They shouldn't but most modern recordings are over compressed, often resulting in there sounding like there is a lot of bass. If it is a decent studio then the speakers they use tend to be full range (not to be mistaken with a full range single driver, but one covering the audible spectrum 20Hz - 20kHz, so the EQ should be correct.
Also consider that the roll off of our speakers varies massively depending on what you use as your speakers.
Also consider that the roll off of our speakers varies massively depending on what you use as your speakers.
I participate on a number of recording boards. Believe me, there are a lot of messes on that end of the spectrum (no pun) yet. Not globally, but many more than I'd hope for. For the amateur it's definitely the majority (maybe so for the pro!). Despite everyone's best intentions, unless there are standards it's marginal how much any one end can do right. Much of the necessary research has been done, now people just need to read it and put it to use.
I'd say the DIY audio guys are generally well ahead of the guys making the recordings. Sad really. It should be the other way around.
Dan
I'd say the DIY audio guys are generally well ahead of the guys making the recordings. Sad really. It should be the other way around.
Dan
Take a look at TweakHeadz Lab Electronic Musician's Hangout. There are numerous articles about recording techniques. The mastering engineer will be aiming to produce a result that is suited to a wide range of playback devices and will probably evaluate what he has produced on a variety of favourite representative systems. Obviously there is some compromise involved here, and an element of fashion. Many people complain that modern recordings are lacking in dynamic range (generally quiet passages) due to the amount of compression employed in order to make the result sound 'loud'.
That said, the general standard of playback equipment is constantly improving, many people listen through earphones which in general have quite impressive bass performance, so one would not expect that an overloud bass eq. would be a feature of most recordings unless perhaps in a particular genre of music.
w
That said, the general standard of playback equipment is constantly improving, many people listen through earphones which in general have quite impressive bass performance, so one would not expect that an overloud bass eq. would be a feature of most recordings unless perhaps in a particular genre of music.
w
An interresting discussion...
From my sessions behind the console, the most difficult thing during mixdown was definitively bass.
Many controll-rooms and monitoring systems are just not capable of providing full and accurate monitoring down to the lowest frequencies. This will especially be the case for lower and mid-end facilities, the proliferation of which has been made possible by the digital revolution and availability of inexpensive yet high-performing equipment.
Unfortunately, big monitoring systems (not to mention a proper controll room!), are still expensive like in the days when multitrack recording required heavy capital investment, and not just a few 1000$ for a hardisk recorder etc..
Sure, some good sounding and affordable monitors are available out there, but they can never do what those big Altecs, JBLs, UREIs, and Westlakes etc. did back in the late 70's and early 80's (and still do today many places)
Today, I just completed and hooked up a subwoofer capable of reproducing frequencies down to 20 Hz at realistic levels.
On some recordings, the absence of low frequency information suggests that this has been avoided in the mix as "unnecessary" or unreproducable on equipment available to the wider audience. In many cases, this may actually be the wiser decision..
On other recordings, very excessive and poorly balanced low frequency information was revealed, a typical sign that this was simply not heard during mixdown, and/or that mixdown was balanced to give bass that the monitoring speakers / room could otherwise not present.
When mixing down on "ordinary" monitors, it is very easy to overdoo the bass in mixdown to get more "punch" and omph, and when later reproduced on a system that really does go all the way down, the mess is revealed, especially if you throw in some room modes as well.
I allways found that checking bass-levels on a good closed head-set provided a good reality check if the monitoring could not be fully relied uppon for the deeper frequencies. Yet, this allso has its limits as you miss the ever present low frequency room modes.
My last finding of the day was listening to "out of the blue" by ELO.
With my new subwoofer, the bass was well extended and provided that extra dimension to the listening experience without becomming obtrusive or dominating.
This album was recorded and mixed down in a classical "big" studio, and I believe it shows.
So, after just one evenings worth of listening, I've concluded that the extended frequency capacity of my system is really a double edged sword; It brings out so much more from good recordings, but many others with poor bass-mixdown can be allmost unlistenable!
Good bass in mixdown requires firm, sometimes generous, use of compression, economy with low frequency energy (carefull EQ), and allowing the harmonics of bass-rich instruments some breathing-room. Simple in theory, very difficult in practice.
