Better EQing vs. Buying A Different Bass?

[Brad Johnson]

I would hope that we all agree that tone is both in the fingers and in the gear. This thread is specific to EQ. As stated earlier, if it's a struggle to get a bass to sound good using EQ, then it's probably better to get another bass. However the same is true for technique: if you have to go outside of your comfort zone to get a bass to sound good -- e.g you have to play too hard, play too close to the bridge, etc -- then you should likewise consider getting another bass.

There are other factors such as setup and strings, but let's keep things as simple as possible and assume they've already been optimized...

Or work on your technique. That's usually free.

 

[RBrownBass]

I tried a Sadowsky M5-24...twice..and wasn't able to "EQ" it to what I wanted.

What on Earth were you looking for that a Sadowsky couldn't deliver it or something close enough that it wouldn't matter on a recording or live mix??? Maybe too specific in your tastes?

 

[jnammy]

You also have to consider though that even if he set everything flat, his Genz Benz head and whatever cabs he was using will sound different than another setup set.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Or work on your technique. That's usually free.

Technique and EQ. Both are free.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Technique and EQ. Both are free.

So show me the free amps/EQs. You have to have EQ to use it.

 

[Fuzzbass]

So show me the free amps/EQs. You have to have EQ to use it.

Nearly all amp rigs have EQ of some kind, even yours. If it's there, and it almost certainly is, then there's no cost to use it. Understand?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Nearly all amp rigs have EQ of some kind, even yours. If it's there, and it almost certainly is, then there's no cost to use it. Understand?

That's an overly simplistic way to look at it... as if a three or four band EQ is all that will be needed to make any bass sound like any other bass. And if you need more bands, at some point most people would have to buy it. Understand?

 

[Boombass76]

Yes you can. It's actually not that hard.

But only in the same way you can make a Jazz mimic a P by favoring (or soloing) the neck pickup... No really P...

 

[spade2you]

Nearly all amp rigs have EQ of some kind, even yours. If it's there, and it almost certainly is, then there's no cost to use it. Understand?

There's also no cost to understand it, either. A good active bass can cover a lot of tonal ground if you're willing to utilize the EQ.

 

[Brad Johnson]

There's also no cost to understand it, either. A good active bass can cover a lot of tonal ground if you're willing to utilize the EQ.

It's true that learning how to use EQ is free. But that EQ typically has limitations. Even onboard EQs. A typical onboard 3 band is actually pretty limited with it's static center frequencies.

 

[spade2you]

A typical onboard 3 band is actually pretty limited with it's static center frequencies.

I've been a huge fan of multiple mid frequencies, either 2-3 set frequencies or a sweepable function. I've never played with anything fully parametric. I've briefly messed with a filter based pre, too. Although Audere's Z modes mixed with series, parallel, and split coils can get interesting, too.

While they can't do it all, a nice pairing can still cover more tonal ground than they tend to get credit for.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I've been a huge fan of multiple mid frequencies, either 2-3 set frequencies or a sweepable function. I've never played with anything fully parametric. I've briefly messed with a filter based pre, too. Although Audere's Z modes mixed with series, parallel, and split coils can get interesting, too.

While they can't do it all, a nice pairing can still cover more tonal ground than they tend to get credit for.

My first custom bass had a one band fully parametric (Q control) preamp. It sounds great on paper and I'd never want that setup again. Had the Audere non J type pre too.


It makes far more sense to me to get a bass that sounds at least close to what you want right off the bat. The issue of repeatabilty is the reason why. Let's say you dial an EB-3 in to sound just like an Alembic Series I with Rotosounds and for whatever reason change the setting. Getting it back again can be a bear if at all.


You can't reasonably expect to do it all with EQ, that's my basic point. You'd need multi band parametrics and a whole lot of time on your hands... and you still might not nail it.

 

[jnammy]

Using the basses onboard EQ alone won't cut it. It won't make, let's say, humbuckers sound like a P, because they're usually only boost/cut controls, but a simple 4 band EQ on a decent amp usually can. I only use the 4 band EQ on my LMII head in conjunction with EQing my bass (I don't touch the VLE or VPF? controls at all).

 

[jnammy]

Another reason why knowing how to and willing to EQ is so important is because for a lot of us, the sound we're looking for changes over time and that can mean thousands and thousands of dollars spent on basses and mods, only to realize that you should have stuck with a bass you had a long time ago. For me, I started out liking a real bassy sound, then a scooped modern sound, J sound, then a P sound, so on and so forth.

 

[Fuzzbass]

That's an overly simplistic way to look at it... as if a three or four band EQ is all that will be needed to make any bass sound like any other bass. And if you need more bands, at some point most people would have to buy it. Understand?

I have said nothing about EQing one bass to sound like another, nor have I made any reference to that comment one way or another.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I have said nothing about EQing one bass to sound like another, nor have I made any reference to that comment one way or another.

x infinity. Remember what this thread is about?

I would hope that we all agree that tone is both in the fingers and in the gear. This thread is specific to EQ. As stated earlier, if it's a struggle to get a bass to sound good using EQ, then it's probably better to get another bass. However the same is true for technique: if you have to go outside of your comfort zone to get a bass to sound good -- e.g you have to play too hard, play too close to the bridge, etc -- then you should likewise consider getting another bass.

To which I mentioned a no cost alternative to buying another bass. Remember?

You seem to know the thread is about EQ but not remember the original post where he laid out exactly what he was talking about:

Has anyone bought another bass simply because they didn’t like how the old one sounded, but later realized that with the correct EQing on a decent bass and amp, you could’ve achieved that sound you were looking for? I know I have. We all like to have our basses sound amazing with the EQ flat, but I’m coming to realize that most basses can achieve most sounds, but the trick is to know how to EQ in that sound on your particular bass and amp in a band situation. IMO, the one sound you really can’t EQ if your bass just doesn’t have it is that compressed burpy sound for fingerstyle playing. Any thoughts?

indeed.

 

[spade2you]

You can't reasonably expect to do it all with EQ, that's my basic point.

At the moment, nothing can "do it all", other than the $11 SX with the right technique.

Still, a good onboard EQ can have a nice range of tones. Everything? Not hardly.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Another reason why knowing how to and willing to EQ is so important is because for a lot of us, the sound we're looking for changes over time and that can mean thousands and thousands of dollars spent on basses and mods, only to realize that you should have stuck with a bass you had a long time ago. For me, I started out liking a real bassy sound, then a scooped modern sound, J sound, then a P sound, so on and so forth.

I will never understand the unwillingness to use EQ. The concept that EQ exists merely to correct for deficiencies is silly. EQ is a great tool for adding tonal variation... say, if you've got aggressive roundwound sound but want the Jamerson vibe for a song or two. Certainly, technique can also be useful here, but both technique and EQ have limitations, so it only makes sense to use both. I've been saying this all along, but some aren't bothering to read.

 

[spade2you]

I will never understand the unwillingness to use EQ. The concept that EQ exists merely to correct for deficiencies is silly. EQ is a great tool for adding tonal variation... say, if you've got aggressive roundwound sound but want the Jamerson vibe for a song or two. Certainly, technique can also be useful here, but both technique and EQ have limitations, so it only makes sense to use both. I've been saying this all along, but some aren't bothering to read.

Pretty much.

 

[jnammy]

I agree. I EQ for tonal variation, different rooms, different amps, different speakers sizes, how dead my strings are, what kinds of other instruments I'm playing alongside with, etc.