Cool bass sound.

[asi9]

Hey, I came across a cool way to make a bass sound that mixes well in metal/rock songs, and still allows the bassist to have his "scooped" sound.

After recording/micing his amp and look at the waveforms on a spectrum analyzer, I found that there were absolutely NO mids. There was energy in starting at 150hz and down, and between 1000hz and 3000hz, and NOTHING inbetween. What's worse, the 1000-3000hz signal was INCREDIBLY wild. After working with it a while, here's what I did:

I took the direct signal, compressed the hell out of it, and completely killed the hi-end.... like a roll-off at 250hz.

The mic'ed cab track had a little bit more midrange, but the hi-end was still pretty wild, so I ended up putting it through a speaker emulator with a hair of distortion while cutting the lows. It tamed the signal, and because the upper mids were so hot, the distortion gave it a really percussive, "clacky" sound that when combined with the low end from the direct, sounded really cool. Mixed in with the guitars, the "clack" adds a cool new dimension of attack to the guitars (especially since the bass pretty much doubles guitars the whole time anyway).

If you're to lazy to read all that, here's what I did in a nutshell:

Compress the low end. Distort the hi-end.


Anyway, I just wanted to share this because of I feel victory for fitting nearly unworkable tracks into the mix. Hooray for me!

 

[chessrock]

Thanks for the info . . .

Try this one on for size . . .

Just a touch of phaser to the low end. Just a hair. Might not be for you, but it makes it sound ultra smooth, in my opinion.

Question about the spectral analysis: I like the way you explain things, so as layman as you can get, how do I use the spectrum analysis to spot this sort of problem? Sometimes my ear knows something doesn't sound right, but it isn't sure why . . .

I'm sure if this tool you are refering to would allow me to see things like this (no mids on the bass, for example), I could probably dream up some of my own little techniques like that.

Thanks!

 

[Oysterman]

Re: Thanks for the info . . .

Try this one on for size . . .

Just a touch of phaser to the low end. Just a hair. Might not be for you, but it makes it sound ultra smooth, in my opinion.

I don't have to. My bass strings (D'Addario XL's) give that slight chorus effect without any processing (direct signal). IMO it absolutely sucks when soloed, but OTOH it blends pretty well with other instruments.

I've given up finding that really "cool bass sound" with the gear I have... I need a new bass.

 

[Kermit]

I did something like that for a few tracks of a demo we never finished. I have a biamped amp, so I took a direct all around track and a D112 on the 18, then stuck my KSM 32 on the 10s and distorted that. Boost around 250 on the direct. I was happy, until we had to scrap the project.

I tried something last night with a guitar setup: micing a Marshall half stack with a 57 on the top right speaker (45 degree angle, right on the grill, yadda...). The I ran the mic through my Mackie board, and took a tape out into my JVC stereo that is really bass heavy. It's got it's own biamped speakers on it, so I took the D112 to the "sub" and another 57 to the full range (the reason I did this is because it was late and I couldn't turn up the amp too loud, plus the tubes on the Marshall are old, resulting in a lifeless sound. I'm look for ways to fix it until the tubes are replaced).

Anyways, I brought all 3 up, on my monitors and headphones, and was very satisfied. Finally got a guitar sound that is worth recording.

 

[asi9]

Hey, sounds like a cool trick. Took me forever to finally a guitar sound that didn't sound demo-esque, too. Finally satisfied with our sound in everything... we're ready to start our full-length album. YAY!!!!

chessrock: The way it helped me on this particular recording was when I looked at it, there were NO mids at ALL. Nothing between 400hz and 1000hz was even showing up.

