51m0n

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1330431939' post='1557290'] Don't take is personally mate, i was only thinking out loud. Generally speaking things done well sound good, but that is not quite what the OP was about! As ever, I bow to your expertise. C [/quote] Not taken personally at all chap! Just trying to come up with something concrete as evidence. This process allows the musicality to shine through. If you want to enhance the chances of this occuring for your band live then a bit of sensible 'preprocessing' of the individual sounds by the band in order to create a cohesive whole will really really help, be you in a tiny venue or the Albert Hall (actually especially in the Albert Hall, terrible issues with excessives reverb in there for years ) The smaller the gig the less the engineer (whoever that is) can do to rememdy the situation (due to stage spill as much as anything else.

As a further point wrt to mixing, the result is only ever as good as the song and the arrangement. A really good (read expensive) mixologist will happily cut swathes of instrumentation out of your tracking in order to deliver a better mix. The recordist will record everything the musicians come up with (the tracking process), the mixologist turns that into a brilliant cohesive mix that is catchy, driving, emotionally enthralling, and moves from section to section pulling the listener along whether they like it or not, (the mixing process). It is an absolute art and science at the same time. The mastering engineer turns the recorded songs into an album by balancing them as a whole together (and adding the correct codes, printing the CD, working out the gaps between tracks etc etc) and brings the whole up to an acceptable level (without damaging the music hopefully).

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1330420076' post='1556975'] Mmmm, I wonder if we as bass players are a little self-congratulatory and naive? If I had a pound for every band I've seen in which the bass player is either booming ominously and thereby turning everything into mud, or cutting through like a razor and thereby destroying the musicality of the performance (assuming there was some there to start with), I'd have a new rig. OK, if these are deliberate stylistic decisions, no problem (and there are of course probably an equal number of examples of bass that can't be heard). I guess what I'm saying is that I think 'sitting in' and 'cutting through' are different things. OK, the musicians, especially the bassist, need to hear the bass, but the audience don't, they just need to hear the whole thing, and I'm not sure that, for live music anyway, and even for recorded music, the idea of partitioning instruments into discrete audio ranges in which each can be clearly identified and heard is necessarily musical, in fact it strikes me as all too often being an exercise in science as opposed to an exercise in aesthetics (despite the fact that as an audience we are increasingly being lured into thinking that what is 'well recorded' is also musical)? For sure, JJB's bass sitting in the mix would have lessened the impact significantly, likewise Macca's mid-era baselines cutting through would have messed up some good songs, so it's horses for courses, but I do wonder when i hear bassists talking of 'not cutting through' - and all too often blaming other band members for this - whether in attempting to cut through, we're trying to do something that isn't musical? [/quote] Please use the carriage return key and the occasional paragraph! The audience certainly do need to hear the bass. It is the root note of the harmony after all, and the gel between the rhythm section and the harmony as well. It is fundamental. Take it away and the music loses a huge amount, make it too loud and the music loses a huge amount too. It is a very significant part of the whole. The whole is, and should remain, greater than the sum of its parts though. The idea of partitioning instruments by frequency is not new, its been around since mixing became a real option (ie since eq's were available and multitracking and overdubbing became the norm), it is utterly vital to creating a well balanced mix. The human brain is incredibly adept at 'filling in the blanks' with acoustic information. It is called frequency misxing, and virtually every single record you have listened to made since the early 1960's has used this technique to some degree in order to let you hear the [b]music [/b]better. Since the early 70's it has been used extensively in all genres. In order to hear the complexities of all the different instruments it is necesary to play with their frequency spectrum. So where you have two instruments hot in a specific area the mixer makes a choice based upon stylistic and musical knowledge as to which should be the prominent instrument in that area. They cut the other instrument there to allow the one they want to have less to compete with. Otherwise we get frequency build up and a confusing mess instead of a nice blended whole. The art is in the choice of instrument in any place and the nature of the eq cut (how many dB, how steep the cut, how wide the cut) and so on. This is further enhanced by the ability of the mixer to change things in the time domain, the proper use of compression to tame peaks on some instruments and not on others , the use of compression as a tool to duck instruments out of the way - most commonly used to drop the bass by 3 or 4 dB when the kick strikes, to give better headroom and tighten the band up, but certainly not limited to that. The thing is bass guitar isnt just a sound between 50Hz and 120Hz, the harmonics of the bass can be as high as 4KHz (higher with piezo pups in there), if you choose carefully you can retain all the info the human brain needs to build the entire tone of the bass in the listeners head, without stepping on the other instruments toes at all. Similarly for guitars, keys, drums and vox. It is a seriously complex task to do really well, I think many people dont understand this or appreciate it very much at all. However if everyone just ignores each other and takes their 'bedroom tone' to the gig then there will be a large set of frequency build ups that are not condusive to a clear clean and powerful mix and the band as a whole will sound worse for it. Much much worse. And the engineer on the night cant help because there is no sonic boundary between stage and audience, any mud you create on stage will spill into the area the audience are in. Listen to the [url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/"]music here[/url], I can guarantee you that this was mixed using the principles of frequency mixing, that there was use of ducking, and serious compression tricks to change the transients of certain sounds so that everything could be heard correctly. Is the result musical or not? You tell me, but I know that no one yet has responded with anything other than praise for the musicality of the result. I can also guarantee (and prove) that if those techniques were not used (and used well) the result would have been a lot worse.

