51m0n

Tip top idea! Anyone interested in some instrumental funkiness can like my lot here (just noticed I need to update the banner again - oops):- [url="https://www.facebook.com/MisterSuperJuice"]https://www.facebook.com/MisterSuperJuice[/url] I'd thoroughly appreciate any likes that happen to come our way, have really enjoyed looking at the other FB pages from you lot, lots ot like there, fantastic!

RME Babyface or UCX

JTUK, anyone wading in with absolutes isn't considering the breadth of different requirements on here. Yes in the world of big live tours with huge PAs and proper sound checks with excellent sound engineers he is right, it's often not required. However if you need to get a mix in five minutes down the Dog and Duck and you run a complex board or there are certain tones you love that require heavy compression to achieve then he's not talking about the same situation. So to come out with an absolute is to be asking for a rebuttal from people seeing these other situations. Which is all he got.

So you've had a successful career as a sideman and never used a compressor yourself? So what? Plenty of other far higher profile than yourself successful bass playing sidemen do use compressors, Tony Levin, Doug Wimbish to name just two. Also, most of the people on this site are playing to small audiences in small venues, they don't have a sound guy they may not even be in the pa but they are striving to deliver the most professional sounding show they can. One thing that can help is a well set up decent compressor in their chain. I couldn't care less who you worked for or how many air miles you have, you come across like a close minded prat when you talk in terms of absolutes in a field of artistic endeavour. Compressors absolutely are about shaping transients and tone control, if you know what you're doing. I've mixed hundreds of tracks, tracked even more and done live sound on I've no idea how many shows, been taught sound by some excellent people in the industry for years. And I'm still learning, and don't know all the answers. I am fully qualified to set up a compressor or a limiter to achieve a huge variety of effects with a real sensitivity to playing style, song requirements and so on. Hey I've even given lectures on how different types of compressors work and how to set them up properly to bassists all in the spirit of sharing what you know to try and help people achieve their goals. When you have spent as much time investigating the use of compression as I have you'll be very qualified to tell everyone how they should think about using one if they choose to, until then stick to what you do know about, playing bass. If I knew as much as you about where you are as a player I'd be all about trying to help people who aren't there achieve as professional a sound as possible. I would focus on playing styles, note choice, dealing with a very demanding band leader, bullet proof gear, stage craft etc etc. That's useful stuff, saying never use a compressor is just too close minded for words though, and frankly misses a whole gamut of reasons why one might decide to. I would be very shocked if, when you are playing live, the engineer on the desk at FOH isnt compressing your bass sound for a variety of reasons, unless you are playing very acoustic jazz, then he might not. As for on a recording, then the enginner will be compressing the bass, and ducking it off the kick too (so as to help the mastering engineer achieve level) in almost every genre I can think of today. As well as compressing drums, and anything else that may need to be controlled, or beefed up or softened or made punchier, its all in those settings and the choice of compressor itself. In fact on the Midas pro 1 its even possible to duck the bass on the kick live to maximise the kick, beleive me they do that live too nowadays - great desks those, amazing, its like having every studio trick you might need in one box with fantastic pres and converters at the stage and a couple of ethernet cables between the stage and the FOH board. For what it's worth I use a compressor, it's a fully featured studio compressor set very carefully to squeeze very gently when I'm playing normally, but to grab at heavy pops a bit more aggressively 30ms after the transient hits the compressor, giving a real radio master vibe to those notes I chose to play like that. I also set a limiter after that as I run a lot of effects and some of my filters can dump massive low end that I don't want to hit my cab, if there has been a change in settings or something else unexpected happens that may well save me a very expensive repair bill, Bergantino ae410 drivers are not easy to come by....

[quote name='vailbass' timestamp='1419921011' post='2643921'] nah, compressors don't do any of those things...it's a terrible crutch that is never advisable. Now the sound engineer may use a limiter to good effect on the mains or a mix engineer will use compression after the fact on a recorded track and that won't affect your playing. Using a compressor in your signal chain that you hear while playing will take much (if not all, depending on the settings) of the control out of your hands and put it in the electronics; hence the "crutch". If you can play proficiently (and that should always be a goal) you will never want, much less need, a compressor in your signal chain. My advice to all my students is to develop control over your instrument so that electronic 'aides' will not be necessary. Best of luck to you! :-) [/quote] Ooooh you're funny! We'd best be telling Tony Levin he was doing it all wrong when getting monster bass tones with massive compression on them for his entire career. I'm sure he'll realise the error of his ways . Good luck getting a bass tone with the same envelope without twatting the hell out of a compressor though, let us know how you get on with that . Sometimes a compressor is not necessary, sometimes it is. To suggest that using one is always a crutch that shouldn't be there just suggests you don't know how to use one well IME. Never mind.....