From my sessions behind the console, the most difficult thing during mixdown was definitively bass.
Many controll-rooms and monitoring systems are just not capable of providing full and accurate monitoring down to the lowest frequencies. This will especially be the case for lower and mid-end facilities, the proliferation of which has been made possible by the digital revolution and availability of inexpensive yet high-performing equipment.
Unfortunately, big monitoring systems (not to mention a proper controll room!), are still expensive like in the days when multitrack recording required heavy capital investment, and not just a few 1000$ for a hardisk recorder etc..
Sure, some good sounding and affordable monitors are available out there, but they can never do what those big Altecs, JBLs, UREIs, and Westlakes etc. did back in the late 70's and early 80's (and still do today many places)
Today, I just completed and hooked up a subwoofer capable of reproducing frequencies down to 20 Hz at realistic levels.
On some recordings, the absence of low frequency information suggests that this has been avoided in the mix as "unnecessary" or unreproducable on equipment available to the wider audience. In many cases, this may actually be the wiser decision..
On other recordings, very excessive and poorly balanced low frequency information was revealed, a typical sign that this was simply not heard during mixdown, and/or that mixdown was balanced to give bass that the monitoring speakers / room could otherwise not present.
When mixing down on "ordinary" monitors, it is very easy to overdoo the bass in mixdown to get more "punch" and omph, and when later reproduced on a system that really does go all the way down, the mess is revealed, especially if you throw in some room modes as well.
I allways found that checking bass-levels on a good closed head-set provided a good reality check if the monitoring could not be fully relied uppon for the deeper frequencies. Yet, this allso has its limits as you miss the ever present low frequency room modes.
My last finding of the day was listening to "out of the blue" by ELO.
With my new subwoofer, the bass was well extended and provided that extra dimension to the listening experience without becomming obtrusive or dominating.
This album was recorded and mixed down in a classical "big" studio, and I believe it shows.
So, after just one evenings worth of listening, I've concluded that the extended frequency capacity of my system is really a double edged sword; It brings out so much more from good recordings, but many others with poor bass-mixdown can be allmost unlistenable!
Good bass in mixdown requires firm, sometimes generous, use of compression, economy with low frequency energy (carefull EQ), and allowing the harmonics of bass-rich instruments some breathing-room. Simple in theory, very difficult in practice.
Now a days you can get great bass eq for really cheap when it comes to a recording studio's budget. There's no real excuse now other than the unusual beliefs the seem prolific in recording forums. I'd imagine that there are many engineers that don't post on these forums and know the rational behind what they are doing. I don't have any evidence for that statement, but it's my own unusual belief. Don't ruin it for me. Ha ha. Maybe it's just the ones I'm on? Is there a good one with many knowledgeable posters? In a way, there is no reason (unless in anticipation) for the consumer to perfect their acoustics and equipment if recording/mastering studio doesn't even understand that they need to. It seems so backwards to me that the purchaser has more understanding of the product than the producer of the product. I can tell you the VW engineers (not to start a car war) know more about my car than I do--and I love cars.
Dan
Dan
I don'T want to contradict Elbert
Altougt I did things differentley and it may look opposite at what he did I am not saiing that he is wrong
Just 2 different enviroments (Times and Places)
Quote DO sound recordist compensate for bass...
I never did At times when mastering 2 3 instruments special care was used but
At normal when recording the ritmic sections this was alwayse in the worst places like the traks at the edges of the tape or pre mastered the drums on second hand tapes.
I am talking about 1980 ties
At that time the fist MIDI and digital stuff started to apears.
We mostly did rock pop commerciall stuff I don't know of others at the time that did or if it did make any sense to
the enphasy was in keeping voices and such clear the only frequency where attention was placed where the hi as bubus in those could mean a broken late when making the records.
As long as the studio was properly designed and the sound caracteristic refined and known (I can remember a few session spending 12 16 hours just to get the sound right on the monitors once done that part of the system was under lock and key) al we payed attention was on the hi part
Bass frequency was never an issue even with (in today money) £80K worht of Urey monitors and amps as long as it was there we where happy we had to satisfy the mass market and at the time the getto blaster was the bench mark.
