"No" to what? I believe I also dispelled the points you raised. OoC, what were you taking issue with? Please excuse my ignorance; but, I'm already on my second cup.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Are the big amps history?
- Thread starter jkalads
- Start date
When do you figure then that digital technology will be good enough to surpass the quality of reality?
I ain't got no big league band contract. I did get sick of hauling around a MusicMan HD-150 and a 4x12 cabinet though. So I use a Class D Micro Amp with Neo loaded cabinet, and nobody has ever said squat to me about how I ought to have a bigger rig for better tone.
Few here do, have a "Big League Band" contract, that is.
There was a thread recently about needs for touring that was to me hilarious actually.
3-day underwear & foot stink powder trumped what Rig was on the "Rider"
The off-topic nature of this discussion notwithstanding, it's OK to correct factual inaccuracies in other's arguments. It's a chance for the other person to learn. If they choose to do so.
Mmmmm...coffee!
This is not accurate. Analog systems are also constrained by issues of maximum resolution due to the medium on which the analog system is encoded.
On audio tape it is the size and quality of the magnetic domains on the tape. In photography it is the size/number of grains in the film. This is why black and white film has a higher resolution than color film.
Now the resolution of common analog storage media is very high, so to surpass that resolution with a digital device is very expensive. There are digital photography systems with very high end CCDs that have phenomenal resolution, mostly used in astronomy.
With analog you get a fairly high resolution image of the source, plus noise. But you do not get *all* of the source in your image! (Whether sound recording or photograph). Even with a perfect analog medium your transducers introduce loss, but there are no perfect media, that is an idealized abstraction.
With digital, along with the same transduction losses, you have sampling loss and aliasing.
But there is no free lunch with either approach; there are always both transduction and resolution losses with any recording process.
Neither the hexadecimal sine wave nor the sine wave scribbled onto sheet metal are the original sine wave.
Just get one of these
and equip your audience with these
and BOOM!!!!!!!!
and equip your audience with these
and BOOM!!!!!!!!
A perfect trifecta of tone, portability, and grand showmanship. Or something. /thread
Maybe when we can calculate and record the quantum state of every subatomic particle. There would be more error in reality than in our numbers. Would that do it?
Agreed, and I need to get with those lossless formats to check them out. But I've owned a turntable, continuously, since 1970, and that ain't gonna stop. They can spin vinyl at my wake!
Maybe when we can calculate and record the quantum state of every subatomic particle. There would be more error in reality than in our numbers. Would that do it?
I dunno man, I prefer my recordings to follow traditional rules of physics. Quantum recordings will never match the quality of atomic recordings because you're never really sure if they actually exist or not, or both. Quality just isn't theoretically provable the century or, ugh, coffee.
Few here do, have a "Big League Band" contract, that is.
There was a thread recently about needs for touring that was to me hilarious actually.
3-day underwear & foot stink powder trumped what Rig was on the "Rider"
Your post reminds me of a blog I read by bassist Mike Watt, wherein he describes trying to find a laundromat while touring internationally with Iggy and The Stooges.
Huh? A group touring at that level does not have an assistant to wash the talent's jeans? Does the gig not pay enough for Mike to use the hotel's laundry service?
I am aware of that.
Non the less I at least would able to recognize the sine wave for what it is, without needing any translator.
Also you didn't answer my question.
(I know this possible belongs in the Miscellaneous or even Lobby forum, but I figure we already gone way beyond the topic of this thread by now.)
Will it ever be possible to create a system that will be able to not only fool us into thinking it is reality but also be able to be an exact representation of reality it self.
And wouldn't that system in fact need to be of an analog nature and not digital in the sense of the word?
Also would it at that point then not be plausible to think we at some point would be able to surpass the very resolution of reality, so to speak somehow create a system that surpasses reality and as such be able to shape it in whatever way we would wish instantaneous?
In other words will technology eventual be able to make us almighty Gods?`
Note that I don't really know where I am going with this, but non the less that is the line of thoughts I got based on the turn this discussion has taken.
And I've seen guys with all sorts of fancy gear and pedals who flat out wail and sound awesome, and I've seen guys with a beat up bass and simple combo amp that sound like crap. The musician makes the gear, true enough, and that's why your comparison is a false one.
Here's the deal...bigger is better for bass...always. Notice I didn't say "sometimes"...I said "always." It is physics. This is why people who buy a little cab usually end up buying two of them, and this is why tiny little PA systems with tiny little undersized subs are rarely seen on pro gigs. That is not to say little stuff can't sound good...it can. But even the best and most efficient little stuff always sounds better when it's doubled up...always.
