51m0n

[quote name='endorka' post='1064376' date='Dec 20 2010, 10:54 AM']:-) Not quite never, for example, if the bass & drums are the only instruments playing at a certain point, there is no reason why you should not. Or maybe you want the bass line to sound detached. These are the aforementioned exceptions of "special effects", as my old orchestration tutor used to refer to them :-) He actually took this further, as he would only write basslines on the 'E' string, which he considered very low, if there was another instrument doubling the entire line an octave higher. Good examples of this are low hits & pedal notes in big swing band arrangements, with trombones and/or baritone sax doubling them an octave up. A great deal of music from the 60s/70s is like this - many of the basslines are in the mid register of the instrument. Notable example: "Son Of A Preacher Man" avoiding the low "E". An interesting aspect of this is that I arrived at this conclusion in practice before I was aware of any theory covering it. Because most bass amplification does not reproduce the fundamental frequency of notes on the E and B strings, most players are unaware of how deep these notes actually are, until they hear them played back through a really good sound system, at which point it becomes obvious why you shouldn't have used them. It happened to me... Jennifer[/quote] I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. The 5 string bass doesnt produce much fundamental in the notes below E, you're right, and in fact it produces less fundamental generally than the E string does, but the E string suffer s from this too, purely since they are just a bit too short for that job. What they do produce is a lot of 2nd harmonic, which is an octave higher than the fundamental, as well as some fundamental. Almost no bass cabs will reproduce the fundamental at the same level as the second harmonic (Acme's and possibly the Barefaced Big One being exceptions to some degree IMO) either, since its not really necessary. So when you hear these notes from a bass guitar they are heavily influenced by the note an octave up (as a harmonic within the overall sound), since that is all the instrument is capable of producing. If it isnt really there in the original signal then you cant reproduce through any sound system, however the preponderance of live engineers to over eq the bass to make it sound 'big' (read woolly like a mammoth with the definition of a blancmange) tends to lift the fuidamental significantly. For the sake of clarity:- [codebox] Note Frequency 2nd Harmonic B0 30.87 B1 61.74 C1 32.70 C2 65.41 Db1 34.65 Db2 69.30 D1 36.71 D2 73.42 Eb1 38.89 Eb2 77.78 E1 41.20 E2 82.41 [/codebox] How many on here hear anything much useful happen when they boost down at 40Hz? How many of you would consider boosting down there, really? How many boost around 70 to 100 Hz instead? Thats because the majority of what we perceive from a bass guitar is NOT fundamental, its not the amps, they would go down well below this if necessary (most have HiPass circuitry to prevent wasted energy amplifying nothing useful), the cabs are built to produce what basses produce best, they are tailored to the instrument. The instrumetn just doesnt do much down there. If it did it would sound more like a big pipe on a church organ! Big PA subs claim to go down to 40Hz, but many of them are waaaay off flat by then too. So they need plenty of eqing to get them level before you begin. Guitars on the other hand can also get eq'ed way down around 80-100Hz, in some genres lower. Orchestration is really important, but in putting the bass waaay down there you gain a massive amount of space for vocals, drums, guitars, synths, horns etc, whilst filling out the bottom. Tic-tac guitar (ie guitar doubling the bass an octave higher) went out of fashion (except in some genres like country) in the 60's, since electric bass made the pitch so much ewasier to hear than on a db recorded at the back of the room, and with all due respect your orchestration teacher clearly never caught up . Electric bass has become the single hardest stringed instrument to fit into a mix, on account of its vastly extended (upward and downward) frequency range since the 60's. It is all to easy for bass to get in the way from 70Hz right through to 4KHz, not utilising the 5th string in places to help keep it out of the way is just daft. Conversely if you stay in the mid range of the instrument, some thing done in the 60s to get it heard at all due t the poor quality of reproduction systems and low power amps for live, youseriously risk cluttering up the mix and stealing limelight from the singer, which the punters wont thank you for (and neither will the singer). I guess I'm saying it need not be a special effect to go that low these days, it isnt always the right thing to do either, but I wouldnt say that you shouldnt consider it, especially with a busy sounding band, or if the genre you play in demands it. I think that with only the drums and bass playing that would be the least likely time I'd feel like going down there, after all you need to make sure you are heard clearly as well as felt, and the punters will struggle to make out what you are doing so well the lower you go....

