When I play orchestra through my speakers, the best one coming from a TL. But when I play music of sea waves containing low frequencies, I know exactly why I don't like TLs. In an orchestra through my TL, the lows just appears but in the sea waves recording it has no "definition". No soundstage, no feeling as if you can see the waves (well, I have been there in a small boat in the sea during high tide so I know the feeling 
)
Quality of bass cannot be separated from other higher frequency components (for example, brushes in drum hit contains high frequency also). They must appear at the same time (no phase lag) to sound good.
Headphone can be a reference of a good bass. Just a reference because something is still missing with headphones imo. They don't have the low level reverberation that should be there at the end of the bass note.
)Quality of bass cannot be separated from other higher frequency components (for example, brushes in drum hit contains high frequency also). They must appear at the same time (no phase lag) to sound good.
Headphone can be a reference of a good bass. Just a reference because something is still missing with headphones imo. They don't have the low level reverberation that should be there at the end of the bass note.
There are two factors that determine the quality of bass reproduction. One is the room-speaker system, the other is the recording. A good speaker-room system should be capable of reproducing bass without any "boominess". Nevertheless, "boominess" is a characteristic property of the sound field in small rooms, so some recordings will and should sound "boomy". On a bad system all recordings will sound "boomy".
I couldn't agree more. This is valid for the entire range of a loudspeaker. From my point of view, a loudspeaker should be compared with the real instrument that it attempts to reproduce, not with another loudspeaker.
Good bass reproduction is achieved when it is seamlessly integrated, undetectable as a separate source with low audible distortions. Bass that does not detract from the music or draw attention to the speaker as a mechanical device. impact that should lend the instruments convincing weight and power, not booming one note resonance.
Audiophiles do not achieve the best bass for a very small room by ignoring reproduction of LF in favour of fast dry upper bass only, it is the road to long term dissatisfaction. Small speakers with no deep bass capability and a skilfully designed bass hump are good for two things, low budget and WAF.
Quality headphones, appropriately positioned and well designed active sealed box subwoofers and dipole bass can be very convincing as can some very large ported systems.
Audiophiles do not achieve the best bass for a very small room by ignoring reproduction of LF in favour of fast dry upper bass only, it is the road to long term dissatisfaction. Small speakers with no deep bass capability and a skilfully designed bass hump are good for two things, low budget and WAF.
Quality headphones, appropriately positioned and well designed active sealed box subwoofers and dipole bass can be very convincing as can some very large ported systems.
Can you give a few more details or point me to the right webpage?
Just so happens I have some Beta15s, miniDSP and 40 litres around here somewhere ...
Thanks,
Jeff
That notion implies that the goal of the mixing/mastering engineer is realism. I doubt it is. Just like not every painting tries to by photorealistic.
Furthermore, most recordings use instruments that are virtual. There is no counterpart in the real world other than what the mixing/mastering engineer heard.
6x18" subs, 6x15" kick-bins, 12x 10" mids, and 5x 3" compression drivers, per side. All active, ~30kW amplification.
It'll flap your jeans at 10m, and when the bass sweeps downward, you can feel different parts of your body resonate.
Not mine, but I use the system pretty much every weekend.
Too much power is almost enough!!
It'll flap your jeans at 10m, and when the bass sweeps downward, you can feel different parts of your body resonate.
Not mine, but I use the system pretty much every weekend.
Too much power is almost enough!!
Agreed. I judge not just the bass, but the overall sound of speakers by comparison with good headphones.
Last edited:
Some is some isn't. Most Classical acoustic mixing/mastering uses deliberately reduced dynamic range to make it suitable for normal home listening conditions.
Pop is usually heavily compressed with far less dynamic range and is mostly synthetic.
it is probably more correct to say that the goal of acoustic mixing/mastering is to give the impression of a naturalistic sound within the limitations of the flawed stereo medium. Some artistic license accepted, sometimes to heighten the impression of realism, rather than an outright factual reproduction of what was captured at the microphones.
This is similar to how a skilful painter will accentuate or exaggerate the contours of hills to give the impression of the real height as seen by the eye. Paintings without this perspective exaggeration lack three dimensionality and look flat. Engineers have to play similar games with sound.
I think it is wrong to assume that every recording is manipulated in some way so that it is unuseful for evaluation of instruments. A good majority of the time the bass guitar is direct to the mixing board, and with the exception of leveling not much is done to it. That is the foundation of the mix itself.
