Back in the 60s, were boomy basses bad???

[SoulReflection]

I keep reading about how bad boomy basses are. Going back in time, before tweeters, slap, powerful amps and modern music, I seem to recall that was not a problem for live music back then.

We didn't need or have tweeters and HPFs. In fact, I seem to recall that a booming bass was a good thing and meant you were getting through!

Was it the lower powered amps, speakers that didn't have lower frequencies? Thoughts?

 

[darkwasthenight]

If you look at the development of bass tones throughout the years the general trend seems to have been a race for clarity and precision over boominess, which suggests 60s players weren't that fond of boom either (apart from maybe Jack Bruce) but didn't have easy access to technology able to reproduce different tones.

 

[SoulReflection]

If you look at the development of bass tones throughout the years the general trend seems to have been a race for clarity and precision over boominess, which suggests 60s players weren't that fond of boom either (apart from maybe Jack Bruce) but didn't have easy access to technology able to reproduce different tones.

If you look at what I was suggesting, boom wasn't necessarily a bad thing back then. It wasn't for me, was it for you? Did you play live back then?

 

[SoulReflection]

Hey, @GonePlaid, what do you think?

 

[GonePlaid]

Hey, @GonePlaid, what do you think?

Think? They said we wouldn't hafta think.
I played some fairly good size rooms with a '63 piggyback Bassman(like this*)and a Gibson EB-3, Mudbucker only. I filled those spaces with low frequencies. Maybe-OK, certainly-not the clarity that bassists, including me to some degree, generally go for today. (I've added mids to my sound but there's still a ship(sp?)load of bottom) There was NO FOH back then[late 60s-early 70s]so no pounding kick drum shaking the walls, and most PA's wouldn't have been able to handle that spl anyway.
*
<I had-and sold-2. Wish I still had at least one.

 

[SoulReflection]

Think? They said we wouldn't hafta think.
I played some fairly good size rooms with a '63 piggyback Bassman(like this*)and a Gibson EB-3, Mudbucker only. I filled those spaces with low frequencies. Maybe-OK, certainly-not the clarity that bassists, including me to some degree, generally go for today. (I've added mids to my sound but there's still a ship(sp?)load of bottom) There was NO FOH back then[late 60s-early 70s]so no pounding kick drum shaking the walls, and most PA's wouldn't have been able to handle that spl anyway.
*
View attachment 5376939<I had-and sold-2. Wish I still had at least one.

OK, memories going back that far can be a bit cloudy.

 

[bassliner50]

Listen to Jim Fielder on the first Blood Sweat and Tears album with Al Cooper. Jims bass lines were syncopated, articulate and clear not boomy. Good recording engineer?

 

[GonePlaid]

Listen to Jim Fielder on the first Blood Sweat and Tears album with Al Cooper. Jims bass lines were syncopated, articulate and clear not boomy. Good recording engineer?

One of my favorite bassists of that era; loved BS&T and Chicago.

 

[jthisdell]

Listen to Jim Fielder on the first Blood Sweat and Tears album with Al Cooper. Jims bass lines were syncopated, articulate and clear not boomy. Good recording engineer?

Back in the 60’s there was a huge difference between studio (B-15 with a P, great tone) and live (same P but never enough power and speakers that were not engineered anywhere near today’s standards.

 

[LowendG]

Listen to Jim Fielder on the first Blood Sweat and Tears album with Al Cooper. Jims bass lines were syncopated, articulate and clear not boomy. Good recording engineer?

I think "articulate" is the operative word. Think of reggae bass in a live setting. How come (when done well) that bass tone that's almost all low end can sound so defined with the bass lines/melodies speaking clearly even in a big venue? Those guys know how to play articulately - they understand the spaces between the notes are just as important as the notes. Then think of all the rock players you hear who don't have that sensibility, and when playing live - even with all their extended frequency range and mids and highs - sound like a boomy blur.

 

[SoulReflection]

I think "articulate" is the operative word. Think of reggae bass in a live setting. How come (when done well) that bass tone that's almost all low end can sound so defined with the bass lines/melodies speaking clearly even in a big venue? Those guys know how to play articulately - they understand the spaces between the notes are just as important as the notes. Then think of all the rock players you hear who don't have that sensibility, and when playing live - even with all their extended frequency range and mids and highs - sound like a boomy blur.

