To mike or not
Wayne K. Way
miked whereas the bass amp is Very Rarely miked. I know in my
band the bass player has a better bass amp than the rhythym guitar
players amp yet his amp is always miked and no soundman has ever miked
the bass amp. Just wondering. wayne
Patrick Powers
I'm no sound man, but here is what I know.
With bass it is important to have a point source. If the sound comes
from multiple locations, there will phase interference and an uneven,
thin sound. So bass amps are miked only in large venues where the
sound from the PA overwhelms the sound direct from the amp. In a small
club this isn't done, as you would have to turn down the bass amp so
much that the player couldn't be heard on the stage.
I have often seen miked bass amps in large venues and a very clear,
dry, even sound results, especially good for bass solos. You do miss
the floor-shake effect of the bass amp resonating the stage, though.
Miking is OK with other instruments as with higher frequency
instruments phase interference is less noticeable, and also the higher
frequencies are more directional so the sources can be separated
resulting in less phase interference.
Scott Allen Miller
Honestly? I have noticed that it seems that the soundmen do it because "that's
the way we've always done it". People even do it in the *studio*, just going
direct into the desk, sometimes from the bass active output to the desk with
no pre-amp!!!! Jesus, here we are working on crossover points and high pass
effects and low frequency limiting and 18" vs. 15" debates, and some choad comes
along with a direct box and says "here, plug this in". So I have a rig now that
can't possibly be DI'd without a lot of trouble!!!
I *like* the sound of that "air" hitting that mike. If you get a good bass drum
mike on your low cab and an SM57 on the highs, just crank it up and let loose. No
DI needed. But really, soundmen do it because that's how they've been taught.
Guitarists make a big stink about cabinet tones and that's part of it,
too, because instead of that we bassists tend to focus more on our bass's woods
and stuff, although cabinet tone also is very important. Otherwise, who in their
right mind would haul around a heavy Hartke if it didn't make their sound come
alive. We bassists just have to insist on either miking us or no PA feed at all.
If we can live without the PA feed because of the hall size, then OK. But in a
bigger place, mike the mother. And don't worry, good mikes will take the high
SPLs (sound pressure levels).
Scotto
--
* Scott Allen Miller * 1024 Sunset Avenue #12 * Manhattan, Kansas USA 66502 *
* (913) 537-2837 * igo...@ksu.ksu.edu *
* A bass guitar is like an electric guitar, only less sociable. *
* Read my op/ed columns in the K-State Collegian at http://www.spub.ksu.edu/ *
Matthew A Piechota
Scott Allen Miller <igo...@tonto.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <94247.17...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Wayne K. Way <WK...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> Could someone tell me why it seems that guitar amps are always
>> miked whereas the bass amp is Very Rarely miked. I know in my
>> band the bass player has a better bass amp than the rhythym guitar
>> players amp yet his amp is always miked and no soundman has ever miked
>> the bass amp. Just wondering. wayne
>
>Honestly? I have noticed that it seems that the soundmen do it because "that's
>the way we've always done it". People even do it in the *studio*, just going
>direct into the desk, sometimes from the bass active output to the desk with
>no pre-amp!!!! Jesus, here we are working on crossover points and high pass
>effects and low frequency limiting and 18" vs. 15" debates, and some choad comes
>along with a direct box and says "here, plug this in". So I have a rig now that
>can't possibly be DI'd without a lot of trouble!!!
> I *like* the sound of that "air" hitting that mike. If you get a good bass drum
>mike on your low cab and an SM57 on the highs, just crank it up and let loose. No
>DI needed. But really, soundmen do it because that's how they've been taught.
> Guitarists make a big stink about cabinet tones and that's part of it,
>too, because instead of that we bassists tend to focus more on our bass's woods
>and stuff, although cabinet tone also is very important. Otherwise, who in their
>right mind would haul around a heavy Hartke if it didn't make their sound come
>alive. We bassists just have to insist on either miking us or no PA feed at all.
Sorry about the mess. Anyway, if anyone doesn't know, there's a big article on
miking in the newest Bass Player. It's disguised as recording article. But me
being a novice found some interesting hints in there.
Tom Diepenbrock
: Could someone tell me why it seems that guitar amps are always
Actually, the problem is that low frequencies do funny things--when you mike
for high end, you can use a very directional mike to control feedback,
etc. When you mike for low end, the directional characteristics of mics
go right out the window--you pick up everything, including kick drums,
feet stomping on stage, and worst of all, the bass sound coming out of
the PA (insert low-end rumbly feedback here). Also, low end has a
tendency to absolutely punish mics (especially in high volume
applications) and unless you have a mic designed for such punishment,
your mic is going to be toast sooner or later. Most mics (not all, tho)
that aren't designed for low end have a high-pass filter built into the
mic that rolls everything off below 50 Hz or so, which makes miking for
low end with these mics kinda pointless. Most of the time that I've seen
a rig miked (live, at least), it is being miked for high end, not low
end. It's easy to get a nice live bass sound in the PA by using a DI for
low end and mic to get that crunchy "cabinet-being-pushed-by-an-amp"
mid/high end. (Of course, I've read that they do the reverse in the
studio.) IMHO, (and experience) it's much easier to control low freq's
with a loud PA by going direct vs. miking. Now if only we could figure
out how to get a DI off a kick drum....
