51m0n

[quote name='guildbass' timestamp='1324289183' post='1472482'] Yeah...maybe a bit of proximity effect, but not a huge amount...Same goes for the other instruments. A snip of tape echo on the early stuff, a special room on the later stuff, a basic mic mixer without tone circuits straight into an Ampex high speed tape recorder. Later stuff was stereo with some more complex mic'ing going on...But much of it is extremely natural sounding stuff and you can hear that it is not done with much if you listen with a very revealing audio set up as the phase information from the room is still there from the microphone. i shall be putting new strings on the Warwick. Whether i take the fresh edge off the strings or try to capture them with that first few hours of brightness still intact will be dictated by when I can put them on. We are very cognizant of the interaction between bass and other instruments, in fact I have modified my bass lines many times to remove or re-voice a note or chord that is interacting with some other part of the mix. However, the classical guitar does tend to stay well away from much of the bass lines...I am trying for a sound which uses bass as the 'floor' of the soundstage, using sustained chords to provide a rich backdrop, arpeggio'd chords to provide a ripple over that, the guitar putting the sparkle into the air and the vocal a lyrical ribbon flying through it all... f***, that sounds pretentious, but hey, shoot for the stars, right? [/quote] No, plenty of proximity effect, the singer wa right on top of the mic, the rest of the band up to 20 feet away in your old school 50's mono recording. Tape was pretty lo tech in the 50's, plenty of noise and if you ran high speed you lost bass, if you ran low spped you lost top, the noise was consistent at least. All the desks were tube desks, masses of coloration, they were still striving to get uncoloured tube desks in the 50's. WHen less coloured desks turned up they were solid state, one of the first studios to switch was Motown and they HATED the new uncoloured desks. Alot of spring reverb on the guitars, and plate reverb on the vocals was not uncommon, not to mention reverb chambers, which although they function by literally using air in a chamber as the effect are not really natural (the attic at Motown would not be a place to play as a band). The point I keep coming back to is it sounds natural to you as you perceive it to be natural. The fact is that it isnt actually a very natural sound, it is the sum of all the colouration of the choices made by the engineer and producer up to that point (yes even in the fifties) as well as the musicians.

[quote name='guildbass' timestamp='1324320995' post='1473023'] Fair enough. Horses for courses...I already like the sound of my bass so I use amps which add as little as possible to the instrument's sound, and I use a cab which again adds as little as possible. sadly, I can't afford digi amps so my amps weigh about the same as my car...Hey ho...:-) [/quote] What cab is it you use that is so incredibly flat. I am truly intrigued at this point.

Of course the equiptment available was used to add and subtract stuff intentionally. They used proximity effect, and the root mean square rule, to mix the band for one mic in the room. My pont is every choice you make when recording a band effects the timbre of every instrument to some degree, and how all the instrumetns are perceived, whether you track with one mic in a room or 100 hundred tracks overdubbed and mixed later. You dont hear the whole tone of any instrument in a mix (any mix) unless its playing on its own. Its tone is obscured by other things in the mix unless they are seperated by frequency sufficiently - and sufficiently is gerneally several octaves apart. With as simple a mix as the one you describe there is a lot less to compete with your bass. If you like the way it sounds with absolutely no eq then thats brilliant as there is less to go wrong for you. In a mix of such clearly seperated instruments: acoustic guitar will only step on the mids and zing of your bass (but that is enough to require a bit of eq to help them stay clear), and will probably be seperated in the stereo spread to make room for the real star, the vocal, which if its a female will have a fundamental around 200Hz, and if is male more likely 100Hz give or take, and you can bet that if your bass is hot in a region that the voice is your bass will be eq'ed to move out of the way. My Roscoe solo doesnt need any eq to sound fantatic to my ears, it is very very punchy, which I prefer to super deep, especially for live. Of course with a tiny bit of eq and pickup selection I can radically change the timbre to suit the song, especially coupled with differences in playing style, and strings. However there isnt a chance that anyone could play it such that it needed no eq or compression or anything else in order to deliver the best possible result in a busy mix. There is simply too much going on. Bass doesnt need a tonne of fx to sound great, it does need some careful sculpting (both frequency and often transients) to fit in a mix. I dont really understand the OPs original point since I dont hear much bass that has been processed for the sake of it. Its processed enough to work in the song it resides, if it happens to be an old style funk track then it is processed accordingly with the amps and cabs and mics used, if it happens to be some indie anthem then its generally a dull thud, if its a 'bass-centric' thing there may be more flavour from fx, think Bootsy. Its what works, if you were playing an old school Motown track you want a dull thud, duller the better, super old flatwound strings etc, then the harmonic content of the sound comes from the small tube amp and cab that are being driven hard, and the aggressive plucking pushing the pickups hard too. You dont mention whether you intend to use new or old strings, and that is in my opinion the single biggest timbre changing tool you have on a bass. If you ise old strings the harmonics simply arent there, and boosting the treble will not bring them back. If you ise new strings there is a mass of harmonics making a rich and complex sound, and even if you cut the treble and upper mids they still add flavour to the sound. The same bass will sound worlds apart with different quality, construction and age strings. I would suggest that the choice of string/condition is the first step toward bass tone, since it is the only part of the instrument you can readily change to fundamentally alter the timbre of the ntoe produced.

