LawrenceH

I haven't tried the Spectracomp but I've used the Hypergravity, and assuming it's similar you ought to be able to achieve all that with a 2- or 3- band preset, especially if they have gain on each of the bands. Tbh a good 1176-esque preset ought to get you most of the way there without even needing multiband. In general I find: - fast attack/fast release will even out the note attack and sustain, which helps with upper-mid clarity but can choke the bass end a bit hard which is where sidechain HPF comes in handy. - slow attack/slow release will emphasise picking attack over a controlled deep note to give you that soft-picked soul sound. - you can adust ratio and threshold together in a compensatory fashion so that you achieve similar amount of overall gain reduction with either high threshold, high ratio, or low threshold, low ratio. However you do it I find aiming for 3-6dB average reduction is about right for really filling out the sound. For fast settings this'll mean very briefly hitting quite hard (9dB plus) on peaks especially if you dig in or slap. - if you're multibanding, the switch frequency from low to mid-band takes a bit of fiddling to suit pickups and your taste in the low mids, which is quite critical to the body of the sound IME. My own general-purpose pop/rock/funk preference is chaining a slower compressor into a faster compressor, with a ratio no more than 4:1 on each, each taking off the aforementioned 3-6dB. A lot of people will do it the other way round (1176 into LA2/3A is conventional wisdom) but this way worked much better for me.

My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Steinway in the Numa player is not the same as the downloadable update one for the Numa X. The original Numa D samples were rather lukewarmly received but the update is considered, and to my ears from comparing demos is, a substantial upgrade. The keybeds for the Electro (TP100) and Stage(TP40) are also not the same as the 73 (TP110) and the 88 GT (TP400w). Supposedly they represent noticeable improvements, but I'm just going by user reports. Also the Nords aren't graded, and the Nord Stage action is for whatever reason not the same as the slightly nicer version of the TP40 on the Nord Piano (those I can confirm from my own experience). How do you find the GT action? I'm not a great pianist though I did study for over 10 years, but I do have for reference a very nice and still quite well-regulated Model O that I inherited from my grandma (who was good). I've never found a digital that felt anything like the real thing, but the top Roland/Kawai portable actions do at least feel responsive and musical.

Thanks very much. For reference my Jap 75RI neck incl tuners weighs 1225g, of which ~445g is the tuners (Some ultralites weigh under 200g for 4) Overall that bass weighs ~4.3kg. I think I might get away with a little more neck weight before dive became an issue (especially as the weight distribution is along the neck rather than all at headstock as with heavy tuners), but I'm not sure. Trouble is I was hoping to use a lighter body due to back and shoulder troubles. I will keep following, I think what you're doing is very cool! Foam core (especially at headstock?) definitely appeals though.

I tried a lot of stage pianos before PMT closed their doors. My 2p: The Nords sound good and have great interfaces, the samples are all somehow more musical and characterful than a lot of the competition. But, the nicest Rhodes samples tonally are lacking depth/richness because the samples just aren't big enough. Keyscape absolutely runs rings round them. Likewise, the Steinway D sample shows its age which is a shame because it's nicer tonally than the bigger 'White Grand' (Steinway A). The Yamaha grand sample is better than any of Yamaha's own. One general criticism of the piano samples is lack of 'ppp' samples, they could have a softer tone at the bottom. Hammond sounds great. The key to pricing stability is their sound library, but get a model with resonance modelling. Crap actions on the electro, weighted or otherwise, passable on the stage but far from the best. Yamaha YC/CP: VERY disappointing pianos, just bland digital-sounding. Shame as the organs on YC were good and the interfaces are great. Didn't like the action on the 73 or the 88. Looking at 88 key models which I appreciate you're not sold on: Yamaha p525: much better samples and action vs CP. Good if you don't want all the organ stuff Roland, all the pianos sounded awfully dull except the RD2000 'German Stage' Expansion which was actually good (also nice action). The rest haven't surpassed the old 700NX IMO. Kawaii: pretty good sounds, certainly musical, decent action too (88 note weighted tho). I ended up with an MP7SE. Organ/FX not as good as the Nord but the piano key/sound connection is the best of the bunch. Not light though! Something I'd like to take a punt on, but haven't tried, is one of the Studiologic Numa X - either the 73 or the GT. Demos/reviews of the EPs and the downloadable Steinway D sound superb to my ears. Not sure if they have organ sounds though

