The "Transparency Myth" vs. Mix-Ready Tone (Cali76, SansAmp BDDI)

[Deleted member 409773]

That's the height of irony! It's a massive cognitive dissonance. These people are willing to pay €1,800 for a Quad Cortex or spend hours training models in Neural Amp Modeler (NAM), which are, by definition, Machine Learning and Neural Network (AI)-based technologies, but they're offended if someone uses a similar algorithm to structure their ideas in a piece of writing.
It's like saying, "I want my processor to use AI to sound exactly like a '69 Ampeg, but please don't use AI to explain to me why that Ampeg sounds good." The irony of calling for an AI ban on a forum where we celebrate Neural Amp Modeler, Quad Cortex, and Tone Capturing is peak comedy.

 

[JazznFunk]

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 am not misquoting you.... and now you are moving the goalposts by adding in the 'pedal' qualifier, while still continuing to fail in providing actual links/source material to support your 'thesis.'

Here's what you wrote originally:

"With all these features it is present on more platinum recordings than all other bass preamps combined. From Pino Palladino, Tony Levin and Mike Porcaro, to Rex Brown, Sam Rivers and Fieldy, this SansAmp has been present on recordings and live, it has dominated the bass world for 3 decades."

You then, in a closing sentence later in your post DID add:

"There's a reason this pedal is on more platinum records than all other bass preamps combined."

But the format of the preamp was never the sole deciding factor in your assertions earlier in your post. Nor does it matter in the end.

"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."

And you have offered nothing concrete to PROVE THAT NUMBER. Where are the 'documented facts from studio interviews'? And the fact that you said 'maybe it was a period when metal was more present in sales and mainstream.' *Maybe* implies that you don't really have the hard numbers to support your claims.... again.

This thread and your assertions have turned into a prime example of 'correlation does not equal causation.'

 

[gln1955]

The OP and his AI buddy have committed every logical fallacy in the book. This could be a case study.

 

[Suspiciousness]

I second that motion!

I work in education, and detecting / banning AI content is sadly not something that can be done with any amount of confidence at this time.

The solution for students would be to test hands-on skills instead of arbitrary tests that don't actually prove knowledge.
Theoretically that would make a better education experience for students and teachers.

I don't know what a solution for forums like TB would look like, as there's a risk of filtering out legitimate content too.

 

[CamJazzBass]

Would have come across different, and IMO better, if you took the "myth" out of the title.

Just:

Transparency vs. Mix-Ready Tone

 

[logdrum]

You like the SansAmp that's cool. I and many don't

That and the Cali76 are not required. The old DBX160A is what some of us used back in the day. Mine is still working and I've sort of replicated it with my Atlas

 

[Deleted member 409773]

Would have come across different, and IMO better, if you took the "myth" out of the title.

Just:

Transparency vs. Mix-Ready Tone

Fair point. I chose "Myth" because, in my experience, the obsession with absolute transparency often gets in the way of a good mix, but I see how it can be a polarizing word.
My goal was to discuss why "coloring" gear like the SansAmp or Cali76 is so effective at delivering a finished sound. "Transparency vs. Mix-Ready Tone" would have definitely kept the focus more on the audio and less on the semantics. Thanks for the input.

 

[JazznFunk]

I work in education, and detecting / banning AI content is sadly not something that can be done with any amount of confidence at this time.

The solution for students would be to test hands-on skills instead of arbitrary tests that don't actually prove knowledge.
Theoretically that would make a better education experience for students and teachers.

I don't know what a solution for forums like TB would look like, as there's a risk of filtering out legitimate content too.

My wife already does this in her 6th grade classroom. The graded assignments aren't activities which can be completed or manipulated by AI. Always hands-on, always pen and paper.

 

[jbybj]

Honestly, I'm sick of hurt feelings, I'm not curious if someone hurts my feelings, looks at me badly, or if I hurt someone's feelings.

After all, my life is not on this forum, I can live very well outside of it as I have lived for years. It doesn't feed me, it doesn't make me socially valid either.
Regarding compressors and other pedals, I have posted several A to B comparisons with those compressors, with several basses. Whoever wants to search will find them.

