leftybassman392

F***ing edit button!

1 hour ago, Teebs said:

 

I ham a designer, a not a cabinet-maker!

 

Don't you pay him no never mind. What does he know? Hmm? Hmm?

I think it looks fab nice fairly ok-ish.

Looking good.

It reminds me of when I made a pair of satellite speakers for an early HiFi system using Kef B110s and T27s. Mine were made from solid mahogany as per the HiFi News specsheet. (They later changed it to 5mm ply at around a quarter of the cost of the mahogany - but not before I'd built the speakers! ). Being a HiFi system the cabinets had lots of internal damping using a sort of bitumen/sand mix on the internal panels, and they were stuffed with a heavy black wool. I forget the names of those elements, but DIY HiFi buffs will no doubt know them. Dunno if damping will be of any use on your cab...?

Had them for years, along with a home-built sub of my own design (). It was the size of a coffee table, and in retrospect should probably have had a bit more thought put into its design.

Nice work Teebsy. Looking forward to seeing and hearing the finished product.

I have no need for a gigging amp these days, so like Stub I've gone the PJB route.

I have an earlier version of this:

I got it for a little over £200 from a fellow BCer. Very nice it is too.

Bit late for you of course, but hey!

3 hours ago, Maude said:

 

 

A collection of money is just about the dullest thing I can think of. 

 

Depends how big the collection is...

Seriously, if there are no financial imperatives at work, what's the problem? I've been pretty much retired for a some years now, but feel no need to part with any of my instruments just yet.

5 minutes ago, ped said:

 

Just finished it!!

 

 

Thanks mate. It was up and running by the time I got over there. 👍

@pedPossibly a touch off-topic here (for which I apologise), but are there plans to similarly update the sister site in due course? I have a vague recollection of the subject being raised but don't remember what became of it.

Looks good. Nice job @ped . 👍

Could be a number of reasons for some having the content and others not (yet).

I'm actually quite intrigued to know.

I got a 'great content' badge worth 100 points a little while ago. Could we have a bit about the award criteria please?

At this stage I'm actually not entirely certain what I got it for. Not complaining you understand...

18 minutes ago, ezbass said:

I've read elsewhere that clicking on someone's avatar, it shows at the bottom of their profile. I've tried this on both Safari and Chrome, but there's nothing there that I can see.

This^^^ Firefox in my case. I had wondered whether the various add-ons one can install into Firefox might have something to do with it, but if it's happening with other browsers as well then maybe not.

5 minutes ago, ezbass said:

And done!  

I did that a little while ago but my count hasn't changed. He might be planning to welch on the deal.

13 minutes ago, ped said:

If you click another members rank I think. You can see your own and how many points to get the next in your own profile. 
 

Next week I’ll be sharing the system that shows what actions equal what points, for example starting a thread can be 10 points, replying can be 2, reacting can be 1, and so on. 

Does this mean that the old system of certain sections of the forum (e.g. off-topic) not being counted has been ditched?

16 minutes ago, ezbass said:

How did you find this list?

Can someone explain to this ‘bear of very little brain’ how this new system works?

1 minute ago, Silvia Bluejay said:

I'd like to know too!

Looks like your qualifying post count to me.

9 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Here they are ... for now :

 

Thanks for that, but I'd already figured that one out.

At this point I'm assuming they'll reappear in topic posts at some point in the foreseeable future. I can understand that it's a little way down the list, but just so I know they're coming...

35 minutes ago, ped said:

Yeah that’s a weird one. We changed it and it works on everything else but apparently not Firefox. Anyone else of Firefox getting that?

Firefox and Win 10 on my PC. Works ok for me. I use Firefox on my Macbook too and it's fine there as well.

While I'm here, can I just confirm that the 'likes' numbers are in the pipeline?

A Porsche 911 SC with...

Oh wait: wrong thread.

As you were.

Here's a very interesting version of a Simon & Garfunkel classic. I don't know much about the band beyond what I've read, but I'm led to believe this is somewhat outside their normal oeuvre...

22 minutes ago, PaulWarning said:

poor old Rod's getting a bit of a panning, not entirely justified, I'm sure if he'd been assassinated in 1973 he'd be looked on a lot more favourable 😁

I'm much too polite to say such things...

but now that you have...

Without wishing to sound contentious (no, really), I have to say that quoting singers like these as a reason for not using pitch correction is not an argument I understand. Are you saying you shouldn't use pitch correction for fear of missing out on another Rod Stewart?

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but...

I don't buy the 'things produced in a studio aren't real music' line. Of course it's real music! It has notes, tunes, chords, rhythms and everything else that makes music music (and please, for goodness' sake, don't talk to me about live music having a 'soul'). To claim otherwise frankly looks perverse to my jaundiced eye; it just hasn't been done in the way you would like to see it done is all.

