EBS_freak

I totally agree. critical and well-informed friend : "you're all too loud, you can't hear the vocals. All turn down. The PA hasn't got enough power to go louder to get above the clatter that you lot are making without sacrificing the sound of the vocals further or us being greeted with wailing feedback. You drummer. Yes, you the one with the two chopsticks in your hands. You need to lay off the drums. Next time consider leaving half your cymbals at home... and no, you don't need a second bass drum... or a double kick drum pedal before you get any ideas. Guitarist - you need to turn well down. Yes, yes, yes, I know all about the 'you can't get your tone without being a certain volume' but people are here to primarily listen to the vocals, so keep your ego in check... and you're deluded if you think you are the next guitar hero. The vocals? Yes - that's the person behind that ridiculous Elvis mic with the fairy lights going down the stand. Anyway... back to you mr guitar - don't pretend I didn't see you rolling back your volume pedal. The underage kid at the bar trying to sneak his first drink is better than you already. And don't even think about reaching around for the volume, or playing softer in soundcheck, that stinky poo doesn't wash with me. Bass? Nobody cares about the bass anyway. Do what you want."

In reality, small PA for vocals don't cut it when placed in a band situation. Bands need a band grade PA, even if only vocals are going through them.

The singers in my band don't even own their own mics. Talk about spoon feeding.

Of course, the big problem with this, is that nobody wants to own a PA. So whilst a band may know (but it would seem not) that it is better to put the whole band through the PA and run minimal backline, the PA ownership (and transport) problems usually prevent it. ...and hence volume wars continue. And it's not helped when people in the audience start shouting, "we can't hear the vocals" - when the PA has been totally skimped on and not got a hope in hell in getting above the inappropriate backline that has been wheeled in.

Indeed - it’s all a game of catch up. HMRC are just acting upon instruction - you can update an import/export system over night. Plus there’s the silly beggars that are deliberately being a fly in the ointment for fun.

Do you know what's funny.... You reckon this will get to me quicker than your guys stuff from Thomann?

I wonder if they'll consider switching government border forces rules.

I can see negative reviews in Thomman's future - when it's not actually their fault.

Well, that's the preference. But you know, rock n roll n dinosaurs.

Happens all to often - your ear on stage isn't really well judged to determine what the ears out front will hear. I'll say the same every time... cabs on stage for monitoring, PA for doing the heavy weight lifting.

Shh.. Don't p1ss on their parade 😜

Just came in to check that the Miley version was included. My work here is done.

FACT!

You are missing the point. This is EXACTLY why the raked stage was invented... so the sound from the cabs is actually angled down towards the audience whilst giving the audience a clearer view of everything that is happening on stage. FACT. It's true. It's even more true if I put FACT at the end.

There's no eye rolling going on here as far as I am concerned - it's quite possible that 2x12 drivers with enough excursion and in the right box could compete with an Ampeg 8x10 with its low excursion drivers. I'm more intrigued by the fact that you say that the Super Twin doesn't appear to have much presence when you are next to it, which doesn't bode well for hearing yourself on a variety of stages. I couldn't comment whether a Barefaced or Trickfish would outperform an 8x10 without some proper scientific testing - and again, what does scientific actually mean? Whats not to say that the acoustic deficiencies of an Ampeg Fridge is what actually makes them appealing? Let's not forget that the fridge design was from an era where random speakers were put into random sizes boxes until they were deemed to sound good. I can understand why the sound out front (when using such a cab as both foh and for monitoring on a small stage) is too loud if the dispersion from the cab is not reaching your ears on stage. Naturally, you are going to want to turn up to hear yourself on stage - but in doing so, you are compromising your front of house mix. If there is any eye rolling to be had, it's the fact that bands are still using big cabs and expecting to have a great sound out front and on stage.

You do realise that a video camera mic is a terrible way to assess bass balance in a band?

Indeed - on the side, there should be a rec level. Press the -ve button and monitor the meters whilst you are playing and keep turning it down til it doesn't clip.

