Sibob

This might be of interest to you Www.focusrite.com/focusrite-academy-recording-drums Si // Focusrite Media Relations

[quote name='TPJ' timestamp='1509621417' post='3400328'] I'd like to hear some sound samples of the new one. I know recordings may not capture the entire sound but curious anyway. I have a DHA VT EQ DI and struggle with it but love the M80 especially when stacked. Not sure I've ever had success with valves in preamps to be fair, they seem to take the edge off so the sound doesn't cut through. [/quote] What are you trying to 'cut through'? Si

There seems to be, in some cases, an odd expectation that a program should be full of acts, every week, that everybody likes?!? It's also worth noting that most, if not all, of the acts on Jools have played a LOT of gigs and sold a LOT of music. Clearly this shows that whether you like an act or not, they are popular with someone. For what it's worth, I probably like maybe 20-30% of the music on Jools, probably about right for a randomly selected group of acts, but it has certainly been the place where I have discovered some amazing acts. For example I first discovered Richard Bona (playing solo, look that up, beautiful) on there, as well as Nickel Creek & The Staves. If you don't already, it's almost certainly worth giving something more than 30secs, if you want to discover music, invest time in the process, let things grow on you. So many people now say there's no decent Rock or whatever, that's so far from the state of the industry, there's more than ever, you just have to invest in the time and effort to find it. Worth it though. Si

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1509541644' post='3399744'] It is..? Oh dear; I was just building up to getting USB 2.0 in full use..! S'no fun these days, getting old; it all spins around so fast. Should I be anticipating USB 26.0 already, then..? [/quote] USB-C is the new 'standard', but that just refers to the connector type, it's not a protocol unto itself. You can use USB2.0, USB3.0/3.1 & Thunderbolt over that connection. Thunderbolt 3 is only available over USB-C, whereas previously, Thunderbolt 1 & 2 connections have been over 'Display port' connections. That said, not all USB-C ports/cables support Thunderbolt (be it 1, 2 or 3). Confused yet? Si

[quote name='dyerseve' timestamp='1509464480' post='3399137'] Si, it seems that you are suggesting that everyone should sensor themselves, is this really what you are trying to say? To me this seems a very slippery slope erroding away at the cornerstones of free speech. Obviously going around harrassing and insulting people is not the way forward but to to sanatise our thoughts and speech to this level because we are afraid of people being offended on behalf of other people will lead to people ceasing to engage in dialogue for fear of causing offence. I am actually glad this thread has caused this discussion(though it clearly was not my intent) because it has brought to light other underlying societal issues. [/quote] Certainly not, someone suggested that we shouldn't consider whether the guitarist would be offended because she'd probably never see this post. I tried to suggest that if we wish to help someone (proliferating their music), we should do it in the most respectful way possible, and that commenting on her appearance before her music was not the way to do it, however good the intention. So perhaps it is a form of self-censorship, but only really from the point of view of what is relevant to the subject matter. Ultimately no-one is stopping you from saying anything you want, certainly not me, but what language and sentiment is more likely to help the performer? Especially given the history of the treatment of women in music and society at large, probably not calling out her appearance when her music is what matters. Si

[quote name='Bigwan' timestamp='1509463534' post='3399120'] Not wanting to wade too deep into this one, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you see her first before she plays a note. What's going to come to mind first? "She's cute" or "She's a shockingly good guitar player"? Serious mountain/molehill here gents... [/quote] Yes, arguably, although that is based on the individual watching. There is almost certainly a difference in reaction to all watching when presented with the following titles: [b] Stunning girl, instrument, playing and composition!!![/b] [b] Stunning instrument, playing and composition!!![/b] Which do you think is more fair to her when presenting her playing to those who don't know her? [quote name='clivem' timestamp='1509463998' post='3399129'] The person who asked me to describe her was male! He would have known exactly who I had spoken to if I had only used the word "cute" to describe the receptionist. So you are saying that describing someone as "cute" is irrelevant and inappropriate in the world we live in today, even when asked by another male, (in private), to describe the physical appearance of a female? Would it be OK to describe a female as "attractive" or "pretty" when asked to comment on a females physical appearance? ie. is it just the word, "cute", that has some connotation I'm not aware of? [/quote] You're assuming that the male who you spoke to is straight, and has the same visual preferences in women as you do. Your use of 'cute' is unlikely to help him if, privately, he finds both receptionists 'cute'. Presumably he's the one who told you to take your business elsewhere, and so perhaps does not think in the same way as you. I'm suggesting that calling someone cute in a situation where their appearance has nothing to do with their professional standing is inappropriate in todays world, yes. You think otherwise? Again, assuming that just because you're talking to another male, one-to-one, allows you to refer to women in a particular way, however harmless you think it is, is again part of the problem. You were engaging in a professional phone call with someone who's gender is irrelevant, asked to describe someone else who likely would have been identified by referring to her as softly-spoken with blonde hair. If that didn't cover it, so be it. Si

