ditched my effects and got my dream sound

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1354062688' post='1881732']
Analogue EQ's work by causing phase changes (for the most part); that is an additional distortion of the signal. Hence it is less pure if you use an EQ. If purity is your goal why would you ever try and fix a percieved issue by adding distortion and ohase issues (as well as a dose of treble or bass that they room you are in can't handle), when the issue isnt in the source but the room?[/quote]

It's difficult to argue that the source isn't a problem without knowing what the source is, and it's difficult to argue that building a good listening room is the answer when changing the furniture or simply inviting over some fat people is going to change the sound.

I think this is why consumer EQ units sell. But mainly people disagree with the production decisions on the records they buy, and they like to do stupid-but-powerful things like doubling the power in all the bass frequencies. Depending on the record maybe that's not a bad thing to do.

But it's moot to argue about consumer activity when talking about snake-oil hi-fi, because the only music that ever gets played on snake-oil hi-fi equipment is Pink Floyd.

[51m0n]

Its not remotely difficult to argue that the room is a problem. Most living rooms are listening rooms, most living rooms have parallel walls and dimensions that are multiples of each other. Very few have any though put toward the acoustic of the space by anyone at all. Very few have more than a 12 foot ceiling, or more than 15 foot width or length in a new build. They have reflective bare walls at the points of direct reflection, no basstrapping other than a sofa, no diffusion other than a few books on a shelf and no control of reflection off the ceilings.

Therefore they are almost certainly acoustically pretty awful (sorry really really terrible) with unbalanced waterfall graphs, massive room nodes and sub optimum reverb times and characteristics.

The source is usually recorded in a reasonably controlled space, or its largely sample based or electronic in nature. It is generally mixed on decent monitors in a decent space and then mastered on significantly better gear in a better space by a person who specialises in fixing defects in stereo mixes.

The chances that a consumer in their acoustically apalling room can improve on the work that has gone before with a simplistic cheap and nasty eq bolted on to an amp as bells and whistles is relatively tiny. The fact that they think they need to is because their perception of the music is clouded by the room they are in as much or in fact far more than the equiptment they are using to listen on.

The snake oil audio industry avoids anything to do with room acoustic because it tends to expose the myths, and it isnt considered as sexy as brushed aluminium and blue LEDs....

[xgsjx]

51m0n, you make very good points, none which I can (or would) argue with.

My point isn't so much about trying to fix the sound with EQ, but most people's listening rooms are not dedicated to just listening to music & designed around their hifi. It's usually something like you just described where there's furniture & reflective walls & having a quality hifi is more of a luxury to add to the room.
So if you're sitting in your "optimal" position given the surroundings, then wouldn't being able to reduce any overpowering areas of frequencies be better than having to put up with something like having a harsh top end or sounding boomy around to 100-200hz area?
I would never suggest adding any treble or bass, as like you said, it won't fix the issue.

I agree that a lot of hifi comes with inadequate EQ. With the technology available today, it wouldn't be hard to make a good digital 20 band parametric EQ (a la VST stylee), though getting people to use it properly would probably be another task.

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1354064795' post='1881751']
Its not remotely difficult to argue that the room is a problem. Most living rooms are listening rooms, most living rooms have parallel walls and dimensions that are multiples of each other. Very few have any though put toward the acoustic of the space by anyone at all. Very few have more than a 12 foot ceiling, or more than 15 foot width or length in a new build. They have reflective bare walls at the points of direct reflection, no basstrapping other than a sofa, no diffusion other than a few books on a shelf and no control of reflection off the ceilings.

Therefore they are almost certainly acoustically pretty awful (sorry really really terrible) with unbalanced waterfall graphs, massive room nodes and sub optimum reverb times and characteristics.

The source is usually recorded in a reasonably controlled space, or its largely sample based or electronic in nature. It is generally mixed on decent monitors in a decent space and then mastered on significantly better gear in a better space by a person who specialises in fixing defects in stereo mixes.

The chances that a consumer in their acoustically apalling room can improve on the work that has gone before with a simplistic cheap and nasty eq bolted on to an amp as bells and whistles is relatively tiny. The fact that they think they need to is because their perception of the music is clouded by the room they are in as much or in fact far more than the equiptment they are using to listen on.

