• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Dry bass

Unfortunately he is on holiday. My mistake, I said that I don't need it, he is welcome to keep it. My group of friends are trying to get him started on his multichannel audio journey! I have a spare DAC, so I lent it to him. Given that the RME Fireface UCX costs AUD$2500 I don't think I could justify buying another one on a whim :p

Anyway, I spent more time fine tuning the Pultec EQ today and I think I have got it dialled in where I like it: boost/attenuate 3dB, 60Hz. Further listening is needed to find out whether it needs to be adjusted any more but it seems to work well with whatever I throw at it. Thank you everyone for your help, and I apologize again for posting misleading REW curves that I found in my stash. The most recent measurements are the ones shown in Post #137.

I use a $100ish Scarlatti. Was measured here, does the job. I had a rme babyface before, no different really.
If you are nearby (Sydney) have a few interfaces you could borrow
 
Bass can't really be too "dry". If the decay in the lows is super short and it's completely free from resonances and ringing you have incredible bass and something that people would have an experience of life when hearing it.

However, too "dry" is a term appropriate for the upper frequencies. Typically overdampened treble area and possibly also midrange. Something that for instance happens if the treatment in the room is too bandlimited or if there's simple too much absorption of mids and highs.
Sort of typical of such subjective descriptions....differing interpretations let alone a correspondence to measurements....
 
I use a $100ish Scarlatti. Was measured here, does the job. I had a rme babyface before, no different really.
If you are nearby (Sydney) have a few interfaces you could borrow

Thanks mate, I am in Melbourne. Isn't a Scarlatti closer to $100k than $100ish?
 
Thanks for asking.

The conclusion: I am happy with the effect of Pultec EQ. When I first installed it, I turned it up to maximum settings for fun. It was a truly "HOLY CRAP!!" moment. There was so much bass slam and impact. However, it was also excessive in a way that is comical. Nothing in real life sounds like that, so I had to tune it to something more realistic.

I also had some misgivings about using it. It is a professional tool which is used for improving bass punch for individual tracks, e.g. drums, before it is mixed. Obviously, with music that has already been mixed, I can not separate it out and only apply it to some tracks. It is a system-wide application which works with a selected frequency band, so it would be a rather crude tool.

However, another way of looking at it is that it is a tool to help me find a better target curve. Many people here have commented that my existing target curve is a bit bass light, and I agree that it is. My previous experiments with increasing the bass has resulted in bloaty bass, which is why I dialled it back to what you can see. The Pultec EQ interestingly seems to increase the bass, but without sounding bloaty. From my reading, I know how it does that, but I do not know why increasing the bass followed by a dip should remove the subjective bloatiness that comes from increasing the bass alone. Regardless, the effect works and I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed, especially the guy who suggested Pultec EQ in the first place - @ppataki.

It took me a few days of experimenting, but I have dialled it in. The effect is more subtle now, but it is close enough to what I am looking for. Importantly, it does not sound out of place with the rest of the FR. I am going to bake it into the target curve as soon as I am able to measure its effect.

And best of all, this amazing bass upgrade came at negligible cost - mostly a bit of ridicule on ASR. But I can live with that ;)
 
My previous experiments with increasing the bass has resulted in bloaty bass, which is why I dialled it back to what you can see. The Pultec EQ interestingly seems to increase the bass, but without sounding bloaty. From my reading, I know how it does that, but I do not know why increasing the bass followed by a dip should remove the subjective bloatiness that comes from increasing the bass alone.

it's a matter of fine tuning. The higher you go in frequency, the more muddy it usually sounds.

The reason I got involved in this discussion is that all the focus on adding more low-mid is a guarantee to bloated bass. If you're mixing a record or live music and you want slamming and we'll defined bass, make a cut at 120Hz. It's the oldest trick in the book.
 
Last edited:
The reason I got involved in this discussion is that all the focus on adding more low-mid is a guarantee to bloated bass. If you're mixing a record or live music and you want slamming and we'll defined bass, make it cut at 120Hz. It's the oldest trick in the book.
And how would that look on OP's frequency response if you were to do that?
 
And how would that look on OP's frequency response if you were to do that?

More or less like suggested here:
I'd be looking for a response more like this:

View attachment 333042

And if it sounds to muddy because it lifts to much around 100Hz, lower the filter frequency and/or use a steeper filter. That will give you a response that resembles the one proposed by ppataki on page 1.

