51m0n

Over 30 years practice so far, still learning. It's just one of those things. The sooner you start studying this stuff the sooner you can apply what you've learnt....

That's it discussion over 🤪

Not if he's still sporting a mullett....

You will find that 1 and 2 are effectively boiled down to, do our vocalists deliver, and, can we mix our live sound effectively. If you can't then number 3 is highly unlikely too IME. And being able to properly use eq (parametric and graphic as appropriate), compression, reverb/delay are absolutely vital to achieving that as a bare minimum. So whilst I said compression was a small part of mixing as a whole, it's a vital part. If you ask me to rank the tools required to mix in order of importance (both to understand and to getting a great mix), for me it goes like this for live:- 1/ graphic eq - to ring out monitors and FOH 2/ Parametric eq - to remove ugly timbres, subtractive eq is far more effective than additive eq whilst sounding more natural with tighter q 3/ Gain, Faders and Groups and Monitor sends to achieve an easy to control consistent mix for everyone - yep eq is more important than faders to really grasp imo. Shocking I know. 4/ Compression/ducking - to be able to balance levels across time and get a better mix with more being audible without resorting to more volume and heavier eq to do it. Note not really for levelling at all then! 5/ Delay - because great delays can provide the sense of space of a reverb without the clutter 6/ Reverb - sometimes only a reverb will do, but what type and with what settings?

Yeah Al you've got the wrong end of the stick a bit. I don't think I quite got across my point. It's like this, punters are used to significantly better produced music than they were even 15 years ago. They expect that level of sophistication in order to consider a band really good. They couldn't really tell you this on the whole, I'm not suggesting they are all secretly qualified to critique a live mix on a technical level. But it comes down to getting the emotional connection between you as a performer and your audience. Big tours have unbelievable mix capabilities live now. Small gigs down the pub actually do too. If you can break out of the "I am bassist, simple pawn in game of life" mentality, and embrace an attitude that includes, "We can, for reasonable outlay of money and some fairly significant outlay in time and learning get within a hair's breadth of that quality of output". Then for a frankly tiny outlay compared to 20 years ago you can transform you bands mixes live, and reach more punters. A tiny part of which is learning how to use compression in s live mix properly...

Not handy at the moment, but I'll see if I can get something together, might take a little while. The trouble is, what is 'decently compressed', its different for every player, in context with the kit they are using and the track they are playing on. Obviously there is no right or wrong answer, its what works in that context to achieve the desired result. And note that the term 'desired result' may be different based upon the perception of the person listening/mixing too. Furthermore its really difficult to graphically represent well, simply because the changes can be over a few milliseconds to get an appreciable psycho-acoustic difference within a mix, that is to say uncovering a previously masked part of a bass sound (or a percussion sound) that was up until then masked by another sound, but the note in question may be half a second long. That makes for an enormously large picture, with an incredibly small change. Or you could be crushing the crap out of the whole thing a la Sledgehammer, or you could be doing something all the time to mirror the way a tube amp can tamp down level all the time a little. Al, if you really want to learn and understand about compression, stop playing bass for a mo, start learning to mix. That is where compression is meaningful, and only trying to learn compression as it might apply to bass is like learning to drive a car only understanding the concepts of going faster, and turning left, on a bicycle... Its a ridiculously nuanced thing, mixing, and the trick is to get everything to be emotive as a whole. This isn't some kitsch hippy crap either, a good mix differs from a bad mix in its ability to stir the listener. Its not about the listener being able to hear that you held a transient on a bass down to allow the transient of the kick drum to always be louder effectively tightening up the rhythm section. But doing that may be the difference between a more or less emotive mix. A favourite piece of wisdom for me is that a great mix cannot make a crap song good, but a crap mix can make a great song stink. There are no number of pictures of waveforms and envelopes of bass notes compressed verses uncompressed that can adequately describe the difference between a good use of compression and a bad one. It doesn't work like that.

Always thought you were a bit of a lumberjack... Nudge nudge, wink, wink...

Jeez, if we get into the physics behind the strings they are physical compressors too, since they do not get louder linearly with the input by any means, over a certain amount you have to really really dig in to get more volume from a string even acoustically, ask a double bassist! All an electronic compressor is is another way to achieve control over transient to note relative volume ratios to achieve differing effects which may or may not improve the audibility of the instrument within the mix.

Which doesn't mean that their bass signal is not compressed by the way. If they have a tube preamp and they are pushing it to 'warm it up' (hate that expression but you know where this is going) they are compressing their signal. If they are pushing theoir cabs hard then they are compressing their signal. If the band is loud, then your ears are compressing the signal. And we are supposing they arent going through a PA at all, which if they are, then chances are very very high that their signal is being compressed.

