warwickhunt

I get it. At 61 (almost 2 years ago) I was thinking that it was getting to be too much (40+ years of gigging) but I joined a 'tribute' band at that point and I have to say I'm probably doing some of the best gigs with cracking musicians, better than I've ever done... still hard work and not the carefree life of me in my early years but I do love playing music live. Piano isn't that bad though as it has all of those low notes in it!

Ah ha! That makes sense. I sometimes see boards that have 5-6 'effects' + a Stomp and the effects are invariably available in the Stomp, which I find strange but each to their own. I bought into the Stomp idea as a means to do ALL of my tone shaping, effects, active crossover, IEM routing et al and so far it does 90% of it but little add on's like the Broughton and DiMarco pre, do lift the overall output in terms of richness of tone.

I'm always (genuinely) interested why folk add certain pedals to something like a Stomp, when that effect is likely replicated within the Stomp. Your Thumpinator in particular @cetera is effectively a HPF of which there are many in various stages of the Stomp... why the external Thumpinator? I should add that I've presently got a Broughton Resonant Filter Equalizer on my pedalboard instead of using the Stomp HPF/LPF, as the Broughton gives a bump at the filter point which is easier to tweak and sounds more musical than going into the Stomp and adding a para EQ to a HP/LP filter. Actually I'm also guilty of using an external GK800RB preamp pedal which I use instead of the Stomps GK block (which is actually a great simulation)! LOL

@BigRedX interesting as I've just been messing around further and based on purely my preference I tweaked the split point and settled on about 340Hz; came back on here and you've said 320Hz. I then wondered if there was a mathematical reason for this area of the frequency spectrum, so I Googled 'frequency musical notes' and this area is around the 4th octave of 'E'.

Messing about with adding a bit of grit / overdrive to my signal, got me to thinking is there a 'best' frequency/frequencies to set a crossover at, if you indeed use one! Context - using a 12 string bass I wanted to add a bit of drive/grit to the upper registers of my signal but not ALL of the signal (to avoid mush). I'm doing this through an HX Stomp so it is very easy to create two pathways and place an OD in 1 pathway and leave a 2nd pathway unaffected to maintain a clean signal. The use of a frequency split to create the 2 paths means that I can choose above what frequency point to send the the highs to add grit (I'll call it grit as opposed to Overdrive as I don't want full on distortion/fuzz). Everything can then be blended back together to send to a mono out OR I can send the high/affected sounds to the effects send and the unaffected to the main out; potential to put the high register through a different amp/cab combo but that's not priority as I'm getting a good blended mono signal as is. Obviously too low a frequency and I get mush, too high and there's not much effect. Initially I was sweeping between 100Hz and 1.2kHz but the sweet spot seemed to be 400-800Hz. Which lead me to start considering the frequency spectrum and fundamentals, octaves, overtones etc. Through the amp/cab I used and at the volumes I was listening, there didn't seem to be much difference in my chosen frequency band. I think I'm going to set the split to 400Hz but has anyone found a sweetspot that worked or reasons not to choose certain crossover points and why... indeed if anyone cared? LOL

Strange bass gig for me! INXS UK seated in a little sold out gig playing a rubber band bass Uke! https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Cqb8hgpFP/

I considered a column/stick style system for a duo and a trio that I play guitar in (forgive me). However, the trials I had were never satisfactory; generally the systems were reaching max to be heard in small noisy environments (you only need one or two noisy tables/groups). I then tried a pair of RCF310 speakers on poles and found them way more effective, in fact we often just used a single cab on a pole/stand. I subsequently upgraded to a pair of QSCK10 speakers (used) and I literally never need to use a 2nd speaker. We do take 2 along but the 2nd one generally just gets placed on the floor as a monitor for us (fed with the same output as the FOH but simply turned down at the speaker). The added advantage is that the QSC K10 (or similar) speakers are perfect to pair with a small sub for use with a 4-5 piece loud band, in most pub/club situations!

To save me scrolling through, do you know what Line 6 call it?

This might sound obvious but there are loads of pedals (some very cheap, some less so) with features built in that can create the 'effect' you are looking to create. Why not simply run a mono signal into a Zoom MS60 (£50-£60 used) and use a Doubler... you achieve the effect without the headache of splitting/effecting/blending.

Just thought I'd comment/praise that I like the ease with which you can send a signal to different outputs/sends/headphones and set up the means to control one or both outputs with the onboard volume. Very useful as I'm about to do an acoustic 'style' gig (with a Bass Uke) and I want a signal to send to my personal monitor (volume controlled from the Stomp) and a separate line to the FOH, which isn't affected by my Stomp onboard volume adjustments. Oh and in my other band I need to to send path A (dry) to an output and path B (effected) to effects send, in order that I can run a stereo / bi-amp (signal split at my frequency choice onboard the Stomp) dual rig; very useful for adding a bit of grit/drive to the top end of my 12 string bass and retaining the bottom end unaffected. Yep, pleased with how this Stomp is working out.

I'm not sure what your ultimate goal is but have you considered a simple A/B/Y pedal that runs to pathways but instead of blending them back to a mono signal, source an amp that has an attenuated (ie you can adjust the level via a potentiometer) 2nd input or effects loop return. Path A goes into the amp main input and path B goes in via the 2nd input/effects return. I have such an amp and in the past I've run a totally unaffected (clean) signal into the front and I've put an effected chain with a bit of drive/chorus etc into the rear effects; I blend in the rear effects to suit. I suppose you could put a volume pedal at the end of the effects chain to blend to suit.

Sadly I'd not imagine many/any folk would go along to court to show their disapproval of this con-man... and that is sadly part of the reason he has continued to get away with this.

We have our own X32 and we supply the engineer with a 16 tail snake/loom with each output individually labelled up. We plug ourselves into our splitters>X32 and sort our leads for IE. Prior to getting this you are generally at the mercy of the engineer giving you a mix (or mixes) but I've not encountered a situation where we get to do our own mixes.

Bass > pedal (via 1/4" guitar lead) / pedal > input on TC amp (1/4" guitar lead) / Tc Amp > cab (via Speakon). If the TC amp has an effects loop you can take a 1/4" cable out of the amp to the pedal and then the output of the pedal (1/4" lead again) to the return of the FX loop. 'Sometimes' one sounds/works better than the other.

Hmmmm... just looked on the BA Systems page and their systems all pretty much seem to be flying the flag for sticking a box on a pole above a sub, one on each side. Is that not contrary to every bit of guidance that we all read about and agree is NOT the thing to do? Just saying!

Kev you are welcome to borrow my pair of QSCK10's and a single FBT15" sub to trial at a gig/rehearsal. I'm not saying that to indicate that is what you should buy but it might give you some further insight into single sub/10" top systems. Just give me a shout.

That's my thinking. Are the regular bass presets available for free on Tonex website... which you could load into a regular 'guitar' pedal.

Watched 2 minutes of that... Jeez what is so difficult about carrying a TRS>XLR cable with you when you have a Tonex, Stomp et al?

I know it is stressful but if you are saying that ebay have refunded you and the buyer is recompensed then I'd say that is far from an ebay 'woe'! If you'd sold it privately and shipped it yourself, you might be having a far greater set of woes to be getting an insurance pay out.

Worth looking at whether all the sockets are on the same ring and seeing if you can plug into one set of sockets; obviously being aware of the load placed on the socket.

No. The 'reverse' TRs are nearly always on basses 91 or earlier (not encountered a 92 that is reverse) and it is defo NOT all Warwicks of this early period... just some!