51m0n

Or you could use the search functionality [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=139947"]LINK[/url]

Reaper.... <runs and hides>

[quote name='risingson' post='1260569' date='Jun 8 2011, 12:21 AM']Can we sticky your posts somewhere? I really do think stuff like this will help people understand more about how compression and limiting works outside the sea of misinformation that gets bandied around on the internet![/quote] Where did the embarrassed smiley go! Yeah it would be a good idea to get the compressor thing stickied, would save on typing and make looking up the relevant posts a whole lot easier. Just glad to be able to help

[quote name='jonunders' post='1259903' date='Jun 7 2011, 04:48 PM']Hi, I ues a G&L 2500 through a Markbass lm111 and a bareface compact. I am approaching my first gig and it has been suggested trying a compressor in the system to soffen out the peaks and troughs which appear in my playing, i may get a bit excited. Is this a good or bad thing or will my money be waisted. Having looked on line, which ones, sub £100 are any good and which ones should be avoided. Thanks Jonathan[/quote] Personally I'd say save up something closer the £250 mark as an absolute minimum for a serious compressor. Or get something cheap with all the controls (threshold, ratio, attack, release, make-up gain, knee) and good metering of input, output and gain reduction so you can learn how this effect works, and how to set it up before you go anywhere near a gig with one. If you don't you will only make matters worse. Until then leave the compression to the sound engineers, and work on your techinque.

Can I point something out to all those here who have some belief that a compressor will remove all dynamics and render your playing lifeless, and equally to all those here who believe it will eradicate any kind of bad technique. You are all wrong. Really really utterly misguided and proof beyond any doubt that you don't really know how a compressor works compared to a limiter say, how it can and should be used in a live context and have not ever used a serious compressor to achieve any specific goal. In which case, don't buy a compressor a few days before a gig, and expect it to work miracles. A compressor, unless set up to completely extreme settings of either threshold or ratio or both, will not either iron out all the dynamics, or render poor technique unnoticeable. Set up properly a compressor is pretty near transparent. By which it is meant that you cannot hear it in operation. You can measure it, you can hear it in the context of a mix, but you actually cant hear it soloed unless you really know what you are doing. Set up properly a compressor can achieve 6dB of compression and you can't feel it when you play, you can't hear it when you listen, yet your quiet signal is 4 times louder than it was. 4 times louder compared to you loudest signal. Or to put it another way, your average RMS level is increased by around 3dB. This is HUGE. You cant feel it though, when you dig in you still perceive the louder note as louder, as a result of the change in the transient, the amount of treble and the decay of thee note. Its all still is there to hear, the compressor will not magic that away. If it is set up right. Any crappiness in your technique will be made far more obvious. Any dodginess in your groove, any excessive fret noise, any bum notes will be made as loud as can be, and will be heard. By everyone in the audience. DO NOT BUY A COMPRESSOR IF YOUR TECHNIQUE IS NOT SORTED ALREADY!!!! Next point, a compressor without a limiter as well is nigh on useless in a live context. You need to set up a compressor to allow the leading edge of the transient to pass, so the attack must be fairly long (say 100ms), otherwise you will rapidly lose those all important clues to the nature of the attack that psycho-acoustically fool you into hearing the dynamics perfectly. This long attack allows the transient to be uncompressed, but the makeup gain you set to raise you overall level also takes up the level of the peak. Without a separate limiter after the compressor you cant stop the most over exuberant peaks from clipping your rig. So you cant get the most out of your compressor. A limiter is different from a compressor, not in what it does, but in the way it is designed to do it. Both devices prevent signal over a set level (threshold) from increasing in volume by their natural amount. A compressor may sniff signal over several tens of milliseconds to determine if the level has crossed the threshold, a limiter may do this over several nanoseconds. So the limiter is all about the peaks, a compressor is more concerned with the averages. A limiter attack setting may be measured up to a millisecond or 10, a compressor attack is typical from 10 ms up to as much as 500ms. Again limiters catch peaks. A limiter will have a ratio near infinity to 1, certainly no less than 10 to 1, a compressor will have a ratio settable from 1:1 to 20:1 typically, some go higher. Compressor are far more gentle devices. A limiter has a threshold set less than a dB from maximum a compressor can be set with a threshold as low as 40dB from maximum and still be useful. I typically set up my compressor with an attack time of around 80 to 120 ms, a ratio of as little as 1.4:1 and a low low threshold. The release is usually around 100ms to 200ms, sometimes less. I aim to get around 6dB of gain reduction, I use the makeup gain to add this in to my level. I turn the compressor off and set the limiter so it just lights up when the loudest peaks come in, then turn the compressor back on. I then have transparent compression that adds some punch and keeps disparate techniques at a similar output volume from the speaker. Yet I still have total dynamic control. The issue I have to deal with with this set up is that if I make a mistake everyone can hear it.

