mcgraham

[quote]Cheers for all your comments, guys. Looks like I'd better start putting some money aside each week, cos I've pretty much talked myself into it![/quote] You won't regret it. It's optimal in so many ways. I actually travelled down with it for a jazz gig at a wedding that I was also attending. Took it on the train with bass and clothes. Not a problem! Filled a maaaaassive hotel venue with high ceilings. Mark

Perhaps, but we can all be wrong Mark

[quote]With a well constructed bass the body vibrates a lot - there is a lot of energy moving between the body and the strings. You can't just write off the complex feedback system of the resonant parts of the instrument just because you don't don't think it is important. Yes, it's all important, the player in particular, but the acoustic nature of the instrument is fundamental to its sound. Whatever you do with pickups and electronics you cannot get around the acoustic character of the instrument.[/quote] Alex, I'm not writing off the complex resonances of the system. I [i]have [/i]considered them, but I have reached a different conclusion to you. Mark

I disagree. I'm not missing it, I've discussed it above. I just don't consider it to have the same influence on the tone that you do. Mark

+1. Thanks Bilbo. I also appreciate you making this stuff available. I admire Steve's tone, so distinct. Must be the pick. And the wood Mark

I gave the specific store that had the item I wanted in stock a call. Did it over the phone. He even knew which one it was and went and checked they still had it for me there and then. Nice bloke too! Mark

[quote]Yes, it's all about the construction of the bass. And what are most basses constructed of? The wood!!![/quote] *rolls eyes* we're going to be here a while aren't we? I never said it had NO effect. I'm pointing out that I believe the two (imparting of tone vs rigidity of construction) to be inversely proportional to one another, and I rate construction of a lot of basses very highly. As such I don't consider the imparting of tone of wood to be as big a deal as people make it out to be. Mark

[quote]TBH I had not garnered the above sentiment from your earlier posts so I find myself far more in agreement with you than I previously thought, probably through my dearth of proper knowledge on the subject...[/quote] Again, my apologies I was mainly focusing on the physics rather than my own experiences for the purposes of discussion. Mark

Jake, thanks for your comments. I apologise if I came across as discounting one's experiences absolutely. That was not my intent. Ultimately with music and musical instruments, subjectiveness is all that matters. If it gets the sound you want it gets the sound you want, end of. Whether it's scientifically true/supported, or whether it's psychosomatic has NO bearing on your subjective experience, at least at a given time. Also, I've already said I don't have all the answers, and neither does science for that matter. Even if it did, our ears are always going to have the final say anyway! Mark

[quote]A bass body has numerous resonant frequencies so this absorbtion occurs all over the frequency spectrum. However, this energy does also return to the string, further exciting it and giving sustain. The energy returned to the string depends upon the Q (or inverse of self-damping) of the resonator at the relevant frequency.[/quote] Indeed. Damping of the string's motion is inherently linked to the witness point absorbing energy from the strings vibration. And I have already said the witness points return energy to the string by virtue of their bounding of the string. I do not see what point in my reasoning you are disagreeing with here. I do not think we are disagreeing on the fundamental principles of this, but I do feel we are disagreeing on the subjective effect of these factors. I do not deny that electric instruments sound different, and that this is (in part) due to the woods. I even submit to the fact that two basses with the same configuration (alder body, maple neck, rosewood board, both Fender American series configuration for example) can sound different. However I attribute significantly more of the sound to the construction of a bass and the electronics before the wood. Mark

