BigRedX

What are all the weird sounds that appear panned hard-right at about the 47 second mark?

Exactly! Which is why the player has to put it out on YouTube rather than a non-visual medium. Simply as a composition it's not particularly musical or interesting. The interesting thing is that he has made it more difficult for himself by playing it on a "inappropriate" instrument. Without being able to see that no-one would be even slightly impressed.

It's visual in the sense that he's in front of a video camera, but other than that he just stands/sits there and plays. The visual element is only important because if you don't know how the the music is being produced it's no where near as impressive.

I suppose because I also work in graphics I'm a very visual person, and if I go to a live performance I want my eyes as well as my ears to be entertained. Otherwise I might as well stay at home and listen to a recording.

Except Franz Liszt was a proper showman who knew how to put on visual performance - unlike the person being discussed here.

Is he actually in a band? If so can some please supply links to their music.

Then you just need a male Speakon plug to in-line female jack socket cable. It's reasonably easy to make one up yourself, you'll only need to solder the Jack socket as the Speakon is all screw terminals. Make sure you get proper Neutrik connectors especially for the Speakon.

Never seen an SD Curlee in a painted finish before.

Most people already have a computer and some sort of headphones or speakers. GarageBand is free if you have a Mac, and Logic is only £199 which has all the plug-instruments and effects you'll ever need. If you work entirely "in the box" you'll only need the most basic of interfaces in order to record vocals, and if your doing instrumental music you won't even need that.

IMO the sorts of failings you describe would be unacceptable on any instrument nowadays irrespective of where it was built and what price point it sold at.

They can call all they like but I can see how it would be enforceable.

Yes they can. I've done it myself in the past and walked away from a very poor record deal. You get proper legal advice and weigh up whether the loss of royalties due to the label taking their cut is worth the potential overall increase and make a decision. It's no longer the 60s and I don't think musicians are being dangled by their ankles from tall buildings in order to get them to sign.

But what about those bands who are already doing nicely out of streaming royalties without a record deal? I certainly wouldn't want mine cut from 90% to 50% without guarantees that the additional 40% would be considerably more than made up in additional streams. And any artist can just say "no", and any artist that has signed a poor royalty rate for streaming in the last 5 years only has themselves to blame.

What exactly do you need this for? As has been said in-line female sockets are quite a bit more expensive. Depending on your requirements it might be cheaper just to make up a few custom leads. And the fewer connections you have in your speaker connection the better.

Surely it's all in the technique? 😉

If you actually have music up on Spotify and you haven't signed a bad record contract them you should be getting at least 90% of the artist share (your aggregator will take the rest). Of course if you only have 600 streams you need to do more promotion.

Does it matter? There are plenty of instruments capable of producing low notes. Bass guitar is just one of them.

Slips 50/50 between between who? There are at least 3 parties involved - the streaming service, the record label and the artist, so straight away this doesn't work. If the MPs mean a 50/50 split between record labels and artists, I think they will find that difficult to enforce as there will already be contracts in place which set the royalty rate for an artist for streaming revenue. It should be up to the artist to negotiate a better rate when they sign. If they haven't they are either stupid or badly advised. MPs with good intentions that clearly have no idea how things work in practice.

I've found the simplest way to avoid having too many money worries was not to own a car and not to have kids.

This might be a radical opinion, but... Do you really need another bass? What wrong with the one(s) you already have?

I had to give up using my Sony 2.4GHz wireless system after 2 gigs where the PA was using a WiFi system to control the desk caused the channel to change, leaving me with no sound.

IMO that's your problem right there. Stop listening to streaming music and instead choose digital music with no data compression. Even delivery medium has it's strengths and weaknesses. We all prefer the ones that we are used to because we have become accustomed to the sound, rather than because it is actually "better".

The Revox B77 (and A77 for that matter) is a semi-pro machine at best.

There's a whole host of problems here and it could be any one of them or several in combination. 1. How good is the sound system in your car? IME most are fairly average. 2. Is is a stream or a download from Amazon Prime that you are listening to? Do you know what data compression has been used and how much has been applied? 3. Do you know how this version of "Superstition" was created? The sad fact is that for a lot of older recordings (almost everything before CDs became mainstream in the 90s) the original master tapes have been lost or destroyed, and what is easily available is what is known as a "production" master, and it may already have additional EQ and level compression applied. Back in the day when there was only vinyl as a serious delivery medium that didn't matter. The production master was set up for cutting vinyl and that's what it was used for. It meant that every time it was used to make a new acetate for record manufacturing it would sound the same as the previous one, and all the pressings wherever they were produced would sound the same as each other (within the limitations of what vinyl can reproduce). As soon as it starts getting used for other media there are problems, because the production master hasn't been created for the purposes of making CDs/streams/digital downloads. Each one requires the master to be created in a different way, and a lot of the time they are not. It takes a lot of time and effort and often detective work to find the original stereo (or mono - remember for most recordings made before the end of the 60s the mono mix of an album was the one that had the time and effort put into it, and the stereo version would be dashed off in a couple of hours once the mono version had been finished and approved) master tape and optimise the audio for all the various digital formats, and even then listeners complain that the new versions don't sound like they remember, and of course if the original artist(s) is involved in the process it can be very tempting to tinker with the mastering to take advantage of processes that weren't available when the original was mixed. 4. Finally what are you comparing this version to? That will have a significant impact on how they differ. HTH.

That's looking good! But, you've missed out the all-important weight in your last post...