Jump to content

rmorris

Member
  • Posts

    1,070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rmorris

  1. re " I have tried shimming the neck but this resulted in a terrible clank from the strings which was worse. " Something wrong here. What was clanking ie what was the string hitting or interfering with ?
  2. I'm just giving this thread a thumbs up for the title wordplay...and for being from the Brighton ๐Ÿ™‚
  3. I have a "P" version of these. Not yet fitted to a bass. But they are intended for a Westone Thunder bass, They are too big for the cutout but resolved by removing the Entwistle covers and replacing with the covers from original covers all is good mechanically in that respect. Depth remains an issue - that's why not yet fitted.
  4. Good idea. Can you post on this thread when that's available on the site so we don't forget and miss it.
  5. Basically yes. Same sort of thing as when you can get better radio reception by putting your hand near the aerial.
  6. The noise going away indicates that the bass itself IS 'grounded'. But the screening of control cavities etc may not be good enough. A pedal with gain may amplify (literally) the problem. Another possibility is a break in the cable screens or power grounds. It will still 'work' but is likely to be more susceptible to induced noise.
  7. Top advice in general. But not the issue here where touching the strings / metalwork makes the noise go away.
  8. Good point on the vocal mic, although I'd have to say that it should be possible to minimise that with mic selection and technique. Yes - I understand that a lot of noise and stuff 'disappears' in the mix as it is masked from being clearly heard. I've heard a lot of solo'd* bass tracks including DI tracks. The amount of 'noise' varies a lot. But I'm really talking about generating what imo is an excessive amount of it from the off due to unrealistically low action and technique. * apologies for the apostrophe here but I don't know how to "spell" this or a better term ?
  9. Yeah - but they really suit Garage music ๐Ÿ˜ƒ
  10. I prefer a house myself ๐Ÿ™‚ Sorry !
  11. rmorris

    DIY Effects

    Are they 'white' when illuminated rather than just when off ?
  12. Try Half Round / Groundwound / Pressure wound types. Smoother feel but brighter than flats.
  13. Condenser Microphones at less than c ยฃ100 generally offer excellent value and performance these days. Generally down to Chinese manufactured capsules that are used by the various brands. You can look on Studiospares and pretty much anything there will be useful. Individual tastes are not easy to quantify and, in reality, a huge amount of your results will be dependent on your mic' approach and technique. You are targeting a wide frequency range from double bass and sousaphone through to acoustic guitar and vocals so that is something of a challenge for a single model regardless of cost. Double bass is known to be particularly difficult to record - due to both the frequency range and the way the sound develops from the instrument. That's one of the reasons that a contact / piezo mic is often used possibly in conjunction with a standard mic. Also - for acoustic guitar a small diaphragm condenser might be a good idea. Particularly if pointing one at the neck to pick up string / finger noise. But that would imply a two mic setup with a 'main' mic on the body / soundhole. I might suggest taking a look at this. Note it includes a suspension mount. https://www.studiospares.com/microphones/mics-condenser/studiospares-s1005-condenser-mic-package-449560.htm
  14. I have one of these (and other sizes for electric guitar and electroacoustic) and find it does the job in terms of carrying height / weight balance. As has been pointed out - you do inevitably end up with a good height above head height making doors / buses / tube trains interesting ๐Ÿ™„ https://www.thomann.de/gb/thomann_elite_gigbag_ebass.htm
  15. True it's not an essential part of the circuit. But technically it is not good practice to leave any metal floating so it should be tied to a reference potential eg 0V (ground). In reality though it likely makes no real difference on this application. Point taken re potential damage but fwiw I've never damaged a pot by soldering to the case. Use a high temp for a short time.
  16. Against that the back of a pot acts as more of a heatsink hence the need for a higher iron temp/heat capacity. But yes I like a good solid connection there. Solution is really an iron with some oomph and preferably temperature controlled.
  17. Well I did caveat with "If really into it" ๐Ÿ˜ณ I tend to agree wrt bass boost preamp although the resonance / peak due to the L of a pickup and the C of any tone cap / Cable capacitance / and amplifier input C is interesting. If it interest you of course ๐Ÿ™‚
  18. Better (imho) Just take the signal from the top of the pot (rather than the wiper) and wire the wiperto the bottom of the pot to give a single variable resistor : Zero Ohm to 1M0 (well near Zero due to pot limits but that area not of interest anyway). If we assume amplifier resistive input impedance of 1M0 then impedance range seen by pickup is variable between 500K and Zero. Lower impedances will, of course, give lower level into amplifier so you need to compensate for that for real comparison. If really into it you could 'LT Spice' simulate it with varying L / R / C values...
  19. Worth looking here (legacy site) http://www.audereengineering.com/TechDetails.htm
  20. Is it simply a matter of simply reducing the impedance seen by the output ? If so you could just use a pot' wired as a variable resistor in parallel with the amp input. The transformer method is also an option - literally 'transforming' the impedance and can be wired to increase or decrease the impedance.
  21. Yes. In my enthusiasm I used a combination that is not recommended due to the difficulty is separating. I found this out after I had some difficulty prising it apart ๐Ÿ™ƒ
  22. What is clear is that in general it's not that a supply is itself inherently 'noisy' (although there are varying levels of noise on the voltage rails). The real issue is what pedals are powered and how they are connected. The 'safe' bet is properly (galvanically) isolated outputs (or separate supplies). The 'not really isolated' multiple output types can still offer an advantage over a 'daisy chain' as they can feed pedals from separate connectors so reducing 'shared cable'' (common impedance). With a 'daisy chain' the order of pedals has an effect - basically a digital pedal that is putting clock noise onto the 0V line will cause more noise if it is toward the end of the chain because its return current modulates the reference of the pedals between it and the supply. Linear vs Switching supplies is an 'interesting' area - In some cases a switching supply can result inn a better result. But personally I feel more confident with a linear supply. A non-noise related benefit of isolated (floating) supplies is that you can stack them to give a larger voltage eg 18V from 2x9V outputs - I do this to get approx 18V for a couple of Trace Elliot pedals.
  23. The output volume increases only because you set the make up gain to a level where that happens. Or it has automatic make up gain. The compression function itself is realised by a reduction in gain - hence the 'Gain Reduction' meters often seen. Conceptually the function could be realised by amplifying lower level signals more than higher level signals. But in reality it is done by gain reduction followed by make up gain. This has the same effect - it's 'just' relative levels. This applies to analogue hardware. Software solutions achieve the same thing and often present it in a similar way although the actual realisation in code may be done in various ways. Worth remembering that the perceived loudness level is more dependent on the overall energy rather than peak level and this is a basic reason why compression can increase perceived loudness whilst getting rid of pesky peaks.
ร—
ร—
  • Create New...