Low-Mid/Mid control(s) on Alembic Basses...

[lg71]

I'd like to hear from members who own an Alembic Bass guitar with such controls, wether with switch(es) or knob(s).  
 
Anything related - what does it do (i.e; were and by how much), how do you like it, could you live without it, etc etc...  
 
Then, how many of you would like see/have such control(s) on their Alembic instruments, and by the same token,
how many of you would consider paying Ron for helping developing something like that, i.e we could gather and raise funds for his labour...
 
I am thinking of a single plug'n play module like the low Pass filter for example (maybe with a knob to select the frequency an a Switch for boost/cut...).
 
Many regards,
LG
 
(Message edited by lg71 on December 02, 2006)

[keavin]

this one has series II controls with additional bass&treble pots for each pickup & LED dimmers ...I would like the same setup with a superfilter plus quick change bass/treble boost switches along with front a LASER-LITE built into the bass Outlining the  shape of the Bass itself.

[lg71]

That's a nice little big monster on the photo!
 
Well, I'd be happy with even half of that bass (the top/front half/sliced).  
 
Still got no low-mid/mid control though...  
 
Anyone else?

[inthelows]

What are you trying to improve? Is the bass you're using lacking punch or are you looking for more control over the mids? BTW, I have a Spoiler, simple controls. Vol, filter and Q switch. When the Q is on there is marked increase mid punch depending where the filter is set. Seems that what you may be looking for is more along the line of a parametric EQ where more than one variable can be changed, kind of daisy chained together.
NLP

[the_8_string_king]

My Custom 8-String Europa is the only Alembic I know of that has mid-range controls -one for each pickup. They are 3-position switches just like on the Distillate/Europa/Rogue (except they're mid-range, of course.) I find them to be VERY valuable -more than the treble controls, but less than the bass. (You could say, in the middle...)  
 
I use the bridge mid-control to boost, and have it on more than half the time I play; it adds incredible growl and bite. I never use it for cuts.  
 
Conversely, I rarely use the neck mid-control for boosts, but I often use it for a cut, and find it really enhances the whole smile curve thing; I'm most fond of boosting the bass of the neck pickup to maximum while cutting the mid.  
 
Both these switches are VERY useful -ESPECIALLY in conjunction with the filter and Q, which more often than not, function as the mid-range control.  
 
I really hate to not have these controls, and am actually bummed that I couldn't get one on my new custom -especially since I think they probably already have the specs from my old switches somewhere... but Valentino told me it would probably cost SEVERAL hundred $, and would likely entail a VERY long wait... after I asked him about it a second time, he said how many YEARS could you wait? Of course, he may have been exagerrating... but I got the impression it would take a while.  
 
Yeah, I'm all for mid-range switches -especially as a result of my personal experience with mine. I don't get why they don't have them as an option -especially for at least a simple 3-position toggle, when they've already got working specs. It could be there's some technical issue or challenge I'm not aware of.  
 
I've concluded that the 6 db setting is perfect for the mid-switch... more of a boost or cut is completely unnecessary. The one thing that would make it all perfect would be for there to be a 2cnd 3-position switch that selects the range to be boosted/cut... something that would choose between low mid/mid-mid/upper mid...  
 
If I could have, I'd have had my new custom Balance K with Europa controls have 3 knobs (volume/balance/filter) 4 toggles (bass/mid/mid-select/treble) and a 4-position Q!  
 
Hope this rambling helps!  
 
I'm with you. I wish they'd make this a standard option. And again, I don't think it would actually require any great work from Ron... he already did it. Just dig up my old specs...

[bsee]

I am a big fan of mid boosts as well.  I do adjust the filters to try to get the boost in the right spot.  I also use a preamp that has a semi-parametric mid control.  
 
In terms of non-Alembic electronics, I once had a Modulus that had boost/cut pots for bass and treble, and a concentric pot for mids that also allowed you to dial in a frequency center.

