Why boosting 30 Hz by 30 dB sounds so good...

[dazzerfong]

   
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.
 
 
 
It works great and my ears are OK. 

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

 

 

1. Your headphones don't boost, they attenuate. So if you said your headphones are +8dB on the bass, that means everything is -8dB relatively.
2. Is your 25.5dB not clipping your music at all? Seems hard to believe, but if you say so.
3. Your MP3 analogy is a complete distortion: the amount of mental gymnastics you did is commendable.....not. For one, the reason 192 kbps MP3 works well is because researchers actually figured out what we don't hear so well, and took advantage of it. Hence, the theory complimented the practice. Your case is just a blind case of 'MOAR BASS', which is fine if you like it, but hardly worth bothering TBH.
 
I dunno if it's the difference in music we listen to, but if I even go +12dB on the bass without pre-amp, I could already here that distortion whenever a bass hit goes on.

 

[watchnerd]

 
 
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.

 
'Mediums', meaning technologies.
 
Studio production of pop/rock/rap follows fashion trends.  There is a lot of EQ drift.
 
But if you compare classical recordings over the same time period you're not going to find as much drift.

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  1. Your headphones don't boost, they attenuate. So if you said your headphones are +8dB on the bass, that means everything is -8dB relatively.

 
Looks like you're right about this one. Here's the graph of the V-Moda M-100 response curve: http://cdn.head-fi.org/d/d4/d4dd509a_vmoda_m100_freq_zps03125f06.jpeg
 
 

2. Is your 25.5dB not clipping your music at all?

 
Not at all. Or, at least nothing I can notice.
 

if I even go +12dB on the bass without pre-amp, I could already here that distortion whenever a bass hit goes on.

 
Well then, it sounds like you need a Rockboxed iPod Classic, then! After getting one, you can put my EQ presets on it, and then can kiss your old paradigms goodbye. 

 

 

[watchnerd]

   
+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.
 

 
If this is the soundtrack for an MTV video made to be seen on 1980s television, it's not crazy to believe it was the bass rolloff  is intentional given how many people of that era would be watching it through regular TV sets with the equivalent of AM-radio speakers.
 
But more to the point: why are you using a YouTube version as a reference point and not the album version?

 

[castleofargh]

  

   

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

  - 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! 

 

 

 

oh ok, thanks for running me through it. it does make a lot more sense now.
so my apocalyptic warnings aren't applying to what you did as the actual boost values are way below. most stuff still stand, but in way lower magnitude than I made them to be. mea culpa for not re-reading your first posts.
so it's a 24db boost at 32hz, maybe even 20db? as I seem to remember the clip would drop the signal by something like 4db when the EQ is activated(dunno if that's included in all you've already accounted for or even if that happens on other RB daps???).
 
I looked at maybe 40 songs in random, I would need to exclude all the genres... let's call all that "played at the discotheque" ^_^, where the 30-60hz are most of the time the loudest part of the track.
same for rap, only old stuff avoid the massive bass boost.
for classical there is usually no problem, but even elvis or the beatles had some passages with some low end in the 15-20db below the rest of the track. but obviously those stuff weren't recorded at exactly 0db for the loudest signal, so all in all I guess I could get away with your EQ without too much clipping and because it's in the low end, it wouldn't be audible unless real bad anyway. in fact if I add replay gain, almost everything is safe, most low level recordings have rather low bass, and modern brickwalled stuff end up with a well deserved margin(do you use replay gain on your tracks? that would probably explain a good deal, but on some tracks the total hiss maniac that I am couldn't stand it(to me hiss is the main proof of failure, I hate it more than anything else but I admit I'm a special nutcase ^_^).
but on the computer with a 24bit output, I have to admit I see no problem to doing what you explain, even if all you drag up is noise, at 30hz it can only sound like 30hz

. I tried with easyQ(max range allows for up to 48db boost on a single instance, so it makes things easier than rockbox).

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  In this 9th bass increment,...
 
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.

 
In the 9th bass increment, I'm thinking it's probably somewhere in the ballpark of an 18-to-24 dB attenuation. The 10th bass increment (i.e., the highest one) is probably around 24-to-28 dB of reduction.
 
But if I want to listen at low volume, I can just flip the gain switch on my Cayin C5 portable amp to "low," and this usually eliminates all or most of the audible hiss noise.
 
As far as infrasonic noise is concerned, I can notice it on about 10% to 20% of the songs in my collection. But when it's present, it's typically only slight-to-moderate, and not really a problem for me. It's only a "big" problem on a small handful of tracks -- particularly on a few '80s Italo-Disco tunes that were poorly recorded, or were dubbed from a vinyl record. In that case, I just have to settle for a lower bass increment and/or a heavier midbass category than I'd prefer. But again it's only a problem on a small percentage of the songs in my music collection.
 

   oh ok, thanks for running me through it. it does make a lot more sense now.

 
Kudos to you, too.  

 

[Don Hills]

   
If this is the soundtrack for an MTV video made to be seen on 1980s television, it's not crazy to believe it was the bass rolloff  is intentional given how many people of that era would be watching it through regular TV sets with the equivalent of AM-radio speakers.
 
But more to the point: why are you using a YouTube version as a reference point and not the album version?

 
If I had the album version, I'd use it. But it did match my general experience with older rock/prog/metal. Perhaps you could list some older tracks that you know well, and I'll do a breakdown on any which I have the original release CDs of.

 

[watchnerd]

   
If I had the album version, I'd use it. But it did match my general experience with older rock/prog/metal. Perhaps you could list some older tracks that you know well, and I'll do a breakdown on any which I have the original release CDs of.

