Is our sound over-processed?

[rOB]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1322911440' post='1457164']
So, for me, how a sound is created matters rather less than if I actually like it. Isn't that the only thing that really matters when it comes to art?
[/quote]

This is it for me, we as musicians create or replicate art. Its up to the artist and listener as to whether what's created is good, not how "realistic" it is. Take abstract paintings as an example, they often doesn't accurately represent any tangible object but can be pleasant/interesting/emotive/valued all the same.

In other words, I don't think it matters. Yes we are very used to modern bass sounds and yes they are different to earlier recordings of the instrument but the beauty of technology is that it gives you the option of creating more, if you want to create a very "traditional" bass sound you can, if you want to play Hysteria, you can.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1322917291' post='1457256']
But I'm wondering whether we've developed away from the basic sound of a guitar and can accept nothing other than a processed version of it now.
[/quote]

Thing is, what's the 'basic sound' of a guitar? Acoustic guitars clearly make their own sound but an electric bass (or anything else) has no basic sound of its own and relies on amplification, so what sort of amplification would constitute a 'basic sound'? We all know that clinically-pure hi-fidelity amplification is not particularly popular with electric guitars and even the most basic amp will contain extensive eq capability - and that's before we even consider effects pedals.

And even if, by some miracle of human consensus, everyone could agree on [u]the[/u] 'basic sound' of an electric guitar you can bet that someone somewhere would come up with some widget that changed that sound. And if if people liked the sound of it and it caught on . . . . well, I'd guess someone would start a discussion about whatever happened to that original 'basic sound'.

But I'm sure you're right about people getting used to a particular sound and I've heard this given as a reason for the differences between vinyl and CDs - the sound differences are not so much as consequence of the medium, or even analogue-vs-digital, but more to do with how things are processed. But whatever the real reason, unsurprisingly some people prefer one medium over the other. Same as the digital-vs-film debates in photography and video-vs-film in cinema.

Rule 1 - there are no rules (except rule 2)

Rule 2 - you like the end result or you don't

Vive le différence.

[4 Strings]

No, the differences in recording format are too subtle, and the latest versions claim, at least, to be more like the original than ever.

The basic sound of the electric bass guitar is easily heard if you pluck/strum it unplugged. With flat strings it sounds pretty much like the intro to Tighten Up. For a plectrum sound try "We've Got to Get Out of This Place' by The Animals

One of the issues only touched on so far is the genre. For classical, jazz etc we want to hear the exact sounds of the instruments but in more popular music we get a processed. This may be because largely acoustic instruments are used in jazz or classical music whereas our basses are not acoustic instruments.

Still, we have got used to a processed sound which is getting further from the sound a bass guitar makes with every step and, I would suggest, this is accelerating with the introduction of new technology.

I wonder what we will be expecting a bass guitar to sound like in 10 years time?

[EdwardHimself]

I've got to say, the bass is an electric instrument, therefore you could say that the sound is always going to be "processed" somewhat no matter what you do with it. I would also go so far as to say that you can't really not have a sound that is "processed" in some way. Even with an acoustic instrument, there are still concious decisions to be made about the structure and shape as well as the type of strings used on the instrument which will change its sound. I'm not sure what the massive deal with audio processing is in recordings and everything. Recording as I've said a few times is like playing another musical instrument, you've got to analyse the type of band you're recording, what will sound the best? Sometimes, it's best to make the sound as "natural" as possible (of course, your hi-fi speakers reproduce sound differently to the way it is produced in real-life so in order to achieve as "natural" a sound as possible, you still need to use some audio processing). Alternatively, there are some bands which sound great with masses of effects. There isn't really a right and wrong. Of course you're always going to get people who don't like audio processing at all. The reason for this I think is to do with the fast pace at which technology is changing. People feel as if the future is uncertain and would rather look back to the past at a time where everyone was sure of everything (obviously they weren't, but it's easy to think that when you're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses). I don't mean that in a derrogatory way, since I can understand exactly how it feels.

