How reliable is this plug as a Mastering reference?

[FMiguelez]

Ok. So if I understand you correctly, a subwoofer will NOT enhace anything. It will only "tel"l me exacly what's going on in those lower frequencis that my M1 active can't, is this correct?

I also need to have a 2nd look at my room's acoustics...

Thanks.

[Matcher]

Ok. So if I understand you correctly, a subwoofer will NOT enhace anything. It will only "tel"l me exacly what's going on in those lower frequencis that my M1 active can't, is this correct?

I also need to have a 2nd look at my room's acoustics...

Thanks.

Yes, if you get a matched x.1 system and your room is good. You also have to calibrate the sub properly.

[Shooshie]

Hey Davedempsey. Thanks for your reply. But why do I think I heard somewhere that sometimes there are also harmonics created below the fundamental? I understand the upper overtones, but am I mistaken regarding the one below the actual fundamental? Or this just happens as the result of combining more complex textures within a piece?

Fernando, one of the coolest things I ever did in an arrangement was to create notes --entire melodic lines-- that were not even there. I did so using exactly the principles to which you allude in your question. I learned it from an article in Popular Science back in about 1965 when they were writing about the guys at Bell Labs, who learned that by stripping the fundamental entirely from their audio, they made the sound much less muddy. With the headset pressed to the ear, the ear automatically "supplies" the fundamental based on the harmonics that it hears. In other words, your ear creates the fundamental.

All my life I was itching to try doing something with that in a musical situation; an arrangement or a mix. I mean, something other than just cutting a dip in the EQ of the low frequencies. So once, while arranging music for a concert artist based in Phoenix, I finally got my chance, and it was absolutely amazing. Bob Doerschuk even wrote about it in Keyboard Magazine after an interview he did with myself and the artist I worked with. (April, 1993)

The situation involved five pianos. (long story, so I'll skip that part) All five keyboards were extremely busy on this Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon cover. There was no space available where we needed to place a background counter-melody during "The Eclipse." Here's what I did:

I transposed the melody into two tracks, in parallel sixths, located an octave and a fifth above where the fundamental would have been. In playback, the rest of the music set the key--the tonality--in the ear. When those parts came in, the ear did not hear them in their own keys; the ear heard them in context of the primary key of the song, and thus heard them as harmonics of a missing fundamental. Surprisingly, the ear automatically replaced the fundamental and what you heard was the exact melody we wanted, but because of those harmonics it acquired a ghostly bell-like quality that lifted it right out of the music and made it perfectly audible in spite of the fortissimo din of hundreds of notes playing all around it. This sound caused people to ask where the synthesizers were, but there were no synths. It was all piano. And if we had actually used the fundamental, without those harmonics, the melody would have disappeared in the maelstrom of the busy arrangement.

When I played it in the song for Bob, I asked him to sing the melody. He did. Then I played back the parts that created the melody, showing him that they were the only parts with that line. His jaw dropped on the floor, and he asked to do it himself. After hearing it several times, he was convinced, and was absolutely blown away. I don't remember his exact words to me at the time, but something like "the most amazing thing I've ever heard done in MIDI." (that's not what he wrote, of course)

So, does that answer your question? Indeed, there is MUCH that gets created in the lower registers by the sounds in the upper registers. When cleaning out your mixes, you may find that lowering some harmonics will clean up some of the muddiness in the lower octaves.

Mixing is an art form, all right, but it's an art that occurs at the intersection of science and perception. Keeping little details like that in mind help you to pull things out of your mixes that would leave other people shaking their heads and wondering how you did it.

Shooshie

[monkey man]

Fascinating, Shoosh; well done!

Of course, this also explains our ability to "hear" bass guitar, for instance, from a 4" speaker that produces nothing below, say, 200Hz.
A sine bass line would be doomed to oblivion, but throw a few harmonics on it and presto, dinner's done.
As was the case in your brilliant effort, that fundamental will be constructed.

It's probably worth noting sum and difference frequencies here, and the fact that the brain adds and subtracts every frequency to/from every other frequency as well.
It does this in realtime, of course.
I've often wondered what music really sounds like.

Thanks for sharing, Shoosh.
Nicky

[Phil O]

Hey Shooshie, one question. Is it just the brain that supplies the fundamental, or is there some sort of beat-frequency thing going on? Does that lower note actually exist?

Phil

[Shooshie]

Hey Shooshie, one question. Is it just the brain that supplies the fundamental, or is there some sort of beat-frequency thing going on? Does that lower note actually exist?

