Sounds too modern?

[JeezyMcNuggles]

I think I've reached a point in my playing career where my taste in amps and speaker cabinets don't match up with a lot of the more popular gear on the market. Make sure to notice I didn't say "all" the gear on the market.

So, I started playing a long time ago when single 15" combos were very common. I owned a couple and that's all I played through for a few years. Eventually I added a 2x10 cab, but then I got into a lot of variety, 410s, 810, 2x15, 2x12, 1x12, etc. I've also had had a pretty wide variety of amps, and kinda still do.

I find a lot of newer gear (example: Ampeg BA210 ver2) is too high-fi for my tastes. Too much pillowy bottom end, scooped mids, and sparkling highs. I can EQ it to something I can live with, but I still prefer the natural midrange bark of a couple limited x-max 15"s. Super low end is not a requirement for me.

Example; i had an Ampeg SVT 410 hlf for several years, and it started collecting dust because I preferred the tone of two old EV TL606 cabs with my Fender Studio Bass head.

I know I'm generalizing quite a bit here, but I was just wondering if anyone else finds themselves preferring tone of older gear to some newer hi-fi stuff..... Could just be me getting old

I like the broad versatility of the new cabs and heads, but I really dont care for "modern" pick ups. Actives w/ multi band EQ and preamps. I think they kill the sound of the instrument. But, my 412 vertical stack set up sounds amazing.

 

[chadds]

That term “hifi” to me, means out of the way. It means capable of presenting any frequency. It means as a rig it doesn’t obscure the sound I want to hear. It means that if I change my hand position the sound changes. If I play with the side of my index finger on a Pbass I get more phat mids.

Live & Loud and I want the sound to get edge I dig in and harmonic goodness turns nasty. What the speakers do I use to further that effect. When the song calls for dynamic change back to more serenity the rig should go peaceful with clarity and quiet authority.

So to be clear and we are all different I want both phat and pristine. It’s available nowadays.

 

[ClusterFlux]

I happen to like the sound of an all tube amp going into a cab loaded with a 15” or (dare I say this) an 18” folded horn. I like the warm musical quality you get with those. And I make no apologies for it.

What’s considered a “good bass sound” these days is totally different than what the standard was prior to the mid-80s. And I think that is mainly due to the invention of the CD.

This is just my take on it. So feel free to disagree.

When people finally got used to the sound of CDs - but only after being weaned away from mag tape and vinyl and re-educated* to accept their unatural ultra clean and very bright sonic quality as “natural” - our instruments and amps started being built to better replicate that same sort of sound. Which is to say clear, bright, and very full range, along with that odd edginess digital sound reproduction brings to the party.

If you listen to a lot of live music, or vinyl LPs through an older stereo system, you’ll know what I mean by digital “edginess.” If you’ve been listening to nothing but CDs and MP3s for the most part, your ears won’t have anything to compare to and you probably don’t notice it any more.

—————
Note:

*I say “re-educated” because when CDs first came out there were a surprising number of people who didn’t like the way they sounded. Negative comments such as: weird, unnatural, way too bright, unpleasantly clean, brittle, glassy, and two-dimensional were fairly common.

The industry solved that problem by the simple expediency of gradually killing off vinyl and cassette formats. And for awhile CDs actually were the only thing available for about 10 years until some diehards resurrected vinyl LPs. So even those who genuinely didn’t like the new digital sound were SOL and basically made to switch over. And now it appears that music streaming is soon to replace the selling of virtually all music on physical media. Fortunately, the new generation has no problem with that. They grew up listening to nothing but digital music formats, so that’s what sounds “natural” and “right” to their ears. New generation - new musical standards.

Their world now.

Sic transit gloria mundi. (As kurt said: “So it goes.”)

I for one don’t believe that the switch to digital changed expectations about live tones.

First though, we have to acknowledge that most of the audience doesn’t care. Long before MP3s and CDs, they listened to music on crappy transistor radios, worn cassettes, mediocre car stereos, and were often intoxicated when hearing live music. I.e. they don’t care all that much.

As to those who do: They hated CDs in part because they weren’t mastered well at first, and because of the culture war over the displacement of analog audio.

So, my guess is that it’s mostly changing fashions in music and timbre. The “new generation,” I might add, is listening to a lot more to electronic music anyway, and that affects their tastes.

I also have to say that there are far more options, and more interest in vintage timbres, than in the past. If you don’t like a modern sound, there are all sorts of ways to get vintage tones.

