Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
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.

All text books agree on the audio bands, and give them as
Owsinski whom you quote above. Bass is 60 - 250Hz.

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
...
"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.

By contemporary music, most of us mean classical music
written since 1945. (see Groves)

Perhaps you mean popular music?

You snipped the paragraph where I wrote:

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

Has no clue about pipe organs, neither

On cannot describe a pipe organ as a bass instrument, Arny,
even though some can play a fundamental an octave
below the bass guitar. Neither can the harp, the bottom C of
which is at 32 Hz and the top F is about 2700z,

If you are involved with classical music and jazz as I am,
you will find that the string bass to which I referred is the
ubiquitous bass instrument, which makes a nonsense of
your opening setence above.

Your lack of knowledge can be forgiven, but your
attempts to mislead people here, by distorting the facts,
cannot.

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

Here's a succint comment from the
producer of the UKRAinians.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...UKRAinians.jpg

Is this too mellow?
 

In article ,
bcoombes

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.

BTW Humans can also 'hear' "frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz". All this
requires is for the pressure variations to be large enough to be sensed and
to allow for the sensation in your ears to qualify as 'hear'.

BTW2 Can you give me a reference for what you say about pigeons? I can
check my own observation from having sensed such changes. But I'm not a
pigeon. (Honest!) :-)

Above said, it isn't clear to me what relevance it would have for something
like recordings or broadcasts of music/speech.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:56:39 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


Here's a succint comment from the
producer of the UKRAinians.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...UKRAinians.jpg


Ouch! The mics aren't pointing anywhere in particular, all the faders
are down, the operator is monitoring on headphones and he's smoking
over the board! At least they've got the producer's ponytail right
:-)

Don't let Arny see the cartoon, he might think that's how it's done.

Is this too mellow?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:56:39 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Here's a succint comment from the
producer of the UKRAinians.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...UKRAinians.jpg


all the faders are down,

That's the way to get the best possible sound from a grunge band. :)

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
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.

To clarify, my goal is to more effectively optimize by ear. I like to be
able to listen to both sides of the optimum, to determine what the optimum
is. Most subwoofer crossovers end up in the 60-80 Hz range for large main
speakers. I wanted to be able to listen to what one gets with as low as 40
Hz, to be sure that the final choice, which was in one case 60 Hz, was
really the best choice.

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.

Subharmonic synths give what I think of as a sort of "Las Vegas" sound to
some music. In moderation its probably fun, but if turned way up, it is
clearly an EFX which you will either love or hate.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

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.

What you don't realize is that this isn't a race between Arny Krueger and
Bobby Owsinki.

For one thing his book (which I own, read years ago and found helpful, but
not encompassing of all audio [of course!]) is oriented towards the sort of
work *he* does. Never saw any Organ records or AFAIK even classical records
or acoustic-dominnant live that mixed. Also, you don't find may articles
about how to set up your HT subwoofer that he wrote. I've had to do both
which are probably outside his preferred domain, plus much work that is
similar to his main domain.

The point is that we don't have to come up with the identical same answers
to each be very helpful in our particular domains.

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

Your problem is that you are relying too much on authorities. You should
think for yourself as well.

. 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.

Not wide enough. I work in enviromnents where there are a number of home
systems respond cleanly and solidly down to 10 Hz and are going strong as
low as 5 Hz. If you want to throw around the names of authorities, look at
the work of my good friend Tom Nousine (beer and pizza last Saturday night)
who free lances for Sound and Vision and a number of other popular journals,
as well as his work that shows up at AES conventions. His goal is systems
that can do ... well you read for yourself:

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/The%20T...Subwoofers.pdf

He's basically talking about 126 dB SPL (or more) @ 10Hz (or less) with
less than 10% THD. He has a subwoofer in his house that does just that. So
do my friends David Clark (AES Fellow!) and a number of other hardy souls
who are FOA (friends of Arny ;-)) whose names it would be senseless to drop.
I spent Saturday doing Beer and Pizza at the location of such a subwoofer
(woofers are Klipschorns) which is one of two very different but similarily
capable system that are within 5 miles of my home. And just to close the
loop, my good friend Earl Geddes (AES Fellow!) might disagree. I am not
infrequently in rooms with all of the above and we all manage get along. And
just to whet your fancy, consider that those two AES Fellows plus JJ and I
were throwing it around at a bar across town within the past 2 months.

The fact that Bobby O wrote a book with frequency ranges that differ from my
preferred way of thinking by less than an octave is meaningless in the
cosmic scheme of things. Of course he's a better, more experienced, far
better known mixer than I am. But, I think that over beer and pizza we would
agree about quite a bit since I'm somewhat a disciple of him. And, he
wouldn't pull the kind of pedantic crap that you are, Laurence.

So one and all, read Bobby's book about mixing, but it will be a cosmic
waste of time unless you actually go hands one with a mixing console fairly
often. Good fun for technical voyeurs, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But, its not me. For me mixing fair-sized events is a participant sport that
I play several times a week.

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
...
"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.

By contemporary music, most of us mean classical music
written since 1945. (see Groves)

LOL!

Thanks a lot Iain for definatively showing that you don't live in the same
universe as just about everybody.

Almost all people alive today think that contemporary music is the music
that is played and listened to by almost all of the people who our
contemporaries. Virtually none of them know who Groves is, or would care
what he says if they do.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:56:39 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


Here's a succint comment from the
producer of the UKRAinians.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...UKRAinians.jpg


Ouch! The mics aren't pointing anywhere in particular,
all the faders are down, the operator is monitoring on
headphones and he's smoking over the board! At least
they've got the producer's ponytail right :-)

Don't let Arny see the cartoon, he might think that's how
it's done.

Another wounded ego is heard from.