Bass and the sound stage (opinion question)
Chuck
doesn't seem natural (right?). What are your thoughts on bass in the
sound stage.
Thanks!
Chuck
Les Cargill
It goes in the middle. The repro standard is still stereo, and
the most... cost effective way to have good levels of bass is
to put it there.
Obviously, for distance-miked orchestral stuff, this isn't
an issue - you just use the image you get on the mics
(ignoring spot micing for the moment ).
--
Les Cargill
geoff
Sounds narural. Anything else doesn't. Apart from overtones on a true
stereo acoustic al recording.
geoff
Soundhaspriority
"Chuck" <cdu...@ideacorporation.com> wrote in message
news:8229f9d9-4df8-4149...@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
It would be hard to move it. The lower the frequency, the less directional
it is.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Arny Krueger
news:8229f9d9-4df8-4149...@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com
> Tons of modern recordings seem to have bass straight up
> the middle. It doesn't seem natural (right?). What are
> your thoughts on bass in the sound stage.
First off, there's some confusion about what some people call bass. Some
people call the sound of a bass guitar a bass sound (makes sense in a way).
But as a rule, bass guitars put out a lot of upper bass and midrange. 50 Hz
is pretty non-directional. 200 Hz isn't.
Secondly, what happens at live performances? IME true low bass is very
non-directional and pervasive at live performances.
Scott Dorsey
This is discussed in my article in the latest Recording.
For one thing, you can make bass much louder if it's in the center. For
another one, it makes LP cutting at high levels possible.
For a rock band where the drum kit is in the center, it seems pretty
natural. For an orchestra, it's not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
vdubreeze
would have, so I don't mind things being in not the same old place.
Mark
> I like hearing things wherever people put them, regardless of where I
> would have, so I don't mind things being in not the same old place.
some of the early Beatles songs were mixed with "hyper" stereo, but
you know what,,, I like it even though it is not in vogue right
now......
Mark
Mike Rivers
> some of the early Beatles songs were mixed with "hyper" stereo, but
> you know what,,, I like it even though it is not in vogue right
> now......
The Beatles were mixed with things full left and full right because they
hadn't
invented pan pots yet. "In vogue" now seems to be nearly mono because that
can appear to be loudest.
david correia
<8229f9d9-4df8-4149...@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck <cdu...@ideacorporation.com> wrote:
2 woofers are better than one.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Richard Webb
>> Tons of modern recordings seem to have bass straight up the middle. It
>> doesn't seem natural (right?). What are your thoughts on bass in the
> >sound stage.
> 2 woofers are better than one.
There's that, and also, at least imo with most modern forms, i.e. jazz, rock, pop, etc. the bass is that joint between
the rhythmic foundation and everything else. Which is why
I"m pickier about a good bass sound, and a good bass player
than just about anything else.
MOst times, that's where it fits, and sounds right.
I worked with some younger fellows a few years ago that
wanted to play with the old Beatles sound, i.e. bass and
drums from one channel, other elements in the other. We
never could get everything to sit right. Once we abandoned
it and went to usual modern mixing we got everything to
blend quite quickly. THink I did a pair of stereo overheads on the drums along with a kick and snare mic, good big room
where I could let the sound of the drums develop naturally,
a la John Bonham.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
geoff
> Chuck <cdu...@ideacorporation.com> wrote:
>> Tons of modern recordings seem to have bass straight up the middle.
>> It doesn't seem natural (right?). What are your thoughts on bass in
>> the sound stage.
>
> This is discussed in my article in the latest Recording.
>
> For one thing, you can make bass much louder if it's in the center.
> For another one, it makes LP cutting at high levels possible.
>
> For a rock band where the drum kit is in the center, it seems pretty
> natural. For an orchestra, it's not.
> --scott
If you are recording an orchestra in true stereo, then the MICS will be
picking up low bass in an omni sort of way, and the upper 'localising'
harmonics will be spacially located.
If one is pan-potting stuff and want to put bass instruments on one side,
that's fine, but there is the option to put a LPFed version in the centre to
boulster.
I often mix bass 5 to 10% off-centre, but if you want to hear how unnatural
hard-panned bass sounds, try the stereo versions of older Beatles stuff.
Even weirder on headphones !
geoff
Scott Dorsey
>
>If you are recording an orchestra in true stereo, then the MICS will be
>picking up low bass in an omni sort of way, and the upper 'localising'
>harmonics will be spacially located.
Depends what "true stereo" mike configuration you're using. And if you're
recording an orchestra with real stereo miking, you might move some
instruments around to make sure the bass is in the center. Especially if
there are kettledrums.
>If one is pan-potting stuff and want to put bass instruments on one side,
>that's fine, but there is the option to put a LPFed version in the centre to
>boulster.