The snake oil audio industry avoids anything to do with room acoustic because it tends to expose the myths, and it isnt considered as sexy as brushed aluminium and blue LEDs....
[/quote]

+1. For most of us there maybe limitations to what we can do to our room as typically the room will function as a living room also. But isolating components that maybe prone to experiencing vibrations (Eg due to timber floors) and experimentation with speaker positioning can help to make a significant difference. Work with what you have. If you feel you have to use EQ then fine, but for me its not an ideal way to compensate

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1354057059' post='1881627']
Companies that sell musical equipment of whatever variety spend a lot of money nurturing and exploit "memes" (appealing that ideas tend to catch on over time irrespective of their actual merit).

"simpler things sound better than more complex ones"
"analogue things sound better than digital"
"hand made things sound better than mass produced ones"
"things that are tweed coloured and have chicken-head knobs on sound better"
"things made in america/UK sound better"

Personally I've never come across anything that clearly demonstrates that any of the above are true more often than that arn't.

As a side note. I applaud companies like Barefaced than are prepared to challenge memes if pursuit of making better products - I mean taking on the "you need small speakers to get a taut well defined bass sound" took a lot of guts.
[/quote]

Oh dear we could be in for 'vinyl sounds better than CD here' (or visa versa). Anyway my 30 year old linn turntable blows my primare cd player out of the water

Edited November 28, 2012 by leroydiamond

[51m0n]

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1354091485' post='1881836']
51m0n, you make very good points, none which I can (or would) argue with.

My point isn't so much about trying to fix the sound with EQ, but most people's listening rooms are not dedicated to just listening to music & designed around their hifi. It's usually something like you just described where there's furniture & reflective walls & having a quality hifi is more of a luxury to add to the room.
So if you're sitting in your "optimal" position given the surroundings, then wouldn't being able to reduce any overpowering areas of frequencies be better than having to put up with something like having a harsh top end or sounding boomy around to 100-200hz area?
I would never suggest adding any treble or bass, as like you said, it won't fix the issue.

I agree that a lot of hifi comes with inadequate EQ. With the technology available today, it wouldn't be hard to make a good digital 20 band parametric EQ (a la VST stylee), though getting people to use it properly would probably be another task.
[/quote]

Well an EQ wont fix it thats the point I keep trying to make. No EQ can fix the underlying issue. No system on the market comes with an EQ capable of fixing it. Turning down the offending frequencies in the position you are sat just means the smear or flutter or stereo image degradation happens at a lower level in the mix, but so does the source at that point, you arent gaining clarity since you are making the source quietr at that level too.

Look, I am not suggesting that having a simple EQ on a hifi should be banned , I am saying that fixing issues with the room cannot be achieved (in almost all cases) with an EQ. By all means make the music genreally bass heavier or lighter or whatever your eq will do for you, that is a question of adjusting to taste. If on the other hand you want to make the sound measurably [b][i]better[/i][/b] in the room the simple fact is its the room acoustic that needs attention first and foremost, not the speaker output.

If you have booming down at 100 to 200Hz you have no option but to basss trap. Either with untuned broadband bass traps (superchunks maybe) or tuned hermholtz resonater traps, or limp membrane traps or whatever. No amount of eq will rremove the boom without also adversely affecting the source, but stopping the room ringing sympathetically at 100-200Hz will also help stop ringing at 400Hz, 800Hz etc etc.

If you have issues with harsh top end and poor stereo imaging a couple of broadband absorbers on the walls positioned at the reflection points of each speaker on the wall will immensely improve the stereo field, and help prevent ringing. If you still get some smearing then a cloud hung from the ceiling will help prevent ceiling reflections also playing havoc with thee stereo field. Large broadband absorption/basstrapping and serious diffusers at the back of the room will prevent reflections off the back of the room setting up standing waves throughtout the room and also stop the room becoming too dead as well.

The list goes on and on. You dont have to do it all, or any of it, but nothing else can improve the listening experience in any given room mre than controlling the acoustic

A properly set up room is a joyous thing. if you've never heard music played back in one you can't begin to appreciate the difference, the whole sensation of being "in the musical performance" is massively improved.

If I had my way it woudl be part of the building regs for living rooms

Edited November 28, 2012 by 51m0n

[51m0n]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1354095607' post='1881899']
Oh dear we could be in for 'vinyl sounds better than CD here' (or visa versa). Anyway my 30 year old linn turntable blows my primare cd player out of the water
[/quote]

I am 'fairly sure' that the right quality DACs and a high enough sample rate an bit depth recording played back on your system would blow away the vinyl too, not suffering any of the mechanical limitations of vinyl. And the data wouldn't degrade either with every listen (unlike vinyl) .