That and, early reggae didn't have 800 watts and 4-15" low frequency, modern cabs.

 

[40Hz]

I seem to recall that was not a problem for live music back then.

It was a problem back then. Especially toward the latter half of the 60s as volume levels kept increasing.

However, there wasn’t much in the way of a practical solution within the limitations of the gear of that era. So you just made the best of it and accepted muddy and boomy live sound as being “the way it is.”

Roundwound bass strings helped a little. But when you had to share a stage with 100 watt guitar amps that only had a volume knob instead of a gain and master it was already a lost cause. Because you had most guitarists routinely cranking everything up in an effort to increase sustain and get some breakup. And this was largely due to there not being the plethora of effects pedals we have today. And to add to the problem, almost everyone was either totally ignorant when it came to compression, or utterly clueless about how to use the one affordable and readily available compressor that was introduced in 1970 (i.e. the MXR Dynacomp) effectively.

It was an interesting time. Lots of really great music. Lots of not so great gear.

 

[SoulReflection]

It was a problem back then. Especially toward the latter half of the 60s as volume levels kept increasing.

However, there wasn’t much in the way of a practical solution within the limitations of the gear of that era. So you just made the best of it and accepted muddy and boomy live sound as being “the way it is.”

Roundwound bass strings helped a little. But when you had to share a stage with 100 watt guitar amps that only had a volume knob instead of a gain and master it was already a lost cause. Because you had most guitarists routinely cranking everything up in an effort to increase sustain and get some breakup. And this was largely due yo there not being the plethora of effects pedals we have today. And to add to the problem, almost everyone was either totally ignorant when it came to compression, or utterly clueless about how to use the one affordable and readily available compressor that was introduced in 1970 (i.e. the MXR Dynacomp) effectively.

Exactly my point. I played with a 60w tube amp with low frequency drivers. The guitarist played a 20 watt amp. The organist played a B3 with a 40 watt Leslie. Things were relatively OK.

The problems started with the volume wars.

It was an interesting time. Lots of really great music. Lots of not so great gear.

 

[Bar Band Bassman]

Nothing in a bassist's arsenal back then could compete with a guitarist's Fender Twin turned up loud enough to sound "good". I used an SVT with 2 8x10's. It was not enough, and yet too much at the same time! But now it's so much better (it's so much better) - I'm funkin' out in every way!

BBB

 

[micguy]

Was it the lower powered amps, speakers that didn't have lower frequencies? Thoughts?

The move to smaller cabinets has robbed bass rigs of efficiency and low end - bass guitar speakers decades ago had decent low end despite what some folks think, and they got more volume out of a watt than they do today, especially if you're trying to push fundamentals. There is a performance trade off when you make a speaker smaller - the Physics works against you when you do that, and your only choices are to make it less efficient, lose some low end, or lose a bit of both.

Things haven't improved as much as some think they have, except when it comes to load in and load out. In the late 70s, I had a clear, articulate rig that could easily keep up with a live drummer, had solid (not boomy) low end, and it did that with an amp that had a whopping 90 watts of power (which was more than enough).

Yes, it weighed as much as I did.

 

[Rib 13]

I keep reading about how bad boomy basses are. Going back in time, before tweeters, slap, powerful amps and modern music, I seem to recall that was not a problem for live music back then.

We didn't need or have tweeters and HPFs. In fact, I seem to recall that a booming bass was a good thing and meant you were getting through!

Was it the lower powered amps, speakers that didn't have lower frequencies? Thoughts?

Rotary dial telephones were around back then too. Party lines with four families sharing one line and that big rotary dial taking moments to roll out one number. It wasnt a great creature comfort but it worked. I much prefer using a modern smartphone....I can apply this same logic to my personal tastes concerning bass guitar fidelity

 

[40Hz]

I’ll confess I still prefer the sound of a good 15 over a 10. But that’s me.

 

[Aussie Player]

The problem back then was speaker cabinets. Provable by using a vintage amp head with a modern cabinet. They sound wonderful.

 

[GonePlaid]

I’ll confess I still prefer the sound of a good 15 over a 10. But that’s me.

My preference is 2(or more)12s. I had an SVT810 rig for a coupla years.

 

[edwinhurwitz]

Apparently the Fender Showman/Sunn 200S in multiples did quite well back in the day. Phil Lesh had four of them and filled theaters will no problems. Two cabs in the middle and two off to the sides.