&F). I might have gone overboard for a nice thick finish, but one can is not enough. Hope that helps!

Broken. Sounds like something overheated, depending on what type of amp it is it could be one of a number of things. First thing would be to open it up and see what's melted. When a solid state amplifier overheats, the transistors can literally burn out, leaving a caustic, powerful burned smell behind. When a solid state amplifier overheats, the transistors can literally burn out, leaving a caustic, powerful burned smell behind. I would not plug it in again. It may be repairable, but might well cost more than the amp to fix I'm afraid.

Hey Paul String Guide: not an exact science, just make sure the strings are in a straight line from nut to post. The closer to the nut the guide is, the higher the angle (compliance) and the strings will feel a bit stiffer. As a general rule, it's usually just behind the A string post. Re: Tuners, it depends on what you want to spend. Wilkinsons are by far the best value for money ones I've come across. The traditional kind of elephant ears are actually massive. They are so close to the bottom edge (D string tuner) on the back, and nearly touching side to side. SO I wouldn't worry about the size issue. If you want a more modern look, Schaller, Hipshot, Gotoh etc. all do 18mm versions. But they cost much more than Wilkinsons. Re: Decals, it's a tricky one, because there are copyright issues. Some people on eBay offer this service - even though they say 'custom' decals, you can usually ask for what you want. Personally I wouldn't go down this route unless it was for a restoration. Although I believe Fender will be changing their logo to this soon:

I think there's a few things to consider whether selling your music for commercial purposes, or even just making music for your own fun and enjoyment. You can spend months, if not years completing one piece of music by obsessing over details, and re-recording, reworking etc.. and the only person that'll know just how much work has gone into it is you. And it may be disproportionate to what it's worth to anyone in the outside world too. On the other hand you can bash an idea out and move on to the next. Again, sometimes the only person who'll know just how little work went in is you. thats to say, most people don't think about whether something could have been played better (except musicians), whether the production is a bit crappy, whether you should have used a condenser mic on that acoustic guitar or not etc.. They just listen and enjoy, or not. End of. A good example of this is something that happened to me recently. Are you sitting comfortably...? I toiled for a few months on three bespoke 20 minute music programmes for a client. A very reasonable deal was agreed in principle beforehand, based on the time I estimated it would take to get something of reasonable quality (that I would be happy to release anyway). I spent a bit more time fine tuning them because there was the possibility of much more of this work in future, and I'm one of those who can't quite hit the print button without just one more tweak. When it came to it, the client basically said that he hadn't got the budget for what I'd estimated - because he'd found out that he could buy some Royalty free wallpaper music from a website for about 10% of the price. (he should have mentioned this earlier right?) So that 10% price was all he was prepared to pay me in the end. All the elements we'd discussed that were absolutely essential to the music, and took ages to get right, were of little importance now that he could get a bargain basement option instead. I told him I could do something for that price, of similar quality to the library tracks, but not for the tracks I had already made. He didn't see the reason he couldn't have these tracks at that price, they were of similar duration after all. In the end I was so annoyed by the ignorance of the man I told him to go to his royalty free site and wished him luck with his venture. The point being, he couldn't really hear the cavernous difference in quality between the two pieces of music. One lovingly crafted over months with real instruments etc. The other pretty much hitting the first preset on some readily available VST synths and looping [i]ad nauseum[/i]. And I don't think that is unusual either. Non-musicians hear music very differently to musicians.

[quote name='codhead' timestamp='1402651735' post='2475606'] Here's my setup. I have the subharmonic thing on just that bit, and use the GE7 as a boost for my fuzz. I kept it on at the gig the other night to just allow a bit of extra cut through. [/quote] I might be wrong here, but I thought a lot of guitar pedals had a HPF built in. I tried using a Boss Overdrive pedal once and there was no bottom end at all... I think this is also the reason there's a Bass Muff and a Big Muff so might be a few things going on there. You might want to try going straight into the amp from the bass, see how it sounds. If it's full and the boom is back, add in the pedals one at a time to see what's what. 300W (8R) from your amp through a 15" Trace Elliot speaker should be thunderous, especially with the Sub boost... Although, you might want to turn that off too - I know it sounds like the opposite of what you want, but the low, low frequencies take up tons of headroom and actually you might be better with something in the 80 - 120Hz region for a big deep sound.