ficelles

[quote name='BigGuyAtTheBack' post='1330743' date='Aug 7 2011, 11:08 AM']Thanks for the info guys! I contacted Wembley Speakers but unfortunately reconing is going to cost more than replacement Celestions. I have 4 Eminence Gammas so I think I'll use these instead.[/quote] Gammas will do fine as long as they are the same impedance, and you'll have much more power handling. If they aren't the same impedance I'd make sure the amp is ok with whatever they are... A bargain for £41 anyway! ficelles

[quote name='Jakester' post='1329629' date='Aug 6 2011, 09:40 AM']***Before anyone gets snarky, I have done a forum search and found all the recommendations that I join the MU!*** Anyway, we're playing a free gig next month where we've been asked for evidence of PL cover. All the options I have found - MU, LiabilityGuard, Allianz Musical etc are all geared towards individual cover - that is, cover for each band member separately. LiabilityGuard offers £1m for £99 per person - so that's £400 for the band on a gig we're not getting paid for. I should probably also say that we don't play often enough to derive significant benefits from being members of the MU. Now, I know that each member of the band joins the MU, we would each get PL cover, but has anyone managed to get a group standalone PL policy for a reasonable price, and if so, from whom?[/quote] You'd probably find that one person with a PL certificate would be enough to keep the organisers happy. And it might be just for one gig, but many events and venues ask for this these days, so if you add in the free instrument cover and all the other benefits (legal advice, template contracts etc) it must surely be worth one person joining the MU? If any of you is currently a student you can get a reduced rate. ficelles

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1329487' date='Aug 6 2011, 01:35 AM']Gibsons with comedy detachable headstocks.[/quote] I actually saw that happen at a festival I played last year... a very windy day and our dep guitarist noticed the singer's acoustic about to take flight out of its stand so grabbed it, then looked round to see his vintage ES-175 on the deck with no headstock ficelles

[quote name='alexclaber' post='1329410' date='Aug 6 2011, 12:00 AM']The reason you've found neos to have more punch and better highs than ferrite is because it's easier to get more flux through the magnetic gap. But it all comes down to the design of the magnetic system and voice coil. If I wanted to I could design a neo guitar driver that performs almost exactly like a ferrite or AlNiCo driver or a ferrite bass driver that performs like a neo bass driver. A lot of guitar and bass speakers sound the way they sound because that's just how the parts come together to produce a result but that doesn't mean you can't be much more prescriptive in the design process.[/quote] Makes me wonder why neos have become popular for bass but notably less so for guitar? I remember when neos first came out they were touted as having "alnico-like" response and there was a big push at the guitar market but they just didn't impress. Maybe there's too much investment needed to make the difference? ficelles

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1329454' date='Aug 6 2011, 12:55 AM']There are reasons we refer to them as guitards. They still use those cabs with 4 big speakers in a square shape, and then stand right against it.[/quote] Celestion Blues Alnico drivers... 15W power handling, retails around £190 per driver. That's one helluva pricey 60W 4 x 12! I think the Gold series is even more expensive... ficelles

[quote name='alexclaber' post='1329384' date='Aug 5 2011, 11:15 PM']The magnet material doesn't really have any effect on the sound - it's way way down the list of things that affect the tone/performance of a speaker.[/quote] OMG I can't believe you said that! You surely don't mean that all those guitarists who lay out £££s for alnico are wasting their money? You'd better tell Celestion to drop the price of their Blue series Anyway I'm going to disagree - for whatever reason bass neo speakers are much punchier and have better hf response than ceramics, imho of course. And (also imho) neos are crap for guitar as they are way too spikey and brittle-sounding. Based on my own experience, and just sayin'... ficelles

Speaker sensitivity is the key, well that and how the output power is actually measured... Fwiw, in my GK days I found their power ratings to be well over-estimated, and there was always a lack of clean headroom. If you can't get pre-amp gain round to 3-o'clock with a passive bass without distortion then there's something wrong imho. If you need the master volume at 3-o'clock to match an acoustic drum kit then you have not got a "true" 350w amp. ficelles

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328176' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:24 AM']My prediction of taking offense as the next step seems to have proven true. Shame, I would love to see one of these gods one day...[/quote] I didn't take offense, I just insulted you. What are these gods of which you speak? Are they talking to you now? ficelles

It's a piece of junk I'm afraid, but I'll give you a fiver for it Or more seriously, sounds like a bassixly (sorry) under-spec'ed pickup system with some vibration creeping in which you could probably get rid of... but generally you don't want a mag pickup down the bridge end on an EUB. Getting a bridge transducer and wiring that into the pre-amp would be worth trying, alternatively fitting a mag pickup at the end of the fingerboard. Either way that's a nice looking EUB and I'm sure it can be sorted - lucky you! ficelles

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328167' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:07 AM']No one has ever shown the ability to identify wood by listening. Ever.[/quote] And another thing... I'd like you to prove this ludicrous statement. Please relate everything that has ever happened, ever, to prove you are right. ficelles

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1328167' date='Aug 5 2011, 02:07 AM']If you can hear woods I would be happy to have you demonstrate this.[/quote] Not only can I hear woods, I can talk to them. They tell me they are unhappy with your aura and you should only play brass instruments. You do play a musical instrument of some sort, don't you? [quote]If you just want to boast and not demonstrate I'm going to assume you're arguing from ego only.[/quote] Ego? Moi??? You must be confusing me with someone from California... ficelles

