Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Are amp sim pedals necessary?
- Thread starter voodooproducer
- Start date
As with arrangement, it's a musical decision that you get to make. And it IS yours to make.
LOL yep - I was ready to jump out a window by the end of this one:Yeah, that's a wrap.
Tap-dancing on that last nerve.
NEVER. AGAIN.
The important thing isn't to copy an amp, it's to sound like YOU. The only thing you really need is a tuner; the rest is up to you. You define "necessary." Keep it simple.
Context makes the decision for me. Lots of my work is Commercial on song demos and recordings, bread and butter tones are the mainstays.My question is then,
(And I mean this is a fun way, not a confrontation way)
What determines what is “necessary”? What is the standard measurement for that? Is as bassists we just need a passive DI?
Do guitarists just need (2) sounds clean & dirty? Anything more is not “necessary”?
To me “necessary” is a pretty grey area.
I’m curious how other TBers define this.
In my instrumental trio I intentionally change my sounds a lot to keep the listener's ears engaged. For soundtracks it is wide open for creativity especially for the sci fi and horror work I do a lot.
- Aug 21, 2003
- 11,589
- 18,607
- Disclosures
- A-Designs Mike Lull GK Tsunami Cables GHS Strings RMI Basswitch Nordstrand Pickups Darkglass
I typically just use my amps and cabs live and also for recording.
When playing live somewhere with a Backline I plug into my Eden WTDI, which is a DI pedal with built-in Eden WT preamp and compressor. I run it with the EQ flat except for the mids. I choose the 500Hz toggle for the mids and boost it to about 1:30. Plugging my bass into that and the WTDI into the effects-return of the backline's amp, I can pretty much make any of those backline amps sound like one of my Eden or DNA amps. I will also run direct into the board if they don't want us to use amps. I'm careful to tell the sound tech what my settings are so he knows what he's getting.
When I played a 3-hr. recording session at a pro studio in Seattle back in 2019, I ran my WTDI into their wall plug instead of their standard DI, over their objections. Again set it as I mentioned above. They had me listen to some of the takes afterwards and they were just amazingly good - just GREAT sound! The sound engineer then told me that the only adjustment he did to the sound I sent him was adjust the sound level on his board. Said he made no EQ adjustments or added any compression to the raw recording, just used exactly what I sent him and he was really excited about it.
Both the sound engineer and the owner of the studio then came into the room to see exactly what I was using. I showed it to them and explained how I had it set for use with my '82 passive Jazz bass with all-maple neck and 70's era pickup spacing (4" center to center). The owner looked at me and said, "Doesn't Eden want to sell amps anymore?" Got a chuckle out of that.
So I prefer playing live with my Eden or DNA amps and my DNA cabs, either the 210 or 410 because I love the sound they produce together. But since that recording session in Seattle, I think I'll just use my WTDI for recording sessions unless they want both a live mic'd cab feed along with a DI feed. A lot of studios like to have both and mix them together as they see fit. Then I'll use amp and cab.
D
If I want the tone of an amp I use an amp.
If I want the tone of a DI'd bass I use a DI (without an amp sim as an amp sim doesn't sound like a DI'd bass).
If I want to blend an amp with a DI signal I mic an amp and blend it with a DI signal.
Amp sim pedals are not necessary. In most cases they are redundant and can even make your tone worse. Like when people run amp/cab sims into actual amps/cabs, which is something I see a LOT. What's that all about??? Would you mic an amp/cab and then run this signal through ANOTHER amp/cab and then mic it again? Probably not... but lots of people actually do more or less this, using amp sims into real amps.
But whatever works for you I guess... In my world amp sim pedals serve no purpose whatsoever. The good ones may sound reasonably close to the real thing but the "feel", dynamics and playing experience isn't even remotely comparable. I actually prefer using a clean DI over amp sims bacause none of the amp sims "feel" right to me.
If I want the tone of a DI'd bass I use a DI (without an amp sim as an amp sim doesn't sound like a DI'd bass).
If I want to blend an amp with a DI signal I mic an amp and blend it with a DI signal.
Amp sim pedals are not necessary. In most cases they are redundant and can even make your tone worse. Like when people run amp/cab sims into actual amps/cabs, which is something I see a LOT. What's that all about??? Would you mic an amp/cab and then run this signal through ANOTHER amp/cab and then mic it again? Probably not... but lots of people actually do more or less this, using amp sims into real amps.
