But the long wavelength is what builds up in large space like a club, hence the perceived delay.
Please. No more about "audible delays" because of frequency.
The thread shows quite clearly that a small and forgivable oversight (namely not hearing a volume bump at a very low frequency in one sample in the studio) was the culprit.
If there is anything to be learned from this thread it is that rather esoteric theories should not be invoked and blamed for a production error, but rather that you should have very good monitoring equipment if you like to go into the subbass range, so as not to miss details that will be glaringly obvious in a club setting which takes pride in amplifying exactly those frequencies that normal equipment has a hard time reproducing.
As for "building up", think about it, you can hear bass (and all other) frequencies in headphones, where the distance between speaker and eardrum is smaller than the wavelength of 14 Khz and above waves.
You don't need much physical space to hear sound.
And standing waves, if that is what you refer to, are another chapter in accoustics alltogether...
But they have different lengths. A very low frequency sound may have a wave that's 20 feet long. It causes a delay because the full wave takes more time to come out of the speaker.
Perhaps audioconsult does not know the physics behind the audio wave spectrum.
first you write really bull.. first time to be with the gggrumpf..but the truth is a thing.. you cant split or change..
and audio laws and physics? which laws? audio laws? the problem with bookworms and audio is that theire view on the topic is a little limited while practical ecperience has tought that the mechanical and thermo dynamical laws of physic have to been taken in consideration too on big pa sound installations.. ever heard about the word refraction?
The energy that is in the wavefront that reaches your ears determines what you hear, not the wavelength itself.
Yes. because were that not the case, you would also be hearing material @ 2K ahead of material @ 250Hz which doesn't happen if they are originating from the same transducers. In any room where distance is a factor and more transducers are being used further away from the FOH or "0" reference point, then it really helps to used a digital delay and some careful setup pf levels in those delayed areas in order to achieve good inteligibility. When that is done properly, most listeners can experience 'direct field" program reinforced by the FOH.
It's quite a bit shorter than the original. I tried to preserve as much of the lowest bass component as I could, but to prevent that "whooomf" that can be heard in the original.
I hope it helps,
Cheers!
Rob
EDIT: I added a second option (slightly different fade on the end, makes for very slightly longer kick).
To be honest, there's click / clips in both of them though (and they're stereo, which makes me nervous there's additional gain or bouncing somewhere, as opposed to exporting the original file)
This is the new (summed) kick I made (no context, I know..). I deleted a couple smaller cycles of the sub kick that preceded the taller peaks.
But is this still too far after the initial attack of the kick? When is it too much?
I do like the effect of it and noticed a lot of 909 kicks are an initial 100 - 150 attack, followed by a sub. Or is the problem the sub waveform, which for some reason started with smaller cycles and peaked a couple cycles in?
To be honest, there's click / clips in both of them though (and they're stereo, which makes me nervous there's additional gain or bouncing somewhere, as opposed to exporting the original file)
Sorry about that, that'll teach me for editing at the end of the day . There might be a level change with the new samples but no clipping (max levels were around -7dBFS) so I think it was a rough edit on my part.
I've uploaded two new ones to the same link (Options C and D). I used fades on each edit that time. Hope those help, but no worries either way.
This is the new (summed) kick I made (no context, I know..). I deleted a couple smaller cycles of the sub kick that preceded the taller peaks.
But is this still too far after the initial attack of the kick? When is it too much?
I'm still hearing a sub-echo in this (like a "kih-chhh" type sound where you hear the transient, and then the lower part echos back a bit), if you can get it to a point where it's timed with the music that's probably okay though (maybe a 32nd note or 16th note). It'll only sound "off" if it's out of timing.
Why don't you graph the attack of the "hi" kick onto the body of the "low" kick?
Ah man I have no idea how to do that. To be honest I've never obsessed over a waveform so much in my life. I usually try to stick with my ears for better or worse.
Do you mean something that would result in them hitting at the same exact time? If it doesn't **** with the headroom that'd be cool.
If you can get it to a point where it's timed with the music that's probably okay though (maybe a 32nd note or 16th note). It'll only sound "off" if it's out of timing.
Scratch this.... I just went to listen to your original sample of the mix, and the sub echo is fairly close to the timing of the song already (might be roughly a 16th note). I think this problem is about the loudness of that sub echo - there's a lot of it there, and so in a room on a big system that's what's causing the issue.
Scratch this.... I just went to listen to your original sample of the mix, and the sub echo is fairly close to the timing of the song already (might be roughly a 16th note). I think this problem is about the loudness of that sub echo - there's a lot of it there, and so in a room on a big system that's what's causing the issue.
Rob
a 16th echo on each kick dont sounds too promiising if you ask me,,especially when this was supposed to be one kick during the composing process and not as a flam. Its never good when the groove changes with the system its played with. As long the op has it all in his hands he maybe should find another sound that does´nt do that.
a 16th echo on each kick dont sounds too promiising if you ask me,,especially when this was supposed to be one kick during the composing process and not as a flam. Its never good when the groove changes with the system its played with. As long the op has it all in his hands he maybe should find another sound that does´nt do that.
I did serious volume automation in Pro Tools, deleted one cycle of the sub kick, printed it, put a transient designer with slight attack and longer sustain.
Then the same plugs I had on it before - a little compression, eq, and inflator.
Then I opened up a track from one year ago that I planned on finishing and realized I'd used the same sub kick. Baahh
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
. There might be a level change with the new samples but no clipping (max levels were around -7dBFS) so I think it was a rough edit on my part. 