[lg71]

I am not trying to improve or get more punch either... and I already have all the available standard Alembic controls to my fingertips, Bass/Treble cut/boost, dual Low-Pass Filters + 3 positions Q-switches. I know what those controls do very well, I spend hours playing with the Bass (and have tweaked plenty enough already...) nearly every night. That's on my heavy (looking to complete the lighter one soon hopefully) Arialembic LG MK2. So, those controls are very nice, yes, but it is not enough to shape/carve your own sound (at least AFAIC).
 
Well, I have mentioned this before (you are welcome to do a search under my member name), and yes, a fully parametric Filter is what I'd like to have in the circuit (one per PU would be nice, two per PU would be very nice;)). BUT...
 
But, you see, I was trying to keep this thread simple, because many members, don't know what a fully parametric filter is and or can do.
Hence, I go, low-mid/mid controls... and most of us would understand I'd assume.
 
Well, now, since you are the only one interested so far, I guess I can explain what my problem/wish is;
- I need/want a fully or semi parametric Filter, that goes from/around at least 80HZ (200Hz would be max really) and up to/around at least 2KHz (higher value is always welcome), with at least 3 Q settings, notch/narrow, normal and wide (although that could be optional, but fixed a Q at least is obviousy needed)  ... then a boost/cut/flat, either a dedicated knob or preset switches (a bit like what the Q-switch does). OK, that's the dream, I mean, I don't think that Alembic has already created such a module for the  bass guitar yet - I haven't hear about it...
 
Yes I know, this can be achieved with an external hardware EQ/Filter, but my problem is that I have to do it post recording, meaning that I cannot get the sound I want while I am playing the Bass, I have to process through plugins afterwards. I don't have the relevant/suitable hardware, that's why it's post processed...  
 
What next, because I am recording/capturing the Alembic sound, I want to keep the signal as Alembic as possible and keep/retain the best out of it.
If you get me? Let's say you run your Alembic through a cheap Behringer fully parametric EQ, it won't sound as good as if you ran it trough a Manley, or Pultec for instance... or a Superfilter SF-2 for that matter... So, you might be better of NOT using the lower end stuff in that respect.
 
There is also the known fact that if you get the sound you want right from the source, it's always/usually best... of course, when you process the signal through expensive machine to change the color or tone on purpose, it does work well indeed.
 
In short, it's not to improve or get more punch as you mentioned, it's more to get a sound, the sound, your sound... I'd tell you a little secret, you might know it, many artist have their own sound because they have their own processing style and devices, it's a combination of many things, of course the playing style, strings, wood etc does count, but when it comes down to having a unique/signature sound, there are more steps involved than most people think. Oh yes!
 
I'll give you an example, my older Brother James Jamerson plays an old Precision with high tension Labellas Flats, and when he recorded at Hitville Studio/Motwon, his bass was D.I (that's right, not mic'd/amped) through Fairchild and Pultec monsters, these units cost real BIG money today, so you can't buy them (but might be able to rent it).
Of course James's playing style is unique, and no-one can imitate him, but at least, if you want a similar sound, you know what is required to get started.
Then, how about Stanley Clarke? Oh boy, you have no idea... ask him...  This is to say that all the unique players out there have their own unique setup, sometimes more, sometimes less.
Usually, you are most likely to find out their secrets, once they are retired or live this world...
 
PS: not that I am selfish, but I have got my own sound/settings and wouldn't want to give away my ultimate/optimized EQ curve, that's for everyone to find it's own.
Of course, I am the type of guy willing to help anyone to understand how to find this sound for their own purpose/taste. Each his/her own.  
The most important tools are Filters and Dynamic processors, as far as the Bass is concerned, for Reproduction, obviously, the better the amp/preamp the better it will sound.
 
I hope that most of you don't think that I am a little crazy, all I can offer to you is this, try to run your Alembic instrument through a full Parametric Filter if you get a chance, and simply tweak it while you play, most importantly, if you do not understand the controls, ask around before you feedle with it, so you'll have a better experience. Then do the same experiment, but this time, jam other the radio, or any song you like, and tweak to your liking... then bypass/switch off the Filter/EQ... chances are, you will want such controls or your bass SO BAD...
 
