So I spend all this time, effort and cash...

[Muzz]

...and then the studio engineer/producer manages to make it sound as woofy, wooly and indistict as a lot of the nondescript bass out there. Bah.

Just had a first listen to the final mixes of our album project, and I'm in two minds - the songs sound great: for a (fairly) budget job, they sound professional, and much of the mix is fantastic. The disappointment for me has been the bass sound: I took the P/J, the Ray, and the RH450/Schroeder rig in, and while tracking I had a really great sound (and variations on it), which I liked a lot, and I thought complimented the songs - I'd even played to the sound, you know, a bit of growl here, a slur there, etc. We'd done preliminary recordings, and everyone had liked the bass sound, and this carried ovver into the recordings themselves, but come the final mix, and it's all had a duvet thrown over it. Nothing traumatic, and it all sounds OK, but it bears very little resemblance to what I recorded tone-wise.

I guess a lot might be down to the fact the I wasn't there for some of the final mixing days, and of course through several £ks of studio monitors things always sound better, but even so, it's a bit of a bugger.

So, do I upset the applecart by complaining (and raise the possiblity of running up remix costs, which we can't afford), or keep schtum for the general good?

Anyone been here?

[TheGreek]

[quote name='Muzz' post='1142852' date='Feb 26 2011, 10:02 PM']...and then the studio engineer/producer manages to make it sound as woofy, wooly and indistict as a lot of the nondescript bass out there. Bah.

Just had a first listen to the final mixes of our album project, and I'm in two minds - the songs sound great: for a (fairly) budget job, they sound professional, and much of the mix is fantastic. The disappointment for me has been the bass sound: I took the P/J, the Ray, and the RH450/Schroeder rig in, and while tracking I had a really great sound (and variations on it), which I liked a lot, and I thought complimented the songs - I'd even played to the sound, you know, a bit of growl here, a slur there, etc. We'd done preliminary recordings, and everyone had liked the bass sound, and this carried over into the recordings themselves, but come the final mix, and it's all had a duvet thrown over it. Nothing traumatic, and it all sounds OK, but it bears very little resemblance to what I recorded tone-wise.

I guess a lot might be down to the fact the I wasn't there for some of the final mixing days, and of course through several £ks of studio monitors things always sound better, but even so, it's a bit of a bugger.

So, do I upset the applecart by complaining (and raise the possiblity of running up remix costs, which we can't afford), or keep schtum for the general good?

Anyone been here?[/quote]
Are you happy with it now?
Will you be happy with it in the future?
Will you feel like you got what you paid for?

I know it would bug me to death - I'd push for a sound closer to what you actually wanted and damn the expense!!

[leschirons]

You've walked into a studio with probably the two most industry standard basses that any engineer worth his salt will know how to get you the greatest sound in about two minutes and it seems he hasn't, so say something.

If every time you listen to the recordings, you're thinking "bugger" then you need to mention it.

[endorka]

Impossible to comment unless I can hear an example of what you speak of. Any chance of posting something?

Jennifer

[Cosmo Valdemar]

Say something, definitely. I've kept schtum, 'for the greater good', on too many occasions. Imagine how the guitarist would feel faced with the same situation!

[chris_b]

Tell then they didn't get the bass sound right. And it has to be [i]right[/i]!

[dan2112]

I've been in this situation where the studio has sucked the tone right out of my bass and has ended up sounding quite generic (after spending many £ on gear). I've always kept quiet about in whilst in the studio but always moaned alot after the final mix. My band memebers have always told me to say in the studio and I feel like I should have...but I just haven't! Can be a bit awkward telling an engineer 'how to do his job'. Seems some engineers just look past the bass and use it literally as bass of the song, not an important instrument. Or maybe we're too picky?

[lettsguitars]

maybe the guy thought all that expensive gear was gonna mix itself.

[Lozz196]

I agree that this situation should be raised. It seems to always be the bass where the attitude is "I`ll sort you a good sound" rather than use the good sound that you already have. I can understand if any instrument is having a detrimental effect on the sound of the band that is may need changing, but too many times it seems that people are reluctant to record the bass as it sounds in the band, and simply change it. Is it to make things easier for them, I don`t know.

What I would do however, as engineers do listen to things in a different manner, is ask for your bass tracks to be copied onto a new track. Then, leaving the rest of the mix the same, have the originally recorded basslines put in on one mix, and the tracks that the engineer has altered on another. And then as a band decide which version you all prefer.