[BigRedX]

The original question is pointless. Even an acoustic instrument through its construction is designed to accentuate certain aspects of the sound of a plucked string in a way that the luthier considers pleasing.

There is no such thing as an uncoloured pickup or amp or speaker. None of them simply reproduce the sound of the plucked string at different levels. You could even go so far as to say that simply changing the volume cause a change in the original sound. All of it is processing.

Quit worrying. The only meaningful questions to ask are these: Do you like the sound and does it fit in a way that you find musically pleasing with the other instruments. If the answers to these are yes then the processes by which you got there are irrelevant.

[4 Strings]

I'm not worrying at all, neither am I saying that anything in the train from string to ear is not altering the sound in some way.

What I was asking was whether we have become so used to the sound of a bass moving away from its natural sound that we now no longer like the sound of our instrument unless its been enhanced in some way.

(Back in the good ol' days there was at least as much experimentation and development of sound.)

[mcnach]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1322924135' post='1457352']
The basic sound of the electric bass guitar is easily heard if you pluck/strum it unplugged. With flat strings it sounds pretty much like the intro to Tighten Up. For a plectrum sound try "We've Got to Get Out of This Place' by The Animals
[/quote]



you insist on this... but that''s not the basic sound of an electric bass. It's only the beginning, and you understand that the acoistic sound is not what gets amplified, so I don't understand why you insist on comparing the sound of an electric bass with the sound of metal strings anchored in a bit of wood when you pluck them.


[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1322924135' post='1457352']
I wonder what we will be expecting a bass guitar to sound like in 10 years time?
[/quote]

I would guess pretty much the same as now, which is pretty much the same as 10 years ago.

[skankdelvar]

One might argue that the unamplified bass guitar is analogous to the paint brush and that the amp colouration and effects are the paint. Everything after that is a matter of intent, context and the consumer's subjective appreciation.

In the same way, one could contend that the 'natural' tone equates to a simple, depictive watercolour and the heavily effected tone to a Goya or a Hirst. Depending on one's expectations of art as a communicative process, one might state that neither approach is more artistically valid or 'true' than the other. To my mind, the problems start when the colour choice overwhelms the message.

In the end, it's all a matter of taste. Some people praise the fuzzy intro to the Isley's 'Summer Breeze. Others damn it as intrusively ugly. It still sold bundles.

In short, the electric bass guitar may possess a 'natural' tone from which to move away; that one moves away from it is inherent to the nature of the instrument. The degree to which one may retain a fondness for the notional natural tone while departing from a conventional colourative norm is - in practice - immeasurable, given the infinite variety of personal tastes and the almost infinite variety of potential tonal variations.

Edited December 3, 2011 by skankdelvar

[flyfisher]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1322924135' post='1457352']
The basic sound of the electric bass guitar is easily heard if you pluck/strum it unplugged.
[/quote]

But that's the acoustic sound of an unplugged electric bass. As mcnach pointed out, that's not the the sound that actually gets amplified and heard. If you really want to capture the sound of an unplugged electic bass then you'd need to use a mic.

So already we have a conflict in the definition of the 'basic sound'.
This is why it's a futile debate. Especially as it doesn't matter (see rule 2 )

Edited December 3, 2011 by flyfisher

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1322929591' post='1457444']
... you'd need to use a mic.[/quote]

Dynamic? Condenser? Ribbon? Through which pre-amp? Into digital? Or onto tape? Played back through an SS amp or a little valve beauty? Into headphones or speakers? Which speakers? In what shape of room? And at what height? And where are your ears in relation to the speakers? How tall are you? Have you consumed any alcohol which might affect one's 'top-end' hearing? Are you sitting on a sofa? Leather or cloth? Is there a dog in the room presenting a moving diffractive surface?

I mean - "Use a mic" A frustratingly inexact suggestion if ever I heard one.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited December 3, 2011 by skankdelvar

[peted]

I find regardless of how much is in my signal chain I'm trying to attain a bass sound that's in my head. Whatever I'm using ends up sounding roughly the same

[flyfisher]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1322930122' post='1457450']
Dynamic? Condenser? Ribbon? Through which pre-amp? Into digital? Or onto tape? Played back through an SS amp or a little valve beauty? Into headphones or speakers? Which speakers? In what shape of room? And at what height? And where are your ears in relation to the speakers? How tall are you? Have you consumed any alcohol which might affect one's 'top-end' hearing? Are you sitting on a sofa? Leather or cloth? Is there a dog in the room presenting a diffractive surface?

