# Let's talk about Low F reproduction.



## abandonist (Dec 31, 2012)

Getting down past drop A on a bass you end up getting into muddy territory.

Who has experience with cabs that can reproduce a Low F with clarity and grace, rather than nearly blown speakers and warbled tone.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 31, 2012)

You mean the fundamental, right?


----------



## abandonist (Dec 31, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## Chuck (Dec 31, 2012)

Don't forget an amp that can properly sound a low F as well


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 31, 2012)

Does Variant still post here? He would be one to ask. He tunes looooowwww.


----------



## DavidLopezJr (Dec 31, 2012)

fEarful and companies like that make the best cabs for tuning low. Second best option is going with pretty much any 4x10 or 8x10 option.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 31, 2012)

You won't get the fundamental - concentrate on the second harmonic. That is quite the challenge in and of itself.


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 31, 2012)

It occurs to me that your best bet is a fEARful 15/6 with a shelf extension to drop the tuning of the cab some.


----------



## abandonist (Dec 31, 2012)

I was kind of waiting for you to post in here.

Thanks, I'll look into that. Right now I'm just running an Orange Bass Terror into an SWR 8x8 for a 5 string in drop A. I'm having a custom 35"-37" fanned-fretless made with the intent of having it in drop F. I'm the only player in the band other than the drummer, and the idea is to really feel the heavy. Godflesh sounding stuff right now, but I use the same rig with an 8 string for guitar songs.

Any advice on a particular amp head? I know I'll need more power than the 600 watts of the BT to really push that low.

What about using a powered sub extension off my regular rig?


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 31, 2012)

abandonist said:


> I was kind of waiting for you to post in here.
> 
> Thanks, I'll look into that. Right now I'm just running an Orange Bass Terror into an SWR 8x8 for a 5 string in drop A. I'm having a custom 35"-37" fanned-fretless made with the intent of having it in drop F. I'm the only player in the band other than the drummer, and the idea is to really feel the heavy. Godflesh sounding stuff right now, but I use the same rig with an 8 string for guitar songs.
> 
> ...



Thing to look for in an amp or pre/power deal is control on your EQ in the right places. For F you are going to want to get and/or control 43 Hz - most cabs won't give you this, but if your tone stack lets you ride that frequency you can coax it out. You are at the extreme of what a speaker enclosure can do - the cab is more a concern than the amp.

A powered sub won't get you lower - it will just get you louder at the frequencies the sub delivers. If a cab can't reach 43 Hz it doesn't matter how many enclosures you throw at it - you still aren't going to get 43 Hz out of it. 

fEARful is a good consideration as you can tune the cab close to what you want. If you want or need more power down low you can get a second woofer section that is equally and identically tunable.


----------



## abandonist (Dec 31, 2012)

They look super nice, but damn if that isn't the same I'm spending on the guitar!

I suppose quality costs - especially in a niche market.

Start saving!


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Dec 31, 2012)

When I tuned to low G in one of my ex-bands, I used P.A. speakers and 2 power amps. They were definitely pushing the fundamental, because the movements of the speakers were at such a low frequency I could watch them moving clearly. Of course the main sound was for the second harmonic, but boy was it low still. 

Cabs were 2x18"s and 4x15"s with 1000W and 2000W power amps respectively. I dont think you'll get there with normal bass cabs, maybe a fEarful or something though.


----------



## abandonist (Dec 31, 2012)

Any particular eq pedal that might excel here?

I can't find one right at 43. I've got 31, 36, 45, etc.


----------



## abandonist (Jan 1, 2013)

How do we feel about Phil Jones' stuff? I've seen some good things in my research and it'd cost quite a bit less than the fEARful.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 1, 2013)

As EQ goes, the idea is to use it to coax more out of a cab where it starts to fall apart - mid/high 40's to 50 with a decent cab - as opposed to using it to shape the sound of the bass. Something in the 45 Hz range will serve you well.