[gafbass02]

very much what Lozz just said. There seems to be a real problem with engineers, live and studio, just going for whatever their fixed idea of how a 'generic' bass should sound is, and giving the old 'I'll get you a good bass sound' or live 'I know how a bass should sound.'
Which inevitably isnt how MY bass should sound. Especially the older guys tbh. Ive been told straight to my face a number of times now that the bass should be a deep thud under the drums or variations on this. Maybe that was the case a zillion years ago, but not for me!
Its why at sound checks i make a point of doing various techniques including chords and harmonics etc and mention to the engineer that id like my sound as close to whats coming out the amp as possible and that i tend to use lots of subtle techniques and high end passages as well as the low stuff and could they please mix to that and that i dont mind if they need to boost the mids to get that cut through. ( I also add it to sounds on my multi FX that i know i use on passages that will get lost)

[xgsjx]

+1 to the above. If you're not happy with it then get it done right.

Don't however, go in all guns ablaze but be polite about it.
Tell him you like the job that he's done & how professional it sounds but also if he could remix the bassline as you'd like to see if the original sound that you had is gonna work with it (from a 3rd person perspective) or if you would be better trying to attain the sound he's produced.

[lettsguitars]

it could be a case of freeing up eq space for the rest of the band. if there is a lot going on in the band, 2 guitars, keyboards, percussion, it is necessary to cut high freq from the bass to allow the upfront stuff to cut through. otherwise the overall mix will suffer.

[stingrayPete1977]

This sounds more like mastering and adding of final filtering (if thats what you call it?) to me. I have heard how good it can sound and how bad at the flick of a switch. I have always been given the option of a few different finished versions with different filters over them and chosen from there, The bass is often the main thing thats noticeable between versions. As far as studio monitors go any good studio should play it back through a little stereo like most people have in their kitchens before deciding if thats the final version. Many dont and then it farts its way out of everything other than a great car stereo or home HI-Fi.

If its only a final mix thing it may not be hard to go and hear a few other versions and choose one that sounds better to you, This is why you should be there at that stage even though its often boring and time consuming.

[JTUK]

If you think other members wouldn't put up with a sound they didn't rate, and would go to the extra cost of a remix then why shouldn't they for you?

Imagine if the vocals, drums or gtr etc had this problem..

[thebrig]

Unfortunately, our band has not been in the studio yet, hoping to soon though!
So obviously I don't know how it all works.

But surely the band listens to, and then decides on the final mix, how can it be down to the engineer alone to decide your sound?
I thought the job of the engineer is to produce the sound that [u]you[/u] want.

If he does not achieve this first time, then surely they continue until they do at no additional cost.
After all, you was happy with the sound you put in, if the engineer has altered it in a detrimental way, then he/she should put it right.

I might be way off the mark here, but I am interested to know how it works, as we might be doing some studio work ourselves soon.

Edited February 27, 2011 by thebrig

[Spike Vincent]

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1143062' date='Feb 27 2011, 09:46 AM']+1 to the above. If you're not happy with it then get it done right.

Don't however, go in all guns ablaze but be polite about it.
Tell him you like the job that he's done & how professional it sounds but also if he could remix the bassline as you'd like to see if the original sound that you had is gonna work with it (from a 3rd person perspective) or if you would be better trying to attain the sound he's produced.[/quote]


Definately the best approach.Been there a few times,I've usually "taken one for the team" as the rest of the band - and those connected - were happy with the overall sound."I'll record the bass flat and add the chorus in the mixdown".No chorus.Bottom line though,if you weren't there then you can't really complain.

[Doddy]

Offering a different perspective.....

Maybe your tone isn't actually what you thought it was?
Just because you've got good gear doesn't mean you'll sound good,especially when recorded. I know that happened to me.
I remember reading an article with Will Lee,where he recorded the demos for the Billy Cobham album 'Spectrum',but wasn't hired for the actual album (it was Leland Sklar)because his tone sucked.At the time he was using a Precision.

[BigRedX]

As has been said earlier without a (uncompressed) sound clip it's all conjecture.

Why were you unable to be a the mixing sessions?

[BigAlonBass]

The first thing you have to realise as a Bass Player is that NOBODY ELSE CARES what you sound like. As far as Sound Engineers are concerned, YOU DON'T COUNT as far as the overall sound goes. As has been mentioned before, if you aren't there for the Final Mix, and are willing to fight every inch of the way to get 'your' sound out on the recording, nobody else gives a monkey's toss. Argue with me all you want, but 99.9% of Engineers will give you the 'wooly duvet' sound, unless you are prepared to push every inch of the way until someone listens. A lot of Band Members are guilty of this as well, spending time to get the Guitar Sound 'just right' or faffing for ages to get the slight nuances on the fourth Tom 'punching through the mix' and the Bass is just stuck in the mud at the bottom. Everyone has tales of the Sound Engineer who 'got it right' both Live and in the Studio, but if you add them all up, it will still bring you back to the percentage mentioned earlier in this post. How many times have Guitarists and Vocalists asked Bass Players to 'turn it down a bit' both on-stage and in the Studio? This ever-recurring pattern of behaviour should point out in no uncertain terms exactly where you stand in the Band Hierarchy. They'll fight all night to get the Snare having just the right attack, and making sure the Guitar Solo tone has just the right amount of effects to make is shine, but you're stuck with what they can be bothered to give you.
As a Bass Player who also does P.A. Hire and Engineering, I've lost count of the number of times I could have been legless, when fellow Bass Players have wanted to buy me Beer after a Gig, because I got 'their sound' front-of house. Even other Band Members, Audience members and even Management have asked me what I had done differently, because "the whole Band sounded better than last time." Until the General Music Community (and Joe Public) realises exactly what difference a decent Bass sound makes, you'll just have to get on with it.





