EBS_freak

^gas

Youre right, you shouldn't sell out to Gregorian Chant. Be true to yourselves.

Now wouldn't it be interesting if said supporting bass player ended up going down a similar route...?

Perhaps you should branch out into Gregorian Chant?

How is the baroque scene looking nowadays?

Not bad result!

Has anybody commented, especially on the originals scene, why are you using a "proper" amp? How did your band take to it?

But when you are using the subs, you are using a crossover that takes up the bass duties away from the tops... actually making your tops more potent because it hasn't got to struggle with the harder to amplify bass frequencies. For bass guitar, subs are actually generally too subby for bass guitar in most smaller venues!

Get rid of them then, get some in ears and put your money into foh speakers.

Has he got his own mic?

Indeed - carrying a dumb bell is easier than carrying a similar weight javelin.

No - you DI out from your amp modeller into the PA. The PA speakers should be transparent, exactly the same as your on stage FRFR speaker that you are using for a monitor. The whole point of PA and FRFR speakers (effectively the same thing) is that all the colouration is done by the modeller and not the speakers.

I remember you posting your thread... but even back then I still thought you had got it all wrong. This is what you should be running - 1x Helix LT = 12.5 lbs 1x inears = circa 0.07lbs 1x inear amp = circa 1lbs 2x735a (front of house) = 96lbs. Your ears will thank you for it for starters. Less spill on stage, your band will sound better for it. Less space taken up transporting kit. What's not to like? - and if you dep with another band, you take the Helix and a single 735 for a traditional rig.

Bass cabs... and especially guitar cabs colour the sound considerably. You have to consider the sound coming out of the modeller to be a recording of your instrument as it would appear on the CD. You wouldn't plug your CD player into guitar amp and expect it to sound as good as a hifi. This is the same... the FRFR takes away any further colouring. If you do want the colouring of the cab, you run a model of the amp without any speaker emulation or IR and let the non FRFR cab add that colouring back in.

Al Krow - I don't think that it would be any surprise to state that modelling with FRFR is still a minority portion of the market - I, along with many others, believe that the flexibility in a modelling solution, complete with a FRFR cab (that on the whole are far superior in at least a component view to a bass specific equivalent), should be at least on a consideration list when down to people choosing gear. If offers great flexibility - Your valve tone at any volume. Many amp tones and fx available in one package. The ability to run silent stages without compromising tone out front (or in ears if you use them)... the list goes on. For me, I think it would be foolish for anybody not to at least test drive one. As to how many bass players are running FRFR cabs - well, in all honesty, I wouldn't know... I don't really care. Even if that number is insignificant, whats wrong with being one of those people in the know - and making your life easier? I just know that it works well... and has worked out for everybody else that I know that has done the switch. What you cannot argue though, is that pound coin for pound coin, the technology and performance of a modern PA cab far outstrips those "bass" specific marketed cabs. Call this a thread of education and enlightenment that you can do things differently. At the end of the day, we are musicians that use tools to create our music. Does it matter if we use a cab or a specifically marketed "bass cab" in our rig? No. We shouldn't be confined to the marketing blurb. Anthony Jackson and Mike Gordon have been doing the powered PA thing for years with Meyer cabs - they certainly don't care that they aren't "bass cabs" and I don't believe they have suffered because of it (although their roadies may have some bad backs now). There's those people that will swear blind that analogue desks are better than digital desks too. But as soon as you have guys on digital desks, it won't surprise you, that these same guys are very reluctant to go back to analogue. There may be the odd dinosaur that doesn't get on with digital - but the advantages that digital offers far, far, far outweighs analogue. You can do with a shoeboxed sized mixer that just over ten years ago, would have taken a transit or two full of gear to achieve. Similarly, PA cabs have come on so much now... a single 12 or 15 - they don't do just do just vocals... they can do the whole band now... and at considerable volume. Why would you not want to embrace that technology?

That's insignificant. You queried how many FRFR cabs are being sold. "Oh please. LOTS of sales of FRFR gear. Really? Let's not get carried away. " The answer is to that original question is a lot. A lot of modeller users are using FRFR cabs as guitar solutions, some for bass and some for both as a guitar and bass solution.

Make sure that you try changing your £1000 bass for your £50 Sue Ryder too... and ask the audience again.

FRFR gear - why don't you go into a PA shop and try telling them that they are not selling any PA tops. Do tell us how they laugh at you. FRFR is a term that has been coined by the modelling community - but it's another word for PA speakers. https://www.facebook.com/groups/line6helixusergroup/ - 14k+ users. The vast majority of those users have paired them with PA speakers. https://www.facebook.com/groups/363954780291903/ - 10k+ users. The vast majority of those users have paired them with PA speakers. https://www.facebook.com/groups/23174569478/about/ - 10k+ users. The vast majority of those users have paired them with PA speakers. https://www.facebook.com/groups/headrushboard/about/ -1k+ users. (This is a minority share of the market but still growing) 35k+ potential FRFR users just in those groups - there's going to be none facebook people not represented in those figures... and all the people that are using PA cabs for PA use alone. I would argue there's a lot of FRFR solutions being sold...