Jake, I disagree. I don't feel I am underestimating the effect that wood has on the tone of the instrument. I consider that the opposite is true of most musicians, and that this is erroneous thinking with little to no scientific basis. Experience is valid yes, but often experiences are linked with certain attributes with little to no sound reasoning. An instrument is constructed from solid materials, these solid materials will naturally have at least one resonant frequency. As such, I do not dispute that a given instrument made from given materials will have given resonant frequencies that affect the oscillation of the strings to impart a particular tone. This is logical and totally sound. However, we must give regard to the mechanism by which the physical instrument affects the vibration of the string. Not only this, but we must also look at the exactly what resonant peaks exist and how they manifest themselves. Firstly, in a physically ideal string system, an (open) string would be anchored at one end and another end 34" apart (or pick your scale length). The string would be light, but not inextendible as it needs to be able to extend its length to oscillate. The anchor/witness points would be 100% stable and immobile, i.e. they do not move in reaction to the strings motion. When we pluck a string, the simplest thing that happens is a standing wave is set up (there is more complex motion than this but for the purpose of explanation a standing wave will be sufficient). This is a wave that does not actually propagate (or travel) along the string, but is bounded (contained/located) between the two anchor points. As a result of this bounding, it can ONLY oscillate at frequencies where the corresponding wavelength can by multiplied by an integer number to sum to the total oscillating string length (ignoring the extension of the string due to oscillating) Therefore: 34" or 0.864m = n x (wavelength)/2 where n=1, 2, 3 ... So, shove in the integer numbers and you find that you have a large number of possible wavelengths that the string can take. The first integer number that defines an adoptable wavelength is the fundamental, the rest are harmonic overtones. As they are all valid solutions, a string can adopt all of these in a given oscillation in given proportions. These proportions are restricted by string mass, materials, stiffness, energy introduced into the string, where it was plucked etc, i.e. they are not all equally present for all time in a given oscillation, higher frequencies tend to drop off due to overall stiffness, some were damped anyway due to the string being plucked at a point where a given frequency/set of frequencies could not develop (nodes and anti-nodes, I've not discussed these). Going back to the anchor points, this is in a physically ideal system; this is never the case in the real world. With Newton's laws of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. the anchor points are responsible for the string motion being 'bounded' between them (I don't want to take up more space with a more complex explanation). As such they experience forces of the strings movement effectively trying to continue beyond the anchor point. If they were not secure they would move with the string and the string motion would not be bounded (imagine infinite number of 34" lengths of string joined together and witness points every 34", but where each anchor is just a bit of fluff tied to the string at such points). If they are totally secure they will return the exact amount of force necessary to keep the string motion bounded in the 34" length. In reality they are somewhere between these two extremes. Going back to the resonance of an instrument, if the anchor points move at all, they will naturally do so at their natural resonant frequencies (or similarly at a distribution of frequencies around these peaks). If they do this, they will absorb energy from the oscillations of the string, but PRIMARILY at these resonant peaks/distribution around these peaks. They CANNOT introduce new energy, they can ONLY remove it. This would be the primary mechanism by which the physical instrument affects the frequencies of an oscillating string. Again, sounds fairly favourable for instruments imparting tone yes? Well, we are trying to marry objective science with subjective hearing. What I hear from an instrument is not what the average joe listener hears, which is not what another bassist/saxophonist/guitarist/drummer/trianglist hears. As such, to obtain an objective understanding we cannot start with the 'this wood gets this sound, so why is that?'. Instead we have to ask the question 'how would a given piece of wood/material affect the bass, and to what extent?' Furthermore, as with magnetic pickups, there are certain points to consider. I mentioned that real physical systems are never totally secure at their anchor points. However, the question remains: how secure are the anchor points in solid body electric basses? Well, other than the answer 'variable' as each instrument is different, it's quite hard to say. Alex summed it up in another thread (which I concur with and paraphrase here): the materials in an instrument serve two purposes - to impart/affect tone and to provide a rigid constructed system, and the better the rigid system, the less the materials used affect the strings motion/tone. In essence, the closer to an ideal system the instrument is the less it affects the tone. So in fact, all these companies/luthiers striving for super rigid necks and systems are reducing the individual effect of wood on tone, i.e. the influence on tone that a wood's resonance has decreases. Sometimes different tone is discernable between two radically different basses, and sometimes different tone is discernable between two remarkable similar basses. I have experienced both of these to varying degrees. However from a scientific perspective my subjective experience is neither here nor there, and as such cannot be used as a starting point, merely a suggestion that can and should be thrown away if it disagrees with the science. I feel that there is an awful lot of poor quality assertions going on about how much wood affects tone. One property of a wood is, again, neither here nor there for imparting tone. Super dense wood? So what about its strength? Or its resilience? Or hardness? A dense wood is useless if it isn't strong or sufficiently hard (at least in neck construction); a good hardness of fingerboard for secure anchoring of the frets would (in theory) be more than enough to provide for secure anchorage of the string, does it really need to be dense? Do some factors overtake each other? I'm not saying luthiers haven't looked beyond such scientific terms to simply 'knowing' what works and doesn't on a qualitative level, and I definitely don't have all the answers on this point, but I do want to encourage scientific thought and skepticism in the interest of finding out some real answers, and stop it with the wild assertions and bold conjecture based on subjective experience that is contradicted by science. I think I've made it clear that I consider certain held beliefs about solid body instruments to be in contradiction of the science. I'm happy to be proved wrong though! I'm just interested in the truth. If you want yet another confusing factor, our bodies are part of this complex oscillating system. We are big fleshy sacs of flesh and blood. We have quite complex resonances that change based on our how fat/fluid filled/bony/muscle-y we are, whether it rests on a beer belly or it is firmly anchored to our hip. We are anchored to our instrument when using them, and as such, we affect the resonance of the instrument. In fact, we (in general) damp the oscillations of the physical instrument. I have not fully considered how this affects tone, but needless to say it introduces further ambiguity as to what imparts what to the tone of an instrument. Also, engineers will recognise that cars, planes, trains, bridges etc, need to be built from a number of materials in varying proportions to try and spread resonant peaks out to have as even a resonance response as possible. This is to ensure that when they undergo movement they do not experience excessive sympathetic vibrations that cause wear, tear and damage. This is accomplished by using widely varying materials to create a much more complex oscillating system than just one piece of one uniform material. Electric basses are often like this, and wood is also subject to this as it is organic and rarely uniform. As such, I consider it to be fair to refer to it as a complex oscillating system in which resonances are spread out and the peaks are quite low in comparison to just a beam of uniform material. This is a further point which leads me to believe that the very nature of construction of a wooden bass doesn't affect tone by resonance to the extent that is touted. So, in a nutshell, the better the construction the less the resonance affects tone. I am of the opinion that such systems are excellent oscillating string systems (i.e. 'close' to ideal) and that claiming that wood so radically affects tone (ignoring other factors) puts forward the stance that they are closer to non-ideal. This would be in direct contradiction to luthiers strivances for a better made instrument. There's more I want to say, but I need to get to the office... EDIT: I posted in a rush and have just read this through again, there's a few points I consider to be slightly woolly in their explanation so I'll tidy them up soon. --- DONE! Mark

