First post, so I apologize of this has already been addressed or this this is the wrong forum to post in. Anyways, what do you prefer, and what are so pros and cons of mic'd Double Bass vs. having pick ups installed and directly amplifying a DB with a bass amp? From what I've heard, amplified DB sounds more like a fretless electric bass guitar than an acoustic instrument. And when mic'd I hear the acoustic-ness of the bass. I don't know. Thoughts?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Double Bass Mic'd vs. direct amplification
- Thread starter BassBeaner
- Start date
BB,
It's more a case of having the right tools, for the right job. In short, using a quality microphone such as the DPA 4099B, Schoeps ATM 450, or Troll, just to name a few, will get you a very concise, articulate sound. The limitations, even with the
finest of microphones, is that controlling feedback, and the proximity effect of other instruments is an art unto itself, so you also have the issue of whether the person running the sound knows what they're doing. There are some newer pickups
that like the Ehrlund EAP, Schertler, and Headway Band, that will give you a very good sound and eliminate some of the issues connected with using a microphone. Even the trusty Realist, Full Circle, and Underwood will sound good on many basses.
The only thing that sounds like a "giant fretless bass guitar" is the Schaller Magnetic pickup.
Ric
Ha…beaten to death. Do a search for "mic" or "microphone". A few points -
Mics are great in the studio controlled environment, much more difficult to use
live with a band through an amp or PA because of feedback problems, bleed from other instruments, and difficulty getting sufficient volume.
Some pickups bring out a more bass guitar or electronic sound than others, particularly piezo's mounted near string slots (Wilson, Fishman BP100) and magnetic pickups. Some are more mic like (Schertler, Ehrlund).
Mics are great in the studio controlled environment, much more difficult to use
live with a band through an amp or PA because of feedback problems, bleed from other instruments, and difficulty getting sufficient volume.
Some pickups bring out a more bass guitar or electronic sound than others, particularly piezo's mounted near string slots (Wilson, Fishman BP100) and magnetic pickups. Some are more mic like (Schertler, Ehrlund).
Last edited:
IMO with a transducer, if it is preamped and EQ'd properly you will get a nice sound through a powerful enough amplifier and can reduce the "electric bass guitar", "electronic" sound immensely.
You can tone-shape (eq) all you want and not address the fundamental (no pun intended) issue. That is, the failure of many pickups (especially bridge-mounted or magnetic) to transduce the temporal attack/decay profile that, for the DB and any musical instrument for that matter, is perhaps the single most important factor that determines an instrument's characteristic and identifiable sound. Do a search for "attack/decay" to find a more detailed treatment in the Ehrlund threads.
this is probably why I am still loving my Dyn-B. It sounded good through the Pre-A 1 i got with it, better with the pre-A 1 and my FDeck, now best through my EDB-1.
Plus I don't have to worry about feedback like I did before with my ATM or the rubber-band mounted Beta 57.
Plus I don't have to worry about feedback like I did before with my ATM or the rubber-band mounted Beta 57.
To the OP....this very neatly summarizes the inherent difference between pickups and microphones on a bass.
The question for the player is whether you want to end up with the closest sound to your bass (a mic).....or a reasonable bass sound (pickup) that does not make it sound like an electric bass.
For me, in an acoustic band, all the instruments are mic'd so a mic for my bass keeps a balance in the overall sound. I use a hypercardioid dynamic drum mic (after many years of using bridge pickups) through a tube pre.... directly in to the board. So far, even on a cramped stage, feedback has not been a problem.
So it all depends on your band situation. Loud electric instruments or drums can create all kinds of problems. If I was in that situation, I would seriously consider using an electric upright.
If you are new to amplifying upright, I think you'll have an especially good chance of wrestling with feedback problems using a mic.
I use a David Gage realist pickup which does a really nice job, is simple to install, and can be had at a reasonable price but I also carry an ATM 350 mic in case I need to go direct to PA for any reason. It's just a small inexpensive mic I can clip on the bridge.
A combo like this would allow you to experiment with both while you figure out the sound you want and if you get into a feedback headache with the mic, you can switch to the pickup.
Search the forums and learn about specific pickups/mics. There are lots of interesting options. I've found the ones I've mentioned very practical.
Good luck,
Dave
I use a David Gage realist pickup which does a really nice job, is simple to install, and can be had at a reasonable price but I also carry an ATM 350 mic in case I need to go direct to PA for any reason. It's just a small inexpensive mic I can clip on the bridge.
