Are bass amps obsolete?

[JimmyM]

My answer will always be a resounding "No!". No amount of plugins, pedals or modelling will ever be able to replace an amp and cab mic'd for me personally.

I was very much into pedals for a while, had all the best DG stuff, and while they sounded amazing driven by an amp and cab, I just never could get them to sound as good going straight into a recording interface. The tone always lacked a certain "je ne sais quoi". Same thing with DI signals. YMMV, of course, but I will never be able to go completely amp free. There just something that happens with a bass tone when it moves air through a cab that I simply must have.

Low pass filtering really helps using dirt pedals direct. Then you can cut those tweeter frequencies.

 

[The_Owl]

Low pass filtering really helps using dirt pedals direct. Then you can cut those tweeter frequencies.

Well, I was using the Darkglass X7, which has built in low- and high-pass filters...

Don't get me wrong - they did sound good, but I never got it to sound as good as when driving an amp and cab.

After a lot of soul searching, I recently bought a Sunn 300T amp, which literally has all the features I want from an amp. Separate and blendable channels, graphic EQ and compressor. IMO the best sounding all tube bass amp in existence. I had a brief stint with an Aguilar DB 751 before buying the Sunn. Fantastic amp in every single regard, but in the end a bit too clean for the tone I was looking for. I'm pairing it with my Epifani UL410 (best 410 I've ever played), rated at a 1000 watts, with great efficiency. Gonna record with a Radial JDX48 and micing the cab up.

 

[JimmyM]

Well, I was using the Darkglass X7, which has built in low- and high-pass filters...

Don't get me wrong - they did sound good, but I never got it to sound as good as when driving an amp and cab.

Ah, did not know that about the DG stuff.

 

[The_Owl]

Ah, did not know that about the DG stuff.

Well, to be fair, the feature is exclusive to the X/X7 pedals. The other pedals feature more traditional blend controls (between the clean and driven tones).

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Well, I was using the Darkglass X7, which has built in low- and high-pass filters...

Don't get me wrong - they did sound good, but I never got it to sound as good as when driving an amp and cab.

After a lot of soul searching, I recently bought a Sunn 300T amp, which literally has all the features I want from an amp. Separate and blendable channels, graphic EQ and compressor. IMO the best sounding all tube bass amp in existence. I had a brief stint with an Aguilar DB 751 before buying the Sunn. Fantastic amp in every single regard, but in the end a bit too clean for the tone I was looking for. I'm pairing it with my Epifani UL410 (best 410 I've ever played), rated at a 1000 watts, with great efficiency. Gonna record with a Radial JDX48 and micing the cab up.

Room acoustics. There's a plugin for that! Speaking seriously, a friend of mine is a leading researcher in the area.

 

[The_Owl]

Room acoustics. There's a plugin for that! Speaking seriously, a friend of mine is a leading researcher in the area.

IMO it's not so much the room acoustics, just what happens to the sound and the physical sensation caused by an output transformer (of any kind) powering a physical cabinet. I'm not an engineer, electrician or a physicist, so I wouldn't be able to explain it scientifically, but I'm sure a there's a few TB:ers that can. I know for a fact that DI boxes like the Radial JDX48 relies on the circuit an amp connected to a speaker creates. It captures (some of) the character of the power section of an amp rather than your typical amp DI that's only pre/post EQ. I guess that is what I'm always missing when going straight to the board, through a DI or recording interface.

It's like the actual characteristic and signature of the amp is there with the DI, but I dunno, lacking a certain heft or attack to the sound. The way a physical cab projects the sound, you know? I'm getting a bit abstract here, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

It's like the sound is there, but in its most plain and unflavoured way, like a soda that's gone flat.

 

[Seano76]

My answer will always be a resounding "No!". No amount of plugins, pedals or modelling will ever be able to replace an amp and cab mic'd for me personally.

I was very much into pedals for a while, had all the best DG stuff, and while they sounded amazing driven by an amp and cab, I just never could get them to sound as good going straight into a recording interface. The tone always lacked a certain "je ne sais quoi". Same thing with DI signals. YMMV, of course, but I will never be able to go completely amp free. There just something that happens with a bass tone when it moves air through a cab that I simply must have.

Other musicians usually don't understand that. That rumble is a big part of my playing dynamics.

 

[Ethereal Thorn]

An impulse response and good tube pre with big transformer have never let me down. The only thing I'm slightly missing is the power amp simulation I used to have it with my two notes torpedo cab tho.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

IMO it's not so much the room acoustics, just what happens to the sound and the physical sensation caused by an output transformer (of any kind) powering a physical cabinet.

That can/could be modelled too. A DarkGlass pedal isn't going to as it needs a bit of processing power to do so, but it's possible now. But you'd probably be looking at doing a fast Fourier transform, then you'd have a function across those Fourier transformed components that models the speaker, the transformer, and the interactions between components across the frequency domain, then convert it back to the audio domain. The hard part would be doing it fast enough and flexibly enough and maintaining state across sampling periods (it reminds me of spike trains and neuron activation in the brain). A Kemper might well do this but I haven't looked to see if Kemper even reveals how it is done so I am just thinking aloud.

An impulse response will the instantaneous Fourier transformation, effectively to give g=f(x) where x is a sampled input, but not g=f(x,t) where you you are taking into account that you might get some sag in the rails in an amp if you are pushing things into the red over a period of time. I don't know whether that's actually significant, though, in reality.

 

[johnalekna]

Aaayyeee........that term is universal, mate!

Ooops though so!

 

[bucephylus]

My answer will always be a resounding "No!". No amount of plugins, pedals or modelling will ever be able to replace an amp and cab mic'd for me personally.

