Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Total Watts

94 Excellent

About paulbuzz

  • Birthday 01/12/1964

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh lord, Warwick... just went to their website to check whether I was being unfair, but no, almost every single one of their designs looks like it was templated from a five-year-old's first attempt to draw a bass... The wonky tuners... the dildo top horns... the nubbiny bottom horns... that one that looks like a melted Thunderbird... But also - their website...! That little window, lost in the middle of the screen! It's like travelling 20 years back in time...
  2. Alongside the trivial personal foibles we've been discussing here, that is genuinely dreadful.
  3. Or indeed the MM 3+1. Make yer damn mind up! Are we going double-sided or not?
  4. I'm not sure I've ever seen a wronger post on this forum, though I admit that being nearly crushed to death in a sea of gob whilst standing directly in front of the first P-bass I'd ever seen (The Damned, 1979) probably qualifies as a formative erotic experience, so I may not be entirely objective on the matter! 😁
  5. I'm fully onboard with many of the suggestions above: lumpy singlecuts Stingray scratchplate MM Bongo pointy headstocks I disagree strongly with any argument against the shape of the Fender P: what an absolutely fantastic design it is; introduced in 1954 and still dominant today, though several of its familiar design elements (headstock shape, scratchplate shape, body contouring) were really first introduced by the Strat in 1956. Man, that must have looked like a spaceship from the future when it appeared! Utter genius! As a general rule, I think symmetrical body shapes need symmetrical headstocks, and conversely for asymmetrical ones, though I accept that there are notable exceptions that look great.
  6. Thanks - another interesting-looking option, though as a confirmed skinflint, I am slightly averse to paying for stuff! Also, from their testimonials section, it appears that they have the endorsement of the protagonist of the Die Hard movies, who I thought was a maverick cop but seems to have an additional career as a sound designer in Las Vegas...
  7. Was that just advice, or would it not even let you continue on a WiFi connection?
  8. Thanks for the replies, folks. JamKazam looks interesting and nicely thought out. Lowlandtrees' experience of the amount of fiddling and grief involved is somewhat offputting but not unexpected. Reaper's Ninjam also sounds interesting if a bit mysterious! I'll investigate further. I imagine that loads of people would like to be able to jam online like this, so the fact that so few people actually seem to be doing it may be a fair indication of how hard it is to get it to work satisfactorily! In general there seems to be a consensus that you're always likely to be struggling against lag, and everyone involved had better be using a decent computer; with a decent audio interface; ethernet rather than wireless connection to the router; and a good internet connection. I'll try some practical testing when I've got lots of spare patience and time for the tweaking. And have managed to acquire a giant ethernet cable...! Any further suggestions or experiences are more than welcome!
  9. Apologies in advance if this topic has already been well covered somewhere here. In our current socially-isolated conditions, I've been wondering about the prospects of playing music online together with others. I've really only got as far as realising that the most obvious options (using a webcam with Zoom, Skype etc) seem to be out of the question, as there's far too much lag to make it possible. (Seems to be usually about a third or half a second, as far as I can tell - I'm not sure how you would measure it accurately.) Not sure where the delay might originate (cam, browser, internet connection...?) , or whether it could be reduced to an acceptable amount. So... has anybody here managed to do this successfully without a whole load of grief? What do I/we need to do?
  10. Nice! Old-skool vibe but neo speaker for portability! What does it weigh with its replacement neo speaker fitted? GLWTS!
  11. YOU CAN'T REFER TO MY GRANDMA LIKE THAT!!! 😲 Oh wait I might have got the wrong end of the stick...
  12. And here's one of the major problems: Most bass cab manufacturers rate their cabinets by simply quoting the thermal limit of the bass driver - ie how much power (in watts) it can take before the voice-coil is damaged by heat. BUT: For most uses of most bass drivers in most bass cabinets, the effective usage is limited WAY before the thermal limit by the excursion limits of the driver - ie how far the cone can travel back and forth before bad things start happening. Because of this limit, in reality most bass cabs can't make use of anything like the power suggested by the manufacturer's given (thermal) power handling spec figure. The excursion limits of any particular driver are given by the driver specs Xmax and Xlim (in mm), but how much power (in watts) it will take for the driver to reach these limits varies depending on the cab design and the frequencies being reproduced. All of this is sufficiently complicated that most cab manufacturers don't even attempt to explain about this stuff. Barefaced, by contrast, have loads of information about this stuff on their site. They make a point of using drivers with high excursion limits, which means their cabs can go unusually loud before things start sounding bad. These high-spec drivers are one of the things you pay a premium price for. But most manufacturers AND players don't want to have to get into a conversation about all this, so instead we tend to get stuck with unhelpful and misleading cab specs. This kind of stuff is very much the area of expertise of Bill, Phil, Stevie and a few others on this site, so I'm sure they'll jump in if I've explained any of this wrong! 😁
  13. I think their point is that there just isn't any simple number that can give an unambiguous and definitive representation of the power handling of a given cab, so instead they have chosen to restrict themselves to an (admittedly vague) suggestion of what size of amp is likely to make a suitable match for their cabs. As to why the cab with the same bass driver, but in a bigger box with an added mid/high driver should be more suitable for a more powerful amp, I haven't got an answer. (Though of course the practical difference between 600W and 800W amps is minimal anyway; certainly less than the difference between identically rated amps from various different manufacturers. ) If I seem to be coming over as something of a Barefaced apologist here, I should perhaps make clear that I've never owned, played through, or even heard one of their cabs! 😁
  14. A few relevant articles from the Barefaced website - there are a whole load of others...! https://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/understanding-power-handling.htm https://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/recommended-amp-power.htm https://barefacedbass.com/uploads/BGM68 Jul2011.pdf
  15. To be fair to Alex/Barefaced, I think the OP has misinterpreted the information they give about their cabinets. I'm pretty sure that they don't claim anywhere that the Super Compact is "rated at 600W RMS" or the Big Baby "rated at 800W RMS". Instead, these figures are given as the top end of the range of output power of amplifiers that they recommend for use with these cabinets. Admittedly this is different to the way in which most cabinet manufacturers talk about the specs of their products, but there is a reason for this: the reason is that the traditional/usual practice of quoting a single "rated power handling" figure for a speaker cabinet is unsatisfactory and misleading for a number of reasons. This is illustrated by several of the points made by Bill and other posters upthread. So, as I understand it, Alex at Barefaced decided instead on the more nuanced (but arguably more vague!) set of descriptions used on the Barefaced website. I always got the impression that this was a genuine attempt to be less misleading than cab manufacturers have often been with their specs. Unfortunately, in this case at least, this approach seems to have led to increased confusion, rather than enlightenment...! As a self-confessed enthusiast for this kind of tech-talk, Alex has engaged in discussing this stuff repeatedly over the years; here on Basschat, on the Barefaced website, and in magazine articles. I'm sure his views on these matters will still be there somewhere on the Barefaced website.
  • Create New...