Jazz and classical music are usually not manipulated much. The most manipulation I have seen on these two genre's is a very very mild compression of the entire mix so it is playable in our living rooms. Pop and R&B are a different story.
An electric bass has no real acoustic sound to compare it to.
It's not true that jazz recordings mostly sound like real instruments. Not at all. Close mic'ing and compression in some form exists, both in tracking, mixing and mastering, and is has been like that been since music recording began.
The same goes for classical, although slightly less obvious.
There are of course "minimalist" recordings using very few mics and without added compression, but those are very very few.
It's not true that jazz recordings mostly sound like real instruments. Not at all. Close mic'ing and compression in some form exists, both in tracking, mixing and mastering, and is has been like that been since music recording began.
The same goes for classical, although slightly less obvious.
There are of course "minimalist" recordings using very few mics and without added compression, but those are very very few.
Markus, when I record(which is twice every Sunday), I do go for realism. That also goes for when I do scoring mixes as well. As a member of Shawn Murphy's recording team, it is why Shawn has won so many technical grammy's for his recording of film scores - and also why he is in such demand.
This: Big Bulgarian handheld drum
That can be as big as 30 inches in diameter.
One of the funniest things that can happen to you is to attend to a gypsy band performance in a crowded local pub
It thumbs and strikes, it is deafening and rich in harmonics that make it’s timbre beautiful and pleasant. While expected anxiously every strike makes you blink…
Look at those musicians:
Aint no recording and reproduction system capable of transmitting that through time and space to your lining room!
The only way to have them at home is this: "invitation+$$$"
I have never experienced a recording+system resolving even a quarter of the beauty of the sound of such a drum! Every sound system known to man lacks the impulse response, dynamic headroom, frequency extension, resolution and etc. to properly reproduce such a percussion instrument.
But the topic is how do I describe it. I don't, it should be life like and it never is because ribbons are still tweeters and not woofers
It is more a matter of recording than a sound system but then sound engineers take that statement and beat it to death until the recording is over engineered and sounding nothing like the original performance.
So go to a live performance of an acoustic band and you will become more modest in your expectations towards your system.
Best regards!
Edit: P.S. But you can always buy one of those
and have the whole glorious bass in the world right besides your sofa waiting to be hit hard 
to supply you and your beloved ones with the richness and beauty of chest thumping bass.
That can be as big as 30 inches in diameter.
One of the funniest things that can happen to you is to attend to a gypsy band performance in a crowded local pub
It thumbs and strikes, it is deafening and rich in harmonics that make it’s timbre beautiful and pleasant. While expected anxiously every strike makes you blink…
Look at those musicians:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Aint no recording and reproduction system capable of transmitting that through time and space to your lining room!
The only way to have them at home is this: "invitation+$$$"
I have never experienced a recording+system resolving even a quarter of the beauty of the sound of such a drum! Every sound system known to man lacks the impulse response, dynamic headroom, frequency extension, resolution and etc. to properly reproduce such a percussion instrument.
But the topic is how do I describe it. I don't, it should be life like and it never is because ribbons are still tweeters and not woofers
It is more a matter of recording than a sound system but then sound engineers take that statement and beat it to death until the recording is over engineered and sounding nothing like the original performance.
So go to a live performance of an acoustic band and you will become more modest in your expectations towards your system.
Best regards!
Edit: P.S. But you can always buy one of those
and have the whole glorious bass in the world right besides your sofa waiting to be hit hard to supply you and your beloved ones with the richness and beauty of chest thumping bass. Attachments
Last edited:
It does not have to, it is an electronic instrument with its own sound character. Synthesizers don't have an acoustical equivalent as well, but that does not mean it is not an instrument...right?
This statement is nothing more than a profound generalization that shows that you don't have much or no experience doing recording. Close miking is not the devil if it is done well. Compression is also not the devil, but limiting is if over used. Do you understand the difference between limiting and compression? There is no playbook for getting good recordings. Each event requires it own setup.
Classical music has so little done to it, you would never notice. You are exaggering profoundly.
Agreed. That is because it has to be so tightly controlled and go off with no mistakes during recording. With recording budgets being so tight, nobody wants to take that chance.
This: Big Bulgarian handheld drum
That can be as big as 30 inches in diameter.
One of the funniest things that can happen to you is to attend to a gypsy band performance in a crowded local pub
It thumbs and strikes, it is deafening and rich in harmonics that make it’s timbre beautiful and pleasant. While expected anxiously every strike makes you blink…
Look at those musicians:
Aint no recording and reproduction system capable of transmitting that through time and space to your lining room!