You aren't seriously asking this? Flippant answer, as has been proved on here countless times almost all bassists are not capable of dialing in a compressor to save their lives, and don't really know what they are for anyway. They are the devils work. Given that, why put one in a bass, its at least one, maybe two more batteries to do well, and where are you going to put the metering required to do it properly also (another battery for the 16 leds). Or are you seriously suggesting a 1 knob monstrosity? Cos they virtually all sound like utter shite anyway given they cant be set up right for the bassist. Another point though is that there is almost certainly no string to electronic signal transducer (pickup) that is absolutely linear. So the pickups are almost certainly already compressing (because expansion seems incredibly unlikely) the signal to a degree anyway. Kind of like using a ribbon mic to record metallic percussion, the ribbon is too heavy to be fast enough to perfectly capture the transient, so it in fact works like a rather splendid physical compressor/limiter. As used on all the Michael Jackson recordings by the legend Bruce Swedien...

OK so my post was an answer as to why Motown HPF'ed their masters at 70Hz, not what was the be all and end all of what made Motown sound like Motown. It was precisely because they were in a loudness war, and had been for some time, with the Beatles. They wanted/felt they needed their 7" singles to be louder than the Beatles singles on a jukebox. Its an absolute fact as to why they did this. I am not suggesting its the only thing that defined their sound, far from it, I am merely pointing out why they did that particular thing to their 7" singles. It is a testament to how desperate they were for that volume that they were willing to compromise the incredible bass work on the recordings in order to get that volume. In any case it is a definitive part of the sound of all the Motown 7" single output at the time. Again do some searching online for Bob Olffson, since he did a huge amount, if not all, their mastering in house for years. I haven't got time to find the specific article that mentions the particular Beatles singles that melted heads with the volume they managed to master to the vinyl, but it is out there.... No doubt the beatles did something similar in order to get that kind of level, they would have had to since the RCIAA curve wasn't enough to achieve it on its own.

Motown was in a loudness war with the Beatles in the US matey. There is documented evidence that they could not get their releases as loud as the Beatles' 7" singles in an article by their mastering engineer at the time. Search for Bob Ohlsson on Gearsluts IIRC...

They were in a loudness war with the Beatles. Loudest single sounded the best on a jukebox. An HPF meant you could cut louder without the bass popping the needle out of the groove....

There's a ton of great engineers and producers with good ears. Most people aren't looking to sound exactly like Motown these days. And very very few players that sound even close to the real essence of that Motown Funk Brothers greese....

Ok so cassette is not reel to reel for one thing. The noise floor on reel to reel is way way way lower than cassette. Tape compression and saturation is a huge part of the sound of vintage recording techniques. I can't stress that enough. People didn't have millions of plugins. They didn't even have dozens of pieces of outboard gear. Even Motown. They built what they needed themselves. Including the DI that Jameson used to get his bass down, yep Motown bass was DI'ed! But they did have tape, which as you start to drive it saturates really nicely and compresses too. But these days you can get lovely tape compression/saturation emulation on all channels. It's more the room and players IMO. Watch Standing In The Shadow of Motown.

I've used them for a few years. They start off sounding like normal strings do after they have well and truly worn in. They stay sounding like that for me for about 2 to 3 months. Having said that I sweat like a hippo on crack playing live and that stuff eats through normal strings in less than an hour. I am seriously considering changing things up a bit though as they sit under rather than cut through a bit too much with my present rig.

It's not the digital aspect at all, that's a huge myth.

When I saw them live they spent a fair proportion of their set backing up Marva Whitney, went a bit more soul for that section, but When they lay it down hard, man alive they are funky as, and tighter than any other band I've heard... This is my favourite track of theirs, love the 'melted' drum kit too!

Seriously it awesome being in a band with such quality players and people, but Osaka Monaurail, best funk band I've ever seen, better than Tower of Power...

Played a blinder at the Jenny Lind in Hastings. In 7 years that was the best gig my band have played, masses of love from the punters, lots to the bar from punters too apparently. One of the regulars came up afterwards and said, "That was incredible, you guys are just surgical, in a really good way". The bar played all of Osaka Monaurail's Riptide album while we setup. If you aren't up on your Japanese funk, let's just say something really serious to live up to.... Apparently we did and then some. Still buzzing 🤩🤩🤩

That's a change from the original spec then, fascinating!

Yep, but for me the missing functions are a deal breaker.

Nope, didn't open it or play with the internals, its not mine to go prodding around inside...

Said the actress to the bishop

It's a beast... Here's Dan's review:-