Post Number: 426
|Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 11:44 am: |
I've got a question... First of all, let me point out that I'm very ignorant regarding signal paths, preamps, power amps... I just play the bass!
So here is the thing. I want to experiment with new sounds. I want to get my mono bass, and have the highs and lows driven through different channels, in order to fine tune (effects, EQ) each end of the spectrum...
One thing I came up with (and this might be illogical, so help me!) is plugging my bass on a FX-1, then getting the separate channels from the crossovers and run each of them through a different channel on an F2-B.
And regarding the effects for each channel, would you say running the bass into FX-1 -> Effect -> F2-B is the way to go?
What do you say? Is there a better option?
Any thoughts are highly appreciated!
Post Number: 967
|Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 11:57 am: |
If you are starting with a mono bass signal _ Yes that is good because you will be able to get a "DRY" signal via the direct out on the F-1X for an Engineer /sound person for FOH or recording use. Your signal path CAN work.
Post Number: 9319
|Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 12:26 pm: |
Why do you want to go from the F-1X into an F-2B? I'm not saying there are not good reasons for wanting to do this, I'm just curious.
Post Number: 9320
|Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 12:46 pm: |
Never mind; I just re-read the post. You're wanting to EQ the high signal separate from the low signal.
Where an effect is in the path will make a difference in the resulting sound. I've noticed that in some complex rigs certain effects like compressors and overdrive pedals come before the preamp, while effects like reverb and delay come after the preamp. Experiment and see what sounds good to you.
Post Number: 968
|Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 2:34 pm: |
I have gone from an ALEMBIC F-1X to 2 Furman P-Q3 Parametrics in my current rig .
What I would like to do is go from the ALEMBIC F-1X to 2 ALEMBIC SF-2 units !
Post Number: 338
|Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 6:40 pm: |
An alternative option, as per your request, FWIW, etc, etc.
Way back in the day I had a 'bastardized' bi-amp setup, no crossover. Mono signal into an old Sunn dual channel preamp (with dual/individual effects loops), dual 10 band EQ and stereo power amp into two cabinets. One a full range Acoustic PA cab with a passive crossover with a 15 and a horn and, an 'old school' Mitchell folded 18 cabinet. Great sound. Lot's of tweakability.
Point here being, if you've got 'extra' amp/components/speaker cabs laying around (or borrowable from yer buds) play around and see how it all works and decide how you want to go from there. It seems it'd be a lot easier to come up with an extra amp/cabinet than Alembic components, as they're not generally just laying around.
Hope this helps.
Post Number: 586
|Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 6:19 pm: |
One thing you can do is try running the high output of the crossover through an effects unit and leaving the low end clean. So it would be:
low output->amp channel 2, and
high out->effects unit->amp channel 2.
This lets you add effects like phaser (awesome), chorus, overdrive or delay to your sound without muddying up the bottom too much. It's a place to start, and I'd definitely recomend fiddling with that for a while before going to anything more complex. There is a lot of variation to be had with the crossover frequency knob, the low/high balance knob, and the volume of each amp channel.
Next step might be adding a 2-channel graphic eq, one for each channel, but I don't think you'll get much benefit from that; that is, I don't think you'll be able to do much more than you would be able to do with the tone controls on the f1x, although it might be a little easier to find what you're looking for with a graph as opposed to the 3-knob layout.
A Superfilter run in stereo would seem be more logical a choice than an f2b. The eq section is the exact same on both the f1x and f2b, so you're really just getting more of the same thing. The Superfilter lets you select between lowpass/bandpass/highpass options, the amount of boost at the selected frequency, as well as the ability to adjust the blend between the dry and equalized settings.
So if you have some money to spend, you could set up something like this, starting with your F1X:
Low out-> Superfilter ch.1-> amp ch.1, and
High out-> effects-> Superfilter ch.2-> amp ch.2.
You would definitely have plenty to play with there.
What sort of amp/cabs are you using now? Knowing that would really help us give better, more specialized input.
Hope this helps,
Post Number: 827
|Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 7:51 pm: |
I pretty much run my rig much as Charles outlines here. I have an F1-X and an SF-2, and it's set up like Charles notes. It's not stereo, but it allows you (via bi-amping) to separate lows/highs. I've been doing this for many years, and it works.
This being said ...
I've run my Series II stereo, as well as Rickenbackers (via a DS-5 R and a Y-Cable respectively). There is nothing like running something in stereo - gives you the ultimate control over your pickups and their individual signals. But for this you'd need an instrument capable of "splitting" the signals via a stereo jack on in the instrument (e.g., Rickebacker or a Series instrument). In the absence of this, bi-amping as Charles and I suggest works almost as well, and will get you very close to, if not where you want to be tonally.
Best of luck,
Post Number: 773
|Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 8:53 pm: |
Another option - at least I don't think anyone has suggested it yet - would be to simply split your signal out of the bass with something like an A/B/both box, then EQ/effect each separate output the way you want and run them to separate amps. I've done this a lot while recording; in fact, I tended to prefer it to running the separate pickups from my stereo basses (Rickenbacker & Alembic).
Post Number: 427
|Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 8:54 pm: |
Thanks for the input guys (and Kimberly!).
Actually, after posting this I started thinking and I basically came up with what Charles said. I do believe it is the way to go... The F2-B would be redundant... The SF-2 would be much more useful.
I do want to use effects only on the higher frequencies, hence the idea using a crossover. I believe I forgot to mention that, but you figured it out.
So Charles, I guess I will follow your advice. I'll get the FX-1 first, and put the higher frequencies through the effect rack (TC Electronic G-Force) I have. Than after a financial recovery, I'll get the SF-2 to play with.
As for my rig, I'm getting rid of my Ampeg stuff in favor of Phil Jones, as I'm in love with their combos and I want to try the big stuff. I'm planning to get their cabinets soon. I will need to purchase a power amp, most likely a QSC PLX2 of some sort.... Still thinking, so suggestions are always appreciated!
Alan, unfortunately, I sold my Series bass, and now, I'm only playing mono basses. So I wont be able to experiment with that....
Post Number: 428
|Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 8:59 pm: |
Harry, that idea was on my first thoughts, but I really want to split the frequencies to leave the low end intact for a clear sound...
But it is indeed a simpler idea that works!
Post Number: 774
|Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 9:07 pm: |
But isn't that the beauty of it - both signals will be full frequency to be manipulated as you choose! You can rule the frequencies!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
(Sorry, been reading too much fantasy!)
Post Number: 429
|Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 9:17 pm: |
That is true, it would be like having two bass players doing exactly the same, but sounding different but only one bass out there... Mind twisting!
Now that would be a nice title to add:
Greg, the Lord of the Frequencies
Perhaps I should consider...
Or perhaps I should sleep now... These late night jams are doing no good to my poor brain...