Is our sound over-processed?

[4 Strings]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1323082824' post='1458926']
Quite. Pure things can be highly desirable (gold) or highly unnatural (nuns).

[/quote]

Bit unnecessary.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='jackers' timestamp='1323083747' post='1458944']
and this is why death magnetic sounds like a large pile of poo.........every single instrument clips and distorts, so there are no dynamics and the album is way too loud compared to the rest of my music collection
[/quote]

But isn't this 'poo' in your opinion, this is just the processed for which they have strived. Are you suggesting that because the clipping etc is far from the original sound of musical instruments its no good?

[xilddx]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323087528' post='1459017']
Bit unnecessary.
[/quote]
Eh?

[4 Strings]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323087644' post='1459020']
But isn't this 'poo' in your opinion? This is just the processed sound for which they have strived. Are you suggesting that because the clipping etc is far from the original sound of musical instruments its no good?
[/quote]

[razze06]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323087442' post='1459016']
Already used examples, here's one again, try the intro to 'Tighten Up' Archie and the Drells for a natural sound of flat strings.

I would also repeat that no-one has ever suggested a 'pure sound' has ever been recorded and reproduced nor even desired, there's no extremes in this argument at all so no point going to them, just a direction. Think of the food analogy and some seasoning (which you can also taste) on a fresh pork chop compared to a McD (about which someone once said the TWO slices of gherkin is to prevent it being classified as a sweet).
[/quote]

I am beginning to understand now that your point is not so much about the "natural sound of an un-amplified electric bass guitar", rather more about the fact that the overall approach to bass sound is moving (has moved) away from simple amplification and processing. If that is so, fair enough.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='razze06' timestamp='1323088103' post='1459027']
I am beginning to understand now that your point is not so much about the "natural sound of an un-amplified electric bass guitar", rather more about the fact that the overall approach to bass sound is moving (has moved) away from simple amplification and processing. If that is so, fair enough.
[/quote]

Thanks, with the add-on that the sound is now more flattering and also we have become so used to this that we now no longer actually like the original sound. Tighten-Up is a great track but I've spent my life trying to avoid that bass sound. I've been thinking again about that since (through this great forum) I've been introduced to flats strings and been adjusting my sound for a Motown band.

With that understood(!) the next part of my argument relates again to the flattery and just as its easier to sound good with an overdriven lead guitar sound its also easier to sound good with the 'processed' - for want of a better word - bass sound. (Again the area of mastering is similar)

[BottomE]

Some interesting coments on this thread.

I watched a guy called DK Marlowe who has a site called PlayBassNow.com. He did a vid where he showed how he does his online recordings. Everything he does goes through a £70 interface and guess what? His basses mostly sound the same cos he tends to use the same effects template for each bass. Don't get me wrong, they sound great .....but the same.

[xilddx]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323088879' post='1459037']
Thanks, with the add-on that the sound is now more flattering and also we have become so used to this that we now no longer actually like the original sound. Tighten-Up is a great track but I've spent my life trying to avoid that bass sound. I've been thinking again about that since (through this great forum) I've been introduced to flats strings and been adjusting my sound for a Motown band.

[b]With that understood(!) the next part of my argument relates again to the flattery and just as its easier to sound good with an overdriven lead guitar sound its also easier to sound good with the 'processed' - for want of a better word - bass sound.[/b] (Again the area of mastering is similar)
[/quote]

Crikey! I really could not disagree more with that! A crap musician / player will sound crap whatever their sound is.

[51m0n]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323087442' post='1459016']
Already used examples, here's one again, try the intro to 'Tighten Up' Archie and the Drells for a natural sound of flat strings.

I would also repeat that no-one has ever suggested a 'pure sound' has ever been recorded and reproduced nor even desired, there's no extremes in this argument at all so no point going to them, just a direction. Think of the food analogy and some seasoning (which you can also taste) on a fresh pork chop compared to a McD (about which someone once said the TWO slices of gherkin is to prevent it being classified as a sweet).
[/quote]

Ok, just had a good listen to that, nice sounding bass. Of course its running through some tubes in there (I'd bet on it) and driving them good and hard, which means its compressing nicely, and adding a load of harmonic overtones, and a good bit of overdrive, and the tape isnt exactly being tickled with signal either, which is doing even more compression, and adding a bunch more harmonics.

You cant have your cake and eat it, this [b]is[/b] a heavily processed bass sound, its not remotely 'pure', and it certainly isnt bland, it just happens to be a sort of processed bass sound that you like and associate with how a bass 'should' sound (which is a mythical entity at best).