Funny you should mention a ribbon mic. Interesting bit of kit that against a more modern mic. The ribbon is heavy as far as mic membranes go, and very inflexible (its actually corrugated). Back then they couldnt deal with too much SPL either. The result is a mic that by its very nature severely colours the tone, it loses a lot of top end, more importatnly though te mic cant reproduce very fast transients at all, in effect its a limiter in and of itself. Now you may think this is a mad or bad or dangerous thing to use on a asource if there is some other device available that can do a better job of reproducinbg the real sound for you. Well sometimes, but not always, Bruce Swedien delivberately used ribbons when recording fast percussion deliberately because of this limiting effect, it meant he could get a much louder mix with louder percussion without having to resort to further processing. Now that is what I mean by every thing you use has an effect, everything colours the sound, so your Buddy Holy single ribbon mic recordings, apart from the huge amount of eq that is inherent in a recording to tape at any time (boost highs going in cut them coming out to help with the hissss, also the biasing as well) would have been helped with nice Pultech style eqs and almost certainly some form of compression (yes even then). You dont seem to grasp what goes in to a mix to make it sound natural, at the very very least you will be eq'ed (probably some fairly drastic cutting so you and the kick fit together), almost certainly you will be further compressed. There may well be other tricks too (ducking the bass of the kick to get more clarity and perception of tightness, not to mention a couple of dB of extra level attainable in the entir emix as a result). Then there qwill be the rest of the band too. It isnt done to justify the equiptment its done to make it sound better, and if you dont do it you end up with a vastly inferior mix every time. I'd happily prove it to you. You ask what the Royal Albert Hall adds to a sound, well in fact it has always suffered from a massive echo, which initially was extremely detrimental, until the work on the vellarium and mushroom design and placement in the late 1990's started to get things under control [url="http://peutz.fr/lacoustique/articles/salles/PaperIOA02.pdf"]reference[/url]. There is nothing helpful about that, but its natural I guess.

Actually thats pretty similar as it goes.... They each have a rise in the top end, though the 57 doesnt have the same smoothing in that area (pop shield/head basket dampening resnances maybe?), but the 58 gets a bit of a dip. Other than that they really arent that far apart, and if you take of the shield/basket from the 58 it does sound almost exactly like a 57 IME

[quote name='guildbass' timestamp='1324049648' post='1470299'] The output waveform of the instrument, amplified yet unaltered. Just like the sound of an upright acoustic instrument is ideally amplified yet unaltered. If a violin player dislikes the tone of his instrument, he doesn't stick it through a pile of electronic effects... He gets another violin with a sound he prefers.... If you are not hearing the tone from your instrument you want, you should change the instrument. Every change in the signal path is a degradation. ....Unless of course you are in a covers band whose job is to accurately mimic the tone of the original artist's recordings...Although having been in several cover's bands, you don't need to be THAT close because the likelihood of getting even reasonably close to the recording while playing live is fairly remote. Ultimately it's about the audience and they'll lap it up irrespective of the finer points of instrument tone as long as you are tight, have good timing, and most importantly, having fun up there... [/quote] Well now there is an interesting thing. Cant think of anything much I've heard on a recording of a bass guitar that could be described as the sound of the instrument unaltered, just amplified. Simply because that doesnt cut it at all.

