Songs with Weak Bass

[doncolga]

Hi everybody,

If I play a relatively recent song, there's usually plenty of bass in the mix. Some older songs ("Old Time Rock and Roll" by Bob Segar is coming to mind here), there's relatively less bass and the song sounds weak. Is there a good (automated) way to fix this?...possibly the dynamic EQ?

Thanks!

Donny

[dswpro]

I run into this from time to time. Often the average volume is way lower, too. Listen to Donald Fagen The Nightfly and the tracks sound absolutely quiet compared to anything out today. Mastering techniques and mixing have evolved (or devolved depending on your point of view) over the past decades.

When I DJ I often bring an Aphex Aural Exciter with Big Bottom, or a BBE Exciter which has a low end processor.
BBE also has a VST exciter plug-in available. I have one on my laptop. Works wonders for some recorded music.

Of course, then you will have to adjusting it form song to song, so be prepared to babysit.
If you excite a recording which has already been "excited" the result can be pretty harsh.

[Grant Bunter]

Donny,
I have a wide collection of music from 30's to modern and understand what you're saying.

I mostly solve the issue with itunes on my laptop.
Somewhere in the settings, when you drag songs in, you can set to auto adjust volume levels (ie itunes assesses overall gain and adjusts).

It's not a 100% fix but lessens the problem somewhat.

This only works for playing songs from itunes on the laptop itself. If you then drop the songs onto an ipod, then the songs are no longer auto volume adjusted.

This is a relatively quick fix. The other method is to re record the songs through a recorder so that on a song to song basis, the gain is much the same. If you have a lot of songs that would be a PITA...

[CoronaOperator]

The Audio Control Epicenter does exactly what you are looking for however it is hardware based. I used to use one waaaayyy back in my car audio system to make up for the shortcomings of cassette tapes and older recordings (oops, I think I just dated myself ). I don't know of any software plugins that equal it. It works very well and has a simple knob control to dial in how much sub-harmonic bass restoration you want. It is very musical however using it on an already bass heavy track can get you into trouble.

... Often the average volume is way lower, too...

Of course, then you will have to adjusting it form song to song, so be prepared to babysit.
If you excite a recording which has already been "excited" the result can be pretty harsh.

Adjusting the gain during transitions as well as adjusting any other tone controls is exactly what the DJ is supposed to be doing while he's up there. However, there is software out there that will convert your mp3's to a standard volume level. Search for AGC or automatic gain control.

[Radian]

If I play a relatively recent song, there's usually plenty of bass in the mix.

That's typically the effect of compression.

Some older songs ("Old Time Rock and Roll" by Bob Segar is coming to mind here), there's relatively less bass and the song sounds weak.

Yes, but the signal has full integrity and just needs to be fished out of the mix.

You can look at it this way...

The comparatively lower level (the effect of normalization) is usually a good indicator that the recording has a higher crest factor, which is better.

It's a lot easier to bump the bass up with a good recording than to be stuck with the bloated mess of a clipped and squashed one.

It's a one-way street, and with a good recording (old or new) we've got options. With a poor recording, our hands are tied.

As far as automating the process:

Adjusting the gain during transitions as well as adjusting any other tone controls is exactly what the DJ is supposed to be doing while he's up there.

Exactly. I was thinking along the lines of....


"Well, what would you say… you do here?

[byacey]

When I prepare files for broadcast I usually normalize to about -15db (Edit: -15db RMS) for average middle of the road music. I know there's a lot of pop stuff much higher than this, but I like to maintain some dynamic range, rather than the over-compressed lifeless stuff that seems to be the norm.

If you have audio editing software like Sound Forge or Audacity, you can apply a low shelving filter to taste, and save the Eq'd file for your own purposes.

[Bruce Weldy]

but I like to maintain some dynamic range, rather than the over-compressed lifeless stuff that seems to be the norm.

+1

Unfortunately, today's engineers, producers, and record companies have outlawed dynamics as they constantly chase having the loudest passage and the softest passage exactly the same on any record on the radio.

Each channel is compressed, the mix is compressed, the master is compressed.....but that's not enough - the radio station compresses it again just to make damn sure that there isn't a breath of life left in it.

I stress dynamics to every young player that I come in contact with - because they've really never experienced it - everything they listen to has been squashed into oblivion.

[escapemcp]

I must chip in here and say that I am actually happy with compression in certain genres. For the sort of stuff I play (techno, psytrance) which is going to be pumped out of a (/my) PA at as loud as I can get it, I appreciate the compression which allows me to keep a much higher average volume (which is what the people seem to want). I wouldn't want the song disappearing into the background during a quiet passage.

I must say though that if the scenario I have mentioned above is not the case (as in 99% of cases i.e. home listening), then a more dynamic tune is going to sound better.