Of course you carry a certain amount of 'your' tone around with you, its you hitting the strings, where on the string, how hard you pluck/thump/pop how soft the pad of your finger is, the exact direction of your pluck relative to the string, the amount you dampen the note with left (and right hands), these all directly relate to the envelope of the sound. As I said before the timbre of a note is dependant broadly speaking on two things, the ratio of different harmonics and the envelope. How you play the instrument has a massive bearing on the envelope, and the envelope of each harmonic may be changed different amounts with different playing. This can be at an incredibly 'micro' level, but the overall effect is that we carry a personalised aspect to our sound with us wherever we go. Couple that with note choice, familiar patterns, stylistic leanings etc etc and its easy to see why there is a perception that people sound the same on any instrument. They dont, but you can see why they sound similar. In fact virtually any two basses you pick up will sound different, you may struggle to hear the differences, or recognise them, but they will sound different. Therefore one may be a bit closer to the tone in your head than another.....

Tone = Timbre The Timbre of an instrument is all about the relationship between the different harmonics of the harmonic series in the sound it produces integrated with the envelope of that sound. In my opinion it is nothing to do with note choice or musical style at all, and trying to suggest it does is just clouding the issue. If you dont know the envelope is the way the sound amplitude changes with time as a note is played. A greater difference between the initial transient attack volume and the sustain of the note, or a longer attack phase will generally sound brighter for instance. Any number of things can have an effect on timbre, including, but not only:- Instrument construction Instrument materials Instrument pickups Instrument electronics (circuit type, components, s/n ratio etc etc) Instrument age Instrument action/setup String type String gauge String flexibility String age Lead(s) Preamp (circuit type, components s/n ratio etc etc) Power amp (circuit type, components s/n ratio etc etc) Speaker cable(s) Cab (design, construction, materials) Drivers (design, materials, construction, age) Room design, construction, materials, content, size Playing style, position along the string, energy (ie how hard the string is struck), damping/muting (so left hand can be an influence IMO). Any mic/pre/recording system used to capture that sound (oh boy, can of worms, lets not go there!) The hearing of the listener (well naturally) I'm sure I could think of more, but all of this changes the timbre of sound from the point of view of the listener, change any of the above and the timbre of the sound changes. So, given that you may have sound in your head A, then changing any of the above may or may not get you closer to A. If A is what you want then feel at liberty to do what you must to get to A, but you must understand that any of the above may change outside of your control and change that sound away from A. Worse still anyone else may not perceive your tone to be anything like A, but thats another topic really... If you want to play like someone else (why would you?), learn all their songs, note choices/phrasing etc etc If you want to sound like someone else (why would you?), buy the same gear and study their technique and learn all their songs and note choices/phrasing

Getting 'bouncy'...

At my 40th getting a might funky...

Yeah a Distressor would be about right, better start saving!

Well he's generally got a lovely compressor on his bass on just about everything I've ever heard by him....

Piccies please!

Post some clips, preferably with video. Lets see what the issue is, it would help us be more informed. Also what are you listening back to on (monitoring)??? What is your definition of 'that sweet funky sound' - youtube clips please. Ta!

If you want a promoter to know what you sound like live record your set through a great PA in a nice sounding hall (ie xactly like a good live set up) with a Zoom H4n then master it up a bit ( little bit of bass lift, touch of mid mud removal, nice touch of compression, bob's your auntie). Dont bother multi tracking a thing. Should sound absolutely spot on....

[quote name='LiamPodmore' post='1053113' date='Dec 9 2010, 05:44 PM']You guys take 2 days for 1 track? My band managed to do 3 tracks in one day, using our own drums, bass with DI and Mic, 2 guitar tracks per song, 3 takes per person per song, and backing vocals. Actually turned out pretty good (Its in my sig) Liam[/quote] I deliberately didnt listen to your recordings before my response above. Having listened to them now, I stand by everything I said. They sound just like demos to me. Which is fine if that is what you want, but not good enough for a CD (well not to me anyway). The drums and guitars are particularly rough and ready sounding - IMO - if you guys love it thats fine, but I promise you could do a lot better....