But whatever works for you I guess... In my world amp sim pedals serve no purpose whatsoever. The good ones may sound reasonably close to the real thing but the "feel", dynamics and playing experience isn't even remotely comparable. I actually prefer using a clean DI over amp sims bacause none of the amp sims "feel" right to me.
[ regarding the cab sim, not the amp sim...]
The fundamental question, then: why use a cabinet simulation in the first place? At some point, there must have been a need to improve on the DI tone sent to the mixing desk. A subjective viewpoint to be certain, but nonetheless, significant enough for a product like the Tech21 SansAmp BDDI to have a major impact on the bass world, and many other cab sim devices since.
In practical terms, having a cab sim fundamentally allows for taming distorted tones that are sent via DI to the mixing console, resembling the frequency limitations of a real-world speaker cabinet. When your core tone is created with this in mind, it gives the mixer one less thing to fuss with ( the need to apply an aggressive LPF, for example).
OTOH, if your bass tone is exclusively clean ALWAYS, a cab sim may do little for you, and fairly simple EQ tweaks at the desk are straightforward.
I have tones that vary from clean to all levels of overdriven. All are created WRT translating well through Full Range speaker cabinets. While some prefer simple filters to do the job, I generally use cab sim IRs. In application the gig, it just means that the FOH mixer won't get any nasty surprises when various drive effects get engaged, and are more likely to come across to the audience as intended.
It's not 100% essential for me to use on the gig, but it has certainly made sound reinforcement tasks more efficient and straightforward, especially when bass effects & distortion are used with regularity.
The fundamental question, then: why use a cabinet simulation in the first place? At some point, there must have been a need to improve on the DI tone sent to the mixing desk. A subjective viewpoint to be certain, but nonetheless, significant enough for a product like the Tech21 SansAmp BDDI to have a major impact on the bass world, and many other cab sim devices since.
In practical terms, having a cab sim fundamentally allows for taming distorted tones that are sent via DI to the mixing console, resembling the frequency limitations of a real-world speaker cabinet. When your core tone is created with this in mind, it gives the mixer one less thing to fuss with ( the need to apply an aggressive LPF, for example).
OTOH, if your bass tone is exclusively clean ALWAYS, a cab sim may do little for you, and fairly simple EQ tweaks at the desk are straightforward.
I have tones that vary from clean to all levels of overdriven. All are created WRT translating well through Full Range speaker cabinets. While some prefer simple filters to do the job, I generally use cab sim IRs. In application the gig, it just means that the FOH mixer won't get any nasty surprises when various drive effects get engaged, and are more likely to come across to the audience as intended.
It's not 100% essential for me to use on the gig, but it has certainly made sound reinforcement tasks more efficient and straightforward, especially when bass effects & distortion are used with regularity.
Look at it this way.
Is Your Mum necessary? No, of course not. Sometimes, I'd actually say a lot of the time, My Hand is perfectly fine. Easy, no fuss, gets the (hand) job done. Also, if you have good technique (think of it as having a good comp, EQ, etc.) it's even better. But Your Mum can be more fun. Also, it's (a bit closer) to the Real Thing.
Is Your Mum necessary? No, of course not. Sometimes, I'd actually say a lot of the time, My Hand is perfectly fine. Easy, no fuss, gets the (hand) job done. Also, if you have good technique (think of it as having a good comp, EQ, etc.) it's even better. But Your Mum can be more fun. Also, it's (a bit closer) to the Real Thing.
Depends - what does one want to sound like? I don't find them necessary. After getting my Mesa TT-800, I find that pushing the preamp on it gives me the desired tone I want to send to FOH for live performances. I've worked on sculpting my tone (technique, string selection, pickup selection and setup) to sound like I want to without much post-bass doctoring. Tone going straight into a board is really close to what I like. Isn't eveyone's cup of tea. For recording, I've really liked the tone of my mic'd B-15. Sounds great, fits in the mix well.
My question is then,
(And I mean this is a fun way, not a confrontation way
What determines what is “necessary”? What is the standard measurement for that? Is as bassists we just need a passive DI?
Do guitarists just need (2) sounds clean & dirty? Anything more is not “necessary”?