A combo like this would allow you to experiment with both while you figure out the sound you want and if you get into a feedback headache with the mic, you can switch to the pickup.
Search the forums and learn about specific pickups/mics. There are lots of interesting options. I've found the ones I've mentioned very practical.
Good luck,
Dave
I agree with Dave's post above, I've had great success with transducer-type pickups whether are foot- mount, adjuster-mount or wing-mount and using a preamp and eq. I also always have a mic with me as well. The ATM350 is a good choice as are ATM Pro70 or Pro35 with clip mounts they work really well and you can control feedback fairly easy by going direct to the board.
Mic's sound great but are of course tricky and prone to feedback. I think blending with a pick up is the way to go. If you only have a mic and you end up at a gig with a small stage and lots of volume your mic may be almost useless and you wont be able to hear yourself. Start with a pick up sound that you can live with and blend as much mic as you can get away with. The EBD-2 from headway is a great blending pre-amp you can put up on a mic stand and tweak as you play to blend signals and EQ out feedback. I appreciate that it's a lot of money to spend but worth it in the long run.
I agree with the great advice above. It shows the different perspectives on the issues involved. I'll add mine:
- the part of the equation that everyone agrees on but doesn't always get said out loud (unless Ed Fuqua is around) is that a strong acoustic sound is paramount to any amplification paradigm because it's the very first link in the signal chain.
- the combination of pickup or mic and the amplification system is also very important. For mics, an extremely uncolored and accurate full range system that is arranged in the performance space in such a way that the mic can't "see" the amplified signal is extremely important, and about the only sure fire way to avoid feedback. For pickups, an amplifier which complements the inherent "unreal/unnatural" aspects of the pickup signal is also very important. in general, a good amplifier for any given pickup is one which accentuates the positives of the signal while minimizing the negatives. Note that in this description, the amplifier need not be "uncolored", but should instead be a complimentary color to the pickup signal. Big difference! Unfortunately, the only way to determine these matches is through personal experience and a lot of trial and error.
- a variable high pass filter is almost always a handy thing to have around, as the low bass frequencies are often the first frequencies to become problematic by being amplified to an unnatural degree as compared to the acoustic signal.
- last, and perhaps most important, the amplified signal is really a mixture of the strong acoustic sound of the bass and the amplified signal. The more volume you get from the amp, the more "unnatural sounding" your signal is likely to become.
- the part of the equation that everyone agrees on but doesn't always get said out loud (unless Ed Fuqua is around) is that a strong acoustic sound is paramount to any amplification paradigm because it's the very first link in the signal chain.
- the combination of pickup or mic and the amplification system is also very important. For mics, an extremely uncolored and accurate full range system that is arranged in the performance space in such a way that the mic can't "see" the amplified signal is extremely important, and about the only sure fire way to avoid feedback. For pickups, an amplifier which complements the inherent "unreal/unnatural" aspects of the pickup signal is also very important. in general, a good amplifier for any given pickup is one which accentuates the positives of the signal while minimizing the negatives. Note that in this description, the amplifier need not be "uncolored", but should instead be a complimentary color to the pickup signal. Big difference! Unfortunately, the only way to determine these matches is through personal experience and a lot of trial and error.
- a variable high pass filter is almost always a handy thing to have around, as the low bass frequencies are often the first frequencies to become problematic by being amplified to an unnatural degree as compared to the acoustic signal.
- last, and perhaps most important, the amplified signal is really a mixture of the strong acoustic sound of the bass and the amplified signal. The more volume you get from the amp, the more "unnatural sounding" your signal is likely to become.
All great. Even to the extent that this topic brings out the subjective, still "all great." Now let's get real and complex: Add in the record, the space and the band!
a) When we think about {insert bassist's name here}'s sound we are almost always thinking about recordings (often, played over some particular system). THAT PLAYER didn't "sound" like that in any particular concert setting. Trying to compare {insert bassist's name here}'s recorded sound to your gigging tone is like comparing apples to salmon.
b) The biggest reason that's so is because bass sound changes dramatically based on how far the listener is from the instrument. No listener ever hears me the way I hear me. I assume that no listener hears my amp the way I hear my amp!
c) And finally, the big question which ties both of these points together is, "Am I trying to amplify my sound as it is or to deliver that sound while cymbals are crashing and horns are honking?" Remember, that fantasic-sounding recording is precisely engineered to deliver that fantastic sound in the context of a particular band -- a good recording engineer may change the mix as things change over the course of a take.
