Smith Soaps vs. J's ... opinions?

[Tom Albano]

Hello, Im currently looking for a Smith Bass, I am looking hard at the BSR J models, I have owned a BSR-MW with soapbars and it was not working out for me, I loved the bass, the feel...etc. I guess I need that J type of tone or some thing like. Maybe its a single coil thing, Being able to dial back to the bridge for that tight articulate/warmth.

I was hoping to find out the difference in sound between the soapbars and the J type pickups. Are there any sound samples you could point me to?

And yes I do own a Jazz bass but want the Smith refinements, I am looking forward to coming back.... perhaps a Burner?

thanks in advance
- Tom

[Greg Lorisco]

I think the Jazz set up is a light clear sound, but lacks the fullness of soaps.

But, with the KS electronics I think you can dial in any sound you like.


http://www.kensmithbasses.com/models/bsrj/bsr5jmodel2.html

[Tom Albano]

I think the Jazz set up is a light clear sound, but lacks the fullness of soaps.

But, with the KS electronics I think you can dial in any sound you like.


http://www.kensmithbasses.com/models/bsrj/bsr5jmodel2.html

Thanks Greg yes thats the model... I have my eye on one and plan on going to try it out.... I assume you meant "tight" not "light" ?

I very much want a tight bridge type tone this may be a good fit.
- T

[Greg Lorisco]

Thanks Greg yes thats the model... I have my eye on one and plan on going to try it out.... I assume you meant "tight" not "light" ?

I very much want a tight bridge type tone this may be a good fit.
- T


I actualy meant "light". To my ear the Jazz bass sound lacks some of the fullness and roundness of soaps. That may be different on a KS?

[Tom Albano]

I actualy meant "light". To my ear the Jazz bass sound lacks some of the fullness and roundness of soaps. That may be different on a KS?

Thanks .... I had an MW with soaps briefly. I still feel like I should have gave the bass a "better" chance, the tone did not work out very well for me back then, Im giving it another go with the J's though... maybe the lightness you are talking about is what I was missing with the soaps....

anyway....
- T

[Greg Lorisco]

Thanks .... I had an MW with soaps briefly. I still feel like I should have gave the bass a "better" chance, the tone did not work out very well for me back then, Im giving it another go with the J's though... maybe the lightness you are talking about is what I was missing with the soaps....

anyway....
- T

What was bad about the tone or what tone were you looking for?

So many variables with tone; wood, neck, pickups, strings, etc. So it could have been something other than the pickups.

[Tom Albano]

What was bad about the tone or what tone were you looking for?

So many variables with tone; wood, neck, pickups, strings, etc. So it could have been something other than the pickups.

Not that the tone was bad I just needed more cut.

[Ken Smith]

Not that the tone was bad I just needed more cut.

The best way to eq the bass for cut is to cut the mids when you boost the treble and bass. This makes the sound tighter and notched so it cuts thru.

Try that!

[Tom Albano]

The best way to eq the bass for cut is to cut the mids when you boost the treble and bass. This makes the sound tighter and notched so it cuts thru.

Try that!

Thanks Ken, I will... looking hard right now for my new/used Smith.
- T

[Tim Bishop]

The best way to eq the bass for cut is to cut the mids when you boost the treble and bass. This makes the sound tighter and notched so it cuts thru.

Try that!Am I reading or interpreting this correctly? If so and If you are referring to "cut" as the bass' ability to cut through the mix, I would disagree with the above statement (i.e. "cut the mids when you boost the treble and bass") being the solution, sorry. The Mids is exactly what you want in order for the bass to "cut" through the mix. It's not always pleasent to the ears, but necessary in difficult venues.

[Tom Albano]

Am I reading or interpreting this correctly? If you are referring to "cut" as the bass' ability to cut through the mix, I would disagree with the above statement (i.e. "cut the mids when you boost the treble and bass") being the solution, sorry. The Mids is exactly what you want in order for the bass to "cut" through the mix. It's not always pleasent to the ears, but necessary in difficult venues.

Yes cut through the mix or rather to just "sit in" it better....
Like I said Ive only had the one Smith bass for a brief time, I did not really give it a chance and Im eager to get another one. But I did refer in my earlier post to looking for a "tighter" bridge type tone as well.

[Tim Bishop]

Yes cut through the mix or rather to just "sit in" it better....
Like I said Ive only had the one Smith bass for a brief time, I did not really give it a chance and Im eager to get another one. But I did refer in my earlier post to looking for a "tighter" bridge type tone as well.Ok, then my statement stands.

[Ken Smith]

Am I reading or interpreting this correctly? If so and If you are referring to "cut" as the bass' ability to cut through the mix, I would disagree with the above statement (i.e. "cut the mids when you boost the treble and bass") being the solution, sorry. The Mids is exactly what you want in order for the bass to "cut" through the mix. It's not always pleasent to the ears, but necessary in difficult venues.

The Mids can wash out the penetration of the sound of the bass because when you boost treble the lower end of the boost is the high mids. When you boost the bass the upper end of the bass is the low mids. With the mids cut slightly, the bass and treble are tighter. Tighter sound cuts thru more than a 'mushy' everything boosted sound. This is my opinion. Take it of leave it. For me, the bass should sound like a bass. The mids help shape the bass and treble. Boosting the mids bleeds or blends the tones together but cutting them notches the sound. Try boosting the bass and treble all the way and then cut the mids all the way and see what I am talking about. This may not be the exact EQ you are looking for but you will see better what I am getting at.