Finding a cab that truly does under 50 Hz is the exception, and yes you will spend for it. If you went whole guns on it you could do a Bag End rig with one of their Infra subs and you could actually get the 21 Hz fundamental - but that would cost you mightily. 

I know the Bag End works well - I had a Quake tuned to G# below C# (13 Hz) at NAMM and Bag End supplied me their 21" Infra. Having the fundamental is an incredible experience, even on a trade show floor.

Phil Jones stuff is great - you will spend on that too, though. His solutions for your application aren't budget offerings.


----------



## abandonist (Jan 1, 2013)

I think I like the idea of 2 Phil Jones 8x5 cabs. The specs seem like it'd get the job done.

I could just get a sansamp and a 1000 watt power amp for the whole package.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 1, 2013)

I don't know the PJ lineup well, but I like their cabs. You'll spend less on a fearful to get more volume/loudness. No fail in either choice.

The Sansamp and power amp would work for both. If you're investigating still you could look at single space channel strips - might give you better EQ options and gives you a leg up for recording.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 2, 2013)

The 8x5s are VERY quiet for the cost. And honestly, with the fEarfuls it's hard to get that kind of low end per pound AND per dollar. You will spend much more for less with the PJ stuff.

Really, though, it's an uphill fight to get that second harmonic loud enough to make it over a drummer. You will need a fair bit of watts and some specialized cabs with a fair bit of displacement. Remember, as you go lower, it takes exponentially more power to reproduce the signal, never mind the physical limitations of speakers and enclosures.


----------



## TolerancEJ (Jan 4, 2013)

You should send a message to member Jauqo III-X. His signature instrument goes down to the low C# range.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 4, 2013)

TemjinStrife said:


> The 8x5s are VERY quiet for the cost. And honestly, with the fEarfuls it's hard to get that kind of low end per pound AND per dollar. You will spend much more for less with the PJ stuff.
> 
> Really, though, it's an uphill fight to get that second harmonic loud enough to make it over a drummer. You will need a fair bit of watts and some specialized cabs with a fair bit of displacement. Remember, as you go lower, it takes exponentially more power to reproduce the signal, never mind the physical limitations of speakers and enclosures.



I will second Temjin's take on the PJ stuff - good speakers and good response, but not very efficient. 

Best solution for you in my opinion is a 15/6 fEARful with the shelf modification and the mid-pad switch, and a second 15 sub with the shelf mod on it as well. The 6" mid in those is incredibly efficient and can support two of the Eminence 15" woofers those cabs are designed around. The switch pads the 6" mid back to play nice with a single 15. If you flip the switch the one 6" mid can support the built in 15" as well as the second one. You will need a stereo amp though.


----------



## Decipher (Jan 4, 2013)

I've heard that the Accugroove Whappo Grande was good for the really low stuff, but sadly the company's on hiatus with the health of the owner.

A buddy of mine plays in local band here KYOKTYS. He's playing a Warwick Thumb tuned to F# (guitarist plays an 8) and he's running through the ISP Beta Bass Preamp and 2 of the ISP Bass Vector Pro cabs. It's pretty fucking thunderous!! Sounds and mostly FEELS pretty awesome.


----------



## T-e-r-r-y (Jan 5, 2013)

Lowest I've tried was drop G with a GK1001rb-ii and Orange 4x10 + 1x15 cabs. 
I used a Tech 21 VT Bass pedal with a Boss LS-2 to mix in some grind, and it worked wonderfully.


----------



## facepalm66 (Jan 5, 2013)

That's the most sceptical part: the F / F# is almost inaudible for a human ear.....


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 5, 2013)

facepalm66 said:


> That's the most sceptical part: the F / F# is almost inaudible for a human ear.....



The fundamental, yes. Not the higher harmonics.

That said, for what I do, there is absolutely no point in going that low. But for others there might be.


