akg d12 is in contention too up close. i don't have access to a u47/67, but i'd try that in the room if i did. watch for phase issues between mic(s) and DI, if employing them.

You seem to be on the right track searching for a mic. However, I feel that it's important in home studio recording to put some effort into your direct bass sound first. Bass speakers are almost always big and they are always putting out energy at frequencies that show all the defects of a small room. So by all means close mic the cabinet with an SM57 to start. But go searching for the best direct rig before you go searching for the perfect mic. Depending on how good your room is, the perfect mic may not exist. But you are looking in the right direction - high quality dynamics and ribbons. (The two dynamics that I'd try that have not been mentioned are the Shure SM7b and the Electrovoice RE20.)

Lately, I've been recording my bass (P-Bass with TI flats) through the Hi-Z input of a Universal Audio 4-710d. It has an "1176 style" compressor circuit and a solid state and a tube preamp circuit that can be blended. That's working for me right now, but I'd really like to try the A Designs REDDI. One of these days.

it's MIC not MIKE

i like using mics on bass cabs because it adds an edge you can't get with just a di. too many recordist make the mistake of bumping up everything below 100 hZ on bass as well as kick drums but i have learned that pushing the area between 170 and 300 with a narrow cut notch @ 220 with a reciprocating boost for the kick drum (also @ 220) yeilds a well defined kick bass on almost any system even one that is bass starved. almost any playback system will get down to 170 hZ.

my faves for bass cabs have always been Senheisser 421's and AKG d112's / d12's. anyway it's mic, NOT mike. Mike is a guy I know, mic is short for microphone .... see there's no "K" in microphone unless your speaking German and we all know where that leads you. lol.

i thought we settled that years ago ...

mmmmph! gahhhhh! suicide ahhhhh!

Good choices all. I'll also add the ATM25 to the list. A bit more 'hi-fi' sounding that the AKG D112 as theres no 'scoop' in it. Not much can go wrong with a D12 on anything low-middish...I solve the 'too big bass cabinet' thing with a very high-end single speaker bass cabinet that allows you get into the bass heads' power section a bit. The combination of the DI and the MIC (note: not mike) can be a beautifull thing and two tracks allows you to go experimenting with different types of EQ's and compressions at the mix. Personally I dont ever use much of each but when I do, I always use a Pultec and a fast recovering comp. Although for the 'classic rock sound' theres not much to go wrong with a Fairchild for 'bigness'.........

i like the RE 20, just always works for me.
another mic i have used as been the soundelux U195.

Thanks for all the suggestions!

The reason for writing mikes is because I searched the subject at first before writing this thread and noticed alot of mikes in posts...I don't know if this is the uk english spelling of the word then? It's a bit hard to write in a foreign language that has two types of spelling (american and uk english) but the main point is that you guys understand what I mean. It's good to get corrected, otherwise you wouldn't ever get anything right :)

I've been recording bass by mixing one DI channel and one channel with a crap t.bone kickdrum mic with the amp inside my vocal booth, haven't tried the recording room due to fear of having base going all over the place. So that's something that I need to try out as soon as I get the time. I just finnished building the studio about 6months ago, and with 3 young kids there havn't been time for all the experimenting that "should" have been done at this point.

AKG D112 sounds interesting, that way I could also get a good kickdrum mic... two in one! And as a hobbyist that's something to prefer. It's got a very nice price also.

if you want just one mic i would recommend a sennheiser 421. it's a great all around mic.

sorry (not really) :tongue: about the mike / mic thing. just a pet peeve of mine. another one is base instead of bass and symbol instead of cymbal.

mmmmphhhhh! gaahhh suicide ahhhhh!

Nutti, post: 394984 wrote: .... I've been recording bass by mixing one DI channel and one channel with a crap t.bone kickdrum mic with the amp inside my vocal booth, haven't tried the recording room due to fear of having base going all over the place. .....

Although you've gotten some great suggestions on mics for the job, a bass amp in a small vocal booth doesn't sound like a winning combination for any mic. Do you have a re-amping box, so you could mic the cabinet later in a larger room?

