Annoying Twit

[quote name='HowieBass' timestamp='1414232130' post='2587269'] This is probably THE best resource on the subject [url="http://www.ovnilab.com/"]http://www.ovnilab.com/[/url] [/quote] I just read the section on 'punch'. I think it's very well written and conveys a lot in a small amount of readable text.

Pity I didn't know before I went shopping in the market this morning. I'm sure there were quite a few wooden boxes around which would have helped you out

I must admit that I'm thoroughly confused by Warwick Streamer models and prices. The passive double humbucker models like the Streamer standard often go for very low prices for a German made instrument. It seems when there is a small variation in spec, the prices go up by multiples. I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to work out how much to pay for one. At least with a Corvette there are plenty of examples of sold items on ebay to establish a market price (which seems reasonable for what you get).

If we think logically, then we can think up reasons why wood drying and finish wearing off might change the tone. But that doesn't help us answer the most important question, which is whether it makes enough of a difference that we can actually notice it.

I'm quite used to applying EQ in non-musical contexts, but bass is being quite tricky. I spent most of my time up until recently practicing fairly unaccompanied, mostly just a drum-beat. When I used my own looper I panned sounds quite crudely, which meant that even when they were all played on bass, they didn't merge into one. As it takes fewer cables, for practice recently (and I sometimes make recordings of loops plus solos for when I can play them better), I've been using my b1xon looper a bit. But, the loops are basically mono. To get the 'bassy' sound I like for bass played alone (think of the bass break in 'Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except for Me and My Monkey') requires boosts at quite low frequencies, e.g. 50Hz. But if I do that, the bass sound is too bassy, and disappears into a mono mix such that I can hear there's bass there, but if I hadn't just played it myself I wouldn't be able to pick out the notes that were actually played. Mush. Some of this may be due to me being lazy and putting other parts (played on all-fourths guitar or seven string bass) through the b1xon as well, which may be boosting the low frequencies there too much. I'm too used to being able to use ProTools in production, and being able to lowpass filter the bass, and highpass filter other instruments, which seems to usually easily provide both sufficient bassy bass, retaining note definition, and separation by frequency range. But when I do that, I'm typically using my work Ibanez, which has a very nice native tone that doesn't seem to need much work, even DI'd. And I couldn't even say where I'm setting the lowpass and highpass filters, as I've done it by ear. At home I've been challenging myself by EQ'ing my Rockbass Streamer, where the pickups produce a native sound that I don't find so attractive. EQ (as well as compression, a bit of drive, and fundamentally more volume) can help fix that, but with the recording being mono, I need to work harder than I am used to in order to get it to work. Thanks to everyone for the frequency band recommendations. I'm going to give it another go now, and hopefully over time I'll get a more precise understanding of what frequencies I need to fiddle with in order to get a sound that I picture in my head. I think what I'm going to try tonight is to EQ both the bass and guitar-ish bits in order that they don't compete so much.

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1414177565' post='2586841'] I'm pretty sure he understood that, as I did. He just noticed the statement about the objects looking the way they do -and the chlorophyll thing- being wrong, as I did... It didn't look to me a deliberate mistake, as the amusing point of the green tape was a separate issue. I was this far (thumb and index very close together) to point it out as well, but couldn't be bothered I'm sure it was not meant to embarrass, but to point out something that maybe was just misunderstood by you (and/or others). Not worth getting upset about [/quote] I'm not getting upset about it, nor am I embarrassed. I'm just clarifying what I was showing in my original post, for people who have missed the point. In pseudoscience of all sorts, actual real science is often claimed to support the pseudoscientific claims. E.g. Deepak Chopra and other 'quantum mystics' clearly doesn't understand quantum physics, but use its terminology and crude misunderstandings of quantum physics theory to support their claims. E.g. see this: [url="http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2010/03/deepak-chopra-challenged-by-quantum-physicist.html"]http://hinessight.bl...-physicist.html[/url] The original post is frantically wrong in all points, particularly in its chronic mis-use of science to try to justify selling small bits of tape for nigh on £80. That's nothing I'm embarrassed about because it was deliberate, done to satirise woo merchants who try to sell BS things for large amounts of money often using clearly misunderstood science to support their claims. I'm just disappointed that a number of people failed to see the point I was making. And I thought I'd clarify what I was doing. As while it's just a satiric post in a satiric thread, I do believe that the mis-use of science in the way that I satirised is a serious problem in our society.

[quote name='hamfist' timestamp='1414169567' post='2586716'] He's just being accurate. Green things look green because they absorb all the other colours but reflect the green light .... back into our eyes so we perceive them as green. Look back at what you wrote originally. /lesson [/quote] Erm, he's responding to a satire of audio woo which was deliberately as wrong as possible in as many ways as possible. Was this not obvious when it was a post pretending to sell green tape that you stick on your bass saying that it would make your bass sound better? It's looking to me as there has been a severe case of *whoosh* here. That the tape absolutely does not work, and could not work in the way described was the entire point.

[quote name='MoonBassAlpha' timestamp='1414068015' post='2585427'] I'm afraid you've got your science a bit wrong here AT, things that look green absorb strongly in the blue and red, and hardly at all in the green [/quote] Erm, I don't know if you're being ironic here or if you've missed the point.

