You're inferring anger.brisk said:Based on that exprience, I am pretty sure that once you get together and share few hours of your lives, you would feel that it is ridiculously childish to raise voice over a little difference in opinion.
Just my two cents.
nahfuten said:I am planning on putting the Zakk Wylde set on my LP... Is it always neccessary to drill out for the battery? Is it common to not have enough room in there?
ztevie said:I didn't have to make space in my Schecter c1+...
I use .10-.48 strings, but why would a choice of pickup determine what string gauge you use?
TheGZeus said:You didn't really read the whole thing did you?
There are wolf tones all through the audible range.
A low frequency signal and a high one that occur at the same time can cuse one to be screwed up for lack of a technical term.
Run a square sweep in cooledit. Just LOOK at the resulting waveforms in various formats.
TERRIBLE.
A sine sweep is full of wolf tones above around 10k. Slight ones but they are all over in 44.1.
If you have accuracy outside the audible range that deteriorates far above it, then you have more accuracy within it.
I'm not mastering below 96 any more if I can help it.
Wolftones are things YOU CAN HEAR.vinterland said:I'll ask this question then. How many people do you think are going to actually be able to tell you recorded in 96khz or 192khz as opposed to 44.1? Maybe a few engineers whom you point that out to? They might be like oh yeah that sounds a little clearer possibly. The point being when you have that high of a sample rate your taking up a ton of data space. Also when you are sampling that high you need extremely high end equipment for it to even matter. I've listened to audio recorded in 192khz and 96 and 88.2. It sounds slightly cleaner but only slightly to me. Theres still a debate among engineers as to whether it really matters at all to sample that high. Some say it helps with the stereo image a little others don't. So the only thing that I think makes a difference in recording is 16 bit vs 24 bit. I like 24 bit much better and its something you can actually hear. I really think you need to quit looking at your cool edit screen and just use your ears. You really need to get over your obsession with wolf tones as well. I wouldn't take a program like cool edits waveforms that seriously. I really doubt they were more focused on showing you accurate waveforms as they were trying to make sure the audio gets recorded correctly.
Erlend_G said:Oh yes. I just started wiring up the Emg stuff together with my uncle. I'm just waiting until i get to make the pickguard and get a nut, and then it's going to be rock 'n' roll all the time!
Thanks alot by the way, MikeS! It's always nice to hear an intelligent and helpful review(im not implying that you other ones are stupid, i really appreciate your help too!).
I'll post clips as soon as i can!
Cheers,
-Erlend
TheGZeus said:Wolftones are things YOU CAN HEAR.
Why did you assume I was going by a visual assesment?
TRY IT AND LISTEN.
the fundamental is EQUAL in volume to the wolf tones at the top of the audible range.
THey're almost inaudible in 96.
If you can't hear the difference, that's not my problem.
Run a noise signal in both, tell me you can't hear the difference, and I'll have to guess you have poor high end sensetivity. In which case you probably WOULDN'T hear the difference in a recording.
However, I like accuracy and 44.1 is NOT accurate when compared to tape run at the proper speed and of the proper quality.
44.1 to 96 is like compoaring 7.5 IPS to 15 IPS.
7.5 has a presence boost making it slightly harsher.
15 sounds noticably better, but many many recordings were done at 7.5(lower budget usually)
ex-250 said:this really has nothing to do with EMGs anymore does it
Back on topic:ex-250 said:this really has nothing to do with EMGs anymore does it
TheGZeus said:I'm guessing you didn't work with many professional violinists or cellists, as they would have known exactly what I meant...
ranalli said:People that say EMGs are sterile, or are completely artificial sounding don't really know what they're talking about. EMGs do impart alot of their personality onto a guitar but then again so does a JB. EMGs are the clearest sounding high output buckers I have ever come across....not to mention the quietest.
Play some nice mellow leads with an EMG60 in the neck then tell me they are sterile and not versatile.
Sorry.....but EMGs are GREAT pickups. The 81 *can* be a bit brash in some guitars/setups but hell...so can any pickup. What EMG really needs is more tonal options that work with more setups IMO.
And David Gilmour uses EMGs.....tell me his tone is sterile.....yeah.....
And one battery will last a LONG TIME in your guitar....who cares if you need to put a nine-volt in their guitar....does it really matter?
With all that being said, I do think the EMGs excel at high gain stuff and I would rather use Duncans or Dimarzios for lighter vintagy type stuff. But EMGs do completely fine for hard rock as well....they're a little more than a one trick pony.
The Korean actives I've heard have been very pure and musical.MikeRocker said:Back on topic:![]()
I personally don't like active pickups for guitar, but YMMV. Passives sound too good.