"Core Tone" isn't very important in your bass.

[Earbrass]

[quote name='silddx' post='735159' date='Feb 4 2010, 03:49 PM']It is media and manufacturer bullshit and player insecurity, mostly, that dictates buying habits. It creates a sustainable industry.[/quote]

Truer than a true thing on National Truth day. Just say no to GAS - it's addictive and it doesn't get you anywhere - just a temporary high, then you're back wanting your next fix.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Marvin' post='735201' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:19 PM']You are then sir, a tonal slut. [/quote]
Yip, I'm a right tone-slag. Any decent tone that winks at me, I will do something filthy with it.

[thumperbob 2002]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='735098' date='Feb 4 2010, 02:48 PM']I think any bassist who gigs regularly with unknown-quantity sound men soon learns to be less precious about "their tone". If you're lucky you won't be reduced to a boomy sub-bass sludge that ruins the sound of the rest of the band. Anything more than that is a bonus.

Imagine saying to the sound guy in some pub somewhere that you can't hear the inherent brightness and bite of your bespoke bass's AAAAA maple top in his mix. [/quote]


+1 Been there many,many times unfortunately

Bob

[bigjohn]

[quote name='jimijimmi' post='735176' date='Feb 4 2010, 03:57 PM']lthough,you can get great sounds through Digital equiptment![/quote]


Deffo.

What I was saying about hifi though... if ever you get the chance to speak to people who design really high end hifi (not the hifi know nothing buffs ) they'll not hear of digital coming close to valves. You'd need a supercomputer to process the response of a valve and it's audible on both subjective (aural) and objective (measurable) levels.

Even if you needed the flexibilty of digital effects on your front end, ideally you'd be using a plain vanilla valve power amp. We've only got used to the other way around (valve preamps and SS power) because that way around is lighter.

Edited February 4, 2010 by bigjohn

[xilddx]

[quote name='Earbrass' post='735203' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:22 PM']Truer than a true thing on National Truth day. Just say no to GAS - it's addictive and it doesn't get you anywhere - just a temporary high, then you're back wanting your next fix.[/quote]
And that's my point, I have enormous amounts of GAS! I can't stop it. I want a Dingwall now they're affordable, just because those fan frets are a delight to play because of the even string tension, but mostly because they are the coolest looking frets in the world! After I get that, I'll want a vintage Jazz, or a custom Warwick, or a ZON, or a Status Streamline ...

[xilddx]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='735209' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:26 PM']Deffo.

What I was saying about hifi though... if ever you get the chance to speak to people who design really high end hifi (not the hifi know nothing buffs ) they'll not hear of digital coming close to valves. You'd need a supercomputer to process the response of a valve and it's audible on both subjective (aural) and objective (measurable) levels.

Even if you needed the flexibilty of digital effects on your front end, ideally you'd be using a plain vanilla valve power amp. We've only got used to the other way around (valve preamps and SS power) because that way around is lighter.[/quote]
Given your stance on digital, you can't tell me you are getting value for money from your five grand HiFi when the album was recorded into a computer, mixed on a computer and mastered on a computer, then transferred to your CD which you play on your CD player which decodedes a digital signal into five grand's worth of analogue? Are you mad, sir?

[Sibob]

[quote name='silddx' post='735129' date='Feb 4 2010, 03:20 PM']Not many basses have a "crap" tone though do they? Unless you use a Satellite or something, the bass tone is going to be usable.[/quote]
Well of course there are basses with crap tone......because these things are completely subjective. I may hate someones Ibanez Ergodyne bass (eeeuugugghghhh shudder), and someone might hate my Jazz's tone.

Si

[Stylon Pilson]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='735209' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:26 PM']What I was saying about hifi though... if ever you get the chance to speak to people who design really high end hifi (not the hifi know nothing buffs ) they'll not hear of digital coming close to valves. You'd need a supercomputer to process the response of a valve and it's audible on both subjective (aural) and objective (measurable) levels.[/quote]

If the audio source is digital (ie a CD) then is there still any benefit to having a valve amp? After all, you can't restore information that has already been taken out.

This isn't intended as a challenge, it's a genuine question.

S.P.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Sibob' post='735223' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:35 PM']Well of course there are basses with crap tone......because these things are completely subjective. I may hate someones Ibanez Ergodyne bass (eeeuugugghghhh shudder), and someone might hate my Jazz's tone.