Okay, although I totally agree I also totally disagree. I'm going to dispute that and post this:

dvdhawk, post: 394986 wrote: Although you've gotten some great suggestions on mics for the job, a bass amp in a small vocal booth doesn't sound like a winning combination for any mic. Do you have a re-amping box, so you could mic the cabinet later in a larger room?

don't write off booths. if constructed in the correct dimensions and the proper treatments are applied, a booth can actually sound quite good.

F. Alton Everest has a very good book on studio acoustics. on the net search Sepmeyer Ratios, golden dimensions.

5'x6'x9' is a good booth. get the mic close to the speaker and most room reflections are negated anyway. i feel there's far too much emphisas applied to deep bass. in the real world most playback is bass starved. anything below 100 is for the most part lost. the fundimentals of a bass guitar low A is about 220. how many bass players play in the low open positions? most i see are working up around the 7th fret. get it to sound fat by hitting 220 with a narrow boost notch. at the same time use a reciprocating notch cut on the kick drum to carve out some definition for the bass. it should be no problem getting 200 Hz to "play nice" in a restricted space like a booth as discribed.

mmphhhh! ghaaaah! suicide ahhhhhh1

Attached files

I all due respect Dave, this is no different for Bass or any sound source. Maybe not for everyone, but when you own a Bricasti, a perfect acoustic room becomes less important, if not moot. Yes, gear does make a difference. At least for a the new home and project studio's acoustically challenged including for most modern music. If I was doing the old school way, you are absolutely spot on.

adding more reverb to a track that has undesirable artifacts from poor acoustics isn't going to help. that's something you just can't bury. sure you can record in a dead space and add verbs later but even with something like a Bricasti you will still not achieve what you can get from a good acoustical environment. i find things like high end verbs sound best when used on tracks that have been recorded in a moderately live room ... Chris: you'r big on hybrid electronics, why not hybrid acoustics? some real some recreated. imo, that's the best.

mmphhhhh! ghaaaaa! suicide ahhhhh!

Oh for sure, but hearing so many recordings from people with poor acoustics, that sounds far worse to me than had they been recorded in a dead booth or properly treated dead room and learned to use something like a Bricasti later. This I'm certain of.
And, lets not forget to mention, this is always subject to the style of music being produced.

Would a plug-in reverb replace a nice church setting for a choir, no. Would I replace the Metropolitan Opera being sung in a cathedral with a Bricasti, no. Would It replace a big band orchestra recorded at Carnegie Hall, no. Maybe Weezer, the garage band/ indie Rock band all setup ready to play all together, no.

But I would use a Bricasti to replace most home studio closets, living rooms etc doing the one track at a time DAW dance! And I would use a Bricasti for most pop vocals indeed being sung in a vocal booth. And I would definitely use it for a large percentage of guitar, bass, drums in most modern recording learning towards anything commercial sounding these days. In fact, this sound is more appealing to the record buying public.

So, depending on the type of music, I would or wouldn't rule either out. Over the last 12 years here, we have been pushing live rooms and laughing at vocal booths. There's more ways to skin the cat.

So, I'm merely giving us more to think about and presenting some alternatives that work if you do things for that app. We need to be more open minded around here. Times are changing. We need to be clearer when we give blanket statement and also to look for products that fit certain styles.
No disrespect ( generally speaking for all forums) there are people with mass knowledge in specific old school area's that don't translate well for electronic productions.

DAW, Plug-ins, are they really replacing the console and all that wonderful vintage gear, what makes a room any different? Why have 95% of all studios gone broke?

Personally I believe if you do not have or cannot record in a great room a dead room is better.
I do feel correct dimensions should be followed as well as placement, there will be some degree of reflection.
But, I would much rather work in or have a nice room treat to give the best.

cart before the horse?

let's try to clear things up. if you have a room with the wrong dimensions, no amount of deadening / treatments is going to help. cubes or rooms with poor ratios will always exhibit comb filtering and problems with unpleasant reflections, even if you put six feet of ridged fiberglass on the walls. the solution is to build rooms that have proper ratios even if you are space restricted. this one reason why most big studios have very large rooms ... the larger you get, the more these little problems dissappear. If you make it big enough, even a cube can sound great! for more on that check out [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.miravers…"]Manifold Studios[/]="http://www.miravers…"]Manifold Studios[/], a new room that just opened.

and i don't know about the rest of youse but i personally hate the sound of a completely dead room ... it just sucks all the energy out of a track. let it breath!

i don't get why someone would want to invest in a Bricasti or other high end solutions when their live rooms / vocal booths are in need of attention. it makes about as much sense to me as wearing gym socks with a pair of alligator loafers.

mmmmph!! ghaaaa! suicide ahhhhh!