DBX are pretty good (a 160a can be great). I like my Focusrite compounder a lot. A really good resource for what compressors a good is [url="http://www.ovnilab.com/"]http://www.ovnilab.com/[/url] A rack comp is usually going to give you more controls and crucially more metering than a pedal comp. Setting up a compressor is highly specific to the signal it receives, so to try and get exact settings is not going to help. The amount of dB of gain reduction is a product o fthe ratio and threshold, high ratio and high threshold will amount to the same dB of reduction as low ratio and low threshold, BUT it will tend to sound more overt. The attack and release times are of paramount importance. Set the attack too fast and you will kill the transient, set it too slow and you will hear the note 'dip' and pump a bit, just right and the compressor will grab the note and reinforce the level after the transient, fattening up the sound. If you want a more mwaaah sound then you need to have a faster attack rather than slower, but too fast will really rob you of a sense of dynamics so be very careful. The release needs to be long enough but not too long or the compressor will still be on when the next note starts and you will effectively never let go, which is the same as having a super fast attack or the compressor always on, so look for around 60ms as a starting place. Makeup gain should be set such that the compressed signal is as loud as you digging in uncompressed. Then you will probably need a limiter to just catch the hottest transients and stop them going through the roof and causing any nasty clipping in your amp. Personally I prefer a low ratio (1.5:1 even) and very low threshold, I think it retains more of the natural feel (its quite close to how a tube pre acts, without the overdrive). But if you want a more overt compression then take the ratio up to as high as 4 or 5:1. Aim for a good 3 to 6dB of gain reduction. Tailor this with the threshold. Then set the attack and tweak the release and make up gain. Finally set the limiter to just catch the peaks on the loudest notes you play, you shouldnt hear it at all, just see the light flash on.

[quote name='Rimskidog' timestamp='1323988810' post='1469681'] I feel like I should join in on this thread but as I've just come out of a 3 days session I suspect I won't make much sense so I'll keep it simple: 1. emulations (whether vst or line 6 types) do not make for huge guitars; 2. I'd rarely cut 3k and up but will usually low pass somewhere from 5-7k 3. go read Slippermans distorted guitars from hell here: [url="http://badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html"]http://badmuckingfas...slipperman.html[/url] [/quote] 1. Agreed. They can get close, but they never sound as good as the real thing IME. 2. I've found rolling off a cheaper dynamic as low as 3KHz gently to often really help, I would also agree that a better mic can get away with a lot more of the info in that 3-7KHz range (love ribbons on distorrted guitar, where I find myself pushing things in that range as often as not). Above that and its all fizzy and horrid! 3. Huge +1, Slipperman really knows his beans, and everything he says about getting the cab to really start working is so true. An analogy would be trying to get a rock snare sound out of a funky drummer. Rock snare requires a lot of input energy (ie whack it dont tickle it) or it just never sounds right IME. Most funky drummers just dont get neanderthal enough with the kit to produce that sound very well. Same with rock guitar, drive the rig hard, (which doesn tmean super distorted just moving a lot of air) and it will sound far more RAWK than if you try and record it quietly. Last thing, as ever mic position is ultra important, a couple of inches can totally change the sound, experiment, take your time and use your ears (on playback if necessary).

[quote name='Dropzone' timestamp='1323965800' post='1469318'] You lost me a little on items 4 and 7 ;-) Not sure what compression to use or how to use it I think I am going to focus on getting a relatively good sound first and then focus on the smaller things. I am currently using Reason (or is it reaper, the free one) but may be able to get hold of a full version of ableton. Not sure what has a compressor or how good it is? Simon, I don't suppose you ever head over to Chichester way at all? Ta Mike [/quote] If you dont know compression, dont worry about parallel compression! A great source sound trumps any and all processing after the fact. If you record a single sound with two devices that are seperated in some way (ie, distance between them, or electronic path or whatever) they are likely to be out of phase. Thats where the peak of the wave in one of the outputs is not lining up with the peak of the wav in the other output. Its not just a time alignment thing. Reaper (its about $65 so not free, but the best value for money) is excellent, has everything you need to get exceptional results, dont waste your money on another tool, learn about how to use the one you've got, its capable of completely professional results. I do on occasion head out Chichester way...

Apologies for my rampant typing dyslexia today gents, all fingers and thumbs for some reason (Xmas lunch at work having nothing to do with it, honest)....