I came across a complete non-Alembic harness that does something like it, but it is not Alembic so there are NO mix and match possibilities there (it's the only harness I saw with such controls, but I haven't heard it). For my respect to Mica and Alembic, I would not provide a link to it.

[lg71]

Well, Bsee first, I am glad to know that we are one the same wavelength on this one, I can understand why the Modulus are popular and respected too,  
sometimes people play an instrument, they fall in Love with the sound, yet, they don't know why... One day, they realize, they find out, because they have learnt and finally understand... I read you use the semi-parametric mid control on your preamp, I bet you use it all the time?  
 
The_8_string_king, I feel the sorrow and I am 100% with you. I spoke to Mica on the phone last week when I ordered my PUs, and I wanted to discuss
Low-Mid/Mid range control... She replied exactly: we are not interested in the mid/low-mid...!
 
Well, we are, aren't we!? Well at least it's three of us...  anyone else...
 
OK, I couldn't argue with Mica, I was hurt and disappointed yes, but look at me, all I can afford new Alembic, is some PUs and a cap... So, I guess I was powerless and kept quiet...  
 
Hence, I though, well, they are not interested fine, BUT if we are interested, the only way to make it happen is to gather all members who would be willing to
to raise some money, so we can approach Ron and then Ask him: How much would you need to come up with this or that... we could propose few options, to make it versatile and cost controlled. It will work.  
 
Now that you are saying this sad news to me, about not being able to get a similar circuit to the one you had already done before... hummm, I don't have much hope anymore. I am not to impressed and very disappointed by the reply you were given. To me it sounds like work overload and pressure. Well, I offered to work there you know...
 
I am like you on this one, I really don't understand why they are not interested in the low-mid/mid part of the spectrum, especially when it's the part that makes the bass cut through or disappear, roughly speaking. I guess they are people who might play the bass by themselves then, i.e without background music, but still that part of the spectrum is too important for the bass, to be overlooked.  
 
Another thing, I know - they don't, they have no ideas how Powerful the circuit would become if they considered it, I mean that's what is really missing and lacking IMO, they've got a premium circuit, sound and PUs, and I predict that the Alembic sales would hit the rough if they considered it.  
 
What can I say, if Mica was my real Sister and Ron my real Father, I would have a real big argument with them two, and would try to explain things that I would certainly cannot discuss here in front of the members, for respect and privacy, and I will try to make it happen.
 
Unfortunately, we can only argue with each other for now, until someone at Alembic is whiling to give us a genuine reason/explanation on why they are not interested (in making the instrument sound better and more versatile than it already is, that would be...).

[olieoliver]

This is a very interesting thread.
 I sometimes feel that I am the minority when it comes to ?my? unique bass sound. I find that there is a lot of emphasis of MID range frequencies here on the Alembic forum as well as when I speak to other bass players as well as guitar players at the music stores. I find that a lot, if not most bass player boost their MIDS to some degree. I on the other hand have usually cut my MIDS and boost the lows and highs.
 
I realize that your power (playing live through an amp or PA) lies in the MID range frequencies but I don?t like the hollow sound you get from the MIDs.
This is just my personal preference. Neither way is right or wrong, just different.  
 
I have found though that with my Alembic and Warwick basses I usually run the MIDs flat or very, very slightly boosted.  
 
LG I do think that your playing technique defines your sound more than you may realize. I can let someone play my bass, through my rig set the way I play it and they sound all together different than I do. The same goes the other way around, I sound different on their rig (axe, amp, their settings).