[quote name='clivem' timestamp='1509463494' post='3399118'] Eh??????? I have no idea whether the "cute" dental receptionist even plays a musical instrument...... [/quote] At a quick glance I thought the OP made that comment, not you. Edited my post appropriately Si

[quote name='clivem' timestamp='1509461827' post='3399097'] I wasn't randomly referring to someone in their professional capacity as cute! I was specifically asked to describe her physical appearance! I don't have a photographic memory! It was the best I could do to describe her 4 weeks later, from what I did remember. I remembered the blonde hair, soft voice, couldn't remember specific facial features, just that her overall appearance was pleasing to me, and suspect would also be considered by most other males to be attractive, so I used the word "cute". PS. I'd still like to try and understand what you meant by, "a product of their time". [/quote] You didn't think that 'softly spoken and blonde hair' was enough to describe her? How would they know what 'cute' meant. A product of their time simply means that years ago, well up until relatively recently, someone would have been much less likely to be challenged for referring to someones looks in an irrelevant or inappropriate way, especially in professional settings. Perhaps the dental surgery over-reacted in asking you to take your business elsewhere, perhaps it was simply a way for you to think about how you referred to one of their staff. [quote name='scrumpymike' timestamp='1509462831' post='3399107'] Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the receptionist in question might be equally pleased if she knew? Or would she consider it a coded message for something sexual, sinister and diminishing? [/quote] Would you not think that checking if someone is ok with that before saying it should be the order of the day? And so we're down to consent. Cat-calling on the street, should that be acceptable because the person on the receiving end 'might' like it? Of course not! [quote name='clivem' timestamp='1509462975' post='3399109'] Yep, I don't get it...... In my mind describing someone as "cute", when asked to describe their appearance, is a COMPLIMENT. Only in the fracked-up world we live in today, could it be considered to be sexually demeaning!!!!!!!!!!!! [/quote] It's demeaning because the OP did so in a context that has nothing to do whatsoever with her looks or her gender, it demeans her musical output to refer to how she looks first and foremost even if they then caveat it with her musical skill. Si

[quote name='clivem' timestamp='1509459684' post='3399075'] A product of their time? WTF, does that mean? Is that some kind of insult? And just out of interest, how many other people upon being instructed by the dentist, to book another appointment with the receptionist on their way out, walk up to the reception desk, and immediately ask for the receptionists name? Really? The receptionist doesn't do her job, hasn't correctly made the new appointment, for the date/time she wrote on the card she gave me..... and when I'm asked to describe the receptionist that has screwed-up so they can investigate, I say, "cute, softly spoken, blonde" and I'm the bad guy.... right, OK. Got it!!!!! [/quote] 1) Nope, if you're 'offended', I apologise. 2) Perhaps not many people would think to ask someones name when talking to them, a wider societal problem? 3) No-one is suggesting she was not at fault for not doing her job properly, but it still doesn't make it relevant or appropriate to refer to someone in their professional capacity as 'cute'. [quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1509459947' post='3399077'] but the thing here as to whether the OP was "reducing her", comes down to intent surely? His intention wasn't to put the video up here to start a conversation about her looks, he put it up here to display her ability and composition to a bunch of musicians, the fact she is attractive (or not) has only become relevant because he had an opinion that she was. have we really got to a point where we can't voice our own opinion for fear of offending someone who is never likely to even read this post? the guy is copping flack for bringing us this girl's music, and i think that is unfair. ok, maybe i escalated it. my point is, that if no one had mentioned the way he had titled it, we wouldn't be talking about it, we would be discussing the music. yes people may have thought wow she's pretty whilst watching it, but that doesn't mean they see her as an object. [/quote] I imagine the OPs intention wasn't to cause any issues, but when you call out someones appearance before anything else, what do you think people are most likely to primarily consider when consuming the content? It straight away reduces the musical content (the part she's worked hardest at) to a secondary consideration. Perhaps that side of things is strong enough to then cancel out the 'looks comment', but it's already an uphill battle for female musicians in many many cases, why make it any harder? And when her looks are irrelevant to the music, why bother? It's simply a case of the OP wishing others to know he finds her stunning.... And with regards to voicing an opinion that others might never see, should we not present ourselves and our thoughts in a way that is completely respectful of others regardless of whether they see it or not? I would argue that to completely respect her music, her creative output, bringing up her looks, regardless of your opinion of them, is not the way to do it. Si p.s. Covet have toured with Chon, fun fact #1

