Electric Catfish

yes that was a coke ad and it was awesome! See, you remember that ad and it was like 3 years ago. this is my point! True, but I didn't remember what I was supposed to buy, so I'm not sure how effective it was.

Didn't Fender run an ad with a young Hendrix buying a tele during the Super Bowl a few years back?

Lastly, when I say that guitars can't be changed, that is not totally true. Tony Rice hogged out the sound hole on his old Martin. It was that way when he got it. It was like that when Clarence White got it, for that matter. It was part of a repair job that had been done, apparently; it was easier to bore the soundhole out than to repair the damaged rosette. The guitar also has a neck (or at least the fretboard...can't remember and I'm too lazy to google it right now) from a Gretch electric, probably also as part of a repair. That guitar is far from original, but tone probably wasn't even an afterthought in those changes. Rice did have his Santa Cruz's built with the large soundhole, though, and I'm sure it makes a difference.

I've never heard of PG before I'd started posting here (if that says anything about his popularity outside of guitar circles) and I honestly can't say he does a whole lot for me. To add fuel to the fire, I have to say I find more to enjoy in Clapton's playing. I see why EC became a household name, and I can't say I see that in PG. Had Clapton been schitzophrenic, he might not be a household name, either.

I agree about the studied part, but actually, I always thought EC came across as the more agressive of the two *IF* you compare Beano with Fleetwood Mac or Mayall era Green. I also hear a lot of tradition in PG's playing - different influences from EC and a different approach to them, but to my ear there's no doubt Green did as much and as deep listening as Clapton. Of course, at the end of the day they were both outstanding in their way I'm not saying Green wasn't studied, or didn't have influences, just that they don't matter as much, with him. The best way I know how to say what I'm trying to get across; Clapton was a purist, Green was pure. I'm not slagging EC, at all. I think he was playing from a similar kind of emotional core on "Layla," but he was still gathering the tools for it on "Beano," imo. Both were bad mofo's, though; otherwise, we wouldn't even be comparing them to one another. Guitar Wars are kind of stupid, anyway. I just listened to that Green clip, connected to it, and felt like raving about it, for a little bit. On a different day, it could as easily be a Clapton clip that sent me off on the same tangent.

He's up there to be sure, not sure i would say that he was better than beano era EC or indeed that it makes sense to rate them as better/worse. But that's probably for another thread. PG is one of the greatest blues players ever - one of the truly unique voices in the genre. Clapton (on Beano, anyway) sounded a lot more studied, respectful, and reserved, to me. Green's playing sounded like there was nothing, no theory, no attempts at "authenticity," no imitations of somebody else's "thing," no Peter Green, even, between his raw emotions and those strings. It wouldn't have even mattered if Green had played some other instrument, instead; that's the kind of {censored} that's just got to fight its way out, somehow. Clapton impresses the hell out of me. Peter Green scares the hell out of me.

GODDAMN:eek:

Who did you sound like before you sounded like you? Did you only aspire to sound like you from the get-go? And who/what does that sound like? Oh. my bad, duh, you. Good. Beats being a second-rate version of someone else, I guess.

Who would you prefer be ripped off? It's cool when people sound like themselves.

Overrated: Joe Bananamassa or whatever his name is, Eric Johnson, Kenny Wayne Shepherd, John Mayer, Derek Trucks Underrated: Yngwie Malmsteen, Paul Gilbert, Michael Shenker Yeah I know.... Only white guy blues players retreading the same tired licks through the same tired gear know how to play the guitar and so must always be handed bags of cash and constant praise and attention from major media sources. The guys I mentioned for the most part have had plenty of attention from fellow guitar players and industry insiders (hugely influential to new players) but have never really been given the keys to the money press like the white guy blues players. In Asian markets that give those guys a fair shake at ad money and media access they sell out stadiums. Underrated. You think Eric Johnson and Derek Trucks are "retreading the same tired licks," and that they're being handed "bags of cash?" Are you high? You've obviously never listened to their records, or didn't understand what you were hearing if you did. I'm not even a fan of EJ, and don't own a single album of his, but that's some of the most ridiculous {censored} I've ever read. I don't think shredders are really all that huge in Asia (and I suspect an old, bad joke might have flown over your head), but I could be wrong. Got any figures from the last couple of years?

