[Greg Lorisco]

Originally Posted by Tim Bishop

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.