Is this too mellow?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general run
far richer.

And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.

That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.

No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements are exactly
complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be the lowest end of
midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be bass.

The string bass is, as its name suggests, a bass instrument?
It's low E is 41Hz and a B, played on the
G string is 246 Hz

The four string bass guitar is tuned E1 A1 D2 G2.
The G2 is 97 Hz.

Grove's states the bass voice extends from F2 (87Hz)
to E4 329Hz.

Play the chord of Ab on the piano. The little finger
of your left hand (the root of the chord) is producing
approx 103Hz.

Need I say more? -:)

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

The four string bass guitar is tuned E1 A1 D2 G2.
The G2 is 97 Hz.

I forgot to mention, that's a open string, so all
the notes played on it are 97z and above. G3
is 194 Hz.

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general
run far richer.
And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.
That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.

No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements are
exactly complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.

Shirley you mean 20 Hz to 80 Hz.

20 Hz is clearly subsonic, and thus clearly sub bass.

However, 32 Hz is the lowest fundamental frequency of regular musical
instruments. So, I consider that the start of sub-bass.

I've got a Studiomaster C180 active crossover with exchangeable
cards, the lowest one they do is 80 Hz and you can get
120 Hz ones.

I've always used crossovers that have a reasonable range of adjustments,
such as the DBX 223.

I have a Rane AC22 and also a Rane MX22 that are essentially infinitely
variable, but whose bottom crossover frequency was about 70 Hz. I did a mod
to it that reduced that down to 35 Hz.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general
run far richer.

And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.

That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.

No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements are
exactly complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.

The string bass is, as its name suggests, a bass
instrument? It's low E is 41Hz and a B, played on the
G string is 246 Hz

Obviously Iain has no clue about the bass instruments that are used in
contemporary music. Has no clue about pipe organs, neither.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general
run far richer.
And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.
That might be your idea of bass, Iain.
But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.
No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements are
exactly complementary.
I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.

Shirley you mean 20 Hz to 80 Hz.

20 Hz is clearly subsonic, and thus clearly sub bass.


Some humans [not me] go from 20 Hz to 20kHz. We are probably talking teenagers
here so I'm open to the suggestion that the 'some humans' bit is not valid.

However, 32 Hz is the lowest fundamental frequency of regular musical
instruments. So, I consider that the start of sub-bass.

Ok, that sounds reasonable.

I've got a Studiomaster C180 active crossover with exchangeable
cards, the lowest one they do is 80 Hz and you can get
120 Hz ones.

I've always used crossovers that have a reasonable range of adjustments,
such as the DBX 223.

I have a Rane AC22 and also a Rane MX22 that are essentially infinitely
variable, but whose bottom crossover frequency was about 70 Hz. I did a mod
to it that reduced that down to 35 Hz.


And you wanted a bottom crossover frequency of 35 Hz because......

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

bcoombes wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general
run far richer.
And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.
That might be your idea of bass, Iain.
But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.
No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements are
exactly complementary.
I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.

Shirley you mean 20 Hz to 80 Hz.

20 Hz is clearly subsonic, and thus clearly sub bass.


BTW Pigeons can hear frequencies as low as .1 Hz, or one vibration every ten
seconds, so if any of the peeps reading this is a pigeon that statement is miles
out.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general
run far richer.
And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.
That might be your idea of bass, Iain.
But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.
No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements
are exactly complementary.
I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.

Shirley you mean 20 Hz to 80 Hz.

20 Hz is clearly subsonic, and thus clearly sub bass.


Some humans [not me] go from 20 Hz to 20kHz. We are
probably talking teenagers here so I'm open to the
suggestion that the 'some humans' bit is not valid.
However, 32 Hz is the lowest fundamental frequency of
regular musical instruments. So, I consider that the
start of sub-bass.

Ok, that sounds reasonable.

I've got a Studiomaster C180 active crossover with
exchangeable cards, the lowest one they do is 80 Hz and
you can get 120 Hz ones.

I've always used crossovers that have a reasonable range
of adjustments, such as the DBX 223.

I have a Rane AC22 and also a Rane MX22 that are
essentially infinitely variable, but whose bottom
crossover frequency was about 70 Hz. I did a mod to it
that reduced that down to 35 Hz.

And you wanted a bottom crossover frequency of 35 Hz
because......

I found that 70HZ wasn't deep enough for a subwoofer that I used with
larger floor standing speakers If I was going to change something, I'd
change it enough so that I would cover any "Final answer" and let me
experiment with frequencies that were too low for long-term use so that I
would at least know what they were.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message


I have a Rane AC22 and also a Rane MX22 that are
essentially infinitely variable, but whose bottom
crossover frequency was about 70 Hz. I did a mod to it
that reduced that down to 35 Hz.

And you wanted a bottom crossover frequency of 35 Hz
because......

I found that 70HZ wasn't deep enough for a subwoofer that I used with
larger floor standing speakers If I was going to change something, I'd
change it enough so that I would cover any "Final answer" and let me
experiment with frequencies that were too low for long-term use so that I
would at least know what they were.


Hmm, one of the outputs from my Studiomaster goes to a digital subharmonic
processor which is then fed to a big sub [via an amp of course]. I don't have it
turned up particularly loud but I do like the feel of a soupçon of extra low.


--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:01:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.

From "The Mixing Engineer's Handbook" by Bobby Owsinski. Who trumps
Arny, I think.

I could search out other authorities. But I'm not obsessed.

• Sub-Bass — The very low bass between 16Hz and 60Hz that encompasses
sounds that are often felt more than heard, such as thunder in the
distance. These frequencies give the music a sense of power even if
they occur infrequently. Too much emphasis on this range makes the
music sound muddy.

• Bass — The bass between 60Hz and 250Hz contains the fundamental
notes of the rhythm section, so EQing this range can change the
musical balance, making it fat or thin. Too much boost in this range
can make the music sound boomy.

• Low Mids — The midrange between 250Hz and 2000Hz contains the low
order harmonics of most musical instruments and can introduce a
telephone-like quality to the music if boosted too much. Boosting the
500Hz to 1000Hz octave makes the instruments sound horn-like, while
boosting the 1kHz to 2kHz octave makes them sound tinny. Excess output
in this range can cause listening fatigue.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
• High Mids — The upper midrange between 2kHz and 4kHz can mask the
important speech recognition sounds if boosted, introducing a lisping
quality into a voice and making sounds formed with the lips such as
“m,” “b” and “v” indistinguishable. Too much boost in this range —
especially at 3kHz — can also cause listening fatigue. Dipping the
3kHz range on instrument backgrounds and slightly peaking 3kHz on
vocals can make the vocals audible without having to decrease the
instrumental level in mixes where the voice would otherwise seem
buried.

• Presence — The presence range between 4kHz and 6kHz is responsible
for the clarity and definition of voices and instruments. Boosting
this range can make the music seem closer to the listener. Reducing
the 5kHz content of a mix makes the sound more distant and
transparent.

• Brilliance — The 6kHz to 16kHz range controls the brilliance and
clarity of sounds. Too much emphasis in this range, however, can
produce sibilance on the vocals.

Is this too mellow?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

I'm not obsessed.


Sorry that disqualifies you from posting here.

--
Bill Coombes