Yup, and the mastering guys often have a gadget to remove the L-R component
on the low end for cutting LPs.
>I often mix bass 5 to 10% off-centre, but if you want to hear how unnatural
>hard-panned bass sounds, try the stereo versions of older Beatles stuff.
>Even weirder on headphones !
I can't listen to that stuff for more than a minute or two before I want
to jump for the MONO button.
geoff
> geoff <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> If you are recording an orchestra in true stereo, then the MICS will
>> be picking up low bass in an omni sort of way, and the upper
>> 'localising' harmonics will be spacially located.
>
> Depends what "true stereo" mike configuration you're using. And if
> you're recording an orchestra with real stereo miking, you might move
> some instruments around to make sure the bass is in the center.
> Especially if there are kettledrums.
Or canons !
geoff
ChrisCoaster
And in all honesty as much as I do like the way those Capital stereo
remixes sounded - both through speakers and headphones - it is
definitely NOT stereo, at least not the way human hearing truly
spatializes and locates sounds.
Listen to binaural recordings and coincident mic recordings for a real
definition of stereo.
Can even my cat mix 12-24 tracks and pan them all between Left &
Right? Absolutely! Can that effectively recreate the experience/
circumstances under which the recording was made?
Not so easily.
-CC
geoff
"ChrisCoaster" <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:0dbb16b9-8c0d-4dbc...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Can even my cat mix 12-24 tracks and pan them all between Left &
Right? Absolutely! Can that effectively recreate the experience/
circumstances under which the recording was made?
Not so easily.
Especially considering most of those track were probably played at different
times !
geoff
Adrian Tuddenham
> Mark wrote:
>
> > some of the early Beatles songs were mixed with "hyper" stereo, but
> > you know what,,, I like it even though it is not in vogue right
> > now......
>
> The Beatles were mixed with things full left and full right because they
> hadn't
> invented pan pots yet.
Blumlein invented them in 1931
http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
...or did you mean that The Beatles hadn't invented them?
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Mike Rivers
> Blumlein invented them [pan pots] in 1931
> http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
>
> ...or did you mean that The Beatles hadn't invented them?
Lots of inventions (on paper or in the lab) didn't turn into practical
applications for many years. Now I'm sure I've seen mixers with
pan pots prior to the first Beatles recording, but apparently they
either didn't have them in the studio where those early recordings
were made, or they preferred the hard-panned sound.
My first mixer (which I still have) was an Ampex MX-10 which had
left-right-center (left+right to both outputs) switches, and I had thought
of modifying it with at least a couple of pan pots to replace the switched,
but I never did.
Peter Larsen
> Or canons !
Kettle drums, orchestral bass drum, whatever, 24 pound cannons, all tend to
go at the rear of the orchestra and consequently the bass content will be
fairly equal in both channels, but not phase-aligned, which is to say that
you need separated bass loudspeakers to reproduce something that reminds
vague of the original grand sound field.
The issue with cannons is the paper-stuffing or wood ball used to make them
produce sound rather than just a whoosh, one issue being the necessity of a
fairly long safety distance or something that catches debris or both and the
headroom required to record that initial transient properly. Just as with
thunder and fireworks, you will need to squash it somewhat to make it sound
credible, but it has to be right initiallly to sound right squashed.
> geoff
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> Mark wrote:
>>> some of the early Beatles songs were mixed with "hyper" stereo, but
>>> you know what,,, I like it even though it is not in vogue right
>>> now......
>> The Beatles were mixed with things full left and full right because
>> they hadn't
>> invented pan pots yet.
> Blumlein invented them in 1931
> http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
> ...or did you mean that The Beatles hadn't invented them?
Nah, the tape machines used were two track or three track ones, and they
were not used to record stereo, it was recorded to end up as mono. The
concept of stereo historically tends to be understood only by those few who
actually record in it rather than by (tape) recorder manufacturers, ie.: two
channels does not make something stereo, nor does a panpot.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
![Dec [Cluskey]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXOIdicD27KLgvp612cXlqNm2cXRNukvx0eyr1XYcUrBeGQQfk=s40-c)
Dec [Cluskey]
two track or three track ones, and they
> were not used to record stereo, it was recorded to end up as mono. The
> concept of stereo historically tends to be understood only by those few who
> actually record in it rather than by (tape) recorder manufacturers, ie.: two
> channels does not make something stereo, nor does a panpot.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
Peter
Just to clear up this conception of the left and right being put there
by The Beatles as a 'style'.
My band were contemporaries of the Beatles ... we were with Decca,
they were with EMI. We actually outsold them in 1964. Decca were
always treated as the leaders in quality, techniques and design of
recording equipment.