If I thought what you forced me to track sounded like garbage, I'd be looking to get my name off the credits! Not saying the OPs set up would do that at all of course, it wouldnt necessaily, but [i]you task the engineer with capturing the sound of the band as a whole as best he can[/i] [i][b]within the time limits of your budget[/b][/i]. If that means he is not willing to risk a set up he doesnt know inside out, then in your timescale, for your budget, you dont do it your way, you do it his. Throw more time at him, have an up front chat about the requirements in terms of bass gear etc. this may change. Even then, if he gets to hear the band before hand he may know that to get the best sound for the band the rig you bring may not be right for some or all of the songs, in the context of the entire band. Remember he is there to make the band sound great, not any one individual sound 'like themselves'. That is NOT what he is doing. The smaller the budget, the less your options and time to experiment, the less chance of him deviating from his comfort zone. If I was tasked with mixing something and the brief was to make it sound fantastic, then ANY part of that mix may get dropped, replaced, tweaked in any way imaginable (including a complete replacement if necessary) to make the mix sound fantastic. You are all fooling no one but yourselves if you dont think this is how its done for real in the big wide world too. Anyone doubting me needs to read [url="http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php"]The Diaries Of Mixerman[/url], a pretty much "straight as it gets" account of the tracking process of a signed band. Really is a tad eye opening. If you are really inrterested in the mixing side of the process then buy his Zen and the Art of Mixing too, a thoroughly enlightening read that all you home recordists should have a copy of, and anyone thiking of entering the studio should read in order to get an inkling of what the engineer is up to come mix time (and what should have gone on during tracking to). Thoroughly recommended reading, the Diaries are very very funny indeed!

My advice RTFM. Yes its going to be a slog, keep it really simpe though, go through a single effect at a time, ie Chorus on , everything else off, Compressor on, everythiong else off. Work through the parameters for each effect, with the manual, [b]and[/b] some other documentation about how that effect is supposed to work, what it is doing under the hood, so that you really understand what the controls do. Work on different fx chains, serail vs parallel fx strucutres and so on - all that reading other sources above will stand you in good stead for making signal path choices! Work on how you control the gain structure within the unit too, otherwise you will find that you can pick up unwanted noise or clipping and you cant tell why. Work out how to gain match all your patches. That way any change you make from patch 15 to 26 or whatever will not be accompanied by an uncontrolable 6dB volume increase! All this effort may take a while, [b]but[/b] you will end up with significantly better tones, fx choices and use, and a real understanding of what is going on in your rig, your gigs will become more stress free and you will end world poverty within a year as a result....

Roscoe Century Standard - light as a light thing on a diet of light pills and helium....

[quote name='LiamPodmore' post='1053113' date='Dec 9 2010, 05:44 PM']You guys take 2 days for 1 track? My band managed to do 3 tracks in one day, using our own drums, bass with DI and Mic, 2 guitar tracks per song, 3 takes per person per song, and backing vocals. Actually turned out pretty good (Its in my sig) Liam[/quote] I'm not saying its impossible to do more, but I doubt anyone spent anyone time with your drummer trying different mic positions, different mics on different drums, trying different drum heads etc. What about the kit in different parts of the room even? So what you are saying is you had a guy slap up his general set of mics on the kit, tweak them for a minute and move on, repeat that procedure for the entire instrumentation of the band and the vocalist, then bang out the tracks with limits on takes etc. This includes the vocal (here's the vocal mic, sing into it, wait for me to get a level..... ...ok run through it then we'll record). And it sounded ok. Well thats fine, and I've achieved similar results when pushed for time too. But, and this is the thing, to get the [b]best[/b] from a kit for a recording ususally benefits from a bit more time getting really superb sounds tracked from the get go. Sometimes you'll try several positions/mics or whatever and go back to the first. Yes a good engineer can make good first guesses, but most engineers, given the choice, would rather spend some time getting the best sound on to tape. Same for the guitars, bass, vox, everything. This takes time. Tracking vox in three takes, well unless your singer is insanely talented (as good as Michael Jackson? Aretha Franklin?) chances are that the end result will be a compromise, rather than perfect. That may in fact be exactly the kind of thing you are after, I dont know, and couldnt say. If your mentality is "We are doing the demo today, we need to get this all done" you will get a result that is in all probability demonstrably worse than if you go in to the studio saying "We are recording today, we are going to maximise the quality of every part of the process" you will get a different result. Your "It actually turned out pretty good" speaks volumes to me as to your expectations from the way you went into the process of recording. "Pretty good" is basically not "staggeringly great". Its possible to get great results with the right genre and band with just two mics and a single take, chances are your band isnt playing that genre though. How much time and money you can spend on it will determine how good that result is (that and the studio/engineer/producer/mastering engineer involved). Tracking in a couple of days seems entirely reasonable to me. You cannot polish a turd!

