Q for SH: how hi-fi is recorded bass? Beatle Bass....

[krabapple]

This is an interesting question that came up in other threads, and has
been bruited about on other forums. I figure it's perfect for SH.
The question is, how often in your estimation does bass - say, frequencies below 80 Hz -- get reproduced in full range stereo, versus being summed to mono, rolled off, etc? Is it different for pop versus jazz, classical, etc? Is it different for LP vs CD?

[Steve Hoffman]

Well, I deal in original tapes usually, so whatever is on there is on there.

A lot of oldies that I work with have the bass mixed to the left or right channel. I just leave it where it is.

Sometimes, if Kevin and I are cutting a longish LP side, we sum the bass at 80 to the center. Doesn't affect the slam of the actual note (which is at a higher freq.), but saves a lot of groove space.

On digital masterings, I just leave it as it is on the tape, unless it needs fixing in some way, in which case I do what needs to be done.

Does this help?

If I missed, reword your question!

[krabapple]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Well, I deal in original tapes usually, so whatever is on there is on there.

A lot of oldies that I work with have the bass mixed to the left or right channel. I just leave it where it is.

Sometimes, if Kevin and I are cutting a longish LP side, we sum the bass at 80 to the center. Doesn't affect the slam of the actual note (which is at a higher freq.), but saves a lot of groove space.

On digital masterings, I just leave it as it is on the tape, unless it needs fixing in some way, in which case I do what needs to be done.

Does this help?

If I missed, reword your question!


Reworded: on master tapes you encounter, and from what you know of other engineers' practices and the history of recording in general, is the <80 Hz bass usually summed, rolled off, or otherwise tweaked? The claim commonly made is that most recordings (at least, those made during the LP era) have bass summed to mono below 80 Hz and/or rolled off below some low frequency. I'm trying to find testimony from hands-on sources regarding how very low frequencies are conveyed in the final product (LP or CD). What are general practices?

[Steve Hoffman]

I gotcha.

No, the bass is never summed on a master mix. That is ALWAYS done in the mastering stage. It's also never rolled off. In general, in the older tapes, I've found that there is too much of it (Pet Sounds for example). In more modern mixes (Van Halen, Doobie Bros.) there isn't enough of it, but other than being usually heavily limited, it's not filtered, rolled off or summed in any way.

It's sometimes REDUCED on the LP cutting by -3 db or so at either 100 or 50 cycles and summed as the lacquer is being cut, but usually the master tape is intact. No engineer I've ever spoken to has worried about the bass on the tape. They know that mastering/cutting engineers will screw with it somehow, so they just leave it be.

Am I getting closer?

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
I gotcha.

No, the bass is never summed on a master mix. That is ALWAYS done in the mastering stage. It's also never rolled off. In general, in the older tapes, I've found that there is too much of it (Pet Sounds for example). In more modern mixes (Van Halen, Doobie Bros.) there isn't enough of it, but other than being usually heavily limited, it's not filtered, rolled off or summed in any way.

It's sometimes REDUCED on the LP cutting by -3 db or so at either 100 or 50 cycles and summed as the lacquer is being cut, but usually the master tape is intact. No engineer I've ever spoken to has worried about the bass on the tape. They know that mastering/cutting engineers will screw with it somehow, so they just leave it be.

Am I getting closer?

Steve,

I have noticed that on some "oldies" there is some really low bass material either from instruments--Sugar Shack by Jimmy Gilmer & the Fireballs or Torquay by the Fireballs

or

recording artifacts--bumps to a mic or another instrument. I believe that you mastered a first time Stereo mix of Chapel Of Love by the Dixie Cups where there is some very low end material on the tape that I could not identify.

Bob

[Steve Hoffman]

Well, microphones and tape recorders in the old days went down to under 30 hz easily. If there is something there it will show up on the tape. Whether the engineer of the time could hear it on his monitor is another story.

Those Norman Petty recordings that you note have the hand of a master engineer on them. Petty put his mic on the bass amp and also DIRECT BOX'ED the bass and blended them together for that amazing sound.

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Well, microphones and tape recorders in the old days went down to under 30 hz easily. If there is something there it will show up on the tape. Whether the engineer of the time could hear it on his monitor is another story.

Those Norman Petty recordings that you note have the hand of a master engineer on them. Petty put his mic on the bass amp and also DIRECT BOX'ED the bass and blended them together for that amazing sound.

Steve,

Thanks for the scoop on the Petty engineered recordings. I played Torquay for an audiophile friend in this area and he was truly amazed. Thanks for noting the 30hz capability on the vintage equipment. Certainly, this explains some sounds I hear under the "cans" while recording on the Reel recorder.

Bob :)

[Steve Hoffman]

Yes those German Mics are very sensitive (Nat Cole's breath on "Love Is The Thing" for example).

An example of the opposite of that:

On the Beatles recordings, they just took Paul's bass through a standard Vox AC-30 guitar amp. You hear plenty of mid bass hump, but no real depth or sock. That's because the Vox amp's 4 EL84's were already in clipping/compressing mode BEFORE hitting the microphone...

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Yes those German Mics are very sensitive (Nat Cole's breath on "Love Is The Thing" for example).

An example of the opposite of that:

On the Beatles recordings, they just took Paul's bass through a standard Vox AC-30 guitar amp. You hear plenty of mid bass hump, but no real depth or sock. That's because the Vox amp's 4 EL84's were already in clipping/compressing mode BEFORE hitting the microphone...

Steve,

I have Nat's CD that you mastered so yes, I see. For my education, did the Fairchild Compressor/Limiter further affect the lack of prescence on Paul's bass or was that further EQ'ed out when the LP masters were made from the multi-tracks or was it simply never recorded in the first place (this ties into the Beatles Remix/Remaster thread)?

