• 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.

Vintage vs new.

#241
king_biscuit said:
Btw, I just read the violin article from the first post, the one that putatively supports the argument that old basses sound just like new ones.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. Although I do wonder if the sample size of old and new was sufficiently large to come to that conclusion. They claim statistical significiance, don't they? That's normally at 95%. I'd have to look at the methodology and crunch the stats to see how many trials there are to support that, but I assume they've done that properly given the care that was taken overall.

What might be an issue is the initial selection, as the number of violins was relatively small but then they removed the low lying outliers by the sound of it.

Constructing tests with human subjective judgement in are very, very difficult.
 
#246
-Asdfgh- said:
Preferences change, and that is part of the subjective part of the auditory system, and that's an added complexity. Tones I thought were
good for bass 20 years ago I hate now!

To match two recordings, even with the same bass over thirty years you would need to:

1. Ensure that loudness is the same to within about 0.5dB.
2. Ensure that the strings are the same. Manufacturers may make the same model of strings now, but they might vary slightly between now and 30 years ago
3. Ensure that the dynamics of the playing are pretty much the same as before (see 1)
4. Ensure that all the elements in the recording are the same (exactly the same equipment all measurable via test equipment to exactly to the same tolerances)
5. Ensure the playing is the same (same notes, etc).
6. Ensure that the 30 year old recording has not degraded in any way. I.e. it would need to have been digitised via very good A/D 30 years ago

If you have good ears (and I have no doubt you do) you are probably more sensitive than most to the issues from 1 to 7. Your good ears are probably a hindrance as you might be picking up on a difference in something in the recording chain that is not the bass. If the old recording has got ever so slightly muffled over the last 30 years you might prefer the new one. If there is a standard set of reference tones on the recording that could be adjusted for. There are so many possible variables in a recording that it would make it hard to pin down what might be causing a preference for one recording over another.

For just the audio side I think you'd need to create a bass playing robot and have it play a selection of old and new basses behind a curtain and do a large listening test of a hundred or so people (enough to have a good chance of statistical significance depending on the other test parameters). Even for new and old recordings of a bass it should be done double blind, ideally.
Click to expand...

So you know pretty much all the criteria in your post are met. The tracks in question were immaculately produced by Ken Scott who also engineered or produced David Bowie, Elton John, Supertramp, The Beatles (White), Jeff Beck, Stanley Clarke, Billy Cobham, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Dregs, Missing Persons geeeeeez, the list goes on.

The tracks were recorded at A&M Studios or Chateau Recorders in Hollywood and of course were treated in a first class, state of the art manner all the way.

Ken taught me how to record the PRS, his theory being that you never compress the bass, but only limit the peaks. He was a fanatic when it came to keeping the dynamic range of the instrument intact and NOT squashing it.

He used an LA2A at the time, and I use Summit Audio now. Ken always used EQ on the Rickenbacker, but used none on the PRS. He loved the combination of the nine position "Dial a Brew" (as he called it) rotary switch and Rickenbacker treble pickup.

Stanley Clarke was recording at the same studio and Ken introduced us - Stanley mentioned that I could use any of the basses he left laying around. I grabbed his Jazz Bass one night and Ken wouldn't even let me plug it in! He pointed back to the PRS and smiled.

I suppose it could be an illusion but the bass just seems to sound deeper and woodier somehow to us after 35 years. Not just me.

-Asdfgh- said:
Nice stuff!
Click to expand...

Thanks for checking it out and for the kind words. There is a ton of songs all over YouTube, many with no accompanying video content that fans have put up. Just go to YouTube and search on "Happy the Man".

PS: There is a Happy the Man thread on TB which has a tiny bit of recent traction: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f19/happy-man-165157/

And I just noticed there is a TB thread on Ken Scott here: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f30/ken-scott-abbey-road-ziggy-stardust-917749/

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
 
#247
BassHappy said:
So you know pretty much all the criteria in your post are met.
Click to expand...

It's hard to be scientific about things as there are so many variables. That's realistically probably about as consistent in terms of recording as it is likely to get over a thirty year span. Completeness would be testing every individual component in the chain.