Phil

In the case of Bell Labs, I think they determined that the fundamental exists, somehow getting reconstructed in the ear canal when trapped with the headset over it. A stopped tube doubles the effective length of the tube, so that might have something to do with it.

But I hypothesized at the time I tried it that instead of the fundamental actually getting recreated in the ear canal (which is open, of course), it is the KEY of the music which creates it. If you play a line, and all around it are guitars, pianos, horns, and strings playing the changes:
••• Play Bb-C-D in the key of Bb, then your ear naturally hears those notes as Tonic, Supertonic, Mediant.
••• But if you play it in the key of G, you hear G minor: Mediant, Subdominant, Dominant.
••• And if you play it in the key of C, you hear --Modulation to F major (or just in C): Dominant 7, Dominant 4th suspension (or Tonic), Dominant 9 (or Supertonic).

The ear hears the context set by the music itself, and since the fundamental is playing somewhere, it grabs that and puts it all together. The strangest thing about it was shutting off all the other parts in mid-phrase. Your brain just COULD NOT wrap itself around those notes for a while. And when it finally did, it heard them in an entirely different key than before. But having the key forced on those notes caused them to take up roles within the fundamental key, and your brain was able to pick out the fundamental from the existing sound and "nail it onto the bottom" of the harmonics.

That was my theory, anyway. Truly, it was a fascinating experience.

Sadly, before we recorded it, the artist chose to rearrange it so that we had the "real" line of melody there. Why? Because people would not believe us when we told them there were no synths or electronic effects. They just knew we had a synth under there somewhere. My persuasive powers were not adequate to change his mind, even though we had what I thought was a sort of historic moment in piano music. But when you're being paid, the client is always right. I changed it. However, I may have a recording of it from a soundboard tap at Scottsdale Civic Theater for a private gig in early 1993. I don't think we had made the change at that time. I'll try to find it.

One other interesting thing I remember now: the effect did not show up as well in recordings. It stood out brilliantly in person -- even seeming to hover above the rest of the sound. But in recordings it kind of lost its effect. It was still there, but didn't "hover" above the rest, and was a little harder to pick out. If this is true, then it may mean that the ear actually reconstructs that fundamental, and the microphones do not. That may be the other reason we chose to rearrange things. I've got to try to find that recording.

Shooshie

[Shooshie]

Of course, this also explains our ability to "hear" bass guitar, for instance, from a 4" speaker that produces nothing below, say, 200Hz.
A sine bass line would be doomed to oblivion, but throw a few harmonics on it and presto, dinner's done.
As was the case in your brilliant effort, that fundamental will be constructed.

Absolutely. I think Waves' MaxxBass works along these principles, too. I remember thinking of that very same principle at the time, and wondering why we couldn't use small speakers to produce large bass. Five year later, I saw Maxx Bass for the first time. Waves had done it.

It's probably worth noting sum and difference frequencies here, and the fact that the brain adds and subtracts every frequency to/from every other frequency as well.
It does this in realtime, of course.
I've often wondered what music really sounds like.

Thanks for sharing, Shoosh.
Nicky

You're welcome, of course, Nicky! I've wondered the same thing about music. Have you ever noticed that cats love classical music? My cats come listen when I play the piano. They both sit on the table behind me and they don't ask for attention. They just sit there and listen. I've noticed that since I was 8 years old.

Dogs, on the other hand, seem to have a whole different concept of it. I can't quite make out what they're hearing, but it seems to be uncomfortable for them. What does a bug perceive in our music? Rough weather ahead? Birds can imitate our music. A mockingbird living next to my house used to cop licks from my saxophone practice! David Attenborough recorded a bird in the wild doing similar things.

The whole bit about sound gives me an alternate universe to explore 24 hour a day!

Shoosh

[Phil O]

Fascinating stuff! Apologies to the original poster for getting OT, but this stuff is just too good.

Phil

[Jim]

Fernando, one of the coolest things I ever did in an arrangement was to create notes --entire melodic lines-- that were not even there....

Wow. Shooshie, that was fascinating. Thanks!

[Shooshie]

Fascinating stuff! Apologies to the original poster for getting OT, but this stuff is just too good.

Phil

Well, Fernando was the original poster, and in regard to what he was asking, this really was kind of on track. It's about upper partials having an effect on the lower ones. I hope he agrees!

Shooshie

[davedempsey]

Fascinating stuff! Apologies to the original poster for getting OT, but this stuff is just too good.

Phil

Well, Fernando was the original poster, and in regard to what he was asking, this really was kind of on track. It's about upper partials having an effect on the lower ones. I hope he agrees!