----------



## facepalm66 (Jan 5, 2013)

So what's the point of investing all the cash for the custom gear, strings, poweramps, time and patience etc? For the idea of going extra low rather than standard?


----------



## DarkWolfXV (Jan 5, 2013)

facepalm66 said:


> So what's the point of investing all the cash for the custom gear, strings, poweramps, time and patience etc? For the idea of going extra low rather than standard?


 
Whats the point in playing guitar anyway? Investing all stuff in gear, strings, amps, time and patience?
The anwser is, fun and satisfaction.


----------



## Winspear (Jan 5, 2013)

I've just done some pretty extensive testing in software.

I tune to F. I understand wanting to reproduce these frequencies live, but is that all it extends to? Just curious as I only use software and don't even own an amp/cab right now. Playing in my DAW I was able to just about get a sine wave around 25Hz through a cab impulse of an SVT8x10 with a Neumann U47Fet mic. My monitors don't quite reproduce it, but I could use analyzers to see that the cab impulse was doing a pretty good job.

However, I plugged my bass in and barely any of the tone seemed to come from the fundamental. However, even if it did: Would it ever be useful in the studio? Most frequencies around 20-30hz are completely removed from studio recordings and for good reason..Not to mention even those listening on great speaker systems probably still wont hear it.

So it's just for power live? I bet it's a great experience to feel.


----------



## facepalm66 (Jan 5, 2013)

DarkWolfXV said:


> Whats the point in playing guitar anyway? Investing all stuff in gear, strings, amps, time and patience?
> The anwser is, fun and satisfaction.


 
Not quite what we were talking about...

Anyway, I partly agree with the idea of feeling it live. Would be quite interesting to feel the rumble.


----------



## angus (Jan 5, 2013)

Bag End ELF M2 system + Infra 21" cab. Been around for the better part of 15-20 years, and I've still never encountered anything remotely comparable. 

But then you have to remind yourself if it really gets you anywhere, since live you'll have a million competing factors that all need to be up to snuff to notice the difference and none of them will be.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 5, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> I've just done some pretty extensive testing in software.
> 
> I tune to F. I understand wanting to reproduce these frequencies live, but is that all it extends to? Just curious as I only use software and don't even own an amp/cab right now. Playing in my DAW I was able to just about get a sine wave around 25Hz through a cab impulse of an SVT8x10 with a Neumann U47Fet mic. My monitors don't quite reproduce it, but I could use analyzers to see that the cab impulse was doing a pretty good job.
> 
> ...



See . . . here's the deal. The low B was scoffed at when it first came around, and for the most part - despite it's being decades old - no rig STILL produces the fundamental. 5 string basses outsell 4 string basses. The fact that we cannot hear every part of the sound being produced seems to be immaterial to an awful lot of people for a VERY long time.

AND . . . we now have more technology in our homes and in our cars that actually DO produce these frequencies. A fair number down to an octave below a standard low E. We are the vanguard - we who work at harnessing the low end. It can be heard - it can be used - and it warrants exploration.

Just sayin' . . . . .


----------



## abandonist (Jan 6, 2013)

What exactly is the shelf mod? I can't seem to find any info on the fEARful site.

And is the 15/6 enough speaker to hear everything over drums and vocals?


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 6, 2013)

abandonist said:


> What exactly is the shelf mod? I can't seem to find any info on the fEARful site.
> 
> And is the 15/6 enough speaker to hear everything over drums and vocals?



The shelf mod is detailed here; shelf extension, lower tuning

A single 15/6 is pretty loud - get a 15 sub to go along and the rest of the band will hate you.


----------



## TolerancEJ (Jan 7, 2013)

facepalm66 said:


> That's the most sceptical part: the F / F# is almost inaudible for a human ear.....


 
Which means no one should notice if you hit some wrong notes.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 7, 2013)

facepalm66 said:


> That's the most sceptical part: the F / F# is almost inaudible for a human ear.....


