• 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.

Basses with HUGE bottom end

#101
It is possible to do a comparison of basses with the same rig - and some will have more inherent booty than others (eg I have done the experiment with my current basses running through the same rig at the same club). The problem with this thread (and most on TB) is that there generally isn't context about someone's experience. I've seen plenty of people pontificate about their opinions on gear and related topics only to see a later thread where they'll admit that they have only owned one bass and never play out. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opinion, but it certainly isn't likely to be a very informed one...
 
#102
My 1987 Gibson V is unquestionably the fattest/strongest/deepest in my collection. It will only be pried from my cold dead fingers... My Fenders are bright by comparison and lack down low. The Gibson is my main bass averaged over the last 24 years for this reason. When I change basses mid performance I have to add a lot of treble to the Gibson to compensate. Eventually I am going to need a 2 channel pre-amp so each bass will have its own channel so no adjustments will be necessary when changing basses.
 
#105
I used to own one of these, strung with flatwounds, it sounded like a rolling thunder, like a fart from planet earth itself!

gibson-SGstandardbass-finish-worncherry-lg.jpg


YouTube - ‪Honey Dove - Bass Cover‬‏
 
#108
I consider everything below 200 Hz to be what we perceive as low end. I know that actually includes some first and second harmonics of the lowest notes that should be considered low mids, but culturally, I think we all tend to perceive anything below this cutoff as low end. It doesn't sound right on paper but in a blindfold test I think my point would hold. (I'm not going to pull a Dan Atkinson and actually try to do an experiment, lest I be accused of all sorts of nasty things.)

Most basses I run on a live spectrum report a slight decline around 50-60 Hz with a maximum around 100 Hz as part of the frequency response. Some basses, usually neck-through stay "louder" deeper into the spectrum like my Rics. On the other hand my dad's fake Hofner that sounds very heavy on the low end has a pretty rapid decay below 60 Hz, but it sounds huge. I think reinforces that we really hear most of the "low end" in the range of early harmonics. I know in an audio test of pure tones I hear 80 Hz reminds me more of low E than 40 Hz.
 
#109
Hoover said:
Well, 250Hz is practically Middle C. I don't know any other musicians or audio engineers who consider Middle C to be in the "low end" range.

We should start a new thread: "Basses with HUGE Middle C"

:)
Click to expand...

The fundamental frequency of the low E on a bass is about 41Hz. But that's not what you're hearing mainly when you pluck it. You're mainly hearing the 82Hz and the 164Hz frequencies.

Let's move on to the open A string, 55Hz, again you're mainly hearing the 110Hz and 220Hz frequencies.

So yes, I do consider frequencies up to about 200Hz to be low end.
 
#115
In my experience, the MusicMan and G & L 2500 have the most true low end harmonics. If you want nothing but heavy lows with a lot of mud, the Gibson EB-O and EB-3 are what you want.
I'm not a big fan of the heavy low end sound - more bass isn't necessarily better bass
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back