Kurt Foster, post: 394998 wrote: let's try to clear things up. if you have a room with the wrong dimensions, no amount of deadening / treatments is going to help. cubes or rooms with poor ratios will always exhibit comb filtering and problems with unpleasant reflections, even if you put six feet of ridged fiberglass on the walls. the solution is to build rooms that have proper ratios even if you are space restricted.

i don't get why someone would want to invest in a Bricasti or other high end solutions when their live rooms / vocal booths are in need of attention. it makes about as much sense to me as wearing gym socks with a pair of alligator loafers.

mmmmph!! ghaaaa! suicide ahhhhh!

Don't think too much hehe. Or maybe rethink this again hehe. ( big hug)

Okay,

Are we talking about bass, vocals or tracking an orchestra? And just to have a little fun with us here. How many times do you think tracks are replaced with a sample ITB from a commercial success POV? I'm not saying you would do that but its really common from what I've heard in the cracks of commercial success and modern music. I started doing this in 1981. Is this cheating or brilliant engineering? shhh smoke

I have to say this ( well I shouldn't really) and I'll shut up for an hour lol. A huge percentage of broke die hard engineers have spent the last 3 decades trying to get ( as one example) their dream kick drum to sound like (forgive them for they not know) a sample that replaced some valiant effort. These engineers, including me have our samples stored away in our private collection of tricks. And I'm not talking about loops or beats here. I'm talking about a certain kick that works. Add some verb and you are done.
But I am talking about two different worlds all of a sudden. One is commercial and one is not much production involved, raw talent in the wrong hands.
It is my opinion that engineers who doen't take advantage of this technology (at least some) are generally stuck in the world of music that doesn't get passed your neighborhood fan club. The kind of crowd that sits at wines about today.

I'm really surprised how many recording engineers are so naive to all this. Or too proud. Keep trying to compete with the modern age using old school methods and I assure you, you will go broke trying to be a purest. Why do you all think computer generated music sounds so huge? If it doesn't, I don't care who you are, you will not attract the masses. Its too far into electron taste to go back to the sound of the Beatles. Do I like all this music on the radio? No! but I'm not stupid. I want to grow with the times and learn how to work on the top, not the bottom or somewhere in between.

anyway,

I agree with everything you said, but hearing is also believing. And virtual effects in your monitoring is also believing. Especially if you don't know any better and you choose the right mic and sing with some balls with attitude. Some people may be of a different era and not at all interested in certain methods. Good for you I say. But I don't for one sec think you need a perfect room for all types of music. We are in the age of computers lol. Its all about working with what ya got and learning the tricks of the trade.

Fire away!

Tree; please don't think i am trying to single you out. my remarks go way beyond that. (big hug back)

good is good and sucks sucks. i don't care what the current crop is doing. i know what is good and most of them don't have the experience that some of the old geezers do. so why would one want to get into lock step with ignorance? just because someone has a bunch of hits and is the flavor du jour hotshot this week doesn't mean a thing. a lot of times it comes down to personalities, charm, image/appearance and young artists feeling like working with an older seasoned pro is not hip but instead, "creepy". if this were not true, there wouldn't be so many bad records out there.

sure a lot of stuff these days is sampled ... and that perfect kick sample? well guess what? it sounds the same every time. BORING! some may like that but i don't.

all i have to say is once a person gets the chance to work in well designed rooms, they will never be satisfied with less. oh yeah, they will try to get by with less as necessity dictates but deep inside they understand it's a compromise. there is no substitution for good acoustics, either in the CR or the LR.

it's really that simple

mmmphhhh! ghaaaa! suicide ahhhhhhh!

awesome. I hear ya.

re samples: Its the boring ones or poorly programmed, tuned or edited that you only remember or notice as it being a sample.
And, we have a preconceived idea of what talent is or not and also what a sample is around here.

