51m0n

The people putting together a comparison need to have a decent enough studio to do the job, which requires a decent listening environment. If you read whats going on the different takes are within a db or so of each other (which requires one hell of a player to do it 13 times over or so). You cant do a baseline reference here, unless you have the same signal chain, bass, player, and your own intimitely known D.I to put in the list. What this does give is an idea as to the differences between the DI's used, their relative sonic attributes. Initial bass tone is not relevant to that particularly. If you read the original post they do point out there is no winner in this list, its not about finding the best its about enlightening you to the differences that these DIs bring against a real bass signal. The list is wide enough in the world of real quality DI's that it is quite likely that were you an engineer (ie the intended target audience) you would have come across at least one or two of the pieces in the list yourself, which would help you make an even better call about the results. This stuff is highly subjective, and from the point of the engineers doing it a good solid generic bass tone is what you want, and listening to it thats what I think they got.

Does kind of require access to this sort of kit in a critical listening environment though, dunno how well iBass are set up for that kind of thing....

Saw this thread on GearSlutz, and whought you lot would like to see it too. Enjoy [url="http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/720688-ultimate-comparitive-bass-di-test.html"]http://www.gearslutz...ss-di-test.html[/url]

You are entirely at his mercy. However a few tips, give him a pre-eq feed, simply because whatever you do to make the soudn work in your monitoring equiptment, be that a bass amp or IEM or whatever, almost certainly will not translate into the PA. Stop your backline feeding back. If your amp feeds back, then Mr FOH is stuffed. Because you are pumping that signal down the DI into his rig, result, he'll knock you out of the mix because there is nothing else he can do, its your rig causing the issue. If you put a feedback destroyer in your amp fx loop way after theFOH DI then that will not change the signal Mr FOH gets, but it should help you deal with feedback if its an issue. Ultimately though you are lost if he doesnt know what a double bass should sound like, if he is unfamiliar with the genre or if he is limited by the venue acoustics. You can do everything right, have a great engineer and still the FOH in some venues can be disastrous, simply due to acoustics.

Thats really flying up now isnt it. You're going to be finished before you knwo it, then what will you do, you'll be almost bereft without all this excitement Its been a very long time coming though, well done keeping up the pressure to get there with all the issues you've worked through. It'll make the first real session usutilising the majority of all this real estate all the sweeter!

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1335224339' post='1627728'] Mmm... I'm into the concept of 'decoupling', but you don't necessarily need expensive foam to do that. Any way you can get the cab off the deck will work. I use a Markbass Mark Stand with my BFM J12 and that's just dinky doody. It's the twenty-first century equivalent of a beer crate (a beer crate would work too, if you can find one. Or a chair. Or anything, really). [/quote] +1 I get my cab up high because I want to predominantly hear the output of my cab, not the output of my cab bounced off the floor and the back wall through a gyrating wall of meat (well a few punters trying to have a chat). It sounds better to me up their on stage, and if there is no PA support IME it sounds better out in the audience too. Of course better is a subjective thing, if I were in a dub band (as if) then my better would be a very differnt thing....

May as well ask how a piano has so many overtones amplified by the soundboard alone at the same time...... Applies as equally to all acoustic instruments.

Should have used a real amp mate

[quote name='LiamPodmore' timestamp='1335013909' post='1624724'] Heard quite a lot of good things about these: [url="http://www.red5audio.com/acatalog/Drum_Kit_Mics.html"]http://www.red5audio...m_Kit_Mics.html[/url] Scroll down to the RVD1 at the bottom. Liam [/quote] +1 I've got one, they are exceptional for the money.

Zoom H4n as overheads, a Blue ball phantom powered dynamic on mick (yup thats what I meant to say), and a Senn E835 on snare. All recording to the Zoom in 4 track mode. Drummer playing to click and samples/synths played by logic. The kit is a Mapex Saturn with fusion size shells (so ickle kick drum, big sounding though) and the objevtive was a pretty natural slightly old school natural vibe on the kit, so not too much processing and that punchy kick drum sound rather than any real sub to it. I love that snare though, sounds absolutely fantastic, and the cymbals all sound so sweet.

Nope.... Have another clue, same kit, same room, same mic setup, different track (drums are clearer on this one):- http://soundcloud.com/lines-horizontal/your-mouths-are-killing-you

And in keeping with the OP, how many mics are on the kit in this:- [url="http://soundcloud.com/lines-horizontal/the-individuils"]http://soundcloud.co...the-individuils[/url]

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' timestamp='1334509934' post='1617030'] Are you stark staring bon........ [url="http://www.fear-of-bicycles.co.uk/BC/mp3s/Phosphoribosylformylglycinamide-flavour.mp3"]oh go on then[/url]. Track title - 'Phosphoribosylformylglycinamide flavour' No idea why. Final mix yet too be done. The backbone was done in one go as an improvisation, we then cut some bits out, joining up the remainder adding odd keyboard noises. Drums, bass, guitar and piano keyboards are all the original take. [/quote] Love that - bonkers as a newt in a hot air balloon, makes me think of King Crimson c. early 80's a bit (runs and hides in case anyone throws rocks at me)

Bum, totally missed this Reminds me a bit of George Massenburgs use of fig 8 mics for snare/hats:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZOVZQgXl9k

If you limit first you are knocking the transient peaks off before you hit any other fx. This may be exactly what you want, but it may not....

First, last, in the middle, depends what you need to achieve. Compression first to fatten things up before the effects, limiting last to catch any nasty peaks exacerbated by any fx running is another option. I run mine in the fx loop of my rig (it only accepts line level signals), and all my fx are pedals go in fornt of the amp after the bass. Works perfectly.