Mick Hinton was the chief 'bod', as regards design, in Decca ... he
designed a phase pedal for me... which, to my knowledge, was the first
ever for guitar work. The Moody Blues 'borrowed' it without me
knowing and used it through 'Threshold of a Dream' ... then again, I
used Roy Wood's self designed ADT [Automatic Double Tracking] machine
at Chappel Studios without him knowing? Mick was instrumental in
developing rudimentary Digital Recording and converted Betamax Video
Recorders to preserve the Decca catalogue in Digital form ... I well
remember being with him as he showed me the ideas in action in the
workshop.
Beatles and ourselves were using 4 track. Aimed at finishing in
Mono. Stereo was a new concept in commmercial recording and usually
reserved for Classical .. FFSR [may have that wrong] .. Full
Frequency Stereo Recording. That was the 'buy line' of the Decca
Company at the time. Mono was the norm ... stereo the rare exception.
I can remember making proper stereo recordings for BBC [probably
experimental] where we used twin microphones for each instrument and
vocal. I was at a live recording of The Johnny Keating Orchestra in
Decca Studio 3 where that same technique was used.
So, back to recording on 4 track. Yep, although we recorded a few
titles with rhythm on left, say, and the rest of the intruments on the
right ... the vocals would still be in the middle ... we used the
fourth track for the added vocals ... we are credited with being the
first pop band to multi track vocals. A trick devised by Shel Talmy
[of Kinks and Who fame .. and us]. I was always a fan of Les Paul and
Mary Ford [Les was the multi tracking genius] and then Kay Starr.
So, the pan pots didn't seem to be an issue?
We quickly went on to record the full orchestra in stereo, using two
tracks and reserved the third track for the main vocal + harmonies at
lower level and then the fourth track with harmonies at full level and
the lead voice, when involved with harmony sections, at low level.
Technical note: we achieved this by using an all round microphone
[usually Neuman, although we used RCA for quirky mid sounding back
singing we did] ... on the main vocal track, Con was on one side, full
into the mic. and John and I were on the other side but back more ...
then we repeated the operation in reverse for the 2nd. track of
vocals.
Additional note: we used the acoustic reverberation room which was on
top of the West Hampstead studios ... not to be used after 10pm as the
whole of the area could hear it! Still there!
Where we wanted more voices ["I Believe", for instance had 4 part
harmony] I can remember that we sang the extra harmonies on top of the
finished two track master for the mono single release. I was more
than annoyed when Decca released a 'quasi' stereo version and had the
original session vocals on with a glaring 'clam' ... being a studio
perfectionist, I was rightly miffed! It still turns up, now and then,
mistake and all.
We, incidentally, are always credited as being the band who 'invented'
bass and drums in the middle ... not my idea, I would hasten to add,
but Shel Talmy's.
And also, 4 track didn't last all that long ... probably two, three
years. 8 Track came in very quickly ..... and 16 track followed just
as quick. 24 track followed more slowly. Then the speed went from 15
IPS up to 30 IPS [inches per second] ... tape width went to 2
inches ... Dolby noise reduction was always king.
Although I have archive pics of the Decca number 2 studio desk with
it's famous instruction 'Engineers are required to listen at 87DB
minimum', the one that did most of the work was a modern looking desk
which went to Gooseberry Studios in London's West End ... I produced a
track on that at Gooseberry ... and incidentally, Garry Neuman's
"Cars" was conceived there using a Moog synth awaiting collection by
Maurice Plaquet the instrument hire people.
So, all in all, the rhythm section on the left, rest of instruments on
the right and the vocal in the middle was purely, in my opinion,
convenience and a style of production that preceeded the 'correct' way
of getting the most efficient sound ... i.e. the heaviest, bottom end
instruments sharing the two speakers in the stereo field.
Expedience.... it is called?
Regards .... I enjoyed that ramble! Concert in Cardiff, Wales
tomorrow ... and the snow forecast does not look good.
Dec [Cluskey]
Peter Larsen
> Just to clear up this conception of the left and right being put there
> by The Beatles as a 'style'.
Very interesting post, thank you!
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Arkansan Raider
I absolutely concur.
Thanks, Dec!
---Jeff
Dec [Cluskey]
>
> I absolutely concur.
> Thanks, Dec!
> ---Jeff
Jeff, Peter
And it didn't snow. [grin!]
Used the brand new, latest generation Beyer Dynamic condenser radio
mics. Hmmmmm! They want my opinion and thoughts.
Not really a 'take it out of the box and plug in' affair. In fact,
quite dissappointing toward the dynamic Beyers we have always used for
yonks. Still, we shall see, with more use. I shall then give them a
fully considered opinion.
Also used [for one number, where I guested with another artist] the
new Bose tall skinny speaker idea with the big bass bin under ....
don't bother! There is still no alternative to size of speaker in a
serious sound environment.
Sorry for going off thread!
Regards and Happy New Year,
Dec [Cluskey]