Reading forum comments on products and methods can be so misleading. So much out there that works for one and not another. No one way is right.
I do believe great acoustics are the closest thing to always holding true but those rooms are few and far between. .

Kurt Foster, post: 394998 wrote: let's try to clear things up. if you have a room with the wrong dimensions, no amount of deadening / treatments is going to help. cubes or rooms with poor ratios will always exhibit comb filtering and problems with unpleasant reflections, even if you put six feet of ridged fiberglass on the walls. the solution is to build rooms that have proper ratios even if you are space restricted. this one reason why most big studios have very large rooms ... the larger you get, the more these little problems dissappear. If you make it big enough, even a cube can sound great! for more on that check out [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.miravers…"]Manifold Studios[/]="http://www.miravers…"]Manifold Studios[/], a new room that just opened.

and i don't know about the rest of youse but i personally hate the sound of a completely dead room ... it just sucks all the energy out of a track. let it breath!

i don't get why someone would want to invest in a Bricasti or other high end solutions when their live rooms / vocal booths are in need of attention. it makes about as much sense to me as wearing gym socks with a pair of alligator loafers.

mmmmph!! ghaaaa! suicide ahhhhh!

Ditto!
But in a day when so much is done with the lack of a great room dead is the better alternative IMHO.
Honestly which would you rather work with tracks exhibiting comb filtering and problems with unpleasant reflections, or, tracks that where dead and a Bricasti and / or other?
I love seeing tracks that need nothing, but it just never is it seems.
I say build it big, get the dimensions correct no matter the size, make it tight, and if its small deaden it.

well to me that's like saying if your car doesn't have good brakes, drive slow.

if your room sounds like crap, fix it. if it can't be fixed get a new one. don't drive a car with bad brakes.

i suppose you could say a recording isn't a matter of life and death like two tons of hurtling metal is but i submit , tell that to the client who's files you just lost to a power failure.

it can be a matter of life or death for a song or a career.

mmmmmph! ghhhaaaa ! suicideahhhhhhhh!

Recording Studio Gobo's

Kurt Foster, post: 395006 wrote: well to me that's like saying if your car doesn't have good brakes, drive slow.

if your room sounds like crap, fix it. if it can't be fixed get a new one. don't drive a car with bad brakes.

i suppose you could say a recording isn't a matter of life and death like two tons of hurtling metal is but i submit , tell that to the client who's files you just lost to a power failure.

it can be a matter of life or death for a song or a career.

mmmmmph! ghhhaaaa ! suicideahhhhhhhh!

ROTF, here comes the avatars again ! hehe. hilarious.

More like, don't try and be a full production recording studio if all ya got is this for gobo's lol:

No Bricasti will do you good for this gig :)

Attached files

I can't tell the difference between poop or pee. It all looks the same to me!

Attached files

LOL
I need brake on my tractor.
And I get what you are saying ( to a degree ), but not everyone is going to get a new room.
I say get the dimensions correct, even in a small room you can add a wall to correct the dimension even on a budget, and if it is small deaden it. That just make sense to me. A small room is not going to sound like a nice big open room. So kill it. I hate small rooms I do not like the sound.

As for me, I would say a nice live room compared to a dead room would be more accurately described by saying a V-8 or a 4 cylinder. The V-8 can give you all you want, the 4 cylinder will just get you there.

a small room doesn't need to sound dead. just neutral. you should never have to cover the whole room with foam / fiberglass or egg crates. lol. (remember the KORN radio studio on Hee Haw?)

here's the issue; once you begin to deaden a room how do you know what frequencies you are murdering, which you are boosting and which ones you are just taming? you're still going to end up with modes / peaks / nulls. if the room has really bad dimensions you will still get comb filtering.

the only reason people think absorption is the answer is because there are some unscrupulous hacks making a fortune selling fiberglass or membrane absorbers telling them they can put some lipstick on a pig and turn it into MILA KUNIS.

actually i think the best solution for small booths and rooms that exhibit bad sound reflections is high quality diffusion. but diffusers are very costly. once again though that is the only way to make a small space that sounds like ass through the mic usable.

good ratios are essential, not just recommended. you might as well try to take a picture in a completely darkened room.

