D
Call the AI police, but quickly, because the forum is broken and transparency is disappearing.
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.
- Status
Call the AI police, but quickly, because the forum is broken and transparency is disappearing.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Some people.... do just that. Plugging into a ruler-flat solid state DI is usually how that's done. You can record a CLEAN and TRANSPARENT bass track, use a CLEAN compressor, and aim for TRANSPARENCY at all levels of the tracking process if you want. And sometimes that kind of transparency can be achieved by - wait for it - tube circuits as well. In fact, that's often the aim, so that 'dirtying up' a track can be done later, if necessary, by the use of reamping or plugins.
This is all dependent on what the artist wants, and how the engineer approaches things.
Last edited:
D
I also think there should be a drastic censorship on the forum. If you say that the P Bass is the most used bass in history, bring archaeological evidence, statistics, the same if you say the same thing about the Ampeg B15. And don't involve AI in this matter, you're done for, the anti-AI Truth Police must take you outside the bass strings (read: outside the law). Don't write a script in Word and use AI to organize it, because you end up in the concentration camp of those who use technology. But is AI good when it simulates cabinets on processors?
And since we're so afraid of algorithms, let's be consistent: is AI only 'evil' when it helps structure a sentence, but 'perfectly fine' when it simulates cabinets and tube sag in your Quad Cortex or Kemper? Or should the 'Truth Police' ban digital modeling too?
And since we're so afraid of algorithms, let's be consistent: is AI only 'evil' when it helps structure a sentence, but 'perfectly fine' when it simulates cabinets and tube sag in your Quad Cortex or Kemper? Or should the 'Truth Police' ban digital modeling too?
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Those 2 things are historically proven to be true, and are less likely to be interpreted as spurious claims, especially in the context of a bass-focused forum full of players who know the history of the P-Bass and B-15. However, asserting that the BDDI 'defined three decades of platinum records' is not proven, and no supporting evidence has been given to sustain that claim, along with the manufactured 'myth of transparency' asserted by the original post. In fact, I'd be confident in saying that the myth perpetuated on this thread is that everyone always wants an affected, 'dirty', or 'non-transparent' tone in the studio.
Last edited:
D
Why is the P-Bass a "historical fact" without anyone asking for Fender receipts from 1951, but the SansAmp (used by absolutely everyone, from Linkin Park to Los Lobos) needs "evidence"? So, P-Bass is "history" because you say so, but SansAmp is just a "claim"?
Before 1994, the concept of a 'pedalboard' for bassists was almost non-existent. Bassists had a tuner and maybe a rack compressor. SansAmp BDDI created the pedal preamp/DI/Cab Sim market. Without SansAmp, we wouldn't have Darkglass, Noble or Tone Hammer today, because Tech 21 showed the industry that a bassist could leave their amp at home and still sound like a rock star. Maybe that's why it became an industry standard, because they invented a segment, right?
ANDREW BARTA: Tech 21's Solid-state Superhero
The history of Tech 21 and the SansAmp: how a hobbyist engineer changed guitar pedals forever
That is certainly true. In general, I have no problems with learning to be better writers and thinkers who are more elegantly, succinctly able to express an idea or thought or even expound on it, further in a thoughtful way. I support that. I of course, DO NOT support using AI directly and pretending it's YOUR ideas, or using AI to generate your main content but reframing or changing the output of AI-generated written content, adding in a few of your own words but bent to your own concepts, ideas, conclusions to give it more of a self-written feel designed to disguise what you put out is largely AI-generated.
Strange times.
The engineers who designed those old preamps, compressors, EQs and mixing consoles that are now so desirable for their coloration were probably trying to make them as clean and transparent as possible using what components were available at the time.
Some applications like the "All-In" button setting on the 1176 or the magic boost/cut settings on the Pultec EQ were very likely not meant to be used in that way.
Sorry, but until everyone aspires to exclusively use Neve or REDDI your point is not proven.
There are lots of recordings where the bass is clear and transparent. There are also lot's of recordings were processing is used to apply a variety of different types of mojo.
I like variety, so I am sure it would be enjoyable to play through a Neve 1073 or REDDI. That doesn't mean I would choose either for every project, or even that I would choose one of them more than other options. Since I don't really value the characteristics they posses, I can't justify the cost of buying them.
Based on online listening test, if I was to get a tube DI it would be the Sonic Farm 2di4. To my ears the 2di4 seems clear, focused, and transparent, which are qualities I generally find attractive.