Oh, you'll love that!

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1334748096' post='1620540'] I meant as a place where it wouldn't make any difference [/quote] I know, but it should make the most obvious diff in an anechoic chamber, since the boundaries wont muddy the result. Put a cab on various staging, with and without the Auralex device, and do a frequency sweep through the cab, measuring from a fixed point relative to the cab each time. The diff between Gramma Pad and no Gramma pad can then be shown on different stages/floors etc. As soon as you try this measurement in an acoustically reverberant space the data is muddled by the reflections, and you end up measuring the space not the device.

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1334741697' post='1620427'] Anechoic chamber? [/quote] Would be the best place to test its effectiveness on different surfaces (stages, directly on the floor etc) Without the effect of room boundaries muddying the results.

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1334703547' post='1620168'] All that proves is that some numpty has either wasted his money or got paid a silly amount of money to put his name to a product. Auralex supplies the likes of Shure,Technics and numerous other companies (and NASA!) that aren't going to be suckered quite as easily - these aren't endorsees, they're customers. [/quote] And customers like Nassa buy products based upon empirical data. [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1334703547' post='1620168'] Hard sell? Is that what it's called when someone doesn't agree with a minority who decide to swim upstream? [/quote] Hard Sell being marketing in general. Reread my posts, I dont say it cant work anywhere, I dont say it wont work anywhere, I merely suggesting that [i]this[/i] particular product doesnt seem to have any hard and fast data available for where and when it works best/worst. Most companies producing that kind of kit (Aurallex included, but also RealTraps, GIK acoustics and many others) produce data sheets of how their kit changes things in the room. Can you point me to the published test results for this particular item? Nasa, you can be sure, wouldnt use Auralex without data sheets to study. I've said I can see some cases when it will work very well, and others where I cant.

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1334699481' post='1620103'] And you did all that without mentioning compression! Spot on mate, especially 'There may well be situations where the difference is profound and not what is wanted.' Te thirst for 'sonic perfection/control/purity' means it may simply not sound so good to the punters. Good, emotionally satisfying sound often sits at the interface of multiple acoustic imperfections after all [/quote] Ha! That cant be true or more punters would rate the multiple acoustic imperfections that make up my bass playing

Yeah good point

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1334700626' post='1620121'] I have to argue with this , In a past life I raced karts , and one thing it taught me was , if you have ANY related kit or tools , take them with you , you will never know when you need it. Every circuit I raced was different for gearing , carburation , tyres and wing settings in the same way every room you play has different acoustics. I grant you that performance on a track is objectively measured with a stopwatch , but if you have tools that may just help find the sound that suits the room why leave them at home I carry all sorts of connectors, adaptors, leads and converters in a kit bag everywhere , the amount of times that they help smooth the set up , or show is minimal , but on one occassion if I hadn't carried a spare power amp the PA would have been down. While I don't suggest you carry spare everything, sometimes the bit of kit at the back of your van just saves the day [/quote] Because last time you went you took the device, measured its effect and found it to be negligable or detrimental, so it is rendered unnecesary this time. Room acoustics and staging dont tend to change often.

Lets be clear, I am sure it has an effect, but unless you are on an very resonant stage (its a bigger word than boomy, so it must be better, right ) I think that probably the distance from the boundaries of the room will probably have more effect on your overall sound for the punters. 'Coupling' is caused by reflection off a nearby surface, contact isnt necessary, but the distance from the surface is important, since certain distances from the surface will cause the reflected sound to be out of phase with the direct soudn at frequencies that are important to us bassists. This is comb filtering, and its the bane of anyine trying to create loud bass efficiently. If you get your rig right against the back wall and on the floor you will get a theoretical 6db boost due to coupling, within a foot or so of either boundary and you are still getting useful coupling. Move further away and the results are bad until you are over 8 feet away. Its all down to wavelengths of given frequencies and so forth. I fully intend to make my own one of these to see if I can measure a difference at some point, but it will be a while as I'm snowed under right now. I would think the advantage to having one under you rig if your rig is upstairs and you want to save the family from hearing it could be very large though. Clearly that would present a significant barrier to energy, however small, travelling from the rig and resonating the floor/joists/ceiling causing a relatively quiet volume to be loud downstairs. So I fully accept that on a resonant stage or very resonant floor controlling the direct radiation of energy could prove to be very helpful. I'm just not entirely convinced of its application in the same room on a concrete floor so much. But there are bound to be cases where it does help, and probably very few where it really makes things worse. So the "I always use it" brigade are unlikely to be far wrong much of the time. Personally I get my 410 up as close to head heigth as I can (yup top cones at eyeline if possible), I need less volume to hear it loudly in the mix that way, and the sound is genuinely more of what I want when I do this.

Well its not that it wont work, its by how much and in what conditions it works best. There may well be situations where the amount it changes the output in the room and/or on stage are so negligable that carrying the extra kit isnt worth it. There may well be situations where the difference is profound and really great. There may well be situations where the difference is profound and not what is wanted. It may be that it always works as intended and is the best thing ever. No one on here knows which of these is the case, no one has doen any measurement to try and find out, and Auralex (not dissing the company at all here by the way) aren't saying anything other than its the best thing ever and you would be mad not to always be using it. Which is hardly surprising. I'm positive it works to some degree some of the time, almost everyone seems to be of that opinion who has tried it for a while, but the questions still stand. And as for endorsees proving something is worth having, I give you.... [url="http://www.essentialsound.com/wooten-musiccord-pro-power-cord/index.htm"]Mr VW and his amazing Power Lead[/url] So lets not ever let ourselves get carried away wih the hard sell please! (Having said which I own some auralex products so I'm not having a go at the company or its marketing specifically).