Bass Guitar Weight

[Guest]

I'm on a mission to get consistant results on the way in using hardware.
I recently replaced my bass guitar and I'm happy with the sound apart from it being too heavy in the bottom end for recording. Sure, I could EQ it out but I want a solution that becomes my go to get the sound right on the way in.

I've a golden age premium pre 1073 clone which sounds really warm but there's no EQ on it. Also have a compressor which sounds great too on the bass. Would a hardware EQ or one of the golden age pres with EQ be the answer so I can tail off that bottom. Or one of those bass pod types gadgets for emulations and what not? I'd rather keep it simple, the less knobs and controls the better for me.

What do those of you recording bands do, that's your go to for DI bass recording, the old tried and tested hardware solution you use?

[James Perrett]

I have an Ampeg SVT140 head that I often just use as a bass DI (this is for visiting bass players that don't bring their own amp).

[sonics]

I recently replaced my bass guitar and I'm happy with the sound apart from it being too heavy in the bottom end for recording. Sure, I could EQ it out but I want a solution that becomes my go to get the sound right on the way in.

What sound is "right" for you? If you're after anything like the sound on most modern records, no DI is going to give you that. The Ampeg head suggestion from James is a very good one. If you can craft the sound using a pre-amp designed for bass guitar, you'll have the sound you want.

I use plug-ins, for example the Plugin Alliance Ampegs are very nice, likewise the Fender they have. I also have a POD which I'll use as an alternative if the situation suits it better.

If you really are happy with and want the DI sound, then perhaps just add a nice EQ to the rig, as you suggest.

[Wonks]

Have you tried adjusting the pickup height on the bass? Moving the pickup away from the strings will reduce some of the low end, so you could try dropping the bass side lower than the treble side and see if that helps.

You can always put it back if it then sounds unbalanced in terms of string output, though your compressor will help there.

If the pickups are on the powerful side, a
change of pickups could also be another possible solution. What’s the bass and do you know what pickups are fitted?

You’ll probably still end up wanting more control over the sound than the above will give, so I suspect a bass pre-amp is the solution. The Tech21 units have been a favourite in many studios. I’ve never used one myself, but I know people who have and rate them highly. But as always, there are lots of alternatives. A simple bass graphic EQ pedal could also work for you.

Bass amp with non-parametric bass and mid controls typically have them operating an octave below the same controls on a guitar amp (though the treble control is often set at a similar frequency), so best to use a dedicated bass preamp rather than repurpose one designed for guitar.

Depending on the bass, if passive, it could be possible to fit a high-pass tone control to it, either as a separate extra potentiometer or by re-purposing a Fender TBX tone pot to provide both standard low-pass and an additional high-pass filter on one knob (it’s a centre notched dual-gang pot so less bass one way and less trebke the other). G&L often fit a high-pass filter to their basses (refer to their PTB passive treble and bass controls).

[ef37a]

Ha! I thought this thread was about mass! I have an old plywood bass, a crude 'P' clone, that weighs a ton but since I shall never stand to play it in a band ever again it matters little now.

You could fit a 'high pass filter' CR network in the bass but being passive (I assume) the turnover frequency will be at the mercy of the load resistance.

Maybe a Boss EQ pedal?

Dave.

[jaminem]

Wondering what bass it is?

If its a PJ, move the balance back towards the jazz pickup or lower the P level if you have 2 volumes, if its a P bass, turn up the tone, maybe pick closer to the bridge if you can. I guess what i'm saying is try and address it at source if you can. If its an active bass, turn the bass down!

Having said that, i'm always of the opinion that capturing as wider frequency spectrum while recording, is not such a bad thing, better to have too much bass than have to manufacture it later imo

you can always take bass out once its recorded - low shelf cut turning over around 80hz and maybe low cutting around 30hz. Also if you're not compressing on the way in you will find that compression will cut the low end, if you have a compressor with a low cut in the side chain, try moving the frequency around here, to get a balance between a solid bottom end and clarity/tightness

[Philbo King]

I often use EQ to high-pass the recorded sound so the fundamental note is reduced, leaving the harmonics as is, or even boosting them. Don't overdo this though, unless the Chris Squire bass sound is what will best serve the music.

