Jeez, nobody has replied to this. Sorry dude. I was gona respond myself but bass tone is a rabbit hole at the best of times.
Check out my threads where I was asking for help.
For now, you'd do well to google signal splitting, @2112 has some bass videos on this.
Removing the low end will kill your tone. But if you separate the frequencies, you can get some serious cut and definition.
Jeez, nobody has replied to this. Sorry dude. I was gona respond myself but bass tone is a rabbit hole at the best of times.
Check out my threads where I was asking for help.
For now, you'd do well to google signal splitting, @2112 has some bass videos on this.
Removing the low end will kill your tone. But if you separate the frequencies, you can get some serious cut and definition.
What do you use as your split point for what goes high vs low?In total agreement that frequency splitting is really where it's at for heavy bass tones with various amounts of grit and overdrive.
I recently dove into the FM9 fw6.00 to explore the dynacabs and gapless switching, but also to re-write some core bass patches that are now split into hi/low discrete paths.
I'm generally all about keeping things simple, so in the past I tried to just make bass tones work using the basic building blocks COMP-AMP-CAB. This is really fine for standard clean tones, but I had struggled quite a bit once distortion (either via DRIVE block or preamp OD in the AMP block) was added to the sound in varying amounts. The extreme low end of the bass signal tends to cause drives to distort prematurely and have a very narrow usable range. Even with various eq/filtering/mix blend adjustments, it didn't quite nail what I was looking for.
Rather than use the Crossover block, I'm using a slight variation to split the signal into two paths, each with their own filter block, sending the hi-pass to a Drive-Amp-Cab and the lo-pass to a Compressor and re-combining it with the hi-pass path after its Cab block. Keeping all of that low end out of the drive & amp path makes it so much easier to have more control of overdriven sounds while the low end stays consistent. This also allows the various Drive type sonic characteristics to stand out, one from another.
Clean sounds also benefit from this since you can compress each signal chain independently, making appropriate dynamics processing a little easier. Though signal path splitting is a bit more complicated and eats up a little more cpu, it yields far better results for aggressive tones vs. trying to massage it from a single path signal chain. IMHO, any modeler that doesn't include the ability to do split-signal path processing is missing a key component for certain types of bass tones.
About 100hz, but this can depend on context. I'm using standard tuned and E-flat tuned 4-string basses with occasional drop-D via Hipshot detuners. I experimented going as low as +/-80hz and up to +/-120hz, but settled on 100hz.What do you use as your split point for what goes high vs low?
I worded that poorly, I just moreso meant what the crossover point was. I’ve been experimenting with bi amp tones and had a hard time picking what frequency to split the signal at.About 100hz, but this can depend on context. I'm using standard tuned and E-flat tuned 4-string basses with occasional drop-D via Hipshot detuners. I experimented going as low as +/-80hz and up to +/-120hz, but settled on 100hz.
Not sure what you mean about "what goes high vs low?".
My High path goes into a Drive block ( with varying amounts of dirt via A/B/C/D channels ), a static Comp block setting (compressing very little) then onto Amp (SV Bass2) & Cab (DynaCab 1x15 Portabass) blocks.
The Low path goes into a static Comp block setting, a clean drive for a little character, and re-combines with the High path after the Cab block. The only thing I need to look into further is whether the Low path also should to run into a cab block or not (currently not, and sounds good to me).
A link to an audio clip of the type of sound you're looking for would be helpful.I want that "cannon fire" sound.