Listen to the sound samples here Round Wound Strings on good headphones or a good sound system.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 7, 2013)

facepalm66 said:


> That's the most sceptical part: the F / F# is almost inaudible for a human ear.....



By way of explanation - the fundamental at any pitch on a bass guitar is only 10 to 15% of the total sound you're hearing. The most pronounced frequency is the second harmonic which is one octave higher than the fundamental. That makes the frequency you hear most predominantly 43 to 46 Hz - most certainly well within human perception.

It becomes about timbre at that point, and how well your strings produce upper harmonics. Lively strings are your best friend when tuning this low.


----------



## in-pursuit (Jan 8, 2013)

^^ which upper harmonics are primarily produced by a string at any given pitch are affected by the scale length, correct?


----------



## angus (Jan 8, 2013)

No, the specific frequencies of the harmonics are fixed, but the relative composition of intensities of those harmonics is determined by a multitude of factors. That is what "tone" is.


----------



## Kroaton (Jan 12, 2013)

I still don't get the desire for this outside of band practice or playing really small venue gigs with no PA (in these settings it might be quite awesome).

But seeing how most mics start having a steep drop off at around 30-50k [the AKG D112 for example is -10db lower at 20hz than at 50hz) you could not even mic a cabinet that might be able to produce the low fundamental without serious low frequency loss.

The fundamental of F is 21.8hz , the first overtone/second harmonic is at 43.6hz , the second overtone/third harmonic is at 65.4hz and the 3rd overtone/4th harmonic is at 87.2hz.

The 1st harmonic is the fundamental tone , the second is the octave , the third harmonic is the fifth over the octave and the fourth is the 2nd octave.

I play my bass tuned to G#/Ab (25.9hz) and in my Audio Technica m50's I can hear it loud and clear (they have a 5db drop from 30hz to 20hz) but I have no means to reproduce it live yet.

What benefit to you guys find in reproducing the fundamental through a cabinet in the context of a live show? In my mind , going direct would be way more effective , transparent and cheaper.
No frequency drop from the mic , you can make a custom cabinet impulse that does not drop anything under 40hz , virtual power amp modelling + unlimited eq in front of and after the power amp.

What benefit do you get out of a 1-2k rig (fearful + a proper amp) in a live context?


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 12, 2013)

I think consensus in this thread is to concentrate on the second harmonic where rigs are concerned - at least that is what I encourage.

In any circumstance - live or studio - mic'ing a cab is for flavor, and the DI/line feed is for the fundamental. 

There are cabs that will produce flat response to 20 Hz and below. The application for this would be when you are accompanying acoustic musicians and instruments that are not amplified so that you merely need to keep up and not project necessarily. Playing an octave under an upright bass in an orchestra hall comes to mind.

The point to a fEARful is that they reproduce everything run through it faithfully - if you rely on a line feed/DI for FOH you owe it to yourself to know what you're handing the sound guy as being accurate. Any other rig will give you it's sound - even YOUR sound - but it likely will not be any indicator of what that DI out actually sounds like because of the idiosyncracies of your cabs or amp/head or both.


----------



## Kroaton (Jan 13, 2013)

I don't really agree with that seeing how the acoustics of the room you are playing in will color your perception of the sound , especially when it comes to bass.
The padding of the floor , the early reflections from the back , the distance from the cab , the placement of the driver , the room modes.

In no way is hearing a cab live the same thing as listening to a DI of your bass rig on FFR gear [even high quality headphones will give you a better impression and overview of your tone , as they can actually reproduce that frequency spectrum properly with no coloration].

As such the ideea of using a hi-fi non FFR cabinet such as the fEARful to gauge the quality of your bass DI live does not make that much sense to me.

