Pop quiz (mix dilemma)

[woodman]

Here's a tune I've been pecking away in my spare time since spring, when I got a deal on the EZX Jazz fake drums. But the problem is the fake bass — Logic's Ballad Upright Bass sample.

The problem: It has a good native sound, but it's boomy as hell. Tried to rein in the low end with a drastic rolloff at 90, with little bumps at 100 and 780. But certain notes lost their resonance and a few seemed to die.
Compression range 0 to -8 — helps the weak notes some, but not enough.

I'd never intended to post this tune — it's clearly in the hobbyist category, not to everyone's taste — but I'm banging my brains out on this bass. ... The clear answer would be, "get a REAL doghouse player," but I'm SOL there.

So here are two test files:

No EQ on bass (raw sound of the unadorned virtual inst: http://soundcloud.com/the-woodshed/n...noeq-test-file

Radical but ineffective low-end EQ on bass: http://soundcloud.com/the-woodshed/n...adeq-test-file

Please note that this is just barely a mix, very rough — but until I can solve the bass, I can't solve the mix. Thanx for any tips, on the bass or anything else that jumps out at you!

[64Strat]

Wood,

To my ears, the noEQ version sounds natural and normal on my good headphones.

If you prefer the radEQ version but don't like the weak notes, automate and ride the slider for volume compensation.

[woodman]

Originally Posted by 64Strat

Wood,

To my ears, the noEQ version sounds natural and normal on my good headphones.

If you prefer the radEQ version but don't like the weak notes, automate and ride the slider for volume compensation.

Actually I don't care for the radEQ much, but the noEQ was boomy on a couple of speaker systems I tried it on. Of course, I can't discount the possibility that I'm so used to electric bass that I'm overreacting. The simulated acoustic sound doesn't seem to tuck into the mix the same way. (DUH! ) ... On the freq analyzer, there's a big peak between 40 and 100 Hz that you'd want to eliminate or reduce with an electric. Maybe this is just part of the acoustic instrument's character.

[backalleyblues]

Woody,

gotta agree with 64strat, the original version sounds "correct" to my ears as well... having played with a number of upright players over the years (as I'm sure you have too!) there's always that boominess and occasional weak notes...that's just the nature of the instrument.

A couple thoughts here-maybe a multi-band compressor, just on the bass? Or maybe a different bass model? (more of a jazz model, which will have more low mids)

Pretty cool tune, btw! Suits you quite well, actually...

Franc Robert

[fezz parka]

It's the nature of the Double Bass. Sounds like they got the samples right.

[woodman]

Originally Posted by backalleyblues

Woody,

gotta agree with 64strat, the original version sounds "correct" to my ears as well... having played with a number of upright players over the years (as I'm sure you have too!) there's always that boominess and occasional weak notes...that's just the nature of the instrument.

A couple thoughts here-maybe a multi-band compressor, just on the bass? Or maybe a different bass model? (more of a jazz model, which will have more low mids)

Pretty cool tune, btw! Suits you quite well, actually...

Hmm ... hadn't thought about trying the multiband. I tinkered with it a little when I first got Logic Pro, but all I did was make a mess, so I moved on. But that experiment was on a whole mix — maybe in this instance it would be worth another try on the bass alone, per your suggestion.

As for the sample, I was in love with this particular bass due to its rich, dusky sound. Not ruling out using another one, but I'd like to make this one work. ... Re the tune itself, it's been one of my favorites since I heard Nat King Cole's version on the radio when I was a little kid, about 4 years old. (At that age, I thought I was the very strange enchanted boy!) The reason I hadn't originally wanted to post it was because I didn't want to expose my schmaltzy side to the world.

Originally Posted by fezz parka

It's the nature of the Double Bass. Sounds like they got the samples right.

So both you guys (and 64 too) are confirming what I'd begun to suspect: I was freaking out over trying to make an unpredictable instrument behave predictably. Many thanks for the lesson!

[Geoff738]

I haven't had a chance to give it a listen yet.

But, multiband comp and/or if it's only doing it on specific notes, figure out their frequencies and dip 'em as needed. (Voxengo's Span is good for that - better than the analyser in Logic's eq, to get a visual. Or use something like this: http://www.muzique.com/schem/freq.htm

On a rock tune I'd suggest my usual get more definition/ harmonics/ mids articulation via amp sim, distortion, eq etc. Sounds like that would not be appropriate on this one.

Sounds like you're on the right track!

Cheers,
Geoff

[peteycaster]

Hey Woody. This has always been one of my fave songs and Nat one of my fave voices. re. the bass, I have to agree with the others in that the no eq version sounds more like a double bass. Have you tried using a sweep to identify and pull conflicting lows out of the kick? The only other suggestion I have would be to parrallel compress, use a HPF and mix in to bring in some definition. Maybe even some distortion to the compressed track to simulate a bit of "rattle" or string buzz? Just an idea.

[woodman]

Good ideas, Petey, and I'll follow them up. Hey, I'll try anything — that's how you learn! That jazz-type kick is pretty understated, but separating its freqs from the bass is worth checking out. Hadn't thought of parallel compressing, but I've had some luck with that in the past.

It'll be a few days til I can get back to this tune, because I've got a whimsical project going with my wife ... gotta strike while the iron is hot.

[backalleyblues]

Go get'er Woody!!!

Just as a thought, I remembered you said you programmed the bass track-why not adjust the notes volume individually? Thought about that on my way to Home Depot... so I just checked it... here's what I found (you may know this already) in Logic... not sure how it translates in ProTools, though I'd be surprised if they didn't have a similar function...

On the piano roll in Logic, select the first note region played of a particular pitch (say, A1), then under the Edit menu, use Select "All Following Of The Same Pitch"-this will select all the notes of that pitch. Go over to the tools menu, and select the velocity tool, then while the notes are still selected, click on one of the notes and drag up or down to change the velocity (which will change the volume of the note). You will notice ALL the selected notes will change at the same time... making this a MUCH easier chore than mucking around with individual note regions...

Cool, I learned something new (and VERY useful!) today... Thanks for the problem, Woody!

Franc Robert

[woodman]

Franc — I used the MIDI velocity window (piano roll), but the results were uneven ... sometimes a note just wouldn't play nice — on some, more velocity just added boom, and on others, it would boost the overtones but no bottom. However, as I think back, I'm pretty sure I set the velocities before I added compression. You're right that this may be the easiest way to skin this cat. Thanx!

[woodman]

Went back a coupla versions to the original MIDI bass track and realized my velocity editing was really sloppy — on of those things where you say "I'll take care of that later" and later never comes.

Then I checked the compressor settings and discovered/remembered I'd used an aggressive FET model with long release, like you'd do on an electric bass. ... The release wasn't letting go of the boom until after the next note was forming.

Switched to a gentler Opto circuit and after tinkering with release times for a minute, tried Auto-Release and it worked quite well ... I'm not generally an enthusiast of auto-anything, but in this case it worked.

I spend a lot of time doing this stuff, but in many ways I'm still a rookie — bouncing a slovenly MIDI track and overlooking the compressor as a factor certainly qualify. And so it goes.