[/rant] As you were.

30 minutes ago, WinterMute said:

They are entirely correct that recorded music is a poorer version of the original performances, as it relies on mics, speakers and psychoacoustics to recreate the original in an inferior manner, however, I can't actually fit a symphony orchestra or Rush in my living room or car, much less have them play for me on a packed tube train, so what are you gonna do?

Purists gonna pure.

Speaking as a veteran audio engineer, the worst possible start to a session is some musician saying "can you make it sound exactly like it does live" the answer to which is invariably "no". We can certainly approach that vibe, but even binaural recordings of performances are artificial recreations of a moment in time. The moment a microphone is involved the music becomes a different animal. We accept the conventions of recording as a necessary evil so that we can enjoy the music we want to listen to, when we want to listen to it.

Even the mighty Deusche Gramafon record to Protools and edit bar by bar these days.

10 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

IME unless the musicians in question are incredibly technically accomplished and have spent a long time working on their arrangements, you wouldn't want to capture the live sound because generally it's not going to be good enough to withstand repeated listening. And while they are at it would they like to include the less palatable aspects of the typical live performance like inaudible vocals, unwanted feedback and additional compression to mimic how your ears are behaving at gig volumes?

I've mostly been in bands that were firstly studio bands and secondly live acts and our problem was the opposite - how to recreate what we had done in the studio at a gig, and tending to fail just as badly doing that as the band that wants to capture the "live vibe" on a recording.

I've finally come to accept that the recording and the gig are two different things and although they have large areas of overlap should be approached differently. There's no need to include every aspect of the recorded version in the live one, you can make up for those missing things by being excitingly loud and giving the audience something interesting to watch while you perform. Conversely you need to make the recording aurally "interesting" to compensate for lack of gig-level volume and the fact that here the music has to stand on it's own. 

Excellent posts both if I may say so.

It may also be worth making the point that many who might want to be present at the esteemed pianist's performances will, for any of a wide variety of reasons, not be able to do so. That being the case, should media producers always and only reproduce performances warts 'n' all?

And what about live streaming? I'd be willing to bet that very few livestreamed broadcasts are completely faithful to the original performance, and I know for a fact that the BBC (for example) have been 'enhancing' live performances for public broadcast for decades.

Arguments can be made on all sides, but the simple fact is that we are where we are. For want of a better cliché, the genie's out of the bottle.

Another little factoid from me. It's to do with quantization (which several people have already indicated they don't like, so perhaps we can take that as a given...?).

Most folk around here probably think of quantization (if they think of it at all) as a musical phenomenon. In fact it's a mathematical term, and the meaning as it applies to the music business is derived from the parent meaning.

In simple terms, quantization is the mapping of a (normally) infinitely large set of data points onto a smaller (read as: finite) set of specific values. It is in common everday usage, and has applications in the fields of science and technology, audio and video processing and many others.

Common everyday uses would include things such as reading the temperature to the nearest degree, telling the time to the nearest minute, rounding decimal numbers to the nearest whole number... the list is very long.

In audio and video processing it's most common (but by no means only) use is to carry out analogue->digital conversion tasks (CD and DVD are the obvious example here).

In music production, the standard interpretation relates to the use of rhythm generation technologies. In this application, the continuous (read as: analogue) timestream is divided up into a series of discrete timing points, with the aim of fitting the percussive elements of a musical performance to those points. Example: in a bar of 4/4 time with a semiquaver rhythmic feel, there would be 16 discreet timing points (yes I know this is an oversimplification thanks for asking, but it makes the point in a way anybody can understand). What the quantization process does is to 'lock' all the rhythmic content to those points, thus ensuring pinpoint rhythmic accuracy. Whether this is a good thing is a matter for debate of course, but that's what it does. At it's most basic level it functions as a click track (with the caveat that the percussionist has the option to follow it or not).

What may not be quite as obvious is that a quantization process is at work on the melodic (read as: pitched) elements of the music as well. Musical scales are a textbook example of quantization of the audio spectrum. Pitch processing - at least in the traditional 'autotune' model - performs essentially the same function (i.e. mapping the audio continuum onto a range of specific, discrete points) on the melodic elements of the music as rhythmic quantization does on the percussive elements.

Again, whether (and to what extent) this is a good thing is a matter of debate (hence this thread of course), but that's what pitch correction does.

Self-styled purists (the term 'old school' has been used by several posters) tend to demur, while industry professionals tend to do what needs to be done to fulfil the customer's specifications. You pays yer money and all that...

Another one from me (new release I think):