I moved on to other things in the 90 when digital started and can't really comment but to me digital recording dinamic is flat IMO and I found the sound unplesant.
The correct recording and at times the manypulation of the hier spectrum may make more sense if you look at it in a different way.
There is a big difference between recording and reproducing music harmonics in recording are quite velcome the define the caracter of the instrument
For example you tune the guitars to 315 Hz that is the same all over but a gibson sound different from a fender and this is just tanks to the different harmonics generated by the different wood strings and nut and bolts holding the instrument togheter.
The corect recording of those can define not only the caracter of the instrument but it's placement in the sound stage (orizontal verticall and depth).
As harmonics are multiples of the fundamental care is needed on the hi frequency bands
(IMO digital can't cope with it as analog did ) so again emphasy was on the hi frequency if you get those right decent bas was nomal and much easier to get.
we know it was there so we did not bother
Altougt I did things differentley and it may look opposite at what he did I am not saiing that he is wrong
Just 2 different enviroments (Times and Places)
Quote DO sound recordist compensate for bass...
I never did At times when mastering 2 3 instruments special care was used but
At normal when recording the ritmic sections this was alwayse in the worst places like the traks at the edges of the tape or pre mastered the drums on second hand tapes.
I am talking about 1980 ties
At that time the fist MIDI and digital stuff started to apears.
We mostly did rock pop commerciall stuff I don't know of others at the time that did or if it did make any sense to
the enphasy was in keeping voices and such clear the only frequency where attention was placed where the hi as bubus in those could mean a broken late when making the records.
As long as the studio was properly designed and the sound caracteristic refined and known (I can remember a few session spending 12 16 hours just to get the sound right on the monitors once done that part of the system was under lock and key) al we payed attention was on the hi part
Bass frequency was never an issue even with (in today money) £80K worht of Urey monitors and amps as long as it was there we where happy we had to satisfy the mass market and at the time the getto blaster was the bench mark.
I moved on to other things in the 90 when digital started and can't really comment but to me digital recording dinamic is flat IMO and I found the sound unplesant.
The correct recording and at times the manypulation of the hier spectrum may make more sense if you look at it in a different way.
There is a big difference between recording and reproducing music harmonics in recording are quite velcome the define the caracter of the instrument
For example you tune the guitars to 315 Hz that is the same all over but a gibson sound different from a fender and this is just tanks to the different harmonics generated by the different wood strings and nut and bolts holding the instrument togheter.
The corect recording of those can define not only the caracter of the instrument but it's placement in the sound stage (orizontal verticall and depth).
As harmonics are multiples of the fundamental care is needed on the hi frequency bands
(IMO digital can't cope with it as analog did ) so again emphasy was on the hi frequency if you get those right decent bas was nomal and much easier to get.
we know it was there so we did not bother
A bass eq is pretty useless if you only have nearfields to monitor on as you can't eq what you can't hear.
As for recording forums have you tried gearslutz.com?
Recently I was involved in a discussion about vintage monitors there which included the Abbey Road man Ken Scott and the original Motown engineer Bob Ohlsson.
Of course we had a few even parametric ones and 1/8 bands as well plus the parametric inthe studer desk and so on
I feel sorry I have posted now
Qoute: As long as the studio was properly designed and the sound caracteristic refined and known (I can remember a few session spending 12 16 hours just to get the sound right on the monitors once done that part of the system was under lock and key) al we payed attention was on the hi part.
I feel sorry I have posted now
Qoute: As long as the studio was properly designed and the sound caracteristic refined and known (I can remember a few session spending 12 16 hours just to get the sound right on the monitors once done that part of the system was under lock and key) al we payed attention was on the hi part.
Different techniques apply
It depends on what is being recorded, where it's being recorded, by what is it being recorded, and by whom is it being recorded.
In a studio, there might be a number of full racks of processing, plus a monster computer to do even more to the sound, plus the biggest console you can squeeze into the room, plus, plus, plus... all the toys any one could ever want.
In a concert hall (where I do almost all my work): simple is the name of the game. For a full orchestra w/ chorus, I use a TOTAL of 10 microphones. For this type of recording, I don't EQ at all. I know a guy who uses it for phase correction at times, but only when necessary because of microphone placement. Outside of that, we don't EQ at all. You capture the most accurate recording of the sound as it is.