That particular bass sound is pretty much what the daptones label are doing (super early real deal funk), and the last thing they do is keep anything pure, its all about letting the sh*tiness out! Check out this [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun08/articles/daptone.htm"]article about their process[/url] and this video:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wmdDYUFfMM

They arent afraid of processing its just they use the processing inherent in the devices they are using, rather than a load of digital processing. Horses for courses, same diff really though, you either like the sound ort you dont....

[razze06]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1323089617' post='1459047']
Ok, just had a good listen to that, nice sounding bass. Of course its running through some tubes in there (I'd bet on it) and driving them good and hard, which means its compressing nicely, and adding a load of harmonic overtones, and a good bit of overdrive, and the tape isnt exactly being tickled with signal either, which is doing even more compression, and adding a bunch more harmonics.

You cant have your cake and eat it, this [b]is[/b] a heavily processed bass sound, its not remotely 'pure', and it certainly isnt bland, it just happens to be a sort of processed bass sound that you like and associate with how a bass 'should' sound (which is a mythical entity at best).

That particular bass sound is pretty much what the daptones label are doing (super early real deal funk), and the last thing they do is keep anything pure, its all about letting the sh*tiness out! Check out this [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun08/articles/daptone.htm"]article about their process[/url] and


this video:-

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wmdDYUFfMM[/media]

They arent afraid of processing its just they use the processing inherent in the devices they are using, rather than a load of digital processing. Horses for courses, same diff really though, you either like the sound ort you dont....
[/quote]

I agree, and that is a seriously interesting article and video! I'd love to be recorded somewhere like that!

[4 Strings]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1323089246' post='1459041']
Crikey! I really could not disagree more with that! A crap musician / player will sound crap whatever their sound is.
[/quote]

Absolutely agreed! (- although I did say 'easier' - even I can impress under the right conditions and there are levels of 'crap' musicianship which some think is acceptable, even great, but I think are, well, crap.)

[4 Strings]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1323089617' post='1459047']
Ok, just had a good listen to that, nice sounding bass. Of course its running through some tubes in there (I'd bet on it) and driving them good and hard, which means its compressing nicely, and adding a load of harmonic overtones, and a good bit of overdrive, and the tape isnt exactly being tickled with signal either, which is doing even more compression, and adding a bunch more harmonics.
[/quote]

Didn't suggest it wasn't processed, just an example of what sounds like the unamplified sound of a set of flat strings. Difficult to sound good with a sound like that.

I would imagine it was straight into the desk, same as Jamerson's huge catalogue, may be wrong but its not the point.

Thanks for the Daptone link, great that they're doing it. Don't the Neil Cowley trio record somewhere with similar equipment (I thought its name had 'Ark' in it)?

[51m0n]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323091866' post='1459094']
Didn't suggest it wasn't processed, just an example of what sounds like the unamplified sound of a set of flat strings. Difficult to sound good with a sound like that.

I would imagine it was straight into the desk, same as Jamerson's huge catalogue, may be wrong but its not the point.

Thanks for the Daptone link, great that they're doing it. Don't the Neil Cowley trio record somewhere with similar equipment (I thought its name had 'Ark' in it)?
[/quote]

I cant but disagree.

When I listen to any bass acoustically I cant hear any real bass. And neither can you. Without amplification there isnt enough energy from the string alone to produce bass that cariies to your ear. So what on earth is this 'sounds like the unamplified sound of a set of flat strings' then? Its really what you believe that to sound like. If I put my ear on the bass body I get some low mids, but even then the true bass isnt really present.

But on that very recording it doesnt sound like that, it sounds like I described it, there is electronically derived overdrive and compression (tape and preamp/amp both) in that recording, it can be clearly heard, and that isnt present on unamplified strings at all. There is deeper bass on there too, all due to the amplification (even if they didnt use a bass amp they recorded the signal that when amplified does produce that bass).

I'll put it another way, how much bass energy do you hear from a crash cymbal? None right. But if you crash said cymbal then bring a mic in really close as it sustains you will be able to hear massive amounts of seriously low frequency sound (like between 20 and 40Hz), some interesting electronica makes use of just these sounds (Coil springs to mind). The acoustic 'natural' sound of the cymbal has so much high frequency energy that you dont ever notice the low frequency stuff (its pretty quiet after all) but its there.

The natural sound of an electric bass is plugged in and played through some form of amplification.