Warning, you might end up in the same situation we are, Plux insisted that all his friends listen along to The Helicopter Quartet by Stockhausen during his 9th birthday party meal - I dont think they ever quite got over it My little one is 6, his favourite song at the moment is I Am The Slime by Zappa. Result!

I'm still a better sound engineer than a bassist, and I cant see that ever changing, however I'm proud of a couple of basslines I've come up with, albeit a while ago and that no one else would probably like them Thats it Nigel, now I've got to spend a whole day self-deprecating to make up for this dreadful outpouring of overblown pretension....

[quote name='BassBod' post='1045599' date='Dec 2 2010, 08:26 PM']Just to be clear - I'd never say DI only is the way to go. Micing cabs takes time, can be hit or miss and sometimes causes problems for other instruments. DI only is really as much for control and speed as sound quality or tone. It gets the job done. One day I'll have five whole tracks to myself...he he he[/quote] In what way would mic'ing a bass cab cause a problem for other instruments in a decently setup studio in town? Spill wont be an issue, the amp will be sufficiently isolated, so are you suggesting that the sound of a mic'ed cab is going to be harder to mix? Oh, and mic'ing a cab is time consuming, it takes about 5 to 10 minutes to nail a massive sound IME, and get it in phase with the DI (important if you are going to tape, less important if you are working in a DAW, as you can time align the tracks at mixdown)... However two days to get a track recorded and mixed is really getting a move on, especially with backing vocal, I can see why he wanted to minimise the fuss! I'd want the tracking done in entirety before lunch on day 1, so the lead vox can be done int he afternoon, bv's and overdubs morning day two, mix down afternoon day 2. If your drummer used his own kit (rather than just his snare and cymbals) then you probably didnt have time to do anything but the path of least resistance on bass IMO. Getting great drum sounds takes serious effort.

Total control is the best way - agreed. As soon as you are at some other b****r's mercy they will try and shaft you. Well not always, but eventually you'll come a cropper.

Love doing sound me I like to spend about 45 minutes on the kick drum, then tell everyone we've run out of time. Cos I'm worth it

Started with a pick, moved to fingerstyle cos switching from pick to slapping and back is a real pig, learnt two handed tapping and have dabbled ever so slightly into double thumping. Whatever it takes to make the music you want is fine with me. Just make it musical. Doesnt have to be pretty mind, just not t055ing off for your own amusement (unless you are on your own, in which case go for it). Much prefer slap that is more about the thumb than the pop, its got to groove really hard too.

The GearSlut in me had a bit of a funny turn at that desk, mate - steady!

He we go again. Reaper, ~ £25 ($60 in fact) for a small business/non-commercial license. Free trial offer too with full functionality. Best DAW I've used for recording in Windows. Best return on investment for software I've ever got too. Does all your slow down stuff too btw...

[quote name='Clarky' post='1041736' date='Nov 29 2010, 10:29 PM']Rubbish review actually, as it the word b*ll*x does not appear anywhere. Obviously not done by a technician, eh 51m0n? [/quote] Absolutely, written by someone with no true understanding of the subject matter if he didnt see all the b*ll*x

[quote name='obbm' post='1041723' date='Nov 29 2010, 10:21 PM']Interestingly the latest BGM that came throught the letterbox this morning has a feature and review on compressors. Also I retrieved my dbx163a from the garage. It's only got one knob and a slider so Isuppose that means it will have to go. [/quote] Not at all, it has a decent attempt at useful metering (shows gain reduction) and two knobs effectively, threshold and makeup gain. Being a soft knee (dbx call this overeasy) compressor it starts compressing below the threshold and reaches its set ratio at the threhold. This compressors a bit of a one trick pony to be sure, but its trick is really supposed to be fairly transparent compression, if you use ot for some gentle levelling you should be fine. I got my copy of BGM today too. Oh the irony! Can't say I agree with everything he says in there by any means, in fact I don't really think he has conveyed the nuances of compression very well at all, its a bit misleading IMO. He also makes a typical lazy sweeping generalisation that is actually wrong. He states as fact that the threshold on all compressors is at its lowest when the control is set anti-clockwise. Except this is exactly wrong for all the Joe Meek compressors out there, so if anyone is getting one of those RTFM and save yourself some pain! Did notice a huge lack of metering on all of those compressors offered up as the bees knes for bass too. Hey ho!