Lots of sales and yet none come up second hand. Kinda tells you what you need to know.

Indeed! More dsp in a box!

Everybody's gear is their gear and if it works for them, so be it. I'm always interested in what other people are doing as it may inspire me to do something different. RCF demolish a Barefaced? Well, I guess that depends on which RCF, which Barefaced... and whether you want the colouration of a bass cab, or the FRFR of a PA cab. My smack all others into the ground wasn't directed at Barefaced or any particular manufacturer to be honest - I wasn't even thinking about Pete's comments either than I wrote it. The reason I wrote it, performance, weight and price wise, there is simply not a competing product offered from any other manufacturer whether they be predominantly PA manufacturers or bass cab manufacturers or crossover (like Barefaced?). To some extent though, the Hulk Hogan comparison actually hangs true. The components in those particular two models outclass those from cabs even more than double the price. That pretty hulk in my book. In regard to BF and your passive speaker cabs - they probably are comparable... but I'm very wary of passive cabs being branded as FRFR for reasons I've mentioned earlier. I just don't think it's possible to engineer a flat response cab anywhere near that of a cab with DSP. Sure, you could add DSP pre the amp that drives the passive speaker... but again, more shizzle to carry around. As opposed to brands being mentioned in threads - it's natural - thats what makes the stuff we write about more real world. People like stuff. People don't like stuff. Some people can justify why they rate stuff... others just rate it because they own it and very protective if what they have bought is then brought into question on a forum. I think that's a fair observation isn't it?

We don't play with backing tracks. We do play with a click when required. When is it required? When we have the synth player playing synth patches with arpeggios or samples being triggered that are beat dependent. It's not cheating - as unlike backing tracks, we can go round verses, choruses, bridges until the cows come home. We are not limited by the playback of a backing track. At one point, I was syncing MIDI across the stage for patch changes and being able to trigger different tempos (so we are still not bound by a song structure) - but ultimately, it was overkill, extra complication and another thing to go wrong. It also depends on the drummer... a great drummer can groove to a click and push and pull the tempo around that click. Hell, I use three drummers regularly and they all share a common pad with all the notation (they are all theatre show drummers) - makes learning new songs really easy for them... they just turn up and read.

The tone of the thread can be pretty much dictated by the title. I don't quite know what you would be expecting! The modelling thing has only really been nailed in the last few years... and the software in the current modellers are still being improved month by month to incorporate better fx and more models etc. The Line 6 modelling bass is now old technology... and carrying around a few basses is certainly different to carrying around a few backline rigs, both in terms of size and weight.

As flat as any passive PA - maybe - but certainly not as flat as any cab that is given a helping hand with DSP to control the actual resulting response. It's a bit of a cheat really - you could actually manufacturer a pretty poor cab and fix most of the problems with DSP. I don't think anybody is running anybody's systems down. They are just different approaches to the same problem. Some people will want FRFR, some people may not. As I stated above, what it does enable you do is to get that studio processed sound into your live rig. I think you are confusing the real thing behind FRFR in your statement, "I'm actively going out of my way to stop the system as a whole providing FRFR, because it sounds and feels more appropriate in context." The point is, if your rig is exactly like you like it, if I miced it up and profiled it with my Kemper, it would sound exactly the same as your rig miced up. The reason? My FRFR cab is not changing the sound coming out of the Kemper. If you put the Kemper back into your Barefaced cab, you would get the sound signature of that Barefaced cab changing the sound. FRFR doesnt mean your bass sounds flat or sterile... it just means that it has no impact on the sound that is being fed into it. You not using FRFR to get your sound from your rig is fine... but my model of your rig requires FRFR to not colour that modelled sound of your rig. Put it like this, if you were to put a Trace through your Barefaced speaker, it would sound like a Trace through a Barefaced speaker. If you were then to put an Ampeg through your Barefaced speaker it would then sound like an Ampeg through Barefaced speaker. You may actually prefer the sound of a Trace through a Barefaced speaker but prefer the Ampeg through an Ampeg speaker... so you'll have to cart that around too. I can model all that with my Kemper and a FRFR cab... and not have to carry the Barefaced or two amps around.... in fact, I could take as many virtual amps and cabs as I need... and the resultant sound through the PA would be exactly the same. Whats not to like about that? Your RCF monitor comment seems to have no context to the rest of your post?

Anyway, it's probably best that we get this thread back on track - if anybody wants to talk wireless in depth, I'm sure you could set up a thread in accessories and misc and we can continue conversation on such things there and let the Smooth Hound discussions resume.