I mean - "Use a mic" A frustratingly inexact suggestion if ever I heard one.
[/quote]

Do I have to spell it out? I assumed everyone would understand I was referring to a 'basic' mic of course . . . into a basic pre-amp and then recorded onto a basic recorder. Replay would, of course, be using a basic amp and basic transducers. The listening room would, naturally, be the basic shape and height and I'd be sitting in the basic listening position on a basic sofa. How on earth else would you expect to be able to faithfully reproduce the basic sound of any instrument?

You got me on the dog though.

[guildbass]

I have quite strong opinions on this. while I am of the opinion an electric guitar is only part of the instrument, and that the majority of it's tone comes from the stuff it is plugged into, I think a through-neck or set neck bass has it's own distinct tone and that tone should be allowed to develop through an amplification system that is as flat and without distortion as possible. That includes having enough power to not clip the front end of the waveform.

Basically, bass guitars have so much metal moving about on them the woods and most importantly the way they are built make a huge difference. The heavy strings make the wood resonate in a way that a treble guitars strings simply can't manage...They don't have enough mass.
On a six string, the neck thickness seems to be the biggest factor, certainly to sustain with the coils offering the rest of the tonal differences, which is why it doesn't really seem to matter much if they have a bolt-on neck.
I built a telecaster recently. It used a massively thick Broadcaster neck, a solid Ash body, very expensive pickups, one a '49 Broadcaster rep and the other a SD tapped Humbucker and basically top flight bits throughout... And it sounded lovely...the front pup and fat neck giving an almost acoustic quality with the rear pup sounding like an early twangy Nocaster...As indeed you'd expect. Tonally, it doesn't matter [b]much[/b] whether a 6 string is chipboard, ash mahogany or whatever....the tone is from the electronics and the sustain from the neck.
On a bass, there is a huge difference on tone just from the density of woods. My Warwick SS1 and my Spector are hugely different despite being essentially the same design...And no, it isn't pick-ups...It's build style first with wood as the main tone colouring. I've read many times where people have swapped pick-ups, particularly on through and set neck guitars and although you [b]can [/b]hear a change, it doesn't alter the essential tone of the instrument...

It was almost impossible to stop my Guild 302 sounding like a Guild 302 irrespective of the amp rig, unless it was through an instrument modelling front end. To be honest, I never really liked the dark, woody tones of the 302 and i had both the mahogany and Ash versions, both of which sounded almost exactly the same. With the Guild, the set neck construction established the tone. with the Spector, the Warwick, and indeed my mate's Pedula, it's the through neck there is a 'family' sound, with the wood density adding colouration and pickups coming a distant third as regards the tone. when you consider the Spector has passive EMG's, the Warwick actives and the Pedula (I think) active Barts you'd expect more tonal variation but it's a bit like different tyre brands on cars...You'll never get a Moggie Thou to feel like a Ferrari F40 by putting Pirelli P0's on it...

When I built my first cab system I used a Peavey Max pre-amp which had a crossover output. I used this to ensure that the output via a huge Crown MA2400 amp through the 15" bottom speaker and the pair of 7" tops was as close to 'HiFi as possible. I initially put a sweep tone through and then demo'd various CD's until I had it sounding like my HiFi. It was like this for years.



For a while I went through a phase of trying to make my Guild 302 sound like the bass sound I had in my head, which was a more modern 'Warwicky' tone. I bought a Behringer pre-amp thing and a fancy modelling amp as well. Making them pretend they were Fender Bassmans helped a bit...

Finally in September this year I bought a Streamer (and a Spector)....Which actually MADE the sound i had been hearing in my head since 1990...

