Is it really different in a recording to have a tighter low B?

[maturanesa]

Its is a very discussed topic to have a low B with definition and presence. Brands like Dingwall make a big effort to achieve that. But all the records i hear in general the lower extended range sound kinda the same. The bass is always a bit scooped and the overall sub low frequencies in the track are reduced. So that low notes just sound like low frequencie that supports at the back and doesnt stand up too much. Maybe impossible to guess which gauge or material or bass is used in the track.
Do you hear the same? or can you quote tracks where the low B is present, shinny and defined as everyone seems to die for?
Thanx!

 

[Drop1]

It would be very hard to guess if you dont know what's going on. I'll go through a recording while mixing and cut out every single sloppy sounding note I hear and replace them, sometimes with another basses notes or vst. This is a bit tedious sometimes but is very easy to do these days.

You never know how much of much of what you hear is real on a finished record unless you can speak to someone who was there or get an unaltered recording of the part.

 

[Aussie Player]

Alembic 5's have no defect.
5 strings with equal volume and tone and most inportantly, note definition.
Put through a tube amp......without peer.