paulbuzz

Obviously lots of mentions here for JJ (and with good reason!) but it's nice to see a couple of mentions for Paul Gray too, who doesn't normally seem to get much attention. Playing along with The Black Album was a big part of my early learning experience. And his predecessor in the Damned, Algy Ward, who I stood directly in front of at my second gig ever, crushed and in a storm of flying gob, admiring his Precision bass. Also various others that made chunky prominent riffs with biting bass sounds a big part of the music of that time - Foxton, Ali McMordie of SLF, Barry Adamson of Magazine - and for a wild card, how about Steve Smith of The Vapors?

The straight ones now have an extra rubber jacket for additional shock protection, but the right-angled ones still don't have this (more tricky to incorporate it into the design, I imagine) and so are more vulnerable.

They are good, but a word of warning: don't drop them on a hard floor - the reed switches inside need to be treated with a degree of respect...

Actually, looking up info about the SY-300, it appears that even though it's midi-equipped, it too doesn't transmit note on/off information! So as Quatschmacher suggests, maybe this is a trickier thing to implement than we might think... 🤔

Ok, well maybe! I'd be a bit surprised if this really added much additional complexity, although I admit I'm not qualified to insist either way with any authority! 😁

The point is that it's being suggested that the SY-1 already contains pitch-to-synth conversion that's superior to pretty much anything else available (I believe the word 'flawless' was used, no?). If true, this is a non-trivial achievement and it would be great to be able to make use of this functionality to trigger other synths; a facility which could (possibly!) be included with virtually no additional production costs. If midi output was available from the SY-1, you could use it to trigger any of the enormous number of available synths and modules that do have preset memory slots. Adding memory presets to the SY-1, although technically simple, would require a more complicated user interface with more controls, and hence probably a larger case, and suddenly we're back at the SY-300. It's available, but costs a lot more!

1) It would be an effective, low-cost way to be able to record midi information into a DAW from a guitar or bass, allowing later editing and selection of different sounds. 2) In a live context, you could use the sounds from any available midi synth module (Minimoog sounds from the Behringer clone, anyone?) It just seems like, at Boss's end, the additional expense would be essentially the cost of a mini-usb socket. However, I'm happy to admit that it seems a little churlish to respond to a fantastic new bit of gear by going "Waah, why can't I have this additional stuff as well?" 😋

You make a selection of fair points, not least that we should perhaps try not to immediately start moaning about what's not provided in some new bit of gear! However, I certainly wouldn't be too disheartened by a potential 5ms delay. Since sound travels at roughly 1 foot per millisecond, a 5ms delay is equivalent to playing whilst standing 5 feet from your amp, and I don't think too many of us find that unbearable...?!

Don't think so. Were you a student there at that point? I was still in 6th form in school. Back on topic, I like your idea that it would be nice if the SY-1's highly touted polyphonic pitch-detection abilities were available via MIDI for external use. Seems like perhaps Boss missed a trick in not including a mini-USB socket that could have made this possible? ( Never bleedin' satisfied, are we! 🙄 )

Ugh! - now you're scaring me - I actually do remember. Though I hasten to add I was not a frequent attendee.

I seem to be making a string of posts about hopelessly designed equipment today. It must be the weather. The Rick bass is an absolutely atrocious design. I'd still give my left arm for a blue 4003 though. (ok, maybe not my left arm, that would make the bass a bit pointless).

I've owned a string of rack-mountable equipment and I've never put any of them in a case larger than themselves. They've all been fine. In my opinion, if a rack amp will be killed by being in a case its own size then it needs to die. What kind of appalling design work would that be?! As a horrible example, I give you: the GK MB500 - they sell rack ears for it so you can rack-mount it, but its limiter switch is ON THE TOP! I really hope they fired whoever made that design decision.

That Mooer one looks pretty cool; very unusual to have a 15v output option. Good suggestion! Don't think I've ever seen a 15v pedal mind you, apart from the Californiwah mentioned. Why did they do that?! Are there others? The Mooer also has the advantage of an actual proper mains socket; those revolting separate wallwart things give me the weeblies! But maybe that's just me...!

The Kay on ebay is overpriced by at least £180. 🤮

Weight: 38kg (83.8lbs) ...according to the 'Specs' tab at https://www.zzounds.com/item--ASDABMC210T500EII

Isn't the EHX Synth9 kinda similar in terms of facilities? (Although no arpeggiator) But I don't know anything about its tracking or sound quality...

Here's the manual for the Smashup: https://www.noisefx.com/docs/Alesis_ModFX_Smashup_Reference_Manual.pdf The power supply provides 9V AC - From p17 of the manual: The Smashup comes with an AC power adapter that transforms the voltage from a standard outlet into 9 volts AC (830 mA) So don't try using a normal DC power supply as an alternative! The manual also contains some info about dealing with "stray hums and buzzes" between pages 37 and 40 (!) I think that this does tend to imply that this model is a bit prone to this kind of problem!