And I've yet to come across a mic that could pick-up and give you FFR in the 10 to 50 hz range.
All the ones you will actually encounter as a bassist during gigs start dropping off at 30hz.
The only things that could actually mic that frequency spectrum sort of flat would probably be a Speaker Transducer or a proper hi-fi PZM + some other mic setup.

But that's about a 3-5k worth of gear right there just to produce and track the fundamental , and the quality of the miked up signal would still be inferior to a DI with a simulated impulse cabinet setup with no cab interference under 40hz. [you can just edit a cab impulse and delete the frequency curve under 40hz]

I do agree with you on the acoustic accompaniment front though , I bet that would be quite the aural experience.


----------



## Winspear (Jan 13, 2013)

Kroaton said:


> But that's about a 3-5k worth of gear right there just to produce and track the fundamental , and the quality of the miked up signal would still be inferior to a DI with a simulated impulse cabinet setup with no cab interference under 40hz. [you can just edit a cab impulse and delete the frequency curve under 40hz]



Neat idea. Care to explain how? I understand impulses and have made some before but not sure how to go about that...

Currently, I am using DI>Impulse of an Ampeg SVT8x10 with a Nuemann U47FET microphone, which had the loudest and lowest response of all the impulses I tested. 

I suppose what you are proposing though, would be just as simple as creating an additional send of the lowest frequencies only, to be unaffected by the the impulse.


----------



## abandonist (Jan 13, 2013)

Sorry to be so hostile, but the clinical nature this thread has taken makes me want to be dead.

I play drone, doom, and noise music. I like hearing wobbles and feeling the music. I don't really give half a fuck what someone thinks about how it sounds live. It's not meant to sound 'nice'. It's meant to hurt you. But I want the setup to be able to shake your fucking teeth and reach into the depths of hell. I play shows once every year or so in small echoey places like a record store. Whether you understand it or not isn't of any concern to me. It's a sound that can be made, so why not make it? I don't know any of the notes on a guitar or bass and have never taken a lesson. I had to actually look up the note I wanted the bass tuned to so that I could explain the idea to the luthier. I just make sound and hurt myself on tape. I've been doing it for 18 years. Now I can do it with a different psychological effect.


----------



## Kroaton (Jan 13, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> Neat idea. Care to explain how? I understand impulses and have made some before but not sure how to go about that...
> 
> Currently, I am using DI>Impulse of an Ampeg SVT8x10 with a Nuemann U47FET microphone, which had the loudest and lowest response of all the impulses I tested.
> 
> I suppose what you are proposing though, would be just as simple as creating an additional send of the lowest frequencies only, to be unaffected by the the impulse.





That's how I'm doing it right now , though the more I think about it the more I think it's a treating something based upon the result and not the cause sort of thing.
By blending the two signals this way there's gonna be some phase-issues/few db dip of where they don't meet or the other way around a few db higher if they land one atop the other.

From what I understand an impulse is made by comparing what you send into a amp+cab setup and what comes out.
The differences between the two become your impulse response curve and they either get saved to a proprietary format or a wav file.

The best way would be to simply to edit the frequency response curve of the IR itself by EQing the low end to match the original volume of whatever it was you used to sweep the Impulse or just doing it to an already made impulse after the fact.

The wav file could probably be edited via way of compression , volume automation or actual EQ to get the low end response you want out of it.

I need to read a bit on how the response curve is actually saved within the wav files because I imagine it being a bit more complex than what I described.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can elucidate things.


----------



## Kroaton (Jan 13, 2013)

abandonist said:


> Sorry to be so hostile, but the clinical nature this thread has taken makes me want to be dead.
> .
> .
> .
> ...



Then why bother replying at all ? To this death inspiring fuck fest of boredom and square-man thinking , of high-brow extravaganza driven by our need to destroy all that's beautiful and selflessly deviant such as the creativity of the world?

Does it make you feel good about yourself to be special and unique and see things through a dark and cinical light beneath the twilight of our existence all the while not even giving a shit about us humble morons talking about our collective passion?