Thanks, as always!

Bob

[Steve Hoffman]

Bob, if anything, the Fairchild would have made the bass stronger. But remember, those Vox amps didn't have any low bass to begin with, and Paul's little bass guitar was pretty woody sounding too. By the time the LP's were cut, with the shocking -6 db at 75 cycles, there was nothing left.

[krabapple]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
I gotcha.

No, the bass is never summed on a master mix. That is ALWAYS done in the mastering stage. It's also never rolled off. In general, in the older tapes, I've found that there is too much of it (Pet Sounds for example). In more modern mixes (Van Halen, Doobie Bros.) there isn't enough of it, but other than being usually heavily limited, it's not filtered, rolled off or summed in any way.

It's sometimes REDUCED on the LP cutting by -3 db or so at either 100 or 50 cycles and summed as the lacquer is being cut, but usually the master tape is intact. No engineer I've ever spoken to has worried about the bass on the tape. They know that mastering/cutting engineers will screw with it somehow, so they just leave it be.

Am I getting closer?

Yup! Thanks. So, if I read you right, the masters usually have more or less all the juice, but sometimes in the process of transfer to in-store product, liberties are taken with the bass. So what I'm perhaps voyeuristically interested in is how often in the biz this mastering/cutting screwing takes place (I presume this applies to LP only...that the bass on CDs is usually transferred without summing, rolloff, etc)

(To reiterate the context, this relates to the claim I've seen in audio forums that LPs commonly have the bass summed to mono and/or rolled off, whereas CDs don't unless they have been made from LP production tapes.)

[Steve Hoffman]

As far as I know, ALL stereo LP's have had the bass summed and futzed with a bit (except most of the discs I cut).

On CD's, none of the bass is summed, but it's futzed with nonetheless. Since there are no "rules" for CD mastering, you can add a ton of bass and get away with it.

But, we love the sound of LP's, and most were mastered by a true pro who knew what they were doing and why. Some CD mastering engineers abuse the rules of common sense too much for me (as I've only mentioned about 1 zillion times here)....

[ultron9]

Steve,

Comparing both "Surf Legends" and "More Surf legends" the 2nd compilation is perhaps even better than the first in terms of sounds quality.

There is tremendous presence to the sound, particularly in the Bass region.

Were any special techniques required to transfer these vintage tracks?

[Steve Hoffman]

Nah, it was a snap. Pretty much straight off the tape.

Finding the actual MASTERS, now that was hard.

[Angel]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman


On the Beatles recordings, they just took Paul's bass through a standard Vox AC-30 guitar amp. You hear plenty of mid bass hump, but no real depth or sock. That's because the Vox amp's 4 EL84's were already in clipping/compressing mode BEFORE hitting the microphone...

Why do you think they did it that way? Did George Martin like that muddy sound? Maybe they didn't really know how to record electric bass at Parlophone or something.

[Uncle Al]

Originally posted by Angel

Maybe they didn't really know how to record electric bass at Parlophone or something.

I don't know if they were recorded as badly as they were mixed, after all - "Baby Your a Rich Man" is still quite a demo for deep rock bass. It's only distinction was that it was mixed to stereo some 8 to 10 years after it was recorded.

(Alas - I can no longer comment on the ORIGINAL b-side mono mix as it is no longer part of my collection - and back then I didn't have the equipment I have now).

[Dugan]

What you have to remember though is that for Baby You're a Rich Man it's not the Hofner/Vox combo but the Rickenbacker 4001S/Fender Bassman combo. Plus a change what mics & miking techniques Geoff Emerick used.

[Grant]

Originally posted by Uncle Al


I don't know if they were recorded as badly as they were mixed, after all - "Baby Your a Rich Man" is still quite a demo for deep rock bass. It's only distinction was that it was mixed to stereo some 8 to 10 years after it was recorded.


Uh, "Baby...": was recorded in 1967. Those stereo remixes were done in 1970 or 71. That's only three or four years! Martin and Emerick could not reproduce the "tape spin" effect in the song so they just did a straight ahead stereo mix. There was more compression used on the mono mix as well.

[HeavyDistortion]

If I'm not mistaken, the Hofner bass that Paul played had a shorter scale than most basses, such as Fender, Rickenbacker, etc. Therefore, that would also affect the sound of the bass on a recording. If you have ever heard a low "E" note on both a short scaled bass and a long scaled bass, you'll understand what I'm talking about.




HeavyDistortion

[FabFourFan]

Originally posted by Uncle Al
I don't know if they were recorded as badly as they were mixed, after all - "Baby Your a Rich Man" is still quite a demo for deep rock bass.BYARM was not recorded at Abbey Road, IIRC, which sort of explains why it sounds so completely different.

[John B]

Originally posted by Angel


Why do you think they did it that way? Did George Martin like that muddy sound? Maybe they didn't really know how to record electric bass at Parlophone or something.

Hi Angel,
No definitive answer here - Bass was something Paul and the engineers kept improving upon over their recording career together. They regarded the bass on American recordings to be superior and so tried to emulate that sound. Paperback Writer was a notable advance. Direct injection of the bass into the board in 1967 was another. Changing from the Hofner to a Rickenbacker was another.
I'd love to hear a more thorough answer.

[Matt]

Originally posted by Angel

Maybe they didn't really know how to record electric bass at Parlophone or something.

I remember hearing an interview with Paul where he talked a bit about that. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember him saying how he was dissatisfied with his bass on their recordings, but was certain they could get a better sound. However, every time he talked it over with the engineers or someone else, he'd always get an explanation about why that wasn't possible.

Wish I could provide better details, but that's all I can remember. I heard the interview about four or five years ago.