Lowender

If you want a dead sound, use flats. But I can tell you from my experience, most engineers, clients, composers and band members prefer the sound of round wounds. Flats have become the new chic among bassplayers but no one else seems to be on board.

Depends on what you;re going for. I've had a set on my old P for years and it suits the mellow sound. But on a Music Man, I need "zing."

That's really the most RARE basses, which in turn makes them costly. Though I question that list. I think a 62 P would be more in demand than most of those. That's the reason that make a 62 re-issue. They go between 5 -10 K depending on condition. The $350 Hofner Icon's are every bit as good as the old original Hofners (maybe better) except for the plastic tuners and pickguard -- which is just cosmetic.

I also have a CV strat that every guitar player looks down there nose at -- until they play it. Squier essentially IS Fender -- but instead of being made by Mexican immigrents it's made by Indonesian citizens. : )

I have a variety of basses -- a great vintage P, an American standrard Jazz, a Ric, a Hofner, Ibanez, a Music Man --something for every aspect of recording every type of music. I've also owned boutique and custom built and have played just about every high end bass on the market -- Lakeland, Sadowsky, Ken Smith, you name it -- and I finally settled on the ones I now own. I recently did a session where I tried a few different basses and the client wasn't entirely happy with the sound. I finally went with the Squier j Deluxe. (But I put a Fender headstock on that one , otherwise the engineer would never let me use it, but I don't want t make this a discussion about decals). The client said-- "that's it!" And you know, he was right. It simply sounded better. Then recently I had a friend email me an mp3 and the same thing happened. I played a track. It was good. He was happy. Then I said, wait a minute, let me try a different bass. (The Squier JD). His response? YEAH! [i]That [/i]sound kills! So there you have it. An instrument that is a quarter of the cost as all the others. For the price of a Fodera I can have forty of them. And they'll all record better than the Fodera. : D I don't know what it is about that bass. Maybe it's the ebonol fingerboard. It doesn't have a lot of variety and it isn't the prettiest tone you'll ever heard, but damn if it doesn't produce a fat clean punchy sound. I feel like my bastard son has made me the most proud. : )

Not much of a song is it.

Get the Brown Album. Clarke at his best with his best band and his best tunes.

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1374675962' post='2151693'] I've just gone back to Joanne Shaw Taylor's most recent album and I'm left with the same nagging doubt that I had when I first put it on. I like the songs, and her guitar playing is still excellent, but there's something about the overall production that doesn't sit right with me. I'm increasingly convinced that this album has become a victim of an overly zealous compressor in the "loudness war," but I just wonder whether somebody with better ears can verify this for me. Exhibit A is the first track from the most recent album: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SMZA5fMVI[/media] Is it just me, or does it sound like somebody just pushed all the faders up to full on this one, and the mastering engineer just compressed it to buggery? Exhibit B is the first track from her debut album: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxsr2do0Wrk[/media] I of course realise that the instrumentation's a little different on this one, but this one just seems to have a lot more space for the mix to breathe. It's not just me, is it? [/quote] [b]I think your assessment is pretty accurate. It's very compressed, especially the bass and drums. I also think it's the parts that are being played. Everybody is taking up the same sonic space and playing similar rhythms. And there's a bit of distortion on everything, even the vocals -- probably from attempting to make it too hot. There also seems to be next to no reverb on the vox which makes it sound even more harsh, whereas on the second example there's a nice smooth atmosphere to the vox. [/b]

Very funny. But it's six minutes too long.

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1374571325' post='2150158'] Mostly because of the melodic tradition. There are many drone instruments. Harmony is not given the prominence it has in western music. Most Asian music has much more complex timing, rhythm and melody than most western music. [/quote] I'm not so sure about this. Traditional Asian is actually pretty simple -- almost entirely pentatonic and within a couple of octaves. It's actually very similar to cowboy music. Play the melody to "I got spurs that jingle jangle jingle" on a koto. It's very Chinese sounding. Now if by "Asian" you're including Indian music, yet, there you'll find the use of the drone. And because of it, there isn't much chordal movement. And the tabla creates a bit on "low end" whereas in in "eastern oriental" music the tonality is thin. That could be for no other reason other than they like it or no one came up with a bass instrument since it seemed impractical. That was even the case in Western music until 1650 or so. (A tradition carried on with the "Justice For All" album). Why are there no cymbals in western music until the late 19th century? (Oddly enough, cymbals were in Asian music since the beginning).

That would be the fretting hand. Listening to the early tracks like 8 Days a Week, All My Lovin, Nowhere Man and You Won't See me, it's interesting how his lines have so much movement with hardly any hand movement. In fact, the position rarely moves at all, yet the figures aren't "typical" root position patterns. Another example of his subtle genius.

Wow, that was a really stupid article -- from a magazine with a really dumb name.

[quote name='largo' timestamp='1374047780' post='2144502'] It's todays society, where everyone seems to seek acceptance by posting their "life" on the t'interweb. If this guys prepared to put himself out there on the public domain, i.e. video himself and put it on Youtube then he has to be prepared for the bad as well as the good. He seems a decent player but I'm one of those in the "that did nothing for me" camp. [/quote] I think that ^^^ is the quintessential bollocks remark. It's an excuse to slam someone and nothing more. It tends to come from people who resent someone else doing something when they don't. Or can't. I think it's fine if it doesn't move you. Critique it. Make suggestions or recommendations if you think of ways it can be better. Post your own version. But don't hind behind the "if you put it out there you have to be willing to take criticism" banner. That's lame.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1374054530' post='2144649'] Frequencies are frequencies. I'm specifically referring to the complete harmonic spectrum of a sound. When you play a note on the bass guitar you don't hear a single frequency, you hear dozens all piled up on top of each other. Yes, because the[b] time-varying harmonic (frequency) spectrum of the instruments is different. [/b] In terms of sound produced all that wood and electronics and shape of bass do is to alter the variation of the harmonic spectrum. This is how modelling amps and guitars work. Its not semantics, its basic physics. [/quote] Way to state the obvious yet still make it sound imperious.

