[castleofargh]

@OP 
I won't say anything about loving more bass and the genres or periods that justify it.
 
 
but the equal loudness contour isn't the reason why you like more bass.

 
it's not because a graph has the right shape that it should be used to make a case. the band creating the song had ears that more or less follow the equal loudness contour. why didn't they notice that it was better with more bass? 
the guy mixing the CD used his ears too, so why didn't he feel that more bass would be better?
somehow that very human feature would manifests itself only for the end user of the album? well nope! there are some reasons why more subs can feel better on headphones, the fact that the headphone probably rolls off a lot, the absence of tactile feeling of the bass by the body that we wish to compensate somehow, and other stuff like taste. but not because of the equal loudness contour.  make a headphone sound like your equal loudness contour using test tones, and come back tell us how great it sounds... not.

 

[DiscoProJoe]

 
the absence of tactile feeling of the bass by the body that we wish to compensate somehow [with headphones]

 
When I used to have a car in the U.S., I had a huge sound system in it that included two 12" subwoofers in a large, rear-firing, sealed box that was 1.75 cubic feet per subwoofer (internally), filled halfway with pillow-stuffing. You can see some photos of it in this article I wrote a few months ago. I doubt the "lack of feeling of the bass by the body" has any large effect on my choice of EQ settings with headphones, at least!
 

the guy mixing the CD used his ears too, so why didn't he feel that more bass would be better?

 
I don't know. How come most tracks from the '80s don't have as much bass in them, compared to newer tracks? Some of the studio engineers who worked back then are still "at it" today. Perhaps as everyone's equipment improved (both in the studio and at the ordinary user's end), so did the amount of sub-bass in the tracks.

 

[bigshot]

What music are you talking about? I know lots of recordings from the 70s with good bass. Are you talking about pop music that was designed to be played on AM radio? Because if so, there is your answer.

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  The majority of the songs I have from the '70s & '80s sound like they have no sound below 50 Hz
 
In my EQ presets in Rockbox,...

 
In light of some recent discoveries I made with my EQ presets in Rockbox, which prompted me to completely overhaul and dramatically improve these presets to where they sound absolutely incredible now, I now know that recordings from the '70s & '80s definitely have sound below 50 Hz. It's just that most of them need a 40-to-50-dB boost around 30 Hz to bring it out, that's all!
 
Click the link in the above paragraph and see for yourself!  

 
 

  What music are you talking about? I know lots of recordings from the 70s with good bass. Are you talking about pop music that was designed to be played on AM radio? Because if so, there is your answer.

 
They definitely can have good deep sub-bass if you can boost the low end enough. See the weblink above.

 

[headdict]

Are you sure it's really part of the music that gets boosted rather than just noise or EMI? Does it have a different effect than, say, mixing in some arbitrary rumble?

 

[DiscoProJoe]

Are you sure it's really part of the music that gets boosted rather than just noise or EMI? Does it have a different effect than, say, mixing in some arbitrary rumble?

 
Most of the time it's part of the music.  >97% of the time with newer songs, and >90% with older tunes. Occasionally I do get some infrasonic rumble noise in the recording, but it's usually no big deal.
 
---------------------
Edit: I meant to say that even when getting infrasonic noise in a recording, it's still not really a "problem" on those particular songs, as it usually doesn't bother me...even when getting that kind of low-end noise.

 

[dazzerfong]

   
Most of the time it's part of the music.  >97% of the time with newer songs, and >90% with older tunes. Occasionally I do get some infrasonic rumble noise in the recording, but it's usually no big deal.

Of course, it's practically impossible to have zero stuff at bass: what you're doing is more or less bringing out something that shouldn't be heard in the first place. Or you just love sub-bass so much you need +50 dB. That's a lot.

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  I won't say anything about loving more bass and the genres or periods that justify it.

 
Which genres (besides the obvious hip-hop and dance-pop)? Which time periods? I could care less about what time period it's from; if I like it, I like it.
 

but the equal loudness contour isn't the reason why you like more bass.

 
No relevance whatsoever? Maybe it's more accurate to say that the equal loudness contours aren't the only reason I like more bass. 

 

the guy mixing the CD used his ears too, so why didn't he feel that more bass would be better?

 
The differences between the equipment in the studio versus the end user's probably has a lot to do with this one. The studio engineer also has to consider the kind of cheap equipment that most people use to play their music, such as crappy little speakers and Apple earbuds.
 