Ugh, you expect me to settle the debate of how much wood affects tone in a solid body bass? In one post? ... ok, give me a little more time Mark

Right, lets see if I can explain what I consider to be the physics of magnetic pickups properly without missing too much out. Apologies for the length and for any 'needless' repetition. Also, these thoughts are all from thought experiments and musings on this, rather than actual experiments I have done, so that's my disclaimer right there. [u]Construction[/u] You have a permanent magnet surrounded by lengths of coiled wire. The magnet provides a magnetic field that the string sits in. The shape of the field is not entirely dissimilar geometrically to a cardioid sensitivity pattern of a microphone, but do not confuse the two (Note: I am not an expert on microphones, but I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that they work in a physically different way, albeit on the same principle of electromagnetic induction). [u]Physics[/u] When the string is plucked, it moves relative to the magnetic field and through it. You can also view it from the frame of reference of the string, i.e. the string is stationary and the magnetic field moves relative to the string. According to Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction, this causes small eddy currents to occur within the string. These are small, localised loops of current that are proportional to the change in magnetic field causing them, i.e. they are representative of the movement/frequency that is experienced by the string in that magnetic field. These representative currents in turn create magnetic fields. These magnetic fields (by the same principle stated above) induce currents in each of the coils surrounding the magnetic field. Each coil picks up a given amount of induced current, so the greater the number of coils the larger the total induced current. From there, your cable connects your pickups to the amplifier that amplifies this signal to a point that it can drive your speaker, an area which I'm confident you know more about than I do Sounds ok yes? There are some drawbacks and limitations to transparency of this method of picking up string vibrations. [u]Issues/Limitations[/u] Faraday's law is only half the story. The physically correct law is Lenz's Law of electromagnetic induction. This is Faraday's law but with a negative sign on the right hand side. This is in order to satisfy the law of conservation of energy. This physically means that the currents induced in a moving conductor by a magnetic field (or vice versa, both are valid) must flow in a direction that opposes the motion causing them. Essentially, this sets up a feedback system that effectively damps the vibrations of the string. As the currents are highly localised, and the relative position of the fields change based on the fret that is depressed, this makes for quite a complex feedback system. I haven't tried any thought experiments on this, but at the very least I feel it is justified to say that it actually affects the oscillation of the string and not in a uniform way. This is a major reason I think it's incorrect to compare it with a microphone. The coils are responsible for picking up the magnetic fields created by the eddy currents. However, it is a long length of wire that is firstly an inductor, but it is also inherently a resistor. As some of you may be aware, higher resistance pickups (longer wire length, typically more coils) have a hotter output, but they also lose top end. My understanding is that this is due to the higher resistance and the higher frequency signals are attenuated by such pickups. Equally so, I believe that a number of active pickups have fewer windings (= less resistance) and preamplify the signal onboard the bass. The higher frequencies are not attenuated to the same extent as they are in passive hotter wound pickups. You could call this the 'character' of the pickup, and sometimes this is desirable, as it is with microphones (personal choice), but the frequency response is immensely more variable, as Alex has already pointed out previously (e.g. poor electronics and pickups in basses). Furthermore, and this is an afterthought, it is both a resistor and an inductor. I believe this would introduce additional issues with resonant peaks (RLC circuits etc), but I haven't put much thought into this yet. I'll get back to you on that. If you've managed to get through all that, well done! And I'm sure you can see already that there are some real physical flaws in likening these to microphones, and that magnetic pickups do have their limitations. I want to contrast this with microphones, particularly with the physics of extended range capacitor microphones as well as normal dynamic mics and piezo pickups, but I'll stop here for now. Again, sorry for the length. Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense. Mark