[quote name='THEACEOFBASS' post='1077319' date='Jan 4 2011, 02:57 PM'][url="http://www.digitalfishphones.com/main.php?item=2&subItem=5"]http://www.digitalfishphones.com/main.php?...2&subItem=5[/url] i love the blockfish(not just on a bass)[/quote] Spitfish is one of the best de-essers I've used full stop....

[quote name='Phil-osopher10' post='1256783' date='Jun 4 2011, 08:19 PM']Would it be better to just work on my technique what do you use them for?[/quote] A compressor will not fix bad technique, that's just nonsense, if anything they make bad technique more obvious. You can use them for adding sustain, adding punch, ducking (sidechain), smoothing off attack, gentle levelling, transparent levelling, completely redesigning the transient of a signal, crushing a signal until its a lifeless pulp on the floor all beaten and bruised. None of which is the wrong thing to do, its just a question of picking the right one to do at the right time. If you don't have the controls on the device in question, or decent metering on the device, or the knowledge of how to use them you will usually do the wrong thing unless you have a fair amount of experience with them.

Suggestion:- Bass and drums session. Take a drum machine, set up a clap (not a click or a kick or anything else, make sure its a clap) 4 on the floor, accented hard on 2 and 4. Record the two of you playing your favourite track. Set the tempo on the drum machine to your favourite track and play along with it going through the PA, for about ten minutes. Work the changes (verse groove for 2 bars, chorus groove for 2 bars, repeat and rinse) Turn off the drum machine and re-record the track. Compare the two. You will LOVE the difference this exercise makes! Go through the entire set like this with the drummer. Next full rehearsal do the same thing to the whole band. Keep making the clap on 1 and 4 quieter as you get better at this, it will help the band to swing if they have sole ownership of the one.... I've used this technique with about 3 bands, it always always improves the tightness and subsequently the confidence of the band, although thy will bitch about how hard it is in the beginning.

[quote name='BassBod' post='1252856' date='Jun 1 2011, 04:38 PM']I've always used squeeeeky clean amps (SWR, Euphonic) then messed them up a bit with a Sansamp - it is a bit distorted and overcooked, but you don't hear that in a band context. Just sounds "older" to me. Thought about compression..but I'm too lazy![/quote] What if I told you you just done did the compressing thing inadvertantly, would that help you feel less lazy?

[quote name='TimR' post='1252733' date='Jun 1 2011, 02:49 PM']Technically it's LESS than boosting the mids. Generally with transistor distortion you are getting mainly even harmonics and with tube distortion you're boosting the odd harmonics. This is why it sounds different to just boosting all the mids. It still has the same effect overall for the same reason but will sound different.[/quote] There was me lead to believe tubes were mainly even harmonic distortion... This chap did some experiments with tube vs tape distortion [url="http://www.endino.com/archive/arch2.html"]here[/url] that are pretty interesting IMO....

[quote name='silddx' post='1252620' date='Jun 1 2011, 01:03 PM']I'd love to, but then Kit would kill me Honestly, I know my tones are decent to begin with, but my bass has never sounded so good mate![/quote] Fair enough, I will redouble my efforts to get the lot done so she can post them up as soon as possible, just the wedding & honeymoon slowing me down....

[quote name='Beedster' post='1252597' date='Jun 1 2011, 12:45 PM']How unlike you to mention compression 51m0n Thanks mate, thought you'd be along pretty quick! Having thought about it a little more, I guess what I've noticed with adding some dirt to the bass in recording is that whilst soloed it sounds distorted, in the mix it doesn't, and in fact sounds surprisingly like the original bass track, just without the needles and cones bouncing around so much (i.e., the natural compression you mention). It definitely doesn't sound more middy to my ear, that's for sure. Another reason for my line of thinking in this is that, like Clarky, I play DB against a big drummer and it can be a struggle to get the bass up in the mix without changing the tone dramatically. I'm wondering whether, somewhat counter-intuitively, I should be ramping up the gain of the DB signal a little also? C[/quote] Dont underestimate the power of "psychoacoustic fuzzyness" With this new pschoacoustic fuzzyfelt set I can make your bass leap out of a mix and cuddle you to death.... You are experiencing a phenominan long used in studios to make everything a bit more apparent - back in the day it was often achieved by driving the tape 'too hard', tape saturation is a lovely thing! DB live is a feedback bitch, compression makes feedback MORE likely (think about it) so you would be well advised to experiment with extremem caution!