Si[/quote]
OK, I agree with the Ibanez, but that's crap taste, not crap tone

[Marvin]

[quote name='silddx' post='735225' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:36 PM']OK, I agree with the Ibanez, but that's crap taste, not crap tone [/quote]
That's harsh, I love MY Ibby.

[bigjohn]

[quote name='silddx' post='735222' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:34 PM']Given your stance on digital, you can't tell me you are getting value for money from your five grand HiFi when the album was recorded into a computer, mixed on a computer and mastered on a computer, then transferred to your CD which you play on your CD player which decodedes a digital signal into five grand's worth of analogue? Are you mad, sir?[/quote]


Ha ha, well. yes. I am.

no. No I'm not. My "Hi-Fi" cost about £220 from Richers in about 1989. I added a CD player for a further £80 in about 1997.

However, if you hear a CD through a really good valve Hi-Fi, you can tell the difference immediately. Even if you A/B it with other really good SS audiophile amps.

They're much easier to listen to at higher volumes (too much volume for my semi-detached )

And they sound better, richer bass, crisper highs, rounder mids at lower volumes. There's no need for a loudness button for instance... the response is the same across all frequencies (well all the ones you'd want) at all volume levels.


I do agree that an amplified signal is always going to be weakest at it's weakest point, but why just let the weakest point be so weak?

Edited February 4, 2010 by bigjohn

[Chris2112]

Luckily for me I seem to have luck finding basses that impress me in ever respect! And my use of effects and EQ is minimal.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='735233' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:44 PM']However, if you hear a CD through a really good valve Hi-Fi, you can tell the difference immediately.[/quote]

A difference, yeh, but which one is more "true"? I know that analog technology has the equivalent of an infinite sample rate and frequency response, but CDs aren't that far off. Perhaps what you're actually hearing is tonal colouration and compression?!

[xilddx]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='735233' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:44 PM']Ha ha, well. yes. I am.

no. No I'm not. My "Hi-Fi" cost about £220 from Richers in about 1989. I added a CD player for a further £80 in about 1997.

However, if you hear a CD through a really good valve Hi-Fi, you can tell the difference immediately. Even if you A/B it with other really good SS audiophile amps.

They're much easier to listen to at higher volumes (too much volume for my semi-detached )[/quote]

Cool! I'll stick my POD into a valve HiFi power amp and it will sound even better!


Seriously though, you are talking about a whole band sound here with a full frequency range. I defy pretty much anyone to tell the difference between a digital valve amp model and a real valve amp with a guitar or bass through it. In fact, it's been demonstrated, even on BC, that many people were saying the digital models sounded more appealing than their valve amp counterparts.

[Sibob]

Thats the thing, everyone is different, some harder to please than others. But as long as the individual is happy, thats all that counts. And I've played some nice Ibanez'.........but the Ergodyne series was mainly horrible to me lol

Just for the purpose of the thread, here's my checklist in order
1) Tone/comfort/playability (they are all important to me equally, the sum is greater than the parts and all that noise)
2) Looks (I have preferences, but not at the expense of point 1)

Lovely
Si

[Sibob]

For me it's actually less about a problem with digital vs analogue. They're both a head on top of a cab, and again, 'better' is subjective.
My main issues are with extreme EQ'ing through necessity and loadsa pedals just to get a basic workable tone.

Si

[bigjohn]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='735238' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:49 PM']A difference, yeh, but which one is more "true"? I know that analog technology has the equivalent of an infinite sample rate and frequency response, but CDs aren't that far off. Perhaps what you're actually hearing is tonal colouration and compression?![/quote]


That doesn't bear up when you see the spectrum analysis though.

[xilddx]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='735252' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:55 PM']That doesn't bear up when you see the spectrum analysis though.[/quote]
You can show that spectrum analysis to my ears and see if [u]they[/u] notice

[51m0n]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='735209' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:26 PM']Deffo.

What I was saying about hifi though... if ever you get the chance to speak to people who design really high end hifi (not the hifi know nothing buffs ) they'll not hear of digital coming close to valves. You'd need a supercomputer to process the response of a valve and it's audible on both subjective (aural) and objective (measurable) levels.

Even if you needed the flexibilty of digital effects on your front end, ideally you'd be using a plain vanilla valve power amp. We've only got used to the other way around (valve preamps and SS power) because that way around is lighter.[/quote]

And I've yet to see any really hi end hifi (please site some evidence) that wont accept high end CD as an input. Really good CD is very very good indeed these days. SACD is staggering.