Electrovoice ND967 for 65 quid. Bargainous. Mark

Sorry Alex, I disagree with your interpretation of the physics there. Re: the acoustic 'nature' of the instrument - Yes, there are resonances that the body introduces into the oscillation of the strings. I consider this is more evident on solid body electric basses than solid body electric guitars for a number of reasons, and I acknowledge that construction affects tone. However, I am of the opinion that types of wood impart much less to the tone than people give it credit for, given a high level of construction (We discussed this in another thread). As such, I consider that such colouration is negligible, particularly (IMO) given the coloured nature (I supposit this) of the way in which we translate the strings movement into amplified sound, i.e. magnetic pickups. [quote]The 'narrow window' that the pickup is seeing is no more narrow than a close mic on an acoustic instrument or a pickup on an acoustic instrument.[/quote] I totally disagree. Magnetic pickups have a significantly narrower window than most mics. Moreover, with pickups you are actually detecting the movement of the [i]string [/i]at that exact window via induction and detection of eddy currents in the string, and not the compressions and rarefactions developed by an acoustic body and transmitted through the air to a microphone that actually detects the sound created by the body of the instrument. As such, it is not at all representative of what the overall acoustic sound is/would be. Based on this distinction, how could it be? Re: your choice of pickups - I behave similarly, I use my pickup selector and my hand position to change my tone. However, I approach this with the additional forethought of developing what I consider to be good practice habits and correct technique; I practice through a headphone amp with some of the bass dialled out to distinguish mistakes and the like, mainly bridge pickup to hear my tone clean, and with a touch more treble so I can weed out issues with fretnoise/clank/fingernoise etc. I effectively eq my bass to get (what I feel) is closer to what would be an acoustic sound. Re: issues with beginners basses - Whilst I think there are other issues too, I agree that the amplified sound that beginner basses get is poor, and doesn't allow them to develop good tone/sound or even technique. However, practicing unplugged doesn't automatically correct for this. In fact, I would say that if a beginner started doing this they would develop AWFUL technique, their playing ability would suffer, and it could in fact cause them real physical harm. Also, it doesn't attack the root of the problem: their bass. Even IF this allowed them to get good acoustic tone, you've just pointed out that there bass lacks the ability to reproduce good tone. How will practicing unplugged remedy this? Replace the pickups and electronics? buy a better bass? We ultimately come out of an amplified setup; my point is that to practice any other way and say that this is a better way to practice, or even an equal way to practicing through an amp is being ignorant of a key component of how our instruments make their sound. Mark

[quote]Re) the volume control being at the back as Machines mentioned above what I do is just turn it to full and then use the volume on the preamp to control the volume which seems to work fine for me.[/quote] I set the preamp levels such that I'm getting a touch of tube warmth out of it (gain on 1/2, volume on 1/4 at present), and then dial up/back the volume on the cab so that I could adjust volume levels using the preamp. As it happens it's on 1/4 volume (or 3/4 from 0db decrease if you prefer). And that's without the extension cab. Tres ridiculous volume! Mark

I think I posted about the slap sound in your other thread, but I'll embellish a little here. I find the slap sound to be great as the sound is so even and tight all over. The tweeter is a lot sweeter sounding and less in your face/abrasive/aggressive than standard piezo tweeters. Ask Mark @ BD about it for the full run down. As such I do tend to dial in just a little extra treble on the top end as I'm a fan of Marcus Miller sizzle in my slap sound, not so much into the darker slap sounds that Larry Graham, or Stuart Zender went for. It's a marginal amount though and it's my personal preference. If you're used to playing more run of the mill bass cabs (or even slightly higher end ones) you won't be disappointed. I used to have a Schroeder with very clean amps running through it (Acoustic Image and Thunderfunk). It cut really well, and was very prominent in the mix, it filled the room fairly well and didn't need much PA support. However, despite the less aggressive treble, the Berg cuts BETTER than the Schroeder, sits beautifully, sounds even and full and all throughout the room and [i]doesn't [/i]need PA support. And I barely have it turned up. AND I don't yet have the extension cab. Make of that what you will. If you want to treat yourself to this rig brand new, fair enough. But I'd hold off for a bit to see if anyone puts one up for sale second hand, as it's not a small amount of money to be throwing about for something that you could potentially get for half the price. Mark

