Finding the right tone

Jazz Ad · #1 01-18-2009, 05:29 PM

Hi JMJ.
Lately I've been running into tone issues.
I'm usually satisfied with the tone I get and when I have one in my head I'm pretty good at materializing it with basses and effects.
Now, I recently recorded a handful of songs for a singer guy, mainstream rock bordering electro.
I worked on the lines, trying to catch the mood of the songs and refining to the essential. I think the result is decent but not great, mostly because my bass tone doesn't blend very well with the rest of the tune.
Unfortunately, I don't know what to do to fix this. I tried the usual tricks : compression, a bit of modulation, different finger technique to alter the tone, no luck.
Basically I think the lines sound good but I can't think of which tone I should use.
Did you ever run into such issue and do you have recipes to solve it ? Thanks.

jmjbassplayer · #2 01-19-2009, 12:56 AM

I SO run into those issues from time to time. Sometimes I'll get into a project and be like, "man, I just can't get a good tone!!". Then the following week, same gear, different context, and it's all good.

I don't have a very specific solution in mind for you, unfortunately. But one thing I do is change the landscape with the bass and the strings. Do you have an instrument that is distinctly different from what you're using right now? And perhaps with a different type of winding? (Half-round, flatwound?) If you start there, then change amp-wise...try something more lo-fi, and perhaps a little overdriven.

I guess I'm suggesting that you flip the script entirely, starting from the "bottom of the pyramid", being the bass first.

JMJ

kyral210 · #3 01-19-2009, 10:03 AM

Totally agree here. I always have my EMG loaded 5 string and [passive SSB-4] Thunderbird next to me, plugging into my Bass Pod when writing. Even though I usually end up using my standard bass, standard tone at the end of everything, just having the complete flexibility of landscape opens so many paths that otherwise would be blind to me.

JKT · #4 01-19-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmjbassplayer

I SO run into those issues from time to time. Sometimes I'll get into a project and be like, "man, I just can't get a good tone!!". Then the following week, same gear, different context, and it's all good.

I don't have a very specific solution in mind for you, unfortunately. But one thing I do is change the landscape with the bass and the strings. Do you have an instrument that is distinctly different from what you're using right now? And perhaps with a different type of winding? (Half-round, flatwound?) If you start there, then change amp-wise...try something more lo-fi, and perhaps a little overdriven.

I guess I'm suggesting that you flip the script entirely, starting from the "bottom of the pyramid", being the bass first.

JMJ

Totally agree with this. While for many years I have attempted and been succesful with getting a variety of sounds out of my trusty P-bass, the last few years I have gravitated towards using two distinctly different basses set up quite differently. I believe it has been totally worth it.

JKT

jmjbassplayer · #5 01-20-2009, 02:39 AM

Sometimes even the sickest vintage P can't fit in the track. A rare occurrence for sure; but I will submit to you all that sometime you just need to pick up a JUNKER and dig in.

JMJ

pbass2 · #6 01-20-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmjbassplayer

Sometimes even the sickest vintage P can't fit in the track. A rare occurrence for sure; but I will submit to you all that sometime you just need to pick up a JUNKER and dig in.

JMJ

I just tracked on a tune for somebody, a trashy rock song (good trashy

and the bass that ended up working, despite all my nice basses that are beautifully set-up by my tech, was a beater pawn-shop no-name jazz with a truly a horrible set-up--the action was so low the strings/frets buzzed if you just picked it up--I think the neck had a severe back-bow. And it was actually missing the G string! It wasn't even supposed to be a "player"--it was a prop for a video. Crazy, but all that rattle and racket made the part!

jmjbassplayer · #7 01-21-2009, 12:31 AM

See what I'm saying??? My uber-sh*$$y basses are bomb! They have personality and ruggedness of tone! Get that bass sounding ugly and RUDE!

JMJ

Peter_00 · #8 03-13-2009, 03:40 AM

Sorry to dig this up but a situation yesterday in the studio reminded me of this thread.

Recording a really dynamic singer with a u87, for some reason it just didn't sit the mix at ALL. Put up a 58, lo and behold it sounded great.

Just goes to show that there is a situation for all types of gear!

JimmyM · #9 03-13-2009, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_00

Sorry to dig this up but a situation yesterday in the studio reminded me of this thread.

Recording a really dynamic singer with a u87, for some reason it just didn't sit the mix at ALL. Put up a 58, lo and behold it sounded great.

Just goes to show that there is a situation for all types of gear!

That's pretty extreme to go from a U87 to a 58, but seeing as how I've recorded many a killer sounding vocal on the cheap with a 58, I can relate. What about the singer made you go to the 58 before any other mics you had? Was it just a hunch that it would work better, or was there a specific thing you were looking for?

Jazz Ad · #10 03-13-2009, 07:22 AM

For the record, I found the solution after a couple days.
I pushed my recorded lines into a small Laney tube guitar combo. It took lows away and bumped mids. It also started sounding a bit lo-fi.
This way my tone didn't seem so obnoxious and blended better with the rest.
An unexpected trick I will remember.

Peter_00 · #11 03-13-2009, 09:17 AM

In the spirit of full disclosure: the u87 was hired so it may not have been the best representation of what it was capable of to begin with. The track was already busy and the vocal needed to blend in with the rhythm of the guitar part to fit. His voice has a LOT of character already and needed to sound a bit more one dimensional. The 58 was just a hunch on the engineers part and happened to be spot on.

