WinterMute

18 hours ago, Musicman666 said:

i pxed my thunder iii for a wal pro 1 fretless... long time ago but i did remember the thunder had serious neck dive issues ...the wal was way better.

I don't remember if the Westone had neck-dive problems, it was the bolt on, not the through neck, so I wonder its that made a difference.

The Wal sounded great, but I didn't like its dimensions as much. I p/ex'd it against a Thumb 5 string in 1988, kept that for 25 years.

On 23/08/2023 at 20:20, Skybone said:

Have a look at: Celestion IR's - Bass

 

I bought the Pulse 10 pack, which are ace IMO.

The Bergatino 2x12 is pretty good.

I had a Thunder 1a Fretless in black, my first fretless bass, very underrated basses at the time, i think they get the recognition these days.

I P/ex'd it against a Wal Pro 1 fretless, which was a better built bass but didn't play as well.

Distortion/drive will definitely help, as will a slower attack time on your compressor as others have suggested, although I also find that an LA2A style opto set to limit rather than compress makes the bass sit right up front.

This is an old vid from a while back, tracking in Monkey Puzzle, RotoSound Swing bass rounds, LA2A Limiter and a bit of filth from the Ampeg STV model in the old Line6 Pod XT Pro. Add the aggressive striking of the stings to get the clank and it cuts well.

Sorry about the ropey playing.

Play harder, hit the strings rather than plucking them, Geddy Lee and The Ox didn't need no stinkin' plectrums...

Seriously, I've played aggressive finger style for decades, no lack of attack but you do build up some calluses and you get blisters if you don't play for a while.

I used a Crown XLS1500 bridged into mono with a Series 1 Big Twin for a long time, and monstrous it was too, I varied the pre-amp a bit, the Line6 Pod XT Pro rack gave way to a Geddy Lee 2112 then back to modelling with an XT Stomp.

Once I stopped gigging, I moved it on as I really don't have space in the studio, and now I have a QSC K12.2 and a Quad Cortex, largely for rehearsal prior to recording.

The XLS/Big Twin combination was easily the best stage rig I've ever owned, particularly while using the Pod XT, if I ever went back to gigging I'd grab a BT3 and a Crown XLS in a heartbeat.

9 minutes ago, ahpook said:

 

I get this - I think the frets hold the notes on to the fingerboard and if you don't have any the notes slide off the neck overnight.

Thanks for clearing that up, I've always wondered where they go and why they never seem to be in the same place...

I find my fretlesses completely mysterious, in that it's a complete mystery where the notes are...

Bit of Geddy solo, Moving to Bohemia.

50 minutes ago, Mornats said:

Thanks for the replies so far folks. It's interesting that no one really uses amp/cab Sims when recording so I did a bit of a test last night. Signal chain was:

Squier VM jazz > Laney Digbeth with DI out (pre EQ) into channel 2 of my Audient ID14mkii, line out going into the jfet input of my Audient into channel 1. So same signal going into the PC in slightly different ways.

 

First thing I noticed was the clarity and added growl from going in via the jfet line in. Not sure of this was the effect of going through the Laney's circuit or the jfet (which Theo marketing says mimics the input stage of a tube amp). So I pushed the DI signal to one side and focused on the line in. With this, I put it through various amp sims and cab sims (both with and without and amp) and concluded that the best sounding signal was the one without any further processing.

 

In terms of software I tried Bias FX 2, Audio Assault Duality, Audio Assault IR loader thing and Nembrini Black Ice (an emulation of the Darkglass amp with the Alpha Omega in it) and the Nembrini was the better sounding of the bunch. I'll be demoing some Neural DSP stuff soon but will probably not persue amp sims for bass after hearing my initial results.

I absolutely use amp and cab models, have done for years, Line 6 Bass Pod XT Pro, Line 6 Stomp, Helix and now the Quad Cortex, but I always capture a DI track to, a good DI input can save a bass recording in a difficult mix.

I tend to run the DI through UA's Eden World traveller model for a bit of cab and room, but I've also been experimenting with "re-amping" back through the QC at mix down too.

           > Shelford Channel DI > UAD2 Line input > TB2 to computer

Bass

           > Shelford Channel Link > Quad Cortex > UAD2 Line input > TB2 to computer

Tracking 2 mono channels, 1 clean DI with EQ and a touch of compression from the Shelford, 1 fully modelled rig w Amps, cabs, FX etc.

I've listened to the USB output from the Quad Cortex, and I prefer the analogue output, plus I don't have to worry about phase accuracy with the Shelford channel output.