It’s unavailable because they appear to be in the hands of basschatters that may or may not realise that that the tax rules of the UK aren’t solely written around Amazon!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SCARLET-KITTEN-Leather-Flogger-Floggers/dp/B07H967LMH ^ on topic

You are right. Why would Amazon pull out of Britain? They are paying the taxes on the profits as defined by the laws set out by the government. The whole other discussion at this point is completely hypothetical... and I’m not entirely sure how fraud comes into it? Multinationals operate within the boundaries set out by law. You are also only focusing Amazon - who adhere to the same taxation laws as other companies. A change to those tax laws could crucify those other companies. Are you suggesting we should have a separate tax law just for Amazon - just because we don’t like what they are or aren’t paying?

The thing is, the rule book is so, so, so massive, changing them is very difficult. There's people where their sole purpose in life is to find the loopholes in the tax rules and exploit them. That is not illegal. The thing is, in plugging the loophole, you may be inadvertently opening a much bigger one. Thats how complex all the interactions between entities are. The tax laws aren't like a board game - far from it!

You're shouting at the wrong person. In answer to your questions, yes you can - a lot of celebs have been caught out doing just that. Not illegal - as it's avoidance, not evasion. Just doesn't sit right with most - quite rightly. The big corporations that are generally referred to, do pay the requisite taxes that are due in the UK - and in Amazons case, they, "they" been Amazon Luxembourg, adhere to those rules . The "perceived" problem seems to be with the tax laws that Amazon are correctly following - just so happens the tax liabilities for Amazon's circumstances aren't as high as the public would like to see. It may be a monopoly - but it's a very important monopoly - and that's the crux of the issue. Pull the wrong pieces of string and it all comes crashing down. The government know that, Amazon know that. Stalemate. HMRC are well aware of who is paying what - and they will have done the calculations to see in which position the UK is better off - pulling the Amazon string or not.

Historically yes, not so much now given the existence of HMRC's Connect system... and other data mining systems that aren't public knowledge.

Well... I wouldn't agree with that at all. Being a small trader, it's easier to be creative with accounts, blurring the lines between personal and commercial expense for example... it's easier to maximise your cash out of the business. It's easier to deal off the books in cash. Bought a new computer? Yes, that's for the business. A TV? Yes, that's for the business. Additionally, payments of dividends out to a business owner, and say their spouse (who may not even do a days work for the company but are included by name only), maximise dividend payments out of the company. This brings more money into the shared household but without being subject to as much tax if it would as if only the true employee paid tax on their dividend. Of course, if you work for a larger company, you are a likely to be under the PAYE umbrella so taxed at source - but do appreciate you can still extract dividends. The pandemic has been really a really interesting rude awakening for those that have paid themselves a low wage and extract the majority of their earning from dividends... as Sunak doesn't appear to like people doing that... The really big companies pay minimal (corporation) tax - but they are still in line with the law (or should be) so in reality, they are better at tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion. This is all within the boundaries of the law - and lets face it, they can invest the money so the bean counters can work out where the company is best placed to maximise profits and minimise operational costs. As T-H above states, the number of companies involved are relatively small - but say in the case of Amazon, it's worth remembering that they are an enabler for many other small businesses. The means a whole other stream of corporation tax and PAYE hanging off the bottom of those. Amazon offer up a shop front for independent traders, they create jobs not only within Amazon itself - but for the likes of third party couriers, manufacturers - such as cardboard box manufacturers...etc etc... and then when you factor in the likes of AWS, another Amazon offering, they are offering multiple businesses world class, international technology on which to host and build their online business. It simply makes zero sense for the government to p1ss off Amazon because the impact on so many reliant businesses would be catastrophic. Im not saying Amazon is right or wrong... but it's non-existence would have a MASSIVE impact on the UK economy... in fact, the world economy - that's how central it has become to the world's economy. They simply got super good at what they do - like most of the massive players... A world without Microsoft would put the economy and technology of the world back decades.

Essentially, what the government want is everybody on PAYE.