Topic: To reduce bass or to not reduce bass?

[vanark]

I was at a show last night (Brandi Carlile) and the mix was very heavy on the bass side.  My recording sounds very nice and did a very nice job of capturing the show.  The heavy bass is respresented just as I heard it at the venue.  It isn't overwhelming and the rest of the instruments (incl. vocals) aren't buried by it, but the bass is strong.

So, do I run it through a high pass filter to try to eliminate the bassiness (and change the overall recording) or leave it as is as an accurate representation of the evening?  She has a cellist and I am esp. concerned about eliminating too much of it.  Oh hell, I think I've talked myself into leaving it as is, but I guess the topic is still one we can throw around?

[KLowe]

I save the masters untouched and then bass roll off in post to my liking.  I find myself rolling bass more and more. 

Just much more enjoyable to my ears.  Also...most shows I attend is always bass bloated.

FWIW.  Umphrey's McGee is the only band that I do not have to screw with the bass in post.  KB is the best sound guy in the biz as far as my ears tell me.


Roll that sucker..... my vote




----edit for clarification

[Brian Skalinder]

Roll that sucker..... my vote

How can you tell without listening?

So, do I run it through a high pass filter to try to eliminate the bassiness (and change the overall recording) or leave it as is as an accurate representation of the evening?

Sample?

[vanark]

2-0.  It is a runaway. :-)

I'm listening now and am liking the sound as is.  But, it is a good discussion nonetheless.

If I am using Audacity, what freq. should I start with?  I did 65, 80, 100, 120.  80 Hz seemed the best.  But, I didn't see any way to set the slope.

I'll post a sample in a minute.

[Brian Skalinder]

If I am using Audacity, what freq. should I start with?  I did 65, 80, 100, 120.  80 Hz seemed the best.  But, I didn't see any way to set the slope.

Those are all good options to try as a starting point for the HPF.  Next thing to sort is the slope.  I believe the standard HPF function in Audacity doesn't allow one to define the slope.  If you want control over the slope, try the Equalizer function - create one point for the start of the slope, a 2nd point all the way left, and drag the 2nd point down until you achieve the slope you like.  I usually start with a -6 dB / octave slope.

[vanark]

Here is an 18 sec. sample from the first track.  It seems to me the bass evens out a bit after the first couple songs.

This is 16/44.1 format, no HPF.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/rvvbxe

[KLowe]

If I am using Audacity, what freq. should I start with?  I did 65, 80, 100, 120.  80 Hz seemed the best.  But, I didn't see any way to set the slope.

Those are all good options to try as a starting point for the HPF.  Next thing to sort is the slope.  I believe the standard HPF function in Audacity doesn't allow one to define the slope.  If you want control over the slope, try the Equalizer function - create one point for the start of the slope, a 2nd point all the way left, and drag the 2nd point down until you achieve the slope you like.  I usually start with a -6 dB / octave slope.

I use SF 8.0 with the EQ function which allows you to slope as much as you pleae with "endless" slope points. 

Brian.  you're right.  I need to listen to his sample before roll off....but I was referring to what I do.  Listen first...decide...then BROff if needed.

Also....can you explain the -6db per octave to me.  I don't have a good grasp of "octave".

Great thread.  Thanks for the discussion.

[Brian Skalinder]

Also....can you explain the -6db per octave to me.  I don't have a good grasp of "octave".

To comprehend how an HPF rolls off bass, we typically need two parameters:  starting frequency and slope.  The starting frequency = the frequency at which the high pass filter begins.  Any content above this starting frequency is NOT impacted by the HPF, and any content below this starting frequency is impacted by the HPF.  The slope determines how steeply we roll off bass from the starting frequency.  Slope is usually expressed as dB / octave.  The dB value = how much attenutation is applied per octave, and an octave is defined as each halving of the frequency.

For example, let's assume a 120 Hz starting frequency and 6 dB / octave slope.  In this case, the bass at 60 Hz (one octave down from the starting frequency of 120 Hz) is 6 dB lower.  The bass at 30 Hz is 6 dB lower than at 60 Hz (one octave down), or 12 dB lower than at 120 Hz (two octaves down).  If we use a slope of 12 dB / octave (basically twice as steep), then the bass is -12 dB at 60 Hz and -24 dB (relative to our 120 Hz starting point) at 30 Hz.

[KLowe]

Plus T.

I finally get it.  Thanks again Brian.

You sir are a man among men.

[vanark]

Indeed.  +T to both of you for helping me get a grasp on it.

[JWard]

You can also use a "shelf" style EQ setting to reduce all frequencies lower than a given point evenly, in a flat manner, as opposed to the slope of the HPF.  I generally prefer this for reducing the bass in a recording, usually in combination with a HPF set with a very low inflection point.

[capnhook]

Also....can you explain the -6db per octave to me.  I don't have a good grasp of "octave".

