pkennethk's forum posts 2051

I come from the tape era so I'm.... biased **drum roll, cymbal crash***

I laughed. FWIW.

What distinction? Most drum machines are categorized as Studio Equipment at the moment. There is no category for drum machines, right?

why is that? I wouldn't really call that a piece of studio equipment.... some commercial studios have a machine or 2 but most don't, the artist would bring their machine. Is the drummer a piece of studio gear? If so that recolors a lot of my previous band dynamics.

The first thing I did, when we got the ability to make categories for our personal EBs, was to make a Drum Machine category. I hear PofM's point that there's a lot of x-over between synths and drum machines in the last 15 or so years, but I'm not opposed to having Drum Machine as a category for artist EBs... even if things like MPCs, MonoMachines, and whatnot could arguably fit elsewhere...

...but priority-wise: the fact that some artists have 50+ items under one category is a real challenge to discoverability/site-navigation, as PofM points out. I don't know if more categories is a complete solution to the problem, but certainly having some of the most important/desirable/iconic items in an artist's EB be below the fold is an issue.

Searching within an artist's EB would be helpful for the minority of us who contribute to the database, for sure, but for the casual-browsing majority of site traffic, the fact that there are no Stratocasters visible on Jimi Hendrix's EB (without clicking "show more") seems like a more pressing concern, personally.

(On the subject of the different sections, sometimes the distinction between "synthesizer" and "drum machine" is very arbitrary, so displaying them separately isn't always helpful ... I get why the distinction's good, it's just ... not always good ;-) And that's before you consider that lots of drum machines on the site seem to be categorized as "electronic drum kit" so appear in the wrong section.)

What distinction? Most drum machines are categorized as Studio Equipment at the moment. There is no category for drum machines, right?

Thanks!

The Jupiter 6 Gear Page references the Jupiter 6 w/ Europa Mod entry on Reverb, not the standard un-modded Jupiter 6 entry. This is throwing off price & availability info on the Gear Page and also probably hurting the JP6's score here.

Fair point! However, if people want to care whether Skrillex used Ableton Live 10 or Live 11 at some specific point in the space time continuum, that's all fine and good... I AM advocating for the edition and version metadata to be preserved for future use, where available✝... but anyone who thinks it's more important to capture whether an artist used Ableton Live 10 Standard or Ableton Live 11 Suite than it is to capture and reveal the bigger picture of which artists used Ableton Live and which used a different DAW... well those people are wrong. They're myopic, they are possibly a bit new to this whole world of DAWs and the business cycles therein, and also they are wrong. :)

EDIT: The big picture is the priority, and right now the big picture is being obscured by 19 different entries for FL Studio. This has to end.

✝ ok ok I was/am advocating for that metadata to be saved for users, not necessarily artists, but from a technical standpoint, I doubt there is much difference.

But it's the only thing Waxcide wants for Christmas.

So cold! lol.

Personally, I don't care if somebody used bitwig 3.1 rather than 3.2, it's probably not significant.

exactly.

If you all are so inclined, we'd love help identifying families of software versions that need to be unified. I'm aware of the big DAWs, but other things like iZotope RX I'm less familiar with... do all those need to be one!? 😯

Took a quick look at how RX family has evolved, here's what I came up with:

https://imgur.com/HLVts0l

Anything with the RX name that doesn't match the editions listed here is most likely a plugin within one or more of the editions.

I've no experience with Soundtracs, but congrats on scoring one of these!

notch/peaking then, eh?

Exactly. I may want to suppress Ableton Live Standard frequencies around in the 7 - 10kHz range & boost Live Suite around 11kHz. Results will sizzle.

did you say filtering? Low pass filtering?

I was thinking more parametric.

I'm 3+ years deep into Equipboard, and this will easily be my favorite improvement you guys have made in this span. I thought this day might never come... oh these aren't tears, the sun got in my eyes... I swear! ;)

I'm 100% behind the greater good of getting a single consolidated artist tally for each of the major DAWs. The compromises will be worth it.

That said, I have 2 questions:

1. Will there be anything put in place, technically or otherwise, to prevent users from constantly creating new gear entries for different software versions and editions?

2. It's reasonable for a user to want to display their DAW edition, and maybe their version # on their own Equipboard. Is there anyway, in this new single-entry world, that DAW edition and version # can still be displayed, somehow, on our personal EBs?