You go on to say that its hard to make that sound good, but you are now entering the realm of the truly subjective, and context and personal preference becomes the most important thing, and furthermore you are advocating processing to improve the sound. Where is the line you are trying to draw exactly?

[jackers]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1323087644' post='1459020']
But isn't this 'poo' in your opinion, this is just the processed for which they have strived. Are you suggesting that because the clipping etc is far from the original sound of musical instruments its no good?
[/quote]

yes, it is my opinion. it is also an opinion shared by a large number of people. As a test, listen to the death magnetic cd, then listen to the versions of the songs that were remastered for guitar hero. The guitar hero ones did not have all the silly brickwall rubbish and they sound awesome.

and ofcourse I'm not suggesting that it's not good because it is far from the original sound, I'm suggesting it's not good because it hurts my ears to hear a snare distort that much

[alexclaber]

Get a good bass and a good bass player in a very quiet room and it will sound good unplugged. You can then change in the tone in numerous ways (starting at the pickups and going via all the electronics to the speakers and then any miking) and that's your individual artistic decision which should be made based on the musical content.

You don't need distortions to sound good, and absolutely pure uncoloured reproduction (or at least the closest to it that can be achieved) can sound utterly fantastic (a Big Baby T or Big Twin T comes closer to this than any other bass cab ever sold and the sound is glorious - but won't hide your mistakes or cover up your amp's weaknesses). Or it can sound awful. It's all about context and application.

[51m0n]

[quote name='alexclaber' timestamp='1323093804' post='1459129']
....It's all about context and application.
[/quote]

Exactly!

[pantherairsoft]

Who let 51m0n loose on this thread! "It's all a lie"

[51m0n]

Sorry, I'll get back in my cage

[pantherairsoft]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1323095119' post='1459158']
Sorry, I'll get back in my cage
[/quote]

[guildbass]

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1323010663' post='1458232']
Sounds like you are trying to say..in a round about way.. that Bolt-ons are inferior...???

I think there are way too many variables in the way before you try an decide whether neck thru V bolt-on is relevant.
You might want to test acoustic resonant properties but the only factor is whether it is any good or not..
[/quote]

Well... Honestly... I do think they are inferior. That's not to say a good bolt-on is a competent instrument but invariably, bolt-on neck guitars are so constructed because they are cheap to make....Not because they offer advantages tonally. You tend not to find bass guitar luthiers (as opposed to companies diversifying into instruments) building a bolt-neck first and then building through necks... It's almost always the other way round...They build their top quality amazing sounding through-neck and later, if the market profile has grown and impecunious potential customers are lusting after their product, they commission cheaper bolt-necks (usually in foreign climes) which in effect sell on reflected glory..

Leo Fender built bolt on-neck guitars because a) He wasn't a Luthier, he was a radio engineer, and it was an easily replicatable process for mass production. His (and THE) original electric bass of course had felt blocks damping the strings to make it sound like a double bass...the way the strings reacted with the body was not even a tiny bit important...The tone of the P bass became an industry standard because it was the original instrument and it's a heck of a lot easier to replicate or copy a bolt-neck than it is to do a set neck or through neck.

I see bolt-neck guitars like I see rear wheel drive cars with one piece rear axles and leaf springs. Frequently entertaining but ultimately flawed and requiring quite a lot of 'help' to get them acceptable.

I also realise that nine times out of ten, in a live environment, by the time your instrument sound has actually reached the audience's ears via the cab, the way the cab interacts with the floor/room, the way it's mic'd, the way the desk process's it, and the way the front of house is set-up, , it hardly matters what the original construction or tone was... So providing the thing PLAYS similar to your favourite luthier-built through-neck baby that lives at home and spends time in the studio, you might as well have something pretty hanging off your neck!

well you DID ask!

[guildbass]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1323073081' post='1458804']
What sort of date would people say the whole mastering "loudness war" kicked in?
Yesterday we had music TV channels on for an hour or so, and the difference in mastering style between newer stuff and 90s or older stuff was striking. All of the recent stuff was constantly loud and shiny and in-your-face in quite a wearing way.
I view added harmonic distortion on bass as a separate issue from that, as I hear lightly driven bass sounds going back much further than the last couple of years, on records which have a lot of dynamic range. Most 70s prog is an example!
I realise that a "natural sounding" recording is pretty much an impossibility and not particularly desirable anyway. Frank Zappa pointed out in an interview that since multitrack recording and close-micing came in, all recordings are an illusion, as there is no one place in the room you could put your head to hear the combination of sounds that end up on the recording.
[/quote]

Phil Spector's 'Wall of Sound' signature tone from the early '60's was over-driven in the recording stage, clipping the tape to make it sound louder...And Motown stuff from that era is similarly clipped..