[Urthlupe]

As per the Wonky advice above - I’ve found this very useful over the years (it’s predecessor actually)…. it’ll give you both powerful tonal control and a bunch of useful interfacing functions, and nicely built.

https://www.tech21nyc.com/products/sans ... driver-di/

…but you know what they say…. bunnies often know best (except when it comes to headlights)

Loopy xx

[MarkOne]

Warren Huart has some good tips on getting a good bass sound on his Produce Like A Pro YouTube channel.

Basically it comes down to this:

Duplicate the bass track

On one track roll off all the high frequencies above 200Hz and then compress it pretty hard. (He uses two compressors in series) this gives a really consistent low end.

On the 2nd track cut everything below 200Hz, also compress, and add some treble boost to accentuate the twangy elements a bit.

He then adds a bit of overdrive - he uses Sans Amp, but I guess anything that adds some dirt to the HF component.

Then you can sum these tracks and create a balance that suits. And EQ and compress a bit more as you feel it needs

[Wonks]

You can do a very similar thing to the above with a multi-band compressor, though you'd then have to add overdrive to the whole range of frequencies (not that you'd notice a lot of difference).

But neither solves the OP's quest to get the sound right on the way in rather than in the mix. Though you can get multi-band compressor pedals for bass, but rarely)if at all) with as much control over the band widths, compression levels and make-up volumes as you'd need to duplicate a software multi-band compressor.

[MarkOne]

I guess you could always do the Chris Squire trick, split the signal at the guitar with a buffered splitter (although his 4001 had the stereo pickup, and he split it that way), and send one output to a compressor pedal and then to a big bass amp and cab with the top rolled off, and the other to a Marshall 4x12 with the low end cut and the gain cranked.

[Wonks]

I've just been looking and although there are quite a few multi-band compressor pedals out there, they all have preset frequency bands and the compression controls for each band are generally one knob compressor controls, occasionally with a separate gain control. So no great control over the amount of compression you get in each band.

The TC Hypergravity multi-band compressor pedal has a toneprint editing option, but you need to talk to the pedal via the phone app app before you can see the editing parameters. The PC toneprint editor is available but seems currently unsupported as there are only a few pedals displayed. So I have no idea if you can adjust the compressor band frequencies or not. No mention of what parameters are adjustable in software in the pedal's manual.

[Guest]

Thanks to everyone who chipped in with suggestions.
With the black friday deals I picked up tonight the Sonimus Burnley 73 plugin and after trying fabfilter, amplitude and several other things to fix my bass issues I think the Burnley 73 just nailed it.
Really simple, I turned only one knob an absolute fraction (see image) below, it's the 2nd knob from the left and I turned it back to the round dot between 0 and -60.

Instant result. The bass is still full and sounds natural but that heavy weight is is no more. Maybe one of you can tell me what is happening here in terms of EQ frequencies but using fabfilter, which I like because of the visuals, doesn't give anywhere near the results and simplicity.

So I think what I need now is a hardware Pre/EQ based on the 1073, like the Golden Age ones that will do what the Burnley is doing, only I'll use it going in so I always get the sound I want. Thanks again for all the replies.

[Drew Stephenson]

I'm assuming from the image that they're concentric pots, so you've dialed in a smidge of low shelf reduction at 110Hz.

[Martin Walker]

Well here's the frequency response with your settings (I have both Burnley73 and PluginDoctor):

I've adjusted the sensitivity so that one vertical division is 1dB, so your tiny tweak of the low shelf brings the 100Hz level back to flat (the knobs operate in reverse, but turning slightly clockwise results in a tiny 'increase'), then rolls off slowly (-3dB at 17Hz), while the preamp at that default Line 20dB setting also provides a tiny 0.5dB boost centred around 3kHz..