[Si600]

What happens to signal degredation via cable if you use the FX loop? 3m from bass to the amp, 3m out to the board and then another 3m back to the amp before it hits the speaker?

Just asking really, 9m of cabling may not make a huge difference but I'm curious whether it does.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='Si600' timestamp='1354102280' post='1882002']What happens to signal degredation via cable if you use the FX loop? 3m from bass to the amp, 3m out to the board and then another 3m back to the amp before it hits the speaker?

Just asking really, 9m of cabling may not make a huge difference but I'm curious whether it does.[/quote]

Well the signal coming out of the FX loop is usually a line-level low-impedance signal, so it will survive cable travels better than the signal from your bass. But most pedals are designed to operate with an instrument-level signal at the input - not line-level - and some (vintage fuzz circuits particularly) operate best when fed a higher impedance signal from the passive pickups of a guitar/bass and don't sound so great when fed by active electronics, so they would no doubt be even worse in an FX loop.

In short: 9m is (IME) enough cable to suck tone, but after the first 3m you've got your amp so the signal gets buffered right there. From there you're looking at a mere 6m run to the board and back which isn't too bad at all, but you might find your pedals don't like the signal you're giving them.

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1354096645' post='1881916']
I am 'fairly sure' that the right quality DACs and a high enough sample rate an bit depth recording played back on your system would blow away the vinyl too, not suffering any of the mechanical limitations of vinyl. And the data wouldn't degrade either with every listen (unlike vinyl) .
[/quote]

That may well be true but my CD player cost over 2000 euro and thats as much as i could afford. I am sure there is a player with more expensive DACS out there but its out of my reach. The sound out of a 30 year old linn with little upgrades still beats the primare.

[Si600]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1354106805' post='1882087']
Well the signal coming out of the FX loop is usually a line-level low-impedance signal, so it will survive cable travels better than the signal from your bass. But most pedals are designed to operate with an instrument-level signal at the input - not line-level - and some (vintage fuzz circuits particularly) operate best when fed a higher impedance signal from the passive pickups of a guitar/bass and don't sound so great when fed by active electronics, so they would no doubt be even worse in an FX loop.

In short: 9m is (IME) enough cable to suck tone, but after the first 3m you've got your amp so the signal gets buffered right there. From there you're looking at a mere 6m run to the board and back which isn't too bad at all, but you might find your pedals don't like the signal you're giving them.
[/quote]

Thanks
At the risk of properly derailing the original thread, what's the FX loop for if it doesn't supply the right signal for a pedal board?

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='Si600' timestamp='1354111875' post='1882190']Thanks
At the risk of properly derailing the original thread, what's the FX loop for if it doesn't supply the right signal for a pedal board?[/quote]

Rack units usually take a line-level input - FX loops are designed to accommodate rack effects. Pedal manufacturers (usually) assume you'll take a cable direct from your guitar since you'll be standing right next to it. It's fairly logical but I agree a bit of a pain to have two different approaches to doing the same thing.

[51m0n]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1354111617' post='1882188']
That may well be true but my CD player cost over 2000 euro and thats as much as i could afford. I am sure there is a player with more expensive DACS out there but its out of my reach. The sound out of a 30 year old linn with little upgrades still beats the primare.
[/quote]

Its not the quality of the CD player that I'm suggesting is at fault its the possiblity that CD audio is not nearly as hifi as people would like to presume, and although there are great arguments for 44.1KHz being a high [i]enough[/i] sample rate, going higher can improve things further.

96KHz can sound rather fantastic IME, and you wouldnt have to spend 2000Euros to try it out for yourself either....

Edited November 28, 2012 by 51m0n

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1354117926' post='1882278']
Its not the quality of the CD player that I'm suggesting is at fault its the possiblity that CD audio is not nearly as hifi as people would like to presume, and although there are great arguments for 44.1KHz being a high [i]enough[/i] sample rate, going higher can improve things further.

96KHz can sound rather fantastic IME, and you wouldnt have to spend 2000Euros to try it out for yourself either....
[/quote]

None of that matters if you're comparing a relatively early high quality vinyl pressing with a bad, overcompressed remaster from 30 year old tapes. CD can sound amazing but rarely does when you AB the same material with a vinyl copy, and I wonder if the quality of the master is often why rather than being intrinsic to the format.

Back to the OT, I've kind of gone the opposite. I've always played with a clean sound but recently got into using a Peavey TB Raxx valve preamp. I am in sonic love, it's a world away from the junky pedal format preamps, Sansamps and the like.