Semantics really. Cutting through/sitting well/balanced/blending in Same concept, maybe referring to different parts of the frequency spectrum being chosen as the dominant part of the bass sound to be heard (other than the 40-100Hz region which is, well bass). Its all frequency mixing with the band, finding that 'hole' in the rest of the band (or more likely holes) that the bass can poke through at and thus be heard whilst staying out of the way in other areas for other instruments. And vice versa, ideally!

Nice one, interested to see what you think

Damn I just saw this too, you beat me to it! Looks very interesting doesnt it, and a cracking price....

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread, thanks one and all. Thoughts:- The thumpinator is tidying up the unnessecary stuff that you cant hear and just uses up headroom, a 4 string version clearly isnt really necessaqry unless you are trying to absolutely maximise that (cant see why anyone would need to - but someone might) Berg cabs in the ae series definitely seem ridiculously 'flap-free'. I get no large scale movement in my cones at volume, Plux's HT series cones move more (not enough to be worrying, but enough to really see), so in the event that you have an ae series cab (at least a 210 or 410) you are probably not getting anough extreme LF hitting your cones to make the thumpinator necessary (JB's crossivers are legendary, I wonder if they include something along these lines, and coupled with the HPF in the markbass it solves the issue). However its still going through the preamp up until the point where the MB head has its LPF in so some headroom is wasted for sure. I would think anyone running a small cab (ie midget or any 112 etc) would get advantages from one of these, and I imagine it could be helpful on db too, if nothing else it would lessen the chances of sub feedback considerably. The RH450 certainly has an HPF in it, anything to get more useable volume was certainly employed as a part of the preamp cleverness to maximise the apparent output of the amp. That wasn't where the critique came from, so much as the brickwall limiting of the signal to gain apparent volume, trading off punch and transient peak volume for average output - and more importantly claiming a wattage based upon the apparent volume rather than the actual wattage.

I dig Lamb a lot. This sounds pretty darned good to me, nice one!

Musicians arent sound engineers, guitarists, vocalists, keyboard players and drummers can all over play and consume too much of the frequency spectrum with their eq settings. Both issues make it very hard for punters as well as the band to hear the music at any volume, at a gig its a disaster. The advice above is all excellent, the band need to think as a whole not as a bunch of seperate parts. Take the time at a rehearsal to record the band with a Zoom H1 or equivalent as they currently are, then go around an dial out the excessive eq on the guitars (the mids are so much better sounding on a guitar in a mix anyway). Do the same to yourself - you dont need to be boosting mids so much as not cuttting them to the point where the bass disappears in the mix. This is the balance that we all should be striving for, no one wants an imasculated sound, but then no one wants to be unheard - or perceived merely as a rumble of worse a hum - mids are the answer, but like all eqing what you should be aiming for is balancing the mix with the eq. A great big sad face may work for you but a lot of people complain of it sounding all nasal and horrid (often as a result of boosting the upper mids a little too much) even in a mix. You also need to be careful with low mids as they are full of mud that can make your bass sound like undiluted porridge (yes really - exactly like porridge;)). As for levels, as a starter the bass should be set to the level of the kick, or just between the kick and the snare. No louder than that. This ususally means turning down, often by as much as a third with an acoustic kit - you will feel fear at this point! Bring the guiatristas down so they blend with you (rhythm) and sit just above you (lead). The guitarists will complain that they can hear nothing at this point - get their amps up high and pointing at their heads, then double check the effect this has on the level. Get the vocal over everything (which again can be a case of turning down) and use the graphic on the pa to dial out feedback. If the pa doesnt have a graphic, get one, and make it a 31 band graphic at that - they take 5 minutes to set up and more than double the available vocal volume before feedback. Run the song through once then record it. At home compare the mixes on a stereo - be sure to listen at the same level - the entire band will prefer the sound of the second mix, every time - or they are such prima donnas that you should consider getting out of the band.

