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.
Source Audio EQ2
- Thread starter DirtyDuke
- Start date
There is definitely boomy frequencies around each other. That's something I'm going to look into tomorrow.
Doing that level of sculpting, you're missing one rather important thing - you're most likely hearing and attempting to correct room resonances. Basses don't have pronounced peaks in their response in the range where our fundamentals lie, so what you're fixing isn't the bass itself.
Now for the unfortunate part - room resonances give you peaks and dips, depending on where your ears are. But the same frequency that has a dip at your ears has peaks elsewhere, and vice versa. If you "fix" the sound where your ears are, for other locations you'll actually make things worse. If you want to really even things out, you need to take readings at a lot of locations and average things out (which will take quite a while). That way, you can correct things that are happening everywhere, and not chase local issues (which aren't fixable with EQ).
A source EQ 2 is a great tool (I have 2 - one on each of 2 pedalboards). They can be used to great effect, assuming you know what's going on in the entire system.
I'm using headphones though, as well as using speakers in a pretty dead room like I said before. I recognise room resonances and have to deal with them pretty regularly and like you say the EQ2 is a great tool for sorting out problematic room frequencies.
Just as a thought experiment, let's say you could run a perfect impulse response of your bass by running a perfect sine sweep directly to your strings--- that would translate into your pickups-- through your amp-- and the room. Then you could look at that IR's spectrum, seeing the overall general shape, as well as the various bumps, twigs, and doo-dads that stick out. Then you could, use a detailed EQ setting to revamp the overall shape to your liking and also remove as much of the little bits and bobs as you wanted. Or, theoretically, create a compensation IR to do the same.
It seems like what you are doing is aiming at this result, but having to painstakingly do this without any reference to guide you. Your ears are a good guide, but it's so hard to do this without having a really "generic" audition-phrase that gives you all the range, notes, overtones, and non-harmonic info you need to guide your settings.
It seems like what you are doing is aiming at this result, but having to painstakingly do this without any reference to guide you. Your ears are a good guide, but it's so hard to do this without having a really "generic" audition-phrase that gives you all the range, notes, overtones, and non-harmonic info you need to guide your settings.
Would say it's more important to listen through decent headphones than the room itself though. Switching the pedal off is the best generic audition phrase I can use to compare the sounds. You mention the over tones and these are really important to try and take into context.
I'm not aiming for a finished result like an IR. I'm aiming for sorting out the EQ before everything else if you get me. More at the start of the chain. Trying to change it at source then use it through a pre amp or compressor, or IR.
I will be curious to hear how your result turns out. Particularly the A/B showing the added clarity. It has some interesting implications.
Carry on!
Carry on!
Thanks Stubbsonic resonance fascinates me, sorry to get deep but it is absolutely a universal phenomena. Doing this on bass which I love playing is an interesting rabbit hole to go down.
Trying to take into account the Fletcher Munson curve/equal loudness too which is a great science to use.
Yeah that was where I was going with my line of questioning , it makes sense for a tool such as the EQ2 because of being able to save many "rooms" , that's if that's the intention, never really thought about using it that way. If not maybe now?
I'm talking about the bass guitar frequencies in general (tuned in E standard in this case). It's important though to cut the boomy room frequencies when using a speakers to make things sound better.
It’s interesting but I can’t see how you would need 20 bands of cutting. I do something similar but way simpler first in chain with the eq2.
Hpf around 55-65hz(depending on bass) then cutting very narrow on a few spots(200-250hz, 400-500hz, 2-2.5khz).
That really helps on keeping things rather flat and consistent going into the rest of the chain.
Hpf around 55-65hz(depending on bass) then cutting very narrow on a few spots(200-250hz, 400-500hz, 2-2.5khz).
That really helps on keeping things rather flat and consistent going into the rest of the chain.
Could absolutely go further than 20 bands for the octave frequencies. Just doing slight dB adjustments with high Q.