Case in point: I sometimes set my rig a little "edgy" because I know that most of that "edge" is going to get washed out by the drums. The noise which ultimately arrives at the listener is, I hope, a decent enough sound not to distract from the music.
It's a morass, man. There's no solution. I just point in the best general direction I can, acknowledge the inherent compromises and get on with the music.
a) When we think about {insert bassist's name here}'s sound we are almost always thinking about recordings (often, played over some particular system). THAT PLAYER didn't "sound" like that in any particular concert setting. Trying to compare {insert bassist's name here}'s recorded sound to your gigging tone is like comparing apples to salmon.
b) The biggest reason that's so is because bass sound changes dramatically based on how far the listener is from the instrument. No listener ever hears me the way I hear me. I assume that no listener hears my amp the way I hear my amp!
c) And finally, the big question which ties both of these points together is, "Am I trying to amplify my sound as it is or to deliver that sound while cymbals are crashing and horns are honking?" Remember, that fantasic-sounding recording is precisely engineered to deliver that fantastic sound in the context of a particular band -- a good recording engineer may change the mix as things change over the course of a take.
Case in point: I sometimes set my rig a little "edgy" because I know that most of that "edge" is going to get washed out by the drums. The noise which ultimately arrives at the listener is, I hope, a decent enough sound not to distract from the music.
It's a morass, man. There's no solution. I just point in the best general direction I can, acknowledge the inherent compromises and get on with the music.
That is the main reason why I decided a couple of years ago to go with just a mic. All the EQ changing in the world could not make my bass sound like my bass. The Radio Shack tie clip mic I have been using is the first time in years that it actually sounded like a good bass. Full, punchy tone and a wonderful fundamental attack. What makes that mic work better, in some respects, than the DPA 4099, is that it's sensitivity is so low that for it to pick up anything it must be a couple inches from the source, so I have no issues with feedback or bleed from other instruments.
MB,
I found the opposite to be true. When I compared the RS mic, to my DPA 4099B, on my Mirecourt Double Bass, with Evah Parazzi Weich's. The DPA would go higher in volume before feeding back, and had better frequency response.
Just my take. If the Radio Shack mic works, on your bass, then the cost savings is significant.
Ric
Last edited:
That's what I've experienced. Once I got the Ehrlund EAP and Pre Amp. I found that with my Mirecourt Bass, Headway EDB-2, and QSC K8 it worked and sounded great. I should probably move to the K10, but I like the portability and form factor of the smaller
speaker. I have combined the Ehrlund with my DPA 4099B and while it certainly improves the tone pallet, I don't find it to be necessary on most of the gigs I play. On larger stages, I'll usually take along the DPA 4099 and run the mic FOH or blend the two
signals.
Ric
Just curious Ric, are you using the DPA 4099 into a amp or FOH. I use the RS mic directly into a amp that sits about two feet behind my bass. Using the amp as the sole sound source, I still have no feedback issues. I thought that most people using the DPA were going into the board with it.
Mandobassman,
I've used it both ways, either FOH or back to my QSC K8, through the Headway EDB-2. I've only compared the two into the EDB-2 and back to the amp. As I stated above with my bass, strings etc. the DPA's sonic profile and feedback resistance
are better than the RS. Just my take.
Ric
Wo
That is the main reason why I decided a couple of years ago to go with just a mic. All the EQ changing in the world could not make my bass sound like my bass. The Radio Shack tie clip mic I have been using is the first time in years that it actually sounded like a good bass. Full, punchy tone and a wonderful fundamental attack. What makes that mic work better, in some respects, than the DPA 4099, is that it's sensitivity is so low that for it to pick up anything it must be a couple inches from the source, so I have no issues with feedback or bleed from other instruments.[/QUOTE
WWow, I thought I was the only person to ever use the Radio Shack clip on!
I've yet to even play in a situation where i could mic the bass easily. Nothing quiet/intimate enough. Still trying to figure out how to get away from my copper realist, but i am fairly satisfied with the realist sound for now.
Last week I was at Kolstine's booth while attending the ISB convention. I got the opportunity to play one of the Kolstine Busetto Travel Basses, which uses a Planet pickkup, even on that smaller instrument it sounded very good,
into a Acoustic Image Contra. Just my take of course.
Ric