If a studio engineer masters a recording with 30 Hz boosted by 40 dB, it'll probably sound great through a powerful sound system and powerful headphone system with its EQ set to flat. But try playing that recording through little bitty speakers or Apple earbuds, and it'll probably sound really distorted, and/or really quiet because the rest of the frequencies have to be attenuated in that recording by 40 dB, and the cheap stuff can't reproduce those low pitches, anyway.
 
The guys in the studio have to take this into consideration, otherwise a lot of ordinary listeners are going to be upset with how horrible it sounds through their cheap little earbuds! 

 

the fact that the headphone probably rolls off a lot 

 
Probably another factor. It's hard to make a good pair of portable headphones that's 1.75 cubic feet per subwoofer, filled halfway with pillow-stuffing, and with rear-firing bass drivers. 

 

and other stuff like taste 

 
That's obviously part of it, too, but it's definitely not the only reason.
 

make a headphone sound like your equal loudness contour using test tones, and come back tell us how great it sounds... not.

 
It'd probably sound really good, but would be really, really uncomfortable with those gargantuan rear-firing bass drivers inside of those 1.75-cubic-feet enclosures on each side of the headphones! 

 

  Of course, it's practically impossible to have zero stuff at bass: what you're doing is more or less bringing out something that shouldn't be heard in the first place. Or you just love sub-bass so much you need +50 dB. That's a lot.

 
On some recordings I need that much -- especially on older stuff.
 
Anyway, studio engineers aren't infallible gods or anything like that. You wouldn't believe how many songs in my music collection there are with crappy mastering quality. Whether it's excessive infrasonic rumble (that isn't part of the music), whether it's the mids & highs getting a lot louder during the song while the sub-bass doesn't (so I have to turn up the bass more in the middle of the song), whether it's audible distortion or hiss noise in the recording, or whether there's nothing at all below 60 Hz no matter how much I boost the low end.
 
On a different topic, years ago people thought I was strange to always wear earplugs into dance clubs, concerts, and sporting events, only to walk outside, pull them out, hop into my car, and crank up my huge sound system that I had. I always told them the reason: different pitches! (Obviously my ears are sensitive to mids & highs, but not sub-bass.) This is consistent with the equal-loudness contour principles.
 
Since my late teens, people have also always told me that I'll be deaf by the time I'm 40. Well, I'm 38 now, and my ears are fine! (I can hear up to 17 kHz at medium-low volume, and up to 18 kHz at medium volume.)
 
So, again, it's how loud different pitches are that make all the difference.
 
One last note for now: you can read my "Complete User Guide" to DiscoProJoe's Rockbox EQ Presets -- Version 3.1, released earlier this week! I can boost the low end by up to 62 dB, now, with 2 sets of 426 illustrious EQ presets to choose from. Oh well,...Happy EQ'ing. 

 

 

[DiscoProJoe]

I also wanted to mention that since I can boost the low end more with these new EQ presets (compared to a few months ago), I often find myself using lighter midbass categories than before -- with the extra new sub-bass quantity -- since it sounds better. That's also consistent with the equal-loudness contour principles.

 

[castleofargh]

you'll have to forgive me, I don't feel like taking your points one by one.
 
but still a few thing:
- if you really did boost the bass by 60db, I understand that your method pushes the music down to deal with the logical clipping that would occur in the bass. so that would mean getting the music 60db closer to the noise floor. not great.
 
-it also would mean that you need to push the amp section 60db louder so that the mids are still at normal listening level. depends on you headphone/IEM and how sensitive it is, but I suspect strongly that it's not so easy to do with most devices and most headphones.
 
- it would also mean that your headphone/IEM, let's say the singer reaches 80db at times, then the signal would try to make the headphone go 140db on the low end. obviously that wouldn't work, or it would blow up your headphone(and your ears) after a time. instead I suspect you get loads of distortions from everything that is actually failing you in your +60db bass boost quest.
 
so you have 2 possibilities:
1/ it doesn't work and that's why you're ok
2/ it works and you're doing something real dangerous to your ears(but I don't believe it's possible so you're probably in-between those 2 options)
 
and I'm still pretty sure the equal loudness contour has nothing to do with your enjoyment of bass. the guys in the ER4's topic also have an equal loudness contour yet they love an IEM that has no bass boost whatsoever, a,d often complain about too much bass on IEM with a 10db boost. and about yourself, you live all you life with that equal loudness contour affecting your ears, you have never heard anything with the bass at full blast in real life. a guitar bass playing would be attenuated just the same if it was right in front of you. that leads to the very obvious reason why you like more bass: you like more bass!

