51m0n

2.4m cube? ooof, er basstraps. Everywhere.... Corners (supoerchunks are the way to go) and where celining meets wall, millions of examples of these on gearsluts. Here is one to give you an idea [url="http://www.gearslutz.com/board/bass-traps-acoustic-panels-foam-etc/439981-my-bass-trap-build.html"]clicky linky[/url]. Note his corner superchunk traps are very small, they really ought to be much much wider (about 2 feet) mid range absorbers on all the walls to catch first reflections, less dense rockwool - use a mirror, when sat in your mix position have sioomeone put a mirror flat against the wall, have them move it until you see the monitor on that side, thats where an absorber goes, then have them move it until you see the other monitor, you need to cover that as well. cloud on the ceiling. Small space like that this is a must! It wont fix it completely, but it will help, you are going to have enormous node build up somewhere with such similar dimensions.

Got to here URB through my rig at the SE Bass Bash. Made me sick it did, he proved that it wasn't actually my rig making me sound totally pants, but my bass. Its clearly not me after all, I'm a genius me In all honesty he did sound utterly superb, I suspect it is a lot to do with the fact that he practices, and stuff, where as I tend to bang out a couple of riffs a week if I get time! That and he can play of course, that woudl; be the other major factor I suspect....

[quote name='VxR Rusty' post='1136961' date='Feb 22 2011, 12:19 PM']Will raising the pickup help? Ive only got 1 pickup on the old EB. Ive found it to be a very trebly bass[/quote] Raising the treble side a bit may help, be careful though, if you raise it too much the magnetic field of the pickup may choke the notes a bit...

'Deep' is a funny old thing. You see if you want to hear some really deep music you are best off going to a big Cathedral with a really large organ. Honestly nothing else sounds like a 64' or 128' pipe. Bass guitar struggles to pout out much in the way of fundamental, and instead relies on the implied fundamental and mainly 2nd harmonic overtone. The average bass rig is similarly aimed at reproducing these kinds of frequencies. If you want to get very deep you need to add something to the natural sound of your bass with either careful eq, sub-harmonic synthesis (an octaver) or a low pass filter of some kind. A compressor may help you to maximise the average volume of your rig, and with enough control of attack and release etc you can use it to smooth out the transient (assuming it can catch it fast enough, a limiter may be more useful here), and by changing the volume of the sustain phase compared to the attack phase of the signal. It wont make the sound truly deeper though. So a lot of what you think is deep (wrt bass guitar) is actually not as deep as you might think, its often a lot more about the area between 80Hz and 300Hz and how those frequencies are managed with eq (either by the instrument, the amp or the cabs nature) rather than 40Hz to 80Hz. If you do boost very low down (around 40Hz) with an eq you need to keep an eye on your cab to be sure you arent over extending the cones. A judicious cut around twice the frequency you boosted may help control this, and any build up of mud as a result. One thing you cant escape from though is that if you really want deep you need power. Lots and lots and lots of it. And a big cabinet. Its not unusual to see people talking about the cabs that really can fill a room with loud deep bass running in excess of 1000watts. Certainly 500watts would be a minimum. That old Peavey head just will not produce masses of deep bass. Even pushing a 215. I've had a very similar rig to that (early 90's a Carlsbro head pushing an HH 215) and it would struggle against a heavy drummer and guitarist, and I preferred a far from deep tone, being all about tight bass and punch to try and combat the onslaught. I hope this helps...

Lightweight and warm, BF vintage or BigOne with bit of tone rolled off. Heavy and warm , Berg HT115 (god damn thats a lovely sounding cab!)

Its not the first tool to do something like this, there was an retuning bit of software (name escapes me naturally) that can change individual notes in a chord, or different instruments in an orchestral piece IIRC. Npt doing quite the same thing - it was all about changing pitches, but effectively isolating specific parts from the whole is a very similar task in both instances. Its always going to be worse than having the master tracks, you are at the mercy of what the process can determine, and what the mix engineer/mastering engineer have done. However its a pretty staggering developement IMO. Couldnt say how useful it will really be, wait long enough and someone will make somehting similar that isnt propritary though....

