LR Baggs Dual Source system

Bob-Dubery · 2010-01-16T13:56:05+00:00

I just got my Larrivee back from McGibbon's. It's been in there for a pickup to be fitted. I wanted something a bit better, a bit more believable than the us...

LR Baggs Dual Source system

Conrad

I have been using a dual source for flamenco related music for almost 2 years now. It transformed my live sound into something alot more faithful to the acoustic. I haven't regretted it for a day.

Bob-Dubery

Conrad wrote: I have been using a dual source for flamenco related music for almost 2 years now. It transformed my live sound into something alot more faithful to the acoustic. I haven't regretted it for a day.

That's what I've been looking for - a more faithful, more believable sound. I am starting to get quite bothered by the UST sound, though I do think that the player and the installer make a difference.

The Dual Source, for me, is definitely a step in the right direction.

Conrad

I am in a quandary at the moment because I bought this flamenco guitar and I want no one drilling into it and I just want to use an external condenser mic but then that is a little less convenient at gigs.

Bob-Dubery

Conrad wrote: I am in a quandary at the moment because I bought this flamenco guitar and I want no one drilling into it and I just want to use an external condenser mic but then that is a little less convenient at gigs.

You'll at the very least have to have a jack put in place of the end pin - if flamenco guitars have an end pin. So there's some drilling.

If you got an iBeam fitted there would be very little drilling as that fits under the bridge plate, not under the saddle.

Take it to somebody who runs a good workshop. I don't know who that would be in your neck of the woods - but somebody on the forum will.

Conrad

I know who to use here but don't you think I'd be OK just using a decent external mic?

C

Bob-Dubery

Conrad wrote: I know who to use here but don't you think I'd be OK just using a decent external mic?

Sorry. Misunderstood your post.

IMO you need a pickup in case you end up playing a big venue with a big PA, but for many situations the mic, whilst less convenient, does sound better.

Keira-WitherKay

Conrad wrote: I know who to use here but don't you think I'd be OK just using a decent external mic?

C

hi Conrad . you know of my conversion from under saddle to condenser mic last year when i bought my vintage classical ... tone was perfect ....... but then had to install LR baggs ibeam....(cos they closest to mic'ing) .. and i only did that cos i needed to play quite big shows ..... and the mic caused problems on the 1st festival....

so in true pro fashion ...48 hrs after my bad mic'ing experience i had the ibeam installed cos for my smaller intimate 50-60 seater venues a mic was perfect ........ and in the studio it's the only option . but soon as i did the larger festivals using the condenser mic towards end of last year it causes a problem cos in those festivals one has no control ussually to the speaker placement and monitor placement ....... they just want you on and playing in 15 min do your set and leave.....

so yeah a mic is the best for true acoustic tone .....no debate.......

and if you only do shows where you play soft or have the hours to find the right speaker placement to avoid feedback you good.......

but for the likes of most of us working musicians the Ibeams and dual source type pick ups are the only option to avoid a bad sound at a show cos the engineer can't push your volume if you have feedback .... and to me the show is the most important ... more so than the tone ....... so at moment i have installed now 2x LR baggs ibeams......in 2 of my guitars ...... they not perfect but the lesser of the evils for nylon string guitar ......... and don't sound as fake and unnatural as the under saddle pick ups do ( i have a guitar fitted with that too) seems steel strings sound good with under saddle but nylons just don't cut it ..... so either a dual system or an ibeam or something that picks up the top not the saddle....since all the tone of a nylon is in the top

Bob-Dubery

X-rated Bob wrote: I just RTFM. They say that in mono mode the mic tends to interact more with the element and can give more boominess and bass - this may be why tweaking the mic gain was useful in this case. My system is running in mono.

Well last night I sat down and RT ALL TFM.

This system is very tweakable. You get a phase switch for the mic which makes quite a difference. By defaul the mic and pickup are in phase and the mic comes on quite strongly with the mix control (IMO you can actually end up with too much mic). Throw the phase switch and the effect is much more subtle. I was prepared for the cancellation in the bottom end, but less prepared for the difference in the mic response though once I thought about it this seemed like something I should have expected.

The mic still adds some "air" to things, but the effect is more subtle and you get to use a lot more of the travel on the mix pot.