[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1509457159' post='3399047'] i don't doubt that the OP was doing anything other than complimenting a woman on her skills and looks, apparently its the ordering of his words that make him a sexist pig. id wager peoples focus wasn't on her looks until the first "OMG THATS SEXIST!!" comment was made, now we have had 4 pages about it. a lot of you are acting as if he put the video up and shouted "look at this woman playing a bass, woman are only good for cooking and child rearing", and its quite unfair [/quote] Wow, you've escalated a few things there rather unnecessarily . I'd wager that some people, subconsciously or otherwise, would have focused on her looks first as a result of having read the first thing given to them in the title...."stunning girl". It's something that is completely irrelevant to her musical output and so therefore the OP has, probably unwittingly, reduced what she's about. Again, I've not commented on the OPs character or intentions, simply stated a position that may lead others to consider how and why they refer to others. Si

Hullo, *I'll caveat the below with the context of referring to people who we don't know, or don't have a personal relationship with. Of course there are certain ways we talk to our friends and those we're close to that we know is accetable......or so we think, maybe we should all consider that a little.* I should probably apologise, in that my initial comment wasn't particularly helpful, nor necessarily accurate with its terminology. However, I stand by the sentiment of my post, although it certainly wasn't an attack on the OP, nor any kind of further comment on their person other than their choice of language. Simple fact - Whilst you almost certainly posted the video to draw peoples attention to the guitarist-in-questions music, playing and interesting gear, the fact is that the absolute first and foremost thing you chose to comment on (subconsciously or otherwise) was her appearance. If we drill down into it a bit further, your chosen title suggests that you wish to make people aware of how impressive her playing skills are, the music is, and you'd like to draw attention to those points as well as how interesting her gear is......again, the first point you make (because the title is the first thing we see), is how attractive you think she is (which of course has sexual undertones). On the face of it, as you say, in certain situations, there is nothing wrong with saying how attractive you think someone is....however the way it's done in this post only serves to reduce her other achievements so you can get across you think she's 'stunning', even if you mention her other qualities after the fact......in other words....it's irrelevant. If you started a thread in off topic about how beautiful a particular girl (or guy) is, it would be somewhat base....but arguably relevant to comment on their appearance. On a part of the forum that is fundamentally about music and bass, does commenting on someones appearance first (when it has nothing to do with the performance (i.e. a funny costume etc), before then commenting on their capabilities, not seem completely irrelevant to you? Now, just to be clear.....I'm not offended by it, how you choose to treat others, of which I have had no similar life experience to (an asian-american female guitarist), is purely up to you. As has been mentioned before, the terms 'offended', 'snowflake', 'SJW' etc etc are often banded around because those who have been called up on certain behaviour need to be able to sling something back, none of those terms really mean anything. Some of the replies here are also indicative of the wider societal problem, but again completely engrained by hundreds of years of 'that's ok, that's the way it is'. The whole ethos of 'it's not me that's the problem, it's the rest of the world'. Someone commented about how they described a receptionist as 'cute'.....amongst other things. The fact they didn't deem it necessary to enquire as to her name when dealing with her is one thing (regardless go them being male or female), but when they asked who they dealt with, presumably in a professional situation, didn't think it more appropriate to simply say "I'm afraid I didn't ask, but she had blonde hair", a tangible fact, not a comment on her 'cuteness'. Being so acutely unaware of what the issue is there is not that persons fault necessarily, they're not a bad person, but just them being a product of their time. But doesn't help to change their way of thinking when others say "don't worry about it, everyone else is mad, you continue thinking in terms of her being cute". As I mentioned before, given a conversation specifically about someones appearance, as we're all prone to do, rightly or wrongly, it would be relevant to mention someones appearance. A group of females talking about Tom Hardy whilst out on the town is perhaps likely to be in a sexual context over his acting, of course that happens with both male and female groups, fine. However if a group of women, on a music forum, were talking about his guitar playing, but pre-tagged it with how hot he looks....that's equally irrelevant. Of course they can do it, but it makes them look a bit sad, it reduces the musical discussion. Someone argued the whole 'women do it' above a little, and quite frankly the 'they do it so we can' argument is childish. Someone posted the diet coke advert above, stupid advert, equally stupid to an advert with a half naked girl trying to sell something. It shows a lack of customer awareness and a total lack of creativity. Again 'oh this advert exists so it must be ok to objectify women', very odd. Someone also mentioned should we extend this commenting on appearance to objects......I mean really? Are you in turn suggesting that people are simply objects that we can comment on how we choose? I mean, to be fair, of course you can comment how you choose, but it certainly won't endear you to them in any way. And please, suggesting that you'd pre-tag a video of a male bass player with him being 'handsome' is ridiculous and you know it. Find me a post on this forum that has a male player video that comments on his appearance in the same way, i doubt there is, because if you read that thread title out in your head....it sounds silly.....as it should sound silly to you when posting a video of a female guitarist. So to be clear: - Act how you like, your relationships are your own. - Be aware that females today probably won't appreciate having their appearance commented on if it's in the context of commenting on other skills relevant to the conversation at hand. But again, do what you want, how they perceive your interaction with them is no skin off my nose - I'm not 'offended', just discussing something that needs addressing society wide based on your thread title, take it or leave it. - If you liked the musical content of the OP, check out Chon Perhaps I can send those who don't get it away with some rhetorical homework: Do you think that if you were in a face-to-face conversation with her, first time you meet her, you would first mention how stunning you thought she was before then talking about the music? If you do think you'd say that (weird), how do you think that would make her feel? Now, I know I haven't helped here, but it's clear that those who don't get it, won't, and those trying to help people get it, won't manage to.....and so the world turns huh. Let's crack on with talking about guitarists, 'math-core' and too many strings! Cheers Si

