Modern Bass sound

[PaulWarning]

just had a quick listen to Suade on teletext and once again as with the Led Zep reunion gig the bass had no definition due to it being eq'd to deep, (I was listening through my HiFi), why is this? my opinion is digital recording, because it has a wider frequency response than analogue the mixers are trying to get loads of bottom end because it initially sounds better (as with the loudness war) but it soon get wearing, older recordings had the bass with a lot more lower mids which meant that you could actually hear what the bass is doing, Led Zep II springs to mind.
Oddly this is completely at odds with the modern fashion for having the bass drum with loads of treble dialed in.
Any recording engineers on here to explain this or tell me I'm wrong?

[Lozz196]

I think you`re right there Paul. it used to be fairly easy to work out actual basslines in songs - providing you were up to it of course, and not sure I would be with Led Zep to be honest. But nowadays I find myself having to either look up for tab, or be content to just play root-notes if wanting to learn basslines of a recent recording.

[gjones]

It doesn't help that the bassist in Suede plays a Rickenbacker in their latest video. They always a have a really woolly sound (unless you're Chris Squire of course).

Edited February 12, 2013 by gjones

[Lowender]

Actually, it's been about 10 years now where the bass sound has gotten deeper and more compressed, thus losing definition. It is in part, technology "allowing" more low end and it's also, in part, [i]fashion[/i].
Sounds, like styles , change. In the 90's, vocals were drenched in reverb, then by the early 2000's vocals became very dry, now you hear more reverb again. It goes back and forth. I'm also once again, starting to hear punchier bass on some newer recordings. Especially the Nashville stuff.

I think people are realizing, louder and lower and more "even" tone does not result in a better bass track. However, the PARTS must also fit the sound and that too has changed.

Ever hear a remake of a cool Motown track? The bass is always a more simplified version -- most probably because anything busy and syncopated will not translate with all that monstrous low end the engineers like to use. And excessive compression, though providing "evenness" makes all the notes run together. It's a case of technology forcing how we play as opposed to serving what we play. It's the tail waging the dog.

Perhaps a popular band will come along with a bass player with an "up-front_ tone and that'll influence everyone, but right now the guys who are innovative tend to be the metal players and they all either tune down or play in the "B string" register.

Personally, I like a clear defined midrange sound at A: 440. I'd go as far to say that anything lower than a low E is needed a lot less often than most guys realize.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Lowender

[spongebob]

I agree - modern bass sounds leave me cold.

A background 'thump' with no definition is not bass. Melody, and adding to the song is!

I did some recording recently, and TBH, was unhappy with the results. After much pushing, the bass was more defined in the mix than at first, but was still nowhere enough for me.

I didn't want it out front, but clear enough to hear the lines, not just a deep thud - it's what it sounds like to me, anyway!

[gjones]

[quote name='spongebob' timestamp='1360674439' post='1974299']
I agree - modern bass sounds leave me cold.

A background 'thump' with no definition is not bass. Melody, and adding to the song is!

I did some recording recently, and TBH, was unhappy with the results. After much pushing, the bass was more defined in the mix than at first, but was still nowhere enough for me.

I didn't want it out front, but clear enough to hear the lines, not just a deep thud - it's what it sounds like to me, anyway!
[/quote]

My theory is that the engineers are mixing with hi end monitors that can handle very low frequencies easily. But most hi fi speakers, that the track will be listened to at home, can't reproduce those lows. There was a time when studios had a speakers set up to replicate the 'home hi fi experience' and if the track didn't sound good on those it was remixed until it did.

[Lozz196]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1360677449' post='1974400']
My theory is that the engineers are mixing with hi end monitors that can handle very low frequencies easily. But most hi fi speakers, that the track will be listened to at home, can't reproduce those lows. There was a time when studios had a speakers set up to replicate the 'home hi fi experience' and if the track didn't sound good on those it was remixed until it did.
[/quote]

Very true - the speakers our producer uses each have 3 amplifiers. Try getting that sound quality out of regular gear.

[Japhet]

I'm no expert in music formats, but I reckon a lot of stuff is produced specifically for mp3 now, which is considerably dumbed down from previous formats. Maybe this has something to do with it.

[wateroftyne]

How much treble is on this bass tone? Hardly any.

Can you hear every note? Hell yes.

Mixing bass like this is a dying art.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVlSdY6N7Dk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVlSdY6N7Dk[/url]

[bremen]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1360677449' post='1974400']
My theory is that the engineers are mixing with hi end monitors that can handle very low frequencies easily. But most hi fi speakers, that the track will be listened to at home, can't reproduce those lows. There was a time when studios had a speakers set up to replicate the 'home hi fi experience' and if the track didn't sound good on those it was remixed until it did.
[/quote]

It's essential to use monitors that handle very low frequencies, just so you know what's there. Mixing on limited low-end speakers you're actually more likely to get swampy bass when you play back on a real-world system. An experienced engineer will know what his hi-end monitors sound like, and will know which sounds translate well to ordinary speakers. Having mid-range speakers as a reference is still worthwhile, though, I'm surprised you think this is a thing of the past.