Moreover, what I see many people missing was not about SansAmp vs the others, or Cali76 vs Empress, but about the myth of transparency, the myth that in the studio you work with transparent tools, the rest are examples.
And regarding the fact that SansAmp is or is not an industry standard, you can do a Google search, it doesn't cost much.
No, maybe some people prefer to argue, it's normal, or they look for conflict, that's how we are as humans.
But I'm glad that others are perfect.

The question that keeps bouncing in my brain is, "to what end?"

 

[pbass2]

Was this post written by a compensated spokesperson for SansAmp, or partly by AI?

Also, I/we need some concrete sources to support the strong assertion that the BDDI has 'defined the sound of three decades of platinum records'. I can assure you that while some studios may have a BDDI sitting around to solve certain problems if necessary, it is NOT the first thing an engineer is plugging into by default.

In 40 years of working in studios big and small - from places like The Plant, Sunset Sound, yadda yadda to your typical home studio - I've never once tracked through a Sansamp at a session. And it certainly was never part of the in-house gear.

 

[Suspiciousness]

My wife already does this in her 6th grade classroom. The graded assignments aren't activities which can be completed or manipulated by AI. Always hands-on, always pen and paper.

If I'm understanding correctly, this is exactly what I mean.
There is a similar way people take this that I disagree with, when they say that we need to "go back to pen and paper" which research indicates is a mistake.

For example - I had networking courses in college where we had a written test and a hands-on lab.
I always did worse than I should on the tests since I'm not a good test taker, but I was always scoring at the top of the hands-on lab.
Which brings the question - did I need to be tested on which subnet would be the best fit for the given scenario, or was it better to give me the scenario and let me do everything physically?

The former is how textbooks get sold. The latter is how people do their jobs in the field.

 

[JazznFunk]

If I'm understanding correctly, this is exactly what I mean.
There is a similar way people take this that I disagree with, when they say that we need to "go back to pen and paper" which research indicates is a mistake.

For example - I had networking courses in college where we had a written test and a hands-on lab.
I always did worse than I should on the tests since I'm not a good test taker, but I was always scoring at the top of the hands-on lab.
Which brings the question - did I need to be tested on which subnet would be the best fit for the given scenario, or was it better to give me the scenario and let me do everything physically?

The former is how textbooks get sold. The latter is how people do their jobs in the field.

I think you are misunderstanding it, because I didn't elaborate on it. That's on me.

School systems are encouraging teachers to use AI in the classroom to create work for students, and many give students assignments which either utilize AI directly, or give assignments as homework which can be completed/subverted using AI. My wife is a history teacher. When it comes to retention of dates, historical facts, concepts, and critical thinking, and tying concepts together, it would be easy to plug in X assignment and its general parameters to ChatGPT, etc and prompt it for an answer to jot down in a homework assignment, versus learning the material and producing answers on an assignment in the classroom environment which doesn't utilize a computer or tablet in any way, demonstrating a grasp of the subject material at hand.

There are no textbooks anymore, so that's irrelevant. And if there are, most school systems don't pay for them. Ours certainly don't. So the work my wife asks her students to do is created, and must be turned in, in such a way that AI is not the most readily accessible way to do it. That means more hands-on projects utilizing visual creation and not just written essays and things of that nature, regurgitating dates, etc. But those sorts of written things make up a portion of her activity offerings depending on the subject matter at hand.

'Practical skills' in terms of 6th grade civics/social studies/history means showing a grasp of facts, context, and tying all of those together - an awareness of interconnected global concepts, geography, cultures, etc., linking historical events and concepts across multiple chronological points, etc. It's really easy to plug a lot of stuff into ChatGPT and ask it to analyze and tie those things together. Creating a poster, word/concept puzzles, etc aren't conducive to using AI to complete those assignments.

Depending on the subject matter and class in question, I would absolutely agree that the 'hands on' method of testing competency is better. When it comes to 'trades' and hands-on disciplines (especially chemistry, mechanical stuff, even music theory, etc), I'm an 'applied' learner too. I always tested horribly in math, but tested great in language arts, writing, etc. Usually, if a student has used AI to 'cheat', it becomes clear when they have to discuss their thoughts/conclusions at which they arrived. When they don't really understand what ChatGPT produced for them, and when they don't have a grasp of the concepts addressed in the assignment or the point of it, it becomes clear.