It sounds like a rehash of SRV's style to me. Sounds more like a Dickey Betts rip-off to me, at least on "Heaven" (which makes me want to kill puppies.) I've not listened to any of their other stuff.

Thats good to know, but it depends on how old he is as well. A teen having sex with another teen is a different story. The law is more lenient. My problem with mikemorris to begin with is he seemed to think it was funny. But you are incorrect about what defines a pedophile. The criminal justice system makes no distinction between prepubescent or the onset of puberty. All US law regardin age of consent references age (Why its called AoC) and people reach puberty at different ages. And you and everyone else should know that saying you didn't know how old she was is not a legal defense. It's your moral and legal responsibility to know if she is of age. There are plenty of people doing time now thinking that sounded like a good defense. I don’t think taking advantage of girls/women is funny anyway, but if you must try not to wind up in the slammer. You’ll thank me later. A "legal definition" of pedophilia is unnecessary, as it is not a legal, but rather a psychological, term. My definition of it is correct, however. The term "pedophelia" has nothing to do with the "justice system." At any rate, child molestation carries much harsher penalties than does statutory rape, as well it should. There's your distinction, though pedophilia, being an abstract condition, is not legally codified. IOW, pedophilia is not a crime; child molestation is. Having been a campus security guard, you should have known that.:poke:

Completely incorrect – outdated. We now know that it is harmful to young girls physically to conceive and give birth when they themselves are not fully developed. We cannot discuss sexual activity without the possibility of pregnancy. They may be able to conceive, but since we are not animals, but human beings we make decisions when or if to procreate. Many girls can conceive at 11 or 12 years old. History has in fact shown that there are ideal minimum and maximum childbearing years. Societies in which sexual activity begins too soon are weaker and more subject to disease and birth defects, not to mention long term injury to the mother. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And "Misandrist" Ha! C’mon now, that's your Misandristanding. You seem to have no lines at all... everything is fuzzy to you. Fortunately your thinking doesn't represent society or even most musicians for that matter. You’re not going to call me a pedophobe next, I hope… meaning I have an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward pedophiles and pedosexuality. After all, some people are naturally sexually oriented to children, right? Sounds funny now I’m sure, but I predict it won’t be long before the terms are used in a derogatory way for people that still believe sex between adults and children is wrong. I don't know what the point would be to try to answer you line by line from here, because in nearly every point you’ve misconstrued my statements... reworded them into something that perhaps makes sense to you, but yet is not what I said. I think you, or any reasonable person should know exactly what I mean by taking advantage of people that are impaired, through substances or mental state. And it's against the law. It’s against the law in every state to have sex with an adult woman who is blacked out drunk, as you put it. Unless of course she says when she is sober, “Please wait until I black out before having sex with me.” The law was created by society to protect the vulnerable and defenseless in this case. Contrary to your statement above, the ethical and moral (higher thinking), which is what makes us human, comes first, only then comes the law. There is nothing artificial about it. I see you failed to answer my question, “Why not 13 or 12 year old girls.” If you truly believe what you are stating, those ages are off limits by man’s artificial imposition of law as well, are they not? No one said anything about people having to be self-actualized. Good luck with that. You're taking a very simple matter and trying to blur the lines. However, what might be sufficient double talk to confuse you may not be sufficient to confuse anyone else, least of all me. Thus it only seems blurry to you, but still perfectly clear to me. For you to assume that I am in the same fog you have managed to stumble into puts you at a great disadvantage. The law is not 18 in all states. It's as young as 16, with provisions. In most cases the man cannot be 5 or more years older. This is simply society protecting its children from older manipulative males who are attracted to children (pedophiles). Back to age 14, which is where we started. Your thinking would be fine if we were just animals, but again we are not. We're talking about humanity and society. Personally I don't need the threat of prosecution for me to keep my hands off of children, even if an individual might look more mature than her years. Apparently you have no problem with it. I see the young and vulnerable as something to guard and protect… to guide them safely through adolescence until they are truly adults. You apparently see the young and vulnerable through the eyes of a predator, or are just playing devil’s advocate. I hope it’s the latter. What you don’t seem to realize is that you are endorsing sexual abuse and exploitation of children. ~Beck You still don't seem to understand what pedophilia is. At least know this; falsely accusing someone of it is incredibly {censored}ed up. Nobody's "endorsing" anything, btw.