And what's really nice, it doesn't go against research. Look at how the Harman preference curves with a lot of boost in the low end don't use a standard shelving filter. They implement and extra dip in the filter slope around 80Hz, and they keep the 200Hz area flat.
index.php
 
The reason I got involved in this discussion is that all the focus on adding more low-mid is a guarantee to bloated bass. If you're mixing a record or live music and you want slamming and we'll defined bass, make it cut at 120Hz. It's the oldest trick in the book.
Agreed. Had to change my Harmon curve to start lower.
 
I do have a target curve that looks like that.

1702494265501.png


Target curve overlaid on verification measurement. To me, it sounds flat and thin, but it is listenable with nothing particularly objectionable. It just doesn't sound exciting.

Below is the curve I was listening to, the one that I thought had bass that lacked slam. It has a really satisfying meatiness from mids to the top end, and even the bass is "OK". It just lacks punch. Again, the target curve is overlaid on top:

1702494427307.png

And BTW, I figured out why those earlier curves on Acourate looked so funny. It was because I am supposed to apply a Psychoacoustic filter FOLLOWED BY Frequency Dependent Window. If I do it the wrong way round, (i.e. FDW before Psy) it looks funny. If I apply FDW only, it looks funny. Once the correct smoothing has been applied, the curve appears as normal. To show you what a difference this makes, the curve above is exactly the same measurement as the curve below, the only difference is the incorrect smoothing procedure, i.e. FDW alone:

1702494570533.png
 
Last edited:
More or less like suggested here:


And if it sounds to muddy because it lifts to much around 100Hz, lower the filter frequency and/or use a steeper filter. That will give you a response that resembles the one proposed by ppataki on page 1.

And what's really nice, it doesn't go against research. Look at how the Harman preference curves with a lot of boost in the low end don't use a standard shelving filter. They implement and extra dip in the filter slope around 80Hz, and they keep the 200Hz area flat.
index.php
Ha, I just realised that of all the curves I have had, the one I have kept for the last six months or so is almost spot on the "trained listeners" curve. Even the little variation at 1-2 kHz..
This was just from experimenting and ranking and creating new curves from the best one from before.

I don't think I will change it from my active one as I just realised this. I'm pretty sure the bass will become too pronunced for me.

Side note; with a pair of Kappa 8.2i's the bass kicks you hard. So there is something right about these preference curves.
 
Looks like the systems where you preferred bass were completely bass heavy! if thats the target curve you are using to match. Good to be able to switch as you feel like it.
 
I do have a target curve that looks like that.

A curve that compared to the Harman curves still has a lot of room left to experiment with more bass, so let yourself go ;-)
 
Looks like the systems where you preferred bass were completely bass heavy! if thats the target curve you are using to match. Good to be able to switch as you feel like it.

Me?

I listen to a lot or different things incl. a lot of EDM so yeah, I don't need to boost my bass further. (The 20-year old me would shake his head of mistrust and spite if he knew I would ever say something like this.)
 
I kinda know what you mean. I experienced the same thing with a pair of Infinity Kappa 7.2i's. They delivered punchy bass. Physical. Those have a 10" woofer. Then I replaced them with Kappa 8.2i's. Those have 12" woofers. They lacked the punch from the smaller speakers. It came down to fiddling a bit more with my Dirac house curve and getting the right slope on the correction curve. I've spent quite some time wondering about this. It couldn't be right that the bigger brother didn't have the punch as the smalle siblings.

Your curve looks way too flat for meaningful physical bass IMO. I would try low-passing your subs in small increments a bit higher up the frequency and see if the punch doesn't show itself when your curve is raising towards 20 Hz.
I have mine approx +8 dB from 20-20.000. Come to think of it, I could probably live with a couple of dB more but it's quite nice balanced as it is.
The best Infinity reference speakers have small bass couplers, these small bass speakers add the slam, B&O also used these bass couplers on their better speakers. Going from a large woofer direct to a midrange you get deeper bass but no impact or slam.
 
The best Infinity reference speakers have small bass couplers, these small bass speakers add the slam, B&O also used these bass couplers on their better speakers. Going from a large woofer direct to a midrange you get deeper bass but no impact or slam.
8.2i does have a bass coupler. The 7.2i doesn't. And I experienced that the 7.2i, in my room, had more slam "au natural" than the 8.2i that needed a bit of TLC (DSP)
 
8.2i does have a bass coupler. The 7.2i doesn't. And I experienced that the 7.2i, in my room, had more slam "au natural" than the 8.2i that needed a bit of TLC (DSP)
Higher slam and impact also requires higher SPL
 
Back
Top Bottom