So...For me It works two ways, if you want to do covers and emulate the precise tone of the bass used on the recording, get a cheap bolt-on neck guitar and a modelling amp. Alternatively, get a bass with the tone you want

Edited December 4, 2011 by guildbass

[51m0n]

Read my sig.....

[guildbass]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1322997984' post='1457998']
Read my sig.....
[/quote]

OK....I did...What should one infer from that...

[guildbass]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1322929591' post='1457444']
But that's the acoustic sound of an unplugged electric bass. As mcnach pointed out, that's not the the sound that actually gets amplified and heard. If you really want to capture the sound of an unplugged electic bass then you'd need to use a mic.

So already we have a conflict in the definition of the 'basic sound'.
This is why it's a futile debate. Especially as it doesn't matter (see rule 2 )
[/quote]

No, I don't think you can because the sound of the instrument is derived from the way the metal string moves across the pickup.. There is no sound hole so you won't get a representative tone. What you CAN do is play the guitar with the top of the headstock pressed against a wooden door...THAT's quite interesting and you can certainly hear the difference between a well made through/neck or set-neck versus a bolt-on!
in effect a bass guitar is an electric motor... And the way that string moves is down to the way the vibrations of the body interact with the vibrations of the string.

Ultimately, stick it through a HiFi pre-amp and listen on studio headphones. if the instrument has a tone close to your ideal like that, you can get there with amp/string/pickup fiddling. My Streamer sounds like a Streamer through headphones

[hairyhaw]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1322864113' post='1456930']
So, it would appear we don't actually like the natural sound of a bass guitar![/quote]

Er, if its an electric bass you're talking about then you're not really going to hear [i]anything[/i], because its an electric bass - it needs to be plugged into something.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1322929591' post='1457444']
already we have a conflict in the definition of the 'basic sound'.
This is why it's a futile debate. Especially as it doesn't matter (see rule 2 )
[/quote]

Completely. The original query is probably better pointed in the direction of acoustic bass guitars, an instrument not specifically designed for use with amplification. But then, another poster has already alluded to instrument construction taking in so many variables that really any natural sound is builder and user defined so again, maybe a futile debate.

Edited December 4, 2011 by hairyhaw

[JTUK]

As far as I'll go with these sorts of debates is that i am very happy with my amped sound of both basses that I use and I am not concerned if the sound is perceived flat, coloured or whatever.
What comes out is generally tuned via an enhance and/or timbre control and a 4 band semi parametric is useful in awkward rooms..not that I can recall having to do much there anyway,
so why would you be too concerned about being over-processed by that definition. The OP, for me, implies a complication in the signal chain like an effects pedal or board, or a digital processor which I can do without.

As for pure bass sounds... then sure, you'd want to get the true bass tone but I don't believe there is any difference between neck-thru or bolt-on in terms of what is best.
I've heard bolt-ons with fantastic..to my ears, resonance and sustain.. so I am inclined to think the build decision is not made with regards to those factors

[paulbass]

i guess the sound is processed at the begining when you decide to use a pick or fingers that in itself changes the sound you create.I do think amps and guitars need to change and move with the times and some of the sounds you can get for a bass are fantastic.It keeps it interesting!.....great topic btw!

[guildbass]

[quote name='hairyhaw' timestamp='1323003292' post='1458098']
Er, if its an electric bass you're talking about then you're not really going to hear [i]anything[/i], because its an electric bass - it needs to be plugged into something.



Completely. The original query is probably better pointed in the direction of acoustic bass guitars, an instrument not specifically designed for use with amplification. But then, another poster has already alluded to instrument construction taking in so many variables that really any natural sound is builder and user defined so again, maybe a futile debate.
[/quote]

I also have a cheap acoustic bass with a piezo bridge pick-up. ...And the unplugged sound...Inevitably rather dead and lacking in resonance and volume because it is a fraction of the volumetric size of a double bass with shorter and higher tensioned (so higher frequency oscillating) strings. And plugged in it sounds like a reasonably coherent modern electric bass.

personally i think build style is the primary tone shaping factor...Most through necks have a 'family' sound, most long scale set necks have tonal similarities (my 302 Guild sounded quite like a Gibson EBO long scale for instance) and to my ear, there are definite family resemblances to the sounds of bolt on neck guitars... Yamaha's don't sound strikingly different from many Fender/Squiers to my ears for example. also, if you pick up a manufacturers bolt neck and then play their own through neck...like the Warwick Streamers, While the bolt neck instrument sounds like someone has worked very hard to get it to sound like it belongs to the same tonal family as the through neck, when you hear the actual through neck version you realise you are listen to the aural version of a Ciroen 2CV doing seventy compared to a Jag doing 70...