Now, if we had a couple of dozen more people who have kept the same bass for so long, without modifications and can document the details of the recording process... :)

I've had a one fretless for a good long while, but the fingerboard has been replaned, oiled, and so on since then and had the pickups repaired and I don't even have the same preamp I used for recording when I got it. So I am no help.

I suppose the other thing is to test the vibrating tables and whatever else people claim help with tone because you might be able to have a completely consistent signal chain one year to the next. It would be an expensive research project, though.
 
#248
I think folks are losing sight ofthe facts in the original violin article. Which is that even the new instruments are the best in breed $30,000 instruments.

So the question becomes do we posses the skills and materials to surpass the vintage instruments.
 
#250
peterpalmieri said:
I think folks are losing sight ofthe facts in the original violin article. Which is that even the new instruments are the best in breed $30,000 instruments.

So the question becomes do we posses the skills and materials to surpass the vintage instruments.
Click to expand...

We are comparing mass produced against mass produced on the whole so it's a fair comparison.

Of course one thing is that we are also potentially comparing (unless comparing the same instrument recorded twice separated by 30 years with the same signal chain) old versus new, so if age does change the character of the instruments it's not the same as comparing a new 2014 bass with a new 1964 bass as that's not possible to do without a time machine and if I had one of those I'd be too busy popping back to the Creataceous to watch dinosaurs to play much bass.
 
#251
mongo2 said:
Yes, it happens every day during normal mass production of instruments.

The other day I played a new Squier P bass that sounded and played much better than '73 P bass hanging on the wall next to it. In case you're wondering, the '73 had fresh strings and setup.
Click to expand...

I experienced the same thing both ways.

Tried a 66P that played great and sounded great until I compared it to a brand new 63 P US reissue that sounded better. Better being subjective of course, let's say it had more output and the pickup had more range. It sounded different would be a better term but when factoring in that the 66P was three times the price of the Reissue, my brain interpreted that as better.

I have also played many MIM P basses that sound better and feel better than their current US counterparts.

I have tested a few Squiers that were amazing as well.

I have played a couple of mid-sixties P bass that felt great and sounded better than anything I have played to this point.

I enjoy the feel of a played instrument, to me they feel like shoes you've worn for a long time. It's that broken in feel.

I have played about 20 mid-sixties basses and I don't feel it's enough to have any kind of prospective on the topic. There is a random element between age, price and quality that just leaves me puzzled and wondering.
 
#252
JIO said:
Wood as mentioned prior is dried before construction (kiln or naturally). Some has been "aged" (stored over time before used) As wood is organic and was living it hardens over time after being cut. Light vintage instruments were probably light to begin with. To test that theory - a good number of heavy 70's Fender basses haven't gotten any lighter.

There are those devices made to send vibrations through an acoustic instrument to accelerate seasoned tone (or something). I've talked w/Luthiers and they don't put much stock in it. Maybe a copper bracelet keeps arthritis away… it seems to work for some people.
Click to expand...

Both great points. I've played many mid to late 70's bass and they are still really heavy!!!
 
#253
peterpalmieri said:
I think folks are losing sight ofthe facts in the original violin article. Which is that even the new instruments are the best in breed $30,000 instruments.

So the question becomes do we posses the skills and materials to surpass the vintage instruments.
Click to expand...

Better with regard to a bass is a matter of opinion. The article supports the opposite of what several posters concluded -- that there are no categorical differences between old and new instruments. According to the article, there are differences. With regard to a bass, whether the differences are better or worse is a matter for each to decide on his own.
 
#254
If you are going through a high quality signal chain through an amp that does not process the sound, but allows the true natural voice of the bass to shine through, you really hear the subtle and not so subtle differences in the voice of each instrument.

Obviously strings make a huge difference, as well as the players attack. Pulling up, slapping down, you should be able to hear those differences. You should be able to hear the wood in the neck and the control of both your fretting hand and your picking hand.

If you are running a bass through some wunderboxxen processor, those subtle differences may be lost to the point where the bass sounds so effected that it almost wouldn't matter what bass you were using.

In all those minuscule variable details of a 50 year old bass compared to a new bass, there's also fret wear and the height of the string from the wood when you press down.