[quote name='urb' post='1136244' date='Feb 21 2011, 08:53 PM']I totally agree - I've got really sweet sounds from all my basses, all great quality instruments, by running them through the most basic bass/guitar amp that comes with Logic, this gives me a great clean sound that I've A/B'd with the sound I get via either the Mark Bass Studio 1 plugin, Amplitube or other modeling software - and I prefer the huge range of tones I can get from my basses than all the 'simulated' sounds. However I do think the plugins create some great tones I do use from time to time - but overall I think they can make your tone sound 'forced' IMO. One question I have got for you lovely lot is related to this subject though; is there a noticeable advantage to using a valve compressor as a preamp / interface between bass and DAW? Thanks for any answers... Mike[/quote] If you like the sound of it then its an advantage! Simple... Most tube comps are more noisy than their SS brethren though, not necessarily too noisy depending on the situation, and I am aware that its a sweeping generalisation, and that tube comps have been used succesfully iin recording for ever and a day, its still true though. Having said that FETs are noisier still very often, nature of the circuit. You may find if you are very noise averse that a very good simple pre with basic defeatable tone controls into a decent SS comp will actually get you a better result, assuming you set them up right. Your Sei sounded gorgeous through my rig at the SE Bash, hitting the compressor pretty hard without you noticing it as you played. I know the ae410 isnt considered the warmest of cabs, but married to the sa450 and with the right compression on the front its a crazy good sound. I'd DI and mic that in a heartbeat....

[quote name='Joelwidds' post='1135750' date='Feb 21 2011, 04:48 PM']This all seems to have got carried away. If i've learn anything recording is so so simple Good equipment and techniques = Good sound theres no magic going on. Good player -> Good Bass -> New strings -> Good DI -> Good AD Converters -> Hardrive. = Nice sound You take one of these elements away and its going to go down hill. Once you have a nice clean DI then your amp sims and VST are going to sound good and the sayings are "You cant polish and turd" and "Garbage in in garbage out". If you havent got a good bass in the first place then thats what you should fix. Thats chain neeeds to be the best it can because a amp sim and eq's arent the place to go. EQ is for fixing things but you don't have to fix it if you get it right it the first place. Plugings are a fad just used in the wrong way by so many people.[/quote] Ok, I understnd the sentiment, really I do, KISS and all that, and new strings are very important for a good bass sound, decent kit played well is a must too. It doesnt end there though. I've heard great bass tones played through pretty average signal chains set up really well, and I've heard utter plop through far more esoteric signal chains. How you set the kit up is more important than the name on the fron tof the box. EQ is not for 'fixing things' when recording and mixing. EQ is for cutting out the parts of instruments you dont need to make room for other instruments at that point in the frequency spectrum. It is for selecting the best parts of the instrument that are required in a given piece. The busier the piece the more you have to cut out of everything (generally) to get a clean mix at the end - of cource Getting a really decent overdrive requires either a mic'ed cab (my preference) or a decent amp/cab sim. In either event retaining a solid bottom end is generally easier if that part of the bass signal is dry (ie the clean DI), always was the case, and always will be. There will be times when the overall sound of the band make this not the case, but that isnt generally the case IME. This is not about polishing turds, this is about making the most of what you have, and using the constituent parts for what they do best. Its a very good mindset to have when recording. Plug ins are by no means a fad, they are very definitely here to stay. Thats a mind bogglingly weird thing to say! All recording equiptment is often used the wrong way, some of the people doing so are very deliberate about it, and the results are amazing. On the other hand some people read all the books and do everything how the books say, and turn out garbage.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1135573' date='Feb 21 2011, 03:06 PM']Once you find a sim that works for you, try the following: * Record your bass part clean * Copy the part to an adjacent track making sure they're perfectly aligned * Put the amp sim on the second track * Mute the clean track and fiddle with the amp sim till you get close to a sound you like * Unmute the clean track * Fiddle with the volume balance between the two, applying appropriate EQ, compression etc to each track until it sounds nice. The clean track supplies definition, the sim track adds warmth, etc. After all this fun, you can always send the two tracks to a bus, track folder, whatever, for kick drum ducking, etc.[/quote] Additional tuuppence worth:- If you want a dirtier sound then filter the clean sound at ~150Hz with a low pass filter and the simmed sound at a50Hz with a hi-pass filter. Dont be afraid to re-eq the combined signal, or compress the whole. Makes for a punchier bottom end with the option to add a lot more growl...

