Post by: alanfc on October 17, 2005, 01:43:21 PM
on this reference I have in my system (Sonar)
The song is Fugazi's "Waiting Room".
Am I really hearing the bass guitar in stereo? It seems to envelop everything without dominating everything.
Before our next recording I want to get this straight once and for all. I'm trying to reproduce this deep wide bass I'm hearing, it pleases me.
Thing is, everyone says bass only goes down the center.
It sounds dumb to ask but - - - can you tell me what I'm hearing?
Thanks
Post by: takeout on October 17, 2005, 01:58:22 PM
Post by: j.hall on October 17, 2005, 04:08:11 PM
Post by: NelsonL on October 17, 2005, 04:19:07 PM
Of course time spent trying to actually sound like Fugazi would be... water down the drain. They're truly one of a kind.
On a semi-related note-- we played our first all ages show in a good while last night. I have to say, it felt really good.
Post by: alanfc on October 17, 2005, 05:02:24 PM
thanks guys-
indeed I'm not trying to sound just like them....
It just was an extreme example. Songs on the radio I'm hearing this too, but I haven't DL'd or bought any to try in my system yet.
Its this bass thats everywhere, but not dominant, do you know what I mean?
thanks
Post by: floodstage on October 17, 2005, 05:09:42 PM
http://www.partyben.com/PartyBen-FugaziChild-IndependentRoom .mp3
Post by: NelsonL on October 17, 2005, 05:33:04 PM
| alanfc wrote on Mon, 17 October 2005 14:02 |
indeed I'm not trying to sound just like them.... |
Oh I know, I was just trying to think of a way to incorporate the lyric into my post.
Chalk it up to stupid human tricks.
Post by: j.hall on October 17, 2005, 05:35:17 PM
| floodstage wrote on Mon, 17 October 2005 16:09 |
A bit off topic .... speaking of Fugazi, (sort of) anyone heard this? http://www.partyben.com/PartyBen-FugaziChild-IndependentRoom .mp3 |
what the hell?
Post by: bblackwood on October 17, 2005, 05:47:30 PM
Post by: floodstage on October 17, 2005, 07:16:54 PM
Someone ducked the Fugazi voc's, "borrowed" Destiny's Child's vocs and did a re mix with what was left.
I would be highly surprized if it was done with anyone's permission.
Post by: alanfc on October 17, 2005, 07:33:30 PM
So am I just imagining this wide bass sound?
Post by: j.hall on October 17, 2005, 11:46:38 PM
alan, sorta.......
like takeout said, you're hearing "bass" coming from multiple places when the guitars are palm muting in the verse part....it's a classic fugazi move.
Post by: rollmottle on October 18, 2005, 02:14:16 AM
| floodstage wrote on Mon, 17 October 2005 14:09 |
A bit off topic .... speaking of Fugazi, (sort of) anyone heard this? http://www.partyben.com/PartyBen-FugaziChild-IndependentRoom .mp3 |
L
O
L
being one of the biggest Fugazi fans, i must say i'm extremely appalled yet extremely amused...on another note, mash-ups need to die.
Post by: bloodstone on October 18, 2005, 06:23:11 AM
Post by: j.hall on October 18, 2005, 09:50:59 AM
the mic'd amp will arrive later then the DI leaving you with phase issues in the bottom. unless you are correcting this with a little labs box or nudging it in a DAW, i think this practice is far to risky for me to adopt. and it should be noted to others reading this that it could be potentially hazardous.
Post by: lord on October 18, 2005, 12:12:27 PM
Don't a lot of records get the low end "spread out" in mastering?
Modern rock that I hear has no solid sounds anywhere. It's all a washy murk splattered all over the stereo field. Wide bass is part of that "polish".
Post by: j.hall on October 18, 2005, 12:23:00 PM
Post by: alanfc on October 18, 2005, 01:18:33 PM
lets say I stick with the traditional single bass track.
I would really like to avoid this phase business!
How about panning it 10% Left or right----
is this enough to make a little more space for the kick?
