What bass/amp setup do you guys use?

bassmyf

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
Location
Long Island NY
Hey Edwin. Read your posts often on the Alembic Forum, nice to see you over here. Beautiful rig. I recently picked up a FX-1, and am currently shopping for a QSC power amp, most likely a RMX 1450 or 2450 to use with a Schroeder 210212L cabinet 1400wt 4ohm. Just wondering, outside of the obvious weight difference, are there any real positives to the CX series over the RMX series. Also, are you using the Grace mainly for compression, or combining the eq function with the FX-1? I have an old Furman PQ3, but I generally make my sound worse anytime I mess with parametric eq.

Jeff
 

edwin

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
187
Reaction score
77
bassmyf said:
Hey Edwin. Read your posts often on the Alembic Forum, nice to see you over here. Beautiful rig. I recently picked up a FX-1, and am currently shopping for a QSC power amp, most likely a RMX 1450 or 2450 to use with a Schroeder 210212L cabinet 1400wt 4ohm. Just wondering, outside of the obvious weight difference, are there any real positives to the CX series over the RMX series. Also, are you using the Grace mainly for compression, or combining the eq function with the FX-1? I have an old Furman PQ3, but I generally make my sound worse anytime I mess with parametric eq.

Jeff

The CX amp's biggest draw for me was price. I got it on Craigslist for $175 and there's no way I could get 700 wpc 20-20k at 8ohms for a better deal than that. It has some quirks, like the connectors, which are set up for install, so are primarily barrier strips. But, I discovered that the PC boards behind the back panel were all laid out for standard ins and outs, so I managed to connect TRS and XLRS ins and Speakon outs (the full sized banana jacks didn't fit. If I wanted to go crazy with the Dremel, I could have made them fit, but I never use them anyway). It is lighter than the RMX series and I think it might be made to a slightly higher standard. It's essentially a Powerlight 2. I don't think there's much difference in the features from the RMX. It certainly sounds way better than the PLX2402 I used to have and is only slightly less wonderful than the Crest CA9 I used to use. Apparently the RMX series can sound a bit better than the PLX as it has a more robust, albeit heavier, power supply. Some will argue all power amps sound the same. I'm not of that mind.

I should mention the Crown XTi4000 I used for a while before I found the CX. I really liked the DSP that was built in. It worked very well and was pretty transparent. Being able to program it from my laptop was very cool, especially when setting high pass filters and limiters. Having presets for different scenarios was very nice. It was a nice sounding amp, too. They can be had pretty cheap used and the warranty is fully transferable.

The Grace replaced my Eden Navigator. I went through two and both broke and I finally just threw up my hands with Eden. Coincidentally, my WT1205 had just returned. It blew up on the first gig I had it during the opening band's set back in 2011. The local authorized repair had it for a year before they admitted defeat and sent it to US Music. They had it for 3 months and sent it to me. When I opened the box, the note from the local tech was still taped to the box and the lighted up logo had fallen into the chassis and was rattling around. it looked to me like they never even looked at it. I sent off an email and they issued a Fedex pickup for it and then sent me a refurbished one. It works fine, except for a weird pop that comes out of the DI. Every piece of Eden gear I've had has been problematic, so I decided to get the best sounding and most bulletproof option that had EQ, a compressor and a DI that I could find. Mike Grace had lent me a M103 when my first Navigator went down and I really liked it (a very big benefit of living in Boulder). When a used one came up at Gearslutz, I jumped on it. Most of the time, I just use that, but at this set of gigs, I wanted to trade off between the Starfire and a Modulus Q6 TBX. I should have known better as I ended up playing the Starfire 80% of the time. Who says you need a B string for big sounding bass? I'll have to listen to the recording to see how the F2B affected the sound. I enjoyed having the EQ at the gig as it's very different from that on the Grace. Most of the time with the Grace, I'll leave it flat and the bass sounds wonderful. Mike really knows how to design a circuit that allows for very clear, deep bass.
 

