[quote=BenJammin;18134943]Just bought one of these:

[IMG]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_dflsm6pay3s/SXRrdnFTD8I/AAAAAAAAAk4/eGoJtitXMKM/Eventide_Pitchfactor.jpg[/IMG][/quote]


Dude, f**king rocks. How do you like it?

Looks fun!

Post recordings of what you can do with it :).

Man, I'm so tempted to trade in this OLP I've been working on to get another tat on my back.

I'm thinking this would be sweet (without the black background outside of the image):

[img]http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/7569/mandelbrottat.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=FunkMetalBass;18135972]Dude, f**king rocks. How do you like it?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, should have clarified. I ordered one... won't know till it shows up, but I'm pretty pumped for it. I think I have more pedals than my guitarist, now. >_>

[QUOTE=FunkMetalBass;18136223]Man, I'm so tempted to trade in this OLP I've been working on to get another tat on my back.

I'm thinking this would be sweet (without the black background outside of the image):

[img]http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/7569/mandelbrottat.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

do you have any idea how long it would take to get that tatoo done?

cool thing you may not have yet seen. [url]http://www.kl3z.com/data/brainwave01.html[/url]

Benoit v
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/benoit_mandelbrot_fractals_the_art_of_roughness.html[/url]

other guy cool dude man v
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_eglash_on_african_fractals.html[/url]

/jumps on opportunity to whore fractal knowledge

It would be about 6 hours or so, which is what my last tat took. I expect I'd need a touch up 6 months later too, because of the extensive black shading and because red fades quickly.

Dude, so jealous of the Eventide. So jealous.

[QUOTE=FunkMetalBass;18136483]It would be about 6 hours or so, which is what my last tat took. I expect I'd need a touch up 6 months later too, because of the extensive black shading and because red fades quickly.[/QUOTE]

well my point was that it would take infinity to get the tatoo done -_-
internet humour fail

regardless, that would be a sick tat and i have considered that myself.

[quote=Duncster;18136706]well my point was that it would take infinity to get the tatoo done -_-
internet humour fail[/quote]

ba-dub cha!

Bad fractal joke fail.

[quote=Duncster;18136707]regardless, that would be a sick tat and i have considered that myself.[/quote]

I just went through all the design sh*t, so you'd better not steal my color schemes and equation.

[QUOTE=fatbandit;18136589]Dude, so jealous of the Eventide. So jealous.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's going to be pretty foolish once I get it. I'm not sure where to put it in my signal chain...? Right now it goes:

bass -> tuner -> reverb -> distortion -> amp

you prefer the reverb before the distortion? i'd have put the reverb dead last after delays and everything.

going off that, i'd go tuner -> distortion -> timefactor -> reverb

butttt, it all depends on how nicely the distortion plays with the time factor.

The reverb seems to work fine before the distortion. At least, I've never had any problems with it. Why does that seem strange to you? But, I'll probably put the Pitchfactor (not the Timefactor) where you suggest.

Yeah conventional wisdom would be to put the distortion before the reverb but whatever gives you the sound you want is alright, just depends if you want reverb applied to your distorted sound or distortion applied to your reverbed sound.

Oops, slip of the tongue.

Yeah, generally feedin reverb into distortion sounds very messy, indistinct and wild/out of control. Which is cool if that's what you want. I prefer to use reverb last, as it's a bit like if you were in a large room and got natural reverb, that would come after everything, even your amp. Obviously, you can't quite take it that far, but it sounds more natural to get it to the end of your chain.

There are no hard and fast rules with effects though, our guitarist uses an RV-5 in his pedalboard, and all his distortion comes from his amp. He doesn't use the effects loop, so his distortion is always last in the chain. Sounds weird to me but he loves it that way.

There's no accounting for taste in the end, you just find the sound you want to get and do anything required to get it.

Generally, modulations (delay, reverb, chorus) come after distortion for the same reason fatbandit said - cleanliness. Distortions can act very strangely when they aren't given a clear, clean signal.

Does anybody else feel that they subconsciously seek out patterns or anagrams in writing?

Not in writing, but patterns in other places.

So, math dork, I wrote a song recently. The whole thing is in 17/4. Gotta love primes.

[quote=Spaceman Spiff;18137970]Not in writing, but patterns in other places.

So, math dork, I wrote a song recently. The whole thing is in 17/4. Gotta love primes.[/quote]

How is it counted? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

I didn't intentionally write it like that or anything, it's just how it came out when I originally played it. I counted it after and realized what it was. It always felt super natural, I must say.

7 is such an inconvenient number to count verbally because it has two syllables.

I love 7. I don't know why, it just feels awesome.

Oh it sounds great and it's no worries to play in, it's just the word itself is a mongrel.

Funny how from 0 to 10, only 0 and 7 deviate from one syllable names.

I wrote a chorus in 20/8 on accident. It was counted:

12345 1 123 12345 123 123

I like odd time signatures when they feel natural or actually have a purpose (tension, release, etc), not just because they are crazy and weird. I can't listen to most math/prog metal.

Writing stuff like that I often wonder where to draw the line between whether it's one bar of 20/8 or just four bars of 5/8 with unusual accents.

All just comes down to preference I suppose.

[quote=gaslight;18138005]Oh it sounds great and it's no worries to play in, it's just the word itself is a mongrel.

Funny how from 0 to 10, only 0 and 7 deviate from one syllable names.[/quote]

The mathematician in me appreciates the fact that you started with 0 and not 1.

[quote=gaslight;18138016]Writing stuff like that I often wonder where to draw the line between whether it's one bar of 20/8 or just four bars of 5/8 with unusual accents.