Bigredx and 5imon will be here any second now...

(edited for appalling grammar)

Edited February 12, 2013 by bremen

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360673845' post='1974284']
Ever hear a remake of a cool Motown track? The bass is always a more simplified version -- most probably because anything busy and syncopated will not translate with all that monstrous low end the engineers like to use.
[/quote] and also we use more simplified versions of musicians now

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1360680146' post='1974479']
How much treble is on this bass tone? Hardly any.

Can you hear every note? Hell yes.

Mixing bass like this is a dying art.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVlSdY6N7Dk[/media]
[/quote] right... I know you'll have some expertise here.... how do you see flat wound strings, and also less valvey sounds effecting how we hear the bass "in the mix" ?

[icastle]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1360680263' post='1974483']
and also we use more simplified versions of musicians now
[/quote]

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1360680403' post='1974487']
right... I know you'll have some expertise here.... how do you see flat wound strings, and also less valvey sounds effecting how we hear the bass "in the mix" ?
[/quote]

Pfff... it depends. IME chances are the engineer doesn't have much experience with them, or doesn't know what they are. They'll be EQ'd the same as rounds and they'll sound like crap.

If you're working with someone who knows what they are, and what they're supposed to sound like, then it can be great, but it doesn't happen too often.

And then there's the final mix and mastering, which can undo all the good work anyway...

[brensabre79]

I think a lot of it is in the mid-range. If you listen to a Beatles record - or anything as well produced from that era, the bass is really forward in the mix, because the speakers of the time were not very efficient down there.
Fast forward to the 80s and compare spectral analysis, there's chuff all bass in there, but lots of treble!

Nowadays, the loudness war rages on, and in terms of getting a loud mix its all about separation. Listen to the bass drum on Led Zep II, its more a low mid drum compared to the subsonic boom that's reproduced these days. Same with the bass guitar, DI is more common, equipment generally can handle it. And by lowering the frequency of these instruments, there's more space in the low-mid of the mix - it gives a more open, bigger sound and makes maximising the volume much easier. Multi-band compression also plays a big part in this, it's not all in the mix.

HiFi and even LowFi speakers are still used in the top studios and mastering suites. But the focus on Mps sales has lead to even more compensation in the mix, everything is bought using a computer, which have the worst speakers. most people have laptops these days and the crappy little speakers just can't put out the frequencies. Cue more compression.

When I was producing and engineering dance/pop back in the 90s, it was all about pushing the bass into the midrange to get out of the way of the kick drum - that way you get a louder, more open mix. It seems that things have gone to extremes these days. Fortunately I make chill out music now so I don't have to worry about trends like this. I just make sure it sounds sweet on a half decent speaker and master at -14dB

[sykilz]

Glad it`s not just me, I`ve just started doing a rock covers band, and all the 70`s stuff you can listen to and hear roughly what the bass is doing,even if not every single note, then come forward to new stuff and I`m mostly lost,having to look at TABs just to get an idea what`s happening. Metal stuff with low tunings too.....when you hear it live with the massive bass drum it`s just mush,whereas someone like Anthrax or Maiden,who are both pretty heavy but don`t down tune much,sound more punchy and heavy live. Or perhaps it`s just me....

[BigRedX]

Actually most "HiFi" speakers have quite a distinct bass boost to try and make them sound more impressive. If you mix so it sounds good on studio monitors there will be a tendency for the music to be somewhat muddy at the bottom end.

Personally for my recorded bass sound, I like some high mid so you can tell what the notes are and then plenty of trouser flapping bottom end, because it's bass after all isn't it?

[Chrismanbass]

heres a recent recording of a guy i play for admittedly its blues rock but still i think thats a pretty good bass sound for the mix and i think it stands testament that not every note under E has to be a flappy horrible mush plenty of punch but not too much "sub"

[url="https://soundcloud.com/johnny-ashby/kickstart"]https://soundcloud.com/johnny-ashby/kickstart[/url]

[JamesBass]

[quote name='Japhet' timestamp='1360679867' post='1974471']
I'm no expert in music formats, but I reckon a lot of stuff is produced specifically for mp3 now, which is considerably dumbed down from previous formats. Maybe this has something to do with it.
[/quote]

We have a winner!

I dunno how many of us look at the files we record, not the wave patterns in Logic but the individual files in the folder where you've saved your song, it's these files that then, form together to make the MP3 track we download and unfortunately sound carries A LOT of energy and information so that has to be compressed to buggery, many guitars have so much compression and bass added to them these days that when someone is playing a solo you don't quite get that trebly effect anymore. Music is dying in the digital age, well good music and good clarity is, but we are partly to blame when we listen to music through tiny laptop speakers that have no real definition

[xilddx]

I bought the new Ellie Goulding album from iTunes and it proudly displays 'Mastered for iTunes' on the page. Does anyone give a f***?