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1135530' date='Feb 21 2011, 02:27 PM']I reckon I could figure out how the testing part of the development could be largely automated, but I can't imagine where to start with defining an algorithm to reproduce the captured results - the clever bit indeed![/quote] You are not alone! Seems a very dark old art indeed that one, especially when taking into account the way the controls work and interact with the circuit in a lot of older analogue gear. But convolution reverbs work much the same way. I think the trick is not to assume a human writes 'the algorithm' so much as a human writes the code that compares the two signals and computes the differences, and that difference, or transformation, can then be applied to any sound with another piece of software.... It ain't that simple of course, but that is about the only way I can describe it to myself without reference to pixies, leprechauns and magic pixelated fairy dust....

In reality you dont really want to send the bass frequencies through the simulator (using the DI signal for bass is tried and tested). So really any half decent amp/cab sim is going to be fine, I've had good results with Shred, which is a free guitar oientated cab/amp sim. Dont get too carried away with 'that SVT sound', just go for somethiung you like, and remember anything under 150Hz or so is probably best left to the DI

In (extremely) simple terms modelling works by first running a lot of test signals through an actual device and measuring the diff of the output to the original, then (the clever bit) extrapolating an algorithm that can be applied to the original source to produce the output computationally. This needs to capture what happens at all frequencies and dynamic levels too. Now imagine going through all the possible setups wrt the controls on the face of the device (input gain, eq, output gain, any other filters etc) and modelling not only how they change the source sound, but how they interact with each other. Quite a big task.

Welcome, be prepared for major GAS and attendant credit card bills over the course of the next year as you discover more and more goodies you 'have to' have

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='1135049' date='Feb 21 2011, 07:12 AM']Don't know for sure, but here's some suggestions: Small 'boutique' company. They're the most solid, well-built cabs I've ever used. [b]IMO They're the best sounding cabs I've ever used.[/b] They have a great reputation, so people are prepared to pay a premium.[/quote] Yup that about sums it up, the really big deal being the one I've hi-lighted. To my ears, and I assure you I wanted to think otherwise purely for cost reasons, every time I put my ae410 up gainst another cab its closer to what I imagine a great bass tone should be. Not always by much, but I've yet to hear another cab that ticked as many of those entirely subjectivve tone boxes for me as the one I currently own.

If you need to be able to record on location then the Zoom R16 (or R24) are good buys. Especially considering you can later on get a second one and link them together for 16 tracks simulataneous recording. Data transfer from them to the PC is super easy, just get a memory card to USB converter and copy the files directly into a folder then use Reaper to mixdown. Simples. And they sound really good for the price (IMO). If location recording is irrelevant then get something like the Focusrite mentioned above, good name in kit, decent mic pres, 'nuff said.

Tube amps sound louder since the tube circuit will compress the input as it reaches saturation. Since the saturation is very musical, pleasing and so on, you can push a tube circuit harder at input before you perceive real overdrive or distortion. This means you are getting several dB of compression at the input stage, this is also true of the input to the power side of the amp too though, upshot is you are getting a fair few dB of added gain due to compression that will make the amp deliver more volume for a given input. Result is it sounds louder. A watt is still a watt though... You can do the same kind of thing with a really good rack compressor into an SS head in terms of perceived volume increase if you know how to set it up - ultra fast attack, very low ratio, very low threshold, medium fast release will get you in the ballpark...