I have the twin Hercules AGS stand, works for anything with a headstock.

Not much use with a Steinberger however...

The model styles are fairly consistent, a Krell is the same shape given the scale length and variations in things like fingerboard radius, but the electronics vary depending on the original choice, I think OP wants to have a play with the filter based pre-amp and the multi-coil pickups.

I'm in Iver near Windsor, with a fretless ACG Krell 5 string, but it's got narrow string spacing so I didn't go with the MC series pick-ups, as they can't be anything but 18mm spacing. I have RFB's and the DFM 4K.

it's this one: https://acguitars.co.uk/project/0431krellfretless5-34/

Saw them in Birmingham at the weekend, Levin looks like he's having a ball... 

Shame the PA didn't have the LF to bring out his work properly, sounded great for the more delicate stuff, but lacked weight.

Excellent gig though.

I was singing in a school mates band and the bassist left, Steve said "you can play bass, it's only one note at a time" so I did.

He taught me to play a major scale and a minor scale and I learnt a bunch of songs and just got on with it.

I'm sure I could be a much better player if I took advantage of all the resources now, but the need has never arisen and I've spent the last 45 years playing on sessions and in studio based bands, mostly doing other stuff at the same time, mainly engineering and producing.

Both, onstage monitor is an FRFR cab with a parallel feed sent to the PA from a Helix floor unit.

In the serious playing years I'd have 2, a fretted and a fretless, and occasionally a 3rd in a different tuning before I started playing 5 string.

For many years I had just 1 fretted 5 string, so that came out with a spare set of strings in the bag, which I never needed.

If I gig these days it'd be back to a fretted and a fretless, both 5 strings, I reckon I could get through a gig on either one if anything went bang.

I also used to carry a pre-programmed Bass Pod XT in case the backline gave up the ghost, I'd at least be able to get some sound into the PA...

It's more useful to have spare cables, batteries, strings, gaffe tape and an extra strap, as these are things I've been asked for on more occasions than I've had equipment failure.

I've done many sessions with click tracks of all kinds, metronomes, loops, once the original song as a guide, and they all have advantages and disadvantages.

I've come to believe that clicks of any kind limit the drummers to an extent, they constrain the performance, even if slightly. Even the best session players play better if allowed to keep their own time, to my ears.

I started using groove extraction in Protools a while back, it allows me to lock the timeline of the session to the timekeeping of the drummer, allows them to set the tempo and dynamics and lets me keep programmed parts and loops in time perfectly. Obviously it only works in the studio and if you have a drummer capable of keeping good time, which isn't always the case...!

Can't be done for live work, but a bit of time in rehearsal can set up a very similar "dynamic" click that can be used as the basis for a much more natural feel to programme-based tracks.

13 hours ago, lowdown said:

 

Yes, there are a few Software Virtual Drummers that do this. 

Also these days, look out for libraries that have 'Round-Robin' samples. I've lifted the below from elsewhere, which sums it up nicely.

 

"I doubt that you'll need to read a tutorial. Round-robin is simply a way to let sample developers play back a different sampled version of the same sound each time you hit the same key, so that just like most acoustic instruments each note sounds slightly different for more realism.

This feature becomes particularly important with drum libraries to avoid the 'machine gun' effect of rapidly repeating the same (for instance) snare drum sound.

By having two, four or eight slightly different snare samples, played back in sequence, you avoid such artificial-sounding effects, since if you keep hitting the same key it will play back (for instance):

Sample 1, Sample 2, Sample 3, Sample 4, Sample 1, Sample 2...Sometimes they are random Sample1, Sample 3 etc..."

I

 

Add to that the velocity switch layering most decent drum systems have these days, BFD and Slate Drums being the two I habitually use if I have to programme drums, and you do get a much more realistic response.

Interestingly this tech has been embedded in some of the triggering plug-ins too, the Slate version being particularly good at emulating the tone of an original drum recording. I still tend to layer triggered sounds with the originals rather than replace, but it all helps.

I'd really like my band to 1. exist and 2. be obscenely famous and rich and not at all dysfunctional...

45 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

But as the OP points out you need to get the original money for a musical project from somewhere, and since very little is forthcoming from record labels these days where can it come from? Venture Capitalists? A Bank Loan?

 

Crowd funding is all very well but you need a crowd in the first place to fund from, and unsurprisingly the majority of artists making crowd funding work for them got their crowd as a result of being signed to a "big bad" record label.

