Kurt Foster, post: 415729, member: 7836 wrote: i like bass with nothing rolled off below 100Hz. i like to put a narrow notch boost at 200 to 220Hz. so i can hear the bass on small systems. this is based on a track that has been recorded with a little LA2 pulling out -3dB and flat eq. it ain't rocket science.

What do you make of this?

View: http://youtu.be/4G0…

yea! mixbus baby!

that link was wrong, fixed now. specifically on the hpf filters and this product.

yes i saw the filters. same ones are in mixbus. i like that you can connect them to the 8 channel pre box. i wonder if you can do the same with the eq's?

This looks really useful. Best tool I've seen in a long time. Looks like it will go where ever an insert is. This appears to be an awesome patch between a patchbay or DA stems in a hybrid setup as well. Its one of those things every studio should have ready and able in a chain if ya ask me. cool.

These are mono, I'd like to see a stereo version for stems.

I had the chance to work on a Harrison 32 Series desk once.... around '88 or so. I still remember it, this many years later, because it was a fantastic sounding console. Everything just worked, man. The individual tones, the summed mix, it all just came together so effortlessly. With the exception of minimal Q, I didn't really have to do all that much to the tracks... it was like "instant tone".

I would say that this unit, along with their mic pre, would be a fantastic step towards - or an addition to - any hybrid studio. As a front load, or as an outboard EQ via insert, I can't see where you would go wrong with this.

If I had the money, I'd pull the trigger on those two pieces right now.

FWIW

http://harrisonconsoles.com/site/lineage.html

looks like this is similar to how Great River connects the EQ 2NV to MP 2NV . Guys, would these work in a mix chain as I suggested?

Well, there ya go GR in there. http://harrisonconsoles.com/site/greatriver32eq.html

One thing that I think we've overlooked on this subject, is how the bass guitar was recorded to begin with. Some may say that this has nothing to do with how you mix a bass, but I strongly disagree with that sentiment.

For example, if a bass player has a certain tone that they want, or to take that further, if a particular player has a "signature sound" that they are known for - (like Jaco, Paul, Entwistle, etc., these guys don't sound the least bit similar to one another, but they do all share the common factor of having their own well known "sound" ) - I think you have to be true to that when mixing... meaning that in many cases, you might not add anything at all, other than perhaps a little gain reduction to keep peak transients controlled.

If you start reaching for dramatic EQ changes or effects on bass tracks recorded by particular players that have a certain overall tone that they are known for, you're likely to get a slap upside yo' head. LOL.
And, I completely understand and accept this without debate.

Example: There's not much point in accentuating those particular frequencies that enhance a pop/thump/slap style - like that of Louis Johnson or Larry Graham - if you are working with a bass player that is more "McCartney-esque" in their tone and style. Another example would be with fusion guys - like Jaco, who preferred a more mid-range gradient, or cats like Stanley Clarke, John Patitucci, etc - who are generally going to want more mids attached to their tone, because of the nature of their playing, which focuses more on the bass as a focal instrument - as opposed to the basic "support" role of a rock-style bass player and a P Bass, where a more full and rounded sound, with a solid bottom end is generally the preferred tone.

McCartney was known for his tone, but, he was also known for his style... he had a very melodic sense when it came to the parts he played - lots of counter-melody, walks and glisses. Take a listen to Getting Better from Sgt Pepper, or Paperback Writer, and the bass tracks are incredible, not only tonally, but from the way that Paul approached the performance.

So, while it's one thing to discuss various techniques of mixing bass, I think that we need to consider how it was tracked to begin with first, and while we certainly need to be concerned with the balance and how the instrument sits in the overall mix, we also need to respect certain styles and tones that are sent to us the way they are, and/or to accurately capture performances and tone - as they are played, when it comes time to mix.

On a final note, personally speaking, I find it far easier and much more productive to mix bass guitar when there's an actual bass part that is being played; a performance that is well thought out and planned, that works with the song, sits in the pocket perfectly, and has the nuances that only a true bass player knows how to get out of their instrument - as opposed to the bass player simply following the same thing that the guitar player is doing - but just an octave down... and this is where I think the line of separation exists between real bass players vs " just some guitar player who decides to play a little bass".