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1354122532' post='1882386']
None of that matters if you're comparing a relatively early high quality vinyl pressing with a bad, overcompressed remaster from 30 year old tapes. CD can sound amazing but rarely does when you AB the same material with a vinyl copy, and I wonder if the quality of the master is often why rather than being intrinsic to the format.

Back to the OT, I've kind of gone the opposite. I've always played with a clean sound but recently got into using a Peavey TB Raxx valve preamp. I am in sonic love, it's a world away from the junky pedal format preamps, Sansamps and the like.
[/quote]

Best of luck with the preamp. I have never tried Peavey TB Raxx. Agree with your comments regarding vinyl and cd. Another issue is the loudness that much of todays music is recorded at, which compromises the possibility of enjoying good CD quality audio. Check this link for a discussion on the issue www.turnmeup.org. I guess that is one reason why I tend to revert back to older music on Vinyl. I mean I really love muse but their albums offer poor audio quality when played on a decent system. Regardless of my views it appears that the vast majority of the public are happy with crapy mp3 files as a source.

Edited November 28, 2012 by leroydiamond

[Roger Evans]

I've always run a clean set up with no fx or anything. Always suited me and Ive never needed to change my sound. But thats just me!

Rog

[leroydiamond]

Gigged again last night without any effects and very happy. As a result I am becoming more aware of the quality of the pre amp on my sadowsky. A Really good preamp they are!.

[51m0n]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1354122532' post='1882386']
None of that matters if you're comparing a relatively early high quality vinyl pressing with a bad, overcompressed remaster from 30 year old tapes. CD can sound amazing but rarely does when you AB the same material with a vinyl copy, and I wonder if the quality of the master is often why rather than being intrinsic to the format.

Back to the OT, I've kind of gone the opposite. I've always played with a clean sound but recently got into using a Peavey TB Raxx valve preamp. I am in sonic love, it's a world away from the junky pedal format preamps, Sansamps and the like.
[/quote]

Staying totally off topic

Mastering for loudness has destroyed the CD as a truly hi fidelity playback system - I completely agree.

If you can find really thoughtfully mastered CDs the playback can be spectacular (cough cough [url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/"]Kit Richardson's EP[/url] cough cough) but in most 'chart' efforts the mastering crushes the dynamic range down to way less than 10dB (less than 5dB isnt unheard of). That ruins the CD for 'proper' listening, but does make it stand up to really nasty environments (the car) far better.
Tyhat isnt necessarily the mastering engineers fault either, they are paid for a product, and the purse holder demands more level. It is a crying shame though.

Having said that vinyl mastering has been pushing level since the 60's too, there was much consternation in the Motown lathe room at the level the Beatles had got on their singles! It is not a new phenomena, and its not going away in mainstream commercial music any time soon I think.

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1354181668' post='1883050']
Staying totally off topic

Mastering for loudness has destroyed the CD as a truly hi fidelity playback system - I completely agree.

If you can find really thoughtfully mastered CDs the playback can be spectacular (cough cough [url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/"]Kit Richardson's EP[/url] cough cough) but in most 'chart' efforts the mastering crushes the dynamic range down to way less than 10dB (less than 5dB isnt unheard of). That ruins the CD for 'proper' listening, but does make it stand up to really nasty environments (the car) far better.
Tyhat isnt necessarily the mastering engineers fault either, they are paid for a product, and the purse holder demands more level. It is a crying shame though.

Having said that vinyl mastering has been pushing level since the 60's too, there was much consternation in the Motown lathe room at the level the Beatles had got on their singles! It is not a new phenomena, and its not going away in mainstream commercial music any time soon I think.
[/quote][quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1354181668' post='1883050']
Staying totally off topic

Mastering for loudness has destroyed the CD as a truly hi fidelity playback system - I completely agree.

If you can find really thoughtfully mastered CDs the playback can be spectacular (cough cough [url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/"]Kit Richardson's EP[/url] cough cough) but in most 'chart' efforts the mastering crushes the dynamic range down to way less than 10dB (less than 5dB isnt unheard of). That ruins the CD for 'proper' listening, but does make it stand up to really nasty environments (the car) far better.
Tyhat isnt necessarily the mastering engineers fault either, they are paid for a product, and the purse holder demands more level. It is a crying shame though.