To me “necessary” is a pretty grey area.
I’m curious how other TBers define this.
I think the distinction is between a need and a want. Need being something you require and want being something you desire. There is not necessarily a clear distinction or delineation between needs and wants...and how these terms are defined can be somewhat situational.
A passive DI may be all that you need and want. You may also need and want more. Or you may want more, but not really need it. So at some point, your wants can exceed your needs. Also, it's possible that you way not actually want what you need. Life is funny like that--The ramification is there is no such thing as a "standard measurement." We each decide for ourself.
As a bass player, we may want something specific for our tone in the mix...but often somebody else decides what the actual needs for the mix are. This is likely to be based on their needs, but also on their wants and how they disagree with our wants.
I can definitely understand that sometimes distortion or other effects can be useful with bass. But, I generally prefer more of a clean, full-range sound. So I am perfectly happy with just a DI (for recording). I assume the engineer will use whatever magical studio sweeteners he/she prefers...perhaps a preamp, compressor, or EQ.
The last recording session I was on, I was told to bring my normal amp and we spent an hour or so fussing with mic positioning. After that, the engineer fussed with resolving the phase issues between the mic and DI. I preferred and wanted the pure DI sound, but apparently that is not what was needed
...meaning I was overruled.On stage, my amp typically serves primarily as my personal monitor, rather than as a sound source for the FOH mix. I like my bass to cut through the mayhem on stage and I want to be able to make adjustments without degrading all of the mixes derived from my DI.
I normally plug my bass straight into a quality flat DI. I used mostly stuff like: Radial J48, Radial JDI, BSS AR116, and Countryman Type 85. This was before speaker SIMs or IR loaders became common. Never had any sort of problem getting a good sound. If I was still gigging today, I would expect to do the same. If the audio tech wants to use a speaker SIM or IR loader, it's on him/her to provide it, as I feel no need to use this sort of tool (YMMV).
If I were running IEMs, I would change my approach a bit and use either an EQ such as the Empress Mk2 ParaEQ Deluxe or a preamp DI like an Tech 21 Q\Strip (these are just two examples out of a range of possibilities). The idea is I would want the ability to directly adjust how my bass sounds in my IEM mix. I would expect the audio tech to further process my signal for FOH.
I would be willing to try a speaker SIM or IR loader with IEMs, but it all honesty I feel playing through speakers causes the sound to feel laggy; meaning it cause me to feel disconnected from my bass. Speaker SIMs tend to lop of the high end which is the opposite of what I typically want. In my experience, the darker the tone, the more laggy the sound coming from the speaker feels. So I tend to use a fairly bright sound on stage to help mitigate the problem (this is what works for me and YMMV).
Mh EQ pedal (Source Audio EQ 2) doubles as my cab sim -= low and high pass filters to take out subsonic and tinkly stuff. I have an overdrive set up subtly that I use as the "amp sim" - the non - linearity part of what an amp does. As I play ampless gigs, I need to do the "ampish" and "cabish" stuff I need for my sound on my pedalboard. SO, yes, some sort of "sim" stuff is very useful in my case - I just don't have an "official" amp sim device.
Many (possibly most) top pros don't use a stompbox compressor but leave it to FOH for live and almost always up to the engineer/producer/mixer when recording. In pro studios in particular usually no one wants you to be compressing your bass with a pedal during tracking (unless you're deliberately trying to commit a specific heavily effected sound to "tape").
At one point, she absolutely was, assuming you wanted to be here at all. After that, if you wanna throw momma from the train, that's another thing....
That's a very good strategy - I play mostly live, and I never use a compressor - better to start uncompressed and be able to compress as they want to at the board than compressing the feed to them, and them trying to undo what you did if they want it uncompressed. Same logic applies when recording - you can alway compress later, but un-squeezing a track that's compressed going "to tape" is something you want to avoid.
I've been lucky to do sessions here in LA LA land with some heavy hitters and man, you better not have a compressor pedal squashing your signal going in! As you say, you can't take it off once it's baked on the track. You can't "un-compress" it. Some producers/engineers will track you with a little touch of compression going in with a nice LA-2A or other go-to hardware unit that they favor, but it's usually more about whatever subtle qualities it brings to the bass than any aggressive comp duties--the heavy lifting is saved for the mix stage.