 

[Deleted member 409773]

"The Cali does has some tone shaping which isn't bad, it sounds great actually. But for me, I don't want any tone shaping through my compressor and that's why the Empress works better for me."

It all started with this comment on YouTube on a comparison video between Empress, Cali76, MXR Bass Compressor and Darkglass Hyper Luminal. And yes, the man is right to say that he doesn't want the compressor to affect his tone, but from my experience, and I have Empress, two others, and Cali76, in the mix the affected sound is more effective, especially if the mix is dense.

Moreover, I made an analogy with the studio compressors used on bass, Urei 1176, LA-2A and Distressor, as these were super used, and I thought that on bass I don't want a "transparent" compressor, after all, any compressor affects the tone, more or less. In my recording experience I had more success with effects that are obvious, i.e. colored, they always integrated better into the mix, regardless of whether it was an airy or dense mix.

Same with preamps, and it was clear that I was referring to pedals, only in the title they are pedals, not racks, I used a few preamps, I even have a few, you can see in the pictures, SansAmp helped me the best in the mix, I had the least work after recording because the pedal had already done most of the processing. And I thought, this after hunting down a bunch of pedals, that maybe SansAmp is the industry standard for a reason.

I've read about a lot of artists, and I've seen producers on YouTube discussing SansAmp, for example, Glenn from Spectre Sound Studios said more than once that he puts a SansAmp BDDI and a Distressor on the bass and the mix is done.

I have come to the conclusion that in general in the studio compressors (Urei 1176, LA-2A, Distressor) and consoles (Neve 5088, 8068) have nothing in common with transparency, it is precisely the way they color the sound that are their strong points, not transparency (i.e. not affecting the tone).

If this is also written with AI, I urge you to seek out a doctor, but seriously!

 

[Deleted member 409773]

Tchad Blake:
"And it was designed for electric guitar applications, but you were immediately using it for...?
Drums. It was drums. That's what the drum sound is. Nothing else. It's like, conventionally recorded drums with a little bit of Sans Amp sprinkled on here and there, particularly with the kick and snare on Kiko.
So you don't use it in tracking, but treatment afterwards?
Oh yeah, I track with it. And if I know the band, like I do Los Lobos, I just mix it in with the signal.
You track both a pure signal and a treated signal and blend them in a submix?
Yeah and sometimes I just use the SansAmp track. But with something like Pearl Jam, where I don't know how it's going to go from day to day, I keep them separate.
I haven't used a bass amp on any record since then.
Not at all?
Nope, just direct box through a SansAmp. And everyone I've used it with everyone down to Tony Levin who's... well, he's not a purist, but he's so into his equipment. They're great. I haven't found anything they don't sound good on, except I don't like it on guitar."

 

[pbass2]

Also keep in mind, "mix-ready tone" is very relative. Very often(most often IME), a pro mix engineer or producer does NOT want a particular baked-in sound, EQ, dirt, whatever on the bass track if there's only one track. It ties their hands. What some bassist might think is his/her "mix-ready tone" can be a headache in the mix. And you don't know until you get to the mix - that's where the s^#t hits the fan production-wise. Sure, sometimes it's pretty obvious what kind of tone is gonna work, but absolutely not always. Of course that's why the studio standard is to always record a "clean" DI bass track, and then if you're also mic'ing an amp, or tracking w gizmos for a "colored" tone, you always have that clean "transparent" signal to work with. So in reality, a "mix-ready tone" is most always a wide-open, clean, DI signal because it gives you the most options at the mix stage.
EDIT: to clarify, when I say a "clean" or "transparent" DI'd signal, that doesn't imply it's the pure sound of the bass--it's going through something: often just a smidge of comp like and 1176, and then whatever the front end/mic pre/board is whether it's an API or SSL (or Behringer), they all impart something to the tone but not extreme tone-shaping. It's still a "full range" sound that is malleable in the mix stage.

 

[Isaac_James]

That's the height of irony! It's a massive cognitive dissonance. These people are willing to pay €1,800 for a Quad Cortex or spend hours training models in Neural Amp Modeler (NAM), which are, by definition, Machine Learning and Neural Network (AI)-based technologies, but they're offended if someone uses a similar algorithm to structure their ideas in a piece of writing.
It's like saying, "I want my processor to use AI to sound exactly like a '69 Ampeg, but please don't use AI to explain to me why that Ampeg sounds good." The irony of calling for an AI ban on a forum where we celebrate Neural Amp Modeler, Quad Cortex, and Tone Capturing is peak comedy.