 

[ClusterFlux]

I like the broad versatility of the new cabs and heads, but I really dont care the "modern" pick ups. Actives w/ multi band EQ and preamps. I think they kill the sound of the instrument. But, my 412 vertical stack set up sounds amazing.View attachment 3023915

It looks like it’s about to tip over

 

[Blaze Barlow]

It is very mid scooped, in my experience.

It's basically the opposite sound of an 810. Huge sub-lows, some high end due to the tweeter, no mids.

well..I am going to have to disagree..my HLF 4x10's sound great (I use 2)..in consideration..there are a number of variables involved..I always have my cabs up on a specially constructed platform closer to ear level..the bass head and how well you are able to operate the buttons and knobs has a lot to do with it too..and I use an external rackmounted preamp before the bass head..which is another set of buttons and knobs..and lets not forget about the instrument itself..lots of variables there..and individual hearing is different too..this comment about the HLF's being midscooped is certainly misunderstood..guess its all about the wizard behind the wand..

 

[honeyiscool]

I feel like warm and punchy is the current trend. I’ve bought gear from TC, Aguilar, and Fender in the past few years, and they all hang their hat on having a built-in old school sound. And so does Mesa and MarkBass, though I personally don’t have one. Though my Bergantino, Phil Jones, and Barefaced cabs don’t initially look much like an old school cab, none of them were exactly bright, either. They’re relatively flat, and honestly their treble is kind of muted and unfatiguing by default. Think about how trendy passive basses with flats have become that so many bass companies are making passive basses and PJ basses again, after years of only having active soapbar basses, and it seems like there are five times as many options for flats as there were ten years ago.

This so called modern bright sound, that Flea sound, is more 90s than anything. Which is far from current. Other than GK, most companies aren’t exactly promoting a bright scooped sound today, and GK kind of has to as their signature. I think all the indie and alternative revival of the 2000s kind of relegated that sound to being relatively uncool, and now the gear has caught up to reflect that. I doubt the 90s are coming back any time soon.

There is a trend for modern hi-fi bass, of course, but the idea is to be revealing, not for accentuating or attenuating any range by default. And it especially doesn't mean anything is particularly bright, either. It means that if you put stainless steel rounds on your bass, it'll sound bright and clangy, and if you put La Bella flats on your bass, it'll sound muted and old school. It just puts out what you put in, and you can actually hear the differences between your basses, strings, and pickups. And because modern hi-fi bass gear tends to stress having a revealing character, it means they're super dynamic and far from bland, they can take your head off if you play hard, and they can stay out of the way if you play soft.

 

[csc2048b]

when i gigged regularly in the 90s, it was mostly a Peavey TKO 1x15 combo (I'm one of the few who actually liked using the built-in chorus) that many of the clubs had and i miss that sound alot. Sometimes there'd be a Peavey Data Bass (that sounded surprisingly good for a digital amp). nowadays it's mostly Behringer combos i see the kids playing.

 

[40Hz]

We were recording on 2 inch digital tape long before cds... and there were extreme transients on vinyl - listen to aby classical music recorded. If anything cds abd niw mp3s have less transients and dynamics due to the overuse of compression

There were transients. But in cases where they were too extreme you might be able to get away with it on reel-to-reel. But onlt there. For vinyl, the disk cutter could only do so much with it before it would gouge and destroy the master. So the mastering shops always used serious compression to protect their cutting heads. Or so it was explained to me by a buddy back in the 80s who worked in a record plant. The band PiL (or Public Image Ltd.) had an ongoing battle with their recording engineers because they were always pushing for more ultra low end on their albums. Word was (per an article in Modern Recording) that some of their early tracks had so much bass information that they couldn’t be mastered to disk at all and had to be re-recorded.

On classical vinyl (I have a pretty good collection of RCA, Nonesuch, Telefunken, and Deutsche Grammaphon disks I listen to) I don’t recall hearing much in the way of killer transients. Some serious level jumps and changes to be sure. But the tympani and especially the snare drums are seriously and audibly damped down. The Mobile Fidelity label’s half speed mastered audiophile vinyl disks were better at that. But a $18 price tag when your average LP went for give or six bucks was a pretty steep premium to pay. Still, Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon never sounded better than it did on the Mobile Fidelity release IMO. So if you wanted that level of sonic quality, at least they tried to deliver it. The end resukts baried depending on the album. But when they had the right stuff to work with the results could be pretty impressive. Especially by the standards of the day.