 

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  - if you really did boost the bass by 60db, I understand that your method pushes the music down to deal with the logical clipping that would occur in the bass. so that would mean getting the music 60db closer to the noise floor.
 
-it also would mean that you need to push the amp section 60db louder so that the mids are still at normal listening level.

 
Nope, your assumptions are way off, and seem to be based on theory, not practice. Let me explain.
 
In my latest post about my new EQ presets, I specifically mention (in large bolded font, copied and pasted)...
 
------------------
When setting the default precut for an EQ preset, the 32 Hz band can usually be ignored.
 
How amazed I was in May 2015 when I tried dramatically lowering the volume precut level while playing the high bass increments in the old "Optimized" category -- even with the precut dropped all the way down to zero -- without the slightest bit of audible distortion on most songs! And this was with the 32 Hz band maxed out at +24 dB. This made me realize that most song recordings have such a tremendous deficit of low-end sub-bass that you can boost 32 Hz by a whopping 24 dB on your digital EQ,…and there will still be a deficit without any clipping!
------------------
 
But wait, it gets even better. With my latest setup, if I'm boosting the low-end by 59 dB (which would be the equivalent of the 9th bass increment in my new presets), here's how it all comes together:
 
-- The V-Moda M-100 headphones have a natural 8 dB of bass boost in their sound signature.
-- The Cayin C5 portable amp has a 5.5 dB bass boost switch.
-- Rockbox firmware has a +12 dB bass boost feature that's totally separate from the EQ and doesn't require any kind of volume precut.
 
So, right off the bat, we're already getting a 25.5 dB bass boost without using the EQ.  So, on top of that, the 9th bass increment (in these EQ presets) boosts 32 Hz by an equivalent of 33.5 dB. In this 9th bass increment, the 1-kHz-to-2-kHz "baseline" has been dropped to -9.5 dB. 32 Hz is maxed at +24 dB, and there's no volume precut.
 
However, I usually have to attenuate 4 kHz to -15.5 dB, 8 kHz to -20 dB, and the 16 kHz band all the way down to -24 dB (using the "Treble Out" subcategory) for the mids and highs to sound normal when using the 9th bass increment. Also bear in mind that the midbass in these presets have been greatly attenuated as well in order to counteract the large midbass spillover from the 25.5 dB of pre-EQ bass boosts.
 
So for all the 59 dB low-end boost that's going on, we're only talking about a 24 dB reduction in the overall volume. Because in practice, that's how it comes out when played through my system. And as for hiss noise while using this preset, I can only hear it a little during quiet parts of the song. It's totally drowned out otherwise.
 
Now, you have to ask yourself: when would I use the 9th bass increment? Well, I often use it on classic rock songs from the '70s and early '80s. (The "Hot" midbass category often sounds best with them.) Classic rock from 35 years ago -- and especially the original masterings -- need a tremendous low-end boost to sound good.  As mentioned earlier in this thread, a lot of older masterings deliberately had their sub-bass reduced in the recordings to make them compatible to cut to vinyl.
 
Anyway, when I mentioned the studio engineer boosting 30 Hz by 40 dB in the last post, maybe in practice, he wouldn't actually need to reduce the rest of the frequencies by 40 dB. Maybe he'd only need to lower it by 20 dB to eliminate all the audible clipping distortion.
 
There is theory, and there is practice. There often can be a world of difference between the two.
 
Here's another example: CD quality versus 192 kbps MP3. In theory (and especially if you look at all the graphs of bit data that's lost when converting to MP3), there should be a huge loss in sound quality. But in practice, most people (myself included) can't notice any difference when listening.
 
Theory vs. practice, dude. In the end, it's always practice that wins out.
 
 

so you have 2 possibilities:
1/ it doesn't work and that's why you're ok
2/ it works and you're doing something real dangerous to your ears(but I don't believe it's possible so you're probably in-between those 2 options)

 
It works great and my ears are OK. 

 

you have never heard anything with the bass at full blast in real life. a guitar bass playing would be attenuated just the same if it was right in front of you. that leads to the very obvious reason why you like more bass: you like more bass!

 

 
As I said, it's actually a combination of the two. With a sound system, I make it sound better than in real life! 

 

 

 

[watchnerd]

Okay, so the OP has figured out a way to boost the bass by a crazy 59 dB and to do so in a way that doesn't cause clipping and is apparently not running into the noise floor.
 