I don't know enough about the technology here to speak to how "similar" these things are, but that's not really the point. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. When you speak of using an algorithm to structure your ideas in a piece of writing, is the AI coming up with words and phrases that you then post as your own?

If so, a better comparison to that wouldn't be amp modeling and cab simulation. It would be using AI software to come up with the bass line for you, rather than using your own musical knowledge and intuition to made decisions about note choice, rhythm, and so on. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people here would have a problem with that, especially if someone presents it as their own work.

A better analogy for amp/cab simulation would be using spelling and grammar check in your word processor. It's not substantially changing or influencing the words someone writes, just cleaning the writing up so it looks nicer.

 

[Suspiciousness]

I think you are misunderstanding it, because I didn't elaborate on it. That's on me.

School systems are encouraging teachers to use AI in the classroom to create work for students, and many give students assignments which either utilize AI directly, or give assignments as homework which can be completed/subverted using AI. My wife is a history teacher. When it comes to retention of dates, historical facts, concepts, and critical thinking, and tying concepts together, it would be easy to plug in X assignment and its general parameters to ChatGPT, etc and prompt it for an answer to jot down in a homework assignment, versus learning the material and producing answers on an assignment in the classroom environment which doesn't utilize a computer or tablet in any way, demonstrating a grasp of the subject material at hand.

There are no textbooks anymore, so that's irrelevant. And if there are, most school systems don't pay for them. Ours certainly don't. So the work my wife asks her students to do is created, and must be turned in, in such a way that AI is not the most readily accessible way to do it. That means more hands-on projects utilizing visual creation and not just written essays and things of that nature, regurgitating dates, etc. But those sorts of written things make up a portion of her activity offerings depending on the subject matter at hand.

'Practical skills' in terms of 6th grade civics/social studies/history means showing a grasp of facts, context, and tying all of those together - an awareness of interconnected global concepts, geography, cultures, etc., linking historical events and concepts across multiple chronological points, etc. It's really easy to plug a lot of stuff into ChatGPT and ask it to analyze and tie those things together. Creating a poster, word/concept puzzles, etc aren't conducive to using AI to complete those assignments.

Depending on the subject matter and class in question, I would absolutely agree that the 'hands on' method of testing competency is better. When it comes to 'trades' and hands-on disciplines (especially chemistry, mechanical stuff, even music theory, etc), I'm an 'applied' learner too. I always tested horribly in math, but tested great in language arts, writing, etc. Usually, if a student has used AI to 'cheat', it becomes clear when they have to discuss their thoughts/conclusions at which they arrived. When they don't really understand what ChatGPT produced for them, and when they don't have a grasp of the concepts addressed in the assignment or the point of it, it becomes clear.

I think I've done a poor job at communicating my points, as I still think we're mostly in agreement on this.
That said, I'm not going to attempt to clarify myself as I realize it would continue to go pretty heavily off-topic.

@Isaac James beautifully articulated the point that a lot of people were trying to make here, I think.

 

[GrowlerBox]

This thread may indicate why it's probably time to be a little more precise in our use of the term "AI", which is clearly more than one thing. Obviously, the OP came for a (simulated) argument, but the conflation of attempts to disguise the use of LLMs in ostensibly human-to-human interactions with the advertised use of specific AIs in various amp modellers is deliberately misleading.

Weird altogether.

 

[JazznFunk]

I think I've done a poor job at communicating my points, as I still think we're mostly in agreement on this.
That said, I'm not going to attempt to clarify myself as I realize it would continue to go pretty heavily off-topic.

@Isaac James beautifully articulated the point that a lot of people were trying to make here, I think.

All good. And yeah... At this point, there are so many tangents on this thread that I'm now looking for the Sine and Cosine as well!

 

[Isaac_James]

@Isaac James beautifully articulated the point that a lot of people were trying to make here, I think.

Thanks, though that's going to be my last comment on the topic, for a while at least. I've already allowed myself to get sidetracked into discussions about the benefits (or detriments) of AI content in two separate threads today, and that's really not what I want to get into on this site!