 

For all their faults I can't see any other institutions taking over from record labels and taking the same financial risks that they used to. Can you imagine how you would word a business proposal to raise sufficient money to allow you and the rest of your band to take a year or two off work so that you could concentrate full-time on the music, at the same time providing the funding to make an album, a couple single and video to go with them, buying the band onto a couple of big-name tours in a support sort, plus all the other promotional activities needed to generate an audience big enough to make the venture self-funding by the time the original investment ran out?

 

OoI has anyone on here successfully crowd funded an album release? I've been in bands that discussed it but my stance was - what if it failed - there's nothing sadder than a band who can't even raise the cash required to put out a album, and whose failure is there for everyone to see. The Billy No-Mates of the musical world.

It was ever thus before the age of affordable audio tech, the process of just making an album was prohibitively expensive, which was where the labels came in, and still do occasionally these days.

It's a perfectly reasonable prospect to put some time into learning how to record and mix properly and putting together a system capable of returning good product, and it's usually cheaper than paying for an established studio. I think there's still an expectation that the "big studio" experience is the only way to achieve pro results, and that's simply not true now.

If Stu Hamm wants to leverage his fan-base to pay for better facilities, he absolutely should, if I tried it I reckon I could get £37.50...

I'm lucky enough to be able to record and mix, but I'm aware thats not the case for everyone, so the limited help that a label can bring is often the only route available. Labels have always been necessary evil, but some of the practices in the industry are pernicious and that drives artists to try different things.

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

 

Ignoring the fact that both Steve Albini articles are so old as to be totally out of date (and first now totally irrelevant in todays musical environment), they also conveniently avoid pointing out that people like Steve Albini and Marillion are still able to exist as musicians today because they have built up suitably sized fan base under the old (bad) system. They may not have made a lot of money under this (or so they claim), but at the time they were relatively big fish (pun not intended) in a relatively small pond, they should have had the whole and very extensive weight of their record company publicity machines behind them; and that is what is now allowing them luxury of continuing the exist musically.

 

Similarly for the album in the OP. The crowd-funding model only works because Stuart Hamm has already built up a reputation in the 80s and 90s. I do notice that his costs are relatively modest, although I wonder if he did look at getting any of the work done up front for free in exchange for a share of the profits? Especially that given his reputation he should be have no problem generating sufficient money from this venture.

 

Nowadays when there are somewhere between 40k and 100k new tracks being uploaded to Spotify EVERY SINGLE DAY. How can a new artist ever hope to be noticed in order to be able to build up a large enough fan base to be able to make crowd-funding work for even the most modest of projects? I wonder how many of upon here playing music we have written ourselves would be able to raise the kind of money that Stuart Hamm is looking for through a similar system?

Marillion haven't had a record label for 25 years, a band like them needed funding to record back then, and yes, it's very different today and I'm sure they take advantage of the available technology. Steve is still very much of the same opinions, and views the internet as a way to get away from the clutches of the labels, sadly the streaming scams have simply put the money back in the hands of the middlemen. 

Stu Hamm has a following, and he's leveraging it, more power to him, I don't think the situation for a new artist recently signed is much different in terms of label support and where the money goes, many of my producer friends have resorted to the so called 360 deal with artists, taking points from ticket and merchandise sales as well as releases, there are clauses for ads, films, TV. The reality is that everyone still wants a bite.

I make my own music, I do it for pleasure these days and I release it privately, the tech means it sounds as good as anything I did in a studio in the 80s and 90s. I think this is a good thing for everyone, except for your last point about releases, the signal to noise ratio has worsened exponentially in the last 10 years, who can hear the music over the noise now?

1 hour ago, Hellzero said:

Start of the rant.

 

There's something strange in that crowdfunding system especially coming from well established people like Stu Hamm and many others.

 

My main question is: What the heck did he do with all the big money he earned if he can't afford to record a new album?

 

For a start-up, that's ok, for established people, there's a big problem.

 

If I can afford to record a new album, why couldn't he?

 

End of the rant.

Marillion have crowd funded albums for years after they were dropped by their label.

You might want to look at Steve Albini's essay on the record industry and how the money goes almost anywhere but to the band/artist, and his later, more optimistic, comments about the internet.

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albini-at-face-the-music-how-the-internet-solved-problem-with-music

51 minutes ago, Beedster said:

No it doesn't, no more than a library argues for the validity of any one of the books on its shelves

Hence my comment "make of that what you will", peer review is not as thorough as it used to be and there are many bodies willing to publish suspect research,