51m0n

[quote name='chris_b' post='819444' date='Apr 26 2010, 02:43 PM']New strings or old, a decent engineer can make any bass sound good.[/quote] Completely disagree. Old strings can never sound like new strings. They lose a lot of their harmonic content, so they get progressively darker. On the other hand you can eq out overbright strings relatively easily. In other words I can make new strings sound lovely and dark and full if you want (albeit with a bit of grind, which is almost always perceived as a very good thing), or even dead as a doornail with some creative compression and eq. But I cannot go the other way, I cannot impart a bucket load of harmonic content into a bunch of knackered old strings, boosting treble doesnt do it, you cannot boost what is not there to begin with, you just boost hiss. Doesnt mean you wont like the results, doesnt mean that in some contexts I cant get a good sound, but it does mean that you cannot always get a suitable sound with dead strings. You can with new strings (IMO). Personally I find that a properly changed set of brand new strings dont slip out of tune at all (its all in the stretching, kids), so I have been known to slap a set on and tune them up ten minutes before a session, then warm up for ten minutes, then record. Never ever had a problem with excessive string noise, or out of tuneness or 'metallic' sounding strings either. Mind you I love to have loads of harmonic content, it makes mixing bass far far easier IME.

withdrawn....

Its all about frequncy mixing, gents. That is; carving chunks out of all the instruments' sounds where you need the other instruments to poke through, the upper mid in the bass can shine, as its often nasty on guitar, the low mid on bass can be cut a bit (not too much) to allow the bottom of the guitar, the top of the guitar is not over the top of modern funk bass, but is over the top of most rock bass. This littany goes on for pages, and is different for every band. Then there drums to take account of (esp kick and snare, hats are waaaaay above everything in real terms). Finally vocals, presence between 3 and 4.5 Khz, bottom can be as low as 80 Hz, but really you're looking at 120Hz for a fella, and higher again for a lass. There's some nasty nasal stuff in there too in the upper mids (can let other instruments take up that space). Make sure you have high pass filters engaged on all the mics other than bass and kick. That can dramatically clean up a live (or studio) mix. Modern kick sounds have a lot less low end than people think, they are all about punch and slap, bass can easily fit under the kick in metal, funk, pop, jazz, and rock. As long as there is enough mid info to make it pitch intelligable still. Its actually not easy to do, especially when you take into account stage volume feedback etc etc. You need good gear onstage, and in the PA but more than that you need seasoned pros who actually know their shizzle on stage and off. Look I dont understand why anyone would do live sound if they didnt love it, I really care that every band sounds the best they possibly can when I get to do a bit of live engineering, I will offer suggestions to help them sound better on stage an out front, I will listen to the rigs and and band before I go back to the desk, I'll mic whatever needs micing (bass amos in particular) etc, but if they ignore me, they're utterly screwed, cos I wont be able to do a thing for them, until that point I wont even consider facebook . But I love doing live sound, I love making a bunch of amateurs sound utterly awesome, I really love it when they bother to say thanks afterwards (which is very rare). Those LH500s are massively loud, way way in the league of an Ampeg + fridge IMO, and a Schroeder will be far more audible than the Ampeg everytime, especially if the bassist at the amp controls hasnt got a clue. If you play with more space in your grooves rather than thudding out 8ths all the time, and if you play some counterpoint to the guitars you will also be more audible than a bassist who doesnt. Warwicks have massive mid range capabilities too (just listen to Fishbone if you are in doubt). All in all you've given yourself all the weaponry a bassist could ever want to get himself or herself heard, and you know how to use it - doesnt surprise me at all that you sounded way better than them.

Hmmm, the correct response is the Charlton Heston answer....

Get a shiny new second hand amp. A cruddy practice amp is never going to do the job I'm afraid...

[url="http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/products/r16/"]Zoom R16[/url] You can get them for about £315 16 track, 8 Mic pres Can link to a second machine later when you need 32 track Records to SDHC card (up to 32GB) Has a set of stereo mics built in Will act as an interface to your 'puter Dedicated master track, and ability to mix down to the SDHC card Comes with Cubase LE Loads of built in DSP and amp simulations too Smaller than a netbook Will run on 6AA batteries! This, sir, is the canine undercarriage of cutting edge cheap multitracking. Enjoy.

[quote name='Rimskidog' post='807649' date='Apr 15 2010, 09:08 PM']Not sure I'm with you on that. I bought a oneQ because it was as cheap as chips and I had heard good things about it. I think I used it twice before it went. If I had to buy one tool for recording bass it would be an A Designs reddi if I was going for pure tone or if I was going for flexibility I'd buy a Creation Audio Labs MW1. It has a beautiful clean DI and, has great re-amping possibilities. (I have both and woulndt part with either of them)[/quote] Fair play mate, I just had brilliant results with the twinQ, honestly, every time I've used it the result has just sat in the mix and subtly been exactly right. I dont doubt its not a pure 'tone', its definitely very coloured (especially the compressor), but its a colour I really like. Maybe I'm just a bit cheap then

If I could only have one thing for tracking bass it would be this:- There is something utterly magical about that compressor, I've got a tonne of different bass tones from the stereo TwinQ version (this is effectively oine channel of the same unit). The eq is also superb, sublime in fact.. Honestly if you wanted a 'golden bullet' preamp for bass (or mic'ed guitars or even some vox) I cannot recommend this enough.