This of course is assuming that I've done a good job with EQ between kick and bass.
Or is 10% too much , or not enough. Of course I need to play with this myself but I was just curious (and posting from work).
Thanks Alot
Post by: j.hall on October 18, 2005, 02:51:00 PM
i've panned all the drums hard left and the bass hard right on certain songs for more of vibe......but i wouldn't call that any sort of typical approach.
if the bass in up the center and you only have one track of it, phase is irrelevant (at least for the bass).
if you really want to pan it, then just use your ears. you want to avoid adding too much weight to one side of the mix that you can't balance out on the other.....this of course is very general, i've done plenty of mixes that are weighted to one side or another....but typically it's not with the bass.
mono compatibility is a big issue. and as i agree with Max that things are getting really "smeary" i also disagree by the fact of listening to many current albums in mono in my studio. you lose a lot of the glitz and glamour, but the mix still pounds through with bass, drums, guitar, and vocals in mono....and for rock n roll, that's what is important.
big rock band, with kick, snare, bass, and lead vocal all panned up the center.
Urgency
Post by: alanfc on October 18, 2005, 03:47:22 PM
COOL thank you, I'll DL this tonite !
Post by: NelsonL on October 18, 2005, 03:59:40 PM
I don't think that link is working-- then again, neither am I.
Post by: j.hall on October 18, 2005, 04:43:36 PM
Post by: John Ivan on October 18, 2005, 04:52:50 PM
I thought I might share this thing I've done before. Can't remember where I got it but,,,
I have in the past,taken a DI bass and run it through a two way cross over. I can then mess around with limiting the top and bottom separately and can "effect" the top band with a very small amount of pitch shift. I too check for mono but I would be happier if I could let that go. J is right though, If it's going on the radio, you should check for mono.
Ivan.....
Post by: NelsonL on October 18, 2005, 05:01:40 PM
I'd be interested to try it in conjunction with a mic'd rig sometime just for fun, although I doubt I'd pan them very far apart if at all.
Post by: j.hall on October 18, 2005, 06:14:12 PM
| ivan40 wrote on Tue, 18 October 2005 15:52 |
J is right though, If it's going on the radio, you should check for mono. Ivan..... |
thanks Ivan, but i think people should be checking for mono ALWAYS!!!!!!!!!
radio or not, you haven't a clue where your mixes will end up.
it is our responsibility as professionals to deliver a professional product that can stand up under any circumstance. mono is the true test for a mix. if the music keeps going with little effect on the balances then you are good. but if too many things disappear or get shifted then you need to keep working.
Post by: bloodstone on October 20, 2005, 01:47:24 PM
| j.hall wrote on Tue, 18 October 2005 14:50 |
so what do you do about mono compatibility? the mic'd amp will arrive later then the DI leaving you with phase issues in the bottom. unless you are correcting this with a little labs box or nudging it in a DAW, i think this practice is far to risky for me to adopt. and it should be noted to others reading this that it could be potentially hazardous. |
Never had problems with phase that I could "hear". When would mono compatibility come into play in a stereo world? One speaker boom boxes? Mono PA systems? Cheap car radios?
One more thought: if you listen to an old stereo recording on vinyl of the Beatles Rubber Soul, the bass will be hard-panned left or right, along with things like drums, etc. How does that factor into mono compatibility?
All I can say is that I've recorded & mixed about 10 full-length records in my life and tracked & mixed probably 400 songs and always get compliments on the sound of the bass. I used this technique on every recording. It works for me, but ya don't have to embrace it if ya don't want to.
I check mono a lot, too. But not on every mix
I would be interested to see you elaborate on the phase/mono compatibility issues.
Also, not sure if this makes any difference, but in these cases signal routing is bass/DI/bass amp. Both the miced amp and the DI were patched into a 100' snake.
Post by: NelsonL on October 20, 2005, 02:22:08 PM
Cheap TV's often only have one speaker, like the boom box you mention.
Junky soundcards in the office environment might be another.