Just as a qualifying post-script-I personally know a few fellow Bass Players on here, and know how brilliant they sound, Live at Bass Bashes and even recorded on their own equipment. When I've gone to see them playing with their Bands, they have all been reduced to the afore-mentioned 'wooly duvet' tone, and might as well have been playing R5 all flipping night. It makes me want to weep.

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='thebrig' post='1143121' date='Feb 27 2011, 10:52 AM']Unfortunately, our band has not been in the studio yet, hoping to soon though!
So obviously I don't know how it all works.

But surely the band listens to, and then decides on the final mix, how can it be down to the engineer alone to decide your sound?
I thought the job of the engineer is to produce the sound that [u]you[/u] want.

If he does not achieve this first time, then surely they continue until they do at no additional cost.
After all, you was happy with the sound you put in, if the engineer has altered it in a detrimental way, then he/she should put it right.

I might be way off the mark here, but I am interested to know how it works, as we might be doing some studio work ourselves soon.[/quote]
you're right. there should not be a 'final' mix without an ok from the whole group. you should have at least one chance at a few changes to the mix before you part with the final payment.

[BottomE]

This is interesting. I also thought having pro gear would guarantee a great sound in the studio and have been really dissapointed by the lack of attention/interest from engineers in my past few visits to studios. I have even stopped going to the final mix as i can't be assed with all the arguing. I go into the studio, get the bass down in about the second or third take - say goodbye to my bandmates and let them get on with it. You shouldn't have to argue with someone when you are paying them. I tried the nice approach first but that didn't work. I am constantly dissapointed with the output from local studios (there aren't many) and can get a much better sound with my bass direct into my USB soundcard! I have resigned myself to not listening to stuff that we have recorded. Sounds defeatist but its just a way of dealing with something that doesn't seem to have a solution.

On the other hand i do get a fantastic sound in my USB interface.

[hubrad]

You have to remember that we all go around with 'our sound' in our heads, and won't rest until we get it! Hence all the time and money we put into achieving that. Generally I get to use 'my sound', whatever that my be (I'm a fretless social misfit, so it's harder for a 'standard' tone to be overlaid anyway) with an odd tweak here and there for the mix. If it's 'my' project, i.e. a regular band, I'll often put more opinion forward as to exactly how the bass should be. If I'm the hired hand (far more common these days) then really it's down to the person I'm playing for - as long as they like the lines I play they'll probably book me again! If they want to change the tone to suit 'Their sound' well, it's their sound and I might even get a different tone to aim for for a particular vibe.
As for your recording, OP, then yes - if you're unhappy then say it now or else hold your disappointment in for ever! Like many here, I've said nowt at the time and am bugged every time I hear a few things from past bands. If you're paying for the studio and mixing, you can have as many goes at the mix as you want, although you have to pay for each go. The reason many bands get their own recording setup is to gain full freedom of 'let's just hear that again with a bit more mid in the vocals'. Can be a double-edged sword, mind, and I've known a couple of bands who never get a recording finished for all the tweaking!

[stingrayPete1977]

Many good studios will tell you to leave it a week before coming back to do the final mix too so as you can clear your head of all these sounds and come back with a fresh set of ears. Obviously by then the guitarist will of perfected the guitar solos even more and then spend all day trying to redo it just as bad as the week before then spend 10 mins on the final mix again anyway! This is the way of the studio, lol.

[ironside1966]

I could say that it could be down to time and budget, I could also the sound you hear a few feet away from you cab may not be the best for the track or the tone had to be tamed down to create sonic space for the other instruments.

I find it hard to understand why having a fixed to is so important even a orchestral player who spends years perfecting their tone need a conductor to make it work with the other instruments.
As a musician my role is to act as part of an ensemble often laying the foundations and groove in which all the others other instruments sit, many of my best lines are quite unnoticeable in the finished track but when they a tracked they bring the music to life. I don’t have the holy grail of bass tone in my head I just use hear what works an d 90% my sound is in my fingers so it doesn’t matter what the engineer dose within reason if the recordings great I am happy. All I want from a sound is for it to communicate what I am trying to achieve musically. If that makes sense.

[chris_b]

Is the sound on the track your bass DI'ed or did you just mike up the cab ?