51m0n

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

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1323093804' post='1459129'] ....It's all about context and application. [/quote] Exactly!

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323091866' post='1459094'] Didn't suggest it wasn't processed, just an example of what sounds like the unamplified sound of a set of flat strings. Difficult to sound good with a sound like that. I would imagine it was straight into the desk, same as Jamerson's huge catalogue, may be wrong but its not the point. Thanks for the Daptone link, great that they're doing it. Don't the Neil Cowley trio record somewhere with similar equipment (I thought its name had 'Ark' in it)? [/quote] I cant but disagree. When I listen to any bass acoustically I cant hear any real bass. And neither can you. Without amplification there isnt enough energy from the string alone to produce bass that cariies to your ear. So what on earth is this 'sounds like the unamplified sound of a set of flat strings' then? Its really what you believe that to sound like. If I put my ear on the bass body I get some low mids, but even then the true bass isnt really present. But on that very recording it doesnt sound like that, it sounds like I described it, there is electronically derived overdrive and compression (tape and preamp/amp both) in that recording, it can be clearly heard, and that isnt present on unamplified strings at all. There is deeper bass on there too, all due to the amplification (even if they didnt use a bass amp they recorded the signal that when amplified does produce that bass). I'll put it another way, how much bass energy do you hear from a crash cymbal? None right. But if you crash said cymbal then bring a mic in really close as it sustains you will be able to hear massive amounts of seriously low frequency sound (like between 20 and 40Hz), some interesting electronica makes use of just these sounds (Coil springs to mind). The acoustic 'natural' sound of the cymbal has so much high frequency energy that you dont ever notice the low frequency stuff (its pretty quiet after all) but its there. The natural sound of an electric bass is plugged in and played through some form of amplification. You go on to say that its hard to make that sound good, but you are now entering the realm of the truly subjective, and context and personal preference becomes the most important thing, and furthermore you are advocating processing to improve the sound. Where is the line you are trying to draw exactly?

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323087442' post='1459016'] Already used examples, here's one again, try the intro to 'Tighten Up' Archie and the Drells for a natural sound of flat strings. I would also repeat that no-one has ever suggested a 'pure sound' has ever been recorded and reproduced nor even desired, there's no extremes in this argument at all so no point going to them, just a direction. Think of the food analogy and some seasoning (which you can also taste) on a fresh pork chop compared to a McD (about which someone once said the TWO slices of gherkin is to prevent it being classified as a sweet). [/quote] Ok, just had a good listen to that, nice sounding bass. Of course its running through some tubes in there (I'd bet on it) and driving them good and hard, which means its compressing nicely, and adding a load of harmonic overtones, and a good bit of overdrive, and the tape isnt exactly being tickled with signal either, which is doing even more compression, and adding a bunch more harmonics. You cant have your cake and eat it, this [b]is[/b] a heavily processed bass sound, its not remotely 'pure', and it certainly isnt bland, it just happens to be a sort of processed bass sound that you like and associate with how a bass 'should' sound (which is a mythical entity at best). That particular bass sound is pretty much what the daptones label are doing (super early real deal funk), and the last thing they do is keep anything pure, its all about letting the sh*tiness out! Check out this [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun08/articles/daptone.htm"]article about their process[/url] and this video:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wmdDYUFfMM They arent afraid of processing its just they use the processing inherent in the devices they are using, rather than a load of digital processing. Horses for courses, same diff really though, you either like the sound ort you dont....

Oh I know, RR is in the enviable position of being involved in some of the highest profile albums of the last 30 years. Along with that is the rather unfortunate fact that that kind of high profile stuff attracts immense 'interest' from the execs putting up the cash, and I would like to think that RR is not resposible for the final product. The vinyl mastering has been far better than the CD mastering on the recent RHCP albums by all accounts, which is just stupid....

[quote name='EdwardHimself' timestamp='1323084120' post='1458954'] +1. What is even WORSE to me is that RR did the same bloody thing with the Californication album! I mean, what kind of nutcase thinks that album would sound fantastic if the volume was ramped up to 12? I know he's got a lot of experience but I think he honestly must have some sort of fulfilment issues where he is unable to be satisfied by any amount of limiting compression in his mixes. [/quote] You may be confusing the mix engineer and producer with the record company driven mastering engineer. Its nto clear to me (yet) that RR actually pushed that level up or not. [url="http://web.me.com/petercho.blw/Vlado_Meller/Vlado_Meller.html"]Vlado Meller[/url] mastered Californication (and Stadium Arcadium), and was probably driven down the uber loud route by various suited f***wits that have no idea what makes a master sound good. Rather amusingly the shot of his studio.. ...shows some of those massive PMC monitors in the background so he must have heard every tiny detail of the damage that was being done....