I'm sure there are more examples, FM is a pretty good one on it's own merit.
Post by: bloodstone on October 20, 2005, 03:01:06 PM
| rattleyour wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 19:22 |
FM broadcasts collapse to mono at times. Cheap TV's often only have one speaker, like the boom box you mention. Junky soundcards in the office environment might be another. I'm sure there are more examples, FM is a pretty good one on it's own merit. |
Is it a definite that bass hard panned left and right will be inaudible on a mono system, or just potentially possible? Is that why old releases on vinyl had mono and stereo versions?
Post by: scott volthause on October 20, 2005, 03:33:43 PM
| bloodstone wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 15:01 |
Is it a definite that bass hard panned left and right will be inaudible on a mono system, or just potentially possible? Is that why old releases on vinyl had mono and stereo versions? |
It's not definite unless the two bass signals have out of phase content, and only then will the out of phase content cancel.
Vinyl is a whole 'nother ball of wax (pun intended? i dunno). Out of phase bass content was a serous no-no with vinyl, but more from a manufacturing angle. The lathe head used to cut the master would do funky things (like jump out of the groove) when there was out of phase content in the lower freqs.
Post by: scott volthause on October 20, 2005, 03:36:17 PM
| j.hall wrote on Tue, 18 October 2005 18:14 |
thanks Ivan, but i think people should be checking for mono ALWAYS!!!!!!!!! |
agreed X 1000.
Post by: bloodstone on October 20, 2005, 04:32:52 PM
| Scott Volthause wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 20:33 | ||
It's not definite unless the two bass signals have out of phase content, and only then will the out of phase content cancel. Vinyl is a whole 'nother ball of wax (pun intended? i dunno). Out of phase bass content was a serous no-no with vinyl, but more from a manufacturing angle. The lathe head used to cut the master would do funky things (like jump out of the groove) when there was out of phase content in the lower freqs. |
So what about all those stereo Beatles albums with the bass hard-panned to one side or the other? Does that translate to mono (radio)?
Post by: NelsonL on October 20, 2005, 05:33:45 PM
I've heard the Beatles on FM before where elements were clearly missing-- I wish I could remember the song specifically and what was different.
If you sum the mix to mono, and there is no bass at all on the other side of the mix (nothing to be out of phase,) then the bass should stay intact.
If one channel goes out for some reason, then obviously all elements unique to that channel are lost. This might well be a lesser concern.
I think (and I could be wrong) that when FM collapses to mono, the channels are summed rather than just, lopped off on one side.
I'm not entirely sure the mechanism of this phenomenon, I believe it relates to the way the receiver handles weaker FM signals.
Anyone?
Pony up science dudes!
Post by: alanfc on October 20, 2005, 05:45:45 PM
this is fantastic
Post by: j.hall on October 20, 2005, 06:19:41 PM
let's dive in.
bloodstone, you won't have problems unless you have out of phase information. phase affects low end tremendously as the wave forms are much longer and a slight shift in phase will affect certain notes and not others. the degree of the shift is what is important.
when mic'ing a bass and and taking the DI the DI signal will arrive sooner to the multi-track then the mic. see the mic has to pick up the acoustical sound through the amp circuit into the speaker then to the mic, through the cable to the pre-amp and then to the multi-track. it just takes longer to follow that path then the DI
this is when phase is an issue. if you hard pan it with out any timing correction you will have some phase cancelations when summed to mono. this is basic engineering so i won't beat it to death.
radio......what happens here is that when your stereo hits weak spots in the transmission it will automatically switch to mono. this is a summing and not a ditching of the left channel. it sums the feed and pumps it out. this is when good mixers rise above the rest. there work won't sound any "different" in mono...just less full...
vinyl records have trouble with stereo bass do to physical limitations of the medium. i believe most lathes some the low frequency (like below 150) to mono and cut it in that way. i'm not a vinyl expert nor do i care to discuss it past how much i enjoy listening to my records.