Also , bragging and finding pride within your lack of knowledge in regards to "the notes" saddens me to the core of my soul. 

And why do men have nipples?

​


----------



## angus (Jan 13, 2013)

abandonist said:


> Sorry to be so hostile, but the clinical nature this thread has taken makes me want to be dead.



One man's pointless is another man's pursuit. 

You should consider yourself lucky that other people not everybody takes such a borderline-nihilist view. But that's fine- you don't have to care. No problem. But someone has to be clinical and thoughtful to make progress.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 13, 2013)

abandonist said:


> Sorry to be so hostile, but the clinical nature this thread has taken makes me want to be dead.



It is all physics and by its nature clinical - you explain what you want to do and I explain how and why . . . 

I contend that it is sound BEING made - in the form of standard B and lower - and not being heard. There are ways to hear it. The ways are theoretical mostly as few have used the gear that does it, and discussion like this inspires development for better-adapted equipment. I'm inspired by it and intend to make cabinetry that will better-facilitate.

Honest, this discussion is going exactly the way you want it to.

In this thread you have been informed how you might get every frequency you are creating with your instrument in the form of a line feed or DI signal that carries everything you are creating - this will let you either record it all or hand it to a house system that will be better at addressing things than a bass rig can or both. Some of the best cabinetry has been recommended to present as much of the low end as is possible from acoustic speakers and bass rigs, and some very expensive ways to go beyond those capacities.

Some of your solutions exist. Some don't. You have some viable recommendations you can run with. You'll have to be a little patient for the balance.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 13, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> Neat idea. Care to explain how? I understand impulses and have made some before but not sure how to go about that...
> 
> Currently, I am using DI>Impulse of an Ampeg SVT8x10 with a Nuemann U47FET microphone, which had the loudest and lowest response of all the impulses I tested.
> 
> I suppose what you are proposing though, would be just as simple as creating an additional send of the lowest frequencies only, to be unaffected by the the impulse.





Kroaton said:


> That's how I'm doing it right now , though the more I think about it the more I think it's a treating something based upon the result and not the cause sort of thing.
> By blending the two signals this way there's gonna be some phase-issues/few db dip of where they don't meet or the other way around a few db higher if they land one atop the other.
> 
> From what I understand an impulse is made by comparing what you send into a amp+cab setup and what comes out.
> ...



Impulse technology is basically harmonization - in engineering terms this is doable in a studio more readily than live as there is significant latency issues with even audible frequencies, and the lower you go the more pronounced the latency issues become.

There was a thread on TalkBass that discussed the harmonic makeup of a bass note that makes it identifiable as coming from a bass guitar or upright - search for the term waterfall plots and see if you can find the screen grabs of the analysis they showed.

For the sake of impulse processing I suggest that the best way is likely a combination of band-pass isolation to collect second harmonic sound strictly and synthesizing that sound one octave lower. By content the synthesized sound - if kept at 10 to 15% of total sound - will still resemble bass guitar notes. The most efficient method, rather than additional signals, is by duplicating the track and processing accordingly. You will be working with actual audio in this case that matches time and pitch perfectly as opposed to imposing in- or non-harmonic content into your audio.

Using cabs and mics is impractical for the limitations of both for the reasons discussed here already - the threshold with this method is likely to be G# and no lower if common bass gear is used, and F if the likes of a fEARful is employed.


----------



## Winspear (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm familiar with how different instruments produce a harmonic series to make their tone - that sounds like a great idea. 
So basically copying the isolated 2nd harmonic range and adding one of those sub-bass harmonic generator or 'bass enhancer' effects to it?
Will check that out.


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 13, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> I'm familiar with how different instruments produce a harmonic series to make their tone - that sounds like a great idea.
> So basically copying the isolated 2nd harmonic range and adding one of those sub-bass harmonic generator or 'bass enhancer' effects to it?
> Will check that out.