Back OT sorry: That is a great tip with the guitar amp. It is a great feeling when you figure out exactly what was needed to be switched up so everything fits into place. Kind of what our job is all about right? Sorry for the hijack Justin!

jmjbassplayer · #12 03-13-2009, 12:21 PM

Guitar amps are so sweet on bass. I wish more players went that way.

Get the oomph/sub from the DI if needed, and rock the bass through a grimy guitar amp, you will like the results if you don't need something too hi fi.

Bono's vocals = Shure 58. Enough said.

JMJ

tomhanzo · #13 03-13-2009, 04:43 PM

This is kind of in the same idea as the thread.

I read somewhere that Peter Hook used a bass amp with a messed up speaker in it. it gave him his farty distorted sound on some of the Joy Division stuff.

I'm not 100% sure on this but i think you said your a fan of his Justin so maybe you know that whole story.

P.S. Dude Justin, i am watching the DVD that came with the Information cd that i just bought today, and it rocks. Dude you can dance.

JimmyM · #14 03-13-2009, 05:41 PM

Here's a question based on this thread...

Do you all find that some producers and engineers tend to stick with the most expensive stuff in the studio because of not wanting to look like a rube? Or are they loosening up in that regard? I remember one time about 15 years ago, I was recording at a really nice studio here and we were talking about setting up a vocal mic for me, and I said, "I've never complained about how my voice sounds in a 58," and the engineer gave me one of those "shut up, idiot" looks and set up a big diaphragm condenser. But now I look like a forward thinker because it seems more and more people are using cheap stuff in the studio.

jaseOZ · #15 03-13-2009, 11:57 PM

lol i hated the way my voice came out in one of those big expensive mikes and re-recorded all my vocals in the back of my car using garageband and an SM58 and that's what go inserted onto the tracks and went on the CD..

casio · #16 03-14-2009, 09:47 AM

to answer JimmyM's question I can sy that from my experiences and conversations in Croatia and a big part of Europe, people are still into the whole "only the expensive stuff is worth it", but I've been lucky to do some recording with guys who just went with what they felt sounded good and what they knew how to use best, and I think thats the best way to go!

jmjbassplayer · #17 03-14-2009, 07:27 PM

Goes both ways in LA. Hipsters/lo-fi elitists sometimes deliberately avoid the Manley Limiters in the rack and go straight to some cheap stuff. Others rent multiple 1176's, Fairchilds, and LA2A's 'cuz they demand vintage excellence always. Same for mics, for vocals, some people stick very closely to a 58 or an SM7, others demand a fine large-diaphragm condenser.

Everybody's different, but EVERYONE geeks out on vintage gear, cheap to expensive.

JMJ

JohnDavisNYC · #18 03-14-2009, 09:43 PM

interesting thread.... as far as the 87 vs. 58 thing, i am in the middle of tracking a record that Muzz Skillings is producing, and the singer is a woman with a really great voice, but it is really thick and resonant.. when we started doing vocals, i set up all my bruisers, neumann cmv563, um57, u87, soundelux u95, BUT.... the mic that was best for her voice was a lowly AKG414 B/ULS.... all the awesome tube mics (and 87) sounded too mushy and pillowy, and you couldn't really get any clarity out of them, even though the timbre was great they got lost in the tracks. but the 414, with a little api eq, had just enough presence, but was flat enough to allow her natural tone to project clearly.

sometimes amazing voices sound better with bland microphones, much the way sometimes only a really lo-fi ****** bass sound will work in a track, no matter how awesome it sounds solo'd...

same goes for drum sounds... it's amazing how much you can destroy drums and yet have them sound pretty 'nice' in context...

the lo-fi hipster **** is kind of over in nyc these days, thankfully... or if it is still around, it's not in the circles i travel in.

what matters i guess, is making cool stuff with whatever is right for the music, be it cheap, expensive, new or old.

so zen.

john

JimmyM · #19 03-15-2009, 01:42 AM

I'm down with zen. I'm also down with lo-fi, mainly because that's all I've got

I keep threatening to upgrade some things in my home studio, but I'm the only one who records here, and really, how good of a studio do I need to record song parodies for Howard Stern and demos of my songs that won't make any money anyway?

Not that I'm complaining about the expensive stuff...but it is nice that you can actually make demos that sound really good at home on cheap stuff. When I came up, we had cassette recorders. The really good home studios had a Teac 4-track reel to reel...that was considered movin' on up in the world if you had one of them.

PaperbackRyder · #20 03-27-2009, 06:20 PM

Great discussion guys, thanks.
IME, the best tone is the one that fits within whatever sonic space which is available. I have had basses which sound totally sick, big rich full bottom shimmering top end, and they get totally lost in the track - or even live. I suppose this is one reason why Fender basses have been so successful, the inherent tonal qualities take up just the right sonic space and don't interfere with the kick, keys etc.
Proof in point - There were some soloed clips of Jamerson's playing "What's Goin On" floating around. (ridiculous quality of the playing aside) The bass sound by it self was relatively tiny! Kinda like thumpin on a cardboard box. But in the track it explodes! How we control and shape the midrange is what makes the bass sit comfortably in the track.