old beatles recordings:
the beatles recording at EMI studios, which happened to be fitted with an EMI console (go figure). the EMI consoles had stereo channels only with hard panning. so really, the engineers had no choice. bass went to one channel and drums went to another. it was there best option. it split the rhythm section. drums left, bass right. that's why the lead vocal is left and the slap is right.
in this situation, summing to mono will merely bring all elements front and center. what Liam is talking about is some other issues on more adventerous beatles' recording where things really are out of phase. i've heard some of those as well.
so, when i say i won't adopt that practice, i hope i've clearly stated why.
little labs makes a brilliant piece of gear called that has variable pahse control to re-align a DI with a mic and eleminate this problem. i suggest you look into picking one up. then again, if things are working for you.....don't change a thing.
Post by: rollmottle on October 20, 2005, 09:41:42 PM
| j.hall wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 15:19 |
old beatles recordings: the beatles recording at EMI studios, which happened to be fitted with an EMI console (go figure). the EMI consoles had stereo channels only with hard panning. so really, the engineers had no choice. bass went to one channel and drums went to another. it was there best option. it split the rhythm section. drums left, bass right. that's why the lead vocal is left and the slap is right. in this situation, summing to mono will merely bring all elements front and center. what Liam is talking about is some other issues on more adventerous beatles' recording where things really are out of phase. i've heard some of those as well. so, when i say i won't adopt that practice, i hope i've clearly stated why. little labs makes a brilliant piece of gear called that has variable pahse control to re-align a DI with a mic and eleminate this problem. i suggest you look into picking one up. then again, if things are working for you.....don't change a thing. |
they're talking about this very thing over in GM's forum.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/7506/9433/?SQ=9 3c80961a6e78f48264e45feb6ae3b65
Post by: bloodstone on October 21, 2005, 10:42:54 AM
Post by: NelsonL on October 21, 2005, 12:36:20 PM
If you have them hard panned then you're not combining the signals, so the phase problem may not be in evidence until you hear the mix in mono at which point the signals are combined-- your bass might lose a lot of low end for instance.
If you want to avoid this (or at least confront it) you can just put both the DI and the Mic'd amp in the center-- if you have problems it will be evident in the sound. You can reverse polarity on one of the tracks on the console or in the box and this may help, or it may exaggerate the effect. Some people nudge the tracks around too since arrival time is part of the equation. Also, there's the IPB which is a great phase alignment tool and also an excellent DI in my experience.
When you talk about copying the track and hard panning it you're essentially just panning the track to the center in a round about way.
And, no-- a dupe of the same take shouldn't have any phase issues with itself no matter how you pan it. You can mess that up though if you add a plugin with appreciable latency to one side and not the other-- thus changing the arrival time of one side.
Here's an article on the subject from our kind hosts:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/studyhall/studyjump.php?pdf=polar ity_and_phase
Post by: floodstage on October 21, 2005, 03:02:42 PM
| bloodstone wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 09:42 |
So if I doubled the DI (copy & paste) or doubled the miced amp and hard-panned, there would be no phase issue? |
As Rattleyour said, no problem.
On my digital board, I often pan a track hard one way and send through the effects send to another track and hard pan the other way. This (on my board) adds a very small delay and can cause phase problems.
But copy / paste to same EXACT starting spot, shouldn't be a problem. (Unless you do something to the copied track that causes a change in phase)
Post by: scott volthause on October 21, 2005, 03:16:33 PM
| floodstage wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 15:02 |
But copy / paste to same EXACT starting spot, shouldn't be a problem. |
Well, there is a slight problem, in that it's a waste of time, and kind of pointless. You end up with a centered bass track (as has been said already)
The question is why do you feel like you need to have stereo bass? I would imagine it's because it's not cutting through as you would like, therefore one has to consider the possibility that you've got something else in the bass guitar freq range that's eating up all of it's real estate sonically, or you're having trouble balancing the kick and bass, one is always louder and walking on the other?