There's a reason people put their DAW version # in their signature in other forums; it saves people the trouble of asking exactly what they're using when someone is having an issue. I realize EB's current focus isn't on being a community where people ask for tips and advice @ the volume and depth of old-guard music production forums, and that may not ever be a goal here, but I often check people's EBs when they ask questions, and being able to say things like, "hey, there's a good compressor in the edition/version of DAW X that you've got, give it a try before buying something more"... well, it's cool.

So yeah, back to the big picture, I love this proposal and what it will do for DAW gear pages. What edition/version Martin Garrix is on isn't that relevant, he's got the most expensive edition and the latest version, like every other megastar... but letting users display their DAW edition and version #, easily, on their personal EB still has value, and if there is anyway to preserve that metadata behind the scenes, and continue to capture it for new personal EB entries and reviews, for the benefit of deeper features down the road... well, that would be great.

EDIT: down the road, handling reviews the way Amazon does, where you can filter down to just see reviews from people who have the exact same make/model you are interested in... well that would be awesome. I realize very few products here have a volume of reviews that would necessitate that sort of thing right now... but it would be a shame to add something like that 5 years from now, and not have the edition/version metadata from the first decade of EB reviews available.

I'd say usage more than ownership, Clifford. I think the spirit/intent here to help musicians and producers make informed decisions based what gear pros use and how they use it... whether it was borrowed, stolen, or gifted from the manufacturer seems kind of immaterial, IMHO. Maybe others feel differently?

I mean, does it really matter if the guitar(s) James used on Ride the Lightning were ones he paid for himself? The important thing, for me at least, is which guitar am I hearing, what pickups were in there, what the signal chain was, etc. Once you are flush with success, you stop paying for most of your gear anyway, companies just throw it at you... The very concept of ownership kinda loses its teeth/meaning when you can call up a marketing rep and get 2 of whatever you want expressed to you no questions asked.

I'm never going to say this again in this or any other context but my vote is not to frustrate people.

I'm leaning same way. It's hard enough for some people to get the whole reasonable evidence thing, I feel like getting kicked back just for a context checkbox issue would be too big a turn-off for a lot of newer folks.

If it bothers anyone, it's an easy enough fix for that annoyed person to enter a quick edit and check/un-check what's needed themselves... and/or an opportunity for someone to add another layer of information onto an existing spot. 2 bites from every apple. We all win.

IF you happen to know that some gear usage is both live AND studio, and have proof, simply say so in the notes. For instance, the proof might be a photo of an artist playing a guitar live, but there happens to be a Sound On Sound article which mentions studio usage as well. Well, in the notes say something like:

Also according to this SOS article, Artist used the guitar on the recording of such and such album as well...

Will do. But if submitter checks more than one box, and submission only covers one of those boxes, do we kick it back as "needs improvement" or let it slide in the name of not frustrating people?

Ok, it's live! From your user profile page you can click on X Submissions to go back and see your past subs so you can add more context to them :)

Wow. That's some crazy productivity if you got the whole thing built, tested and deployed in a day. Impressed.

Question: if a user submits an entry that is otherwise correct and complete, but the evidence provided doesn't fully support the context tag they choose... do we still rate that entry as correct?

e.g. user submits a photo of a performer in a live context, and provides notes only for that live context, but then tags it both "live" and "studio"... should we mark that as "needs more info"... or just deem it correct and move on?

I went in an edited a few older submission to add context tags to try this thing out, and realized that, in some cases, I was tagging "live" and "studio" for entries that really only proved one context or the other, not both... I just happened to know that artist used that piece of gear in both contexts... so did I just vandalize these older submissions by adding context tags that lack complete evidence?

Dumb question: when/how would an entry here be purely a "recording" gear spot? Wouldn't anything that ended up on a recording be either the product of a live and/or studio context?

I mean, artist x could say "I used a blah blah on our record blah blah" but, that's still born from either a live or studio context, right?

EDIT: Or is "recording" basically the Youtube/TikTok demo option?

I also suggest equipboard brew its own beer... equipbeer, a boutique lager with a proprietary blend of unobtainium hops and leadless solder...

The Equipbeer(dot)com url is currently available dirt-cheap on GoDaddy and similar.

Austin is overflowing with breweries to partner with.

Just sayin'...