For on-site and chamber music: A pair of headphone's to make sure you've got sound w/ no noise, 2 mic's, 2 pre's, analogue to digital conversion, and a recording unit is pretty much it. Never do I use EQ.
later,
G
It depends on what is being recorded, where it's being recorded, by what is it being recorded, and by whom is it being recorded.
In a studio, there might be a number of full racks of processing, plus a monster computer to do even more to the sound, plus the biggest console you can squeeze into the room, plus, plus, plus... all the toys any one could ever want.
In a concert hall (where I do almost all my work): simple is the name of the game. For a full orchestra w/ chorus, I use a TOTAL of 10 microphones. For this type of recording, I don't EQ at all. I know a guy who uses it for phase correction at times, but only when necessary because of microphone placement. Outside of that, we don't EQ at all. You capture the most accurate recording of the sound as it is.
For on-site and chamber music: A pair of headphone's to make sure you've got sound w/ no noise, 2 mic's, 2 pre's, analogue to digital conversion, and a recording unit is pretty much it. Never do I use EQ.
later,
G
I have that 10Hz to 20KHz system
Its pretty simple, EQing it until you like it !! Those that do not EQ do not have accurate in room response from their systems, that is pretty simple logic too! Rooms dominate 300Hz on down.....to not EQ it just says "I give up and my room wins".
Different then EQing the recording though. Those obviously have pretty impressive rooms without the issues we have in our regular rooms.
Last edited:
My system measures flatish (+/- 3db ) down to 30Hz (after 1/3 octave eq'ing) and my experience is that on pop/rock recordings bass varies wildly. Not unexpected really given that there is no industry standard used by recoding studios for setting the in-room bass response of the control room.
That said, I can still enjoy the mix they have done even when its bass-heavy (or bass shy). For fun, try the following for "plenty o' bass": Boz Scaggs, "Dig" album, "Miss Riddle" and "Payday" tracks.
Of course, action movie soundtracks are on another planet for crazy bass energy.
That said, I can still enjoy the mix they have done even when its bass-heavy (or bass shy). For fun, try the following for "plenty o' bass": Boz Scaggs, "Dig" album, "Miss Riddle" and "Payday" tracks.
Of course, action movie soundtracks are on another planet for crazy bass energy.
Doug is spot on.
I've looked at gearslutz before, but it was a whole lot of subjective crap--mostly potato and little meat. Much like I've seen elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, experience can be useful if it is in the form of applied understanding. Otherwise it's often misleading though not always of course. Did I do enough back washing there to prevent the flames?
EQing a mic feed is not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about having an accurate monitoring system. People seem to still be stuck in the 'you need crappy ns10s in the control room b/c A) they are terrible and you need to know what the mix sounds like on terrible speaker, B) every control room has them and they are the best, C) they are the most accurate monitor made.' There's numerous statements to this effect on the boards and they're are senseless.
None the less, the engineers' monitors need to be accurate--including the bass. There are far too many bass response errors in consumers rooms to try and compensate for what they can't predict. Same goes for poor performing loudspeakers. There are too many ways to screw up a loudspeaker to shake a stick at.
standards anyone?
Dan
I've looked at gearslutz before, but it was a whole lot of subjective crap--mostly potato and little meat. Much like I've seen elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, experience can be useful if it is in the form of applied understanding. Otherwise it's often misleading though not always of course. Did I do enough back washing there to prevent the flames?
EQing a mic feed is not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about having an accurate monitoring system. People seem to still be stuck in the 'you need crappy ns10s in the control room b/c A) they are terrible and you need to know what the mix sounds like on terrible speaker, B) every control room has them and they are the best, C) they are the most accurate monitor made.' There's numerous statements to this effect on the boards and they're are senseless.
None the less, the engineers' monitors need to be accurate--including the bass. There are far too many bass response errors in consumers rooms to try and compensate for what they can't predict. Same goes for poor performing loudspeakers. There are too many ways to screw up a loudspeaker to shake a stick at.
standards anyone?