An ugly noise identical to your description is mentioned in the Ovnilabs review of the Alesis Smashup, so maybe it's just an inherently flawed design...? http://www.ovnilab.com/reviews/smash.shtml

Just watched a YouTube demo of the SY-1 by a bloke from the Sweetwater music shop who had made an elementary but catastrophic clothing error...

Sorry if I've been confusing or insufficiently clear! Yep, I think you have made several correct observations: 1) The box volume and port size (area and length) define the box tuning, and correspond directly to the frequency response ("transfer function") and power handling. 2) Deciding on a box tuning is a tradeoff between: a) Lower tuning ---> More extended (deeper) bass response with a more gradual rolloff; An increasingly large dip in the power handling capability just above the box tuning frequency b) Higher tuning ---> An increasingly large hump in the bass response just above the cutoff frequency, with a sharper rolloff below it; Better power handling capability at the weak spot just above the box tuning frequency You've noticed these differences between the models for your Ashdown combo cab and the TL606 cab! 3) Having defined the size of the ports(s) in terms of area and length, the exact details (in terms of shape and number) are irrelevant to the tuning (and therefore to the frequency response and power handling). These details do, however, affect the port air velocity. As you may have discovered, WinISD allows you to load multiple projects simultaneously. So if you load up one project with your Ashdown-based cab (you know the box and port dimensions, so you can easily create this), and another project with the TL606 box ( volume = 85.5 litres; tuning still to be finalised but maybe somewhere around 50Hz ), you can then see what differences you get. Since you're aiming for a bit more bottom and volume, the most vital graphs are those for transfer function and maximum SPL, though don't forget to also check that the port air velocity isn't too wildly off the scale! Hope this makes some kind of sense!

With your proposed smaller port area and lower tuning, I see that the port velocity becomes very high at low frequencies. Also, with your lower tuning, if you go to the 'maximum power' item on the pulldown, you can see that there's a big dip in the power handling centred at 67Hz. Raising the cab tuning reduces this dip, whilst also reducing the port length required, but also increasingly producing a hump in the frequency response just above the cutoff frequency. So it's all a question of compromise! I'd be inclined to stick to the full width port (in order to keep the port velocity as low as possible). I'd probably start by initially making the port length nearly as long as you can before it starts reducing the port area by getting too close to the back of the cab. (So maybe reaching up to about 80mm from the inner rear wall of the cab?) Then tweak the tuning (port length) to get a satisfactory combination of frequency response (transfer function), port velocity, and maximum spl/power. And create a WinISD model of your existing Ashdown-combo-based setup for side-by-side performance comparison!

Your port will effectively start from the front of the baffle, so the thickness of the baffle is included in the overall port length. So for calculating the depth of the 'shelf' you'll add to give length to the port, yes, you would want to subtract the baffle thickness. If you reduce the cross-sectional area of the port, this will increase the velocity of the air moving in the port. If the port air velocity gets too high, it creates an audible effect known as 'chuffing'. The port air speed is modelled in WinISD, which you can see by going to the item 'Rear port - air velocity' in the pulldown menu. (The menu item that you currently have set to 'transfer function magnitude'). [ Since this only applies at higher amplifier powers, to see the correct port velocity you will need to set 'system input power' in the 'signal' section of WinISD to something like the max output power of your amp. ] Unhelpfully, opinions differ (as ever!) as to what a maximum acceptable port velocity is. Unfortunately I can't currently remember what sort of figures are regarded as ok! You might need to get input from someone more well-versed in these matters - eg Bill Fitzmaurice or Balcro or Phil Starr... fortunately this forum is filled with people more knowledgable and less gormless than me...! 😁

Yep, when initially setting up your WinISD project, the tuning frequency gets pre-set to create the default QB3 Quasi-butterworth alignment you mentioned in your original post. This represents tuning the cab to the lowest possible frequency with a smooth response before it starts rolling off. This is often a desirable cab tuning, but is certainly not the only possible choice - you might choose a different tuning for a different-but-lumpier bass response, or for increased power handling, or for other reasons - such as because you can't fit the optimal port into your cab...!

Ah, looking at your pics again, I see now that it seems the existing port has no 'length' as such - so just the thickness of the baffle... 18mm? So as SubSimp has suggested, you can create length in the port by fixing a shelf on top of the existing port braces; this could be any length you like, up to the limit imposed by the depth of the cab itself. (You obviously shouldn't bring it so close to the back of the cab that it restricts the area of the port!) As I posted above, you can model the results for any given port length by adjusting the box tuning frequency until you match your proposed port length.

If, in WinISD's 'Box' tab, you tweak the tuning frequency of the box, it will automatically alter the length of the suggested port. By trial and error, you could set this to match the length of the existing port of the box, and will then be able to see how much this has affected the properties of your cab - you may find that the results are acceptable without any port retuning being required! You could also use WinISD to model your existing setup with the Ashdown combo cab; then you would be able to see what differences you can expect from the TL606 box - or maybe you've done this already...?