Muovinen

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Location
Muhos, Finland
My modest setup is Sandberg California JM4 through an MXR Blowtorch to a Peavey TNT100 -combo :) I don't play in a band so usually I just plug my Sandberg straight into a Mindprint DI and then use a Ampeg SVX modeling software to get the amp sound. I'd love to mic the Peavey amp one day though, that's a ton of tone for 40 euros! 8)
 

mellowgerman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,506
Location
Orlando, FL
Wow... can't believe I started this thread over 10 years ago! My rig has changed quite a bit, but there's still a vintage Starfire! (and this one's never leaving me). The amp is an Alembic SF-2 Superfilter into an early Hartke Model 3500 (highly underrated predecessor of the HA3500), into an Aguilar 2x10 cab and a custom built 1x12 on the bottom when the occasion calls for some extra muscle.
I had them all out today to try and find a holy-grail EQ/filter setting where I don't have to do a bunch of re-configuring everytime I break out a different bass. More or less mission accomplished, but it wasn't easy!

Vw5x5Dp.jpg
 
Last edited:

Happy Face

Justified Ancient of MuMu
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
239
Hey Amigo. Who really notices the subtleties we do anyway? That's a handsome portrait.

It's funny, on your amp topic. There's an interesting thread over on the Evil Empire about whether a hybrid head can ever match a real tube amp.

Your Alembic pre into a good power amp got some nods, as did my Genz Benz Streamliner 900. That thing is a gooey beast which challenges my 200 watt Orange tube head.
 

mellowgerman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,506
Location
Orlando, FL
Hey Amigo. Who really notices the subtleties we do anyway? That's a handsome portrait.

It's funny, on your amp topic. There's an interesting thread over on the Evil Empire about whether a hybrid head can ever match a real tube amp.

Your Alembic pre into a good power amp got some nods, as did my Genz Benz Streamliner 900. That thing is a gooey beast which challenges my 200 watt Orange tube head.


Yeah (warning: this might turn into a philosophy-of-music veer), in the audience very few people will be critical of bass tone, but even in regard to those that are, it's somewhat irrelevant when it comes to original material and collaborations, which is my main musical focus at this time. In this regard, I consider the subtleties of tone to be just as much a part of a song as the lyrics or the chord changes. I create most of it in a very specific, intentional way, for my own catharsis. Sure, it's awesome when people enjoy it, but just like with lyrics and chord changes I write, I put my heart into it. If people like what I put out there, bodacious! If they don't, they can always choose not to listen. Correspondingly, I don't see the point of playing my tunes if I can't dial in more or less what I consider to be the tone I want to hear. Same reason why I'm against using "backline" amps or some random bass that's sitting around -- unless I'm familiar with the equipment and have the time to configure it how I want. At this point I make music for my own enjoyment and a genuinely engaged audience can certainly be a part of that enjoyment, but it's not at all necessary. My interest in music is really rooted in self-reflection and, if I'm playing with other musicians, my connection and communication with them. That's why tone and the subtleties are so important!

As to the solid-state VS. hybrid VS. tube debate, it all depends on what you want to come out of the speaker. I think any of those formats can sound excellent. People who are very polarized on this argument probably just like the burned in coloration that a certain amp has (which, at it's boldest, even allows you to plug in a huge variety of basses and still get a somewhat familiar sound) and form their opinion on a generalization like: "YEAH TUBES!", when in reality, there are bad-sounding amps regardless of whether they are tube, hybrid, or solid-state. On a sidenote, I think the aspect of coloration that an amp may or may not provide accounts for why an experienced player with good/consistent technique can plug a stock Squier Affinity Precision bass with bad setup and old strings into an SVT or Acoustic 370 and still sound great. The greatness of the sound in this case comes from the player and the amp's coloration overshadowing the iffy-ness of the bass itself.

Favorites are always a difficult call, but for solid state, the old Acoustic 370 amps are among my favorite plug-and-play amps. The tone I used to get playing one through an Aguilar 1x12 cab was amazing and it's likely that I'll end up scooping up another rig like it eventually. I sold it when I moved back up to NY 4-ish years ago, as that involved at 1200mile drive in the Hyundai Elantra I had at the time. For my tube favorite, it was probably the Guild Thunderstar Bass amp into a home-brew EV 1x18 cab. The Thunderbass is really neat too in it's unique patchable, dual channels. I also really liked the Fender 300T from the early 2000's (in the 90's it was the Sunn 300T), which was great because it had more volume capability than you could ever need, much like an Ampeg SVT, but also sounded really good at lower volumes. I always felt like you have to turn an SVT up at least half way to get that great tone out of it.

