Is everyone on TB going stereo??

[Dirk Diggler]

Been doing it since the 70's, what are you waiting for? LOL
And yes dual mono.

But I do also run an actual stereo rig in the studio.
Lots of effects these days have mono in, stereo out.

 

[dbsfgyd1]

Well not me, but it seems like there have bee a lot of threads about it recently.

Good observation. I do mainly to blend two dissimilar cabs, not for left-right panned effect. Have been for years. On rare occasions at certain venues, I had to put a second cab on the other end stage. I don’t play that loud and with 12 members, we can spread out a fair distance.

 

[JamesDeGrandis]

I think you'll find most of the guys running stereo rigs for bass are not really all that bassy. Most of the panning of bass throughout the years has been with pretty plucky sounding bass guitars. There are actually mechanical issues that can really mess with the cutting process when hard panning really deep bass for vinyl records.

For live stuff I've seen a few guys send a left and right that carries the upper midrange and treble, and then single mono low-bass signal for the rest of the signal. That can actually work as an effect. Those guys often run effected signals that sound more like baritone guitars when they take advantage of the stereo panning.

+1 for not planning the bass or kick on vinyl... You can kick the needle out of the groove.
We can call that a "mechanical problem"
Much of the 70s disco vinyl would have a very limited bass range... Many of the clubs at the time used speakers that would roll off at about 80 hz... So much of the bass was over 100Hz.
My boss likes to say that they didn't have a lot of bass... But they had a lot of bass guitar. If he wanted a stereo effect, sometimes he would run it through reverb and throw the reverb to one side to trick the listener into hearing the reverb and thinking that the bass was there.
There were many tricks they used to play...
That was how they worked within the limitations of the medium.

 

[basscooker]

A home audio guy offered up something I hadn't considered about it. I was already bi-amping with my 3620, So i already used two amps anyway. I had a 215 and mentioned it might be cool to try.

He suggested that by definition a bass or guitar technically can't be stereo unless different strings went to separate outs. For example half and half. I think that gets a little into semantics.

But

In principal I think sending different signals to a truly split-string rig would probably hurt my brain. Could you imagine E, D string hard left A and G string hard right? I think at volume I'd get motion sickness.

Has anyone done ^ that?

 

[hotrodjohn]

More quads = more bass

 

[Passinwind]

A home audio guy offered up something I hadn't considered about it. I was already bi-amping with my 3620, So i already used two amps anyway. I had a 215 and mentioned it might be cool to try.

He suggested that by definition a bass or guitar technically can't be stereo unless different strings went to separate outs. For example half and half. I think that gets a little into semantics.

But

In principal I think sending different signals to a truly split-string rig would probably hurt my brain. Could you imagine E, D string hard left A and G string hard right? I think at volume I'd get motion sickness.

Has anyone done ^ that?

Yep, with guitar. My Roland VG-8 could do splits and it's big fun. Low two to a solid state bass amp and the rest to a tube guitar one.

I've also done many mono-in-stereo-out bass rigs. High pass one side, bass frequency combing/cancelation problems gone or mitigated well enough to make me and my bandmates berry berry happy. Embrace a moving sound field, don't fight it. Different audience locations hear different things? Great!

 

[Danny O Danny]

I've been playing around with stereo, in two ways:

1. I've done some recent recordings where I played fretless bass and tracked it twice, into two channels. I played on each track seperately, so there are slight variations in the intonation between the two tracks--which gives it a natural chorus effect. Then I panned one track 70% left and the other 70% right. It sounds much more expansive than a single bass track. I got the idea from reading about how Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top gets his massive guitar sound.

2. I've been experimenting with Rick-O-Sound on my newly acquired Ibanez Rickenbacker 4003 copy. Rick-O-Sound is a stereo output that sends one pickup left and one pickup right. Using a splitter cable, I've been sending the bridge pickup to my usual rig (Demeter 400D w/ Epifani 2x10 cab) and the neck pickup to a Hartke 1x12 combo) and it sounds huge (these are stacked, not split on different sides of a stage--the Hartke on the floor, the Epifani above it on a stand). Next I think I'm going to replace the Hartke with a 1x15 combo--maybe a Fender Rumble 200. I haven't recorded with the Rick yet, but I'm curious to try using Rick-O-Sound to send each pickup to a different track and then do different EQing and effects on each track and pan them.

 

[dalkowski]

The complexity of stereo is way above my pay grade. A hammer has too many moving parts for me.

 

[MrLenny1]

Bass is bass. Leave it alone.

 

[mrjim123]

My stereo is strictly single channel mono.

Do I want mo? No.

 

[Altitude]

I took a quick look and apparently I'm the only person who thought of Phoebe Cates when I saw this thread. Guess it's just where my mind is.

 

[BassBrass]

Did that in the 90s, big amp-little amp, boss chorus II, setting 2 so one side is clean, vibrato into analog delay for small amp. Recorded very well, made chords distinctive in 4ad-ish bands. Recently got a Malekko Thicken that resembles that sound. Dimension D didn't.

 

[Realmongo]

Nope, don't see any reason to with my needs.

 

[DJ Bebop]

I did the stereo thing with my first rig. A Marantz model B8 stereo tube power amp with Heathkit pre.
I had two 1x15s, one one each channel on each side of the drummer. I ran one channel straight the other channel with a Phase 90 playing Mahavishnu tunes in a 4 piece violin, guitar, bass, drums. The violinist had one of those Foxx flocked pedals. I think it was an octave with a fuzz. We sounded like a bunch of angry bees flying around.

 

[dfreeland83]

I can't be bothered to do it, even on guitar.
Is it cool? Sure.
Do I care? No.
Seems to me like it also adds a bunch of possible points of failure to my signal chain and complicates my amp options, my pedal options, and my routing options.

And on bass, as has been mentioned a few times, the real low frequencies can run into issues with a stereo setup.

 

[Doctor Intrepid]

I try and run two amps always now. Is that what you mean? Playing bass is just a hobby for me, so I would not be indicative of those who earn money from playing. No one has paid me to play bass since the early 90s.

 

[MegaSwing]

What do that mean?

 

[DJ Bebop]

And on bass, as has been mentioned a few times, the real low frequencies can run into issues with a stereo setup.

Not if you run it like a PA system, more like a bi- amp situation. Mono sub, stereo top boxes or play stereo through FOH running stereo.

 

[GodsLove66]

But....why? Also no.

 

[groooooove]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v4tLpj22vyc
when I did this, was the first time i really used my yamaha attitude in stereo. it 100% sold me on billy's concept, though i don't try to play like billy, i do love his bass and this stereo concept - deep sub-bass to one rig, P pickup (through a high pass filter!) with a little grind to the other, is not a gimmick and really makes for great results.




when i did this, i fell in love with using a stereo chorus for this type of arrangement.

i'm never going to use two rigs for stereo chorus live. i play none of this junk in a live setting.

but, the "billy" rig i would 100% do live. I really love the results. the key to the whole thing i found is being sure to cut any subs from the P pickup channel. it never seemed "muddy" without it, it just... did not sound good. once you add the HPF the whole sound just comes alive. love it.