skankdelvar

Just in case anyone wants to try to replicate that thing we used to do where you played a cassette encoded with Dolby B but switched the decoder off to make everything sound brighter:

From Wikipedia: "The Dolby B system is effective from approximately 1 kHz upwards; the noise reduction that is provided is 3 dB at 600 Hz, 6 dB at 1.2 kHz, 8 dB at 2.4 kHz, and 10 dB at 5 kHz".

Flipping that on its head one could fire up the DAW and try boosting one's track by 3db at 600hz, 6 dB at 1.2 kHz, 8 dB at 2.4 kHz, and 10 dB at 5 kHz.

It might sound weird 

Hi David and welcome to the forum 

26 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

when saturation was a potential problem

Nowadays people (including myself on occasions) slap a saturation plug-in across a track. There are some benefits to this, one of them being an increase in perceived loudness without increasing gain. Other people think that it helps to add 'vintage mojo' but I'm not so sure.

33 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

I'm very wary of Loudness in general, and brick-walling even more so (except, of course, 'Unhalfbricking'..!). Possibly a result of the genres I'm most familiar with (no 'Disco' and very little 'EDM'...); rather more airy-fairy flutes and bongos for me, so... Still, if it's Good, it's Good. 

I used to run everything into a limiter on the master bus and crank it to the max. Then I realised that one can retain more dynamics and reduce artifacts by getting it louder before it goes into the limiter. For me, the limiter's there to catch a few overs rather than to crush everything flat.

That said, I'm still consciously incompetent. There's so much I need to improve before I'll be anywhere near happy.

11 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

a huge Rabbit hole down which to bolt

And that's before we start to think about even more recherche refinements (mid-side to push the bass to the centre, stereo-widening the high frequencies, that sort of thing).

Stock Reaper widener MDA Pseudo Stereo has option to widen using a comb filter rather than the usual Haas effect. Works really well and doesn't negatively affect mono picture like Haas does

Had another think about this re-mastering @Velarian's old cassettes.

EQ's obviously the way to go and a dynamic EQ / multiband compressor is a refinement of this approach.

Then I remembered Kenny Gioia's tutorial on frequency splitting, a method which allows you to apply EQ, compression (and other effects) to defined frequency bands with a hard cut-off between each band. This uses Reaper's stock frequency splitter VST

The end result is a group of effected tracks broken out by frequency band (e.g. Lo track, mid track, hi track)and which you can balance with your track faders. A further refinement would be to automate each frequency track (or track effects) so they become controllable across the duration of the song rather than being a static EQ profile from beginning to end.

Example below uses an acoustic guitar but the principle is applicable to a whole song:

53 minutes ago, Velarian said:

Now I need to figure out if there is a way to make it sound clearer at the top end when there isn't much substance to work with. Any suggestions would be gratefully received.

If there isn't much to be working with at the high end then it's difficult to add high end without using something like an exciter. I've never had much luck with those things

One school of thought is that reducing muddiness and taming some of the low mids creates the perception of more high end. If this were a normal project I'd say:

* High pass to cut everything hard below 50hz but do it on the tracks, not the master bus. That way, you can put some back in on the kick and bass if it sounds too thin

* Narrow cut around 140hz to reduce boxiness
* Cut toms, cymbals, pads hard below 300-500hz

But this is a master so all you can do is fiddle with EQ across the whole thing.

There's lots of tutorials out there which cover muddiness. Some of them recommend putting a dynamic eq across the master bus and gain reducing the muddy frequencies, fast attack, fast release so that you can reduce mud build-up only when it occurs.

Easy to use, free 4-band dynamic EQ and spectrum analyser: Tokyo Dawn Nova

I'm still very much at the 'consciously incompetent stage' when it comes to this stuff but here's my tuppence-worth

* I usually (but not always) embed a reference track alongside a sub-master bus (as described above). I'm not trying to get my track to sound exactly like the reference. The reference is there to let me hear if my mix is too bassy, muddy, thin, toppy, dynamically flat or spiky compared to a professionally recorded track.

Another approach is to have several reference tracks and to try to get your track into a space where it stands comparison to any of them in terms of clarity. You're not trying to get your track to sound the same - it never will. The reference track is there to give you a yardstick, no more

In Reaper it's easy to use mute / solo buttons to switch instantly between your track and the reference track. Remember to keep the ref track and your track at about the same volume. Crank the ref track fader up and down to equalise their volume - not your sub-master fader

* Pretty much most of my EQ-ing, compression, etc is done at the track level. The tracks feed into buses (drums, bass, guitars, keys, vocals) where I balance the individual tracks against each other. The buses might have an eq to tweak certain frequencies if necessary and touch of very light compression to glue the tracks together. At this point I'd stick a soft clipper at the end of each bus fx chain to increase the volume (if necessary) before the bus goes to the (sub) master bus.

* At the sub-master bus I'd usually have an effects chain in this order: Volume trim to tame or boost the incoming signal > EQ (for very minor tweaks) > Compressor (light)> Limiter (to control final loudness) > LUFS meter (to measure loudness, check for clipping). The sub-master bus goes to an effects-free master output bus for rendering.

* The idea is that all the big EQ, compression, reverb etc moves are made at the track level, most of the loudness is done at the bus level and the sub-master is there to control the big picture rather than add anything much.