Later...
Tom
P.S. They mic guitar amps because the sound of the guitar is usually
affected drastically by the sound of the amp (distortion, etc) and
cabinet--and there's no low-end-rumbly stuff to worry about (hopefully,
anyway).
Brian Rost
> Honestly? I have noticed that it seems that the soundmen do it
> because "that's the way we've always done it".
Wrongo...going direct is a relatively recent phenomenon (mid-seventies
or so), before that amps were miked.
> Guitarists make a big stink about cabinet tones and that's part of
>it, too, because instead of that we bassists tend to focus more on our
>bass's woods and stuff, altqhough cabinet tone also is very
>important. Otherwise, who in their right mind wouqld haul around a
>heavy Hartke if it didn't make their sound come alive.
Bullsh*t...I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
through a Hartke! The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
the coloration your amp provides (some level of distortion and
compression occurs with ANY amp) then why mike it? I've sat in the
control rooms of studios overdubbing bass lines and the sound off the
monitors is way beyond what any bass amp I've ever used could produce!
Guitarists NEED to mike the amps because they rely on the amp for
a good portion of the sound they want.
When running through a PA, your bass amp is a monitor, nothing more.
That's why for gigs where you will go direct almost ANY amp will do as
long as it has a reasonable sound, because it will not affect what the
audience hears off the system.
--
Brian Rost
Ascom Timeplex APBU
rost_...@timeplex.com
********************************************************
Your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime
********************************************************
dst...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
>........
>...........I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
>through a Hartke! The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
>does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
>the coloration your amp provides (some level of distortion and
>compression occurs with ANY amp) then why mike it? I've sat in the
>control rooms of studios overdubbing bass lines and the sound off the
>monitors is way beyond what any bass amp I've ever used could produce!
>
>Guitarists NEED to mike the amps because they rely on the amp for
>a good portion of the sound they want.
>
>When running through a PA, your bass amp is a monitor, nothing more.
>That's why for gigs where you will go direct almost ANY amp will do as
>long as it has a reasonable sound, because it will not affect what the
>audience hears off the system.
>--
>
I agree - the sound through the PA system where I play is WAY bigger
and better than anything through my amp. Plus you don't end up with
the sound on stage getting louder and louder as each player strives
to hear themselves over the top of everybody else by continually
"tweaking" their volume controls (I've seen this happen to the point
were you couldn't listen to the music anymore - what a waste)
One rider, however - get a SOUND soundman who likes to hear the bass
in the mix, or no-one will ever hear you...
Dave
David Copeland
Brian Rost <ro...@nutshell.timeplex.com# wrote:
#In article <34eaq2$1...@tonto.ksu.ksu.edu> igo...@tonto.ksu.ksu.edu (Scott Allen Miller) writes:
#
#> Honestly? I have noticed that it seems that the soundmen do it
#> because "that's the way we've always done it".
#
#Wrongo...going direct is a relatively recent phenomenon (mid-seventies
#or so), before that amps were miked.
If the sound guy is only 25 years old, he was in diapers when they used to
mike so that comment is moot.
#
#> Guitarists make a big stink about cabinet tones and that's part of
#>it, too, because instead of that we bassists tend to focus more on our
#>bass's woods and stuff, altqhough cabinet tone also is very
#>important. Otherwise, who in their right mind wouqld haul around a
#>heavy Hartke if it didn't make their sound come alive.
#
#Bullsh*t...I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
#through a Hartke!
I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Why would a PA, made for
general amplification be better than a bass amp designed specifically for
bass? I used to use a small PA as my amp before I got a big rig and
the sound was total crap. Whenever I've played a show and gone direct my
sound is totally dead and crappy. I don't have very good pickups, so
I make the sound guy mike it. Why the hell would anyone bother with
effects/crossovers/specific cabs or anything if the best way to do it is
to go direct and screw the amp?
#The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
#does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
Again, this makes no sense to me at all. If this were true how could
all these bass amp manufacturers stay in business?
#the coloration your amp provides (some level of distortion and
#compression occurs with ANY amp) then why mike it?
This is a good point and corresponds to what I said above. I DO like
the sound out of my amp alot better than the one out of my bass.
#I've sat in the
#control rooms of studios overdubbing bass lines and the sound off the
#monitors is way beyond what any bass amp I've ever used could produce!
You need to play some better amps.
Dave C
Ken Barker
> I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
> through a Hartke! The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
> does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
> the coloration your amp provides (some level of distortion and
> compression occurs with ANY amp) then why mike it? I've sat in the
> control rooms of studios overdubbing bass lines and the sound off the
> monitors is way beyond what any bass amp I've ever used could produce!
Y'know, I'm really glad somebody said this. I've got a couple of high
quality basses that I run through my PA (clean board, nice stereo EQ,
nice amp, gorgeous cabs). I've been looking at bass amps recently,
and although there are some really nice amps out there (I've been
playing SWRs, Edens, Hartkes, Traces, etc.), they still sound like
amps to me. I'll try an amp and think: "wow, that sounds really
cool!", but then I'll get home and play through the PA and think:
"wow, what a freakin' beautiful instrument this bass is."