As long as the frets are still in good shape and relatively even, the pressed string can be millimeters closer to the finger board, resulting in a more woody, almost, but not quite fretless response. A mellower, more acoustic timbre.

Obviously it the frets are trashed, you can have a sweet old bass will all kind of buzzes, clanks, bad intonation, uneven response, dead spots etc.
 
#255
Laurent said:
I experienced the same thing both ways.

Tried a 66P that played great and sounded great until I compared it to a brand new 63 P US reissue that sounded better. Better being subjective of course, let's say it had more output and the pickup had more range. It sounded different would be a better term but when factoring in that the 66P was three times the price of the Reissue, my brain interpreted that as better.

I have also played many MIM P basses that sound better and feel better than their current US counterparts.

I have tested a few Squiers that were amazing as well.

I have played a couple of mid-sixties P bass that felt great and sounded better than anything I have played to this point.

I enjoy the feel of a played instrument, to me they feel like shoes you've worn for a long time. It's that broken in feel.

I have played about 20 mid-sixties basses and I don't feel it's enough to have any kind of prospective on the topic. There is a random element between age, price and quality that just leaves me puzzled and wondering.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a crapshoot what any particular bass from any era at any price point will sound. Feel can be adjusted through various techniques.

Add to that the vagaries of player/listener perception and it's impossible to make any blanket statements regarding which instruments will sound "better"
 
#256
FFTT said:
If you are going through a high quality signal chain through an amp that does not process the sound, but allows the true natural voice of the bass to shine through, you really hear the subtle and not so subtle differences in the voice of each instrument.

Obviously strings make a huge difference, as well as the players attack. Pulling up, slapping down, you should be able to hear those differences. You should be able to hear the wood in the neck and the control of both your fretting hand and your picking hand.

If you are running a bass through some wunderboxxen processor, those subtle differences may be lost to the point where the bass sounds so effected that it almost wouldn't matter what bass you were using.

In all those minuscule variable details of a 50 year old bass compared to a new bass, there's also fret wear and the height of the string from the wood when you press down.

As long as the frets are still in good shape and relatively even, the pressed string can be millimeters closer to the finger board, resulting in a more woody, almost, but not quite fretless response. A mellower, more acoustic timbre.

Obviously it the frets are trashed, you can have a sweet old bass will all kind of buzzes, clanks, bad intonation, uneven response, dead spots etc.
Click to expand...

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, apologies for the diversions above - but to your point - I was listening this morning to a bunch of isolated tracks by Sting, John Paul Jones, Chris Squire and truthfully found it hard to believe how "rough" sounding they were. Interesting sounds, lots of character, grit and growl, but WOW lots of fret buzz, finger noise and other not so pleasant nuances that surprised me a bit.

Of course, when placed in the tracks they support the song beautifully.

Interesting exercise, simply search on "Isolated Bass Tracks" on youtube. You may be a little surprised at what you hear. I know I was.

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
 
#257
BassHappy said:
Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, apologies for the diversions above - but to your point - I was listening this morning to a bunch of isolated tracks by Sting, John Paul Jones, Chris Squire and truthfully found it hard to believe how "rough" sounding they were. Interesting sounds, lots of character, grit and growl, but WOW lots of fret buzz, finger noise and other not so pleasant nuances that surprised me a bit.

Of course, when placed in the tracks they support the song beautifully.

Interesting exercise, simply search on "Isolated Bass Tracks" on youtube. You may be a little surprised at what you hear. I know I was.

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
Click to expand...

I read an article with Michael Rhodes (who is certainly a more precise player than those guys), years ago and he said he can't stand to listen to his isolated tracks because of what you described.
 
#258
It also depends on if you are listening to raw stems or hearing them post compression.

Everything I thought I knew about bass tone from playing live changed when I went into a pro studio for the first time.

Going through each bass, finding the one that best suites the song, deciding if D/I is sufficient or if the grit needs to be tamed through an amp and speakers.

Deciding which amp to go through at what settings, trying different mics and speakers and mic placement all burns clock time. Valuable time if your band is self funded.

What we as bass players may like to our ear, may not be what the producer, writer, engineer want in the song.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back