• 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.

Rig Rethink....

#42
TheArchitect said:
That means exactly the same thing as I said, so yes.
Click to expand...
Well, not quite and not necessarily:

What I think you meant:

A & B & C & D go into DAW

What you said was:

A & B & C go into DAW, and D

Now, we’ve got an order of operations issue with our logical operators and that comma doing some heavy lifting, but ending up ambiguous.

There’s multiple ways to interpret

Option A (what I think you intended):

(A & B & C go into DAW) & (D goes into DAW)

Equivalent to:

(A & B & C & D) go into DAW

Option B

(A & B & C) go into (DAW, and D)

This is NOT the same as Option A; however, it’s an equally valid interpretation of the sentence structure used.

Language is difficult, and English in particular allows for some nasty ambiguities.

Unfortunately, you fell victim to one of them. I’d guess a good chunk of people assumed Option A.

But, I’m a computer scientist and engineer leading a multilingual team, and a big part of my job is making extra sure that everyone is clear on expectations. In my work, ambiguities like the original sentence (as obvious as the interpretation might be to most people on the team) still require clarification, because every now and then what’s obviously Option A to most of the team is obviously Option B to one critical person. Nobody sees the ambiguity and no one feels confused (the answer is obvious). But, not everyone actually agrees as to what that obvious answer was. So, we figure it out too late and everyone ends up mad.

English is loaded with ambiguities. Everyone hits them from time to time. Someone asking for clarification, IMO, means they’re trying to help.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Maxi Funkl, namboy, dougjwray and 3 others
#43
meisi said:
I wasn’t confused and so I made a suggestion.

You answered a question that you guessed was asked, I guess?

I’m confused why the tone in this thread. People must really not like the rumble 100. lol.
Click to expand...
What tone? The Rumble 100 is a great amp for what it is.

The OTHER tone in this thread is because of a lack of clarity and completeness in the original question and followup info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dougjwray and DJ Bebop
#44
finn_the_human said:
Well, not quite and not necessarily:

What I think you meant:

A & B & C & D go into DAW

What you said was:

A & B & C go into DAW, and D

Now, we’ve got an order of operations issue with our logical operators and that comma doing some heavy lifting, but ending up ambiguous.

There’s multiple ways to interpret

Option A (what I think you intended):

(A & B & C go into DAW) & (D goes into DAW)

Equivalent to:

(A & B & C & D) go into DAW

Option B

(A & B & C) go into (DAW, and D)

This is NOT the same as Option A; however, it’s an equally valid interpretation of the sentence structure used.

Language is difficult, and English in particular allows for some nasty ambiguities.

Unfortunately, you fell victim to one of them. I’d guess a good chunk of people assumed Option A.

But, I’m a computer scientist and engineer leading a multilingual team, and a big part of my job is making extra sure that everyone is clear on expectations. In my work, ambiguities like the original sentence (as obvious as the interpretation might be to most people on the team) still require clarification, because every now and then what’s obviously Option A to most of the team is obviously Option B to one critical person. Nobody sees the ambiguity and no one feels confused (the answer is obvious). But, not everyone actually agrees as to what that obvious answer was. So, we figure it out too late and everyone ends up mad.

English is loaded with ambiguities. Everyone hits them from time to time. Someone asking for clarification, IMO, means they’re trying to help.
Click to expand...
Exactly, otherwise I wouldn't have asked for clarification of what the intent was.

I spend a fair amount of time writing technical documentation (owner's manuals, service manuals, TSB's, regulatory documents, manufacturing documents, production testing documents) and details really do matter. Clarity in asking the questions is even more important when asking for help... when the attitude starts flowing, the attempts at helping slow down or stop.

I also spend some of my time assisting and supporting bass products for our A-circuit touring clients, the biggest players on the road and in the studios. Frankly, I don't receive the attitude from that market that I do from those at the bottom. Communication is clear, questions are unambiguous, and the interactions polite and without the petty argument crap.

For everybody, this is something worth thinking about the next time you find yourself needing assistance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxi Funkl, 12BitSlab, WRM and 2 others
#45
agedhorse said:
I re-read the first post and disagree with your assessment, nowhere was the desired signal routing to the amp mentioned.

I deal with questions like this all the time as part of my day job. Asking a question without all of the information leads to guessing, leading to confusion.

You may not be confused if you happened to guess right. I don’t like to guess.
Click to expand...
I didn't understand the OP either.

If I were to setup a recording session where I split my bass signal into 4 distinct paths I'd use an interface with 4 inputs like the Scarlett 18i16. The effects/preamps/amps inline between the bass and the interface are irrelavant to the solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse
#47
finn_the_human said:
But, I’m a computer scientist and engineer leading a multilingual team, and a big part of my job is making extra sure that everyone is clear on expectations. In my work, ambiguities like the original sentence (as obvious as the interpretation might be to most people on the team) still require clarification, because every now and then what’s obviously Option A to most of the team is obviously Option B to one critical person. Nobody sees the ambiguity and no one feels confused (the answer is obvious). But, not everyone actually agrees as to what that obvious answer was. So, we figure it out too late and everyone ends up mad.

English is loaded with ambiguities. Everyone hits them from time to time. Someone asking for clarification, IMO, means they’re trying to help.
Click to expand...
I'm in a very similar situation. My motto is "We're engineers. We don't do ambiguity"
 
  • Like
Reactions: WRM, agedhorse and DJ Bebop
#49
Miles_ONeal said:
Ok, folks. Enough whinging and flexing. Maybe focus on solving the problem OP asked for help with?
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem is we are not clear on what it is he is asking. While some of us are trying to determine that other have given advice on several possible solutions, again based on the limited understanding of the problem.