[quote name='Muzz' post='1129679' date='Feb 16 2011, 02:23 PM']Yep, I can completely see why there might be just too much on the thing for some - I'm a bit like that with basses - more than 1 pickup is pretty much wasted on me: it took me a loooong time to get on with my P/J setup. I could honestly live with a bass with one pickup and an on/off switch* - actually, I wouldn't need that, because the RH450 has a mute on its floorboard. * As long as the sound was there, natch...[/quote] Best not get me talking on the subject of single knob amp mounted compressors either (shudder)....

[quote name='Muzz' post='1129662' date='Feb 16 2011, 02:11 PM']Simon, I think it'd be better if you'd actually used the RH450 controls before commenting in such (incorrect) detail - the shift key doesn't need to be held down, once it's pressed, the para EQ mode is on, press again, it's off. You can then play a note and turn a knob. I'd consider it an advanced feature - the normal EQ works just fine, too. The input gain is the main function of that particular knob (its default), the other is the compressor, which is so effective I've found it to be pretty much 'set and forget'. All details, and really neither here nor there. Yes, it is all subjective, but to be honest, you need to use one for, ooh, five minutes before it (might) become apparent that the controls are actually pretty intuitive. Perhaps the manual doesn't read very well - I couldn't comment, I've never read it. [/quote] I dont think I worded my response very well. I was trying to point out the two possible uses of a shift key, latched or unlatched, and how both have issues. If you re-read my post with that in my that you'll see what I was getting at (I describe the problems with both systems). I admit it was typed hurriedly though! Changing the frequency of a sweep eq is not an advanced feature, its the point of the eq. However they are really saying this is a standard eq, but you might like to tweak the frequencies sometimes, then leave them alone. Its different, not massively, but nevertheless you need to use more controls to achieve the same goal (fine tuning the eq) than with a system with dedicated gain and frequency controls, where you wouldnt need to keep on reacing for the shift button. I tend to set my eq for the room as much as the bass/rig, and therefore I rely on instant acces to eq frequency points to do this efficiently. It comes from a background equally involved in sound engineering as bass playing. Honestly its not an issue if you dont find it an issue, I dont know of any amp manufacturer that you couldnt take potshots at (F500 a case in point). I come from very much the old school console interface as being the best way to do it. Nothing compares to the speed you can get with a full on hardware console, and that ethos applies to all control systems. I spent a good half an hour trying an RH450 when they came out, and thought it to be an admirable contender in the micro amp market, I am not having a go at the amp per se, but the point I am trying to make is that when you load that much functionality into that few controls then somewhere you make a compromise, in this case its overloading controls, in the case of the MB F500 its stacking controls. Neither is great, and personally I'd rather run with an amp with a better interface (ie the sa450 rather than an LMII) even if the functionality is absolutely identical. Then again I may be something of a zealot in this regard!