Further tweaking is available via the notch filter they provide for the mic. This sweeps in a range of 100 Hz to 2kHz.

So there are lots of options here. They suggest taking a suitably long, not too sharp tool to gigs with you in case you need to tweak on the spot. But they also talk you through some options that should work well in live situations. There's a sort of default setup that should work well in most situations, but also some more sophisticated options that may or may not fit your circumstances.

EG you could use the stereo mode to keep the mic (more prone to feedback than the UST) out of the monitors but still going into the mix that the audience hears. This probably won't work at events where you share a bill and they have to switch acts quickly, but if there's the time and the equipment then this could work well. You could also use stereo mode to run FX on one channel and always have a "clean" acoustic sound that the sound man can balance against the FX. I guess you'd want to use the mic for the clean channel.

Baggs have also designed the system so that it can be used with other mics and pickups - including other brands. I don't know if you can order just the electronics, but the manual does tell you how you can use the control module with other brands of mic and with other pickups, including in-soundhole magnetic pickups. The module also has a switch that allows you to put the pickup channel into high gain mode in cases where the pickup isn't providing a big signal. So you could the guts of this system to control your own choice of pickup and mic (though they do caution against using their own I-beam with it).

Not that I plan to go down any of those routes soon. I just spent some time exploring the phase switch and the notch filter.

Bob-Dubery

OK. I am now officially "a Believer" (tm). I'm now getting one of these fitted to the Morgan. The internal microphone adds a little bit of "air" or, if you like, an open quality to the Active Element under the bridge. As I reported previously you don't want a lot of the microphone, and in fact you can have too much and that renders the sound boxy. The UST has the oomph, the microphone adds some ambience.

Actually this system has reinforced my belief that the Baggs Active Element is actually a pretty good system and possibly the most realistic of the UST pickups.

I don't know about other brands of dual pickup systems. The Baggs systems certainly are very configurable, and so it follows that you should spend some time fine tuning the system to your liking.

Anyhoo... the Morgan is now at McGibbon's for the fitting of a Baggs Dual Source.

I do think that Baggs need to think about the name. The Dual Source is a dual source system. But the I-Mix is also a dual source system. There are no capital letters in spoken speech, and trying to explain how you have the Dual Source system but that dual source system is not the I-Mix though the I-Mix is also dual source gets confusing after a couple of beers.

racman

X-rated Bob wrote:
Anyhoo... the Morgan is now at McGibbon's for the fitting of a Baggs Dual Source.

Thx for letting us know Bob - going to go there on Monday and recce their security system ...... ? ?

Bob-Dubery

racman wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote:
Anyhoo... the Morgan is now at McGibbon's for the fitting of a Baggs Dual Source.

Thx for letting us know Bob - going to go there on Monday and recce their security system ...... ? ?

Everybody wants that guitar!

I have a queue of 4 people already who have said "if you're selling that then give me a call first". But you can't please all the people all the time, and I've taken a solemn oath with a good friend ("A") who is actually the guitar's previous owner that he gets first dibs. If "A" doesn't want it then it gets offered to "B", if "B" doesn't want it gets offered to "C" and so on.

I ain't selling.

Meantime one of Andy's staff is already playing "Morgan? What Morgan?" games with me.

I have a receipt ?

racman

Bob, can you send me the names and addresses for persons A,B,C & D and add me as E ? ?

Bob-Dubery

racman wrote: Bob, can you send me the names and addresses for persons A,B,C & D and add me as E ? ?

Several solemn and blood curdling oaths are involved, and if I divulge that information to you then I have to kill you. In which case your place in the queue becomes redundant.

Bob-Dubery

X-rated Bob wrote: OK. I am now officially "a Believer" (tm). I'm now getting one of these fitted to the Morgan. The internal microphone adds a little bit of "air" or, if you like, an open quality to the Active Element under the bridge. As I reported previously you don't want a lot of the microphone, and in fact you can have too much and that renders the sound boxy. The UTS has the oomph, the microphone adds some ambience.

Actually this system has reinforced my belief that the Baggs Active Element is actually a pretty good system and possibly the most realistic of the UTS pickups.

