• 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.

Fodera Club Part XII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#902
Just Thumpin' said:
Much appreciated!

In terms of the person above asking about being in the "Club," I don't even know if the person that started the original Fodera thread is even still active, but the thread has definitely evolved to be more of an ongoing discussion as opposed to a Club thing. That said, I would imagine that if there was ever a rule related to being in a "club," ANY Fodera would certainly qualify!

J
Click to expand...
When the person who initiated the Fbass club sold his Fbass and stopped participating, I reorganized that club... read through every single post and issued numbers to all the club members. It was a HUGE task and very time consuming which is the reason why I haven't offered to do that here. Moreover, I provided links to all the club members basses so that people could go through the list and with a click see what everyone had. If I ever feel that ambitious, and see an opening in my schedule I could do that here too... but I think we're doing pretty well as we are too.
 
#904
steubig said:
while i agree with your last paragraph, i just don't think you can make generalizations about someone's sound being better live than on recordings. case in point, a student of mine said he saw a band recently where the confluence of the room and a bad soundman destroyed the whole gig. the bass player sounds great on recordings.

hell, i've played gigs where one person couldn't hear me, one said i was too loud at the back of the room and a person who was up front said it was perfect, if a little low.

now if you want to talk about the "magic" of performance, that strikes me as being a different thing—and something that very often *cannot* be reproduced in a recording.

but in terms of pure "sound," i think there are some may variables that it's almost absurd to think anything can be absolute. live there are standing waves in the room, resonant frequencies on stage, guitarists or drummers who play too loud or have their stuff tuned so it eats what you do; on recordings you have A-D convertors, amplifier components, speakers, room characteristics, etc.
Click to expand...
Wow. Yeah, what HE said! :D

I'm always amazed at how the band's sound changes just because the room is filling up with people. There certainly is a lot at play when it comes to sound.
 
#906
steubig said:
hell, i've played gigs where one person couldn't hear me, one said i was too loud at the back of the room and a person who was up front said it was perfect, if a little low.
Click to expand...

I used to be in a band whose lead singer was a "professional sound man." He flipped out one time when I clustered the subs center stage and he insisted that they be moved under the mains at stage left and right. When I warned him about comb filtering, he had never heard of it and justified his position with, "Why do you think the manufacturers put holes in the top of the subs for mains?"

Anyway, I put a recording on and went out front to listen. You could stand in one place and be bombarded with bass, then move five feet to one side and have almost none. This was at an outdoor gig, and the problem is compounded exponentially when you have things like low ceilings and reflective walls. Then everything changes when the crowd arrives.

It's tough in those conditions to get your ideal tone and volume in the mix. If I want to hear the best of a bass player, I'm afraid I'm going to want to hear a high-quality recording through a high-quality stereo system.
 
#907
steubig said:
while i agree with your last paragraph, i just don't think you can make generalizations about someone's sound being better live than on recordings. case in point, a student of mine said he saw a band recently where the confluence of the room and a bad soundman destroyed the whole gig.
Click to expand...

Point well taken with so many variables to factor in. I too have been subjected to shows that suffered from inferior sound. However, concerts at Massey Hall in Toronto usually come off as well above average. 2765 seats at full capacity. Great dynamics. The sound crews setting up for shows love this venue.

Yes is a great band to see at MH. And to think, Genesis played their Foxtrot show there in 1973. Where was I?
 
#908
steubig said:
while i agree with your last paragraph, i just don't think you can make generalizations about someone's sound being better live than on recordings. case in point, a student of mine said he saw a band recently where the confluence of the room and a bad soundman destroyed the whole gig. the bass player sounds great on recordings.

hell, i've played gigs where one person couldn't hear me, one said i was too loud at the back of the room and a person who was up front said it was perfect, if a little low.

now if you want to talk about the "magic" of performance, that strikes me as being a different thing—and something that very often *cannot* be reproduced in a recording.

but in terms of pure "sound," i think there are some may variables that it's almost absurd to think anything can be absolute. live there are standing waves in the room, resonant frequencies on stage, guitarists or drummers who play too loud or have their stuff tuned so it eats what you do; on recordings you have A-D convertors, amplifier components, speakers, room characteristics, etc.
Click to expand...



+1 on this post. The previous post also troubled me a bit as its so variable between recording and live. I've had the opposite happen many times i.e. the recorded tone and performance has vastly out performed the live version.
 
#910
Hi guys--what do you think of the Imperial II body shape? Interested in all opinions, aesthetics and function.

To me, it seems categorically different to me than all of the other shapes, which seem more 'standard' in a sense. Maybe this is just because it's less common, but it may also be less common for a reason. At times I think it's amazing and striking, and other times I'm not so sure. Thoughts?
 
#913
I agree, I don't like the look of the Imperial II for the same reason. Although, I've seen a couple that I thought looked better because of the woods that were selected. Like some top woods compliment the shape better than others. But I really prefer the look of the imperial and emperor II.

I'm also not a fan of double cut aways that are 4-string basses. Just too much body for a 4-string neck.

But these things are part of what makes Fodera great. You can get a bass that you love, and someone else can get a bass that is completely different that they love.

Blue Blood said:
I think the Imperial 2 looks terrible. It just doesn't have the classic flowing lines of the other models.
Click to expand...
 
#914
Holy Crap Batman

has anyone seen how many Foderas are up on the Bay right now?

I've never seen half that many at one time. Must be 6 or 7 on the first page sorted by 'highest first'
 
#915
pnchad said:
Holy Crap Batman

has anyone seen how many Foderas are up on the Bay right now?

I've never seen half that many at one time. Must be 6 or 7 on the first page sorted by 'highest first'
Click to expand...

luck for me, i don't want any of them.

1990 aj 6 with maple top, ebony board, mahogany body, double truss anyone? fretlless is a bonus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back