I have a Microthumpinator (hpf at 25hz) start of my chain then using this method so far I've got up to around 1.3k with the 20 bands. So there's a lot more to do above that. The low end is super clean
I have a Microthumpinator (hpf at 25hz) start of my chain then using this method so far I've got up to around 1.3k with the 20 bands. So there's a lot more to do above that. The low end is super clean
I can believe it. When I hear how much guitar players can split hairs over IRs, (as opposed to just doing a more generalized EQ shape), there's definitely a "result" they're after.
What is controversial, I suppose, is that there would be "resonances" with a non-resonator instrument before even considering the room.
What is controversial, I suppose, is that there would be "resonances" with a non-resonator instrument before even considering the room.
Just a question. If you are cutting twenty bands, aren't you just turning down the volume? and then boosting like three or so frequencies? If it works for you, that's great. Seems like a lot of work.
There might be a program or plugin that creates a "long-term spectral average". So you could just play a chromatic scale across the whole range, and see what the resulting curve looks like. Could be interesting to see if there are areas of additional energy-- and also to see how spikey or humpy they are.
rsmith601
Commercial User
- Apr 14, 2009
- 4,461
- 8,356
- Disclosures
- CEO and Co-Founder, Source Audio
An Aftershock can replace the Microthumpinator and do many other things too. I told Bob and Jesse to add an optional adjustable cut below 100hz (25 is in the range) during the development . I am not sure how many folks know the Aftershock can do this...
Our marketing guys don't read TB.
But I do! 
An Aftershock can replace the Microthumpinator and do many other things too. I told Bob and Jesse to add an optional adjustable cut below 100hz (25 is in the range) during the development . I am not sure how many folks know the Aftershock can do this...
Our marketing guys don't read TB.
Oooo...you've mentioned one of the Aftershocks deeper fgeatures Roger...my eyes are glazing over and I can feel a mega post coming.....
It makes so much sense to include this in a comprehensive dirt pedal like the Aftershock. A lot of (dare I say it) old school / legacy analogue dirt pedals added a HPF and LPF in the circuit design to clean up the effected signal post effect. They didn't give any control over it because it was baked in. Where as you guys gave us control over this aspect.
One of the many joys of the Aftershock is it's versatility. The fact that you can split out different dirt models on each of the two channels is a massive benefit that so few utilise. You can put a basic overdrive (still one of the best sounding bass over drives in existance) on one channel and a Muff or Rat on the other and use the mixer on each channel to blend between them. Although there's no native control of the blend or mix between there two models from the knobs on the pedal, you can do this via the Neuro App (in a mono signal path) or better, via an external Midi controller.
All of these features have been far exceeded and developed further with the Ultrawave. If we ignor the expansive dirt, multiband, morphing and trem / modulation features (which are massive in their own right), the rest of the pedal offers a lot of EQ and pre-amp options that many miss. The 8 band graphic EQ, the 3 wide band EQ, the very featured compressor, the adjustable low and high pass filters...plus the adjustable gate. It's far more impressive than a lot of dedicated EQ's available. Then add the flexibility of running this in mono with the ability to blend between 2 completely different set of parameters really make this a uniquely versatile pedal. The fact that you can assign specific channel morphing and Channel blending controls to the devices physical knobs makes for an increadibly versatile tool...that can be just used as an exotic dirt pedal if you want to! It's such a densly packed pedal, where it's versatility is limted by the physical controls on the device. I have a number of patches on my Ultrawave where I'm using the same effects / sounds across muliple patches but the only difference are the control mappings.
I'm a big fan of the Aftershock and the Ultrawave....actually....now that I think of it, you've converted me to a Source Audio fan boy. I love all of your gear. Best effects company ever!
I too use my Ultrawave for it's Powerful EQ and compressors. I have 3 patches on it all the same but with varying level's compression.
I use my EQ2 to try and clean up my signal at source then it goes into the Ultrawave for it's dual compressor's lightly compressing at different values and EQ to brighten things up/bring the bass to life. Works an absolute treat.
I use my EQ2 to try and clean up my signal at source then it goes into the Ultrawave for it's dual compressor's lightly compressing at different values and EQ to brighten things up/bring the bass to life. Works an absolute treat.