Having said that vinyl mastering has been pushing level since the 60's too, there was much consternation in the Motown lathe room at the level the Beatles had got on their singles! It is not a new phenomena, and its not going away in mainstream commercial music any time soon I think.
[/quote]

I tend to agree. The music industry is pandering to the requirements of its customers who appear to be happy to prioritise quantity over quality

[jaybass 70]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1354114263' post='1882226']
Rack units usually take a line-level input - FX loops are designed to accommodate rack effects. Pedal manufacturers (usually) assume you'll take a cable direct from your guitar since you'll be standing right next to it. It's fairly logical but I agree a bit of a pain to have two different approaches to doing the same thing.
[/quote]
I am really confused re the effects loop conundrum!
I have a markbass TA503 and a Zoom B9 multi effect, in the Markbass manual it says I can run effects pedals or rack gear through the loop, am i best going direct into the zoom with my bass or using the loop, it sounds good either way to me.

[51m0n]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1354185418' post='1883135']
I tend to agree. The music industry is pandering to the requirements of its customers who appear to be happy to prioritise quantity over quality
[/quote]

I think it started far more simply than that - louder sounds better.

Largely because the human brain is rubbish at assessing the merits of sound (otherwise everyone could track, mix and master really well) and needs equal volumes in order to judge a sound on any other factor at all.

So everyoine liked the loudest master the most. Its just got to stupid levels now.

What is exasperating is even at 16bit CDs are capable of a far wider dynamic range (in theory 150dB) than vinyl could ever hope for (absolute best it could be woiuld be around 120dB, I've never heard vinyl get close to this though! In reality its closer to 80dB on a great system), and yet rather than embrace this the average dynamic range of records has shrunk to a fraction of that available on vinyl.

Some really good stuff on vinyl vs cd [url="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29"]here[/url] CD comes off rather superior...

[leroydiamond]

The capacity for [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1354188203' post='1883202']
I think it started far more simply than that - louder sounds better.

Largely because the human brain is rubbish at assessing the merits of sound (otherwise everyone could track, mix and master really well) and needs equal volumes in order to judge a sound on any other factor at all.

So everyoine liked the loudest master the most. Its just got to stupid levels now.

What is exasperating is even at 16bit CDs are capable of a far wider dynamic range (in theory 150dB) than vinyl could ever hope for (absolute best it could be woiuld be around 120dB, I've never heard vinyl get close to this though! In reality its closer to 80dB on a great system), and yet rather than embrace this the average dynamic range of records has shrunk to a fraction of that available on vinyl.

Some really good stuff on vinyl vs cd [url="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29"]here[/url] CD comes off rather superior...
[/quote]
Technically your correct but as you say the loudness war is destroying CD as a hi fidelity playback system. Guess thats why some older Vinyl sounds really good as they were mastered before this 'louder the better' mastering took off

[pendingrequests]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1354020294' post='1880844']
And yet - according to your signature - you have four Boss pedals in a row before your bass signal gets to your amp?
[/quote]

Distortion pedal is only included every now again, so it's frequently three that I use.

The EQ pedal is now rarely used and the Chorus is used once or twice.

You can go into this deep depth world of cables, components until your eyes bleed. The fact is, the average listener is not going to hear any differences whatsoever.

Until the day I am touring the world with a roadie who knows everything about this, I am keeping my setup the way it is.

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='pendingrequests' timestamp='1354192614' post='1883307']
Distortion pedal is only included every now again, so it's frequently three that I use.

The EQ pedal is now rarely used and the Chorus is used once or twice.

You can go into this deep depth world of cables, components until your eyes bleed. The fact is, the average listener is not going to hear any differences whatsoever.

Until the day I am touring the world with a roadie who knows everything about this, I am keeping my setup the way it is.
[/quote]

I am not so much concerned with what the average listener hears and i agree they probably will not here any difference. My concern is what I as a bassplayer can hear and IMO removing effects from my set up gives me a tone I am happier with. Of course you are correct to go with the set up that suits you best. different strokes for different folks

Edited November 29, 2012 by leroydiamond

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='jaybass 70' timestamp='1354186196' post='1883148']I am really confused re the effects loop conundrum!
I have a markbass TA503 and a Zoom B9 multi effect, in the Markbass manual it says I can run effects pedals or rack gear through the loop, am i best going direct into the zoom with my bass or using the loop, it sounds good either way to me.[/quote]

I don't know anything about the B9 but I guess since it's a floor unit it's probably designed to run on an instrument level signal, but if it sounds fine in the FX loop by all means put it there if it's the best solution for you.

I imagine the Markbass loop is still a line-level loop regardless of what it says in the manual.