Shooshie

Absolutely on track Shoohsie. Thanks for taking the time to share that story with us - it's a great realworld example of the the physics I was indicating in my earlier reply.
The ear, microphone and speaker are all mechanical and can be manipulated and controlled as such. The interesting difference with the ear being of course the brain and it's connections to other senses and, indeed our entire physical selves.
I woke up one morning almost completely deaf in one ear. My balance was badly effected by this and it took a little while and a deal of concentration before I could walk normally. If more than one person spoke I was unable to understand anything that was being said - it was just not decipherable, one big noise without meaning. I felt this almost like a physical blow. When I found an old school doctor who was prepared to syringe my ear the problem went away, the world made sense again.
Our hearing is so much more powerful than we realise.
I guess that's why music has so strong an effect on us.
Just changing a few levels in a mix or introducing another part to an arrangement can greatly alter a song - sometimes it's astounding the difference it can make.

Have you ever noticed that cats love classical music? My cats come listen when I play the piano.

Not just cats, Shoohsie. I remember from my university days the results of experiments with plant growth - plants exposed to classical music grew at a faster rate than plants that were in the silent room. The plants exposed to loud rock didn't do very well at all.

[HCMarkus]

Truly a cool story Shoosh... maybe you could have convinced the artist to release the record with a Boston-style "No Synthesizers" sticker...

[FMiguelez]

Shooshie:

Wow! Thank you so much for that amazing info!

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd LOVE to listen to both, the "rearanged" version before the performance AND your original. What better than the actual music to ilustrate such an amazing phenomenom? So, if you find it, it would be very instructive to post a link here.

Curiously, I started playing a bit with the MaxxBass. It's just so interesting to apply it and check the result in smaller speakers. I'm just starting to become familiar with that plug, so it will take some trial and error, but what a nice way to implement these concepts.

Tomorrow I 'll check my remixed-remastered "fixed versions" of the tracks I was having trouble with in another studio. This other studio has GREAT monitors and great acoustic treatment. These fixed tracks were remixed checking with the PAZ and comparing to similar-sounding music, so I'm extremely curious to see if there was improvement indeed. If so, then it will be a huge land mark for me

Thank you all for participating in this thread.

Un saludo a todos,

Fernando

.

[monkey man]

Not just cats, Shoohsie. I remember from my university days the results of experiments with plant growth - plants exposed to classical music grew at a faster rate than plants that were in the silent room. The plants exposed to loud rock didn't do very well at all.

Apparently it's certain frequencies in orchestral recordings that encourage the leaf stomata to open.
Bird-song in the early mornings is perfect for this.

Dogs, on the other hand, seem to have a whole different concept of it. I can't quite make out what they're hearing, but it seems to be uncomfortable for them.

Unfortunately I've been sans dog for 20 years, but from memory, harmonically rich transients seem to be the things that kill 'em, especially those that are odd-order predominant.
Percussive piano, sharp brass and snare drums spring to mind.
When you hit the piano harder, I believe more odd-order harmonics are produced, as you're brute-forcing the strings to respond in an "unnatural", less ordered manner.

Perhaps dogs' natural, "in-built" compression responds more slowly, too.

What does a bug perceive in our music? Rough weather ahead?

Glad you said, "perceive", Shoosh; that'd be the safe bet.
Bugs see more of the EM spectrum, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they actually see parts of the music.
How they separate out/derive meaning from this would be interesting to know, especially where elegantly ordered harmonic patterns are present, such as is the case with orchestral recordings.

Birds can imitate our music. A mockingbird living next to my house used to cop licks from my saxophone practice! David Attenborough recorded a bird in the wild doing similar things.

Just a thought, but they wouldn't do this unless they derived some sort of pleasure from it, as it's not a necessity for survival.
Oh, unless, of course, the mocker's missus was a Stan Getz fan-gul, er, gal.

The whole bit about sound gives me an alternate universe to explore 24 hour a day!
Shoosh

Spare an hour for we dimensionally-challenged Unicorns, won't you?
We'd hate to lose you to... eternity.*

You gotta love this thread.
Beats trawling.
MM

* Add a dimension to our four, and time is no longer linear.
In fact, it doesn't exist at all.
It's a common misunderstanding, but this is what was meant by that ancient statement, "... who inhabiteth eternity ...".
It's not a case of having lots of time, but a matter of existing outside of it.
That'd mean you'd see the "beginning from the end", and know the future, etc.
BTW, the conciousness of a Unicorn has no MAS(!); he's eternal too.
It's not subject to spacial limitation or influenced by gravity.
You'd have to argue Einstein to disprove this. Good luck.

Sorry for the rant; many folks here would know this stuff, but I hope some Unicorns appreciate it.