BigRedX

Why is the lack of Bluetooth perplexing? IME Bluetooth adds a very noticeable amount of latency to the audio, which will make watching videos a seriously uncomfortable experience. If you need to synchronise audio with video or audio from multiple sources, Bluetooth is to be avoided.

It's a fantastic system, and IMO the only serious contender for controlling MIDI synths from a bass guitar without noticeable latency. I've been a big fan since the Peavey version cam out. It's a pity that the current incarnation is not available in a more interesting looking instrument or available to be fitted into a bass made by the luthier of your choice.

Before they were all transferred onto my computer and put into storage my 2000+ CD collection occupied shelves that went from floor to ceiling both sides of the chimney breast in my living room filling approximately 6.7 square metres of wall space. BTW I have asked the fellow band-members of my 80s synth band if they have any photos of our cellar rehearsal space and recording studio, which I will post if I get them.

When I use a pick it will depend on exactly the sound/attack I am after (a have a box full of different weight material picks to choose from). However my default choice if I am not a after a specifically different sound is the Herco Flex 75 which I buy 100 at a time.

Isn't the bass in the OP exactly want everyone wants? A Rickenbacker that is essentially a P-Bass?

In the 70s almost every album I bought was either a "Porky Prime Cut" or a "Bilbo Bopper". IIRC the two were cutting/mastering engineers at the same studio which was the go-to place for getting your record cut. My own very first foray into vinyl in 1980 was a Porky Prime Cut. I can't say there was anything pretty special about it. Probably because my distinctly lo-fi DIY band recorded and mixed our 2 tracks in a couple of hours at a very budget 4-track studio (it was all we could afford, and in retrospect not actually a sonic step-up from our home recordings made direct to stereo cassette), and also because it was produced as a double 7" EP with 9 minutes of music on each side running at 33rpm. It did get us played on John Peel's radio show and the record itself is now worth quite a bit of money (although mostly because of the other bands who are on it).

IME (buying mostly indie/DIY records in the 70s and 80s) poor pressings were all to common. In would be a good month if I was only returning one record to the shop to exchange it (if possible) for a better copy. As I have said previously, I discovered that my local shop's entire stock of an eagerly-awaited album from "I'm So Hollow" was pressed off-centre to such an extent that it was unlistenable. Even the copy that John Peel played was noticeably off. All of the 12" single and albums I still own from that period are noticeably lightweight when compared to a modern 120g pressing. You could track the reduction in material used to press an album from the late 60s onwards to the near flexi-discs of the mid 80s. I do have to say that the dance music 12" singles I bought in the 90 were significantly better pressings than what had gone before, but I don't miss the lottery of wondering if the next single might have been cut with just too much bass for my tone-arm to cope with.

But you don't want to be hearing carrier frequencies. They should be filtered out at source, and if not done properly can modulate the audible audio to produce distinctly unmusical artefacts.

Interesting. Unfortunately it's not the whole story, if you read the article fully you will soon realise that it's not as marvellous as it sounds: 1. It's only a carrier signal - not actual musical content. 2. It could only be detected by visual observation of the grooves, not by listening. 3. Requires half speed cutting, not something that is done under normal circumstances. 4. It was only done on a acetate. No indication whether or not these frequencies would survive the mechanical duplication processes to an actual record. 5. The test was done at 10" diameter, where there is significantly more bandwidth available compared with closer to the end of the record (as per one of my previous posts). 6. Not reproducable under normal cutting room conditions, or capable of playback on hifi systems - although there are plenty of audio signals that this applies to when it comes to vinyl. So while it is interesting, it has zero real-world applications when it comes to producing records with audio content.

The problem with vinyl is that it is hard to reconcile the physicality and often luxury of the packaging with the poorly produced lump of plastic within. I love the look of a good record collection with its expansive 12" and 7" sleeves, but as someone whose vinyl mostly consisted of indie/DIY records bought during the late 70 and the 80s, I don't for a moment miss the badly pressed discs contained within. And to get back to the OP I'm not convinced that the current additional expense of vinyl over other formats is either acceptable or can be justified in terms of production costs.

Can you please explain why a better turntable will reduce pops and crackles? I thought that these were due to manufacturing flaws or damage to the record itself. Also while reducing wow and flutter should be a good thing, IMO the relationship of the hole in the "centre" of th record in relation to the grooves is by far the biggest contributing factor. The problem for all analogue music reproduction systems is that they rely on the real-time extraction of the information from the playback media, and any fluctuations in the mechanics of of the playback mechanism will adversely impact on the final sound.