[quote name='JTUK' post='806885' date='Apr 15 2010, 09:57 AM']I use 2 GS112 and really like the scoop atm. I have an amp that can put in mids if I feel they are missing but the GS's are sounding nice and neutral if that is the way to describe a cab with a scoop. By that, I mean, that the sound of the cabs is the sound of the bass which is very useable AND quite rare, IME, to get a cab that doesn't change your sound too much when you turn up the amp. I really liked the GS112 but I needed two cabs on some gigs. But those two will cover all my gigs as the amp will run out of steam before the cabs do. I was in the same position as you with the one GS.. and whether to go to 2 or another type of 12. If one GS does not do it, then I can't see any other 12 being enough on its own or at least the ones mentioned so far. I went for another GS112 as they are superb value, light enough and sound great as a pair. I am not so far into this experiment to know for sure but everything sounds very good so far and I have no thoughts about changing yet. The indications are that these are my best sounding cabs yet in the context of my gear.[/quote] Seems like a bit of an oxymoron, if the cabs scoop the mids then you are not hearing your bass, but your bass with scooped mids. If you like it then great, but its not the sound of your bass.

The reason for this I think, is that the LMK (like the LMII and SA450) have, by default , a parallel effects loop, in other words its a 50/50 blend of effect versus clean signal. There are looper pedals that have a blend control, and no doubt SIlentFly from SFX can make you one with a total output as well as a blend for when the loop is engaged. Use that instead of the less controllable effects loop on the LMK. That would solve your problem completely...

Well I think they are way overpriced. They arent as good as Bergantino, although they are pretty good. Yet they cost almost as much. GAK shows a Mark Bass STD 104 HF at £887 Inc. VAT, Bass Direct show an ae410 at £989 inc EU mainland shipping, and Mark at Bass Direct is very amenable to the BassChatter's discount too! For me the ae410 blows the Markbass STD 104 out of the water, the tweeter/crossover combination sounds so much better (to my ears). Of course its all subjective, it might all be different for you, but the bottom line to me is that Berg is considered boutique kit, Markbass are asking just about the bottom end of boutique kit prices, and apart from being a light cab they arent boutique quality tonally to me, so why are they so expensive in this country?

The problem is more often than not room nodes and cab placement. Try to make sure the cabs are as close to the back wall as possible (front face within 3ft of the back wall) or at least 8ft from the back wall. Otherwise you can get phase cancellation in the bass from the reflection off the back wall. Having got that right you then need to look at where you are standing, room node cancellation where you stand means you cannot hear the bass whatever you try and do, you can take any cab away, play with your eq until you are blue in the face, you wont ever be happy standing there, move as little as 4ft and you are in bass bliss. Other points to note, bass cabs dont 'throw', no cabs do, thats codswallop, what you are hearing is room nodes. All sound dies of by the inverse square law, but additive and subtractive phase cancellation from reflections off surfaces can lead you to believe that 'throw' is a real phenomina.

Well I bit the bullet the other day and got myself a T-Rex Chameleon, needed to power a variety of voltages, wanted a kettle lead not figure of 8, and wanted isolated outputs as the TriMod Phaser is a noisy b*****d. Was rather unsure as to whether I'd done the right thing. Build quality is incredible - weighs alot for a power supply this. Plugged it all in today, and every pedal I've got seems to sound better than it did, and no noise from the phaser. Result! Very expensive solution though I'm afraid

Give me a semi-parametric any day, 4 bands preferrably (all semi-parametric) faster to set up than a grphic, and far more precise IME.

The way it sounds a million dollars through my rig with new strings The way the cab can project the nature of the bass, the harmonic content of the new strings (without sounding harsh at all), the massive amounts of available punch. The way the amp has enough grunt to knock my block off (through that cab), and so never has to work hard on the gig. Brilliant!