[inthelows]

I understand. I live near the town Billy Sheehan comes from and watched is growing pains with equipment and sounds. Eventually equipment with his name on it came to be only after years of experimenting and on the job workouts.  
To say the least everone goes through a period where you idolize, mimmick or copy someone elses equipment or sound on that path to your own. At some point reality kicks in and for what you hear in your head to become real you better your chops and technique and upgrade your equipment.
Having said a mouthful, What you want exists, but not in any usable form that would fit into a conventional body routing. As T8SK mentioned he has dedicated mid controls on his custom, (and that would be the defining word) because unless it's put in there from the start most manufacturers rarely think in terms of anything more than hi and lo. Ah-la bass and treble.
Equate the small pedalboard effects eq's and the size required to the body routing size. I'm sure it's possible some ic chip exists small enough to incorporate it into circuitry that would fit.
But with out a market large enough to create the supply and demand assembly line rolling it would be a custom electronics package. Equals big bucks and mucho time.
I know what you mean! I've used a stereo Ric for ages bassically triamp'd. The lows went thru a SAE pre amp and Biamp poweramp into two voice of the theater cabs. The bridge pup I split with one giong to a acoustic 370 head into a 4 x 12 cab and the other into a marshall superbass 100 into another 4 x 12 for the mids.
Why? Because that was my sound. Before the 18's and all the extended range stuff you experimented, found something you liked and stuck with it.
Now I agree for recording it would be great to have what you need at your finger tips. But I don't think they have made it small enough yet. It's out there. The trade off is how much are you willing to spend to have it fit?
BTW, that rig set up has been retired.
With the spoiler I go into a fishman preamp, DI out to the PA where I'm heard and use a hartke kick back 15 as a monitor. Much lighter and simpler, let the sound man do his thing. As far as recording the out from the preamp and out from the amp can be combined. The amp has a shape circuit which is really a parametric filter. Not on the bass but close enough to my fingers which I got to keep by not having to shell out big bucks. There is always compromise until I hit the lottery. Then imagination can run wild!
NLP

[lg71]

Hi Olie, good to hear you taking part in this thread. Well, I didn't say that the playing style didn't define one's sound, but I do say that many top players have their little secrets, and I know so, BUT, most importantly - those secrets are often created by mix engineers first, this is another know fact, i.e some players have a unique sound in the Studio/Album, but sound VERY different when they play live. But once again, this is well know and obvious too that the sound starts in your hand, hence I said no-one will sound like Jamerson, not even his own Son. BUT, again, if you want to sound like you favorite artist, it always starts/help by using the equipment/ instruments they use. If one wanted to sound like Clarke, the first obvious step would be to play an Alembic... that's what I meant and mean - nothing less or else.
 
But will ad something, say one day we meet, we have a go at the same bass amp/eq settings etc... OK, sure enough, we will sound different, BUT, most likely, after analyzing your style, attack, coordination, mute technique etc... I could probably get close to our sound, I am not saying that to claim that I will sound play exactly like you, but read next; Then, we start to alter the tone with the EQ etc... NOW, things get more complicated and trickier, because at that stage, it is physically impossible, by the law of nature and physics... to clone a sound just by playing technique if you alter the tone with drastic settings, whatever it might be, EQ, Dynamics etc... That's what I am trying to explain, which should be the first step and process to be taken into consideration. I hope I don't confuse anyone one again (I am the best at confusing;)). I short, the obvious and extreme example, if you play your bass and boost 8db at 300Hz, there is no way you can make it sound the same as if you cut 8db at 300Hz (well, unless you fingers are possessed, but then again, you might need some of those special Opium oil finish on the body, and playing in extreme hot weather, to make sure the vapor strikes trough... lol
 
 As for boost or cut, personally, I like to shape things up and to me both is good and has it's place, it sound different of course, but sometimes a cut works well with a song, and a boost better with an other, still, I really favor/enjoy the mid/low-mid shaping.
 
Regarding, having your on sound, I would say that the technology as made it even bigger, meaning that for instance, I could post process your Bass playing part with EQs, and it wouldn't sound like the original performance anymore, so, you could have different mixes/sounds out of one performance. Back in the days (I wasn't born not every player or studio has sophisticated equipment, and the post process was very limited, so in that respect, a Player, would have his/her own signature that would strike more. But nowadays, you can play any type of music, arrangement, accompaniments, harmonies and so on on a computer... and if you are a good engineer, your goal is to make sure that the Bass part sound its best in any contest, meaning that different style and sound is needed for different type of Music...