I’ve done my share of revording on 2” multitrack decks. And we always left a blank track on both sides of the drum tracks (and many times the other instruments) whenever we could afford to. That made life much easier by avoiding possible cross talk or track splatter. And storing tapes wound fully backwards (i.e. not rewound) minimized audible print through during storage.

Boy…those were the days. You actually had to understand how things worked on a physical level a lot more more than you do today.

It was “fun.”

Maybe I love that old analog sound. But I sure don’t miss all the hassles that went with it.

P.S. I really dislike MP3. Anything I digitize gets done as an Ogg Vorbis file.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

It looks like it’s about to tip over

It's over 100 lbs together. Pretty stable by any means. Traded my 610hlf to guitar center, and only had to pay 200 out if pocket for the brand new set. Lovin it. Going back down on Wednesday for another trade deal to get the matching head.

 

[honeyiscool]

I happen to like the sound of an all tube amp going into a cab loaded with a 15” or (dare I say this) an 18” folded horn. I like the warm musical quality you get with those. And I make no apologies for it.

What’s considered a “good bass sound” these days is totally different than what the standard was prior to the mid-80s. And I think that is mainly due to the invention of the CD.

This is just my take on it. So feel free to disagree.

When people finally got used to the sound of CDs - but only after being weaned away from mag tape and vinyl and re-educated* to accept their unatural ultra clean and very bright sonic quality as “natural” - our instruments and amps started being built to better replicate that same sort of sound. Which is to say clear, bright, and very full range, along with that odd edginess digital sound reproduction brings to the party.

If you listen to a lot of live music, or vinyl LPs through an older stereo system, you’ll know what I mean by digital “edginess.” If you’ve been listening to nothing but CDs and MP3s for the most part, your ears won’t have anything to compare to and you probably don’t notice it any more.

—————
Note:

*I say “re-educated” because when CDs first came out there were a surprising number of people who didn’t like the way they sounded. Negative comments such as: weird, unnatural, way too bright, unpleasantly clean, brittle, glassy, and two-dimensional were fairly common.

The industry solved that problem by the simple expediency of gradually killing off vinyl and cassette formats. And for awhile CDs actually were the only thing available for about 10 years until some diehards resurrected vinyl LPs. So even those who genuinely didn’t like the new digital sound were SOL and basically made to switch over. And now it appears that music streaming is soon to replace the selling of virtually all music on physical media. Fortunately, the new generation has no problem with that. They grew up listening to nothing but digital music formats, so that’s what sounds “natural” and “right” to their ears. New generation - new musical standards.

Their world now.

Sic transit gloria mundi. (As kurt said: “So it goes.”)

But... Gen X killed off vinyl and bought CDs. Millennials killed off CDs and are buying vinyl again. What's old is cool again.

And I really don't understand the notion that CDs brought some ridiculous new standards to the party. Old CD players weren't the best, but for the most part, they just replicate something that was there. They sound more like the master than vinyl ever sounded like the master.

 

[honeyiscool]

We were recording on 2 inch digital tape long before cds... and there were extreme transients on vinyl - listen to aby classical music recorded. If anything cds abd niw mp3s have less transients and dynamics due to the overuse of compression

I've heard plenty of classical on vinyl, and it's largely disappointing.

Especially solo piano. I'm a classical pianist by training, and I know what that's supposed to sound like. About the only way to get piano to sound decent on vinyl is to play on a direct drive that minimizes wow and flutter, but most such tables have audible rumble and surface noise to the point that quiet passages are affected. If you think that sounds accurate, man, you have to sit in front of a real life concert grand in a good hall. A great one can have over 50 dB of dynamic range, and you hear every mechanical thing like the keys, the pedals, etc., and every note is clear and clean. None of that comes through in a vinyl record.

The very same analog recordings that produce such disappointing vinyl records, by the way, sound perfectly clear and punchy on CD because CD doesn't suffer from wow, flutter, and rumble. There are some stunning CD remasters of old recordings that you can get totally lost in. You put a good modern classical piano CD on, and it's like you're there.

In any case, analog doesn't mean vinyl. Vinyl is just one representation of analog. Magnetic tape was always the most accurate form of analog, and a lot was lost from the translation from tape to vinyl. That's what you realize when you listen to the same analog masters that have been transferred to CD, where everything is preserved.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Try an HPF. That little 2-10 cab was never designed to put out deep lows at any acceptable volume. Neither was the JBL 15. But you can level out the sound some by chopping off those sub lows.