Spectral analysis helps me in two way:
1: I can see how well evenly everything is balanced, especially since I mix in a pair of headphones that aren't very bassy, causing me to always boost more lows than I should.
2: There can be peaks that you may not even be able to hear in a certain frequency range that is lowering your overall volume. For example, on the kick drum, there was a lot of energy below 40hz, which is hardly even audible, so I used a hi-pass eq to cut everything below 40. Normally, I would have been satisfied, but after I did that and looked at it on the spectral analyzer, there was STILL energy below 40hz. After doing a SECOND cut, suddenly, it all seemed to clear up, it was much cleaner, fuller, and louder. I wouldn't have done it a second time if I hadn't seen there was still activity down there.

Another thing to keep in my with spectrals is that you can make an eq change that is very noticeable to your ears, but hardly looks like it changes a thing when viewing it. This can be good, too.... especially if you are trying to boost a certain frequency, but are afraid you don't have enough headroom.

Damn, I'm glad I got myself a spectrum analyzer.

 

[chessrock]

Thanks for the info . . .

Very helpful. So in other words, the spectrum analyzer gives you a graphical representation of how your tracks are equalized, so to speak ?

I was using it on a final mix of mine, and noticed it is very evenly distributed (almost a straight line all the way across with a few bumps & ripples), with a gentle slope descending to the right. Looked at a few MP3's of tunes from some pop artists, and noticed they weren't nearly as even . . . Similar rightward slope, but lots more peaks and valleys as you make your way to the right.

Am I to assume the rightward slope (downward) is reflective of the overall bassy nature of a lot of pop music ??

Also in regards to the peaks and valleys: My initial thoughts are that the conversion to the MP3 format causes a change in some of the balance of frequencies? Or perhaps the mastering engineers purposely cut certain frequencies for sound-quality purposes, or to fix some odd sounds, for an effect, etc. ??

Back to my own mixes: Despite the gentle slope to the right, they still sound a bit on the trebly side. Could it be that I have a particular high frequency that's peaking just a little out of control? I'm very new to the spectrum analyzer, so if anyone has a link to where I can find some more info. on how to use it, and what it all means, I would be most appreciative. Right now I'm just sort of feeling my way around, relying on instinct and guesswork. In case you couldn't tell.

Thanks again for the great info !

 

[asi9]

Which spectrum analyzer are you using? and what frequencies does it show?

As for the downward right slope, where does it start? Does is start dipping around 10-12khz? Getting above that, it's harder for the human ear to hear, so are pretty much unecessary, and only really succeed in working the amp harder than it needs to (same with freqs below 40hz).

If it sounds trebley, and you says it pretty much flat across the top, then your problem area is probably going to be between 1,000 to 3,000hz.... that's the area that human hear hears the loudest, and if all freqs are the same volume, that's what's gonna stick out, thus making it sound trebley.

As far as spectrum analyzers go, I use them to see what my ears cannot hear (easily). If you haven't already, you should seriously read the thread about spectrum analyzers... do a search for it, I think it's in this forum.

Another thing I've done alot that helps... get a graphic eq with a shitload of bands, then open up a wav of your favorite overall mixes.

Go frequency by frequency and boost each one radically all by themselves. You'll find that certain instruments will really stick out, thus, find out which areas of the spectrum each instruments takes up. For example, boosting 80hz, you'll hear the kick drum, and a little bass. Then boosting 120, the bass hums in your ears. Then at 200, the meat of the guitars grab you, etc.

 

[chessrock]

How much will that be?

I feel like I should pay for your services. lol.

Really, thanks so much for the info. I understand the way you explain things. It makes total sense, now -- the reason most of the commercial/pop mixes have such boost in the lower ranges is because we don't hear those frequencies as well -- thus the need for the balance.

Plus I can see now why the need to remove the extreme frequencies, as it puts your equipment to work unnecessarily . . . unless, of course you are mixing music for your dog or something.

Great stuff. Thanks so much. I will do a search for the post you were talking about.

Take care.

 

[asi9]

No problem.... I've learned pretty much half of everything I know from people on this board and reading threads.... it feels good to return the favor. It also makes me feel like I'm smart and actually know someting!!!