Thanks for the heads up. There were some absolute bargains in there. I've dropped them an email about a microphone I'm interested in. Mark

EDIT: I should point out that I'm not saying that there's no good points to practicing unplugged. However I believe there are significantly more bad things than good that will be kicked up by primarily practicing this way. [quote]They are acoustic instruments before they are electric instruments.[/quote] I have already acknowledged they have oscillating strings and a resonating body. However, we do not amplify the acoustic resonance of the body, which I would consider to be the true hallmark of an acoustic instrument. Instead we 'image' a narrow aperture of the vibrating aperture and amplify the specific frequencies that occur within that narrow aperture. As such, I have to disagree with this statement. [quote]I've been doing this for enough years to know it works for me. Maybe that's because I prefer to have a higher action and heavier strings on my basses and thus although my dynamic range is very wide I often play relatively hard.[/quote] If that's your personal preference fair enough [quote]I know I'm good at getting the sound I want from almost any bass and I attribute part of that skill to unplugged practice.[/quote] Well, I know I'm good at getting the sound I want from almost any bass and I attribute that to correct practice through an amplified system. Again, personal preference, but I will not concede your way is a good way to practice. [quote]Electric guitar is an instrument that requires the tone of the amp on 99.9% of recordings (special exemption for Nile Rodgers). Electric bass does not, it's personal preference.[/quote] Maybe so, but my argument is in respect of developing correct technique. I do not believe you hear an accurate representation of your amplified sound listening to your bass unplugged. [quote]If you make a conscious decision to shift the upper and lower points of your dynamic range downwards and thus your unplugged instrument has insufficient acoustic volume then I can understand thinking that you have to practice plugged in - you indeed may need to, but given a louder bass and/or player and a quieter home environment then you may not. But I would contend that any decision to limit your upper limit of manual loudness limits your dynamic range because we all hit the same noise floor at the bottom.[/quote] If you had a bass that was loud enough resonance from its body to be mic'd up, I would say that was an acoustic instrument, and that your amplified sound was going to be (reasonably) fair representation of your acoustic sound, and I would have no issue with that. However, what you are saying is that a) basses are acoustic instruments first and foremost - I have made my point above; b ) pickups replicate the sound and you adjust your pickup selection in the way that you would adjust the microphone position on an acoustic instrument - I consider this to be a highly flawed analogy. As I have mentioned above, magnetic/inductive pickups witness a very narrow aperture of the string, mitigate certain frequencies 'witnessed' in that narrow aperture due to their design (although Q-tuners are perhaps a certain exception) etc. To say that they accurately reproduce the primary acoustic nature of the instrument is (IMO) is a flawed assumption. They effectively sample only a portion of the strings vibration, and therefore transmit and reproduce (a better word would be represent) the 'acoustic' vibrations of your bass [i]differently[/i] through an amplifier, an amplifier being the way you make your instrument audible. As such, to practice without this in mind would be (IMO) an erroneous decision. Mark

[quote]I do have a certain sound though and a wide dynamic range in my fingers as a result.[/quote] Maybe so, though I would say that such dynamic variation is also perfectly achievable (and even more so but with a lighter touch IME) using amplification. So I commend you for wanting to move to an amplified practice routine. Your bass is not your instrument, your whole setup is; you should treat it like a total instrument, i.e. think of every component as part of the equation when you practice. Otherwise, when you come to perform, you'll effectively be playing a 'different' instrument as new components that weren't there during your practice will now be affecting your sound. Mark

[quote]Nowadays I tend to practice unplugged and unaccompanied (but my bass is quite loud acoustically)[/quote] -1. I don't agree with doing this at all. Whilst our instruments may have oscillating strings and have [i]some[/i] limited acoustic volume, they are [i]electric[/i] instruments. Setting aside the point that this may arguably be a more 'honest' way of playing (I take issue with that), I believe that doing this introduces what I would consider to be bad technique and playing habits, e.g. playing harder than you need to in general to achieve a higher acoustic volume, not playing high notes and low notes evenly as you are trying to obtain similar perceived acoustic volume. Essentially, I consider that by doing this one would be learning to adjust one's playing and sound to be something that is NEVER the sound that would be produced by your amp, at least by a purely electric instrument with magnetic pickups. Even if they are Q-tuners. I apologise if I sound slightly agitated on this point; it gets my heckles up when I see/hear/hear of people doing this (particularly electric guitarists). Mark

I agree with you CK, I'd like to try it with a decent solid state preamp, just to feel out the contrast between the two. Mark