[paul_5]

Back in the day engineers used to have Yamaha NS10s in their studios - the little speakers with the white cones that you don't see anymore. If you could get a mix to sit right in those then you'd cracked it - that mix would translate to any speakers.

They did sound a bit sh*t though, but that was the point - they were uncoloured and didn't boost any particular frequency to make your mix sound 'better' or whatever. These days manufacturers make products that flatter mixes to sell more units.

Also, I'm old and cantankerous.

[Chrismanbass]

[quote name='paul_5' timestamp='1360692252' post='1974847']
Back in the day engineers used to have Yamaha NS10s in their studios - the little speakers with the white cones that you don't see anymore. If you could get a mix to sit right in those then you'd cracked it - that mix would translate to any speakers.

They did sound a bit sh*t though, but that was the point - they were uncoloured and didn't boost any particular frequency to make your mix sound 'better' or whatever. These days manufacturers make products that flatter mixes to sell more units.

Also, I'm old and cantankerous.
[/quote]


+1

i have a pair of them in my studio at the moment i mix on ns40's and then use them as reference monitor to check mixes

[BigRedX]

NS10s were massively coloured. However the sound they produced was coloured in such a way that if you were able to make your mix work on them, then you could fairly safely assume it would sound OK on just about anything.

[brensabre79]

+1 NS10s were originally supposed to be HiFi speakers! The tweeters are incredibly brittle sounding - so much so that it was commonplace to stick a couple of sheets of toilet paper over them to reduce ear fatigue when mixing. They were so awful that they were used in studios as a typical example of one of the worst hiFi systems someone could possibly listen to the record on!

Which ironically lead to their success. This was back in the day when people would only listen to music on a HiFi, Walkmans with their crappy headphones didn't exist, and mp3 players with their even worse in ear types were the stuff of tomorrows world.

But as every old school engineer will tell you, if you can get a mix to sound good on those it will sound brilliant everywhere else!
These days however, people are listening to music on much, much worse speakers, so unfortunately the NS10s in my studio have been replaced with some generic PC speakers (they light up when music is played through them and everything!)

[51m0n]

NS10s were the most awful items to mix on IMO.

You cant hear any bass, you can just see the damn cones start to flap as you load up the cab below the port frequency. All that trebly 80's crud was mixed on them, because that sounded good on NS10s! If anything an inexperienced engineer will produce a too bassy mix on NS10s though, because they cant hear what is going oin in the low end.


There is a lot of confusion on here regarding mp3 data compression and audio compression, high bit rate mp3s are virtyually indistinguishable to CD quality wavs in ABX tests (by high I mean at least 256kbps). So if you are buying those and you have an a 'normal' little home stereo set up you'll probably (in fact almost certainly) not notice you are missing a thing. You may think you are but in a test you wouldnt be able to a tell the mp3 from the wav on your system.

Mastering has a lot to answer for, all pop is mastered to be the loudest it can be, with tiny RMS to peak ratios, ibut the desperate need to produce loud mixes also means that the mix engineers are also gettiing in on that act, they are limiting audio on very peaky signals (kick drums, snares etc) to get maximum level, they are taking ducking and sidechain techniques and p[arallel compression to extremes, carving eq harder than ever to get more and more seperation. Panning is LCR as much as possible to aid seperation. This isnt new at all, I was listening to Curtis Mayfields Superfly the other day, and you can hear some of these elements even on that (LCR panning oin nearly everything, great seperation etc etc), but then the idea was to create a cohesive mix, now its to make a loud mix, the intention is different, and one thing that happens when you take this to the logical conclusion is the bass looses everything over 125Hz, because it isnt 'necessary' in the eyes of the engineer, and will make it harder to get loud.

Its not directly to do with digital versus analogue really though, its all about trends in music and what is perceived to be the best way to get the mix across. Digital definitely allows for a far wider frequency range, especially in the low end, but having that available doesnt necessarily mean people no longer add enough midrange info into bass sounds into a track. Once again have a listen to the Kit Richardson stuff I did, Nigel's bass is clear as a bell, you can hear every single note and inflection, its also got plenty of bass energy - anyone here worth his salt could transcribe the bass parts to the Kit stuff without a problem I think!

Personally I think live sound is at least as much to blame, the current insanity with unbeleavable low end sub bass dominating every mix and SPLs over 110dB are making people think that music only sounds good when the bass is a mahoosive wall of unintelligable sludge trying to rearrange your organs. I like it loud, but I like my hearing more, and a great mix live or on a recording os the one that carried the emotional content of the performance and track best to the listener, in some cases a wall of unintelligble sludge would be the best solution for that, but nowhere near as often as it is offered as the solution.