 
I guess I'm not understanding the purpose.
 
If you guys like a big giant bass boost, rock on.  It's your preference.  
 
But there isn't really anything to prove.

 

[Don Hills]

My following comments should be read in the context of rock/prog/metal genres, not so much acoustic or classical etc:
 
Quote:

I guess I'm not understanding the purpose. ...

 
For me at least, the purpose is to partly correct the compromises commonly made to tracks in the pre-CD era in order to get them onto vinyl (and off again). At the mixdown/master stage, the aim was to produce a mix that the producer and artist could live with after cutting to vinyl, hopefully avoiding excessive additional processing such as bass mono-ising, HPF, de-essing etc at the cutting stage. It was a constant compromise between the artistic vision and what could practically be cut. Early CDs were made from the same "vinyl optimised" master tapes. In many cases, careful application of EQ (mainly in the bass) can improve the sound of such CDs. I used to apply similar EQ to LPs, and had to go to considerable effort to get the bass without also boosting rumble and acoustic feedback. (Concrete turntable plinths, tuned turntable suspensions, critically damped arms, careful choice of cartridge, attention paid to all amplification stages to ensure LF response, refrigerator sized speakers...)
 
Of course, this assumed there is bass there to boost in the first place... some tracks don't benefit from it. A pathological case is Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir", a huge sounding track but with no meaningful bass below 100 Hz. (In fact, most of the LZ catalogue is like that.)
 

... If you guys like a big giant bass boost, rock on.  It's your preference.  ...

 
For me, being a basshead doesn't mean liking lots of bass. It means liking all the bass. It's like the sort of improvement made by adding a well integrated sub - a subtle sense of solidity and "rightness" that you don't really notice until you turn it off again.
 

...But there isn't really anything to prove.

 
I guess if you don't habitually listen to the genres that best benefit from the technique, you aren't missing anything.
 
You especially won't be interested in one of my other "party tricks", which is to add a synthesized octave below the normal lowest octave. Again, it doesn't work for all tracks, and you need a good sub, but it does sound good at parties...

 

 

[watchnerd]

 
 
You especially won't be interested in one of my other "party tricks", which is to add a synthesized octave below the normal lowest octave. Again, it doesn't work for all tracks, and you need a good sub, but it does sound good at parties...

 

 
This proves my point -- playing with EQ can be fun, but it's not like there is some big discovery here.
 
If you like cranking up the bass, hey, have fun.
 
P.S. The guys who re-mastered the LZ catalog could have boosted up the bass, too. But they chose not to. 

 

[Don Hills]

   
This proves my point -- playing with EQ can be fun, but it's not like there is some big discovery here.
 
If you like cranking up the bass, hey, have fun.
 
P.S. The guys who re-mastered the LZ catalog could have boosted up the bass, too. But they chose not to. 

Just different worlds... For example, unlike most audiophiles I don't look for soundstage and precise imaging. Most of the music I listen to is pan-potted into place from mono sources. But I do care about frequency response, dynamics and (lack of) distortion. I tend to prefer original releases rather than remasters because they have the original dynamics, and I believe that it's the dynamics as much as the composition that give a track popularity and longevity. Sure, some early CDs didn't sound as good as they could, but a little bass boost and/or a little shelving of the treble usually makes them palatable. 
 
As for Led Zeppelin, I think they would have had to re-mix, not just re-master. Again using Kashmir as an example, there's too much mud in the 40 to 80 Hz range to allow much bass boost. On the other hand, The Beatles remasters do have noticeably more bass than the originals. I think it was tastefully done and adds a little of the right kind of warmth.

 

[watchnerd]

 
As for Led Zeppelin, I think they would have had to re-mix, not just re-master. Again using Kashmir as an example, there's too much mud in the 40 to 80 Hz range to allow much bass boost. On the other hand, The Beatles remasters do have noticeably more bass than the originals. I think it was tastefully done and adds a little of the right kind of warmth.

 
Well remastering often involves using EQ, as you noted in the Beatles case.
 
One question I have is: why does the Led Zep bass suck so bad?
 
It wasn't a technology limitation of the time period.

 

[Don Hills]

...  
One question I have is: why does the Led Zep bass suck so bad?
 
It wasn't a technology limitation of the time period.

 
I don't know. We all know why Iron Maiden's "... And Justice For All" had no bass, but I've never seen any mention of bass in articles about LZ albums production.
Albums I - IV were fairly consistent - a bit of a hump in the 100-150 Hz range which gave an impression of bass, then rolled off below that.
From HotH on they had mostly had relatively "normal" bass. I suspect "Kashmir's" near total lack of bass was a deliberate artistic decision.
One serendipitous result was that you could crank them right up on the typical stereos of the time without the bass drivers crumbling under the strain.

 

[watchnerd]

   
 
One serendipitous result was that you could crank them right up on the typical stereos of the time without the bass drivers crumbling under the strain.

 
That might not have been serendipity....that might have been the entire intent.

 

[Don Hills]

   
That might not have been serendipity....that might have been the entire intent.

 
Maybe. But I looked at early 70s albums by some other groups that I used to play loud - Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Golden Earring - and they look similar to later period LZ rather than the early LZ albums. That is, some shelving of the bass below 100 Hz but no significant drop-off. By the mid to late 80s I started to see CDs which were apparently no longer EQed with vinyl in mind. That is, in many cases the lowest notes were the loudest on the album. They were starting to go away from the cardboard 70s drum sound too.