this is one reason at the top of the thread i recommended a 421 for this app. 421's ar more directional than their counterparts for the most part and don't exhibit as much of a proximity / bass boost. to boot there's a handy little 4 way bass attenuation switch. get that edge from the mic and the lows from the di.

pan60, post: 395010 wrote: LOL I get what you are saying ( to a degree ), but not everyone is going to get a new room.

well then, they should just be happy with what they have and not ask silly questions that have no real answers other than; "you can't get there from here" or "you're not going to hollywood". sometimes the answer is one that you just don't want to hear.

no offense intended.
mmmmph! arghhhhhh! suicide ahhhhhhhh!

Attached files

Here is an example of a VO done in the VocalBooth. I can definitely hear the comb filtering and even guess this is a 4x4 booth. To me its way too small for singing. Hardly adequate for this app. If I was going to build a booth ( which I don't need because my control room rocks compared), it definitely would be larger.

Just for giggles, I thought I'd have fun doing an A/B with my Bricasti and a bit of additional spreading with the hybrid rig.. vs dry. The object was about creating a room from a dry room. Without much effort I think I've done a fair job ( as bad as this VO sounds) simulating a larger room is easy. The comb filtering is less obvious with some simulation and a bit of EQ now, don't you think so? In a musical arrangement I think it would be even easier to faux it all in.

thoughts?

[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/vbooth-dry-1
[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/vbooth-wet-1
[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/vbooth-wet2 ( added a bit more presence)

Don't know for certain but I believe this was recorded in a 5x5 "VocalBooth" Sounds pretty awesome to me.:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://mariahcarey…"]Mariah Carey "Triumphant"[/]="http://mariahcarey…"]Mariah Carey "Triumphant"[/]

Some testimonials again just for thought.
http://www.vocalbooth.com/clients/client-testimonials/

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]Kurt Foster[/]="http://recording.or…"]Kurt Foster[/] i am following and agreeing to a large degree. i tend to lean more to a dead room, but i also i should clarify want i would call a dead room. to me it is a room that has problem frequency tamed, rather peaks or nulls, and for that i like to do it would broad band abortion in combination with some targeted Acoustic Hellholm Resonance Absorption, i like a tuned chamber in a wall pockets for example. and i do not want to hear much in the way of reflections so i lean very much to dead. but not so dead as to make you dizzy dead, just to be sure. LOL

anything thing is, maybe define what is a small room?
For me a small room i'll say maybe it would be a 8' x 10' or less or in that general area. For these size rooms I would prefer total dampening.
But should add, I would shoot the room and see what it is. Maybe add some small degree of reflection. I guess it would depend on the room?

As for those who are starting out and have a very limited budget, I say get the dimensions correct and correctly treat the room. I like the dead rooms better. For me the only thing that beats a dead room an is a really really great room. Or my back yard.

Kurt Foster, post: 395011 wrote: well then, they should just be happy with what they have and not ask silly questions that have no real answers other than; "you can't get there from here" or "you're not going to hollywood". sometimes the answer is one that you just don't want to hear.

Agreed, but I see nothing wrong with making your room dead if it sealed and dimensionally correct.
I want to encourage new engineers and yes let them know they need some larger rooms but in the meantime get them going and learning.

Kurt Foster, post: 394941 wrote: anyway it's mic, NOT mike. Mike is a guy I know, mic is short for microphone .... see there's no "K" in microphone unless your speaking German and we all know where that leads you. lol.

i thought we settled that years ago ...

mmmmph! gahhhhh! suicide ahhhhh!

What does this have to do with Godwins Law? It only takes one Nazi to let the prizoners out of the camp.duh

hueseph, post: 395018 wrote: What does this have to do with Godwins Law? It only takes one Nazi to let the prizoners out of the camp.duh

i had to google godwins law.

ROTFLMAO

i didn't mention nazis or hitler ..... just germans.. lol.

wow guys! this really blew into a question about acustics :tongue: I'm planning to buy a decent mic for bassrecording, not rebuilding my studio :)

sennheiser 421 for all the previously mentioned reasons.

mmmph! ghaaaa! suicide ahhhhhhh!