Rimskidog isnt lying, but you kids are on a budget so:- Cheapest way (and yes this can sound great) [list] [*]Great technique (really - nothing can be done with rubbish playing) [*]Properly maintained and well set up bass with decent pickups (well duh!) [*]New strings (you can always get rid of zing and harmonic content, you cant add it, and it sounds better to turn the treble down on good strings than turn it up on old knackered ones) [*]Good lead (OBBM's are fantastic and great value for money) [*]Instrument in on your soundcard (if it doesnt have one, get one that does). [*]Decent software (Digital Audio Workstation) - I massively recommend Reaper, the license is very good value for money. [/list] Now you need to understand three things gain staging, eq, and compression. [b]Gain staging[/b] is the science of setting levels. The lower your level the worse the signal to noise ratio, the higher your level the more likely you are to go 'over' or 'clip' the input stage or any other are of the signal path. Setting your gain stage is getting the loudest signal that wont clip. Its one of the area that newbies get wrong consistently. It is absolutely at the heart of serious recording aqt any level. Dont allow any clipping, and give yourself a good 3dB to 6dB of headroom above the strongest peaks in a test run, in case you dig in a bit more during tracking. [b]EQ[/b] is how you balance the timbre of the signal. Bass goes way down to 30 odd Hz on a 5 string, but bass guitars dont have much of that fundamental tone to their signal with the lowest notes, they have a lot more second order harmonics to them (an octave up from there). Try and think of your bass having 4 areas to its sound:- Bass - Between 40 and 120Hz. 'Woomph', 'thickness', 'weight', 'lack of clarity' Lo mid - Between 120 and 500Hz, 'Punch', 'Thump', 'Mud' Hi mid - Between 500Hz and 2KHz, 'Definition', 'growl', 'clack' Top - Above 2Khz, 'Zing', 'Air', 'Hiss', 'metallic' These are rough guides only, and the descriptions should give you an idea what you can wexpect from each region, both good and bad. To set up a semi-parametric eq, whilst the track plays back put +9dB of boost on and sweep until you find the frequency you want to boost (or take away), then drop the boost to 0dB and re-add or remove until everything sounds nice. For reasons of noise and gain staging it is often better to cut crap ratehr than boost good. Double check the gain after playing with eq! Personally I tend to track without eq, as if you throw something away you cant get it back, and eq is powerful enough to only need to be used at mix down IME. The exception is when I have access to an excellent hardware eq (and I mean excellent) [b]Compression[/b], crikey there are books on just this and very very good artcles on set up (check out ovnilabs). I would say forget pedal comps they dont offer fine enough control, or decent enough metering to allow proper set up in a recording environment. Its that simple. You need a proper compressor with full control of threshold, ratio, attack, release and make up gain, with metering of input, output and gain reduction. I'm not going to go in to another detailed description of compressor set up though, it takes too long!

Time for a bit of shopping I think....

Now thats a cool little piece of kit, bet you've got more than, or have wanted to get another at some point! Can that help fine tune room mics on a kit as well?

To the OP, if you find the right 5'er then its a perfect tool for the job of playing bass. Until you find that bass, whatever it may be, then a 5 will not 'do it' for you. I love mine, and my old bass just never gets played now.... ......poor thing

Thank you thank you, I'm full of it, sorry them

[quote name='Dirty Soul' post='800785' date='Apr 9 2010, 12:57 PM']Hi everyone (hope this is in the right place - 1st 'New Topic') I’ve been recording for a number of years now (not for this whole time of course!) When it comes to bass, I like to record the DI from the back of my SVT-3 & use a large diaphragm condenser mic around 9” (oo-er) away from the cone of a Ampeg SVT-410 HLF cab. Both sent to separate tracks in Pro-Tools. I’ve never been able to achieve the specific results I wanted although it’s never sounded too bad………….now I know why! Apparently the signals are slightly out of time with each other! The mic signal is delayed slightly because of the time taken for the sound to travel from the speaker to the mic (around 1 millisecond per foot travelled). When the 2 signals are mixed it results in undesirable comb-filtering! See this article in Sound on Sound: [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul01/articles/micdi.asp"]Phase Matching DI & Mic Signals[/url] Having learnt about this, I went back to Pro-Tools on the tracks our band are currently working on and put a delay on the DI signal of 0.9 milliseconds – and lo and behold………. A BEASTLY full, deep, consistent sound. I’ll try and upload some audio if I can. Just though I would share this tip with everyone and wondered if anyone else has experienced this??[/quote] Since you are in pro-tools, cant you just move the entire set of objects on the mic track forwards to get them in time and as on the beat as the DI??? By moving the DI back you are getting a lazier take (although at 0.9 ms its not going to be noticeable, but if your mic were further away it would become more and more noticeable). I always try and get a device to pump a tone into the jack that plugs into the bass, run everything up to get channel levels, and a good basic position for the mic, then get eyeline on a meter and move the mic until you get max output on the meter. Job done!

[quote name='Sarah5string' post='798598' date='Apr 7 2010, 12:36 PM']I just did this one on the RNID site and it says my hearing is within normal range, but it doesn't check tinnitus, just overall hearing. [url="http://www.rnid.org.uk/howwehelp/hearing_check/take_online_hearing_check/?from=/check/"]http://www.rnid.org.uk/howwehelp/hearing_c...k/?from=/check/[/url][/quote] Just did that too, damn thats harsh, you have to concentrate on that one, I got 'within normal range' too, so I'm probably not deaf then P.S, love that hat Sarah, suits you!