Ok. I feel better now.
Ken "I-like-my-coffee-black" Barker
________________________________________________________________________
| Ken Barker : Department of Computer Science : University of Ottawa |
| kba...@csi.uottawa.ca : (613) 564-7186 : Ottawa, Canada, K1N 6N5 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Gunfire erupted from a window high above them, but it was only a bass |
| player getting shot for playing the wrong riff three times in a row. |
|________________________________________________________________________|
iba...@ac.dal.ca
I do not think that any frequency is "more directional" than any other. They
differ in length and speed. The problem with miking a bass amp in my opinion is
that you lose alot putting the mike close to the cab. If you put it farther
away, I think it sounds better, but then other sources (i.e. the guitar amp)
start bleeding into the mike for the bass amp.
Most bassists I know go direct - the sound is much easier to manage and usually
sounds better than a miked signal. I say usually because I prefer a clean, tight
in your face sound - others prefer some distortion and this is where a miked
rig comes in. I like the idea of combining the two sources (direct and miked)
if it is practical, but I'd still favour the direct signal much more in the mix.
The miked signal can be added almost like an effect in this sense, to bring a
bit more rawness to the overall sound. I beleive that the reason 99.9% of
guitarists mike their amps is that they all want a tone which is distorted to
some extent, and the best distortion seems to come from the speaker(s).
I'm sure others can comment on this in much more technical detail if necessary.
P.S. Since alot of us are now using cabs with tweeters, the miking question
becomes more complicated. If the mike is positioned near a driver away from
the tweeter, the highs will not be picked up very well. On the other hand,
if the mike is positioned near the tweeter, the highs will be overbearing.
I beleive that some have mentione that tweeter equipped cabs are not very
good for distortion effects, since they overemphasize the highs of a
distorted signal. Can anyone verify this?
--
Jamie Lauchlan
_ ___
/ `-' ( III
|( II ||||||||||||||[***] 1979 MusicMan Stingray
\_.-.__( l Thanks Leo (R.I.P.)
"BASS IS SOME SERIOUS SHIT" - Bill Laswell
Grego Sanguinetti
>In article <ROST.94S...@nutshell.timeplex.com#,
>Brian Rost <ro...@nutshell.timeplex.com# wrote:
>#
>#Bullsh*t...I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
>#through a Hartke!
>I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Why would a PA, made for
>general amplification be better than a bass amp designed specifically for
>bass? I used to use a small PA as my amp before I got a big rig and
>the sound was total crap.
1. Brian was referring to a good sized PA system, not the little
portable jobs. He states 4000watts. He implies BIG side bins and
horn arrays and subwoofers and mega woofers and
hyper-thermal-nuclear woofers and well you get the idea...
2. good PA's have BIG speakers designed to actually reproduce
frequencies down to the lowest bass string. Bass amps cabinets actually
start loosing efficiency well above there. It is a tradeoff of size
and cost.
3. good PA's have headroom up the wazoo. Like many 1000's of watts of
earth shaking power for you to goose the dancers with.
4. good PA's usually have better electronics than most bass amps. Once
more it's a tradeoff of size and cost.
5. good PA's are not "made for general amplification". They are
specifically designed for both voice and musical instrument direct
amplification.
>Whenever I've played a show and gone direct my
>sound is totally dead and crappy.
could be you haven't played through a good PA, or haven't had a good
sound engineer, or ...
>I don't have very good pickups, so I make the sound guy mike it.
Ah, there it is. Your bass sounds bad to start with? The PA is
faithfully reproducing a "dead and crappy" tone? I'm only being
half serious here, but it does sound like you are using your
amps coloration to make up for sound that isn't comming directly
from your bass. That's fair but the discussion sort of assumed we
were talking about a bass signal that sounded good to start with.
In leu of getting better pickups/bass, you could run two feeds,
one direct and the other miked from your amp. Then you can play with
the mixture at the board. This is a fairly standard practice in the
studio and in larger venues (when there is time).
As to using effects, well that's something you have to work out with the
sound person. The PA will amplify the heck out of your signal. If it is
noisy you will make the sound person very unhappy. Effects units are
usually built pretty cheaply and have a very bad reputation for
producing a very high noise floor. You may not notice this when running
through your bass amp but will be painfully obvious through the megawatt
PA.
-grego
--
gr...@teleport.COM local micro breweries support crew member
Todd D. Haverkos
Brian Rost <ro...@nutshell.timeplex.com> wrote:
>Bullsh*t...I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
>through a Hartke! The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
>does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
>the coloration your amp provides (some level of distortion and
>compression occurs with ANY amp) then why mike it? I've sat in the
>control rooms of studios overdubbing bass lines and the sound off the
>monitors is way beyond what any bass amp I've ever used could produce!
>
>When running through a PA, your bass amp is a monitor, nothing more.
>That's why for gigs where you will go direct almost ANY amp will do as
>long as it has a reasonable sound, because it will not affect what the
>audience hears off the system.
What we're dealing with here is a reproduction vs. production debate.
PA's are designed to reproduce sounds, not create them. For a PA,
coloration is a no-no, flat frequency response is a goal, etc.
Instrument amplifiers, however, are not designed to reproduce sound.
