• 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.

EQ settings (Newbie Question)

#21
:D Amen to BbbyBld. EQ is one of the greatest things to happen to (particularly) bass amps. Ranks right up there with amps and speakers that put out/handle more than 40-50 watts. I've played bass for 45 years, so I've seen and played all the amps from my first Marathon with only bass & treble contols with a 15" speaker and about 30 watts, to the mega watt heads and thumper speakers of today. I realize that not all bass players want the same sound, but geez, do you all want to sound like my first little Marathon? Plenty of mids and highs, but very little BASS. Afterall, we do play BASS, not some midrange wimpy little instrument. I was never happier than when the bigger rigs came along and I could finally play BASS that sounded like BASS. If it doesn't shake your pants leg, it AIN'T BASS. If I played with all eq's flat like many of you suggest, it would sound like my old Marathon. Before you rush to tell me about TONE, believe me, I know about that. I play funk, classic rock, British invasion, disco, beach, surf, hard rock, soft rock, soul, R&B, jazz and Southern rock. You can have the tone you want, just add it on to the top of the BASS. I often use the Ampeg SVT 350 watter through the Ampeg Classic cab with 4-10s and 1-15 along with an early 70s Ampeg B25B 2-15 cab. On the head, the bass & treble are full on with the mid ranging from 1/2 to full on. The EQ is also pumped somewhat on the smiley face arrangement, dependent upon the TONE for particularly music. First 2 sliders NEVER below 1/2, generally 2/3 or more. No one's going to wonder if the bass player is using some powerless amp through a transistor radio speaker. Not that it has to be deafning, control that with your volume, but the BASS is there. On the other hand, to each his own. :)
 
#22
Oren, to each his own but I think you're misinterpreting the presence of mids and highs as lack of bass response. And though I think when getting a sound you should always start flat, I'm not above an EQ tweak if it's needed. I just don't dig the ultra-pumped huge freq boosts. I think it creates more problems than it solves when you boost.
 
#23
Depends on the amp, cab and room for me, I love too boost alot of bass and some lower of the low mids but it doesn't cause any problems with muddyness.

I've never got a good sound when I've not EQed an amp, only a slightly better flat sound depending on what amp I'm plugged into, I've tried just turning up the gain and volume a little flat so it's not just based on the extra volume boosting a few frequencies give me and it's nothing to do with that, I like the extra depth boosting the Bass shelving and lower graph gives me and I like getting rid of the click 2K gives me when playing with a pick by cutting round it.

I always start flat just cos of an OCD thing I picked up from music college zeroing sound desks, but I always end up doing pretty much the same thing to my EQ, just altering it slightly for different rooms.
 
#26
People, the OP is talking about recording bass.

I would think it would most often be the engineer's (or producer's) perogative as to the type of sound/tone he/she is after -- that would indicate set to as close to flat as you can (unless they tell you otherwise) and let the engineer or producer do their thing with it in the studio.

Especially all those without a lot of experience, pay attention here:
As far as live music with a band (IMO) -- set flat, do a sound check jam with the whole band (if possible), crank up as loud as you're likely to get, and then EQ to taste (~here's the main point~ your tone will sound different 'at lower levels & solo' than 'loud & in the mix').

P.S. One more important suggestion: it's always sonically better to cut frequencies than to boost them (if at all possible) -- if you want a smiley face EQ, start by cutting mids.
 
#28
Reading posts on eqing really helped me understand it a lot better. Starting flat and eqing with the band is really important - solo tone never works with a band. One thing I noticed for me in the situation I'm in anyway is I started flat then added a little bass and a little treble. When it came time to mess with the mids I tried cutting the high mids rather than boosting low mids to see if cutting really did work better. I found while it did sound good it was a little thin sounding compared to boosting the low mids. I find this stuff really interesting. Could someone suggest some other settings to try and experiment with? I'm getting a really punchy sound that I like quite a bit but I'm interested in the sound I might get if I cut different frequencies rather than boosting my low mids etc. Right now I have the treble +1.5ish, bass +3, and mids boosted +9 at about 250 hz. Any suggestions for a similar tone by cutting frequencies. I'm just interested in subtle differences and what not. I want to understand how cutting is sonically better than boosting.
 
#29
CHILDISHGAMBINO said:
Reading posts on eqing really helped me understand it a lot better. Starting flat and eqing with the band is really important - solo tone never works with a band. One thing I noticed for me in the situation I'm in anyway is I started flat then added a little bass and a little treble. When it came time to mess with the mids I tried cutting the high mids rather than boosting low mids to see if cutting really did work better. I found while it did sound good it was a little thin sounding compared to boosting the low mids. I find this stuff really interesting. Could someone suggest some other settings to try and experiment with? I'm getting a really punchy sound that I like quite a bit but I'm interested in the sound I might get if I cut different frequencies rather than boosting my low mids etc. Right now I have the treble +1.5ish, bass +3, and mids boosted +9 at about 250 hz. Any suggestions for a similar tone by cutting frequencies. I'm just interested in subtle differences and what not. I want to understand how cutting is sonically better than boosting.
Click to expand...

There used to be a company that made equilizers (multi-band slider type) that had a concept called 'unity gain' which was that the overall signal strength coming into the EQ section/unit should be the same as that going out of it.
Thus the center line of the various slider levels should be around 0dB (just the flat non-boosted level, not 0dB as an acoustic or voltage level). I would think that some extra weighting would have to given to any lower frequency boosting as that requires more amplifier power to effect.
Plot out the total frequency curve you want and then effect that by using as much cut as you do boost.

Back to my point about ultimate gig volume levels, if you try this and your signal still sounds thin at loud volume levels, then I think you have to go with what your ears tell you and work from there.
 
#33
Wow, thanks for all the replies. I've taken on board what a lot of you have said, the EQ thing seems to be a completely subjective issue.

The problem I now face is, I would like to opt for a flat EQ on the amp and use the pre but it's far easier to illustrate what sort of attenuation or boost I'm giving on a graphic EQ (IE the amps EQ), also I'm still not sure if I'm using my Nanyo SG or my friends Ibanez.

I have however already decided what sort of microphones I'm using, AKG D112 and an AKG C3000.

Does anyone have any experience with these microphones? Can anyone give me a few rough ideas for recording a bass amp with 2 microphones or more specifically these 2?

CC
 
#34
Out of those two mics, I'd use the C3000. The D112 has a giant mid scoop and is made for bass drums and it sucks on bass. But if you're looking to drop $1000 on a couple good mics for recording, I'd get an Electro-Voice RE-20 as well. The RE-20's response is flat pretty much all the way up and down and really sounds like your cab. I have the best luck recording with close micing only. Ambient mics just seem to add mud when I've used them. If you have two cabs you like the sound of and want to combine them, that's when I'd use two mics.

Also, I wouldn't overlook a Shure SM-58, either. Does almost as good a job as the RE-20 for 1/4 the price. I use one on all my recordings because I'm too cheap for an RE-20.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back