Hah funny you should say that! I had the club stage monitors and they were miles ahead of the awful 15" tops that were common - including a lot of those early moulded cabs. Fired them up a few years later next to my home-brewed 12" tops made using REW/Bagby spreadsheet and decent components, and couldn't believe how coloured they were in comparison.

One thing I've long suspected about mics in live PA is that if you overlay the mic frequency response over the speaker response, including info about how the latter behaves around crossover, you'll be able to see which mics will play nicer. Even more so if you could see time-based plots and distortion info. I've often thought a mic with a tight peak somewhere around the crossover frequency brutally highlights all the deficiencies of that speaker. From memory the Shure peak is that little bit broader, higher and smoother than the Behringer. Likewise the slightly humped response of a lot of PA tops in the upper bass can play really crappily with mic proximity effect. Years ago I remember any boost centred around 3-4.5k always sounded awful with the common two-way speaker designs, because the woofer would be in breakup up that high and the mediocre tweeters would be straining to reach that low. Plus the ear is quite sensitive around there. Half-decent speakers nowadays tend to cross a bit lower, plus the crossovers are better, buying a bit more space. Just my own anecdotal experience, nothing systematic.

I'll bite! We've not managed a video yet, but here's a Spotify link, the only song I've ever recorded to feature a (mercifully brief) bass solo but don't let that put you off: We've also just released a (very questionable) Christmas song as a bit of a nod to that glorious tradition. Spot the obvious reference on the cover art:

Thanks that's useful and that description of your Spector is bang on how I hear/feel it. Do you have an actual figure, or range of figures, for that weight? Been experimenting recently and found very modest differences can be significant when it comes to neck dive on a light body. For reference my current jazz neck minus hardware weighs about 780g, has that slightly chunky 70s profile.

Really intriguing project you've got here. Echoing the question on weight of the jazz necks (and how much an ebony/rosewood board would impact that). Also interested in how you perceive the timbre comparing different fretboard materials. I like the way all-maple necks can appear to sound/feel a little compressed.

You're not, they are!

Worth bearing in mind that any recorded bass in a track will have multiple stages of compression contributing to the final sound. Taking a classic setup you've potentially got compression from a (mic'ed) amp, a channel compressor, tape saturation and a mix compressor. Potentially extra channel and/or bus compressors and a tape bounce or two! A lot of these will only be shaving off the odd dB or two but it all adds up. In my opinion, the best way to use compressors on bass is to use several of them, with none of them working too hard individually. That way you can choose the sound sculpting you want practically independently of the dynamic range reduction.

That is a bit of a stretch, I'd have thought Joy Division etc. occupy a pretty small niche in the wider scheme of things, while the only New Order song anyone is likely to recognise outside a very particular age/race/location demographic features a sequenced synth bassline. I think we all tend to overinflate the general importance of our own influences and heroes. Someone replied earlier saying they'd not heard of any of the bassists I'd listed even though it included one who played on the global best-selling album of all time, plus another who played on the bestselling jazz album of all time. Again though that seems perfectly reasonable, there's an awful lot of music out there and what we grow up with tends to dominate our perception.

Thinking from the perspective of smaller venues where lots of room modes and reflective surfaces can interact in a relatively small space... I've never found that settings on individual channels transfer all that well from one venue to the next even when eq-ing the room. It's a very useful starting point, but since the room effects have position-dependent components with respect to individual instruments, and a lot of musicians adapt how they play to the room, some further tweaking of the individual channels always seems to be necessary.