They intentionally have all sorts of non-linearities that affect the
sound in ways the player deems appropriate. Recreating the full sound of
your bass is a goal only if your view of the instrument ends at the
jack on your axe. In reality, it is a combination of the guitar and the
amplifier that makes the sound.
I agree with you that insofar as tightness is concerned, it's tough to
ttop direct recorded bass guitar without a great amp, great guitar, and
great mikes. But if you have a sound that is forged by not only your
guitar, but also your amp, you need to mike it to do it justice.
--
**************************************************************************
* Todd D. Haverkos, * "I had to make a move to a town that's right for *
* ad...@bga.com * me--keep me movin' keep grovin' w/ some energy."*
**************************************************************************
Scott Allen Miller
In article <ROST.94S...@nutshell.timeplex.com>, ro...@nutshell.timeplex.com (Brian Rost) writes:
> In article <34eaq2$1...@tonto.ksu.ksu.edu> igo...@tonto.ksu.ksu.edu (Scott Allen Miller) writes:
>
> > Honestly? I have noticed that it seems that the soundmen do it
> > because "that's the way we've always done it".
>
> Wrongo...going direct is a relatively recent phenomenon (mid-seventies
> or so), before that amps were miked.
Well, I'd say 20 years in the world of rock is damn near a tradition. And my name
isn't Wrongo.
> > Guitarists make a big stink about cabinet tones and that's part of
> >it, too, because instead of that we bassists tend to focus more on our
> >bass's woods and stuff, altqhough cabinet tone also is very
> >important. Otherwise, who in their right mind wouqld haul around a
> >heavy Hartke if it didn't make their sound come alive.
>
> Bullsh*t...I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
> through a Hartke! The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
Good for you. I don't use Hartke's, but the sound I want going over the PA is the
one I spend *hours* fine tuning with my pre-amps and effects through my speakers.
My name isn't Bullshit, either.
> does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
> the coloration your amp provides (some level of distortion and
> compression occurs with ANY amp) then why mike it? I've sat in the
> control rooms of studios overdubbing bass lines and the sound off the
> monitors is way beyond what any bass amp I've ever used could produce!
That's a shame. Try sitting in the recording area and see what kind of sound you
can get.
> Guitarists NEED to mike the amps because they rely on the amp for
> a good portion of the sound they want.
Guess what! So do I.
> When running through a PA, your bass amp is a monitor, nothing more.
> That's why for gigs where you will go direct almost ANY amp will do as
> long as it has a reasonable sound, because it will not affect what the
> audience hears off the system.
This absolutely 100% false in my case. Yes, it's a monitor but my sound *is* made
by the two speaker cabs, the pre-amps, and the effects. (Wow, imagine a bass
player who doesn't just plug in and turn up.)
Kalle Kivimaa
>In article <34dj6a$r...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu>, pow...@goofy.stat.unc.edu (Patrick Powers) writes:
>> With bass it is important to have a point source. If the sound comes
You still will usually have a monitor bass amp on stage AND (at least)
two speakers (for stereo). So you will end up with more than one
source anyway.
>I do not think that any frequency is "more directional" than any other. They
>differ in length and speed. The problem with miking a bass amp in my opinion is
The longer the wave length, the less directional the sound will be
(ie. your head cannot differentiate the direction of the sound)
and the more easier it will bend around obstacles (feedback, did
somebody say feedback? :-)
>Most bassists I know go direct - the sound is much easier to manage and usually
The main reason I prefer to DI all instruments possible when doing sound
is that the less mikes you have on stage the more headroom you will have
and the better monitor mix you can give to the artists.
--
* Robot: Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to be With -- Douglas Adams, HHGTG*
* (The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation) *
* PGP public key available - try finger kil...@beta.hut.fi *
Scott Allen Miller
In article <1994Sep7.1...@ac.dal.ca>, iba...@ac.dal.ca writes:
> In article <34dj6a$r...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu>, pow...@goofy.stat.unc.edu (Patrick Powers) writes:
> I do not think that any frequency is "more directional" than any other. They
Well, actually they are. In fact, supersonic frequencies are so directional they
can be used almost like a laser beam of sorts. The "waves" get so tight together
they form what seems like a straight line. Supersonic frequencies can be used to
move dust particles by pointing at them. Also, this is why ultrasound gives such
good pictures - there are less stray reflections of sound waves with a "tighter"
wave. The higher the frequencies, the more directional the sound. All you have to
do is stand behind a guitar amp and in front of it. You'll hear a lot more treble
in front of the speakers while you'll still hear almost the same amount of bass
in either position. Bass waves are omnidirectional and radiate out in all
directions with almost the same amplitude. That's why you hear bass thumping in
and outside a club at about the same volume!
> differ in length and speed. The problem with miking a bass amp in my opinion is
...and in amplitude, shape, phase.....these are all important.
> that you lose alot putting the mike close to the cab. If you put it farther
> away, I think it sounds better, but then other sources (i.e. the guitar amp)
> start bleeding into the mike for the bass amp.
Depends on the mike, like I said. For a subwoofer/low pass cabinet use a bass
drum mike, one designed for bass drum and bass guitar. On the high pass cabinet
you should be able to close mike with a SM57 or similar high quality directional
instrument mike.