The only way to have them at home is this: "invitation+$$$"
I have never experienced a recording+system resolving even a quarter of the beauty of the sound of such a drum! Every sound system known to man lacks the impulse response, dynamic headroom, frequency extension, resolution and etc. to properly reproduce such a percussion instrument.
But the topic is how do I describe it. I don't, it should be life like and it never is because ribbons are still tweeters and not woofers
It is more a matter of recording than a sound system but then sound engineers take that statement and beat it to death until the recording is over engineered and sounding nothing like the original performance.
So go to a live performance of an acoustic band and you will become more modest in your expectations towards your system.
Best regards!
Edit: P.S. But you can always buy one of those
Oh brother........
I hope this is a joke.
Have you ever compared one of your recordings/mixes to a binaural recording of the same event?
How do you perform your recordings? How do you judge where to put the mics? What processing do you apply? Are you sitting in a control room listening to speakers when making those decisions?
No, why would I? Recording is not a science experiment designed to appease technoheads. It is part science and part art and objectivism does not work very well with this balance.
I do not understand this question.
We start with pre-production meetings so we understand where all of the instruments will be positioned and what scoring stage we are using. We carefully choose the microphones we are going to use. The orchestra comes in for rehersals, and we adjust the microphones for best capture. Each scoring stage has different acoustics, so some adjustments have to be made to account for these differences.
For my church, I experimented for over a year on microphone placement. Once I got the best locations, we made the setup permanent. For guest singers, we have the ability to accomodate each performer on an individual basis, and always do a sound check before each concert.
The bass, guitars, and keyboards are all direct with no microphones used. The Hammond B3 is the only instrument that uses a microphone. Since I own a B3 and a leslie speaker, I know how to mike it to get the best sound.
When the orchestra performs with the choir and band, I use a Decca tree setup for the orchestra because it presents the most natural capture of an orchestra to my ears.
Most of the time none. However when the full "mass" choir, band, and orchestra are all performing at the same time, I use extremely mild compression to make the mix playable in your home without having to reach for the volume control.
The FOH and house mixers are in the auditorium. I am in a sound proof control room capturing their feeds, and creating the multichannel mix.
I'm not a recording specialist as you, but I can try to do a analogy with photography, that is other hobby that I like.
When we shot in RAW, before we apply the photoshop 'digital darkroom' adjustments, the photo looks quite natural and do not claim our attention. After doing the touches and contrast, sharp, saturation thing, it becomes a lot beautiful to our eyes... the same happens with music recordings. Sometimes, and I believe, most, the recordings are more pleasing to the ears that the true event of musical reproduction. That is a controversy because hi-end reproduction is the opposite goal, that is: try to reproduce exactly the musical event!
Recently I went to Venice and listen to a Vivaldi 4 seasons concerto in a church. The bass instrument was almost not heard!This is not what I expect to hear in a 4 seasons listening. Hearing in my small room, with a good recording like the top music one (VIVALDI THE FOUR SEASONS SACD-Elusive Disc) it's a complete different story... more emotional e pleasing. So it's not hi-end? maybe, but I like it more.
To check if what you're striving for is really realism or your interpretation of realism, i.e. preference. When I was working in the field, I never intended to create something that sounded like a replica of the real event but something that sounded even better. It did sound realistic at times but it was never a replica. Nothing wrong with that. It's part of the art.
Exactly my point. Your frame of reference is softened.
Last edited:
@soundtrackmixer:
I'm an active musician, playing bass guitar ....
I've also recorded and mixed a handful of records, so I do have some insight into this as well.
I have also been a singer (had to quit because of vocal cord problems sadly), having done hundreds of performances with un-amplified acoustic instruments. I have a strong feeling for what real instruments sound live, and no recording I've ever heard has sounded like the real thing, not even close. But in my opinion, that's not the goal with recorded music either. It's an abstract, not the real thing. Like a movie or a picture. And there is nothing wrong with that, but its a good idea to keep in mind that a recording is NOT the real thing.
I'm an active musician, playing bass guitar ....
I've also recorded and mixed a handful of records, so I do have some insight into this as well.
I have also been a singer (had to quit because of vocal cord problems sadly), having done hundreds of performances with un-amplified acoustic instruments. I have a strong feeling for what real instruments sound live, and no recording I've ever heard has sounded like the real thing, not even close. But in my opinion, that's not the goal with recorded music either. It's an abstract, not the real thing. Like a movie or a picture. And there is nothing wrong with that, but its a good idea to keep in mind that a recording is NOT the real thing.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.