That's nonsense, there are many reasons to use a compressor live, it certainly isn't a crutch at all. If you play with a dynamics heavy band and use a compressor for what it gives you in terms of how it changes the envelope of your bass on louder passages, then you have to be more overtly delicate to achieve the correct level in quieter passages. It's all very dependant on what you use the compressor to achieve live. And that determines how it is set up. Recording is different to a degree, for sure, most of the time anyway.

Unusually the markbase is a real valve vari-mu compressor rather than a valve preamp in front of a vca compressor. Enjoy!

How odd, it's supposed to be Thriller....

How odd, it's supposed to be Thriller....

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1419024072' post='2635888'] Whether I "hanker" after anything is irrevelant. The whole point of the thread was to debate what appears to be quite an interesting topic. Here is a tune which I hope illustrates my interest in the thread title. And I accept that this particular tune will find very little if any love on this forum but then that's not the point, I just think it's a good example. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38L7S-L9vXg"]https://www.youtube....h?v=38L7S-L9vXg[/url] Thats what I mean by sparkle... [/quote] It's strange how personal and subjective this all gets. To me this mix lacks body in everything. The bass is too midrange heavy, and has no weight, yet clutters the frequency space I'd want weight from the snare, which is completely balls free having been eq'ed way too bright to be a convincing back beat, or even snare sound. The horns are also so lacing in heft as to have no punch at all, the piano is less bright, which is a blessed relief, but could have more wood in the tone, it's a bit non-descript and characterless, but that's because it is competing directly with the vocal, which is very nicely performed and captured. It's all just so plastic feeling to me. If you wanted an example of perfect 80's production the it has to be this, nothing else cones close, Bruce Swedian is a God..... http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D5-405Vvn3OU&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGerhZAj1kBGMT793dBmmcPLqubbQ

Of course it was tongue in cheek, just a whole lot too subtle for some people to get .....

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1419100389' post='2636611'] Yep.. didn't particuarly mean to single out your post, that post was irrelevant as well...or someone didn't read the thread title.. which isn't usually a problem unless it purports to support an argument..rather than just a comment, which it appeared to me to do.. [/quote] Ha, a third of Chic's set was covers, they played a load of songs Nile produced but were not Chic by any means. By that token they are probably the single highest profile covers band on any circuit last year. They are therefore relevant to a thread entitled 'Using a music stand in a covers band'.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1419004606' post='2635657'] I agree, it sounds not half bad on my studio monitors (39Hz-20kHz) and I like that it's not completely crushed to death. I find that listening to combatants in The Loudness War extremely tedious, mainly because you can't listen to more than about thirty seconds of a track without it becoming very tiring. [/quote] Phew, thought my ears were knackered for a minute there

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1419003637' post='2635646'] Well, it sounds a bit crap through my laptop with a busted speaker, so I think you need to try harder. Plus it needs more cow-bell and the bass is a bit glovey. [/quote] I did suggest more cowbell, honest J

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1419002673' post='2635637'] Sorry old fruit but ur track is exactly what Im going on about....it lacks dynamic range and separation. Sure her voice sounds clear but the interplay between everything else sounds like mud. The whole thing just doesnt sparkle. Sorry. [/quote] Yeah, if you streamed it the streaming quality does lose some extreme top end sparkle I grant you (way lower than 256Kbps I thknk), the wavs and my mp3s of this are definitely brighter. There's a tonne of dynamic range in those mixes, compared to contemporary pop mate. Celo Greens Forget You has about 6dB of dynamic range, this has about 15dB, after mastering. Before, well, a [b]lot [/b]more. Although yes as opposed to the ultrabright production of the 80's where the top end around 8 to 12Khz is turned up to overload on everything (Clannad for instance) some aspects of the mix are not super bright, there was a deliberate intent to meld certain instruments together as opposed to carving everything out on its own. Its a stylistic approach that tends to lead you to hear more things the more you listen, thats why its mixed that way. Not everything should be clear in every mix, or else there are no surprises. There is plenty of top end and sparkle on those parts of the mix that were chosen to 'sparkle'. In itself that generated seperation where it was wanted. However I accept that if you hanker after 80's style production above all else, its not for you.....