Watch out fella, looks like a couple of the lines they are using are wonky, theres all sorts of funny gaps inbetween them walls there.... Looking great!

Lovely big lump of concrete that...

I like a touch of compression (no really I do, you'd never know though), on all the time. Other than that the rest is purely so I can make stupid noises innit

If only.....

[quote name='Al Heeley' timestamp='1329835433' post='1548143'] Thanks - I'm not a ferrari man, rather more second hand 3-series BMW really; I think all the electronic differences in method are lost on me for now. Can you suggest a relatively cheap (sub £50) entry-level compressor that is worth a play with, that might be ok for gigging? I don't want to spend £140 - £200 on s'thing that I'm not convinced works for me but £40 - £ 50 is worth a punt to dip my toe in, so to say. Is it false economy if all the cheap comps are really pants? Are there any half decent cheap models worth a go? Do you have to spend over £100 to get something decent? [/quote] I drive a third hand BMW 3 series Personally I think £50 really is on the low side, and a pedal is going to make life hard for yourself regarding metering. The Optostomp gets a lot of love as a fairly generic somewhat transparent optical squishing device, a lot of people like the EBS for what it can bring to the table. If it were me I'd look for a second hand Alesis rack comp and learn how to use a comrpessor, and what compression sounds (and doesnt sound) like using its far better metering to help me understand what I was doing. Any comp around £50 is going to be a false economy except as a teachin aid IMO, expect a pretty noisy circuit that to some degree badly effects your tone (ie with no compression set - ratio 1:1 and threshold set all the way up the damn thing adds noise and lessens some area of the frequency spectrum). Or it just has a pants sounding 'action' or is a one trick wonder. Eventually you will have to move it on. The most flexible circuit is a VCA, the lowest entry level is really over the £100 mark (more liek £150+) for something you would be happy with for good. Having said that if I wouldnt record with it I wouldnt use it live, some people have a different (lower) expectation on live kit though (cant see why personally but they do). One thing though, dbx did a desk top compressor (MC6) that Silveroxnik got one of off ebay for well under £50, it may well be that the form factor is so unpopular that people discount it out of hand, but for what ever reason it was seriously cheap, I set it up for him a couple of bass bashes ago and really like the sound of it, its a VCA has decent metering and doesnt wreck your tone. If you can find one for a silly price get it, it woudl certainly be a decent teaching aid and is good enough to last a while in a rig IMO.

[quote name='Al Heeley' timestamp='1329827263' post='1547922'] its the knobs and the lights really, especially the lights. But really, how can you say they all do different things? Surely they are sold as compressors so they all compress. If I spend good money on a compressor then when i took it home it sounded like a flanger or a whammy pedal I'd be most perturbed. [/quote] Different circuits, based upon different electronics to offer different solutions to the same problem. They all compress/limit but the way they do it can be very different. An opto compressor uses a light source/light receptor to indicate the volume of the signal, the speed at which the light source gains and loses brightness has a lot to do with the characteristic sound of that type of compressor. An led behaves very differently from an electro-luminescent panel so there are many variations in this type of solution alone. (Joe Meek compressors) A true tube compressor uses the change in the grid to cathode voltage to drive the gain riding (called a vari-mu circuit), different tubes have different behaviour here too. (La-2a, MB Compressore) A FET compressor can be very very fast, but because FET circuits cannot cope with high current they are prone to noise. (1176) The most benign circuit is often consider to be a straight forward VCA, it tends to be clean, can get pretty fast and is often very transaparent. However a lot of what a compressor can bring to the table are the side effects of the other solutions, so even a VCA is not really the be all and end all. (Compounder) Moreover the very nature of how and where in the circuit the compression is applied drastically changes the 'action' of the compressor. A feed-forward circuit uses the input signal to drive the volume regulation. A feedback design uses the result of the original signal after the voltage control to drive the volume regulation. The behaviour of the two systems is completely different. A cart horse will get you from A to B, sometimes you will find the journey is better taken in a Ferrari, or even a tank....

+1 on the e835, great mic, think of it as a differnet stand in for the ubiquitous sm57, where as the e845 has more eq built in and os closer to an sm58 in where its aiming. Both great value for money mics IME.