One of the reasons so much stuff is so limited is that you need truly MASSIVE equipment to listen to undistorted full dynamic range music even played at relatively low levels. i read somewhere that if you listened to a naturally recorded orchestra at an average 10 watts rms (which is actually room filling) then you'd need at least 1000 watts RMS of headroom available in the system to cope with the transients...Which is a lot of electronics sitting on the sideboard! I also read somewhere that to reproduce a single crack of a snare drum at a similar volume to the original, you need 4000 watts RMS....

So basically, you need compression.....

I had a test CD once that the uncompressed sound of a Challenger tank firing it's main weapon. It came with a very stark warning that the track was easily capable of destroying your HiFi...Especially as the track started with the generic meadow sounds where the tank was sitting... Bird song, cricket's etc! Watching the amp clip while the speaker cones clacked against their stops and strained at the end of their travel was a not to be repeated experience!

[guildbass]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1323079124' post='1458858']
Define 'real bass guitar sound' for me....
[/quote]

The output waveform of the instrument, amplified yet unaltered. Just like the sound of an upright acoustic instrument is ideally amplified yet unaltered.

If a violin player dislikes the tone of his instrument, he doesn't stick it through a pile of electronic effects... He gets another violin with a sound he prefers....

If you are not hearing the tone from your instrument you want, you should change the instrument. Every change in the signal path is a degradation.

....Unless of course you are in a covers band whose job is to accurately mimic the tone of the original artist's recordings...Although having been in several cover's bands, you don't need to be THAT close because the likelihood of getting even reasonably close to the recording while playing live is fairly remote. Ultimately it's about the audience and they'll lap it up irrespective of the finer points of instrument tone as long as you are tight, have good timing, and most importantly, having fun up there...

[4 Strings]

[quote name='guildbass' timestamp='1324049648' post='1470299']
....Unless of course you are in a covers band whose job is to accurately mimic the tone of the original artist's recordings...Although having been in several cover's bands, you don't need to be THAT close because the likelihood of getting even reasonably close to the recording while playing live is fairly remote. Ultimately it's about the audience and they'll lap it up irrespective of the finer points of instrument tone as long as you are tight, have good timing, and most importantly, having fun up there...
[/quote]

We've spent hours and hours in our Motown band getting as close to an authentic sound as we can. We love it, not sure how much fruit flavour vodkas whooping women can take and still appreciate the attention to detail!

[51m0n]

[quote name='guildbass' timestamp='1324049648' post='1470299']
The output waveform of the instrument, amplified yet unaltered. Just like the sound of an upright acoustic instrument is ideally amplified yet unaltered.

If a violin player dislikes the tone of his instrument, he doesn't stick it through a pile of electronic effects... He gets another violin with a sound he prefers....

If you are not hearing the tone from your instrument you want, you should change the instrument. Every change in the signal path is a degradation.

....Unless of course you are in a covers band whose job is to accurately mimic the tone of the original artist's recordings...Although having been in several cover's bands, you don't need to be THAT close because the likelihood of getting even reasonably close to the recording while playing live is fairly remote. Ultimately it's about the audience and they'll lap it up irrespective of the finer points of instrument tone as long as you are tight, have good timing, and most importantly, having fun up there...
[/quote]

Well now there is an interesting thing.

Cant think of anything much I've heard on a recording of a bass guitar that could be described as the sound of the instrument unaltered, just amplified.

Simply because that doesnt cut it at all.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='guildbass' timestamp='1324049648' post='1470299'] The output waveform of the instrument, amplified yet unaltered. Just like the sound of an upright acoustic instrument is ideally amplified yet unaltered.[/quote]

I disagree entirely. The body of the instrument is a big part of the character of the sound.

[quote name='guildbass' timestamp='1324049648' post='1470299']If a violin player dislikes the tone of his instrument, he doesn't stick it through a pile of electronic effects... He gets another violin with a sound he prefers.... If you are not hearing the tone from your instrument you want, you should change the instrument. Every change in the signal path is a degradation. ....[/quote]

And why does he change his instrument? Is it possibly because different instruments sound [i]different[/i]? There are no acoustic instruments that sound [i]ideal[/i], as you put it.