I have a conspiracy theory. Combo bass rigs are designed to sound great with a bass soloed. That's why you buy it. It sounds great in the store. I have struggled with all but one combo I ever owned (Mesa Walkabout Scout 15" is outstanding). But then you get them on stage and can hardly dial in a good tone for a live mix. That's been my experience anyway.

I'm sure the defenders of Ampeg and Fender combos will be along any time now to battle windmills.

Other than that, go.modular next time. It's a whole lot easier to swap out the parts you don't like when they're not in the same box.

That's excellent advice for pro touring or even just regular local gigging.

I’m in pretty much in the same camp. I bought a BA108 for a light rehearsal/practice rig and have since used it on a bunch of gigs. With proper FOH assist, usually my PA, I just drop an SM57 beta in front of it and play. Best $100 purchase ever. But, I also have a Hartley HD150 as my “usual” show rig, and for big shows/stages I use this:

View attachment 3023773
Not sure where that lands me exactly on this thread, but I guess I just lucked out on equipment. Though I did use a Peavey MK IV and 215 cab for many, many years and liked the sound of it well enough. Made me a bunch of money.

Nice setup. I had one similar except the SVT head. I also loved using the Made in USA Peavey 'silverfins' for many years. They were loud, punchy, and durable. We've all already heard the story of the Peavey combo dropped on the soundman's toe and breaking it!

We going to do an 80's tribute trio and tomorrow night I'm bringing my Ampeg to practice. We use an electronic drum kit and the guitarist uses a small practice amp with a 10" speaker in it. I can't get over how nice and vintagey the Ampeg BA108v2 sounds. I haven't pushed it to get that growly tone because I practice at very low volumes. I would complain about how large it is for a 20 watt 8" combo but you sure can't beat the tone!

 

[PDGood]

At the show I was at last night, the bassist was using an old Acoustic 370/301 rig. Honky on its own, but damn it sounded good in the mix. Super punchy, but sitting above the kick drum, and very audible without overpowering everyone else.

I gigged that same rig for a lot of years. Loved it. But a folded horn is a whole other world. It takes a little over 20 feet for the wavelength to complete and that's where your actual tone begins, so it can sound quite muddy on stage. But out in front of the cabinet its a wonderful thing and you can cover some huge outdoor gigs. The 370 head definitely has a baked in sound and the graphic helps you shape it. It certainly fits the criteria of vintage sounding. I always played it with another cab or horn facing the rest of the band so they could hear some definition.

 

[metron]

I feel similar but I would frame it differently. From what I can tell, most amp gear referred to as modern has extended low and high range. It took me years to figure out that the magic of bass is in the midrange and I think a lot of the older style gear had mids covered pretty well.

 

[40Hz]

But... Gen X killed off vinyl and bought CDs. Millennials killed off CDs and are buying vinyl again. What's old is cool again.

And I really don't understand the notion that CDs brought some ridiculous new standards to the party. Old CD players weren't the best, but for the most part, they just replicate something that was there. They sound more like the master than vinyl ever sounded like the master.

Maybe because my main career was in information technology I tend to look at these things differently than some people do. And for the record I never said anything about any new standards, ridiculous or otherwise. I merely made a case that expectations and the common experience have evolved (or mutated) significantly from what went before. So to clarify, here goes:

A CD is a data file. What you’re hearing is an electronic fully synthesized computer recreation of a piece of music. There is zero original source material anywhere on a digital recording. And if the master recording is also digital (as in recorded with a digital deck or a DAW) it doesn’t make any difference no matter what it’s mastered to. Because the source was already digitized.

The quality of the reproduction is directly related to the quantization method employed. The higher the speed and bitrate of the DSP doing the conversion, the closer a digital recording can get to the curve of a sinewave. And that usually translates out to better “more realistic” fidelity. But it’s still a digitally synthesized recreation.

On an old analog tape deck mastered to a vinyl LP you are hearing the actual performance and instrument. Sound pushes an electrical current which gets electrically translated to other electrical currents that eventually hit a speaker coil which pushes a diaphragm that mechanically vibrates air into motion to produce a sound. Everything is basically a direct mechanical copy of the sound source.