> Most bassists I know go direct - the sound is much easier to manage and usually
> sounds better than a miked signal. I say usually because I prefer a clean, tight
Right, it's easy. "That's just the way we've always done it."
> in your face sound - others prefer some distortion and this is where a miked
> rig comes in. I like the idea of combining the two sources (direct and miked)
That's me, and that's a *lot* of other bassists. We grinders are not a small
faction anymore :) !!!
> if it is practical, but I'd still favour the direct signal much more in the mix.
> The miked signal can be added almost like an effect in this sense, to bring a
> bit more rawness to the overall sound. I beleive that the reason 99.9% of
> guitarists mike their amps is that they all want a tone which is distorted to
> some extent, and the best distortion seems to come from the speaker(s).
Well, I play bass *guitar*, so there is a fair amount of fuzz in the mix. Of
course, this upsets soundmen who would rather treat you like the blues band they
had the night before and the country band the night before that and go direct!!!
> I'm sure others can comment on this in much more technical detail if necessary.
I hope I did...
> P.S. Since alot of us are now using cabs with tweeters, the miking question
> becomes more complicated. If the mike is positioned near a driver away from
> the tweeter, the highs will not be picked up very well. On the other hand,
> if the mike is positioned near the tweeter, the highs will be overbearing.
> I beleive that some have mentione that tweeter equipped cabs are not very
> good for distortion effects, since they overemphasize the highs of a
> distorted signal. Can anyone verify this?
Well, distorted or not, tweeters show us how much *noise* there is in our signals
after all!!!! I have a dimmable tweeter (thanks, Carvin!) so if I get annoyed or
something is screwing up, it's cool. As far as where to put the mike, well, Jimmy
Page was mastering that issue 25 years ago for guitar. Now it's our turn :) !!!
Scotto
>
> --
> Jamie Lauchlan
> _ ___
> / `-' ( III
> |( II ||||||||||||||[***] 1979 MusicMan Stingray
> \_.-.__( l Thanks Leo (R.I.P.)
>
> "BASS IS SOME SERIOUS SHIT" - Bill Laswell
Arthur Kenyon
stage monitor, and running direct from the auxiliary amp output to the
PA.
Don't you know, somebody came up to me after our set and said, "Hey, man,
I'm a bass player too. How do you get such a huge bass sound out of that
one amp and a single 15" speaker?"
Yep, that Ampeg reputation is really something.
-- Arte K.
Brian Rost
Oh boy, this hits my hot button 8^)
In article <34kia2$e...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> dav...@access.rrinc.com.blacksburg.va.us (David Copeland) writes:
> #Wrongo...going direct is a relatively recent phenomenon (mid-seventies
> #or so), before that amps were miked.
> If the sound guy is only 25 years old, he was in diapers when they used to
> mike so that comment is moot.
Point taken. Some soundmen go direct because it's easier to get a
good sound, though, not just because they never thought of miking the
bass amp.
> #Bullsh*t...I'd rather play through a great 4000 watt PA system than
> #through a Hartke!
>
> I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Why would a PA, made for
> general amplification be better than a bass amp designed specifically for
> bass? I used to use a small PA as my amp before I got a big rig and
> the sound was total crap. Whenever I've played a show and gone direct my
> sound is totally dead and crappy.
You did say *small* right? I'm not talking small PAs, I'm talking
big, megawatt systems with huge bass bins, etc. Like what you see in
large clubs, theaters, arenas, etc. I have played through small PAs
in emergencies (i.e. my amp blew up) and I agree the sound was not too
good.
> #The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
> #does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
>
> Again, this makes no sense to me at all. If this were true how could
> all these bass amp manufacturers stay in business?
Because there are still plenty of applications (maybe 90% of the
time?) when your amp *is* the only source of the bass sound (i.e. you
use a small PA for vocals only). Besides, while I like to have the
bass in the mains in large rooms, I don't like hearing the bass only
through floor monitors unless we're talking *huge* monitors with lots
of power behind them, like you would have at very large venues
(arenas, outdoor festivals). So, like I said, your amp becomes your
monitor.
> #the coloration your amp provides (some level of distortion and
> #compression occurs with ANY amp) then why mike it?
>
> This is a good point and corresponds to what I said above. I DO like
> the sound out of my amp alot better than the one out of my bass.
In this case, mike it! The trend lately has beeen towards distorted
tones again in rock, but from the early seventies the general trend
has been for cleaner bass reproduction. 90% of what you hear on
records is direct injected bass anyway, even on live albums.
> #I've sat in the
> #control rooms of studios overdubbing bass lines and the sound off the
> #monitors is way beyond what any bass amp I've ever used could produce!
>
> You need to play some better amps.
You need to sit in a good studio 8^) 8^) I've used plenty of great
amps, many of the world class names (SWR, Trace, Eden, Hartke, GK,
etc.) as well as the dogs. Half the crap that you see on the biggest
rigs, like compressors, complex EQs, biamplification, etc. is stuff
that *already exists in the PA system* for much the same reasons.
--
Brian Rost
Ascom Timeplex APBU
rost_...@timeplex.com
********************************************************
Hey baby, you're on a subliminal trip to nowhere!