Waiting on some feedback from the OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dougjwray, agedhorse and FretRiff
#51
You don't need an amp or cab to record you bass as you already have that excellent preamp which features an XLR plug that you can directly connect to a Focusrite or other interface. From there, you go straight into a DAW like usual. Just have to set your pedals, volume and start playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#52
I think the simplest would be chain connection, where bass guitar into:
1. Digbeth, where XLR is sent to DAW 1, and unaffected line out to
2. OE Super Vintage, where XLR is sent to DAW 2, and unaffected line out to
3. Finally, where XLR is sent to DAW 3, and unaffected line out to
4. Fender Rumble with microphone, where XLR is sent to DAW 4.

I checked quickly online, and all three pedals have line out, but not sure if those are unaffected... No harm in trying this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dougjwray and DJ Bebop
#53
agedhorse said:
Right, reread your last sentence. “They can all feed the DAW along with the mic on the amp”…

Exactly what feeds the input (not mic on amp which is a signal source not an input) of the amp? One pedal? All pedals? Something else?

Details matter.
Click to expand...
I have a question, slightly off track: If I plug my pedalboard into the Rumble100, how should I then connect to the Scarlett 2i2 so I can avoid using an amp sim? I realize this is a stupid noobie question, but I have no recent recording experience. Last time I recorded anything I was using a mic and mixer into a cassette recorder, back in the mid 90's. Stupid caveman, but I play bass....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#54
BassicJazzy said:
I have a question, slightly off track: If I plug my pedalboard into the Rumble100, how should I then connect to the Scarlett 2i2 so I can avoid using an amp sim? I realize this is a stupid noobie question, but I have no recent recording experience. Last time I recorded anything I was using a mic and mixer into a cassette recorder, back in the mid 90's. Stupid caveman, but I play bass....
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, you can avoid using an amp sim by simply not using one. There's decades of good music that's been recorded on bass without an amp sim.

If you mean 'using the amp to replicate what an amp sim would do' then you're really going to want to mic the amp. If you take a DI from the amp then you will benefit from the tone shaping controls on the amp and the preamp's natural voice, but it'll sound very different to the amp in the room because the speaker won't be contributing its own natural voice.

Don't feel obliged though. The bass might sound just great either straight from the board or from the amp's xlr output.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassicJazzy and DJ Bebop
#55
Jack said:
Just to be clear, you can avoid using an amp sim by simply not using one. There's decades of good music that's been recorded on bass without an amp sim.

If you mean 'using the amp to replicate what an amp sim would do' then you're really going to want to mic the amp. If you take a DI from the amp then you will benefit from the tone shaping controls on the amp and the preamp's natural voice, but it'll sound very different to the amp in the room because the speaker won't be contributing its own natural voice.

Don't feel obliged though. The bass might sound just great either straight from the board or from the amp's xlr output.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that explanation. I'll give it a try, from the XLR to the Scarlett, and see how it sounds. I can't mic the amp because I am in an apartment bedroom adjacent to a busy 6 lane high traffic road in L.A., near a hospital, unless I want to play among to the sirens and maniac drivers' screeching brake sounds that are pretty much constant during my playing hours. Note I'm not complaining, the noise give me adequate cover so I. can play my bass without headphones and not bug the neighbors too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop and agedhorse
#56
RattleSnack said:
I think the simplest would be chain connection, where bass guitar into:
1. Digbeth, where XLR is sent to DAW 1, and unaffected line out to
2. OE Super Vintage, where XLR is sent to DAW 2, and unaffected line out to
3. Finally, where XLR is sent to DAW 3, and unaffected line out to
4. Fender Rumble with microphone, where XLR is sent to DAW 4.

I checked quickly online, and all three pedals have line out, but not sure if those are unaffected... No harm in trying this out.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are still 2 issues regarding parallel processing of the signal:

1. How does the signal get into all of the pedals without using a splitter?

2. How does the signal from the pedals get into the amp without a mixer or routing switch?

BassicJazzy said:
I have a question, slightly off track: If I plug my pedalboard into the Rumble100, how should I then connect to the Scarlett 2i2 so I can avoid using an amp sim? I realize this is a stupid noobie question, but I have no recent recording experience. Last time I recorded anything I was using a mic and mixer into a cassette recorder, back in the mid 90's. Stupid caveman, but I play bass....
Click to expand...
On the Rumble V3, the cab (not amp) sim is applied to both the XLR and headphone output, so that leaves the effects send output as the only option that I can see (without resorting to a splitter before the amp).

IMG_2460.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxi Funkl, DJ Bebop and BassicJazzy
#57
agedhorse said:
2. How does the signal from the pedals get into the amp without a mixer or routing switch?
Click to expand...
Ok, now you're trolling us.

agedhorse said:
On the Rumble V3, the cab (not amp) sim is applied to both the XLR and headphone output, so that leaves the effects send output as the only option that I can see (without resorting to a splitter before the amp).
Click to expand...
Indeed, missed that. I checked the manual but only the text and there's no mention of it in the prose that I (admittedly quickly) glanced at but it's right there in the block diagram. @BassicJazzy you might find that the DI output sounds quite a bit like the amp in the room then, try it out! Or you might not, depends on the speaker sim I guess.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop and BassicJazzy
#58
Jack said:
Ok, now you're trolling us.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t troll. You are missing the whole issue with parallel processing.

Describe HOW you would send the outputs of the 3 pedals wired as parallel processing to the single input of the amp… draw it out and I think you will quickly recognize the issue.

Parallel processing is different than pedals in series (which by the description they are not).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back