That is music to our ears my friend. Admittedly you pointed out probably the toughest problem to solve, but the very next thing we'll be working on is consolidation of duplicates on a more mass scale. It drives me crazy that there are 25 FL Studio versions/editions on the site, or 14 entries for a 72 Tele Custom, or 8 Eric Clapton signature Strats.

I'm so glad to hear this bugs you too. :) I'm sure the folks at Image-Line would love to see just one master entry for FL as well, because consolidating all those fragmented entries into one gives new users/shoppers a clearer picture of just how ridiculously popular FL Studio has become with top artists.

It's gonna be a win-win because a lot of these duplicates have interesting pro usage, or good reviews. It's just all super fragmented at the moment.

Exactly. I'm not proposing those datapoints get ditched, just folded into one item entry or (further down the road) one product line hierarchy. Easier said than done, for sure.

We may also have to clamp down on the notion that anyone can add any item. It's our fault really, but users still keep adding items very specific to what they themselves own, and it exacerbates the problem.

I don't think there would be much downside to a clampdown. Though, there might be some interesting feature opportunities within the problem too. Some of the item duplicates seem to get made simply because users want the item image to look exactly like the piece of gear the actually own... so perhaps there's a way to let users add alternate display images to an entry. So you could, for example, add your new Fender Player Telecaster to your Equipboard, and then choose to display a color other than the entry default when the item is viewed from your Equipboard, specifically.... or if you've added a bunch of crazy mods you're proud of, you could choose to display an image from your studio pics for that entry, instead of driving that user to create yet another item entry for "Customized Player Telecaster" to show off what they've done. It's annoying that people go rogue and add redundant item entries to the database, but the impulse to want to one's EB to look exactly like one's real inventory isn't necessarily an unhealthy one.

Seems like Stubs exist mostly to solve the problem created by the new item page layout/stats and ranking system, meaning it's a way to programmatically remove items from the system that have little to no chance of ever having a populated stat sheet and decent ranking.

Viewed as a necessary component of the new item page/ranking system, I think it's an elegant solution that feels fully-realized right out of the gate. So, nice work!

Now, in the spirit of de-prioritizing entries that aren't major players, what I'd love is to one day log in to EB, search for "Stratocaster", and the top hit is THE Fender Stratocaster entry, and every artist confirmed to have played any flavor of genuine Fender Stratocaster is listed in the count for that master entry, and from there I can navigate to all the sub-categories of Strat, and see that specific model's item page, and the subset of Strat artists confirmed to have played that exact model... In other words, EB's navigation more closely matches the product family navigation hierarchy you'd find on the manufacturer's own website... Obviously this is NOT something that would need to happen for every item, or even most items, but for the biggest products out there, the ones that are pillars of the industry, I'd love to see it... and all those Strat entries marked as (Duplicate) or are color-specific... they just go away. They're no longer in the first page of search results... or better yet, they're just gone.

Furthermore... If any of those Strat attributions have been deemed "Completely Incorrect", then those incorrectly-attributed-artists don't show up on the item page.... Better yet, those incorrect attributions are also filtered out of the Artist's EB page after a certain amount of time has gone by.

If you're in the mood to marginalize entries, Subs are a great start, but let's keep it rolling! ;)

Welcome!

If you're not secretly Cherry Coke/Sunkyung in disguise, and they're not a personal friend or family member of yours, then they're notable enough to be an artist here.

Hey! Welcome!

Minilogue was the synth on the tip of my tongue, before I even finished reading your post... though I know people are very fond of the JD-Xi too. I don't think you can go wrong with either... I think it will come down to your subjective opinions on the timbral diffs between the two, and whether or not the extras on the JD like the built in drum sounds, 4-part multitimbrality, 4-track sequencer, etc are things you want and need. I do think the Minilogue is further along the path towards being a future classic, as it is a true analog polysynth and has proven more popular with pros (as evidenced here)... but that doesn't mean it's a better fit for your needs.

Definitely, if I was going to perform live with just one of those 2 synths and nothing else, I could do more with the JD... but that would require some menu diving and pre-planned projects, etc... the simpler, more immediate nature of the Minilogue may be more what you are after if you're going to manage layered song parts via live looping anyway.