[JTUK]

Sounds like you are trying to say..in a round about way.. that Bolt-ons are inferior...???

I think there are way too many variables in the way before you try an decide whether neck thru V bolt-on is relevant.
You might want to test acoustic resonant properties but the only factor is whether it is any good or not..

[LawrenceH]

Does bass guitar have a natural sound? I'd say yes to an extent...a pickup is an inherent part of the instrument, and how it's loaded electrically in terms of impedance has a big effect on the frequency response of the pickup. But. Distortions introduced in the preamp and afterwards don't just alter frequency balance, they add in extra harmonics that weren't present in the original signal from the string/pickup system. In that sense they are unnatural, and the more distortion that's introduced the more 'processed' it's all going to sound.
I think there's too much distortion in modern sounds, perhaps as a result of trying to cut through a mix where all the other instruments have also been compressed/clip limited. Everyone's slightly distorted and all those extra harmonics are competing.

[BigRedX]

However there is no such thing as a flat amp or speaker no matter how much their manufacturers want to convince us otherwise.

"Good" studio and hifi equipment tends to colour the sound in a way that most people find pleasing. However this is completely subjective which is why there are so many different manufacturers of hifi and studio equipment all claiming that theirs has the flattest distortion-free circuit.

IMO if it was possible to build a completely flat amplification system most of us would find the sound produced dull and bland. It's those "good" distortions that make our music sound pleasing.

[TimR]

For a start you pickups do not capture the sound of your unamplified bass. They only attempt to transfer the characteristics of the resonating string.

What you are hearing when you play unplugged is a combination of the string and the bass wood vibrating, you can't capture the sound waves coming off the wood.

If you speak to Alex, he will probably tell you that his cab design is a compromise. He did try to build a three way hi-fi full frequency cab but found that fully transparent cab is not required for bass. So the barefaced cabs are 'fairly' transparent.

Another factor is that unless you play solo, you need to redically alter the bass sound so that it sits in the mix with the other instruments. With an upright you will find that a lot of the frequencies it produces are masked by the other instruments and this happens naturally or is done by the sound engineer. If you don't you'll run out of headroom and everything will turn to mush.

[guildbass]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1323015836' post='1458296']
For a start you pickups do not capture the sound of your unamplified bass. They only attempt to transfer the characteristics of the resonating string.

What you are hearing when you play unplugged is a combination of the string and the bass wood vibrating, you can't capture the sound waves coming off the wood.

If you speak to Alex, he will probably tell you that his cab design is a compromise. He did try to build a three way hi-fi full frequency cab but found that fully transparent cab is not required for bass. So the barefaced cabs are 'fairly' transparent.

Another factor is that unless you play solo, you need to redically alter the bass sound so that it sits in the mix with the other instruments. With an upright you will find that a lot of the frequencies it produces are masked by the other instruments and this happens naturally or is done by the sound engineer. If you don't you'll run out of headroom and everything will turn to mush.
[/quote]Agreed, You'll need a mic/piezo combination to get a reasonably accurate sound and even then it doesn't really sound like YOUR bass, it sounds like A bass...

My cab didn't have tweeters by the time it was finished, it was in essence a two way system because they did nothing but add string noise and pickup clatter. it did however, amplify the signals it got in reasonably accurately.


I find the biggest problem with uprights is that certain frequencies either interact with the room and boom uncontrollably, or disappear as they are subject to out of phase reflections.

We play with just bass, classical guitar and human voice so there is plenty of space for each instrument