Other interesting things to t try:- 1) Mic the guitar acoustically close to the picking hand - great for a send to reverbs etc, can also add some clarity to the attack of every note. Need a fairly clean player to get the best out of this 2) DI + amp as above, but use the DI clean opposite the amp sound, or as an fx send 3) Detune guitars between takes - only by about 5 to 10 cents up or down and keep it in tune with itself, but can add a nice natural shimmer, or just help fatten everything up 4) parallel compression on heavy heavy guitars to get them really banging 5) DI only fo that super clean sould disco sound, A touch of nice compression and you are done 6) If you are going to mic, and you want BIG guitars, be prepared to bring some noise, you need to get the cab playing a part in the sound, pick the best sounding cone, and mic it with a decent dynamic, and then back off a few feet and put up a LDC, mix to taste. 7) Whenever relying on, multiple sources for a signal (mics & or DI's get the phase right or lose something...

DIing you will need an amp sim. Do not be too attached to the top top end (ie over 3KHz) it isnt as important as most people think. Dont worry about the very lowest los anything bleow about 100Hz and you arein bass guitar territory, get out! Multi track rhythm guitars, at least two tracks per side. Pan the guitars 100% L and R, and 90% L & R, keep them right away form the vocal. More overdubs = less distortion set per track, you build the intensity with the number of tracks, start with too much and it will tend to degrade to fizzy nonsense.

[url="http://www.markbass.it/product_detail.php?id=196"]Markbass MB100[/url] Looks to be just the sort of thing....

They are all great cabs. You need to try all of them to see what you like the best.

[quote name='goingdownslow' timestamp='1323645049' post='1465468'] I made this about two weeks ago for my Hartke combo, really noticed the difference on the boom box stages at the last couple of gigs. Have to do one now for my SVT 610HLF. [/quote] Nice!

Well [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1323606632' post='1464871'] Alternatively, spend some time learning something useful like how to read music or some advanced theory That classical fugue showed everything that is wrong with that technique. Take a perfectly servicable piece of music and turn it into a juggling act with no musical merit. Two things to watch and then think about.....both Michael Manring. The second one Manring could probably do standing on his head in terms of his technique. But which one got him a gig outside of someone's living room [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY4Ra2KOyas[/media] [u][color=#0066cc][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_KDum0b2z8[/media][/color][/u] [/quote] The first one got him an Endorsement deal from Markbass and famous to the point of infamy amongst bassists for being amazingly creative, whereas there are how many people scraping a living reading the dots to someone elses music in Show bands/Cruise ships bands. Not detratcing from them, but they are in a different league, and as you say he can do that standing on his head.

Oops, double post due to network nastiness here...

Plux has an Archer 3/4 with a decent set of Thmoastiks on it, it sounds superb, great big warm and punchy tone, all the bass cognicenti who have heard it were shocked at the price given the tone. Its also really loud for a db. Price all in (ie bass, setup & strings) was around 1200, recently got a second hand Bassmax pup for it (for jazz stuff) and its been brilliant, very true to the actual bass given that it is a piezo pup.

How can a single 3.5mm port do in and out combined at the same time exactly? Sounds very dodgy to me! Do you have a USB port on it? Do you have a budget for a soundcard? I'd look into an RME Babyface if I were you, not cheap but superb quality and exceptional latency on a Mac, but it does require a USB port.... I run 64 bit Reaper and have had no issues running 32 bit VSTs on it. However I didnt think you could run VSTs on a Mac - I could welkl be wrong but I thought Mac fx were au's?

Can't make it this weekend mate, going to be busy until after Xmas I think Have a top time though ahnd hugs to the lot of you!

Spectacular bottom end....

Yup, they are superb amps. Enjoy it!

Agreed, see how far you can go with anything you can find to get a better recording, then if you want look into making something abit more full on (decent gobos for instance) and then if you really want to go the extra mile look into a more complete acoustic solution. By the way, and this is for Jake since he was asking, here's a link to some info on building diffusers based upon the BBC paper from 1990, [url="http://www.pmerecords.com/Diffusor.cfm"]LINK[/url] & [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1990-15.pdf"]BBC Whitepaper LINK[/url] Hope thats not to scary (it amounts to cutting up some 2x2 and glueing it on to a board!)

Sorry, I'll get back in my cage