[quote name='silddx' post='1252593' date='Jun 1 2011, 12:42 PM']If the bass sound 5im0n is getting on my band's mixes is anything to go by, I can only concur. 5imon makes me sound like I have the best tone in the world It's a delight to listen to. The tone had some drive and a fair amount of low mid, but it sounds amazing now Si's got hold of it![/quote] You'll have to post some examples or people will think I'm bribing you mate

Also of note is the way the overdriven sound being compressed is going to make a real change to the envelope of the sound. It will sustain more, so you are more audible for longer. Remember you are fighting the big bad kick drum live. If your bass's thud is in the same space as the kick thud then you will have to fight the kick. If your bass is compressed by a bit of drive then it will be louder after the kick, and so be easier to hear in the mix. If you doint want drive, thenget a good comrpessor and set it up right and you will be laughing

Short answer : yes. Longer answer: Fletcher Munsen curves, so yes. Really long answer: The human ear is most sensitive around the mid frequencies, removing those from the bass sound makes it a) harder to hear) harder for the brain to work out the pitch. This can be good if you dont want people to know if you've hit the right note, but it also means that in order to be 'heard' you turn up louder than you need to. On one hand you can add some dirt to add some info up in the mids. this is nice as the dirt is also a form of compressor (oh god here he goes [i]again[/i]) so the added info 'stays in play' more evenly than if you just eq it in, you get a more even mix regardless of notes played, style, technical aberrations etc. If you like a bit of warmth/overdrive/dirt this is just a superb solution then. If you like i clean then more mids (not stupid amounts) and a well set up clean compressor will achieve exactly the same result without the dirt....

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='1185601' date='Apr 2 2011, 10:03 AM']Ooh, I've got one of those too! [url="http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=125"]Have a look[/url]. [/quote] Dayummmn that shure is purdy!

[quote name='lowdown' post='1246785' date='May 27 2011, 10:40 AM']It was for you really - I just knew you would be the first along... I was not sure if Reaper had K Metering. Garry[/quote] Damn I'm so predictable, cheers though! Nope Reaper doesnt have any such metering built in that I've found, I've used a few other bits and bobs with Kmetering though ([url="http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/"]voxengo vst called span[/url]) which is pretty damn fine, try it...

[quote name='slobluesine' post='1251617' date='May 31 2011, 03:17 PM']never been a big fan of Queen but their Live Aid show must be the best 20mins of live Rock n Roll your ever gonna see or hear[/quote] +1

[quote name='4000' post='1251462' date='May 31 2011, 01:38 PM']Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was a typo. Interesting point regarding the sound thing. I do all my band's recording and mixing (although not to what I would class anything like a professional standard as I don't have the necessary technical knowledge and hence rely on my ears) and sound in that sense is something I've always been very interested in, so I think I can separate the 2 quite easily. EDIT: in fact the more I think about it I probably spend far more time these days listening to the sounds produced than the actual playing in most cases.... a career as a sound engineer awaits! (not!).[/quote] Read a lot, practice a lot. Thats all that seperates you from the 'pros' really. The amount of time you have spent on it. You have acces to more gear than almost anyone did just 25 years a go. For free. Really.

[quote name='risingson' post='1251562' date='May 31 2011, 02:34 PM']My point was that nobody sounded like Queen apart from Queen really, they pioneered a sound for themselves. 10cc were great writers with great production values but their music wasn't nearly as enduring as Queen's![/quote] Ahhh, I see your point, "production" in this case may mean something slightly different to me than to you. Queen did absolutely hit th nail on the head for enduring singles, however they also produced some right old plop too IMO. Most of the stuff not on their Best Of albums really.... I liked this progam because it sort of dipped its toe into the chasm of plop too. I do strongly think that the 10cc produciton I brought up is absolutely staggering though, and totally holds its own to this day. All the Abba stuff is superbly produced too. And they wrote as many enduring tracks as Queen did, but they didnt go on as long. Higher hit rate of classics perhaps?

