The "bass problem" -- how do you deal with it?

[Jeff In San Diego]

Surely it isn't just me...I find there is such a huge difference in the amount of bass in newer vs. older recordings that I frequently have to re-adjust my subwoofer level.

 

I have to be mindful of my neighbors for one thing, but also I find "modern" recordings such as Adele's 21 to be completely unlistenable with the same settings that sound normal (and show as normal with an RTA) with music from a couple decades ago or more.

 

Not wanting to cloud my otherwise simple signal path with a bunch of analog tone controls or digital manipulation for equalization, I have to get up and fiddle behind the powered subwoofer to lower or raise the level control.

 

What means do you use to deal with this? Just skip the over-produced recordings altogether? Just put up with the ridiculous bass? Some more convenient way to vary the subwoofer level without compromising the rest of the signal path?

 

[AudGuy]

In my analog system I have active speakers and a sub-woofer. And I find myself adjusting the level on the woofer for pretty much every different production.

 

This seems to vary with products and up-or-down for each record or disk will usually find that setting appropriate for the entire disk.

 

And I also think the bass from newer products can be a little more substantial than what we might have experienced 30 years ago. But then, back then we made bass with BIG, not woofers ... and it was never like what a good sub can make today.

 

My own impressions are that today we hear bass, back then it was never like it should be, live shows would show us that.

 

My digital system is a little different, also with active speakers that get adjusted occasionally, but mostly I rely on the room EQ that the AVR provides. It does help my room sound and while it is on more than off, I do sometimes go without ... just to remind myself that this stuff actually works quite well.

 

[crisnee]

Do you have a good pair of headphones? If so you might try them and compare some old versus new heavy bass recordings to see if the problem is the same.

 

If it isn't, it could be that your room is accenting certain frequencies and it's just working out to seem like new vs. old recordings. I say this, because I haven't noticed the phenomenon you describe.

 

Of course some albums have more bass than others, it's just the new vs. old I haven't noticed. By the way, I'm listening to tracks from 21 (on MOG) right now on headphones, because you mentioned it. The bass is substantial but not over the top (over the bottom?)

 

Chris

 

 

 

[crisnee]

"And I find myself adjusting the level on the woofer for pretty much every different production."

 

This might be a sign that you haven't set up your speakers in the ideal places for your room. I used to have to adjust my bass response a lot, but no more. I set up my system really carefully. I used "Get Better Sound" by Jim Smith as a guide (also I have two subs which makes it a bit easier). It's an excellent book/dvd to help you get the most out of your system. He posts here occasionally, and you can Google him to find the book.

 

-Chris

 

 

[crisnee]

I should add a little more, as I dealt with the bass stuff in an unusual way, at least for CA.

 

I route my full stereo signal (a separate iteration) through a stereo dsp (it's in my signature) to the subs. This way I can EQ only the sub signal; the primary signal to my bookshelf speakers is unadulterated from the dac/amp.

 

So, occasionally for albums that lack bass, I can bring up the entire level of this separate eq'd output with the press of a button.

 

-Chris

 

[wgb113]

different mix balances. 30-40 years ago they were "mastering for vinyl" which included limiting the bass so that the turntable setups that most people had wouldn't have their needles jumping out of the grooves. Not to mention that most speakers from those days weren't capable of reproducing low bass like our subwoofers do. Then throw in the fact that an even larger majority of people then didn't care about speaker placement and room acoustics. All three things add up to an experience from source to playback that was compromised.

 

Today we're moving towards "mastering for iTunes". We've been living with "bass boost" buttons on stereo equipment for 20 years now. Some in the industry go further and boost the bass assuming that most are listening in the car, over all-in-one systems, or on small earbuds that lack bass.

 

I think it's just a combination that's led to what you describe experiencing. Heck, just have a listen to the Beatle remasters from 2009. The bass appears to be boosted compared to the original vinyl but is it unnaturally boosted or is it more accurately represented in the mix now that there is a medium (digital) capable of reproducing it (as opposed to vinyl)?

 

If you've taken the time (and I think you have) to carefully set up your speakers and treat your room to "calibrate" your setup to measure well on something like REW than I'd say it's just a matter of you hearing the difference between the recordings as well.

 

Bill

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

That sounds convenient. Perhaps this will be a good way to repurpose my receiver once my "Integrated" shows up later this week.

 

In fact, I wonder if I might get a further small improvement by driving the sub directly with one of the receiver's amps rather than the one built into the sub enclosure. Another fine experiment for this coming weekend!

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

FWIW, my room is reasonably well corrected at this point. I've checked it with the RTA display in AudioTools (iOS application) while sweeping a sine-wave very slowly. To the ear, there are no remaining "problem" areas in the tonal spectrum, and the RTA display shows me always within about a 15db range from end to end at the listening position. This is after a fair amount of futzing around with positioning and traps etc.

 

So yes, I think I am primarily hearing differences in the recordings...and wishing they weren't so severe.

 

I'm planning to semi-retire the Sony receiver that has been acting as my amp the past couple months and replace it with a Musical Fidelity Integrated this weekend. once that is in place I'll experiment with ways to improve both the sound and the adjustability of my sub using the Sony.

 

[halo1.7]

before i started using jriver i simply equalized each song individually in itunes

 

on some tracks i cut lf as much as 9 db

 

with jriver 17 i cannot get the plugin to work to allow me to do so

 

but the sq is much better with jriver and lossless files that i just keep the sub remote handy

 

 

[mayhem13]

15db is quite a difference from one octave to another and as others have eluded, I suspect the problem is more the room and subwoofer than the material. BUT ther certainly is some material today that's a product of the loudness wars. I think the record companies are finally reaping what they've sown. Critical listening of this garbage is anything but enjoyable and critical listeners are the ones who actually PAY for music. Re-issues and remastered material is the only product fueling sales right now.......record companies please Take Notice of the trend.

 

[crisnee]

"15db is quite a difference"

 

Yes it is, unless a major factor is a so-called suckout (a very narrow sharp dip which cannot be corrected by eq). By the way, narrow dips or any dips really are more exceptable than humps in the bass. So, if you have your druthers and you find more humps than dips I'd try to rearrange to lessen the humps especially in the 60 to 120hz area and then boost the total via the sub's volume control.

 

This may seem wrongheaded but I find my system (and I've heard others say this elsewhere) that the best balance is not flat but a gradual rise in bass from somewhere in the area of 60hz down--depending on your room. And I am not a Basshead, I detest boomy bass, would rather have too little bass; but I do like a good foundation to the sound, particularly when it comes to orchestral music.

 

-Chris

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

...in my reading I was surprised not to find much in the way of hints at what the total range of response is for a "good" room.

 

Mine is nice and smooth, with no 15db changes from one 1/3 octave to the next (and if memory serves, not even octave to adjacent octave). Just gentle hills and valleys that fit within a total range of 15db.

 

So what is a reasonable and practical target without electronic/digital EQ? (or perhaps only EQ for the sub)

 

[mwheelerk]

Given the example of Adele 21 the problem is the recording and nothing more. It is simply compressed to high hell with a DR6 it is no wonder it sounds loud to you. There really isn't much you can do with recordings like that, good musical performance coupled with poor engineering decisions.

 

[crisnee]

I don't think there is a reasonable target, it's just the best you can do given your circumstances. I think what I said in the previous post is good.

 

When it comes to eqing take down humps in the bass except at the very low end (below 60z) unless it's extreme, do very little in the way of augmenting the dips except again in the vary low bass and even there go easy. Try to keep the 200hz -400hz range as smooth as possible and here you should go for a slight rise if anything away from smooth. Also, don't worry too much about anything above 500-800hz. You want the 200-400hz range to be at least the middle of your variations or slightly above. So if your range was +-5db 60hz - 1000hz you would want 200-400hz to be 0 to + 1 db. Again assuming the +-5db is fairly even and smooth not mostly +5db and only a few hz at -5.

 

And again my personal suggestion is that your frequency response rise slightly from about 60hz on down. So, if you have no eq, don't worry if your bass rises a bit naturally at the very bottom; I'm talking a couple of db per 10hz.

 

Does that make sense, or IOW is it understandable?

 

-Chris

 

[crisnee]

"Compressed!"

 

Agreed that compressed sucks, but it doesn't mean that bass is necessarily too loud. I listened to "21" on headphones with very good bass response, and the bass was not terribly loud. I would not have noticed it particularly, and as I mentioned above, I'm not a basshead.

 

-Chris

 

[crisnee]

"...in my reading I was surprised not to find much in the way of hints at what the total range of response is for a "good" room."

 

That's because for purists and audiophiles in general there is no such thing. Basically the goal for most is to eliminate resonances, standing waves and extra reflections and that sort of thing. Other than that folks want to hear the characteristics of their particular speakers. So eq, if any, is mostly applied 300hz and down.

 

-Chris

 

[AudGuy]

Enough so that even though I know it is a somewhat bright room that could use some taming, I actually don't feel compelled to do much.

 

What I do is pull the speakers further into the room when I am listening to music, this tends to reinforce the sound field and change the room nodes a little for the better.

 

But in my analog system, I actually like the volume control on the sub-woofer and think it is the ideal solution to a difficult problem. But no EQ or bass traps or anything really, just me and that level control ... works for me.

 

[JimS]

Research dipole or IB subwoofers or check out the harmon whitepaper on multiple subs.

 

Acoustic solutions will get you much flatter whole room coverage than solving for one point via eq - 15db is a pretty big range and is likely the primary source of the "problem" . . .

 

If new bass toys aren't in your near term plans, as others noted, solve for peaks only via eq and be sure to take multiple REW measurements averaged across a broader grid around your listening area (to avoid creating worse problems two feet away).

 

[crisnee]

"15db is a pretty big range and is likely the primary source of the "problem" . . .'

 

I said this before, but that won't stop me from repeating myself. Actually, I think this is important. 15db can be a big range but isn't necessarily so. It all depends on how it's distributed.

 

If for instance you have a narrow suckout of 10db between 140-155hz, this will not affect your sound appreciably (it only affects 1.5 fundamental tones) and the rest of your graph may read +-2.5 db, which would be extraordinarily flat. OTOH if you had the same -10db only now from 90-155hz, you would have very weak mid bass-almost an octave of fundamentals would be affected, yet you'd have the same 15db variation.

 

Or you might have a 7db roll off from 60 - 30hz, and your graph would measure +-4db 60-20khz, pretty damn good (if it doesn't include wide deep dips or bumps of 4-5 db).

 

So, much of it is in the distribution.

 

-Chris

 

 

[Vic Damone]

The first thing you should do is send a smoke signal to Adele, Rick Rubin, and piss in the fire before you send the one to her label.

 

Personally, I unknowingly solved the problem before it was a problem years ago when I began using Velodyne subwoofers with remote controlled features.

 

What is truly sad is that you seem unusually fastidious with regard to your rooms performance and the ears to hear the most important aspect of speaker design, IMO, time and phase. I won't even get into the fun I had at Swamies last week. Nice hood you live in.

 

Until you get it worked out you might try listening to Annie Lennox instead. Minimal compression and no voice correction.

 

Vic

Capitola

 

 

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

I spent some more time on the south end of my response curve today. It turns out there was a bigger "hump" around 125 than I remembered. That was the only noticeable spike or valley remaining. Everything else was just gradual across several octaves and much smaller in size.

 

I discovered that at some point I had cranked the variable crossover point for my sub all the way up to 125hz, and my main speakers still have some response at that frequency, so that was the cause for the hump.

 

After bringing that down by an octave, I'm now much closer to flat from 60 up to around 10k. About a 7db top to bottom range from 60hz to 10khz.

 

After all that, I gave Adele's 21 another try. Still crap. Still overly bassy and compressed to high heck. I put on her earlier album 19, and found it still much better than 21 (though even a few cuts on 19 are "overdone" by the engineers). Remarkable how quickly those British women age -- already washed up at the tender young age of 21.

 

The good news is that well-produced music still sounds really great through my system now. Having recently added a used Musical Fidelity A3.5 amp (in place of the Sony, which is now just being used for the sub as a remote volume control of the low end), I feel like I've reached a very strong "good enough for now" point.

 

Time to transition over to the listening side of this hobby and spend some time increasing the quality and quantity of my music library.

 

[ccclapp]

I've been following this thread and am tuning my (acoustically terrible) room and difficult speakers. I use the last 2 songs on 21 as part of what I listen to when I compare my tweaks...

 

One reason I embarked on the tuning was I found her vocals to be too sharp, not relaxing at all. This is the opposite as what you describe, but possibly similar cause, bad engineering ( or else I have as much tuning to do as I think I do ;-/

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

Hi Ccclapp -- I find the vocals on most of 21 to be grainy and "tense". If you have the 19 album, compare 21 to that and I think you will find her vocals much more enjoyable on 19. I like her voice and her style, but I feel the production folks just completely ruined 21.

 

And finally, compare either of Adele's albums to something like Melody Gardot or Dianna Krall. On my system, I find these last two to be just smooth as silk without being dull and boring.

 

BTW, I bought some Annie Lennox on a suggestion from this thread. Anybody have any others that you find similar to the venerable ladies above? (Especially if they work with a small amount of accompaniment -- say a trio or quartet)

 

[ccclapp]

...Nora jones

...the Chieftains: Tears of a Stone, which some nice songs featuring Diana Krall, Joni Mitchel and others

...Cowboy Junkies: trinity sessions

 

[PeterSt]

The main problem is that usually there is too much bass output to begin with. If I hear the bass response coming from some listening rooms ... ouch. And this emphasizes that other problem (about compression and stuff).

 

I can play whatever I want (including the dreaded remasters) and no spur of too much bass is anywhere. Less dynamics, yes, but this is another story.

 

In the mean time I have the loudest bass you may have ever heard. Okay, with a live band playing perhaps - and which is exactly what I tried to mimic for a long time (hey, that's reality, so I want that too).

 

The above will come across quite contradictionary. But all is about the "better bass";

The better the bass, the louder it *will* be, the less disturbing it will be towards room modes etc.

I have said it a 100 times : I have no single standing wave anywhere (no dips either). And mind you, all the PEQs I sure have - from the past. They are in the garage now, and nothing changed to the room.

But the playback chain changed here or there.

 

I would be interesting if Crisnee could tell whether he perceives a difference to this respect between XXHighEnd and JRiver. He should ...

The software is only one part of the chain of course, but already that can make a vast difference.

I once put out an XXHighEnd version (still bit perfect) that showed a 23dB increase in the sub-low range. Sounded hefty for the material concerned, but it was totally wrong.

Still it was bit perfect.

 

2c

Peter