There's a big difference. A huge difference. And anyone here who has ever had the privilege of working with a REAL bass player will know exactly what I'm talking about. ;)

IMHO of course.

d/

most of the Beatles stuff after the first two albums, was done with two- four track machines. they would load up four tracks and then bounce to one or two tracks on the second machine. sometimes they would add a part while the bounce was being done. rhythm tracks were recorded first. usually John & George on guitars, occasionally John, Paul or George Martin on piano and drums. solo overdubs, strings/ orchestra whatever else they wanted all being "sub mixed" as they went. bass was recorded last. this is because at the beginning the tape machines had limited sync frequency response. you couldn't ping pong on one machine without loss of highs and lows and if you bounced the bass several times between two machines, the tone would get real flabby. Paul laid the bass last on the final open track(s) and has said himself this allowed him to figure out bass parts that were very melodic while keeping the bass tones solid and up front. all part of the genius of Sir George Martin.

We take so much of this for granted these days... with our infinite track count, the ability to drag and drop file around, to do 2, 5, even 100 takes of the same track without sacrificing any of them, and then being able to combine any of them to form a cohesive take.

These guys did some of the most magical recording ever, all within limits, and at times, severe limits. Sometimes I think that having a zillion tracks and limitless takes has drawn the focus away from the song.

In those days, decisions were made, tracks were performed correctly or weren't kept, with the focus on the musicianship, and there were three million options available as to re-amping, re-triggering, effects and processing.
Geoff Emerick didn't spend days plowing through multiple choices of processing, then choosing a compression setting, or for that matter, going through a zillion compressor choices. He saw a need, filled it through the use of what he had - likely Fairchild - treated the track accordingly, and moved on.

Th result was music that is still listened to and enjoyed, 50 years later ...by all generations.

IMHO of course.

The thing is, would they have done it that way, if they didn't have to. if they had all kinds of options, who knows if they would've ever finished an album? I think your right about the song. But it's not technologies fault, it's just a lot of people writing mediocre songs. The diff is we here it, vs back then they never got heard outa the garage. But to me, if one person who would have never gotten heard, gets heard, its worth all the crappy mediocre quantized crap we here.

but i also see things another way too, if you listen to a lot of those great recordings, many of them would be considered sloppy by todays standards, even hendricks. now a guy who did 40 takes of a 20min voodo child, and spent endless hours re-mixing, surely would have gotten carried away w editing excetera. and ya know i think we tend to overlook how many tricks, and edits, and musicians getting replaced on there own stuff. i heard Lenard skynard didn't even play on there first album, just vocals,it was musicians from Detroit (the wrecking crew?) if ii remember correctly.

so i agree, that musicians were generally better, and couldn't rely on tech as a crutch, but the glorydays weren't as innocent as most people regard them as.

so whats the diff if protools, replaces your drums and allows you to edit your notes? or some producer replaces your part when you get home?

i dont wanna get into a Beatles pi$$ing match, because my views on them are very different from a lot of people, but i do respect them, and the role that they played in the evolution of music as we know it, or knew it. but they also had George martin. ive read interviews w him and there would be songs where one of the fab for would come in w a simple melody, or guitar part, and then come back the next day to a fully produced song. genius i say. you guys know this, but nobody just does it on there own, so whether its editing to the hills, or someone forcing you to play till you drop, its not the technologies fault, its the people.

i sill have no problem doing 4 track recordings. if you want that sound, and that feel, i thinks its fun. it takes alot longer during setup, and a lot less time during mix. i think the problem w a lot of people getting into this is they don't start w 4 tracks, they don't figure out the basics, which are good songs, basic micing. its got to be overwhelming for people getting into it now.

"it was musicians from Detroit (the wrecking crew?) if ii remember correctly."

LOL.. K... yer killin' me. Let's not butcher musical history any more than we have to. LOL

Detroit was The Funk Brothers - the Motown session cats. James Jamerson, Joe Messina, Earl Van Dyke, etc.

The Wrecking Crew was Los Angeles, with cats like Hal Blaine, Carol Kaye, Glen Campbell... they did the Beach Boys tracks, along with Sonny and Cher, The Turtles, The Byrds, etc.

If Skynyrd did in fact use a session player group, it was probably The Swampers from Muscle Shoals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_Shoals_Rhythm_Section

;)

FWIW

d/

Funny you mention the swampers, I'm actually in the middle of an awesome documentary on netflix, that talks about them. Creatively titled "muscle shoals", I recommend it to anyone interested in music of that era, and the social political things like racsim, and how music and the muscle shoals ( the town in Alabama, not just the studio) dealt w it.