Post by: alanfc on October 21, 2005, 05:16:54 PM
| Scott Volthause wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 12:16 | ||
Well, there is a slight problem, in that it's a waste of time, and kind of pointless. You end up with a centered bass track (as has been said already) The question is why do you feel like you need to have stereo bass? I would imagine it's because it's not cutting through as you would like, therefore one has to consider the possibility that you've got something else in the bass guitar freq range that's eating up all of it's real estate sonically, or you're having trouble balancing the kick and bass, one is always louder and walking on the other? |
Yes, well stereo is not necessarily the goal.
But I keep hearing it that way in other band's mixes...
as for our stuff, some songs I want it warm and omnipresent, and on some songs I want it Chris Squire ! (def.not stereo to my ears).
So its really that big/wide/warm type sound that stumps me. To my ears it just sounds stereo.
thanks
Post by: bloodstone on October 21, 2005, 08:53:08 PM
I appreciate the comments but I have to say that despite the fact that apparently scientifically it's not supposed to be a good idea, I think my work sounds better when I use my hard-panned DI & miced amp combo. At least through car stereos and home stereos.
I'll definitely have to pay more attention to the mono thing and check for possible problems that may diminish the work in radioland or on one speaker boom boxes et al..
Thanks for the input. You've raised issues I hadn't considered.
Post by: j.hall on October 22, 2005, 04:19:23 PM
| bloodstone wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 19:53 |
I appreciate the comments but I have to say that despite the fact that apparently scientifically it's not supposed to be a good idea, I think my work sounds better when I use my hard-panned DI & miced amp combo. At least through car stereos and home stereos. |
i don't think i've ever said what you are doing is "wrong", i just won't follow suit.
and hey, depending on the amp and mic chain (and DI) you might have very little problems to begin with.
just check some mixes in mono, and see if you can live with the result.
personally, i don't like when my evil twin DI is summed with a mic. it just doesn't work.
Post by: John Ivan on October 22, 2005, 04:55:50 PM
Ivan.........
Post by: Fibes on October 22, 2005, 10:55:27 PM
I don't do a lot of panning with bass but currently I'm mixing a three piece that uses a fuzz on the bass for impact and they lke a pretty "pixieseque" bass tone so i've set things up as follows.
Since it's a three piece i'm kinda soundstaging the band with the rtm guitar main mic panned slightly to the right with the second mic hard left. This leaves a little room on the left side for the treated DI input from the bass. To get some of the tack and clarity i've panned the treated DI to the left and high passed it grinding a little amp sim to make it speak. When the fuzz gets kicked in during the chorus' it suddenly fills out the left side completely and now i have one huge ass and clear mix on my hands. This shit wasn't working symetrically at all.
Post by: John Ivan on October 23, 2005, 12:11:06 AM
Ivan...........
Post by: Andy Simpson on October 23, 2005, 09:21:24 AM
The combing from such a sum would have no practical effect on the low frequencies, but rather would potentially cause peaks/troughs on the higher frequencies.....you can work it out according to wavelength and the distance between the speaker and the mic.....
If we're talking about a mic up against the grill of the cab, that's pretty short distance......might comb significantly at >2k....but we're talking about bass here, right?
Perhaps if the mic was some feet away from the cab you could have serious problems with the lows......but....well.....
Andy
Post by: lord on October 23, 2005, 01:18:42 PM
No, you do not have full on cancellation at 40 Hz. But the change in tone even with the cab close mic'ed is plainly audible, and surely you have experienced this.
Post by: Andy Simpson on October 23, 2005, 03:29:46 PM
| lord wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 18:18 |
Remember that you get dramatic effects at just 1/4 wavelength. A couple inches of delay causes serious effects in the midrange. No, you do not have full on cancellation at 40 Hz. But the change in tone even with the cab close mic'ed is plainly audible, and surely you have experienced this. |
Wavelength at 40hz = 8.6 metres.
Wavelength at 300hz = 1.1 metres.
Wavelength at 1k = 0.3 metres.
Yeah, I agree about the mid-range and that the change in tone is fully audible, but we're talking about big/serious LF problems.....ie. will the bass 'disappear'?