We've got quite a lot of strange perspex boxes made by our workshops (for laboratory experiments). It's heavy and prone to cracking, but you could certainly do it with the right cutting blades and drill bits. But if you wanted it to sound good you'd need some kind of wadding inside which might spoil the look.

If I didn't do it, I'd have missed out on a lot of stuff I grew to appreciate and ended up learning from. Not everything though, some of it's just rubbish.

I strongly agree with the general sentiment of this thread, and have always had a sense that I should try harder to 'get' stuff I don't like. But I also think there is some stuff that after careful consideration in the spirit of open-minded self-improvement, truly, genuinely, objectively is just utter toss.

Those are important considerations and I find the off-axis response is a big deal working live - one reason I find the Shure cardioids easy to work from both sides of the mixing desk is that their off-axis behaviour is relatively consistent with the on-axis. Re the personal choice and learning curve, I've done sound a couple of times at tiny, intimate gigs for a very good 'name' singer who favours the Beta 58. She really knows that mic and uses the proximity effect well. She makes that mic sound expensive! The downside at the desk is that such technique requires better, more transparent compression than the tiny gig rig provides and I have to ride her fader to tame the dynamics - better inbuilt compression is another thing drawing me towards a small digital mixer. The EV mics are intriguing - iirc the Shure dual diaphragm mics like the KSM8 are supposed to have greatly reduced proximity effect, I'd like to try them but they're pretty spend-y!

Well I wasn't criticising maple to try and hurt its feelings I like maple necks and all my current instruments have them. Was more just to point out that the urethane lacquers are actually quite effective at limiting moisture-related movement. The floor is parquet blocks, each one about the width of a neck and considerably shorter. The gaps between the blocks can open up by several mm. Different blocks move different amounts too, and swelling/cupping are noticeable despite being constrained by a very strong adhesive (these are old reclaimed blocks, never designed to float). FWIW maple seems to be very similar to beech in terms of hardness and relatively large moisture-related movement. Great furniture wood and lovely to work but a disaster as a kitchen worktop. In comparison a mahogany parquet floor laid the same way with the same oil treatment shows no sign of movement whatsoever across all ~35sqm. The tropical hardwoods are usually very stable.

Based on a sample size of one MM Stingray versus numerous lacquered Fenders, I think there's something in this. With the addition that oiled finishes are typically touted as 'breathable' whereas polyurethanes are far less so. The 'ray is lovely but it does drift with the seasons, the Fenders do not. I also have a maple parquet floor that has been oiled and the pieces move loads with humidity. It's an inherently unstable timber

I find with mics it's not just the source but the speakers/desk you put them through. If the speakers are weak around a high crossover point then they won't play nicely with a mic that has a presence lift in that same region. The first time I put an SM58 through actually good PA years ago was eye-/ear-opening. Now I mostly have Shures because they are safe and between SM57/SM58/Beta 58/SM86 there's enough to cover most preferences. I also think there's a place for the cardioid SM58 in a time when most mics are super/hypercardioid. Problem with the latter is the bass proximity effect is just too much; a lot of singers I can't use eg a Beta 58 on because of this. Interested to try the e935 as a cardioid, but I never liked the scratchiness of the e835. Another issue that works against SM58s apart from fakes is that they don't die per se, but they can degrade, so if you've only used old knackered ones you view them dimly. My own favourite live is the SM86. Not as famous as its dynamic sibling but it's great - lots of the good points of the 58 with the added clarity of a condenser. I greatly prefer this to most dynamics on a good female vocalist and on my own rather weak voice.