Full and easy adjustability. E.g. like the Warwick nuts and bridges, but hopefully even an easier way to adjust the truss rod. i'm not sure if a electric truss rod is worth the extra complexity. Electronic tuners as in Gibsons. Built in wifi connectivity.

I'm reminded of two bitsa fretless basses on sale here some months ago. Both of them had a whole lot of name bits on them, professional defret including ebony board and things like that. And both of them were about the same price as this one. This bass has ... what exactly?

@SonicSimpleton - I'll give that a go. Now that you point it out, one of my books by Ed Friedman recommends putting the ticks on beats 2 and 4 etc. I need to practice that more.

Not sure I see enough evidence that it's worth £200.

Thanks for the answers. There is a bit of chicken and egg in asking this question, as it's hard to ask the question unless I know what I can control on the sound. But I don't know what to control. This isn't through am amp/cab, this is using my Zoom B1XON. At the moment. "less lows, controlled low mids" and simulating the thumpinator with a high pass filter. 400Hz boost without boosting the lows. Cheddatom's description of different bands is definitely something for me to try and critically listen to. I only posted here an hour or so ago, during working hours, and there are already loads of interesting and useful replies. Thanks!

Hi. Does anyone have any recommendations for interesting frequencies to boost/cut on bass when using parametric EQ? Particularly if it's possible to give an English language description of what I should hear if I boost/cut at these frequencies? Or, if anyone has a particularly frequency cut/boost as part of their sound, I'd like to hear that too. Otherwise I'll be going through the whole frequency band. I've been experimenting with a graphic EQ that has about six bands, but I suspect that there's more to come in the low frequency area. There is a single band for the real low 'bass' and I suspect that there is value in being a bit more choosy of frequency band down there. My real aim would be to produce a tight bassy sound with good note definition. Recommendation of other processing to achieve that would also be welcome.

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1414027831' post='2585024'] I'm not sure, however I can say that playing with a metronome all around is a good idea. Blue [/quote] I've seen many comments that playing with a metronome [b]or drum machine[/b] is a good idea. I just wondered if there was an argument for metronome only. I'm playing extensively versus drum machine at the moment. TBH, after my wakeup call, I'm not interested in learning to be able to play things I can't already play, for the meantime, I just want better timing and better control of dynamics.

Congratulations!

[quote name='BurritoBass' timestamp='1413968543' post='2584081'] A lot of those early rock 'n' roll records have great rhythm guitar tracks which are really simple. [/quote] Would it be possible to ask if you could name a couple of your personal favourites?

My challenge for tonight will be to record a 'She's a Woman' style rhythm guitar track. Velvet Underground listened to as well, good examples. Like The Pixies, I'm not as familiar with the VU as I should be, even though I own a number of John Cale's electronic albums.

Isn't this rather less than they usually go for? http://www.thomann.de/gb/fender_squier_vintmodjaguar_bass_hb.htm

I've recorded two loops tonight, and both were inspired by the tracks listed here, with me attempting to make simple but effective rhythm guitar. I think the actual riffs were OK, but I'm currently working through a massive wake-up call of how awful my timing is when I record, and I'm still in the process of working through that. One of the tracks deliberately has a straight eight root note only bass line., inspired by Kim Deal's comments on what some bassists refuse to do

Westone Thunder III fretless. I'd expect this to go for more than the starting price. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Westone-Thunder-III-Fretless-Bass-Guitar-/281474070525?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item41892977fd

[quote name='iiipopes' timestamp='1413910876' post='2583519'] I'm surprised you can't just pop into a kiosk at a large train station or somewhere like WHSmith's and find them in a bin in the party supplies, like for New Year's celebrations. [/quote] I bought a plastic one, but am still thinking of getting a better one in the future. The one I have definitely looks like something that you'd find in a toy store, though it makes a sound. Being quite a buzzy sound, initial experiments suggest that they respond quite well to effects.

Is this some sort of guitarist revenge for Royal Blood? They must be feeling threatened

Noticed by accident really, but Aeroplane by the RHCP seems to qualify. With Flea grabbing all the limelight, it's easy to miss out the simple but effective rhythm guitars on the track. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV8IAOojoAA"]https://www.youtube....h?v=vV8IAOojoAA[/url] I'm not knowledgable about The Pixies. The bassplayer explanation didn't make sense until I heard the full track. It's certainly simple and not played in a virtuoso fashion, but it's an enjoyable rhythm guitar track. The bass makes sense in context as well. In comparison to the pixies, here's something from Bob Mould which is more 'precise' but just as simple. This may be cheating as BM overdubs guitars a lot. But, IMHO this is very effective rhythm guitar. (The song doesn't start until about 2:08 or so, there's a comedy skit before that. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgHmTcYqWts"]https://www.youtube....h?v=fgHmTcYqWts[/url] I'm thinking about rhythm guitar as I'm trying to improve my multi-track bass playing, so am frequently recording overdubbed tracks where I will play some sort of rhythm guitar on either an all-fourths tuned guitar or seven string bass. Much of my playing sounds a bit like the CCR track, I would think. I don't want to take time out of bass practice by concentrating on rhythm guitar too much, hence hearing 'simple but effective' helps! I'll listen to some more AC/DC concentrating on the rhythm guitar.

As in the title. Good examples? An example of what I mean would be The Kinks' You Really Got Me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2GmzyeeXnQ I'm sure there are many others.