Hope this helps you understand how it's perfected your desired sound!

[Wonks]

Well here's the frequency response with your settings (I have both Burnley73 and PluginDoctor):

burnley73.jpg

I've adjusted the sensitivity so that one vertical division is 1dB, so your tiny tweak of the low shelf brings the 100Hz level back to flat (the knobs operate in reverse, but turning slightly clockwise results in a tiny 'increase'), then rolls off slowly (-3dB at 17Hz), while the preamp at that default Line 20dB setting also provides a tiny 0.5dB boost centred around 3kHz..

Hope this helps you understand how it's perfected your desired sound!

But if that EQ tweak is basically bringing the bass EQ back to flat, (from a boost caused by the plug-in) then surely it’s not the bass frequency that’s creating the better sound but the HF boost the 73 is naturally providing? Or is it the obvious bass roll-off the preamp has (I can’t see the frequency divisions so don’t know when it starts).

[Martin Walker]

Clicking on my image will expand it sufficiently to see all the frequency markings, but I already mentioned that the low-end roll-off is just -3dB at 17Hz - that shouldnt result in much of an audible change when the lowest bass guitar note fundamental is 42Hz.

EDIT: Just measured it at -0.5dB @42Hz (yes, audible, but nevertheless minimal). However, it could be that this tiny bass roll-off in conjunction with a similar amount of 3kHz boost is just the magic that the OP needed.

[Wonks]

OK, so minimal alteration then. Maybe it's that very slight high boost that's making the difference, though I doubt it. I was on my iPhone at the time and simply couldn't see it as the pic stayed small!

When talking about bass guitar frequencies, don't forget about 5-string basses (as they are pretty common these days) where the low B0 fundamental is just under 31Hz.

[Drew Stephenson]

I don't think the OP was using the settings shown in the picture though? Or that's not how I read his description.

[Martin Walker]

I don't think the OP was using the settings shown in the picture though? Or that's not how I read his description.

Aha! I suspect you're correct Drew. I'll copy his written description and ignore the screenshot, and post again here in a few minutes.

Really simple, I turned only one knob an absolute fraction (see image) below, it's the 2nd knob from the left and I turned it back to the round dot between 0 and -60.

Instant result. The bass is still full and sounds natural but that heavy weight is is no more.

EDIT - here you go (with the previous curve left in place for comparison), and this one makes somewhat more sense, although it's a severe cut! (-3dB @160Hz)

[Hugh Robjohns]

It is quite a severe cut, but we have to remember that the output is dependent on the input.

If the source bass lacked much harmonic contribution above a few hundred Hz, this kind of EQ might well help to restore a far more balanced sound.

And if it delivers the sound the OP wants, is fine by me!

[Martin Walker]

Hugh is ever the voice of reason in these troubled times

[Wonks]

It’s only really a 3dB cut at ‘110Hz’, though there’s a slight resonant peak boost above that which is part of the sound. It just looks more severe because of the vertical resolution.

[Guest]

It’s only really a 3dB cut at ‘110Hz’, though there’s a slight resonant peak boost above that which is part of the sound. It just looks more severe because of the vertical resolution.

Thanks to Martin for the graphical example of what's happened.
As you say, Wonks, it's a tiny reduction at 110Hz.
In the title of this thread I referred to it as 'weight', perhaps I should have used 'energy' instead.
You can feel it more than hear it on my monitors. It's an unpleasant weighted energy.
The tiny adjustment I've made using the Burnley 73 shocked me because you'd think it would need a much more aggressive adjustment to remove this unwanted energy but like I say, it's done the trick.
I don't really understand the technical aspects that well, I appreciate other frequencies can be effected but the issue was in the low end, almost a sub bass, and that small adjustment has it fixed.

Does anyone know if the Golden Age Premium EQ-73 would be a suitable hardware version of the Burnley 73? https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/go ... 3-jr-eq-73