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1327675' date='Aug 4 2011, 07:38 PM']The £50,000 figure for initial studies: a typical post-doc researcher wage is over £30,000. You will need a budget for materials, test equipment and an appropriate space to do it in, which would involve among other things an acoustically treated listening room. Then at the end you have publication costs of several thousand (yes, even though the journals are expensive to buy, scientists have to pay to publish their data). Basically, most of the money would just get eaten up by overheads and set-up costs.[/quote] I used to work for one of the Research Councils - £50k is cheap! ficelles

[quote name='Lozz196' post='1327395' date='Aug 4 2011, 04:49 PM']Yep, I played 2 Epiphone Thunderbirds - a regular one, made of alder, and the Gothic, which was made of mahogany. As far as I know, everything else on them is the same. The Gothic was far deeper in tone. I don`t know about at gig volumes, but at trying out a bass in a music shop volume, the difference between the two was very noticeable.[/quote] Thank you Lozz Re the Talkbass experiment, it was clearly flawed in 2 major ways: 1 - they didn't make 100% identical instruments with just the body wood different. 2 - they relied on hearing tests of observers, not the hearing-and-feeling test of players. Having played those "carolena" (i.e. pine) Rockbass Streamers and then a friend's early German-made Streamer (not sure what the wood is, probably Wenge?) they sound and feel different, and there is far more sustain and better tone in the Wenge one acoustically so you can discount the electronics. ficelles

Clearly there's a DIY opportunity for someone here Go and build two 100% identical P bodies, making one of oak and one of pine. Put identical necks and electronics on them. Now plug them in and see if they sound the same. Hint: they won't... ficelles

[quote name='uncle psychosis' post='1325376' date='Aug 3 2011, 10:50 AM']To be honest though, the only thing I don't like about the Corvette is that silly upper horn. Its too long and, to be blunt, looks like it belongs in an Ann Summers catalogue Shorten it and round it off (maybe make it more like an Ibanez) and the design would be amazing...[/quote] Having owned a couple of Corvettes I think they are one of the most wearable and comfortable body shapes around, but one or two times at gigs I realised I was standing between numbers absent-mindedly holding that upper horn in my right hand and that made me wish I'd brought the Jazz instead ficelles

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1326348' date='Aug 4 2011, 12:31 AM']Is it bone conduction throwing you off, because of the speed of soun in bone and the inside of your ear binging moved from the wrong side?[/quote] That's an interesting theory, but the difference in the speed of sound in bone (which would be quite high, around 3500 m/s) and the normal hearing mechanism wouldn't affect pitch, although it would affect timbre and high frequency attenuation. Of course there could also be some sort of resonance involved... the answer I would say is as others have said to keep the volume down! ficelles

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1324745' date='Aug 2 2011, 07:41 PM']True, but when those engineers and scientists were those employed at Bell Labs they knew far more about how human hearing functioned than the medical community, who were late comers to the party. The history of Bell Labs, and what they accomplished from 1876 to roughly 1950, is a fascinating topic in and of itself.[/quote] Talking of the early days of acoustics, I was lucky enough to hear Per Bruel lecture a few years ago. A very sharp intellect even in his 90s. ficelles

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1324723' date='Aug 2 2011, 07:27 PM']The reason this is the hot topic is because if you can't hear it then it doesn't matter.[/quote] You mean like with audio masking? Hearing is all down to signal processing at the end of the day, I just wish I could reprogram myself to filter out my tinnitus [quote name='LawrenceH' post='1324723' date='Aug 2 2011, 07:27 PM']I would be fascinated to know how many speaker design companies are actually employing or regularly consulting with researchers into audio perception. I'm sure it's more common these days but historically it is a subject that has been dominated by engineers and physical scientists.[/quote] I think you'll find most are these days - psychoacoustics has become very trendy and things like creating the perception of deep bass where there is none through use of harmonics, or making a stereo pair of speakers 1 metre apart sound like they are 10 metres apart with delay are hot subjects and have been for a while now. ficelles

[quote name='alexclaber' post='1324104' date='Aug 2 2011, 12:27 PM']Charic, if you understand mics, just reverse them and you'll understand speakers! An oversimplication but there's a very close correlation.[/quote] A transducer by either name... ever tried using a speaker as a microphone? Not overly efficient but it works... ficelles

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1323765' date='Aug 2 2011, 01:19 AM']I have certainly studied the basic physics sufficient to give a reasonable description of soundwave propagation and the low-frequency behaviour of these boxes. A lot of that side of things is really no more than first-year undergraduate science, if that. I think the dissent is more in the area of acoustic perception, i.e. how we hear. There is lots understood and lots more ongoing research in this area, including that by my colleagues over in Glasgow. Why is this so controversial? My take is that in addition to areas of active debate within the field, there is a lot of stuff floating around that's out of date, not to mention claims that are likely unfounded where financial interests of exotic hi-fi companies/marketing men are concerned. It does take a bit of time for that type of biological research to filter out and cross specialisms to the engineering/physics arena, and much longer before it becomes 'common' knowledge. It's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of the research into hearing has been geared towards the interest of medicine rather than loudspeaker designers, and consequently perception of frequencies within the normal range of speech is prioritised. Add to that the fact that bass presents more practical complications to work with, read gets more expensive, and you see why it isn't an area that's focused on so much.[/quote] Interesting perspective, not sure the accepted acoustics viewpoint is the same but then maybe that's just my perspective Splitting hairs I know but is the study of the hearing mechanism really biology, isn't it physiology? I'm off to re-read my psychoacoustics textbook... in theory I reckon can make a cab with a tiny bandwidth that [i]sounds like[/i] it can handle a low B if I can just get those darn harmonics right... ficelles