Interesting read for me as I'd come to a similar conclusion to - I bought a little Yamaha DXR8 a few years ago and have since found it very capable of carrying vocals/keys/acoustic guitar etc in a pub scenario at a quality we'd have been amazed by at the turn of the century. Apart from the easier weight and the smaller storage footprint, the (lack of) visual intrusion up on a pole is a very nice bonus. Couple of things that follow from what Phil has said - the quality and design integration of horn, crossover and compression driver matter a lot more than the woofer and you can see this in these mid-price little cabs. The Yamahas have a fairly decent Celestion compression driver and cross using DSP with FIR. The woofer is just ok. Cheap out on the top though and it would be much more objectionable. I think our low-end bias as bassists, and a DIY culture that has focused on bass response partly because that's easier to model, clouds our focus a little bit. 500-5k is where the money is IMO. In the age of DSP it's really hard to beat what can be done with modern active FIR crossovers and bespoke programmed multiband compression. I've built several good, flat and well-behaved speakers with passive crossovers using that excellent Bagby spreadsheet program combined with outdoor measurements, but it's a lot of work and the passive components are expensive especially if you have to tweak spec from a prototype. About the only way to make it cost-effective would be to do what LFSys appear to have done and turn it into a premium product. If those cabs had a PA form-factor and big brand behind them I expect they'd cost a lot more (and some components would be downgraded too!).

Thanks Phil, very impressed to see what you've been up to on the DIY side and Stevie on the commercial side - and gratifying to read so many positive user reports, suggesting your ideas about what made good-sounding cabinets are shared by many others. I must admit since I built my 2 little 1x10" cabinets with Celestion's (sadly-discontinued) neo drivers in, my desire to fiddle around with more speakers gets countered by the knowledge I have no space for more and have yet to find a scenario where these aren't enough. But I still have some ideas! Anyway back on-topic I'll look out for the RCF but ideally would like a few more XLR channels for the now very occasional times I get asked to do sound for others. Ease of use aside, I'd just like to know if I'll hear any real difference going for A&H over the Behringer.

Think this fits what I was saying about our bubbles - I could do the 'Good Times' one as could probably millions who've heard 'Rappers' Delight' (137 million Spotify plays) but no clue about the Thin Lizzy one (106 million plays), though I know I've heard it - don't even remember it being bass-led! Edit to add I haven't a clue about Brown Eyed Girl bassline despite knowing the song! Is that iconic?! Isn't the Zep one guitar and bass in unison? Presumably that still counts. Meanwhile 'So What' played by Paul Chambers is probably the most iconic jazz bassline of all time (125 million plays), the whole song hinges round it and it led off the album that transformed jazz for the next 70 years... Different bubble again though!

I'd never heard of the 3 bassists pictured and don't recall being particularly taken by any New Order/Joy Division basslines, though I'm sure they do a great job if you're into that sort of thing. Mick Karn is another one who I don't actually know who he is/was. Having just looked him up I don't know of anyone in real life who listened to Japan. But again I'm sure he was great. What I think this illustrates nicely is how much we all live in our own tiny little bubbles as to what was 'important' or 'influential' back in the day (or indeed now). And the music critic part of the modern media seem to exist in an even tinier bubble - see various critics/radio DJs (men) of a certain age (gen X) who all fawn over particular (punk/new wave) bands from their youth as though they were incredibly important in the entire history of Western music despite a very limited output for a very short time that anyone outside of their very narrow age bracket (or different racial background) would barely recognise much less care about. Could be wrong but I don't think anyone has mentioned Robbie Shakespeare, for example. Or Leon Sylvers, Aston Barrett, Oscar Alston, Louis Johnson, etc etc. Which is fine, but objectively they have all sold an awful lot of records with very recognisable basslines!

This is all great info, thanks. And nice to be back here having needed to step away from it all a while ago. Preamp noise is an interesting one - obviously it matters for some scenarios whereas others it matters not a jot, but is that the only audible difference? Some classic pres are not exactly quiet but they sound great. What I've noticed with crappy budget gear sometimes is a slight (or not so slight) harshness and/or grainyness that accumulates across the channels. Likewise some EQs just sound better than others in a way that feels like it's not wholly about centre frequency and slope/Q. Basically, studio and live I've tended to find the better the gear, the easier mixing becomes. Just not sure where that stops being significant with these digital mixers! The RCF M18 sounds interesting even if only available secondhand.