. . . or full-on just dropping the pitch of the duplicated track once the second harmonic is isolated. Band pass processing is the best method here, and works best if there is not a great deal of range in the bass part, you have a dynamic band pass plug-in, or are willing to slice and dice the copied track as often as necessary. Most band pass plug-ins are static so it will require multiple portions/sections if the part(s) extend beyond an octave-and-a-third in range.

None of this is necessary if the line feed has captured the data/frequencies fully, but this requires a A/D DI/digital send that is friendly under 20 Hz - a rare bird. But it is little to no work if it can be done right/completely the first pass. The RME Fireface series is among the cheapest.


----------



## Winspear (Jan 13, 2013)

I have an RME Multiface II set up on my new DAW but I'm not fully tracking on that yet...besides that's just Line Ins for external pres. I'll have to reamp some sine waves and see how the preamp/DI box I plan to use (and the Darkglass pedal) are doing for DI's that low. 
Really looking forward to recording on that setup.


----------



## angus (Jan 13, 2013)

You're worried about the reproduction of the low F#, but are going to use an overdrive pedal?


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 13, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> I have an RME Multiface II set up on my new DAW but I'm not fully tracking on that yet...besides that's just Line Ins for external pres. I'll have to reamp some sine waves and see how the preamp/DI box I plan to use (and the Darkglass pedal) are doing for DI's that low.
> Really looking forward to recording on that setup.



Good boxes they . . . nice setup. 

The Fireface series have mic pres that accept instrument signals and frequency response low enough - the UCX and 400 have Firewire, USB and SPIDF/ADAT out. I hope to have a good conversation with them at NAMM.


----------



## Winspear (Jan 13, 2013)

angus said:


> You're worried about the reproduction of the low F#, but are going to use an overdrive pedal?



Lows clean, always  I'm often using it just for it's EQ also, or the tiniest bit of grit. I always make sure to record a completely clean channel for the subs.

Seems all the input chain gear I plan on using is rated down to 20hz at _highest_ - 10 and 15 in some cases. Nice.

Skip - you've plenty experienced with extended scale basses...What does 37"/39" do for the low end? Or perhaps nothing and it's just a case of making the high end clearer and removing the issue of short scale + high gauge? I feel like my 35" bass is producing the low end just fine but the 190 gauge could certainly be brighter.


----------



## facepalm66 (Jan 13, 2013)

Did a little search, and I assume these guys use the LOW F 


Pretty awesome grooves tho.

Can't hear almost anything with my regular speakers.
With studio monitors or with a Bass speaker and a bass boost, I can actually hear some bassin', yet nothing really clear


----------



## Kroaton (Jan 13, 2013)

Hacktivist - Unlike Us (OFFICIAL VIDEO 2012) - YouTube 

you can hear it better in this one from time to time , though I just loaded it up into my daw [heartless analyzer freak] and under 30hz apart from the some kick-drum information there's almost no bass content there.
By comparisson if you properly cut everything over 25hz on Tesseract's Acceptance there is still a lot of low-end bass information down there.


----------



## abandonist (Jan 14, 2013)

Kroaton said:


> Then why bother replying at all ? To this death inspiring fuck fest of boredom and square-man thinking , of high-brow extravaganza driven by our need to destroy all that's beautiful and selflessly deviant such as the creativity of the world?
> 
> Does it make you feel good about yourself to be special and unique and see things through a dark and cinical light beneath the twilight of our existence all the while not even giving a shit about us humble morons talking about our collective passion?
> 
> ...



To be honest, I haven't slept in 3 days (prednisone is a bitch) and was rather drunk.

<3


----------



## Winspear (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm also curious Skip what kind of bandpass you recommend using for such fine selection. I was under the impression that extremity was usually detrimental and causing phase issues - I presume a linear-phase EQ would be necessary to handle this?