I don't know about other brands of dual pickup systems. The Baggs systems certainly are very configurable, and so it follows that you should spend some time fine tuning the system to your liking.

Anyhoo... the Morgan is now at McGibbon's for the fitting of a Baggs Dual Source.

OK... the Morgan is back (had some cosmetic work done as well), and I'm very happy in this case as well.

I was at Andy's yesterday (and had the pleasure of meeting Joel of this forum whilst I was there) and we did a test and some tweaking.

Some observations....

When I plugged in I made sure the microphone was turned right down and so was running just the Element UST. The Morgan had previously had a Baggs Active Element installed. My first thought was "wow! The element sounds better". Two reasons I can think of for this
1) Installation makes a difference. (Mark re-routed the groove for the UST and cut a little of the saddle away under the 2nd string - which Andy believes aids balance with UST systems)
2) Different pre-amp - though how different I do not know (the Dual Source does not provide any adjustable EQ for the UST).

I also found that with the Morgan I can run slightly more microphone without the sound getting boxy - in fact it seemed to need a little more microphone (but by no means all). My guess is that this is because of the smaller, shallower OM body. Andy thinks it's to do with the heavier top on the Morgan.

In both cases I am running the system in mono with the microphone and UST in phase.

Gearhead

Andy's theory is that the decrease in emphasis of this string is beneficial to the plugged and unplugged sound. Compare to the pole piece height on a Strat with fixed poles - the heights are also not linear.

I do think the cutout makes more of a difference with a UTS fitted since that allows motion of the saddle relative to the bridge.

Bob-Dubery

zohn wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote: 1) Installation makes a difference. (Mark re-routed the groove for the UTS and cut a little of the saddle away under the 2nd string - which Andy believes aids balance with UTS systems)
Re-routing of the saddle groove (flattening of the saddle's footprint) is a tried and tested means of ensuring uniform contact with the saddle to get the balance right. I don't understand why one would want to remove saddle material after wards under a certain string though, especially with the Baggs UST which is in essence a piece of "screened wire" really.

No. There's a pressure sensitive element in there as well. The Active Element system that was in the Morgan was salvaged and you can clearly see that there's a length of something else under the braid - Baggs even mark the point at which this starts.

Surely that would affect the unplugged response of that string... ???
You seem happy with the result though which I suppose is what matters.

I don't hear a difference - certainly the 2nd string is not quieter relative to the others. I play mostly fingerstyle and the Morgan has very good separation between the strings, so if the tone had changed relative to the others that would be noticeable. The saddle is not cut through. There is still a path for the vibrations from the 2nd string to get to the bridge and to the UTS.

Bob-Dubery

Gearhead wrote: Andy's theory is that the decrease in emphasis of this string is beneficial to the plugged and unplugged sound.

Interesting. Sometimes, especially with the Morgan, I thought the b-string was ringing a little more than the others. I thought it was something to do with the way I'd cut my nails, the way that they grew or - since I pick 2nd string with middle finger, 3rd string with index - that my index finger is bent out of shape as a result of an injury I incurred years ago keeping goal in a street soccer match.

Gearhead

We tend to adapt our string plucking / strumming to the output we hear. Andy showed in the 'electrics' session that if you get the string to string balance right, the guitar will sound better but also feel easier to play. You mind does a lot more than you think (no pun intended) ? (okay, pun was intended) ?

Bob-Dubery

Gearhead wrote: We tend to adapt our string plucking / strumming to the output we hear. Andy showed in the 'electrics' session that if you get the string to string balance right, the guitar will sound better but also feel easier to play. You mind does a lot more than you think (no pun intended) ? (okay, pun was intended) ?

Yes.

Andy demonstrated something that surprised me yesterday. He is launching his own range of cables. He said "try one, you'll hear the difference". I said I doubted it, I thought it would be a difference that only dogs could hear, and besides we'd used a George L cable whilst setting up the microphone in the Morgan. He then told me it would FEEL different too.

So he got one of these cables out and we played a bit using that. The sound was better - clearly so, especially on the top end. Which surprised me. The guitar did seem to feel a little different. On reflection I think that it was that I didn't have to dig in quite so hard. Another application of on-the-fly adaption.