I was lucky enough to work in a studio when 96KHz 24bit first was available at all. The top digital standard then was ADAT II (48KHz, at 24 bit). We got to hear on extremely high quality monitors a 1/4" reel to reel master, the same master at 96KHz 24bit digital, and a CD pressing. There was absolutely no discernable difference between the 1/4" tape and the 96KHz 24bit version. In fact it was difficult to say what was different on the CD, although people could generally pick it out from the other two. We ended up doing blind tests for a couple of hours and no one there (about 3 engineers/producers, a band, and the guys showing off their kit) could reliably tell what was what. That was in 1997 or 8 IIRC.

All valves do is degrade the signal in a measurable, gentle and acoustically pleasant way. They impart no magic other than even order distortion. They are not a Holy Grail, just a different way of treating a signal. If you push them hard they dont sound harsh because of the nature of the way they break up. If you dont push them hard the effect is less obvious. If you drive them well within their limits the degradation is unnoticeable, and unmeasurable. Just like a transistor in the same circumstances. That is an absolute fact.

For example, there is a tube in the preamp of an LH500, the circuit is designed not to distort, it is almost impossible to overdrive and thus almost impossible to tell its actually a tube. The LMII tube with the blendable tube pre is very similar, but even more eye openeing since you can blend across from one to the other and compare the difference in such an immeduiate way. I spent a good hour fiddling with one in GAK, only to come to the conclusion that the tube preamp was so clean as to be pointless.

As for needing a super computer to model a tube, that is a complete myth. Please site a study to support this. It just is not the case!

[xilddx]

[quote name='Sibob' post='735249' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:54 PM']For me it's actually less about a problem with digital vs analogue. They're both a head on top of a cab, and again, 'better' is subjective.
My main issues are with extreme EQ'ing through necessity and loadsa pedals just to get a basic workable tone.

Si[/quote]
Understood, but what if you need three very different tones for one song, live? That's the sort of thing you may do in the studio all the time, but live?

At one point last year I had up to five patches per song per set, with different eqs and effects. One bass all the way through, with onboard eq/pup tweaks too. There is nothing at all wrong with extreme eq. Bootsy doesn't seem to think so anyway.

[purpleblob]

Interesting discussion.

For my 2p's worth I'd say the intrinsic tone of an instrument is still very important. Ultimately the closer your instrument is to producing the sound you want, then the more (I would hope) you can do with sound shaping using preamps, amp sims. effects etc. if you're into all that.

But I'd certainly agree that it's not the most important reason to own one instrument over another. I'd prefer a bass that wasn't 100% perfect on the tonal/sound front (as long as it wasn't bad mind you!) that felt good to play over a bass that sounded better but was a dog to play.

[bigjohn]

[quote name='silddx' post='735241' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:51 PM']Cool! I'll stick my POD into a valve HiFi power amp and it will sound even better![/quote]

I agree. Valve power all the way!

[quote name='silddx' post='735241' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:51 PM']Seriously though, you are talking about a whole band sound here with a full frequency range. I defy pretty much anyone to tell the difference between a digital valve amp model and a real valve amp with a guitar or bass through it. In fact, it's been demonstrated, even on BC, that many people were saying the digital models sounded more appealing than their valve amp counterparts.[/quote]


Well, that's the thing isn't it. Where do you draw the line? For me, any compromise I make on sound quality (equiv SS vs Valve) is going to be about price and transportability. If the last two were non-considerations then I wouldn't have a solid state power amp in my rig. I did have a digital one, which was OK, but not as good as the mosfets in there now

Digital models schmodels. It's all subjective. I bet on average though, more people would prefer the sound of a true valve amp than a model, even if there are a few that prefer models. There are people that don't like strawberries that eat strawberry flavour ice cream.

[bigjohn]

[quote name='silddx' post='735254' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:56 PM']You can show that spectrum analysis to my ears and see if [u]they[/u] notice [/quote]


Ah, but your ears would notice the sound, whilst your eyes could feast on the graphs

[Happy Jack]

I'm staggered that this has remained on-topic for so long, and I will immediately rectify this by pointing out that playing bass in a covers band makes versatility WAY more important than core tone.

In the space of 10 minutes I may need to sound like McCartney, Wyman and Watt-Roy.

For a given value of "sound", of course.

YESSSS!!! Covers -v- Originals topic introduced. Now, what about jazz ...

[xilddx]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='735264' date='Feb 4 2010, 05:06 PM']Ah, but your ears would notice the sound, whilst your eyes could feast on the graphs [/quote]


That's the problem these days, no large format beautiful album covers to get stuck into while listening to the record. One must be satisfied with the spectral analysis charts