* I've found that (i) small EQ and compression moves are better than big moves (ii) too many plug-ins spoil the broth (iii) limit the number of instruments playing at any one time. Mixing becomes exponentially more difficult the more you've got to mix.

Now, after all this guff, I should point out that @Dad3353 has a far simpler approach than me and uses far fewer plug-ins than I do, and his entries in the BC Composition Challenge always sound ten times better than mine. In the end, just watch as many vids as you can, take notes and see where they agree on certain things. Then fire up your DAW and try those things out.

Recommended plug-in: LoudMax brickwall limiter for the sub-master or Master bus, available for download here. It's good, it's easy and it's free.

Hi Nilorius,

The word 'vintage' means different things in different markets so there's no universal time period for the term. It also means different things to different people; some might have a very specific date range in mind; others just use the term to mean 'old' or 'no longer in production'.

With old Fenders there are some very broad definitions which relate to the company's ownership and point to expectations of build quality, desirability and price:

1948-1965 - Pre CBS: Seen as 'very good'

1965-1985 - CBS period: Seen as less 'good'. 1970-1981 seen as 'not so good' though 1982-1984 (Fullerton period) seen as return to form
1985-date - Post CBS: Seen as generally better than 1970-1981

All the above definitions are subject to caveat and variation. For me, 'vintage' would be pre-CBS but I'm old. 

TLDR: If you're selling an old bass to normal people on Gumtree or Craigslist then vintage is fine. If you're selling on an enthusiast's forum like BC don't use the word 'vintage' - just show the date of manufacture and let potential buyers decide for themselves.
 

Hi Roadcat1

Welcome to the forum 

Something a bit more basic than last month's kitchen sink production number. An admiring nod to Richard Gaughan and Peter Maxwell Davies.

Lyrics ↓

Boring stuff

Lindert

Danelectro

Dan Armstrong

11 minutes ago, Skinnyman said:

the bass

41 minutes ago, Skinnyman said:

Pictures will follow shortly!

(Dabs fleck of drool from corner of mouth).

24 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

Unless those are frictionless bearings that solution is probably worse then a well cut graphite nut.

Yes, it probably is.

On 16/06/2022 at 08:24, Woodinblack said:

 

...when the middle strings veer off after the bridge (same as gibson les paul headstocks) - I like the string to visually continue straight.

9 hours ago, Chienmortbb said:

That is what some people think is the cause of Les Pauls going out of tune

A problem elegantly (?) solved by Messrs Shergold

Nice! Mr Rutherford's twin neck brimming with string guides

Semi-acoustic in OHSC case.

Case wrapped in cling film.

Does Your Headstock Rock?

To The Tune of The Sailor's Hornpipe

Does your headstock rock? Does it swing to and fro?
Can you tie it in a bow? Can you tie it in a knot?
Does it make a lusty clamour if you hit it with a hammer?
Can you do the double shuffle when your headstock rocks?

Does your headstock rock? Does it swing to and fro?
Can you tie it in a bow? Can you tie it in a knot?
Can you bounce it off the wall like an Indian rubber ball?
Can you do the double shuffle when your headstock rocks?

Does your headstock rock? Does it swing to and fro?
Can you tie it in a bow? Can you tie it in a knot?
Do you get a funny feeling when you bang it on the ceiling?
Can you do the double shuffle when your headstock rocks?

3 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

My Performer is 53.75mm(!)

1 hour ago, shoulderpet said:

Thanks, the more I look into this the more I am wondering if I should just buy a Fender neck and body rather than piece together components from different manufacturers and praying that they fit

Couple of things:

* I believe Fender P basses have a 63mm neck pocket but Squiers are 64mm. Maybe someone else can confirm this

* If 63-64 mm is the Fender / Squier norm then, theoretically, the body you're looking at is 'wrong' and the neck is 'right'

* If the body is wrong but the neck is right then, theoretically you should modify the wrong component until it fits the right component but...

* Sanding the neck is arguably easier to get right than sanding the pocket and less chance of damaging the instrument's face

* If you're never going to fit another neck to this bass then then you could leave the pocket alone and just sand the neck block as this guy does below, but avoiding sanding the edge of the fretboard, obvs.

In 40-odd years of playing no one's ever come the bass snob, what's that, is it a copy, get a real Fender, why don't you play a proper bass routine with me. Maybe I've just been lucky.

One time I swapped out a Jap Vantage for a P Bass and the guitarist said 'Oh, that P sounds better' which wasn't a problem for me because, for what we were playing, it did sound better.

Mind you, I've had hundreds of people tell me 'You're playing that wrong'. 

Swings and roundabouts. One man's floor is another man's poison. Où sont les neiges d'antan?

39 minutes ago, -Adrien- said:

I hope my bad written english won't offend anybody (but you should feel lucky : you won't have to listen to my spoken english 😜)

That's OK. Your written English is better than our usual forum standards and our spoken French is often mistaken for Welsh.

Salut, Adrien and  to the forum!

3 hours ago, Chrisbassboy5 said:

Need to change them at all or not?

No, not really.

9 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

if I’d been 5 years older I’d have been a major Bowie fan

I was and I was.