[bsee]

Well, the majority of what I do is fingerstyle in a rock setting.  I need enough bottom end to rumble, but not so much that I would have to carry massive power and speakers with me to support it.  I need a little bit up above 1K so that the bass doesn't sound dead, and to fill in the tonal range in a three piece band setting.  The meat of my EQ work seems to be in between 150-1K or so.  It's not an all boost range, but a little here and there gives me better note definition.  This is the range I tend to pay the most attention to.  I do drop out some mids or turn off the Q on jazzy tunes where I am looking for a more acoustic bass tone.  I can also back off a little bit if I go to a pick or thumb.  
 
Fortunately, I have three position Q switches and the mid boost on my preamp is foot switchable.  I pretty much use one setting on the mid boost and it is on or off.  I may change it in a different room to get what I want to hear, but that's it.
 
I appreciate what everyone is saying here and support the request for better mid control.  That said, I really don't need any more controls on my bass.  If I couldn't get what I wanted, I'd look to an SF-2.  If I needed greater versatility to make quick/easy changes, I'd look for some sort of programmable EQ that would allow the storage of multiple settings for easy swaps.  
 
There are plenty of onboard preamp systems out there with a semi-parametric mid control.  Usually, when people ask why we are willing to pay for Alembic basses, the answer is their superior electronics.  LG, you must agree to some extent since you are sticking Alembic guts in other wood, right?  Alembic must be doing something right.  If this is one of the limitations we must accept to get the rest of the package, then that's okay with me.

[georgie_boy]

I am totally enjoying this thread guys!!
It's great to hear such technicalities discussed in detail, especially for someone like me who is very interested in that kind of discussion but is unsure in how to actually achieve some of these mystical sounds. The idea of parametric EQ has been in my head for a LONG time.
Keep talkin' !!
George

[olieoliver]

I agree LG about the recording bassist' sound being reduced to what the engineer or producer likes. I've doen a lot of studio work in the past as a hired gun from people that heard me live and hired me because they like my sound. Then once I hear the finished product it sounds nothing like me.  
I too like a paramatric EQ. Only being able to boost or cut the exact same frequincies is pretty limited especially when you factor in room size, shape, the humidity and even materials in the room (metal vs cloth covered chairs, brick vs sheetrock walls, etc.)changing your acoustics.

[inthelows]

In my setting the control over frequencies is required so you don't stomp on what else is played and having it sound muddy or boom'y. I agree with Olie that a wide spectrum has to be available to work with and as I said earier and along with bsee, the stuff is out there. Moog 's had parametric's since the 80's. The gibson planks with compressors and sustainers and active eq's were supported with moog technology.
As far as live vs studio and the engineer goes my own experiencies taught me to believe that  a good sound engineer is worth his weight in gold when he's familiar with what you sound like and faithfully reproduces your sound. I've also been the victim of over production. Primarily because you don't have the final say about the end products overall sound.  
Back to the beginning, I work with electric piano, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, percussion and vocals. The question is what do I need to keep the overall sound clear, distinct,and have all the instrumentation descretely voiced so if you wanted to you would be able to pick out a particular voice.
LG along with the comment about the bass sound and the engineer..the bassist needs to tell the engineer this is what I want people to hear. Also the bassist needs to have that say in the matter because if your opinion can be over-ruled and someone else controls the post production sound like olie said, no matter what you thought you sounded like, things change at the control console.
The impression I get at times is some people want to have the creative license to sound different live, others don't. Now several factors have been mentioned that effect sound. Live you are relatively limited to the area you're in to hear what you sound like and need the soundman to extend your sound outward. In the studio you have more control initially but he who rules the post production controls has the final word!
With respect to artists sounds, I've had the pleasure to see many and its true they have thier own sound. I've also seen many tribute bands and with your eyes closed it would be hard to tell them apart. A testiment to time and good effort put into creating that sound.
At the beginning the question was does the mids have controls? You mentioned you have a harness. Care to elaborate? Is it a CVQ?
NLP
 
(Message edited by inthelows on December 03, 2006)