Is there a real difference between the two? I think so. Does it matter in the practical sense? I think it sometimes does. Occasionally quite a bit. But either way I will say that unless they went to hear whoever they’re listening to, anybody who grew up in the age of digital recording has never once heard the actual music that they’re listening to. Which is probably one reason why live performances are far less important to music listeners than they once were, and why putting on “a show”with a high visual element has become as important as the music performance itself if you want to sell tickets. And that represents a sea change in listener preferences. At least in my little corner of the musical universe.

As far as the “rebirth of vinyl” goes, to me it’s more being driven by status and hipsters than anything else. Because what are you really listening to on a modern vinyl disk? With most commercial and virtually all semi-pro recordings, the raw tracks were digitally recorded to begin with. So your vinyl disk is still carrying a digital recreation of the original source material. Which means you’re still not hearing the actual music. Just a digital simulacrum. Much like a tube preamp and a solid-state power amp never fully captures that “heart of glass” all tube amplifier sound, so a modern vinyl LP doesn’t quite get that same feel a fully analog album has. So my earlier statment stands. Most people today have never heard a realworld music performance.

But whatever. Just my own personal take on the subject. I’m sure there are other and contrary opinions on this subject. And I’m good with that too.

 

[Stumbo]

Maybe because my main career was in information technology I tend to look at these things differently than some people do. And for the record I never said anything about any new standards, ridiculous or otherwise. I merely made a case that expectations and the common experience have evolved (or mutated) significantly for what went before. So to clarify, here goes:

A CD is a data file. What you’re hearing is an electronic fully synthesized computer recreation of a piece of music. There is zero original source material anywhere on a digital recording. And if the master recording is also digital (as in recorded with a digital deck or a DAW) it doesn’t make any difference no matter what it’s mastered to. Because the source was already digitized.

The quality of the reproduction is directly related to the quantization method employed. The higher the speed and bitrate of the DSP doing the conversion, the closer a digital recording can get to the curve of a sinewave. And that usually translates out to better “more realistic” fidelity. But it’s still a digitally synthesized recreation.

On an old analog tape deck mastered to a vinyl LP you are hearing the actual performance and instrument. Sound pushes an electrical current which gets electrically translated to other electrical currents that eventually hit a speaker coil which pushes a diaphragm that mechanically vibrates air into motion to produce a sound. Everything is basically a direct mechanical copy of the sound source.

Is there a real difference between the two? I think so. Does it matter in the practical sense? I think it sometimes does. Occasionally quite a bit. But either way I will say that unless they went to hear whoever they’re listening to, anybody who grew up in the age of digital recording has never once heard the actual music that they’re listening to. Which is probably one reason why live performances are far less important to music listeners than they once were, and why putting on “a show”with a high visual element has become as important as the music performance itself if you want to sell tickets. And that represents a sea change in listener preferences. At least in my little corner of the musical universe.

As far as the “rebirth of vinyl” goes, to me it’s more being driven by status and hipsters than anything else. Because what are you really listening to on a modern vinyl disk? Most commercial and virtually all semi-pro recordings, the raw tracks were digitally recorded to begin with. So your vinyl disk is still carrying a digital recreatiion of the original source material. Which means you’re still not hearing the actual music. Just a digital simulacrum. Much like a tube preamp and a solid-state power amp never fully capture that “heart of glass” all tube amplifier sound, so a modern vinyl LP doesn’t quite get that same feel a fully analog album. So my earlier statment stands. Maybe st people today have never heard rral music performances

But whatever. Just my own personal take on the subject. I’m sure there are other and contrary opinions on this subjecy. And I’m good with that too.

Yeah, but bass was always compressed so the needle wouldn't jump off the vinyl. And eq was applied to the rest of the instruments. So digital or not, the signal has always been manipulated.

Listen to what Jimi Hendrix did with his recordings back in the sixties. There was never a good way to recreate the effects on stage.

So what is "real"?

 

[Wasnex]

After years of bouncing around with different rigs, a similar thing happened to me. I just wanted it to sound right without having to eq things to death.

Of course the issue is what sounds right to one person, sounds like garbage to the next. As a result, you need to find the amp and speaker combination that produces the type of sound you like. Some rigs are extremely versatile and can be dialed in to get a bunch of different tones. Other rigs tend to have a strong baked in sound that you either love or hate. If you play a variety of different musical styles you need either a flexible rig or a couple of different rigs that can cover the tonal ground you need.