Oh to hell with it, in for a penny, in for a pound I'm still rather pleased with this old thing I mixed for Kit Richardson, I didnt get to track a bit of it, so there was plenty of twisting things to my will all the way through, I think it sounds pretty splendid as mixes go, it could be a little better in a couple of places, but you can always think in retrospects of changes you might make to improve something:- [url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/album/submission-chords"]http://kitrichardson...bmission-chords[/url] Entirely mixed in the box, soundcard is an RME UCX, plenty of different listening systems from floorstanding monitors to mobile phones and reference cans to cheap earbuds. There is absolutely masses going on in some of these tracks, but the point is you can't hear all of it in one listen. Do enjoy! Bear in mind though, if you aren't listening on £100,000 worth of monitoring kit, it shoudl still sound bloody fantastic.....

Discreet, mate, I can assure you I have access to some very very nice systems for comparative listening purposes. A great set up for me is a pair of reference quality cans plugged into my UCX, but thats not nearly expensive enough to assuage some people I can also assure you that a well encoded 320kbps mp3 of decent material (ie not crushed) is virtually impossible to tell from a wav in a double blind test. Because I've tried it with myself and some other people (some engineers, some 'golden eared' audiophile naysayers). There are some types of material where it does become noticeable, but to my ear its only stuff thats been rogered with clipping in the wav, and that clipping then becomes more obvious in the encoding process (or is it the minute ratio between peaks and average level that screws up the algorithm? I'm not sure). Never got better than a 50/50 reult in 3 different tests, I know I'm such a laugh to hang out with .... Thanks for considering me childlike though

Best gig I've ever seen in my life was Chic at Love Supreme last year, without a doubt the most energetic professional note perfect engaging and breathtaking performace (of well over an hours material) I have ever seen. If I'd only known what we have learnt on this thread, then I would have done the right thing and turned tail and walked out the moment I noticed the ipads on the horn sections stands and the keyboard player's stand. Dammit I was conned, how do I get my money back? Seriously, though, music stands can be fine even on an uptempo pub gig for those bands that can actually get away with it IMO. Horns regularly use them, my own horn section use stands, and we have long improvised sections where the horn section lead chooses what each player is goin gto play at a given moment in some cases, in others she is capable of writing out parts on the fly for two other players by ear, whilst working out her own part and harmonising further with a vocal harmoniser on her trumpet. You cant do that with a tablet! To clarify the horns take a break in an improv section for 8 bars whilst someone else is taking some spotlight, or just as a dynamic rest, in which she can come up with a new part for the section, communicate it to them and be ready to count it in in 8 bars. Its unbelievably impressive! Last gig we played was in a pub in North East London, we had two music stands fo rthe horns, none for anyone else. We have never played this place before, but the punters are there to hear funk (funk DJs playing before we went on, lovely selection of rare groove). We aren't your archetypal happy funk band, we're really dark instrumental jazz tinged funk inspired by the likes of Lalo Schifrin and Roy Bud circa 70-75 (nichje or what!). No one left because of the stands, no one commented on the stands, the gig went brilliantly, masses of compliments in between the sets, and people dancing for the entire show. I personally think the fact that we have really tightened the gaps between the tracks up and the fact that ther is enough to look at (I boogie around a bit and am very focused on as my eye contact with punters as possible, the rest of the band are in various states of 'in the zone') mean that no one is off put by the stands. Hell we even had people commenting on what a great keys player we have, and he had to sit off stage (not enough room), - fair play though he is very very funky, but thats still not natural . I am the first to admit we were in the right venue on the right night with the right crowd, but we had a blinding gig and entertained a packed venue to a huge collection of punters. Music stands are irrelevant to that IME.

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1418907936' post='2634698'] I do, but tbh cannot be bothered with another argument /coat [/quote] With all due respect your description of steps and adding noise is nonsense, please read the article I posted (http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html), in particular the section '[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]Sampling fallacies and misconceptions[/size][/font]' which describes how you are wrong. Noise is a function of bit depth not sampling rate, and at 24bit is less than any analogue medium, whiilst at 16bit the dynamic range (ie available volume above the noise floor) is so great as to be a non issue in all but the widest dynamic range music (big hint here, that aint anything other than experimental electronica)