No it won't. It'll probably just sound a bit 'deeper' (think parallel pickups on a stingray).
I'd worry about stereo drum overheads in mono first......
Andy
Post by: John Ivan on October 23, 2005, 04:05:24 PM
| lord wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 12:18 |
Remember that you get dramatic effects at just 1/4 wavelength. A couple inches of delay causes serious effects in the midrange. No, you do not have full on cancellation at 40 Hz. But the change in tone even with the cab close mic'ed is plainly audible, and surely you have experienced this. |
Yes indeed. I have gone DI+ very close Mic and, summed to mono, the tone changes quite a lot. If the rest of the mix collapses fine, and the bass just "changes" to a tone I can live with, It's all good.
This is something to look out for tho, to be sure. Great topic.
Post by: thephatboi on October 23, 2005, 04:19:58 PM
ps. I was a session bass player before becoming an egineer; I really like a big, tight bottom, on my mixes and....
Post by: alanfc on October 23, 2005, 08:20:04 PM
Post by: alanfc on October 23, 2005, 08:22:29 PM
| thephatboi wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 13:19 |
Another thing I have done is do a "phantom" double of the bass track sometimes with a mini moog or some synth, preferably analog, mix it almost subliminally and perhaps pan it off from the real bass a bit, It adds depth and since it is not the exact same instrument, ..................... |
this is funny you mention this because on our last CD, I went in with downtuned guitar and beefed up some choruses where the bass player was wheedling up in the upper registers and wasn't having enough of a splash for me on the beat. Single notes using a mildly overdriven strat bridge PU sound, an octave lower than what the bass player was doing, panned a little left.
Not obvious it was there, but when it wasn't...very obvious.
Post by: thephatboi on October 23, 2005, 10:31:00 PM
Post by: j.hall on October 24, 2005, 10:43:27 AM
| andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 14:29 |
Wavelength at 40hz = 8.6 metres. Wavelength at 300hz = 1.1 metres. Wavelength at 1k = 0.3 metres. Yeah, I agree about the mid-range and that the change in tone is fully audible, but we're talking about big/serious LF problems.....ie. will the bass 'disappear'? No it won't. It'll probably just sound a bit 'deeper' |
i don't recall anyone claiming that summing of a mic and DI would result in complete cancellation. secondly, just because the waveforms are that long doesn't mean you won't have problems.
Post by: floodstage on October 24, 2005, 01:51:01 PM
I'm currently doing a CD for a punk band with 2 bass players. They don't use the same sounds and don't really lock up with each other
I'm panning the basses to about 10 and 2 on the rough mixes to make a little room and like the way it makes room in the stereo mix, but I have noticed some phase/cancellation issues in the mono sum (thanks to this thread, I've been paying more attention there than usual)
Wish I had one of those Little Labs phase alignment tools!
Post by: j.hall on October 24, 2005, 01:55:56 PM
| floodstage wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 12:51 |
Wish I had one of those Little Labs phase alignment tools! |
unless Johnathan issues an automatable plug-in version of that, the box won't help you at all.
i suggest listening to some Ned's Automic Dust Bin, Dianogah, and Girls against Boys to get some good examples of mixing with two bass players.
in the ever sexy voice of Scott McCloud (girls against boys, "kill the sex player")
"Kill the bass player, Kill both bass players. Kill the three times bass expansion unit"
words to live by i'm affraid...........
Post by: floodstage on October 24, 2005, 02:00:19 PM
On a couple songs, it sounds like I'm running a chorus on the basses . The band says they like the chorus-like sound. It drives me totally nutso.
Post by: j.hall on October 24, 2005, 02:10:36 PM
| floodstage wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 13:00 |
True (on the automated comment) On a couple songs, it sounds like I'm running a chorus on the basses . The band says they like the chorus-like sound. It drives me totally nutso. |
i take it they play the same exact thing?
if so..........have fun with that!!!!! i don't envy you a bit.