[Tom Albano]

The Mids can wash out the penetration of the sound of the bass because when you boost treble the lower end of the boost is the high mids. When you boost the bass the upper end of the bass is the low mids. With the mids cut slightly, the bass and treble are tighter. Tighter sound cuts thru more than a 'mushy' everything boosted sound. This is my opinion. Take it of leave it. For me, the bass should sound like a bass. The mids help shape the bass and treble. Boosting the mids bleeds or blends the tones together but cutting them notches the sound. Try boosting the bass and treble all the way and then cut the mids all the way and see what I am talking about. This may not be the exact EQ you are looking for but you will see better what I am getting at.

Cool, Thanks Ken, Thanks Tim I really appreciate you guys taking time out to explain, The explanation above makes good sense to me....On that note.......simply, how would you guys describe the difference between the Soaps and the J's?
- T

[Tim Bishop]

The Mids can wash out the penetration of the sound of the bass because when you boost treble the lower end of the boost is the high mids. When you boost the bass the upper end of the bass is the low mids. With the mids cut slightly, the bass and treble are tighter. Tighter sound cuts thru more than a 'mushy' everything boosted sound. This is my opinion. Take it of leave it. For me, the bass should sound like a bass. The mids help shape the bass and treble. Boosting the mids bleeds or blends the tones together but cutting them notches the sound. Try boosting the bass and treble all the way and then cut the mids all the way and see what I am talking about. This may not be the exact EQ you are looking for but you will see better what I am getting at.
IMO, the 3-band eq on the Smith Bass gives the player complete tone control (post adjusted amp eq: however that may be set to the players taste). Using your explanations above and for the sake of argument, lets say your 3-band eq (tone controls) are layed out as follows:

Bass: 30Hz - 300Hz
Mid: 200Hz - 2KHz
Treble: 1.2KHz - 12KHz

Again, the above frequencies, for each tone control, are theoretical for this discussion, but not unrealistic. If I knew the actual Smith Bass, Treble, and Mid Controls frequency ranges, I would've used those. Nonetheless, the above example will help represent my case well.

In your explanation above, if you relied solely on "the upper end of the bass" (fully boosted) that include the "low mids" (or say 200Hz) and relied on the "lower end of the treble" (fully boosted) that include the "high mids" (or say 2KHz), you've just eliminated everything else that is Mid (i.e. everything between 300Hz - 2KHz). It is what is between 300Hz - 2KHz (that the bass and treble controls cannot cover) that I am speaking of. Without it, good luck trying to "cut" through the mix, particularly in a live setting. In the studio one can overproduce anything.

I totally agree with your statement "the mids help shape the bass and treble". It's everything (bass, treble, and mid controls) from 30Hz to 12KHz that make the difference in the end. How the individual shapes that in the mix, makes all the difference for the bass cutting through the mix.

[Tim Bishop]

....how would you guys describe the difference between the Soaps and the J's?
- TI can't comment on the Smith J's as I've not used them. I'm too happy with the Smith Soapbars to consider anything less. :)

[Tom Albano]

I can't comment on the Smith J's as I've not used them. I'm too happy with the Smith Soapbars to consider anything less. :)

Gotcha... I was just listening to some clips of a GN holy cow! Wish I had the funds for a NT with soaps! the bass I was hearing had a mahogany core and ebony board, sweeeet.

anyway.......

- T

[Greg Lorisco]

IMO, the 3-band eq on the Smith Bass gives the player complete tone control (post adjusted amp eq: however that may be set to the players taste). Using your explanations above and for the sake of argument, lets say your 3-band eq (tone controls) are layed out as follows:

Bass: 30Hz - 300Hz
Mid: 200Hz - 2KHz
Treble: 1.2KHz - 12KHz

Again, the above frequencies, for each tone control, are theoretical for this discussion, but not unrealistic. If I knew the actual Smith Bass, Treble, and Mid Controls frequency ranges, I would've used those. Nonetheless, the above example will help represent my case well.

In your explanation above, if you relied solely on "the upper end of the bass" (fully boosted) that include the "low mids" (or say 200Hz) and relied on the "lower end of the treble" (fully boosted) that include the "high mids" (or say 2KHz), you've just eliminated everything else that is Mid (i.e. everything between 300Hz - 2KHz). It is what is between 300Hz - 2KHz (that the bass and treble controls cannot cover) that I am speaking of. Without it, good luck trying to "cut" through the mix, particularly in a live setting. In the studio one can overproduce anything.

I totally agree with your statement "the mids help shape the bass and treble". It's everything (bass, treble, and mid controls) from 30Hz to 12KHz that make the difference in the end. How the individual shapes that in the mix, makes all the difference for the bass cutting through the mix.

I have used both approaches (boost mids and notched) and I think it depends on the venue and the style of music. Notching works well for rock where you have guitars leading the chord progression. But for R&B/gospel/jazz I think the mid boost (200-400Hz) cuts through the best (assuming the keyboard player knows how to play with a bass player –meaning he doesn’t play bass with the left hand).

So I don’t think it’s a case that one approach works better all the time; it just depends on the situation.