Ok, so this is a somewhat complex question to answer! Firstly I will say, we don't want to divulge the exact equation, at least not yet. Reason being, this release literally went live yesterday, and we are very much in "observation mode" to see what shakes out of it. We toiled over the gear score formula quite a bit, and there was a delicate balance of making it meaningful while at the same time not over-engineering it in round 1.

Oh no need to go into exact formula; that's a trade secret, dude! Keep a lid on the equations, please. :)

But as a user/community member, I (right or wrong) instinctually expect some kind of small stake in influencing these scores, as pretty much every other # on the site is something a user can participate in to some degree.

Right now, members can directly influence roughly between 30 and 60 points depending on the item. Also, we have some omissions which we're actively discussing. For instance, the number of people adding an item to a wishlist currently does not count towards the score, but I'm starting to think maybe it should?? After all, the "desirability" of an item can be a proxy for how badass it is (or isn't)... no?

This was exactly what I was curious about. I just wanted some reassurance that the score wasn't 100% cherry-picked data from the Reverb API and/or heavily-biased by the EB gear guide findings... but I have zero problem with either of those sources being a big part of the score.

EDIT: I know the copy in the score the description alludes to multiple sources influencing score, but without any specifics, I came away with a pretty cynical/skeptical interpretation on my initial read-through. After seeing just how many items already have a score, there's no way anyone would have been able to intentionally/directly apply the kind of personal bias I was fearing.

I can tell you this much about the current calculation. As we crunch numbers from multiple well-known third party sources to make up a portion of the score, I can see that the Sequential OB-6 is hampered by its low activity and number of ratings/reviews on a well known site that shares its name with a type of effect...

Yeah, after I posted the question, I went straight to Reverb to see if I could figure out what happenings there could account for the delta. It's kind of shocking that the OB-6 has zero user reviews there right now, given it has 30 user reviews and 46 Artists here.... but whatever, you can't custom-curate every damn score... that's both miserable and unscalable.

I hope this helps! A lot more to come on this, I promise you that :)

It does. Thank you!

Happy to discuss! We're excited about this development as well, and you may have noticed product pages got a little redesign :)

Firstly, have you read the About the Equipboard Gear Score page?

Yes. I read that in its entirety. Then I asked my question. There are no specifics mentioned in terms of how you're quantifying quality nor versatility.

I really like the overhaul of the item pages. Congrats on the successful execution of what looks to have been a ton of work!

...but the topic here, specifically, is how you're building those scores ;)

From the description of this new feature, the Gear Score calc sounds like a mostly-subjective # derived from the observations of 2 people.

Can anyone maybe walk us through how (for example) the Sequential Prophet 6 was deemed to be a 100, but the extremely-closely-related sister-product Sequential OB-6 only got an 84?

Don't get me wrong, I'm intrigued AF. Excited, even. This is a cool development. But as a user/community member, I (right or wrong) instinctually expect some kind of small stake in influencing these scores, as pretty much every other # on the site is something a user can participate in to some degree.

Sifting through forums, it seems he kept the Invaders on until he switched to EMG sometime during recording of MOP... but that's just forum hearsay. I'll poke around a few more places as time allows.

I'm not saying we would lock the artist being submitted to, just locking certin items on their page (e.g. Kurt Cobain's '65 Jaguar) one could still submit new gear to the page, they would just have to request to edit certin items.

I know. I was not confused as to what you were suggesting.

Individual items still need to be updated/edited as links die and new information surfaces. Putting up barriers to doing that, whether it's having to request permission to edit or wait until you have thousands of IQ points, lightly-punishes thousands of people for the actions of just a few trolls.

I'm asking if maybe there's a way to limit the bad-faith editors, instead of limiting the entries themselves.

Looking at those threads, I'd be frustrated too, Clifford.

Does this kind of thing happen with artists who aren't 1) wildly popular across multiple generations of fans and 2) also dead?

If I was a troll looking to get a reaction out of people, those are the types of artists/submissions I'd pick on: Artists whom lots of people, young and old, hold sacred. Especially artists that people first bonded with in their early teens... those are the best targets.

Bad targets? Pretty much any artist I submit for here... tumbleweeds. :)

If EB locked any submission that got trolled, then some of the most-viewed, most-important submissions would get frozen in-time... people could no longer update the source when a link when dead, or add new info when it pops up... unlike forum threads, where you can just spin up a new one, there can only be one submission for whatever franken-Strat Kurt played through a PA head at whatever specific live appearance... or at least, there should only be one submission... that's a different problem.