. But they’re pedophiles, plain and simple. ~Beck Pedophilia involves pre-pubescent children. I'm not defending the guy for sleeping with a 14 year old, but he's not a pedophile. He thought she was 17; a pedophile would have done it because he thought she was 9.

Apparently that one does have the tropical fish caps, and the box, paperwork, etc. It still way too much, imo, but then again, I don't really know much about them...hence this thread. That one is a collector's piece, for sure, but $900 for a wah sounds insane, to me.

Don't know a whole lot about the fuzz wah version but I do know the old sound city wah face with the red fasel inductor like you have is almost identical to the jen crybaby circuit as far as components go. I can't really tell since the pics are blurry but it looks like some good sized polystyrene caps are on your board. Probably a later version of the pedal possibly. Very nice though indeed!!!! Was the "Wah Face" just a straight up Sound City branded wah? Do you know when they quit making these, to give me a vague idea? Mid to late-70's, I'm guessing? I was surprised at how little information I found on these online. The ones I ran across on ebay and elsewhere were considerably more expensive than this one was, but I don't know how much differences in vintage/components/etc. play into that.

Bump for daytime, just because I think this thing is pretty damn cool, and would like to learn more about them, besides the obvious.

Maybe tomorrow, depending on how well the built in mic on this thing does that kind of thing.

I figured I'd get that. I couldn't quite get it out of the frame.

That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned. I wouldn't completely agree with that. From my perspective (as an audio engineer), I tend to think of gain reduction / dynamic range compression (without any artifacts) as "transparent compression", and things that add a lot of noise, distortion, or change the envelope (attack or sustain characteristics), or change the tone of the incoming audio in any audible way would be the antithesis of "transparent" to me. That makes sense to me as well (more so, in the big picture). I was mostly just referring to the "not changing the basic tone" part of the post (which I should have culled the quote down to, I guess). I'm thinking in terms of compressor pedals for guitar, rather than compression in general, as well. The only point I've been trying to make is that dynamic range compression (and other applications, for that matter, even if it's so transparent that that's purely all it's doing) makes a difference in what's coming out of the speakers. I was (I thought obviously) joking about using a tuner pedal for the ultimate in transparency (the use of signal buffers in most of them should have been the giveaway:p). I actually do understand what's going on somewhat, believe it or not.

I like compression. I don't really think of it as a crutch - although I know some people will think what I am about to say will sound like it is a crutch. It really helps if you play clean with long delays to keep things in check and stop stuff popping out too much. The extra even sustain really helps build even delayed textures. Extra sustain is the best part of a compressor IMO. Transparent compression for me is where you get this extra sustain but retain the character of your none compressed sound (by character I mean texture, EQ etc... of your uncompressed tone). Now, down to important issues - whay the hell is there not a parody thread about 'compression in your crotch'? That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned. That said, if the thing sounded exactly the same on as off, it would be a useless tool. People use compression because they like what it does to their sound, not because it does nothing to their sound. "Transparency" is just another cork-sniffing buzzword, most of the time, though. My ignorance might make it easy to be condescending, Bryan, but it doesn't make it easy to spell it*, huh? *Some might say that looking at the spelling in the very post you're quoting, or even using spell check, is easy, but everybody's at their own level, I guess.

You obviously don't understand compression at all. :facepalm: Continue to prove my point! Actually, I do. If it didn't have an effect on the signal, there would be no point to it. Continue to be a pompous, condescending ass!

Why do you have windows? If they just sit there, and don't change the character of what you see outside, why have them at all? Yep, that's EXACTLY the same thing. But, to go with your ill-concieved analogy, my windows DO change the character of what I see outside. Namely, by keeping what I see outside, outside. If they didn't change the character of the wind, rain, and temperature of the inside of my house relative to the outside of my house, no, I wouldn't have much use for them.

I don't understand the whole idea of "transparent" compressors that don't change the character of the signal, and whatnot. In that case, why not just use a tuner pedal? Completely transparent, and, as a bonus, it can help you tune the guitar.