 

[AMJBASS]

Lots of great sounding new gear out there. You don't need to buy vintage gear to get a vintage sound IMO! Aguilar, Genzler, Quilter(my favorite for a big solid rock tone), Ampeg, Fender, and several more all provide excellent sounding vintage voiced heads that will give you that "old" sound.

 

[honeyiscool]

Maybe because my main career was in information technology I tend to look at these things differently than some people do. And for the record I never said anything about any new standards, ridiculous or otherwise. I merely made a case that expectations and the common experience have evolved (or mutated) significantly for what went before. So to clarify, here goes:

A CD is a data file. What you’re hearing is an electronic fully synthesized computer recreation of a piece of music. There is zero original source material anywhere on a digital recording. And if the master recording is also digital (as in recorded with a digital deck or a DAW) it doesn’t make any difference no matter what it’s mastered to. Because the source was already digitized.

The quality of the reproduction is directly related to the quantization method employed. The higher the speed and bitrate of the DSP doing the conversion, the closer a digital recording can get to the curve of a sinewave. And that usually translates out to better “more realistic” fidelity. But it’s still a digitally synthesized recreation.

On an old analog tape deck mastered to a vinyl LP you are hearing the actual performance and instrument. Sound pushes an electrical current which gets electrically translated to other electrical currents that eventually hit a speaker coil which pushes a diaphragm that mechanically vibrates air into motion to produce a sound. Everything is basically a direct mechanical copy of the sound source.

Is there a real difference between the two? I think so. Does it matter in the practical sense? I think it sometimes does. Occasionally quite a bit. But either way I will say that unless they went to hear whoever they’re listening to, anybody who grew up in the age of digital recording has never once heard the actual music that they’re listening to. Which is probably one reason why live performances are far less important to music listeners than they once were, and why putting on “a show”with a high visual element has become as important as the music performance itself if you want to sell tickets. And that represents a sea change in listener preferences. At least in my little corner of the musical universe.

As far as the “rebirth of vinyl” goes, to me it’s more being driven by status and hipsters than anything else. Because what are you really listening to on a modern vinyl disk? Most commercial and virtually all semi-pro recordings, the raw tracks were digitally recorded to begin with. So your vinyl disk is still carrying a digital recreatiion of the original source material. Which means you’re still not hearing the actual music. Just a digital simulacrum. Much like a tube preamp and a solid-state power amp never fully capture that “heart of glass” all tube amplifier sound, so a modern vinyl LP doesn’t quite get that same feel a fully analog album. So my earlier statment stands. Maybe st people today have never heard rral music performances

But whatever. Just my own personal take on the subject. I’m sure there are other and contrary opinions on this subjecy. And I’m good with that too.

That's an interesting notion, but personally, I think the notion of an actual performance and instrument only applies with acoustic recordings where sound waves actually write to the disc/cylinder. Ultimately, I find that electrical recordings are just data files, too, just analog data rather than digital data, and to write to another analog medium, a playback mechanism plays back the data files and writes them elsewhere. Acoustic recordings fascinate me for that reason, that it's something real, you can physically see the very representation of a Gershwin or a Rachmaninoff as they played their instrument, and good ones can sound very stunning.

As for the part about rebirth of vinyl, I agree with you. The majority of vinyl records being cut today have a digital source. And even those that don't often do use a digital step because instead of using a mastering tape deck, they use a digital delay on a regular playback system for the stylus. So what's even the point of analog recordings that have already been digitized? These records are using vinyl noise as an effect rather than making records for that medium. You might as well use a vinyl plug-in at that point.

 

[Wasnex]

What’s considered a “good bass sound” these days is totally different than what the standard was prior to the mid-80s. And I think that is mainly due to the invention of the CD.

This begs the question..."What’s considered a 'good bass sound' these days?"

15 years or so ago, it seems the SVT and 810 was emerging as the preferred tone again. A lot of people still love that sound. Today there are lots of good bass sounds and also some crappy ones. Play what you like and don't worry about it, because we all have different tastes. I personally think an 810 sounds great in certain styles of music, but when I use one of these cabinets I feel totally disattached from my instrument. @JimmyM would probably rather gouge his eyeballs out rather than use my live tone.

Sure CDs have had an impact on the sound of music. I would argue that playback devices of that era also had an impact on the sound of music. Consider the sound of a bass drum being overdriven on a boom box. Back in the 80s, rap artists soon started using that sound on the original studio tracks because it was what people were used to hearing.