I find my current hybrid Hartke head to be super practical. As I mentioned in the previous post, the Model 3500 is the predecessor to the current HA3500. HA3500s are decent amps, but being kind of marginal in performance, don't have much of a fan-club and are readily available second-hand at a low price. The Model 3500 is the better amp in my opinion but, probably because of the general perception of the current Hartke line, is also attainable for peanuts when it pops up on the used market. I'd describe the Model 3500 as being nice and punchy like the old Acoustic 370 but with less coloration to the sound. I also happen to like the on-board compressor when dialed in just a little bit. The flexible graphic EQ lets you get pretty specific in fine-tuning a little here and there (which I try to use mainly to compensate for the differences between the basses in my stable). Overall it's a very transparent amp, so it functions beautifully doing just that, amplifying the signal! The tone itself comes from the bass. Finally, I run the Alembic SF-2 through the effects loop in mono to add echoes of otherworldly dimensions... I like to think that it allows me to harnesses the reflection of my bass's tone off of hypothetical surfaces created by the darkest depths of the Mariana Trench (the low-pass filter) or the cutting gleam of a single sunbeam (the high-pass filter), or anything in between, and then blend it with the dry signal of the bass... but the magic of it is that it can all be done whether at headphone, bedroom, or stadium volumes. The SF-2 is of course limited by whatever sounds the bass strings and pickups are creating at the very beginning of the signal chain, which is why Bisonic pickups with their super vast on-tap frequency response make such a perfect match for the SF-2.

My only real complaint about the current rig is a very minor one: the Model 3500's fan might be a little bit on the loud side, so on the rare occasion that I find myself playing quietly, alone in the evening, I can hear it whirring in the background.

Long story short, I like basses that sound good when I play them! Then I like to plug them into amps that are either relatively transparent or amps with pleasant coloration... and that's probably not a great conclusion but it's the one I find myself at this morning...

Hey! I gave a fair warning at the beginning of this post!
 
Last edited:

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
Sure, I'll veer on a 10 year old thread.

I believe human beings have an impulse to "create". I believe that people who find an outlet for that impulse are happier than those who do not or cannot. I sometimes find I can explain what I consider strange behaviors or attitudes when I view them as being driven by the urge to create. For many people the outlet is in the traditional arts - music, painting, sculpture, etc. Music, specifically offers two distinct outlets - composition and performance. (When I break things up like this I view improvisation as composition that is not written down, even though it occurs in performance). As a creative outlet, performance is subservient to composition. As a performer I am evaluated by how well my performance matches the composer's vision. I can be an outstanding performer while not really scratching any of those creative itches. Mellow clearly establishes that performance of his own compositions is his creative outlet and thus he cares about which instrument and what sounds are heard in a much different way from someone who is a technician focused on realizing someone else's artistic vision.

That said, and acknowledging that bass playing is not a primary creative outlet for me, I have two gigging rigs.

The first is a B-50. No amp.

The other is a Phil Jones Bass Cub with either the NS Starfire or the Betts Bass. If I am practicing I don't even touch the amp when swapping basses :)
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Gonna play devil's advocate here.
Basically agreed with the initial premises (premisii? :) ) until I got to this point:

As a creative outlet, performance is subservient to composition.
Why?
As a performer I am evaluated by how well my performance matches the composer's vision.
Can I take that to be your definition of how all performers are "rated", or specifically only yourself?
Am I misinterpreting your intent if I see that as being predicated on a "classical" or western traditional view of composition and the role of the performer, ie, "to be performed exactly as written"?
What I'm getting at is that there are whole schools of music for which there ARE no compositions but only modes, rhythms, and philosophies of construction, such as classical Indian music .
So Ravi Shankar is rated entirely on his performing technique, how well he strings together the building blocks of whichever raga he's performing at the time, and for which there is no specific composition.
In Hesse's Magister Ludi: the Bead Game the Bead Game itself was a metaphor for this philosophy of creativity.
I have pieces at both ends of the extreme myself: pieces for which I've constructed a very specific composition which is intended to be played EXACTLY the same way every single time, (and with a specific place for improvisation if there's to be any improvisational soloing in a particular performance); those are primarily intended as "busking tunes" because I know that audience normally prefers exact repetition of piece, they find comfort in the familiarity of repetition of whatever they liked in the first place.
The other end of the spectrum are "themes" which are based on modes and scales and perhaps a few bars of identifying theme but which are specifically intended to be vehicles for open-ended improvisation, ala Coltrane's "A Love Supreme". Those are normally more appreciated by other musicians or "creative" types.
In fact it was probably my earliest form of composition and was even directly inspired by a quote from Grace Slick, or at least somebody in the Airplane: "Never play it the same way twice".
:friendly_wink:
Mellow clearly establishes that performance of his own compositions is his creative outlet and thus he cares about which instrument and what sounds are heard in a much different way from someone who is a technician focused on realizing someone else's artistic vision.
I'm reminded of some interchange I had with Walrus a few years back, "IIRC" he mentioned at the time that he was feeling like something was lacking , and I suggested to him that he should try composing something of his own.
As I recall though he mentioned he's never felt "the call" and was pretty well fulfilled with his ongoing quest to achieve satisfying performance of other people's compositions.
So the itch is scratched in different ways by different folks, and that's meant to corroborate your earlier comments on how happiness is achieved.
I'm not so sure everybody has an urge to create though, even at the most flexible definition of "creativity".
I do think everybody's got a natural instinct to "tinker", though, as in play around with found objects, which I see as predecessor to creativity.
I also believe that instinct is stimulated or stifled by conditioning which will ultimately lead to "genuine" creativity (or "kill it").
Consider the old saw that classical musicians are great sight-readers but lousy improvisers, and supposedly the converse for jazz players.
I think that's just a result of imbalanced conditioning of the creative impulse and the greats in either school are great because they've mastered both elements: composition AND performance.
Compositional ability is enhanced by performing capabilities and the converse is true as well, although I believe normal variation in dexterity does put a greater limitation on performing capabilities as opposed to composing ability.
In any case, I think if anything, composition is subservient to performance.
Composition's utterly worthless without performers to play it.
But performers don't require composition to perform.
:friendly_wink:
 
Last edited:

Nuuska

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
6,028
Location
Finland
Guild Total
9
Hello

At my busiest years of FOH-engineer-roadie I also had some backline gear for rent and - one special set that was used by two bands in two different ways.

I had some loose JBL E-series laying around and decided to make cabins for them. And while they were intended to be used with backline, the dimensions came to be 20inch high - 30 wide and about 18 deep - so they were a perfect match with most 2x12 guitar combos.

Both cabinets had one 15-inch JBL E-140-J ( J = 16ohms ) plus two 10 inch JBL E-110-H ( H = 8ohms )
The E-110:s had their own sub-enclosure and were wired in series. So total 16ohms.

Two inputs - one for 15 - one for 2x10


In one band they were set one on each side of drums - a Peavey Renown amp on top of both - the guitar player was a bit maniac - in loud playing, too . . .
It Was a trio - guitar-player-vocalist + bass + drums.
The bass player had no amp - so he was plugged into Countryman DI-box - into multicore snake to FOH-desk - an AUX-send back to one channel of Carver PM1.5 that produced about 450W clean bass into those two 15:s
Even though the bass player was totally in my control, he never complained.
The other half of that Carver was used to feed vocal into those 10:s that were facing the front of audience and same time acting as his monitor - he had another JBL Cabaret-series wedge in front of him.
I liked the idea of feeding vocal from backline to audience - while with PA on stage sides always leaves front middle of audience a bit in "shadow"

On the other band - lead vocal w guitar - lead guitar w vocal - drums w vocal - and bass - again the bass player did not have an amp.

So I used the two cabinets + Carver + Roland SIP-301 Bass Preamp to produce whopping 900W of clean bass power on stage. This guy was excellent player and he used to crank everything fully up !!! Then he would play with soft touch - and when necessary and musically fit he sometimes let it burn. Imagine the headroom while playing soft.

Naturally this rig cost me plenty of money - but between those two bands I had over 100 gigs per year - and they paid me fair for my services.

If I was younger and silly enough to go through all this again - I would add a tweeter w horn to improve the 2x10 in vocal use - but then again - that maniac was no Caruso . . .
 

Happy Face

Justified Ancient of MuMu
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
239
Adorshiki (our adorable one?) reminded us: "Consider the old saw that classical musicians are great sight-readers but lousy improvisers, and supposedly the converse for jazz players."

That brings to mind a funny recollection. My older sister fled the east coast and arrived in SF in time for The Summer of Love and stayed there. In the early 70s she was back for a visit east and she told me that she was dating a guy in a well-known jazz group and told me about the jazz scene in Oakland, Emeryville and SF.