Nutti, post: 395020 wrote: wow guys! this really blew into a question about acustics :tongue: I'm planning to buy a decent mic for bassrecording, not rebuilding my studio :)

Looks like you got lucky on this thread! Not too often do we take members on a journey like this lol. I think I'll split this off into its own thread about a Bricasti.

Everytime I listen to this clip it reminds me why I love live music, beautiful room acoustics for vocals that is. Hard to replace this ITB.
http://recording.org/mobile-recording/48436-choir-where-are-the-mics.html

$3700 reverb units not withstanding....

For the self-proclaimed hobbyist with a $75 "crap t.bone kickdrum mic", my point was ( and still is ) once he's got a good PreAmp / DI track recorded bass track - he can always use a relatively inexpensive re-amp box to add a mic track without worrying about bleeding into the other tracks - allowing him to experiment. He indicates he's got a larger room, but doesn't use it for the bass because he's concerned about bleed. If his mic (new or old) sounds good in the booth, BONUS! If he wants something different, he can use whatever mic he likes, in front of whatever bass rig best serves the song, in whatever room/environment gives him the sound he's looking for. Jamming a big dynamic against the grill in a small booth is just one flavor.

Nutti, almost all of the mics that have been recommended for micing a bass amp are also excellent kick drum mics. So if you like the idea of two in one, you can't go wrong with the AKG D112, AKG D12 (good luck finding a vintage D12) Audio-Technica ATM25 (has anybody compared the anniversary reissue ATM25 to the old one?), Sennheiser MD421, E-V RE20, E-V N/D868, Audix D6, Shure b52. They're all widely used for kick-drums and bass instruments of all kinds. If you'd like to experiment with re-amping they're not terribly expensive, and if you have any soldering skills at all - there are nice [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.diyrecor…"]DIY kits[/]="http://www.diyrecor…"]DIY kits[/] available that are quite easy to build.

and my point was, even a stock reverb plug-in ( or two and you know what you are doing) is adequate if a room is dead. It may not sound like the Bricasti or the perfect tracking room for bass but it will still work, or get you by.

In fact, I don't know about you but the deader the bass the better I like it. Why? because I personally prefer adding reverb to bass over live room sound almost any day of the week. The more control the better. But that's coming at it from a commercial mixing and production POV. Some people don't care what they sound like. They just want their music to sound like a jam session or bar.

all in good fun....

Not to flog a dead horse but I never get tired of discussion which ever way it goes. I love music so much I can hardly sleep and its been that way with me since I was a teenager.

As an example of what I would avoid like the plague below, and because we are lurking around the home recording budget and reverb was mentioned, it would be pretty hard to take this sound to pro. So even though its over some heads now, or not exactly how we all build our studios, we are passing on addition info to help plant seeds for future engineers who aspire to be better.
How do you ever get punch from that bass sound in a mix like this? And I suspect a mass amount of people lurking are not even aware of this.
I hear the standing wave. But if that room was out, an engineer could actually do something with it. Nothing like having 180/240hz humming along in every song of the band. wwoooooooooo.

If I was building a studio, I would have a dead room ready at all times. It would be the busiest room in the house.

(Expired Link Removed)

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.youtube…"]Bass Reverb shizzl - YouTube[/]="http://www.youtube…"]Bass Reverb shizzl - YouTube[/]

horsie, go horsie .... go! dead rooms or dead horses?

well i personally can count the times i have used reverb on bass on one hand. when i mic a bass cab i usually mash the mic (sennheiser 421) right into the speaker grill. if spill is an issue then the previous remark about re amping the bass post tracking is the correct solution. but if i have a live band tracking at the same time in a well built room (without any acoustics issiues) i welcome the spill. spill is good!

considering that, most of this conversation about acoustics and reverbs is pretty moot in my opinion. it would be interesting to hear in how many others are adding 'verb to bass tracks? that might go a long way to understanding why so many recordings sound like ass! just because you have deadened a room doesn't mean you have corrected it's standing wave and comb filtering issues. traps and absorbers followed by diffusion is the correct trail to follow. but you need to begin with a decent foundation in the first place. otherwise it's "LIPSTICK ON A PIG!"

