Dan Dare

Recording techniques in the early 70s relied a lot more on a few ambient mics, especially for live work, rather than large numbers of close mics on everything. 16, 24 and especially 48 track recording was still in the future, particularly at places like the Beeb. Note there are only two mic's on the kit on that live footage - one on the kick and one overhead. Probably ribbons (likely Reslo), as you point out. I have to disagree that they are badly positioned. Yes, that wouldn't work for dynamics or even some condensers, but you don't want to put a ribbon, especially an old school one, too close. There's going to be a fair bit of spill, but the resultant mix is very good, so the engineers knew their stuff. They had to make the best of the kit and techniques of the time.

That applies to many fashion products. They're made in the same factories, using the same basic components as budget items. Modern mass market quartz watch movements are so good, they'll rival or better a Rolex for accuracy. My favourite example is Oakley sunglasses. The Oakley brand is owned by Luxottica, which also owns just about every other major brand and makes for most of the fashion houses. The cost to produce those Oakleys people pay hundreds for is 15 cents. That's what they come off the production line for.

The issue with replicating the sound you hear on records is that you don't have access to extensive, high quality eq and production tools that were used in the studio when the recording was made. There is also a big difference between achieving a particular sound at moderate volume in a domestic environment and doing so at high volume in a live situation. As others point out, Andy Fraser used valve heads and 4x12 cabs. Even then, what you heard when he played live would be from the PA (I'm old enough to have seen Free play several times), not direct from his rig. If you want that sound live without it dirtying up too much (you mention you have issues getting it clean enough), you need a lot of amplification and cabs to shift enough air without running into too much distortion. A single 12 isn't going to cut it at anything higher than moderate volume, I'm afraid. You mention that the 4x10 at your rehearsal room is better. That isn't to do with the driver size, but because it can shift more air without struggling too much. The only option, unless you are running the bass through the PA and can keep the level low on stage, is a bigger rig. Modern lightweight stuff will ease the load on your back, but it will still be bulky. I'd also suggest the Orange Terror isn't the best amp to achieve what you're looking for. It has a strong baked-in sound - very punchy and in your face and perfect for some things, but not for what you want. Something like a Tone Hammer would be more like it, but look at the 700w version so you can keep it clean at higher volume. As always, don't take our word for it. Go shopping and try stuff.

The claimed advantage of stacking cabs with the drivers vertically in a line is that you get better "throw" (line arrays work on this principle). So if you want to reach the back of the room, there may be a small benefit. Probably not worth worrying about for average gig use, though.

perish the thought...

Is this a complete the sentence competition? If so, I suggest: Boutique basses are bought by lawyers, medics and well-paid weekend warriors in the vain hope that spending lots of cash will make up for lack of talent. Over to you lot.

Glad it was helpful. Your story is similar to that of many of us. You buy something that, at the time, seems just the job and doesn't cost too much, but quickly outgrow it or become aware of its limitations. Then you buy something that's a little better (on paper, at any rate), outgrow that, etc, etc. Rinse and repeat and you end up with a pile of gear and none of it does the job for you. Had you bought what you really wanted in the first place, it would probably have cost about the same as all the stuff you've bought and you'd still be happy with it. One advantage of buying quality kit is that it retains some resale value, even if the initial expenditure hurts a bit. Stuff from firms such as Behringer et al never holds value. Why would people buy it used, with no guarantee or comeback if anything goes wrong, when they can buy it new and avoid the risk for not a lot more? If your headphones don't scratch the itch, I'd suggest selling your existing gear for whatever you can get for it (the money's already been spent and anything you can recoup is a bonus). Then ignore the local shops that don't have much by way of stock. Instead, hop in the car and have a day out at somewhere like Bass Direct (other shops are available, etc), try stuff and buy what you really like. Ignore reviews and other peoples' opinions and choose what you like. Being retired, you can go in the week when they're not busy, so you can take your time trying things and make the right decision.. I finally saw the light and did just that some years ago after I retired. I spent a chunk of money, which hurt, but I've had no wish to upgrade since. Buy once, cry once, etc.

D'Addario Chromes work well in a J bass. A little brighter than La Bellas and similar more traditional flats, so they preserve more of the essence of a J and don't make it sound too close to a P in my experience.

This thread is descending into farce, with a side order of virtue signalling. I suppose it's inevitable on here.

If you're only doing larger gigs, the BT would make sense. If not, the scalable nature of two smaller cabs is helpful, in that you can just carry what you need. Perhaps a Super Compact would be a good choice, rather than another BB3. That would give you the equivalent of a BT.

Rumbles are very much the standard recommendation for moderately priced bass amps. However, I wonder if one would be all that much of an improvement on what you have. It would certainly be better, but by how much? Re. your comment above, I'm in a similar position, although I'm a couple of years older and, touch wood, in good health. My attitude is that if I want something nice, I'll have it if it's within budget. I can't take it with me. If I do save my pennies and end up in a care home, they'll take most of it off me to pay the fees. So treat yourself to that Markbass if you can afford it.

This. If they are up to snuff musically and don't wish/try to convert others to their worldview, I could put up with it, provided they don't subscribe to any hate-fuelled stuff. So flat earthers would be OK, whilst those who shout at hotels wouldn't.

Didn't the effusive language and cliches raise any red flags? "Rod Stewart BRINGS THE WORLD TO TEARS... Not beneath shimmering stage lights, but under the heat of the sun on a construction site, he traded his microphone for a hard hat. Each brick he laid seemed to echo like a note of gratitude, a hymn of respect for those who had given everything. There were no spotlights, no encores — only a man transforming love, duty, and legacy into something tangible. Fans were moved to tears, calling it “the greatest masterpiece of Rod Stewart’s life” — not a song carried by music, but a melody carved in compassion, humility, and an unshakable tribute to true heroes." It's so obviously false.

Brick by brick, apparently. People were reportedly moved to tears.

My thoughts exactly. It's so obviously made-up tripe (the post. I wasn't silly enough to click the link). Has someone hacked Greek's account? He usually posts pretty sensible stuff.