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 14, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> Skip - you've plenty experienced with extended scale basses...What does 37"/39" do for the low end? Or perhaps nothing and it's just a case of making the high end clearer and removing the issue of short scale + high gauge? I feel like my 35" bass is producing the low end just fine but the 190 gauge could certainly be brighter.


Longer scale lengths enable you to use thinner strings to do the same job - if you use a .105/.106 for standard E you can use a .094/095 and get the same tension. By virtue of the string being thinner there is more harmonic content in that the string is more capable of vibrating. Yes you get clearer highs, but you also get better defined lows. This is far more pronounced the bigger the string becomes - we use strings larger than .150 because we have to, not because they sound better - in truth bigger strings DON'T sound better, but physically it's the only way there.

This is what I hope to prove out with my long scale upright - I expect to be able to use a .142 for F# with proper tension, making the corresponding B string my .106. I suspect this will go a long way in explaining an awful lot.



EtherealEntity said:


> I'm also curious Skip what kind of bandpass you recommend using for such fine selection. I was under the impression that extremity was usually detrimental and causing phase issues - I presume a linear-phase EQ would be necessary to handle this?



My experience with this started with trying to compensate for problematic instruments. Tracking bass has historically been difficult mostly because of output issues from string to string. Band pass eq's are effective in isolating virtually any/every string, and where you run in to phase concerns is when you need multiple band pass boxes or channels, each with its own ability to reverse wave/signal polarity.

If you are in the digital realm polarity ceases to be an issue (or at least diminishes significantly) - and its the reason I encourage doing this non-analog. You have to go out of your way to invert waves to create audio cancellation, you side-step the diminished capacity of equipment not really designed to address the extreme lows we're talking about, and you eliminate the stacking of boxes by virtue of the duplication of tracks.

I can't suggest specific band-pass plug-ins, but a basic parametric eq will do well at this task, or multiple eq's if it happens to be an ornate bass part. Be prepared to slice and dice ALOT if you have busy parts.

And imo busy and sub-bass don't play well together.


----------



## abandonist (Jan 28, 2013)

Found a Bag End Infra 18 for pretty cheap. Should be here next week. Saving for the fEarful 15/6.

In the meantime I'll just run the 18 after my SWR 8x8.

What's the opinion on the SWR 8x8 (pre-fender) for low tones anyway?


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 29, 2013)

abandonist said:


> Found a Bag End Infra 18 for pretty cheap. Should be here next week. Saving for the fEarful 15/6.
> 
> In the meantime I'll just run the 18 after my SWR 8x8.
> 
> What's the opinion on the SWR 8x8 (pre-fender) for low tones anyway?



The 'Henry the 8x8' has a great voice - it depends on how you use the Infra. The rack controller gives you the ability to split your signal at 95Hz if memory serves so you can run it as a two way. I think it would be better to run the SWR full range and let the Infra cary everything 95Hz and down. That's what I did when I had the Infra system loaned to me at NAMM a few years back and it was nice having the frequency overlap/support down where it moves you.

It won't hurt to come by a EQ that will let you boost the 20/30Hz region in that infra - for as much as it is capable of delivering down there it does have a downward output slope at 40Hz that can be corrected with either a graphic or parametric.


----------



## Kroaton (Jan 30, 2013)

How do you go about balancing the volume output of such a setup (Infra + FR Cab) ?


----------



## knuckle_head (Jan 30, 2013)

Kroaton said:


> How do you go about balancing the volume output of such a setup (Infra + FR Cab) ?



Absolute balance is achieved by using the crossover in the Infra processor to give you absolute separation of duties between the HF cab and the sub, and riding the response curve to up the diminished response in the low frequencies - there is a downward slope below 35Hz that can be corrected with EQ. Each side (Infra/FR) has its own volume control as it would need to be bi-amped.

It need not be that clinical though . . . having frequency overlap below 95Hz sounds and feels good even though it is something other than flat.

Depends on the objective . . . . .


----------