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1329736239' post='1546429'] Compressors don't cut frequencies, are you sure it's not just a characteristic of the amp? (The RH450 has a low pass filter) As for the best compressor... This would probably do quite a good job [url="http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/tube-tech-smc-2bm-multiband-mastering-opto-compressor--65892"]http://www.dv247.com...mpressor--65892[/url] Only half joking tbh, I've recently started to wonder, why don't people use studio compressors instead of pedal based ones? Rackmount and away! [/quote] If the compressor's attack is too fast it will appear to be dark, since the transient will nolonger be as loud and therefore the perception is that the treble is turned down. Effectively this is the compressor dramatically changing the frequency response of the signal. And if you're ever looking for the most ridiculously expensive compressor of all time its usually considered to be the Fairchild 670 - it goes for upwards of $25k, and every year of use you'll need to swap out the 8 matched 6386 tubes with a matched NOS set, which on their own will set you back a couple of grand. Not one for live then

Crikey, they sound like a reasonable bunch working over the weekend to put that right. Nice one!

Take the batter skin of each drum. Full drum with a towel big enough to take up 3/4 of the drum Replace batter head and tune. Instance drums at 40%volume - drummer will hate you Seriously a kit set up like this (play with the amount of stuff in the drums, start with some tea towels and move up) can really save you. Really though the drummer ought to be able to keep it together. If you all just turn the heck down by 1/3, and the drummer uses lighter sticks and a lighter touch you probably shouldnt need to go down this route at all.

What did you go and stick yours in to then?

Seems to be a likely case of snot build up....

If I were to suggest a DI it woul dbe a [url="http://www.bssaudio.com/productpg.php?product_id=17"]BSS AR-133[/url] You can get them for less than a tonne and they are superb.

Oh man, wtf! Deep breath mate, deep breath, then go and kick something....

A compressor, if set up properly can do any of a lot of things for you (set up dependant), including, but not limited to:-[list] [*]Even out the apparent volume in a mix of different strings (better fixed with the instrumetns setup/string gauges IMO) [*]Even out the apparent volume in a mix of different techniques (ie make it so that tapping is as loud as fingerstyle in the mix) [*]Help win the 'volume war' in a mix between bass/kick/snare - often by keeping the bass louder after the initial transient, such that it can be heard without fighting the kick and snare in the same way, that is to say the energy of the bass remains after the energy of the other instrumetns has disappeared [*]Smooth the attack (initial transient) of your bass sound - for that deep rich smooth full punchy but not aggressive bass sound [*]Boost the attack (initial transient) of your bass sound - make your bass sound ultra aggressive and edgy [*]Make the bass sound darker [*]Make the bass sound brighter [*]Increase the level of a sustained note [*]Decrease the level of a sustained note [*]Help protect your speakers/amp [*]Deliver a more consistent level to your fx - this is particularly useful for fx that track your pitch [*]Improve the way your dynamics are appreciated by the audience - no really, the clues to the dynamics of your playing are as much the difference in the harmonic nature of the initial transient vs the sustain phase. When you pluck hard the initial transient is very bright, when you pluck softly it is very dark. If when you pluck softly you disappear in the mix you just arent heard. If you pluck softly but are heard people will hear you plucking softly. Compressors help you be heard even when you play softly, they dont stop you playing softly or being heard to play softly (psychoacoustics are a hell of a headful) [*]Give you the feel of a warm tube amp when playing a solid state rig - by dialing in compression similar to that of a tube amp it is possible to make the expereince of a solid state amp feel close to that of a clean tube amp - some people love this [*]Make your fretless sound like the biggest bass on earth - if you play like Tony LEvin, then maybe.... [*]Make your slap sound totally rad - errrr, not so much.... [/list] You may also enjoy [url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/167088-best-compressor/page__view__findpost__p__1539908"]this post[/url]... A compressor is a tool for controlling the envelope of your instrument as much as the dynamics.

I've not heard it, so any comments are based upon blurb and reviews. The metering is clearly above standard for a pedal, big tick there! The lowest ratio is 4:1 though, and that is way too high for me, I spend alot of time using very gentle comrpession ratios with a very low threshold to helpo disparate techniques sit well together and for maximum transaparency, so big cross from me there... Unless its a true FET design any claims that its based upon the UREI 1176 should be taken with a healthy pinch of salt, although the attack times are really fast (possibly too fast for my liking) too, making it very much a compressor on the limiter side of things (which is consistent with an 1176), and the demos I have heard sound very dark which would align with the fast attack, but not with the UREI comparison. This may suit you down to the ground, the metering seems a cut above etc, but the attack and ratio controls dont offer much in the way of possibilites for extremely transparent compression I think.... All without having had a play on one so I could be talking total do do.... I think Bongomanias[url="http://www.ovnilab.com/reviews/mxrbass.shtml"] review is well worth a read[/url]