Dan
That is exactly what THX did for movie sound . . . making it "transportable" from the sound stage to the editing room to the theater to the living room. The music industry could do a whole lot worse (it DOES a whole lot worse) than just adopting THX sound standards as they are today . . .
i worked setting up studios and concert halls, theatres and so on. it was the beginning of my career and quite frankly i took the sound engineer job mostly to pay for my degree in mathematics, i wasnt that interested in sound as a career. having said that there was one thing i learned from that experience was to use sound generators (various forms of noise with noise analysers) and a measurement microphone to correct both the speakers and the room using eq.
i never once saw the eq used to correct for subjective sound preferences by pro's (altough i observed some of the smaller operators we handed the systems over to using the console tonal controls for subjective sound corrections), it was always used to objectively manage the room and the speakers in the room. even in rooms purposebuilt for sound did we find that micro adjustments where necessary on occassion. depending on size we also had to adjust for time and use serialized delays to compensate for distance (likein the big stadiums). it was considered advanced in those days of analog circuits...
once i did the sound in a very complicated room, an indoor dolphin show where the pa was prone to echo from water surfaces and concrete + tile. we did use pretty significant computer models back then to simulate echo and sound propagation (again this was in the 80s so i guess an iphone could outdo those simulations).
i often saw the smaller studios back then used compressors, eq's and other stuff to shape the sound and if you ask me i dont think anyone there had a clue what they where doimg. those recording engineers where mostly musicians vs. engineers. in the bigger studios there where real engineers who viewed it as their craft to create a representation of the music in a recorded format (especially the classical or non-electric/amplified music).
i can guarantee that everyone here has listened music recorded in some of the studios i implemented (i was to much if a newbie then to design anything, i implemented the designs of my experienced bosses). i am going to assume yhat youve heard some of the top 50 music from the mid to late 80s in a commercial at least... makes me proud when i hear some of those tunes to know i had a tiny, tiny hand in that song making it out to the broader audience via the recording studio. one of my buddies was doing the same for bbc, and is still involved in the broadcasting industry around standards etc, altough he is mostly on the tv side nowadays.
anyway, it was a relatively short chapter of my life as i moved on to computer science and designing high-end servers for a living in silicon valley) but i wanted to share since it seems topical to have a brief walk back onto memory lane.
dtm, my california home is also in mountain view!
i never once saw the eq used to correct for subjective sound preferences by pro's (altough i observed some of the smaller operators we handed the systems over to using the console tonal controls for subjective sound corrections), it was always used to objectively manage the room and the speakers in the room. even in rooms purposebuilt for sound did we find that micro adjustments where necessary on occassion. depending on size we also had to adjust for time and use serialized delays to compensate for distance (likein the big stadiums). it was considered advanced in those days of analog circuits...
once i did the sound in a very complicated room, an indoor dolphin show where the pa was prone to echo from water surfaces and concrete + tile. we did use pretty significant computer models back then to simulate echo and sound propagation (again this was in the 80s so i guess an iphone could outdo those simulations).
i often saw the smaller studios back then used compressors, eq's and other stuff to shape the sound and if you ask me i dont think anyone there had a clue what they where doimg. those recording engineers where mostly musicians vs. engineers. in the bigger studios there where real engineers who viewed it as their craft to create a representation of the music in a recorded format (especially the classical or non-electric/amplified music).
i can guarantee that everyone here has listened music recorded in some of the studios i implemented (i was to much if a newbie then to design anything, i implemented the designs of my experienced bosses). i am going to assume yhat youve heard some of the top 50 music from the mid to late 80s in a commercial at least... makes me proud when i hear some of those tunes to know i had a tiny, tiny hand in that song making it out to the broader audience via the recording studio. one of my buddies was doing the same for bbc, and is still involved in the broadcasting industry around standards etc, altough he is mostly on the tv side nowadays.
anyway, it was a relatively short chapter of my life as i moved on to computer science and designing high-end servers for a living in silicon valley) but i wanted to share since it seems topical to have a brief walk back onto memory lane.
dtm, my california home is also in mountain view!
Last edited:
A lot to think about in this thread.
There is a body of fallacious thinking that shows up in many bass threads in this forum and it is the faith that you can discern bass by ear.
