Of course, cutting through the mix depends on the frequences covered by the other instruments. Sometimes you need to cut the bass tone and add more mids or highs.
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.
mtd 535 cut through the mix?
- Thread starter johnbkim93
- Start date
Of course, cutting through the mix depends on the frequences covered by the other instruments. Sometimes you need to cut the bass tone and add more mids or highs.
+1 Many don't realize that most of the energy in the top end is in that 1 or 2K area (presence). It makes it a bit harder to play (all of a sudden, your bass becomes VERY articulate), but that is a top end that stays out of the way of the cymbals, and again, slots itself in a mix so that you can actually hear it out in the audience. That upper treble can be even more of an issue with the front of house, since most PA's are much more efficient/sensitive and extended up there than most bass backline cabs.
Takes many players a long time to realize that upper treble, often, is a losing game in a live mix, unless you have a VERY sparse mix.
Depends on the bass (pickups, fretboard), the rig, the Q of the EQ, etc. For example, the difference between a 1K and 2K center point on a fix EQ with a full octave Q is relatively minor (at least with regards to the bass guitar for the most part). With a half octave Q or less, I agree with you, most times, too low in the upper mids can move you to that ganky thing. Of course, if you have DR Hi Beams on your bass (as an example of a string with a pretty severe dip around that 1K area), it could be the best thing ever!. However, just depends, like all of this stuff, including the definition we are each using of 'cutting through a mix'
Depends on the bass (pickups, fretboard), the rig, the Q of the EQ, etc. For example, the difference between a 1K and 2K center point on a fix EQ with a full octave Q is relatively minor (at least with regards to the bass guitar for the most part). With a half octave Q or less, I agree with you, most times, too low in the upper mids can move you to that ganky thing. Of course, if you have DR Hi Beams on your bass (as an example of a string with a pretty severe dip around that 1K area), it could be the best thing ever!. However, just depends, like all of this stuff, including the definition we are each using of 'cutting through a mix'
Agreed!
Apparently some don't understand the difference between cutting and radically cutting. They're not the same so why act like they are? A slight cut to clear things up doesn't mean you'll get lost in the mix. Enhance functions typically do more than the cutting I'm referring to.
The larger point was that most people boost to get more. That is not necessarily the best way to do that IME. I've seen far more people turn their treble up which as I said can make you seem loud but not full.
The larger point was that most people boost to get more. That is not necessarily the best way to do that IME. I've seen far more people turn their treble up which as I said can make you seem loud but not full.
Highs doesn't necessarily mean sizzle or high treble. It could be referring to clarity. To get more I don't typically BOOST anything. That was my point. More in the sense that it will be more clear, not necessarily a higher gain in that range.
Maybe folks don't understand what I'm talking about. Maybe that's why they find MTDs to be problematic.
I think that's a key point with MTDs. Like I said before, all my MTDs have sounded different. Yes, they've all had a definite "MTD-ness" to them, but some worked for me better than others.
+1.
And per Mike T., the preamp is as uncolored as a preamp can be. So supposedly, it's really the wood that's doing the talking.
At this point, I'd only buy a multi wood bass (or coffee table bass or laminated wood bass or what ever you want to call it) either new or if I can play it first.
My first two MTD's were used and I didn't get a chance to play them first; they didn't work for me. The third one I had built for me and it's perfect.
+1 Surprising impact of different wood combinations with these basses. Pretty cool. My ash/wenge and ash/ash/maple models sounded quite different. Both very big in the low end, but the ash/ash model had a big does of aggressive, bright upper midrange, and of course, the Wenge had that dip in the upper mids and that super 8K+ treble extension... probably the smoothest top end of any bass I've ever owned. Both kind of 'had the mids in the wrong place' for my current tonal goals, but both sounded great in their own way. They could 'flumux' front of house guys though on occasion, and were both a bit picky regarding rigs.
My experience with MTDs in particular have convinced me that wood does have a significant enough impact on tone (despite what a lot of people will claim).
These guys probably haven't tried any MTDs - http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/church-dan-atkinson-wood-doesnt-matter-club-744206/?! 
These guys probably haven't tried any MTDs - http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/church-dan-atkinson-wood-doesnt-matter-club-744206/?!
Yeah, that continues to be a pretty silly thread. I get what Dan is saying though, that each piece of wood is different, and you can never exactly spec a bass to sound exactly like another one with the same woods. I agree with that. I've played a few different Wenge neck MTD's and they each surely had their differences. However, that unique wenge sound came through on each of them.
Per the post above, my feeling on the MTD is that the wood differences speak better than most basses due not so much to the 'transparency' of the preamp (it is kind of a 'double preamp system, with the active pickups and the on-board main preamp.. who knows what is all going on in there!), but rather the extremely wide voice of those pickups and electronics (which I guess is one definition of transparency). The electronics do 'cover the waterfront' of the full frequency range, and hence don't mask the deep lows and uber highs that can vary quite a bit, especially with fretboards IMO and IME
These guys probably haven't tried any MTDs - http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/church-dan-atkinson-wood-doesnt-matter-club-744206/?!
Well, I think that the "scientific approach" where this topic is concerned isn't going to get you anywhere. It really comes down to one's personal experience. I know what I've experienced and am convinced that wood does make a difference to tone. Arguing about how "relevant" that difference might be is like arguing about what pizza tastes better. But a lot of folks like to think that they haven't been taken in by the "snake oil salesman" and I'd wager that such people make up the majority of Dan Atkinson's "congregation". Don't get me wrong - I think Atkinson's experiments have been a noble enough endeavour, but I don't think they prove a whole lot regarding the question of whether or not "wood matters".
I do agree with that side of Dan's argument as well, and I've also experienced the same thing you have regarding identical wood combos.
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,122
- 16,794
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
In my 25 years of live playing, I have found that, in general, active basses do not "cut" through or "sit" in a mix as well as passive ones.
I think it depends on the EQ and how it is used. It's easy to go overboard with onboard EQ and to create more problems.