As for the OP, why not just compress the old tracks that seem to have something missing, to bring them up (/down?) to the level of modern recordings... OR you could even expand your newer recordings to get some of that dynamic range back! )

All this talk of dynamics reminds me of Nirvana/Butch Vig's mantra of quiet-loud that they used when recording. (NOT: QUIET - loud)

[byacey]

I must chip in here and say that I am actually happy with compression in certain genres. For the sort of stuff I play (techno, psytrance) which is going to be pumped out of a (/my) PA at as loud as I can get it, I appreciate the compression which allows me to keep a much higher average volume (which is what the people seem to want). I wouldn't want the song disappearing into the background during a quiet passage.

Maybe it's just me getting old, but I think that is one of the things about a lot of recent pop music that drives me nuts; the constant barrage devoid of dynamics, expression and feeling, leaving a loud, lifeless string of notes lacking any real soul.

Good musicians and vocalists from the ancient mists until recent modern times all understood the value of dynamic range, and the infinite expression it can provide. It all seems to have been lost in the last 20 years.

Edit: I find with really good vocalists, a compressor isn't even required or wanted; they have full control over their own dynamics.

[SoundInMotionDJ]

Mastering techniques and mixing have evolved (or devolved depending on your point of view) over the past decades.

You are describing the Loudness War...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4h ... 6B5EDA0F8B

When I DJ I often bring an Aphex Aural Exciter with Big Bottom, or a BBE Exciter which has a low end processor.
BBE also has a VST exciter plug-in available. I have one on my laptop. Works wonders for some recorded music.

The BBE effect is fairly well known....and not for positive things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LosL-gdHLpk

Of course, then you will have to adjusting it form song to song, so be prepared to babysit.

Or...as we like to call it...."DJing."

[escapemcp]

The BBE effect is fairly well known....and not for positive things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LosL-gdHLpk

As soon as I saw your youtube link, I hoped it was that video... I needn't have worried

[Gauss]

I just edit the song in Audacity to EQ in more bass, where I want it. (Save the original, so you can always go back.)

[dswpro]

From what I have heard the Aphex aural exciter was initially created by an engineer who mis-wired his Dynaco pre-amp. After examining the resultant circuit and listening to the results he created the exciter product, demonstrating it to recording studios and even charging license fees to record companies for it's use in pop music. I have heard the "exciting" effect is realized by adding even harmonic distortion to the mix on the high end. This may all be urban legend, but the early exciters I used for live sound in the 1980's had no bottom end controls.

I failed to mention that I do not use the Aphex device "in-lne" or in the master chain at all. I use it in a send/return capacity.
My current favorite implementation is to use one aux send to feed one channel of the Aphex and only enhance the top end of the spectrum. I use another aux send to feed the other Aphex channel and only enhance the bottom end on that channel. Then I bring separate returns into my mixer. The high end process really enhances acoustic guitar upper harmonics, and yes can enhance vocal sibilances. The bottom end channel I will use on kick drum, floor tom and and recorded music if it needs help. I mix in the return levels to taste and adjust them when needed.

I've heard less about the BBE process, but I sincerely doubt a frequency response analyses as shown on the you tube video cited here tells the whole story, though the "bypass" function does sound like clever marketing. Things that are louder automatically sound better to most people, but if the only effect is a simple "loudness curve" with a phase shift it would be too easy to simulate and debunk the product publicly. Having listened to many of these devices I suspect there is more going on. I notice the you tube video conveniently missing any A/B audio comparisons between an EQ with a similar curve and the BBE device. Perhaps because they really do not sound the same?



I've met a few bands who leave guitar center with a new PA system and a BBE in their master chain. I always advise them to remove it.

[SoundInMotionDJ]

I have heard the "exciting" effect is realized by adding even harmonic distortion to the mix on the high end. This may all be urban legend, but the early exciters I used for live sound in the 1980's had no bottom end controls.

That sounds like a load of snake oil to me.

I've heard less about the BBE process, but I sincerely doubt a frequency response analyses as shown on the you tube video cited here tells the whole story, though the "bypass" function does sound like clever marketing.
<snip/>
I notice the you tube video conveniently missing any A/B audio comparisons between an EQ with a similar curve and the BBE device. Perhaps because they really do not sound the same?

The BBE process has been well documented. See page "3"...and take with a wheelbarrow of salt.

http://www.bbesound.com/products/manual ... l_rev4.pdf

That youtube video happens to have more "eye candy" than most. That really is all the device is doing...an EQ and a phase shift (the specific youtube video describes the phase shift wrong...the "0" point is on the high end, and everything below that is delayed). While you have to wade through some "marketing hype"...BBE describes exactly those two things as all that is happening in the unit. There is nothing "magic" about the effect. It does take full advantage of the "louder is better" nature of human auditory perception. It also takes advantage of the snake oil salesman's guarantee...if you buy our product, you will notice an immediate difference, and will always sound better.

Perhaps you should try some Trace Elliot gear...

[Bruce Weldy]

I have heard the "exciting" effect is realized by adding even harmonic distortion to the mix on the high end. This may all be urban legend, but the early exciters I used for live sound in the 1980's had no bottom end controls.

That sounds like a load of snake oil to me.

I used the Aural exciter on a recording in the mid-eighties and it did just as described. It really helped a piano track pop out.....actually too much as I've listened to it over the years.