To comprehend how an HPF rolls off bass, we typically need two parameters:  starting frequency and slope.  The starting frequency = the frequency at which the high pass filter begins.  Any content above this starting frequency is NOT impacted by the HPF, and any content below this starting frequency is impacted by the HPF.  The slope determines how steeply we roll off bass from the starting frequency.  Slope is usually expressed as dB / octave.  The dB value = how much attenutation is applied per octave, and an octave is defined as each halving of the frequency.

For example, let's assume a 120 Hz starting frequency and 6 dB / octave slope.  In this case, the bass at 60 Hz (one octave down from the starting frequency of 120 Hz) is 6 dB lower.  The bass at 30 Hz is 6 dB lower than at 60 Hz (one octave down), or 12 dB lower than at 120 Hz (two octaves down).  If we use a slope of 12 dB / octave (basically twice as steep), then the bass is -12 dB at 60 Hz and -24 dB (relative to our 120 Hz starting point) at 30 Hz.

One more thing I would add to this advice is that when you draw the EQ curve, add a few points around the starting frequency to draw a rounded "knee" in the curve, as opposed to just having a sharp point that the curve bends and pivots around.  This might just my personal preference, but it is the way that analog EQ's work ---- and seems to me to result in a smoother, more natural sounding function.   

Viva' Audacity,

Kevin

[jonohull]

I would say just leave it. The listener can adjust the sound on the playback EQ.

[Evil Taper]

If the show can sound better and you're confident in your mastering skills I don't see what the big deal is.  If there's all kind of rumble and low freq stuff going on that's negatively impacting the sound of the recording there's no reason not to roll it off.  Realistically you're not going to be listening to anything going on below 30Hz with attention anyway (it's mostly just rumble at concerts and extremely emphasized subharmonics) so you might as well roll that shit off.  You get rid of that low freq NOISE and the rest of the bass will sound cleaner and tighter anyway, slops for hogs.

There's all this nay say over compression of recordings to conserve the natural dynamics of concerts but I'm leaning the other way lately.  Yeah it's nice to have a dynamic performance going on but when you have long 20 or 30 dB swings you really have to be listening at high volumes to get a good energy out of your playback.  Real life rock music isn't even that dynamic up close anyway, that's just what happens when you have PA systems and mics reinterpreting concert acoustics.  So why not do some gentle compression and a little bit of limiting to make the listening experience more pleasurable?  I'm not saying that you should compress to the level of modern music, where you're lucky if you have maybe 4dB of dynamics going on, but just enough to control the experience so you're not having to turn the stereo up during any part of the show.

[yousef]

So why not do some gentle compression and a little bit of limiting to make the listening experience more pleasurable?  I'm not saying that you should compress to the level of modern music, where you're lucky if you have maybe 4dB of dynamics going on, but just enough to control the experience so you're not having to turn the stereo up during any part of the show.

I think I might be in agreement with you here but whenever I try and compress a recording it ends up sounding horribly 'affected', like a particularly aggressive AGC has been kicking in... What are some good, subtle settings to use in the first instance?

[boyacrobat]

driving bass is what makes live shows.
leave it and know your equiptment and clip levels and surf the waves.
mics will swallow it up no probs.

but its not my call, its yours
many people have good hp that can handle the truth.

g

[Evil Taper]

The settings are completely dependent on the material being compressed.  Set a fast attack and moderate release, the threshold and makeup gains are dependent on the material.  It's easier to just use a limiter and set it to get a decent final output, RMS around -6dB or whatever you like.

[rdflash]

good thread.

[gratefulphish]

I have been using a roll-off fairly frequently, especially in smaller venues with hyperactive subwoofers.  Even with a mild roll-off, the waveform drops down to barely above -18db, meaning to me, that the bulk of the sound being picked up, and affecting the setting of our levels, is coming from the low end.  I find that it can dramatically clear up boomy recordings in acoustically challenged rooms as well.  I usually copy and paste sections from a few songs onto a new page in SF and then try different settings, as they process much quicker than the entire file.  Once I figure out what I like, I go back and apply it to the entire file.

[junonato]

I have been using a roll-off fairly frequently, especially in smaller venues with hyperactive subwoofers.  Even with a mild roll-off, the waveform drops down to barely above -18db, meaning to me, that the bulk of the sound being picked up, and affecting the setting of our levels, is coming from the low end.  I find that it can dramatically clear up boomy recordings in acoustically challenged rooms as well.  I usually copy and paste sections from a few songs onto a new page in SF and then try different settings, as they process much quicker than the entire file.  Once I figure out what I like, I go back and apply it to the entire file.

well said, i have been using rolloff for onstage recordings as of late and it seems that it works well to drown the low end a bit, while keeping the high end and horns quite nicely!

[Jhurlbs81]

 I usually kick down the 150-200Hz frequencies by about 5-6db.  I find those frequencies when knocked down clean up my recordings dramatically.  Don't do it for all of them, but most of my recordings I will EQ slightly.  Over time I've found that less is more.  Usually, what you leave the venue with on tape is what you got, but you can improve a lot tapes with a gentle EQ and compressor IMO.

Jesse

[JoeKiller]

I had crazy bass with my setup and didn't quite like the results.  starting running X-Y, instead of ORTF, and I don't have to touch a thing in the post now.