There was a time when I seriously considered getting a Great River HV3 or Millenia Media MP2 preamp for my bass rig. These models are basically wire with with gain preamps and considered extremely accurate and transparent. I also considered a Midas XL42 preamp.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
It ain't about me, dude.
The legacy of the P-Bass (and B-15) isn't verifiable history because *I say so*. The legacy of the P-Bass and B-15 is verifiable history because there is over a half century of evidence available to prove their legacies in the studio and live.
The legacy of the SansAmp *as you claim it to be* is *your claim*. It is NOT supported by the same level and degree of 'receipts' that the legacy of the B-15 and P-Bass are.
The issue here is that you are fabricating a 'legacy' for the BDDI, etc that you cannot prove, while the B-15 and P-Bass's legacies are well-defined, corroborated, and supported across the majority of the bass playing world.
Let's be clear here: no one is debating that the BDDI is a GREAT PIECE OF GEAR, with a defined legacy and history of its use in recording and live applications. Those facts and the history of the BDDI are supported by the 2 articles you shared, and are pretty well known already in the bass playing community.
What we are debating with you are your assertions about the BDDI and its specific impact about being present on almost every platinum recording in the least three decades - an assertion for which you have yet to produce any evidence to support.
In the words of the inimitable Cosmo Kramer - "I'm out!"
Last edited:
D
Do you realize that when Andras Barta (for you Andrew, but I'm Hungarian) invented the SansAmp there were no alternatives on the market? Do you realize that the SansAmp was on Nirvana albums, this is known historically. The only discussion, apart from personal attacks, that you are debating is AI censorship on a group, while many use AI modeling for the bass sound, transparent, or less transparent, right? When you invented a segment, you also invented an industry standard, so any discussion about whether the SansAmp is legendary or not is redundant, because the historical importance of this pedal is proven.
well, here it is. The Most Annoying Post Ever.
D
If SansAmp hadn't been a revolutionary concept, this segment wouldn't have had a market, this amp in a box segment wouldn't have appeared. SansAmp simply hit the mark, changed the way we look at the stage and what we put between the guitar/bass and the mixer. Doesn't that have historical significance?
What more historical proof do you want besides the fact that everyone copied them?
The SansAmp wasn't just a new pedal, it changed the workflow. It was a paradigm shift!
What more historical proof do you want besides the fact that everyone copied them?
The SansAmp wasn't just a new pedal, it changed the workflow. It was a paradigm shift!
Last edited:
I tried the original SanAmps back in the mid 90s. To be honest I thought is sounded awful and wondered why anyone would use it. Actually my first impression was it was malfunctioning. But I immediately tried another and it sounded exactly the same.
Over the years I have developed a more-enlightened attitude. I understand that tone is subjective and people have a variety of different ideas of how bass should sound. Obviously a lot of people love their SansAmps; and IMHO that is just fine. However, a lot of us dont like SansAmps, and that is also just fine.
As the saying goes, Vive la difference!
Over the years I have developed a more-enlightened attitude. I understand that tone is subjective and people have a variety of different ideas of how bass should sound. Obviously a lot of people love their SansAmps; and IMHO that is just fine. However, a lot of us dont like SansAmps, and that is also just fine.
As the saying goes, Vive la difference!
D
You are misquoting me to make your point. I never said it was on every platinum recording; I said it has been present on more platinum recordings than any other bass preamp pedal in the last 30 years. Maybe because it was a period when metal was more present in sales and mainstream.
If you want names, I've already given them: Nirvana (In Utero), Korn (their entire early discography), Rush (Geddy Lee's live and studio rigs for decades), Los Lobos, King's X. These are documented facts from studio interviews, not assertions. There might have been other preamps used, but the era of record sales is over, the others came to the table later. Today, at least in metal, I see a lot of Darkglass users, I think the Darkglass guys actually define the metal sound on bass today.
I think you're conflating digital signal processing with LLMs like ChatGPT. Both of them fall under the very broad umbrella of "AI" but they are not even remotely the same thing.
The big issue I have with relying on LLMs for creating posts or historical videos is that LLMs very often get details wrong. They hallucinate data and put it in, but state it very confidently. That information gets posted and shared as if it's factual, when it may not be. And unless someone is really an expert in the subject, they aren't going to know what's correct and what isn't.
None of that is an issue when you're using DSP to model an amp or speaker cab.
- Status
