Gerry,
Really interesting, great information. Like I said in the original post, I am a bassnoramus so all of that comes as news to me.
What about bass recorded DI before the advent of the SVTs? It seems like if bassists had wanted low-end-for-miles in the 60s they could just plug into the desk?
Bass sound on "Angel" from TUSK--God, I want to EA
- Peterson Goodwyn
- pushin' record
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:00 pm
- Location: West Philly
- Contact:
-
- alignin' 24-trk
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:09 am
- Location: boston
You're right about using the DI and people certainly did do it. Maybe they just didn't want the ton's of low end.
I didn't start to pay much attention about HOW the sounds were recorded until the later '70s when I got my first 4 track and really developed an interest in recording. At that point my first option was DI when recording my bass, whether we were at home tracking or in a 'real' studio.
Reading about Carol Kaye, Jamerson or McCartney's sounds seems to reference micing amps...maybe they DI'd as well.
One other note about the amps of the day....seems to me that the SVT SPEAKER CABINET with the 8 - 10's was even more important than the increased power in the heads. There never was a cab until then that remained tight and undistorted at high volumes.
Gerry
I didn't start to pay much attention about HOW the sounds were recorded until the later '70s when I got my first 4 track and really developed an interest in recording. At that point my first option was DI when recording my bass, whether we were at home tracking or in a 'real' studio.
Reading about Carol Kaye, Jamerson or McCartney's sounds seems to reference micing amps...maybe they DI'd as well.
One other note about the amps of the day....seems to me that the SVT SPEAKER CABINET with the 8 - 10's was even more important than the increased power in the heads. There never was a cab until then that remained tight and undistorted at high volumes.
Gerry
-
- pushin' record
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:40 pm
- Location: porkopolis
No doubt, the cabinet was the more critical piece. But as I like to point out, while the original 8 x 10 cabs sounded massive at 100 hz, they rolled off below 80. So they're more about delivering a lot of sound that works on stage, than having honestly extended low range. IMO this has everything to do with their clarity.playinbass wrote:One other note about the amps of the day....seems to me that the SVT SPEAKER CABINET with the 8 - 10's was even more important than the increased power in the heads. There never was a cab until then that remained tight and undistorted at high volumes.
Sea of Storms: www.reverbnation.com/seaofstorms
-
- alignin' 24-trk
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:09 am
- Location: boston
I wasn't aware of what their real frequency response was, but you make a good point. I guess they were coupling with the stage and really shaking things up which may have given the illusion that there was tons of low end happening too. It sure was fun standing in front of a couple of those, but man, they were just too heavy to lug around. Fun when the roadies did it, not fun when it was my turn. Try convincing your 90 pound punk rock girlfriend to give you a hand lugging that up three flights!
G
G
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests