Jump to content

Skol303

Moderators
  • Content count

    4,574
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Skol303 last won the day on May 16

Skol303 had the most liked content!

Total Watts

219 Excellent
  1. I'm familiar with those hinterlands myself.
  2. Sample rate for recording

    Yeah, 24-bit files are larger than 16-bit. But even my 9-year old iMac could handle 24-bit files without breaking a sweat (although I've since replaced it...). So unless you're running an especially old computer rig, there's no reason why you shouldn't be using 24-bit/48kHz as standard. As @roman_sub mentions above, "44k should be fine in most cases"... and it mostly is. But in my own experience (and especially when prepping material for online streaming), it helps to work at the highest practical resolution, and I find that to be 24/48. Not so high that it causes my computer to grind, but high enough to give me option of outputting full fat WAV files or slimline, 16-bit MP3s if I choose.
  3. Band Feuds

    One of the upsides of writing music on my own from a darkened bunker is not to having to engage directly with other human beings during the process… unless I choose to and always remotely over the ‘Net. Saves me a ruddy fortune in hand sanitiser.
  4. What's going to happen to CDs ?

    Vinyl sales are increasing by just over 25% each year in the UK and are currently "at a level not seen since the days of Nirvana's Nevermind in the early Nineties." Make of that what you will, but I think vinyl is here to stay for a few years/decades yet. As for CDs? They're cheap as chips to produce and people are still buying them. In fact, it seems that CD sales haven't suffered quite as much as people expected from downloads (FT article from 2016 for anyone who can be arsed reading it). I don't imagine that CDs will hold their value in the same way as vinyl, however. But that may change in future.
  5. The bass tone

    ^ Also spot on. You guys have nailed it.
  6. The bass tone

    ^ Brilliantly put.
  7. The bass tone

    You're misunderstanding this Al. Nobody is saying that a piano can't produce sound at 30Hz. It just won't be producing frequencies that low with the same amount of energy as say, 100Hz. Sound energy (or 'loudness') is not even across the frequency range unless produced under controlled conditions - and by that I mean a studio mix room at the very least. And speaker output certainly is not even across the frequency range. Again, look at the frequency response of my room at home in the post above. It is unnaturally flat down to 30Hz (by 'unnatural' I mean that the room has been engineered to produce such a frequency response). But look what happens below 30Hz. The amount energy nosedives, despite my subwoofer being happily rated down to 22Hz. The output of a grand piano will follow the same principle. The energy of the frequencies produced by a piano when a note is struck is not uniform from 20Hz - 20kHz. The point being that the energy at 30Hz is just once part of the overall sound; and moreso that upper harmonics contribute a lot more to how we perceive the sound, partly because they tend to contain more energy (when produced by the majority of instruments) and also because our ears are more attuned to noticing them. Not sure how many ways this same point can be restated, but I'm trying my best here! And some of this acoustics stuff does seem counter-intuitive, granted This is also where I think you're grasping the wrong end of the stick. High-pass filters don't completely 'chop off' the low frequencies; I think you know this. They attenuate or more simply reduce them. So there is still some energy down there, but ideally it is controlled and appropriate to the context of the band/ song/ room, etc. Ultimately, I think you seem to be someone who deals in absolutes and yet you'll struggle to find any when dealing with acoustics, which are far more, well, "mushy"
  8. The bass tone

    Actually very sensible. These sorts of things can only really proven by testing. Going one step further, in acoustics we rely on measurements as well as our ears to see and hear what’s going on. As mentioned above, here’s the frequency response in my room where the low end is driven by a 12” subwoofer rated down to 22Hz… and bear in mind this is a highly accurate studio sub, not some PA-hire bass bin: Not much happening at 22hz is there? And I'd be very surprised if there was. So unless you’re playing through gigantic, stadium-size speakers, I doubt anyone here will find anything useful going on below 30-40Hz on their bass rig either. Which is absolutely fine, because sub-30Hz we're into whale-song-brown-note territory where the best thing to do in 99% of cases is just roll it off. PS: there's an urban myth that the actual brown-note frequency (at which you may poop yourself) is 7Hz; and another theory that playing 7Hz at sufficient dB can kill someone. Both theories are of course utter bovine manure, but kudos to anyone willing to experiment
  9. Yup, gets a +1 from me! Mrs Riva has sterling good taste. That Sleaford Mods appearance on Jules really blew me away at the time. A proper shot in the arm. Almost helped me forgive Jules for all that boogie-woogie nonsense. Almost.
  10. The bass tone

    Two things to note here: 1) Don't believe the quoted frequency response of any speakers. Those measurements are nearly always taken in an anechoic chamber and don't translate with much accuracy to the real world. For example: I have a set of studio monitors that are quoted flat down to 37Hz, but acoustic measurements show they actually start rolling off closer to 50Hz (still plenty of bass there, of course). Bass cabs will be exactly the same. There'll be some energy at those low frequencies, even down to 25Hz in the cab mentioned above. But it'll be a lot less than you think. And certainly less than the speaker manufacturers' marketing materials claim. 2) Subwoofers certainly have their place, but they are hellish to get right at a live gig. My mix room at home has a flat(ish) frequency response right down to 30Hz. I've achieved this through a lot of obsessive faffing around, involving use of a subwoofer; plus room EQ software to get everything <50Hz under control; plus a whole load of acoustic treatment (details in this thread for the nerds). 'Untamed', that same subwoofer creates what looks like Mt Everest in my frequency response and the low end turns to indiscernible mush. So I definitely don’t recommend anyone incorporating a subwoofer into their live rig unless they really know what they’re doing. It’s a guaranteed recipe for disaster
  11. The bass tone

    If it helps everyone to know, I find this community just as irritating as my friends in meatspace. Which is why I feel so at home here. But then I am a sociopath
  12. The bass tone

    @Al Krow... nobody is saying that low frequencies aren't important. What's being said is: Very low frequencies don't offer much 'musical content' on their own; they rely heavily on combining with upper harmonics to be both audible and musical. This is something that can be used to one's advantage when EQ'ing. If you choose to boost very low frequencies when playing bass in the majority of small venues, it will sound like utter crap*. Hope that clears things up for you. *Longer explanation: This is largely because it will excite all sorts of low end ‘room modes’ (standing waves), which cause massive peaks/nulls in the sound and very long decay times, sometimes even several seconds. This leads to what is know as the ‘one note bass’ problem, whereby low frequencies take so long to decay that they begin masking each other, resulting in all low end notes sounding as though they are the same pitch. I’ve experienced this myself at a friend’s rehearsal session in a small room - bassist dialled up the low end and the singer complained that he was playing some notes out of tune; yet when the singer walked over to where the bassist was stood, it sounded fine. You don’t want your audience to suffer that same problem at your gigs.
  13. Sample rate for recording

    Excellent answers above. I tend to use 24-bit/48kHz for just about everything. I think the difference between 44kHz and 96kHz is audible; but it depends a lot on the playback system.
  14. The bass tone

    @Jus Lukin can speak for himself of course… but his post is simply explaining how low frequency sounds and harmonics are perceived by us humans. It’s a good explanation of how and why those super low notes will still be ‘heard’ by the audience, even when they’re not actually ‘hearing’ much of 31Hz (or whatever) but the multiple harmonics above it. This is a good thing for you and anyone else who play a 5-string bass, surely? Gives you some confidence to dial-back the very low end if need be - for instance, if the room acoustics are bad - without compromising your overall sound. No cleft in your heft, eh. So I think it’s perfectly relevant to this discussion. Your misunderstanding of the point being made is evident in your comment about "dialling back the tone on my passive BB 1025 doesn't result into a rapid descent into "mush and scary rumbles", but produces something lush", which has nothing to do with what Jus Lukin is talking about. Jus saying
×