[quote name='Muzz' post='1129412' date='Feb 16 2011, 11:31 AM']Can't see the RH450 as "off the scale bad", despite having got a lot of features into a small box. The 'shifted' features (which I'm presuming you mean by the multifuntion controls) are really fine tuning stuff, like the semi-para EQ and the compression, the rest is straightforward - the presets can help there. Want to add compression? Press Shift (it lights up), turn the knob. Want to increase the input gain? Press Shift (the light goes out), turn the same knob. The head's about as hard to use as a car stereo once you give it 5 minutes, and pretty intuitive. Having said that, there's a lot of folk who can't work their car stereo - my Mrs included Horses for courses, but then I know people who've no idea what VPF and VLE are, either If you've only got one amp, then unless you're DIing, you're stuffed if it goes down, whether it's got lots of features or none. By your 'single box' reasoning, I guess you'd have a power amp and a pre, then? [/quote] Well, in terms of a single control does a single job, you have just explained with great detail exactly how much of the functionality of the amp is not given a dedicated control. In terms of interface design this is not as good as a single control. Obviously their desire to make the amp very small, yet have many inbuilt functions led them to this, however compared to an interface with a single control per funtion (ie the MB heads) it is off the scale bad, (IMO). Nothing against the sound of the amp, and if it works for you fine, but I cant easily play a note, hold down a shift key and turn a knob at the same time, so I cant very easily set up the parametric eq frequencies properly. Of course as soon as you have a latched shift knob then you are providing a possiblity for a control to be changed when the other control was intended to be chnaged. LIghts or no lights, its just not as good an interface as a single control per knob. Also the frequency shift on a semi parametric eq is not a secondary function, its equally primary to the function of that eq as the gain, some might say the frequency is in fact the primary control even. To put it into the interface as a secondary control (ie the one you have to shift to reach) just shows how poor this semiparametric was actually thought through IMO. Same goes for compression, its not a secondary function of my rig, its of equal primary concern to me, otherwise I wouldnt have got a decent compressor, and learnt how to use it properly. I didnt know the input gain was a shift related control though, thats just bonkers IMO. Its the single most important control on an amp, closely followed by the output volume. If it is set wrong you either overload the amp, or adversely affect your signal to noise ratio. Set just right (in the sweet spot of that particular circuit) the amp will perform at its very best. Thing is this amp is trying to be all things to all men, a simple amp with a simple 3 or 4 control eq, and a bit of dirt, and at the same time a complex properly tuneable eq system, with complex compression, and fine tuneable controls, with a tuner built in, and memory storage of the parameters, all in a box that weighs nothing and is tiny. Its an admirable effort, but something has to give, and in this case it is the interface. Whether you can get on with it or not is immaterial, and in fact subjective, the mere fact that many of the controls are overloaded is the key point, and means that as an interface goes its very complex to use compared to a single control per parameter interface. Smaller too though. I dont have a seperate pre/power amp, I do have a seperate amp though, which I can easily hook up to my compressor and tuner. The MB stuff isnt perfect either, for instance the sa450 mid eq controls have the frequency where the gain should be and vice versa IMO, highly counterintuitive, and something that still catches me out to this day. But other than that its bang on. The key to a simple easy to use interface is orthogonal control systems, ie everything works the same as everything else, and ultimately the more parameters you can give a seperate control for the easier that is to achieve. Again the MB heads fail here slightly in that it is not clear enough that the off for VPL and VLE is fully counter-clockwise, whilst for the eq gain controls it is dead center. Nothing is quite perfect I guess!

yup, absolutely!

MB is definitely not old hat. They were pretty much the first to get a great sounding ultralightweight head that hit really big though, and have continued to innovate. The LMII sold more than any other lightweight head for a good long while. However since then a lot of other manufacturers have come on board the market, and so there is bound to be a lot of people moving their current amp on to try something else out. Personally the TC never did it for me, I guess I'm old school enough that I want a single box to be a really good single tool, so if it goes wrong I'm not totally lost? I also hate multi function controls - comes from doing a lot of UI design, a single control should ideally have a single function. MB isnt perfect in this regard, but TC is off the scale bad for overloading controls as far as I can tell...

Dont entirely rule out the [url="http://www.sourceaudio.net/products/soundblox/tri-mod_phaser.php"]Source Audio Trimod Phaser[/url], yes its big, and digital, but it does have a lot of varying phae sounds to play with, ranging from very very mild to utterly bonkers, it can run as an envelope following phaser too, which is quite neat (esp with some grind) Just a thought...

[quote name='wesfinn' post='1128032' date='Feb 15 2011, 09:49 AM']I did get some tapewounds for it, but personally i don't like the feel of them. If I decide to sell this after all I will put them on if the person wants them.[/quote] Not surprised, they do feel really really odd dont they!

Got the H4n, and they are brilliant, been recording drums for a mate with it, snare, kick and the device itself as an overhead. I swear I've heard way worse results from studios....

Nice job Wes! Are you going to get some tapewounds for the real Herbie vibe though?? Honestly never heard anythiong else sound like his bass and I reckon its mainly because no one else uses those strings....