********************************************************
David Copeland
Grego Sanguinetti <gr...@teleport.com# wrote:
#David Copeland <dav...@access.rrinc.com.blacksburg.va.us> wrote:
#>I don't have very good pickups, so I make the sound guy mike it.
#
#Ah, there it is. Your bass sounds bad to start with? The PA is
#faithfully reproducing a "dead and crappy" tone? I'm only being
#half serious here, but it does sound like you are using your
#amps coloration to make up for sound that isn't comming directly
#from your bass. That's fair but the discussion sort of assumed we
#were talking about a bass signal that sounded good to start with.
I'm not sure why that assumption would be made. Not everyone who plays
in a band has bartaloni active pickups. I don't. I just have some stock
pickups. I shouldn't have to have that high end stuff to get a good sound.
#
#In leu of getting better pickups/bass, you could run two feeds,
#one direct and the other miked from your amp. Then you can play with
#the mixture at the board. This is a fairly standard practice in the
#studio and in larger venues (when there is time).
Yeah, I've never had the ability to try this, but I'd like to.
#
#As to using effects, well that's something you have to work out with the
#sound person. The PA will amplify the heck out of your signal. If it is
#noisy you will make the sound person very unhappy. Effects units are
#usually built pretty cheaply and have a very bad reputation for
#producing a very high noise floor. You may not notice this when running
#through your bass amp but will be painfully obvious through the megawatt
#PA.
Or I could just say, "Here's my rig. Mike it" and then there's no hassle.
Why mess with all this crap just to avoid putting a mike next the the bass
cab? There's been several points made but I think that everyone is
ignoring the fact that some (probably most) of us that play shows have
average basses with average pickups and usually use our amps to make up for
that. A discussion on how to amplify basses with really good sound quality
is a little one-sided and probably not very useful to the average reader.
Dave C
Patrick Powers
Scott Allen Miller <igo...@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>
>in either position. Bass waves are omnidirectional and radiate out in all
>directions with almost the same amplitude. That's why you hear bass thumping in
>and outside a club at about the same volume!
>
you can hear bass outside the club is that low frequencies carry
though light barriers like walls but high frequencies don't. I've
heard of studios hanging sheets of lead to block bass, because it takes
a lot of mass, while even cotton will stop the highs.
Steve Manes
: I do not think that any frequency is "more directional" than any other. They
: differ in length and speed.
They also differ in focus. This is a widely-recognized acoustic (and
psychoacoustic) principle. It's why you only use a single subwoofer in
high-tech audiophile stereos, why high-freq s/r apps use directional horns
and low freqs use largely omnidirectional bins, and why acoustically-treated
rooms use diffusers to reduce high frequency bounce and resonators to
attenuate lows.
: The problem with miking a bass amp in my opinion is
: that you lose alot putting the mike close to the cab.
This is true too. A bass wave takes several feet to develop. It's a very
tough miking job to do it effectively but about the best I've heard used two
mikes... a 421 about a foot from the speaker, pointed midway between the
center and the edge of the cone, and a 414 (or I guess any large diaphragm
mic) about eight feet from the cabinet for bottom. Obviously, it was an
overdub situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Manes ma...@magpie.com
N'Yawk, N'Yawk =o&>o
Steve Manes
: Wrongo...going direct is a relatively recent phenomenon (mid-seventies
: or so), before that amps were miked.
Wrongo. You're off by about 15 years. By the mid-seventies, the recording
world was already migrating away from transformer to active transformerless
DIs like the Countryman. The first professional recording I did was in a
crappy little three-track (yeah, three tracks) in Washington, DC in 1968 and
I went direct through a big mutha homebrew DI... musta weighed eight pounds
and sounded great. These made a brief revival in the early 80s because they
handled spikes from slap bass better than most transformerless boxes at the
time. By 1970, I was in NYC and recording pretty often and the only non-DI
setup I ever encountered was an experiment with Brooks Arthur where he stuck
a bunch of Barcus-Berry transducers all over the bass and some unknown mic
on the cabinet. It didn't work at all.
Alex Basson
>In article <34ln5p$j...@kelly.teleport.com#,
>Grego Sanguinetti <gr...@teleport.com# wrote:
>#David Copeland <dav...@access.rrinc.com.blacksburg.va.us> wrote:
>
>#>I don't have very good pickups, so I make the sound guy mike it.
>#
>#Ah, there it is. Your bass sounds bad to start with? The PA is
>#faithfully reproducing a "dead and crappy" tone? I'm only being
>#half serious here, but it does sound like you are using your
>#amps coloration to make up for sound that isn't comming directly
>#from your bass. That's fair but the discussion sort of assumed we
>#were talking about a bass signal that sounded good to start with.
>
>I'm not sure why that assumption would be made. Not everyone who plays
>in a band has bartaloni active pickups. I don't. I just have some stock
>pickups. I shouldn't have to have that high end stuff to get a good sound.
>
>#
>#In leu of getting better pickups/bass, you could run two feeds,
>#one direct and the other miked from your amp. Then you can play with
>#the mixture at the board. This is a fairly standard practice in the
>#studio and in larger venues (when there is time).