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1418900775' post='2634578'] [b]Digitising music inherently introduces noise as music volume is quantised (or rounded to the nearest 'step')[/b]. However the biggest impact imho is the compression 'war' where every producer tries to get their track to stand out and sound powerful. This is easily noticed in shouty TV adverts that sound so much louder than the program you've just been watching. It has the effect of squeezing all of the 'air' out of a recording [/quote] This is utter nonsense, you clearly do not understand how this stuff actually works in practice, Nyquist ( the guy who can be credited for coming up with sampling theory mathematically proved the minimum number of samples required to [b]accurately reproduce[/b] a waveform as a function of its highest frequency. That accurately reproduce is important, because it means the result of converting the sample back into analogue produces a result that is [b]exactly[/b] equivalent to the original sampled input. In other wiords they are identical. Of course run that through a load of electronics, and an amp, and turn it into sound via a transceiver and that will have an affect, but the actual d/a conversion wont. 44.1KHz achieves that for sound (since not a single person on this forum can hear above 20KHz, now or ever in their life), you really really dont need recording/playback at any higher samplerate, the only time this isnt true is if you want to be able to have less severe filtering above the maximum required sampled input frequencey up to the sample frequency. It can be useful to have higher sample rates if you are going to go on to do some form of mathematical function on the waveform to change it ( ie digital eq/compression/whatever), because that can provide greater accuracy in the result. Read this exceptional article on sample rates and their current misuse here:- http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Compression confuses people who love to bemoan various aspects of modern sounding records. Lossy compression (mp3s for instance) refers to file size compression using algorithms that bin parts of the original recording deemed not important. I guarantee that no one on this forum can detect a 320kbps mp3 against an original 16bit 44.1KHz wav on any speakers they wish to use with any accuracy in double blind testing. Compression as a 'very bad thing' as a part of the loudness wars, actually refers to using various techniques to get the softer part of the recording closer in volume to the loudest part using multiband compression/limiting/automated gain riding breverse comression etc. The point being the misunderstanding (amoongst suits and bean counters mainly) that the loudest product sells best, or more importantly can be heard on the radio in the car. This 'war' goes waaaaaayyy back to Motwon vs The Beatles where the loudest 7" won on the jukebox (Motown beign very upset with The Beatles ability to get more grunt than them). Modern recording techniques and technology far exceed anythign achievable up until now. Vinyl is without doubt a far worse medium in terms of sonic performance than digital is. People can enjoy the 'vinyl experience' all they like, and more power to them, but in critical testing in a double blind scenario it does not sound better than digital, that is a fallacy, largely put forward by the snakeoil loving audiophile nutters. If you cant measure it, people, it aint there. Now, enough defending the tech, the awful truth is digital has been roundly abused for level for years, this includes eqing to make things psychoacoustically louder (more 2KHz - now dammit!) extreme limiting of peaks and clipping even for that last 0.1 dB of average level (ratios of average level to peak are the lowest they have been in history in thye pop 'chart'). You cannot do the same to vinyl because you just pop the needle out of the damn groove when the bass comes in. Add to this the fact that the louder the recording the worse the artifacts on an lossly compressed file and the amount of recordings done by people with a mac and no clue in a sh*t room and finally your preference for the sound of eighties style production and you have all the reasons you could ever need to think its all rubbish now. Its not all rubbish now, but a lot is, and its not the technology used to blame, its the way its abused or misused. In my not remotely humble opinion

Totally brilliant gig at The Red Lion in Leytonstone last night! Great crowd, well into their funk danced all through both sets and demanded an encore. Had the best time, can't wait to go back

Bastards...

Where did you record this? Did you pay money to have someone track this? (Hint, dont go back, I dont care how cheap they were) Who mic'ed the drums, and how? (Hint: they really need to rethink their process!)

Hmmmm, as a demo is it supposed to be played to anyone outside the band? Serious question. The least of your problems is the bass fret noise! And one that can be fixed really easily with eq and or frequency dependant compression. That's a [i]terrible[/i] snare sound, and I cant really hear anything much on the kick. The drumming is pretty poor timing-wise (hihats are shocking in a few places), enough to need some careful editing to sort out. Some of the guitar needs replaying, its not very in time Is that distorted guitar DI'ed? because its a nasty fizzy sound if it isnt. The vocals are all over the place level-wise, I suspect they are the redeeming feature of the track as well which makes the poor mix even more of a shame. Thats a really honest (and harsh sounding) critique of the recording, sorry, really, I think you could maybe fix some of this with mixing, the snare could be replaced easily for instance, the fizzy guitar could be re-amped, the bass is a doddle to fix, the drumming needs careful editing, the vocals need work in terms of getting them to 'sit' in the mix. Keep working on it, and listen hardfer to your tracking, its [i]all[/i] about getting gfreat sounds down to 'tape' first.

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1418220731' post='2628084'] It's his band, his rules. After having my offer of wedges knocked back I assumed he thought it was maybe acting as a barrier between him and audience. Spent a decent amount of money on a new Behringer205D which I could then have unobtrusively next to me and at least I'd be able ot hear my bvox OK. Lasted 3 gigs in which he whined about being able to hear it and it putting him off (as he was so far forward and the monitor was at my side it was basically pointing directly away from him most of the time) before it became clear I shouldn't bring it in future. It's now sitting at home waiting until I [b]join another band[/b]. [/quote] There's you answer, this chap is a bit of a knob frankly, and will never be able to play anywhere bigger than the dog and duck.