It's semantics. The OP is looking for an understanding of getting a sound and people are debating minutia technicalities and what is subjective and objective. Keep it simple. Bass, mids, treble and the inherent qualities that can not be controlled electronically. I think that's enough to digest.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1373990183' post='2143940'] which is all frequency information. Saying timbre is nothing more than frequency (like xilddx did) is correct. Timbre is variation of frequency information. [/quote] I think we have a semantics problem here. What are you calling frequencies? Two basses can be playing the same note with the same EQ (same frequency curve) and sound completely different., If the bass has an inherent "frequency difference" then it would be a matter of adding or subtracting frequencies but that's never the case. Tone is also in the wood and the electronics, even the shape of the bass will be a factor. You can call it ALL frequencies but that's misleading IMO.

[quote name='operative451' timestamp='1373988053' post='2143906'] You're absolutely correct - i don't know what the question is yet... The sound i 'want' is thick without being muddy, bitey without going fizzy when i hit the fuzz, twangy without clanking (ok, that might be my fingers). I think what i actually want is to know where to start the twiddling! There must be some rules of thumb? Other than, 'for more bass turn up the bass' - like for a lot of guitar amps for instance, its more 'for more bass turn down the treble'! This is totally a noob beginner question i know - i've not been bassing long and in my previous world (old-school goth guitar) the default setting was chorus and reverb turned up all the way and distortion on the loud bits.. ;D [/quote] Start with everything flat. Sometimes you don't need to go beyond that.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1373984975' post='2143848'] They share the same[b] fundamental [/b]frequency. They do not share the same harmonic spectrum. A large part of the perceived timbre differences are down to the (frequency) differences in spectral content. [/quote] yes -- harmonic spectrum . i.e. "timbre."

[quote name='operative451' timestamp='1373980915' post='2143783'] I'm using 'tone' to mean sound made by the player, instrument and amp all working together - like in say the gear forum where someone would talk about 'Duff McKagen's tone' - so yes, tell me everything..! ;D I guess what i want to know is, what to adjust to get certain elements of sound - like for instance fiddling with mid-range from a total scoop can go 'muffled muffled muffled CLANKY cardboard' quite easily. And boosting overdrive can add that throb to the low end that you get when the bass is turned up all the way, but again, it's easy to go from throb to fart to speaker jumping out all over the floor... And i find that a bit of overdrive becomes sort of dirty compression on the way to full break up, which sounds nasty until it gets really distorted at which point it becomes fuzz! So (i'm told) the reason we 'like' valve tone more than solid state is that it's dirtier! The valves distort, compress and colour the sound, while transistors and digital replicate it more perfectly which makes our monkey hearing go 'yeuk!!' [/quote] You're still not asking a direct question. There are hundreds of variables. If you had a specific sound in mind we can make some suggestions. (It still takes some experimenting to get it where you like it). You also seem to be hung up on distortion which is completely separate from "tone." It's a "distortion" of the original signal.

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1373977286' post='2143736'] Timbre does not go beyond frequencies. [/quote] Huh? Of course it does. An "A" on a guitar and a "A" in the same register on a trumpet have completly different timbres while sharing the same frequency of 440. Even the same register E on a bass on the E string and on the A string have a different timbre.

Sorry -- HER question. : )

The original question is conflating a few points so it's a little confusing as to what you really want to know. Distortion is a separate entity to "tone" since it's a signal that is being pushed beyond its sonic capabilities. What does boosting the bass do? Seems pretty obvious -- increases the low frequencies. Tone is made up of many things. Do you understand how a graphic EQ works? That's a part of it. But there's also an inherent tone that goes beyond frequencies. That's why a J can't be EQ'd to sound exactly like a P bass and vice versa. There are other factors involved. Then there's the overtone series. That's for starters. I think the OP will get a more detailed answer if he modifies his question.

Apples and oranges.

[quote name='visog' timestamp='1348771878' post='1818068'] This was Jaco wasn't it? Can't imagine he was very fond of it. Hated fusion and said so! Plus it doesn't swing, another bug-bear of his, and a whole other debate. Personally I quite like it. This album's also got Stanley on it singing too on a great track. [/quote] You can't be serious. So I'm going through this thread thinking, yeah, yeah, I used to be impressed with this stuff too but now I know why it doesn't hold me. Compositionally, much of it is weak and repetitive. The playing is excessive and often vulgar and ultimately pretty damn boring. And then that DiMaola track was posted. THAT is epitome of what great fusion is. Astonishing technique and intensity combined with killer grooves, intricate and surprising changes, mastery of complex rhythms and balls to the wall excitement. Not to mention, that may be some of Jaco's best, if not some of THE best bass playing anyone has ever recorded. And the response is "Eh....whatever." Amazing.

It's also amazing that people judge someone solely by what they do on one pice. "Oh, he's [i]THAT.[/i] " That's so unfair and so short sided. The guy did a nice job. MAYBE he's not great at other things. MAYBE he plays the most wicked groove you'll ever hear. Maybe he sings his ass off. Maybe he's a lousy golfer. All that stuff doesn't matter. He's not selling a used car. It was a presentation of art. Lighten up.