>
Maybe not to you, there's no hassle. But miking a bass amp is incredibly
difficult to do well, and even then you compromise on the abilities of the
PA system. Every time you put another mike on stage, you decrease the
headroom of the system, increase the feedback, decrease the sound quality
(somewhat -- no mike can perfercly pick up your sound), etc. Bass amps are
all of this, and even worse, because without some really fancy stuff and
a really good soundman, it won't even sound good then.
>Why mess with all this crap just to avoid putting a mike next the the bass
>cab? There's been several points made but I think that everyone is
>ignoring the fact that some (probably most) of us that play shows have
>average basses with average pickups and usually use our amps to make up for
>that. A discussion on how to amplify basses with really good sound quality
>is a little one-sided and probably not very useful to the average reader.
Not true. First of all, you make it sound like the soundman just doesn't
want to be bothered with climbing up on stage and sticking a mike in front
of the amp -- it's not that it at all. Miking a bass amp is a real headache.
And secondly, at the most recent show I was soundman for, the bassist used
an Ibanez SR800 -- a fairly average, proletariate, most-gigging-bassists-
have-something-of-comperable-quality bass -- and I DI'd it. It sounded
*better* than it did after the show, when he plugged it into his amp. It
had more punch, more definition, better tone, and it was oh-so-easy to
soundcheck. Imagine: a DI's bass, taking a lead from the lead guitarist's
effect box, and electronic drums -- the only mikes on stage were for the
rhythm guitartist and the vocals. Ahhh, if only all bands could be so
easy....
Alex Basson
apba...@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago
Glenn Stanton
dav...@access.rrinc.com.blacksburg.va.us writes:
===snip===
>#The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
>#does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
>
>Again, this makes no sense to me at all. If this were true how could
>all these bass amp manufacturers stay in business?
the PA is generally optimized for broader freq reproduction
than a typical bass amp. to really hear everything your axe
has to offer requires a _pure_ sound field. this is a sterile
method but gives you the best idea of how your bass actually
sounds electronically.
for small gigs I use my amping setup and the associated
built-in EQ.
for large gigs and outdoors (if I'm still not going thru the
PA) I'll use my Cerwin-Vega & A7 along with my _small_ PA
amps, eq, effects.
for really large gigs and places where I'm plugged in, I'll use
my amping setup as the monitor and DI. (post effects if I'm using
them, otherwise straight from the bass).
for my money (.02) miking up a bass cabinet just produces mud, unless
you're in the studio and can mike it with some separation. this way
you'll
get the room and cabinet sound.
lata'
David L. Campbell
>In article <34kia2$e...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> David Copeland,
>dav...@access.rrinc.com.blacksburg.va.us writes:
>===snip===
>>#The whole idea of going direct is that your amp
>>#does NOT reproduce the full sound of your bass. If you don't need
>>
>>Again, this makes no sense to me at all. If this were true how could
>>all these bass amp manufacturers stay in business?
>===snip===
>
>the PA is generally optimized for broader freq reproduction
>than a typical bass amp. to really hear everything your axe
>has to offer requires a _pure_ sound field. this is a sterile
>method but gives you the best idea of how your bass actually
>sounds electronically.
That's true, but it doesn't make a PA a better amplication system for a
bass. Quite the opposite, in fact. As in the case of an electric
guitar, the coloration added by your bass amp and speakers is generally a
*desirable* thing. The relatively flat and broad range reproduction of a
PA system is typically sterile and dull. If that weren't the case, then
bass amp manufacturers would model their systems after PA's and make them
flatter and broader band. There are no technical reasons they couldn't
do this; the reasons are pragmatic -- it doesn't sound as good. Miking a
bass amp is a pain because, among other things, miking adds its own
coloration that can be undesirable. For live use, I personally like to
take a direct feed off the amp or preamp with a cabinet simulator between
the it and the board.
David.
--
+-----==== opinions expressed do not represent those of my employer ====-----+
| David L. Campbell, IBM Austin, TX | "... and you eat your own soul |
| Internet: dcam...@austin.ibm.com | until the only thing |
| VNET: dcampbel at austin | left is appetite..." |
Jonathan Attea
>>the PA is generally optimized for broader freq reproduction
>>than a typical bass amp. to really hear everything your axe
>>has to offer requires a _pure_ sound field. this is a sterile
>>method but gives you the best idea of how your bass actually
>>sounds electronically.
~700hz and a boost again at 3khz. this may not neccisarily be what the bassist
wants.
jonat...@delphi.com
dst...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
>
>
>I don't know if your from some perfect planet or something, but perfectly
>flat sound does NOT sound good to the average listener. People LIKE
>a boost at 160 HZ because it nice bass. that's what they fee; in their
>stomach. They also like a boost at 3khz because it sounds brighter.
[deleted]
Don't forget too that the human ear itself does not have a flat
response - and that the response varies according to the sound level.
That's why my 1970's vintage NAD3020 hifi amp has a loudness button -
too artificially boost the low frequencies when playing at low volumes.
Of course, now everyone seems to want to listen to 300W in their
9 x 12 apartment, so we don't really need that feature any more....
Dave.
Dean Aldridge
jonat...@delphi.com writes:
>Instrument speakers, like the JBL
>i have inmy bass cab is made to be as flat as possible. they normally
don't
>use those kind of speakers in PA systems.