[quote name='Grahambythesea' timestamp='1509389484' post='3398565'] I wonder how long it will be before Adrian gets a call from nasty G's lawyers? [/quote] Weirdly, I don't think Gibson hold the rights to the Thunderbird shape, but they do for SG, 335 etc, which is why you don't see many (if any) widely available copies of those exact shapes. Si

Yes, aside from the casually sexist thread title, musical content reminded me of Chon. Clean math is have a bit of a renaissance it seems Si

[quote name='Fisheth' timestamp='1509300916' post='3397901'] I was contemplating going for a USA Lakland next time, as I wanted a five string P. Then they got back to me on prices. Another Jake it is I think... [/quote] USA Laklands aren't cheap that's for sure!! Excellent though. Si

It probably isn't the tuners, it's probably the fact you're in A# lol. Have a chat with Newtone Strings about a higher tension set of strings, just tell them what you're tuned too and they'll sort you out. You won't be able to tune to standard (too much tension), and your bass will need a setup to accommodate them, but will mean you can have lower gauge strings, a lower action, and still time low! Si

Mine arrived today! Yay! Will have a good play tonight! Cheers Si

2 out of 3, not bad Si

I hear/see two people (at odds with the title of the video) slapping bass, sometimes in time, sometimes out of time. S'all I got Si

Here it is 'wet': Si

Eerrmmmhhhgggddd Si

[quote name='Kevsy71' timestamp='1508588440' post='3393125'] This is very useful info, thanks both for the details! @Sibob, the Sound On Sound review was particularly enthusiastic about the fact that with the Quantum, you do not have to deal with an internal mixer as well as the main DAW. Is that also the case with the Claretts?(BTW I'm a Scarlett 2i2 owner and love it ) [/quote] I think specifically it was enthusiasm about the fact that the latency is so low, that there's no need for 'direct monitoring', which you would usually setup using the manufacturers 'mixing' software, it can all be monitored via the DAW. As a result, Presonus have decided not to include any kind of control software. All Thunderbolt interfaces have the potential for low latency, we've measured Claretts down to about 1.67m/s, 32samples @ 96kHz on a Mac (bear in mind you're highly unlikely to hear anything below 10m/s), and so direct monitoring is largely redundant in many situations.....unless you're running a MASSIVE session with a lot of plugins and are still recording parts (not really a use case). We still include our 'Focusrite Control' software as there's more functionality that just setting direct monitor routing. But in any case, it is set and forget. If you only use one routing ever, set it, and you never have to open Focusrite Control again. Cheers Si // Focusrite Media Relations

Maruszczyk Jake - €1030, and you could knock of €40 if you wanted maple instead of Ebony. Modern, light, hand built, and very cool! [IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/2m5gjtw.png[/IMG] Si