Her younger brother was a serious French horn player who was still aiming for a career playing in the Met Opera orchestra. And a pretty good rock bass player.

His reply, which I made up on the fly: "Well, you know, jazz musicians are guys who are not good enough to play classical and not creative enough to play rock."

I got whacked on the head.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Adorshiki (our adorable one?) reminded us: "Consider the old saw that classical musicians are great sight-readers but lousy improvisers, and supposedly the converse for jazz players."

That brings to mind a funny recollection. My older sister fled the east coast and arrived in SF in time for The Summer of Love and stayed there. In the early 70s she was back for a visit east and she told me that she was dating a guy in a well-known jazz group and told me about the jazz scene in Oakland, Emeryville and SF.
Having been pre-occupied with San Francisco Sound acid rock as a youth, I didn't realize what a hotbed for jazz was here in my own backyard until I was well into my 20's but Emeryville is the home to world-renowned Yoshi's and in '71 Berkeley became home to Fantasy Records (and Studios until '81) whose early catalog was predominantly dedicated to Dave Brubeck.
Then there's the venerable Berkeley Jazz Festival.

greek-theater.jpg


Her younger brother was a serious French horn player who was still aiming for a career playing in the Met Opera orchestra. And a pretty good rock bass player.

His reply, which I made up on the fly: "Well, you know, jazz musicians are guys who are not good enough to play classical and not creative enough to play rock."

I got whacked on the head.

:biggrin-new:
 
Last edited:

Vermonter

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
275
Reaction score
219
Location
Vermont
My plan is to pick up a vintage M-85 at some point to play through the Thunderbass w/cab I plan to pick up this weekend, but in the meantime I mostly play a ‘78 Musicman through a mid-70s Ampeg B25b with an Ampeg 4x10 cab. Sometimes I run a ‘64 Bassman head through a 2X12 cab in series with the B25, or I just go with my ‘08 Fender American Standard Precision Bass 5 through mid ‘70s Bassman 100 with a matching 2X15 cab. Sweet tone all the way around, but I’m ready to explore the Guild bass sound.
 
Last edited:

krysh

Guildarist in the mod squad
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
899
Location
near hamburg*germany
Guild Total
6
ah, I forgot to update:
HwV7X0x.jpg


my 2016 Custom LeFay Rob 344-66/IIIa through a few pedals including the GP Lighstone Twiset Tubepreamp into my Epifani UL 502 into 2 1x12" custom Cabs by SAD Audio Design.
 

mellowgerman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,506
Location
Orlando, FL
Hello Vermonter, I expect you'll love both the Guild rig and the Guild bass! I used to have a mid-70's PA100 that I used as a gigging bass amp during college. Actually made a killer bass rig on the old 1x18 EV cab! Would love to play through one of those Bassman100's to see how they compare. I've heard a lot of folks say they're very similar

Krysh, how do you like the Epifani? I've heard great things about them but never from somebody who has played a vintage Guild through one. Also, what's the exotic looking instrument out front?
 

krysh

Guildarist in the mod squad
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
899
Location
near hamburg*germany
Guild Total
6
...

Krysh, how do you like the Epifani? I've heard great things about them but never from somebody who has played a vintage Guild through one. Also, what's the exotic looking instrument out front?

Hi ingo, it has pros and cons, but i also havent used a vintage instrument with it. the epi is very clean and dynamic and delivers everything precisely from high sparkle to ultra low end with more than enough power. Some people say it is a bit sterile. But i like it a lot with my tube pedal in front. A great compromise for people with a bad back like me, who cant schlepp a huge tube head anymore. Would i buy it again? Yes, if i could find one for the same low price that i paid for mine.

The other instrument is the kora, an african harp, of my bandmate from senegal in my jam band.
 

mellowgerman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,506
Location
Orlando, FL
Hi ingo, it has pros and cons, but i also havent used a vintage instrument with it. the epi is very clean and dynamic and delivers everything precisely from high sparkle to ultra low end with more than enough power. Some people say it is a bit sterile. But i like it a lot with my tube pedal in front. A great compromise for people with a bad back like me, who cant schlepp a huge tube head anymore. Would i buy it again? Yes, if i could find one for the same low price that i paid for mine.

The other instrument is the kora, an african harp, of my bandmate from senegal in my jam band.

Cool, thanks. Any videos or recordings of your jam band? Would love to give it a listen!
 
Top