>
Isn't it the other way around? I thought instrument speakers were
*meant* to colour the sound and not just reproduce faithfully what comes
out of the amp - it's a big part of the sound in lots of cases. Guitar
speakers certainly colour the signal from guitar amps; otherwise why
would everyone be into those 30W celestians so much? Because the cone
breaks up nicely when you push it. Your JBL bass speaker will have
another characteristic which makes it sound nice (*very* nice, as you
know) for bass.
A PA speaker is there to reproduces *all* the frequencies that come off
a stage, including bass, guitar, vocals, drums, clarinet, oboe, horns,
cello, saxophone, kazoo, chainsaw, etc etc. And you're trying to say
that speaker manufacturers have decided that there is only one frequency
response curve which sounds so good for everytyhing that they might as
well build it into the speakers? I don't think so - it'd be like buying
an EQ with some of the knobs stuck at +4db and others at -3db.
It might be common in say, rock/pop music to find the sort of cuts and
boosts you describe on the EQ, but PA speakers themselves are designed to
be as flat as possible.
Carl D. Morris II
>
>
>I don't know if your from some perfect planet or something, but perfectly
>flat sound does NOT sound good to the average listener.
People generally like flat sound when they hear it, it's just
that they never get to. What people THINK is flat is usually screwed
up by mediocre speakers.
> People LIKE
>a boost at 160 HZ because it nice bass. that's what they fee; in their
>stomach. They also like a boost at 3khz because it sounds brighter.
>people don't like 700 hz because it sounds like an old radio so that is
>usually cut. that's why everyone's eq on their home stereo system lookes
>like a U.
Everyone's EQ looks like a U because their speakers are weak.
> Say you kept the eq flat, that that's fine, but that dosen't mean the
>speakers are flat. I know for a fact that most Eq Speakers already have boosts
>at 160hz and 3khz. that's what people like. Instrument speakers, like the JBL
>i have inmy bass cab is made to be as flat as possible. they normally don't
>use those kind of speakers in PA systems.
>
Top quality PA speakers are as flat as they can be made and still
take the required amount of abuse. If you spend enough on speakers, no
EQ is required except to deal with room resonances. A truly flat speaker
(none exist that I know of) would have outstanding deep bass to the
average listener.
-- Carl Morris (cmo...@uwyo.edu)
Jonathan Attea
>>Instrument speakers, like the JBL
>>i have inmy bass cab is made to be as flat as possible. they normally
>don't
>>use those kind of speakers in PA systems.
>>
>
>Isn't it the other way around? I thought instrument speakers were
>*meant* to colour the sound and not just reproduce faithfully what comes
>out of the amp - it's a big part of the sound in lots of cases. Guitar
far as "flatness" goes are Monitor speakers. NEXT would be
instrument speakers, and then home speakers. notice that the first two are
made for Musician's to use, the second two (oops, the second one, i forgot
PA speaker) are made for the general public... hehe we're better!
haha
jonath...@delphi.com
Carl D. Morris II
>
>the best speakers as
>far as "flatness" goes are Monitor speakers. NEXT would be
>instrument speakers, and then home speakers. notice that the first two are
>made for Musician's to use, the second two (oops, the second one, i forgot
>PA speaker) are made for the general public... hehe we're better!
>haha
>
>jonath...@delphi.com
I have to beg to differ once again. There are many "home"
speakers as good (flat) or better than good studio monitors, they
are just so expensive most people don't buy them. Instrument speakers
are the only category I know of that coloration can be considered
a good thing is some applications.
-- Carl Morris (cmo...@uwyo.edu)
Tim Maggio
>> the best speakers as
>> far as "flatness" goes are Monitor speakers. NEXT would be
>> instrument speakers, and then home speakers. notice that the first two are
>> made for Musician's to use, the second two (oops, the second one, i forgot
>> PA speaker) are made for the general public... hehe we're better!
>> haha
Carl> I have to beg to differ once again. There are many "home"
Carl> speakers as good (flat) or better than good studio monitors, they
Carl> are just so expensive most people don't buy them. Instrument speakers
Carl> are the only category I know of that coloration can be considered
Carl> a good thing is some applications.
Question:
Could studio monitor speakers be used as home stereo speakers? I would
assume that if they are 8 ohm, it would be no problem as long as wattage
is matched up.
Thanks.
--
: Tim Maggio #
: tim...@morgan.com |
: Q
: Everyone within a 150 mile radius is responsible for my opinion. (_)
Jonathan Attea
>Question:
>Could studio monitor speakers be used as home stereo speakers? I would
>assume that if they are 8 ohm, it would be no problem as long as wattage
>is matched up.
we sell are the studio moniter ones... they are usually 8 ohms, and
wattage rarely is a porblem. The only thing, though, home speakers
probably sound better than studio moniteers..
jonat...@delphi.com
Carl D. Morris II
Absolutely. However, just as with home stereo speakers (and
everything else), you get what you pay for. If you prefer to hear a
big (inaccurate) bass peak that some speaker manufacturers build into
their stereo speakers to make up for lack of response farther down the
frequency scale, you may not like the sound of a comparably priced
monitor (assuming top priority for the monitor manufacturer was accuracy).
-- Carl Morris (cmo...@uwyo.edu)