I play both sides of the fence on this one...at 56, I've come to appreciate a nice sounding small rig because I can't do a string of one-nighters lugging an SVT and 810 to all of them, and one-nighters are about all I play anymore. I also have gigs where there are line of sight issues that require something smaller as not to block off the audience's view or hide people onstage behind me. But would I rather have the SVT and 810? Always. It just plain sounds better than my small rigs, even if I'm playing at a low volume that my small gear can easily handle. That's why I still lug it to my gigs on occasion, and it's what I always request when I do a fly gig and have to rent an amp. It has sod-all to do with impressing an audience with visuals and everything to do with creating an environment of comfort for myself onstage. The look is just a bonus. But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself to assume otherwise, knock yourself out. Just realize I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks, least of all other bass players.
In bassdom, bigger is, indeed, usually better. I've come to believe that it's a function of lots of speaker cone moving a lot of air, and that this paradoxically permits playing at somewhat lower volume while still projecting across a stage (big gig) or into a room (club gig) with presence and authority...and if you push the volume, particularly in that small room setting, the impact can be visceral and real.
That said, I can - and do - almost everything I do with one smaller cabinet, and I've generally favored keeping a pair of 12" cabs over the years. Convenience, small stages, playing with lots of acoustic musicians, and living in a hillside house with many stairwells, so portability has always been a strong concern. But I've been migrating to the fearless line, largely because those multi-driver boxes seem to give me more of that big-cabinet feeling, albeit in in a power-hungry fashion. The f115 is a lot of fun!
Laundry is def an issue, unless you're (Insert whoever is big-time now), wherein the lowly "Band Assistant" maybe provided by the Record label, will call the Dry Cleaner for you or soak your socks!
I don't know about Iggy's luxury level, he's been around, and Mike Watt tho a big name, doesn't sell a Zillion records
like Ariana Grande, who I'm sure gets her laundry done!
(And no, I'm NOT gonna go there!
)One thing to add; I know from personal experience, that sometimes a "Star" tho paid well etc. only goes on the cheap with his/her sidemen, trying to keep the majority of $$ for themselves. I get that I guess. Not saying it's the rule, or the case w/ most, but...
It happens!
Attachments
I agree with Jimmy that bigger is better when it comes to bass.
I think the SVT and big cabs are awesome. Will I ever buy one? Probably not. Simply because I am not going to lug one of those around for any reason. I'm not even going to lug one from room to room.
Phil Jones seems to make some outstanding smaller amps.
Going by TB , there's a ton of people looking for "combo amps of doom":- small amps with magical huge nice sound.
For convenience, the modern small amp heads, cabs and combos are certainly a lot easier to carry. But many I try out just don't have that "sound".
You don't really get what you want. You just "settle" for a sound that is as close as you can find.
Anyway you can't go by what people say. I'll read a rave here on TB about a product and then go look up a demo on YouTube and wonder what they were smoking.
I think the SVT and big cabs are awesome. Will I ever buy one? Probably not. Simply because I am not going to lug one of those around for any reason. I'm not even going to lug one from room to room.
Phil Jones seems to make some outstanding smaller amps.
Going by TB , there's a ton of people looking for "combo amps of doom":- small amps with magical huge nice sound.
For convenience, the modern small amp heads, cabs and combos are certainly a lot easier to carry. But many I try out just don't have that "sound".
You don't really get what you want. You just "settle" for a sound that is as close as you can find.
Anyway you can't go by what people say. I'll read a rave here on TB about a product and then go look up a demo on YouTube and wonder what they were smoking.
Unless we become deities, then no, I do not foresee that any reasonable development in technology will gives us an exact replication of reality. And that's not something that you should expect, because part of being a human is that you experience reality through perception and context; your own filters and biases. As far as we know, no two beings ever experience any one subject the same. Ever. I am going to stop there lest I become a Tool lyric.
Your visually recognizing that a sine wave is a sine wave is perception ("I see it.") and context ("Looks like a sine wave, I guess."), but you would still require a translator/playback device/ to hear it; someone who doesn't have context of a sine wave might see it as wind blowing across a hilly field of grass. So assuming we get as far as you suggest, then no, it would specifically require neither analog nor digital, to move from any format to any other format requires a translation. It would be, or not.
Reading many replies on TB (not referring to this thread
) I just may need a smokie my own self!