All just comes down to preference I suppose.[/quote]

The thing is entirely written with arpeggios, and each break is a new chord, so with the accents and chord progression, I think it makes sense to throw it in as 20/8 instead of changing time signatures every measure.

Well, if it was four bars of 5/8 it wouldn't be changing time signature every measure.

It makes sense to count rhythms in your head broken up like that but it's a worthy consideration that there's a difference between an accent and a new 1 beat. That said, I'm a huge fan of counting tricky rhythms that way, it's just working smart.

And as for the zero thing, yeah man, I like to try and be in on mathematics even though I'm generally pretty abysmal at actually doing equations and such.

I've read things that seem to point at the English language having a really poor structure for talking about numbers and that one of the reason like, Asian kids are often great at maths is that their native language (if they know it) is engineered better for numerical thinking.

[QUOTE=FunkMetalBass;18138022]The thing is entirely written with arpeggios, and each break is a new chord, so with the accents and chord progression, I think it makes sense to throw it in as 20/8 instead of changing time signatures every measure.[/QUOTE]

That's how mine is divided. 3-chord progressions, first is 7 beats, second and third are 5 beats each. I might tell people that it's a 7 5 5 count, but it never varies throughout the song, so that makes me say that it's 17/4.

Yeah, it's pretty clumsy to count it as 20/8. I don't think most people would do that. I'd just call it four bars of 5/8, with phrasing across the barlines.

[quote=gaslight;18138033]Well, if it was four bars of 5/8 it wouldn't be changing time signature every measure.

It makes sense to count rhythms in your head broken up like that but it's a worthy consideration that there's a difference between an accent and a new 1 beat. That said, I'm a huge fan of counting tricky rhythms that way, it's just working smart.

And as for the zero thing, yeah man, I like to try and be in on mathematics even though I'm generally pretty abysmal at actually doing equations and such.

I've read things that seem to point at the English language having a really poor structure for talking about numbers and that one of the reason like, Asian kids are often great at maths is that their native language (if they know it) is engineered better for numerical thinking.[/quote]

It's true, it wouldn't be, but breaking apart the chords by separating into bars of 5 would make things more complex to look at and feel. General syncopated rhythms, I'd happily do 4x 5/8, but this one seems to be better written as 20/8.

The problem is that oriental languages are obnoxiously complex for any sort of communication. I don't know enough about linguistics to make any conjectures about the relation to math other than the vertical reading instead of horizontal. However, that only seems to be beneficial for the Babylonian style mathematics (number-based, heavy calculations), like calculus and algebra. When you start getting into the Greek style (logic, proof-based), that argument is completely thrown out the window. Most of the Asian students in my math structures/intro to proofs class did very poorly, and many dropped.

My geometry professor once said "The Babylonians could look at a ditch and tell you where the center was with exact measurements, but couldn't tell you why it had to be the center. The Greeks could look at the same ditch, and tell you why the center was locatedwhere it was, but couldn't measure it."


[quote=Spaceman Spiff;18138045]That's how mine is divided. 3-chord progressions, first is 7 beats, second and third are 5 beats each. I might tell people that it's a 7 5 5 count, but it never varies throughout the song, so that makes me say that it's 17/4.[/quote]

I see that point, but 7-5-5 + repeat seems like it would be fairly easy to just have it change to a 7/4 time signature every 3 bars. Music notation is fairly subjective, though, so 17/4 is fine.

[quote=fatbandit;18138075]Yeah, it's pretty clumsy to count it as 20/8. I don't think most people would do that. I'd just call it four bars of 5/8, with phrasing across the barlines.[/quote]

I should notate it and have you all look at it. It seems like 20/8 or 5/8-1/8-3/8-5/8-3/8-3/8 + repeat would make more sense when sight-reading than the 4x5/8.

i think a bar of 1/8 would make no sense whatsoever.

If you've got a bar of 1/8 then there's really some fishy business going on.

A good sight reader is going to prefer the bars of 5/8 because they won't be worried by the accents, they'll just read through them - they'll have the facility to count it already so the changing bar lines are just going to be redundant.

A bar of 20/8 or 17/4 would seem like very unwieldy choices to make when notating music.

Notate it up for us, we'll have a go at rearranging it and it'll be fun and everything.

That's why I describe mine by the accents. It can easily be talked about as one bar of 7/4 and two bars of 5/4 repeating, that way you actually know where to play and whatnot. But because it repeats and never strays from that pattern is why I say it's 17/4.

[QUOTE=FunkMetalBass;18138100]I should notate it and have you all look at it. It seems like 20/8 or 5/8-1/8-3/8-5/8-3/8-3/8 + repeat would make more sense when sight-reading than the 4x5/8.[/QUOTE]

I am thinking it wouldn't.

Most people would see that many time signatures on the page and panic.

If you want it played right the first time (and this is still a stretch), I would write entirely 5/8 with phrasing over the barlines.

[quote=gaslight;18139462]If you've got a bar of 1/8 then there's really some fishy business going on.

A good sight reader is going to prefer the bars of 5/8 because they won't be worried by the accents, they'll just read through them - they'll have the facility to count it already so the changing bar lines are just going to be redundant.

A bar of 20/8 or 17/4 would seem like very unwieldy choices to make when notating music.

Notate it up for us, we'll have a go at rearranging it and it'll be fun and everything.[/quote]

I wish I had some of my old jazz sheet music, sometimes. We had a ballad that had a few bars of 1/4 written there, and I looked at it confusingly as well.