Anyway... we have Moderators here. I'm curious as to what specific power the Moderators have to check people who seem to be behaving poorly?

Doesn't the system add genre tags in the order you select them?

Me again, what is the green pedal in the lower left corner? I first thought it might be something by tc electronic but as far as I can see nothing maches.

lower left corner of what? I don't see an image.

I also recently got those dual woofer IK room correcting guys and while light on bass I really like them as a direct field reference that's hella flat at mix position. And they're TINY. I got them on a dare from a fellow engineer who was curious what I thought of them in a covid home studio setting and he subsequently purchased a pair and also likes them. So there's that.

I've heard nothing but great things about those new IK speakers. They definitely need to be in conversation at this price-point. If they're solid enough to impress even you, then they may actually be as good as everyone is claiming.

@jimmarchi1 I think the best music gets made when someone has something interesting to say, musically, and enough talent within or around them to execute. But I was a teenager throughout the 90s, so "distrust anything purpose-built for a genre" and/or "subvert anything purpose-built for a genre" is sorta hardwired into me. I feel that sentiment, I've lived that sentiment.

But the way I see the style/genre thing in this EB context is this: those that don't give a #$@% will just not use it, or assign themselves something broad/vague... BUT, if someone actually CHOOSES to label themselves with one of the hundreds of impressively obscure sub-genre tags (Brostep and Electro Swing are in there, I kid you not) the act of deciding to do that can tell me a lot more than the review itself can, you know? I mean 90% of reviews here are "BEST. X. EVER. Nothing could be more awesome than X. (end of review)" at least now I can get a little more context as to how/why this $149 to $399 new thing could be responsible for so much delight.

Hah, nope. It's a technical thing, where images are loaded kind of after the page content loads, it's a way to make pages faster. Looks like there are a couple spots where we forgot to do so, thanks for catching that!

thanks for taking a look :)

Well, I didn't have to wait long to see what EB would do with the Roles & Genre's you recently prompted me for:

https://imgur.com/a/eZdIl8M

This is great.

Absolutely nobody, myself included, followed the old review guidelines of stating your style/genre/context... this is a much better solution.

Also, is this EB's way of telling me I need a new profile avatar? This black-out has been happening (on Safari) since last round of changes to Related Items.

When I need beautiful, complex soundscapes, I just sample this person's music. :D

https://imgur.com/yTLeR4l

Congrats to @KNUSCHBERKEKS, who scored General section post #10,000!

http://gph.is/2d72xXS

wait, where are you seeing the alphas in stock? I'm more interested in the shape or barefoots with that weird bass reflex thing

Good question, looks like they're finally selling out. Sweetwater has sold-through, apparently. Alto and Vintage King still have them @$299/speaker, as of right this very minute.

The Focal Shapes look great, but those are $800 each... and yes, any Barefoot, even the overseas-manufactured ones from Output are bound to be a notch (or 3) above, but you'll pay for it.... I'm talking about anything being clearly, and as-close-to-objectively-as-possible, better than the Alpha 65s @299/each. Adam T7V probably puts up worthy competition, but those are rear-ported, Alphas are front-ported... so if you need to be smushed into a wall/corner (like me), the choice is easier.

Painfully obvious: monitors are a really personal thing. One person's just-right is another's hot-garbage.

You're a JBL man... I dig that. I've never met a pair of JBLs I didn't like.

Can someon identify the amp in the lower left corner? https://www.metalsucks.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Dave-Lombardo-Jeff-Hanneman-BFF-2.jpg

Picture is from the early to mid eighties if that helps.

Not my area of expertise, but I'll try and get the ball rolling here by proposing it may be an early 80's Fender Champ II.

I'm basing this on the basic size and color patterns, production timeframe, the 4 knobs I am (sort of) seeing the picture, plus the chrome corners on bottom & top-back, but not top-front.

I started reading this, then the embedded Instagram story from DJ Nookie showed he was using Focal Alphas (which I love and are STUPID CHEAP right now due to imminent arrival of Alpha EVOs successor, $299/speaker for Focal Alpha 65s is incredible people, INCREDIBLE!)... and now I'm totally sidetracked. I'm sure less-ADHD-afflicted people are enjoying the historical context this article provides.

Also, now we need a good companion article re: ADAT.