In the perceptual biz, we have a term "equivalent stimulus" to mean that the same percept ("great bass that I really believe is around 25 Hz") can be produced by alternative stimuli. For example, it is well-known that nobody can tell if a 45 Hz organ pipe is sounding the fundamental providing the harmonics are present and properly played. I'd say ears are pretty poor at many kinds of bass discernment and the real test is whether your system makes the windows rattle sympathetically (or your internal organs or a mic).
Sometimes people cite over-produced pop music as their source used in judging bass reprouction. Very oddly, Toole uses all kinds of pop music as his leading test sounds with listening panels. As pointed out above, if a recording engineer actually did put serious 40 Hz bass on his/her pop recordings, it would sound terrible to most of their audience who would think the recording was faulty because their systems were crapping out. So you have people posting on this forum fallaciously thinking they are hearing great bass on their systems.
Unless a poster says they "heard" low bass on a spectrum analyzer, I will remain sceptical. Lotsa gutsy sounding bass on pop recordings but it is at 80 Hz.
There is a body of fallacious thinking that shows up in many bass threads in this forum and it is the faith that you can discern bass by ear.
In the perceptual biz, we have a term "equivalent stimulus" to mean that the same percept ("great bass that I really believe is around 25 Hz") can be produced by alternative stimuli. For example, it is well-known that nobody can tell if a 45 Hz organ pipe is sounding the fundamental providing the harmonics are present and properly played. I'd say ears are pretty poor at many kinds of bass discernment and the real test is whether your system makes the windows rattle sympathetically (or your internal organs or a mic).
Sometimes people cite over-produced pop music as their source used in judging bass reprouction. Very oddly, Toole uses all kinds of pop music as his leading test sounds with listening panels. As pointed out above, if a recording engineer actually did put serious 40 Hz bass on his/her pop recordings, it would sound terrible to most of their audience who would think the recording was faulty because their systems were crapping out. So you have people posting on this forum fallaciously thinking they are hearing great bass on their systems.
Unless a poster says they "heard" low bass on a spectrum analyzer, I will remain sceptical. Lotsa gutsy sounding bass on pop recordings but it is at 80 Hz.
Last edited:
Agreed on the last part (of bentoronto's post).
When I first built a subwoofer (pair of 8" woofers, sealed +eq), I tried all sorts of music, and found that a lot of 80s and early 90s stuff had little real bass. Sounded very gutsy, but as soon as I put something more recent on, the drivers bottomed out. Cone movement was visible on the 80s-90s music, but nothing much (maybe a mill or so p/p).
These days, I'd expect there to be some DSP in most reasonable hifi-in-a-box systems. You know, the mini and micro systems. Cut out the low bass (as my old one seemed to) and they went really really loud. Same probably applies for HTIB systems with a 6.5" "sub"woofer, often put in a too-small ported chipboard box. They'd all cut the bass they know their speakers can't handle.
With more expensive seperates (still commercial) systems, I'd expect them to leave the low bass in, as the amp and speaker combination isn't entirely predictable. Still, even the smaller bookshelf speakers produce what sounds like bass. Cones tend to be able to move pretty far these days, so I'd expect they're designed to cope with some abuse...
So, most modern recordings will probably have the "full" bass content (ie, to 40Hz minimum), as the listener's end can take care of what to do with it.
Chris
When I first built a subwoofer (pair of 8" woofers, sealed +eq), I tried all sorts of music, and found that a lot of 80s and early 90s stuff had little real bass. Sounded very gutsy, but as soon as I put something more recent on, the drivers bottomed out. Cone movement was visible on the 80s-90s music, but nothing much (maybe a mill or so p/p).
These days, I'd expect there to be some DSP in most reasonable hifi-in-a-box systems. You know, the mini and micro systems. Cut out the low bass (as my old one seemed to) and they went really really loud. Same probably applies for HTIB systems with a 6.5" "sub"woofer, often put in a too-small ported chipboard box. They'd all cut the bass they know their speakers can't handle.
With more expensive seperates (still commercial) systems, I'd expect them to leave the low bass in, as the amp and speaker combination isn't entirely predictable. Still, even the smaller bookshelf speakers produce what sounds like bass. Cones tend to be able to move pretty far these days, so I'd expect they're designed to cope with some abuse...
So, most modern recordings will probably have the "full" bass content (ie, to 40Hz minimum), as the listener's end can take care of what to do with it.
Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.