Lol, agreed, I'll try to keep butchery to the minimum. I'm gonna have to ask my co worker who it was on the first album. His band was in the same studio at the same time, doing their record, so he was hanging w the session guys who were on the skynard album. I'll shoot him a text when I get a minute. It's not something a lot of people would know, because they obviously didn't get any credits on the recording. And I doubt the guys in skynard would broadcast it. But they did play on the later albums as their skills tightened up from touring.

Phil just got back to me, it was "the Atlanta Rhythm Section".

kmetal, post: 416447, member: 37533 wrote: Phil just got back to me, it was "the Atlanta Rhythm Section".

Ah ya, another one of my favorites! how cool ... :cool:

the bump feature on the 832C makes me ask the question if you guys do that digitally with plugins?

ChrisH, post: 416449, member: 43833 wrote: the bump feature on the 832C makes me ask the question if you guys do that digitally with plugins?

good question, I was waiting for that (y)

I'll start. I cut rather than boost. Yes and no. ITB OTB is all good! Clinical filtering, love it. BAX on the mix bus, love it! SideChain on bass ITB, love it!

I'm curious to hear Kurt's method ( because he has a really fat sound that I have heard) and if so, if he could explain his approach more than just do it ;)
I know you bump a touch at 200hz but this gives a country music bass and not so much a pop impact sounding bass. One way does not fit all for me. Damn, I wish that wasn't so..

I've tried this but doesn't that bump 50/100/400/800 etc? Everytime I've tried this with boomy bass, my results sounds even more wooly.
Now, it could be that you track to your mix methods? I mean, I certainly would!

RE Mixer: I get every type of bass so I do not have the "luxury" to prep and track to my mix. Mixing for people is never that same.
Examples: good micing, shitting micing, too much HPF, wrong tones, DI summed with phasing etc etc. Standing waves from bleed... :confused:

Being said, I usually like a more defined punch that doesn't create the obvious bump in the freq range. How do you avoid that? Pull/ carve out all the other instruments that it occupies?

I cut and use various ways to shape the bass via filtering and phasing or simply replacement when I get those wooly basses that take over the entire mix. I'm not a big fan of (more is better) compression on bass. I prefer to use Object Base Editing to search and find the peaks in a particular bar over compressing the entire track excessive. I do however, love compression but I'd rather use it in a more (less is more ) approach.

My FAT sound.

the [="https://soundcloud.com/user418315800"]stuff Chis has heard [/]="https://soundcloud…"]stuff Chis has heard [/]was mostly done done in Cubase except for [[url=http://="https://soundcloud…"]his one favorite [/]="https://soundcloud…"]his one favorite [/]which was done on the MCI 600 and [="https://soundcloud.com/user418315800/crossfire-suite"]Crossfire Suite[/]="https://soundcloud…"]Crossfire Suite[/] and [[url=http://="https://soundcloud…"]Northen Night[/]="https://soundcloud…"]Northen Night[/] which i did with a G 16 and a Soundcraft Spirit console. most of that stuff was not hi passed. i may have attenuated lows with EQ however. my favorite trick for bass is to turn down the lows below 100 and then add a narrow band boost at 225 Hz. this makes the bass more audible on small speakers. my experience has taught me if it sounds good on small speakers the mix is more likely to travel to other systems.

dvdhawk, post: 415738, member: 36047 wrote: I don't know either, but philosophically I'm inclined toward more art, less science. To me, the one-size-fits-all approach is one of the shortcomings of modern music, not in any way moving the ball forward. When I hear new music I like, it hasn't been homogenized to death and has something unique / quirky / special about it. In the end there is no accounting for taste. The approach is at least as varied as ways to play the bass: Pick? Fingers? Thumb and Fingers? Slapping and Popping? Mellow? Round? Aggressive? Driving? Funky? Jazz? P-Bass? Rick? Hofner? Fretless? Electric? Acoustic? Upright? Bowed? ... to name a few. I'd hate to see someone run all those through the same blender.

My man! I guess it also varies on the genre, but this is how I'd mix my bass too!

Yep, this is a better way to create insight. I'd rather hear or let you listen to how we prefer mixing the bass.

Well, at least no words can describe it quite easily.