Vinyl suffers from an additional problem that the closer you get to the end of the side the lower the bandwidth that is achievable, because the stylus travels less distance with each rotation of the disc. Compare the outer groove of the average 12" disc which is approximately 925mm long with one near the end which will be around 400mm long but will need to contain the same amount of information, which at 33rpm will be 1.8 seconds of audio.

While it may well be the (re)mastering or the fact that the CD has been produced from the wrong production master (one with a vinyl EQ curve already imposed on the audio), however are you sure it's not simply that you are used to hearing certain albums in certain ways? For instance, my first record player played one side of the stereo field considerably louder than the other. When I was able to buy something a bit better it suddenly revealed extra instruments in the mix which of which I had been previously unaware. Sometimes these additions IMO did nothing to improve the songs and in many cases were a definite step backwards in my enjoyment compared with what I'd been hearing previously. BTW if brick wall limiting had been physically possible with vinyl it would have been common place long ago. As it was, one of the reasons for keeping the running time for singles under 2 1/2 minutes was the fact that they could be cut louder, which made them stand out when played on a jukebox. It didn't affect what you heard on the radio since they were already using brick wall limiting to make life easier for the DJs. Finally, regarding quality, when The Terrortones had the vinyl version of our album produced, the cutting room informed us that for the optimum audio quality each side of a 12" disc should be cut at 45rpm with a maximum running time of 10 minutes. Both reducing the speed to 33rpm and increasing the running time of the side would reduce the audio quality achievable in terms of bandwidth and signal to noise ratio.

Which IMO completely negates the point of vinyl as a decent playback medium, if you have to spend that kind of money to recreate what is already lower-quality audio. Plus no matter how much you've spent. it won't remove flaws in the manufacturing process - pops, clicks, surface noise or put the hole any closer to the centre of the record.

I totally get that. However the potential for playing non-traditional percussions sounds from a drum kit is the main point of electronic drums for me.

I get that. However, I would have been worried that the inserts in the neck which had already been done might not be sufficiently vertical. Then you would have had to match the angle when drilling the body.

IME a monitor for home use is a complete non-starter if you have potential noise issues with you neighbours. To be able to properly hear the drum sounds being generated over the noise of the sticks hitting pads will require turning it up to nuisance volume levels. For at home you will need to stick to headphones.

Solid reasoning. If this had been me, my biggest fear would have been the slight possibility that one or more of the holes in the neck had not been drilled perfectly vertically, and the problems trying to match that in the neck pocket of the new body...

Brave stuff. I thought you were going to do a test run on some scrap wood first before drilling the new body?

Yes. Not sure exactly what will happen but one of my band's EU tour (supporting someone fairly well-known) which was postponed from last year due to Covid is now looking fairly uncertain.

For guitar amps it makes even less sense unless the DI box also includes speaker emulation and perhaps more importantly speaker break-up emulation.

There is zero point in using a post-power amp DI unless the power amp itself makes a significant contribution to the sound, i.e. it contains valves being driven hard. Even then IME it is the least important part (sound-wise) to the signal chain.

Be aware that even electronic kits generate a fair amount of mechanical noise which will be transmitted through the structure of the building into your neighbour's houses. IME simply the sound of the sticks hitting the pads is loud enough to drown out the drum sounds from speakers at reasonable hifi volumes. Not a problem for the drummer if they are wearing headphone but might be enough to set off sensitive neighbours if you play for any length of time. The big problem from my experience is the kick drum. The foot action will sound as though you are constantly stamping your foot hard on the floor. You might get away with it if the kit is situated in a ground floor room with a solid concrete floor, but anywhere else you will need to build an isolating riser for the kit (it will also help with any mechanical noise being transmitted through the stands). It's not as difficult as it sounds. I made one from an old table top with a fairly deep lip. I glued neoprene isolating foam onto the top, then flipped it over and filled the space with carpet underlay. Then on top of that I rested a sheet of 3/4" ply with carpet glued to it. The table was big enough to accommodate the whole kit except the drum stool which was raised accordingly. It was enough to keep my neighbours happy.

They're not. Or at least no more so then any other instrument in the arrangement. Music is the sum of all its parts. Good music is more than the sum of its parts.

TBH I doubt whether I'd recognise anyone from Blur these days. They all look like a bunch of anonymous non-entities (and did during most of their career with the exception of Alex James). There is more to bass than a few bits of wood with some chunky strings on it. There was plenty of bass in music before the invention of the bass guitar and there will continue to be after it has been relegated to being a quirky folk instrument of historical interest only. If you want to be noticed in a band, be an interesting person. Your choice of instrument does not dictate that.