Neat. Subjective preferences are fun to play with.
 
Is it high fidelity and true to the original master?  No.  There is no difference in recording or playback mediums over the last 40 years that can reasonably account for the need for a 59 dB bass boost.
 
EQ is fun to play with.  It's best use, IMHO, is to cure room/speaker interactions or to get transducers (headphones or speakers) a little closer to neutrality.
 
But there isn't really a learning here to be applied universally.  If the OP really needs a 59 dB bass boost, then either there is a strong subjective preference at play or a defect in the playback chain.

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  Neat. Subjective preferences are fun to play with.

 
Absolutely!

 

Is it high fidelity

 
To me, it sure sounds like it. But I'm an anti-audiophile, so there you go. 

 

true to the original master?  No.

 
Of course not! The original masterings (without using any EQ'ing or bass boosts) to me sound about as boring as watching a turd dry. If I turn off my EQ, set everything to flat, and turn off all the bass boosts, it's like changing from a giant sound system to a little Fisher-Price record player -- even while still using M-100 headphones and a Cayin C5 amp! 

 

There is no difference in recording or playback mediums over the last 40 years that can reasonably account for the need for a 59 dB bass boost.

 
Are you talking about technology, or just studio-engineering preferences?
 
How, then, do you explain why I use my "Lite Less Treble 0" preset on Kelly Clarkson's "Mr. Know It All" (from 2012),...while using the preset "Hot Treble Out 9" on Eddie Money's "Think I'm in Love" (from 1982)? We're talking an equivalent difference of 27 dB in the 32 Hz band, 10.5 dB in the 64 Hz band, and with a large difference in the midbass as well.
 
If I play the Kelly Clarkson song using the latter preset, it sounds like almost all bass with practically no mids & highs. If I play the Eddie Money song with the former preset, it sounds like there's practically no bass.
 
Generally speaking, in my experience with EQ'ing there's been a tremendous difference in studio mastering styles over the last 40 years.

 

[Don Hills]

...Generally speaking, in my experience with EQ'ing there's been a tremendous difference in studio mastering styles over the last 40 years.

 
+0.5. There hasn't been a tremendous difference, but there has been a significant difference.
 
Some of the apparently crazy bass boost figures Joe is coming up with make sense when you look at the actual tracks. As I said in post #7 in this thread, many classic rock/prog/metal tracks exhibit a natural 6 dB / octave slope from low to high frequencies. Taking the Pat Benatar Youtube track Joe mentions on his Rockbox EQ thread, and assuming that it's the same master as the one he has(*), it follows this trend down to about 160 Hz but tails off below that. It appears to have been shelved below 150 Hz or so, and rolled off about 24 dB/octave below 50 Hz.  It's about 24 dB below the "guideline" at 40 Hz, the lowest significant musical content. That's the amount of EQ Joe has applied... 
 
I tried applying the same EQ curve Joe did. It's a little too much for my taste, I found 20 dB at 40 Hz suited me better. The kick drum is too heavy to use more. I found I preferred the range above 160 Hz left flat. I rarely feel the need to mess with the tonal balance above 150 or 200 Hz. Most speakers / headphones perform adequately in the midrange, and vinyl cutting lathes have no problems cutting this range, so the engineer rarely had to compromise on the producer's / artist's vision.
 
(*) The video is 1980 vintage, and although it's "live" it's actually lip synced to what appears to be the original track. There's no sign of remastering or hypercompression.
 
 
(I'm a basshead from way, way back. I could bore for Africa on the topic of bass.)

 

 

[DiscoProJoe]

 
Some of the apparently crazy bass boost figures Joe is coming up with make sense when you look at the actual tracks.
 
Taking the Pat Benatar Youtube track Joe mentions on his Rockbox EQ thread, and assuming that it's the same master as the one he has
 
(I'm a basshead from way, way back. I could bore for Africa on the topic of bass.)

 

 
Yes! It's great to see that someone actually "gets it"! 

 
I just now compared the sound of the Pat Benatar track from the YouTube video...versus my MP3 of it that I converted from her original Greatest Hits CD (released in 1988). (In 2001, I converted my whole CD collection to MP3.)
 
These two tracks sound very similar in terms of frequencies, but the YouTube video sounds like it has slightly more sub-bass and a little less in the highs than the one in my music collection. (I could only compare the video versus the MP3 from my PC, running through my desktop stereo, though.)
 
Cool beans!