I was very much into pedals for a while, had all the best DG stuff, and while they sounded amazing driven by an amp and cab, I just never could get them to sound as good going straight into a recording interface. The tone always lacked a certain "je ne sais quoi". Same thing with DI signals. YMMV, of course, but I will never be able to go completely amp free. There just something that happens with a bass tone when it moves air through a cab that I simply must have.

Sadly, the move to ampless doesn’t work that way. The gig doesn’t check off with the bass player as to whether or not it’s ok to go ampless. Unless the bass player happens to be the band leader.

Most of us have this change imposed on us, or don’t get the gig. So, the problem is generally more along the lines of discovering how to best deal with the points you made. Figuring out a direct signal chain that best recreates what you can get from an amp is a very tough problem. And, takes a lot of work and new equipment. And, even though the result may not wholly address your points, you do the best you can.

It’s not one or the other. It’s a matter solving problems.

 

[micguy]

Given the variables involved in cabinet miking ( choice of mic, position, whether or not the port output is adequately captured), and the fact that most cabinets don't really do 41 Hz (the fundamental of the lowest note on a bass in standard tuning) justice, I'm much happier to go ampless through a good PA. Miking a cabinet is just too unclotrolled for me (too many things to get in the way of a good sound), and typically doesn't give as solid of a low end.

 

[Lasse Vuorsola]

I know that all clips except the last is guitar related but I though it might still be interesting for some of you. In the video I demonstrate how a dirt cheap combo of the orange micro terror and the mooer radar can produce decent sounds in a very portable "ampless" kind of way:

Sorry for the bad guitarring and the typo in the video

 

[glocke1]

FWIW, I Was at Gerald Veasleys Bass Bootcamp this weekend and asked a couple of the instructors there a similar question.

The answer I was given was that the times they've been asked to not use an amp onstage and to rely only on IEM's for the bass signal, they told the artist in question that "Its simply not going to sound the same, feel the same or have the same vibe on stage".

These guys ended up playing these gigs with amps..

 

[Paragon3]

So are we all in somewhat agreement that for stage monitoring it's not a critical thing..

Mostly a matter of taste..

As far as for the PA support it seems like most of us prefer a DI with some sort of blend from a cabinet...

But only a few are doing a full IEM-DI and most are just straight out not interested in PA support unless the Venue really requires it?

Is that a fair statement?

 

[micguy]

FWIW, I Was at Gerald Veasleys Bass Bootcamp this weekend and asked a couple of the instructors there a similar question.

The answer I was given was that the times they've been asked to not use an amp onstage and to rely only on IEM's for the bass signal, they told the artist in question that "Its simply not going to sound the same, feel the same or have the same vibe on stage".

These guys ended up playing these gigs with amps..

I completely agree that running ampless isn't the same as running an amp. I do, however, think ampless is better. You do have to learn a few things, and adapt a bunch to get there (your first few gigs ampless will be worse, because....you don't know what you're doing yet), but in the end, it's more controllable, and gives the audience a better sound.

 

[lpxerodin]

This is what I prefer about ampless. Increasing the number of controllable variables so that your presentation, to the people paying to see you perform, can get closer to being best possible presentation.

Do “I” prefer the body moving pulse of bass everywhere I go? Well yes, yes I do. But do I care more about my band mates being able to hear themselves as well and the crowd getting an appropriate mix? Well yes, yes I do.

Don’t take that to mean that those using amps don’t care or that it’s not possible for them to craft a phenomenal presentation. That’s absolutely ridiculous. How else did we play out with electric instruments before these modern inventions. But for me, ampless gives so much more control in a live setting because it removes so many variables for FOH.

 

[The_Owl]

This is what I prefer about ampless. Increasing the number of controllable variables so that your presentation, to the people paying to see you perform, can get closer to being best possible presentation.

Do “I” prefer the body moving pulse of bass everywhere I go? Well yes, yes I do. But do I care more about my band mates being able to hear themselves as well and the crowd getting an appropriate mix? Well yes, yes I do.

Don’t take that to mean that those using amps don’t care or that it’s not possible for them to craft a phenomenal presentation. That’s absolutely ridiculous. How else did we play out with electric instruments before these modern inventions. But for me, ampless gives so much more control in a live setting because it removes so many variables for FOH.

I absolutely get that POV, but any FOH related issues can easily be dealt with if the amp has a good transformer DI and/or something like a Radial JDX48 or Torpedo Captor. I dunno. I've been doing the ampless/IR/modelling thing for over a year and never quite got it to sound as good as when driving an amp. YMMV of course, as this is my personal opinion.

 

[SteveC]

I use an amp for home practice and occasional "background music" type gigs, jazz quartets, some musical pit work, but otherwise I am all DI/IEM for church and cover band gigs. I don't miss my amp at all. My bass has my sound really. I don't mind playing with an amp, but I LOVE the control of IEM's. I do my own mix via my iphone and it's wonderful. I know I am the minority, but if I never had to take an amp, I would be fine.

 

[SteveC]

Unless you're outside or in a huge room that on stage bass amp is going to have a big effect on the mix....some guy with an SVT in a 200 seat room can destroy the mix, just like a Marshall warrior can do the same thing...Let the pa do the work out front. you WILL sound better.

This is our thinking. We are ALL DI/IEM. Drummer uses a Roland kit. Guitar player is DI. Keys. Bass. Everything. Our FOH sound is clean and clear. We get the "sounds just like the recording/radio/whatever" comment all the time. Sound guy doesn't have to fight anything. We all hear what we want - and don't want - in our IEM's. The sound the audience hears - which is the most important - is awesome.

Would our drummer prefer a real kit? Sure. Would I like an amp? Not really but I could use one. But we know this is the way to get the best mix at the venues we play. We can be as loud or as soft as we want/need to be to please the client. We're going to get asked back before some "volume war" band will, guaranteed.