The sound of [size=7][b]WIN[/b][/size]

Software wise I'd really recommend Reaper - best bang for the buck DAW out there IMO. It comes with some of the best VSTs I've ever heard and is ultra lightweight and fast. It is truly superb. You wont need a control interface for mixing, although it can be nice, you will need to find a decent soundcard/interface, RME make arguably the best, but you will pay an arm and a leg. As for spec, very few cheaper lappies are really up to it, the harddrives are too slow usually, you cant get enough RAM in them and so on and so forth. Its not impossible though. If you dont want to worry about it get a top flight mac book pro, they can handle recording multitrack and mixing. If you cant afford one of them, then you need to look for at least 4GB of RAM (preferrably at least 8GB), preferrably an i7 processor (Sandybridge currently has issues with audio/drives apparently), although a fast i5 will do. Get one with an eSata port for an external harddrive. This will cost a lot of money, it will however do the job.

[quote name='risingson' post='1251328' date='May 31 2011, 12:26 PM']It was an amazing program. I have never been really huge Queen fan but have always enjoyed reading about their commitment to their music because production wise it really was unparalleled by anyone at the time, and Freddie was just so charismatic that it would be impossible not to love him. No one had done vocals like they did since the Beach Boys really, it was a great watch.[/quote] Agree they were some pretty excellent programs, not sure about the entirely unparalleled production, 10cc's "I'm not in love" could arguably be one of the cleverist bits of production of all time Read up on it [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun05/articles/classictracks.htm"]here[/url]. Very very clever stuff! That apart though Queen did sound damn fine, I dont think they sounded better than Abba did though, as good, but not better (purely talking production here, regardless of whether or not you dig the tracks)

[quote name='Muzz' post='1251353' date='May 31 2011, 12:40 PM']I posted a while back, just after I'd got the first mixes back of the album we were recording in a local studio, and I was a bit sensitive about what I saw as 'my sound' being buggered about with. Incidentally, we were in the studio for 14 or 15 days, and it took me about 3 minutes to get the bass sounding good. More than 5 minutes, and I'd have been getting embarassed... I've just got the final mastered product, and I was completely wrong about my sound. It's been changed from what I was hearing in my cans while tracking, sure, but to the benefit of the band (and album)'s overall sound, and the changes are appropriate to the relevant tracks. Unless you're a professional sound engineer, or your band sound is built on a specific bass sound, or yours is the ego that runs the band, then having faith in the guy responsible for the overall sound is the most sensible option. I realise this isn't always the safest route when playing live, as there are good sound guys out there and bad ones, but as I've said before, live environments are such a crapshoot in what they do to your sound that it'll be a miracle if you get the same sound twice anyway. I'd also agree with the poster who mentioned he has a sound for home/practice/playalong use, and one for the band.[/quote] I remember that thread, really glad it turned out the right way for you!! Its really important to bear in mind how close you are to the music, it takes a person with a completely different 'head' on to think in terms of the way the sounds should all slot together as a whole, and in turn for best results it almost always takes another person to turn a bunch of mixes into a finished album (mastering) from the guy who tracked and mixed it in the first place.

[quote name='4000' post='1251305' date='May 31 2011, 12:02 PM']I think that is probably pretty much the point I've been trying to make, except that I'd describe "Tone" in this context not as "note choice / phrasing", but as "sound produced" (which to me is different). The [i]sound itself[/i] is not the same, however identifiable the playing may be, although Doddy doesn't seem to agree.[/quote] Thats what I said, but for clarification since my inner geek did get the better of me != means Not Equals, so where I said:- tone = timbre tone != note choice or phrasing I was saying that tone does Not Equal note choice or phrasing. It is the timbre or sonic quality of the sound, as measurable in terms of adsr (envelope) and frequency spectrum. Anything BUT the 'artistic nature' of the racket being created. I truly believe that the better a musician you are the harder it is for you to seperate the two (timbre and phrasing) when you hear someone play. Unless you also spend a significant (if not equal) amount of time sound engineering. Just my opinion, but I cant see how someone who can hear a player and get all the info out of their playing in terms of note choice, and phrasing could ever truly divorce that from the timbre. So people with very advanced ears for relative pitch and playing tend to have a harder time with treating timbre as a completely seperate objective aspect to the sound you are hearing. This is not a criticism its just something I have noticed. Fortunately for me (in this case) I am a truly crap musician (certainly by the standards of the really pro players on this site - Doddy, Jakesbass et al), but pretty good at hearing timbres etc etc.... This is not to say they cant hear by any means, timbres, and they are usually well ahead of the game compared to punters, but the fact is that top flight engineers do hear differently from top flight musos. Horses for courses I think. [i]<Runs away to put on his flamesuit with the chamois leather interior>[/i]