....... and to continue, making a room "dead" doesn't prevent standing waves. lots of dead rooms i have been in have very bad peaks and nulls and comb filtering issues.

traps and and Helmholtz absorbers can help but the best way around these problems is good dimensions. i don't get why you all are so reticent to start off on the right foot in the fist place instead of taking a problem room and then throwing thousands at it to correct it and the winding up with rooms/ booths that are compromised. where's the common sense in that?

mmmmph! ghaaaaa! suicide ahhhhhhh!

I'll put a touch of reverb on fretless tracks. In fact, I liked it so much that I added an [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rocketmu…"]EBS DynaVerb[/]="http://www.rocketmu…"]EBS DynaVerb[/] to my pedal board and I use it for fretless and standup. I don't recall ever using it on recorded P-bass.

Sorry, I'm late to the discussion, but I think Kurt is overemphasizing room ratios in relation to room size. Even with "optimal" ratios, a small room has widely spaced resonant low frequencies. Ratios determine how evenly the modes are distributed. Size determines how widely. It's da law. So, to my taste, there are only two types of "booth size" rooms: bad and dead. I will beat the dead horse and prefer the dead room.

BobRogers, post: 395036 wrote: I'll put a touch of reverb on fretless tracks. In fact, I liked it so much that I added an [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rocketmu…"]EBS DynaVerb[/]="http://www.rocketmu…"]EBS DynaVerb[/] to my pedal board and I use it for fretless and standup. I don't recall ever using it on recorded P-bass.

Sorry, I'm late to the discussion, but I think Kurt is overemphasizing room ratios in relation to room size. Even with "optimal" ratios, a small room has widely spaced resonant low frequencies. Ratios determine how evenly the modes are distributed. Size determines how widely. It's da law. So, to my taste, there are only two types of "booth size" rooms: bad and dead. I will beat the dead horse and prefer the dead room.

hey Bob,
i agree with you. my point is to start with good ratios in the first place then go for treatments / absorption, trapping and diffusers.

mmmmmph! ghaaaaa! suicide ahhhhh!

Finally got Bob in here, right on!

--------------------------

Back to the pack. So... what was all the talk about room acoustics in a bass? My point from the beginning was to avoid it entirely and why Pan and I both emphasize the dead room benefits.
But should I add some space in an electronic, hip hop, fretless or whatever mix, I would only want it via a processor. Not coming from some poor acoustic room for certain.

I can guarantee Dave or Kurt, aren't even thinking about some styles of music. There is a huge percentage of readers lurking and possibly wondering WTF we are all talking about. Who is right? or how dated we are!

Majority of topics go sideways on forums because no one confirms what type of studio and sound we are going for, coming from. One newbie could be headed in the electronic sound, another could be surprisingly headed towards an organic sound. Thus, when the OP asks a question, 50 engineers from all styles of music chime in and give their two cents. 50 year spread of styles all in a quagmire. Its really easy to understand this from my chair but for newbies, it can be a challenge sifting through it all. It can also create a lot of tension because I personally don't accept old school rules are gospel, and that doesn't sit well with some here. Who is tracking a big band orchestra these days? It sure ain't anyone in a home studio lol.

Kurt had a full scale studio, took great pride in the rooms, I am a techno geek from a classical background who will pull out the electronics every chance I can get. Why? because I'm not going for that raw sound and have no interest in ever building a full size studio. I personally think they are a really bad investment but all the power to whomever takes one on.
Kids are using electronics to make sounds and space. I've made a serious living using electronics so its really hard for me to swallow a lot of the theories here.
Remy, Dave, Kurt, Moon, Bos, Bob, Hue, me ( sorry if I left you out) ... Its really wonderful but lol, a parallax view on this... its pretty comical, I hope you all know I never take offence or want anyone to think I am attacking you either. I just don't give up easy.

Just thought I'd add that.

Thank you Bob! I feel like my brother just rescued me. hugs to us all.

Nutti, post: 395020 wrote: wow guys! this really blew into a question about acustics :tongue: I'm planning to buy a decent mic for bassrecording, not rebuilding my studio :)

but a great topic: )
a great chat and some great info from a couple points of view; }~

and i am not big on reverb on bass either. i am rather scarce on reverb most of the time anyway, if it does not feel absolutely need i say leave it off: )