Do you know of music with really crappy bass in the recording? List and comment here please!

[KEW]

I will start with Eric Clapton's "Unplugged" album.

This is one of the most frustrating albums for me.
I am a fan of Eric Clapton, generally like unplugged versions of music, and in most aspects the recording quality is great!

However, when I added a subwoofer to my system about 10 years ago, I was disappointed to hear the subwoofer ruin this album for me (not really the sub's fault, but still ...). The easiest demonstration of this is in the first 10 seconds of "Tears in Heaven". The intro is only guitar, but you will hear a low frequency "pounding". It may be someone simply tapping their foot on the floor, but whatever it is, I can't believe it was intended to be on the recording!

This happens all of the way through the album, however in most places there is instrumentation such as drums to help mask it.

My theory is the recording engineer did not use a sub and did not know the sound was there. Perhaps he forgot to apply a high-pass filter to block extraneous LF sounds. I can understand mixing without a subwoofer - I do not believe any of the instruments on this album would make use of a sub!

If someone who knows more about recording has additional comments, please share ...
and if you know of another album that suffers from problems with deep bass, please share!

Also, I cannot verify this youtube clip has the problem on my PC speakers which have no real sub, so if someone would verify that the clip has the bass "pounding", I'd appreciate it. I am assuming the recording is exactly the one from the album cover that shows as the video image.

 

[Bucknekked]

Not a lot of takers on this thread, huh? I expect more folks would jump at the subwoofer candy idea. Then they can talk about how their sub rules the world. I certainly sympathize with your topic however.

But, I too have had frustrations with mostly older recordings that seemingly have no bottom, or, not what I remember. First that comes to mind is Santana. Most of the first 3 albums suffer from the missing kick drum off and on. Along with what seems like a missing kickdrum, the bassline just isn't up to snuff for a rock n roll band.
I would think, in my pea brain, that a band with as much percussion going on as they had, that there would be a decent kick drum.

I also want to say Deep Purple stuff suffers this way. Even iconic Smoke on the Water doesn't have the bottom on it I remember in my brain from back in the day. I'd have to go down to the music room and dial it up to be sure, but, I remember the last time I tried some of the old icons, including Deep Purple, they just didn't have the punch like I remember.

I know I have more examples, but I'd have to go and starting listening to some oldies and that would involve work, so, probably won't happen until later. Or, unless someone decides to attack my opinions of these songs .

 

[highfigh]

I will start with Eric Clapton's "Unplugged" album.

This is one of the most frustrating albums for me.
I am a fan of Eric Clapton, generally like unplugged versions of music, and in most aspects the recording quality is great!

However, when I added a subwoofer to my system about 10 years ago, I was disappointed to hear the subwoofer ruin this album for me (not really the sub's fault, but still ...). The easiest demonstration of this is in the first 10 seconds of "Tears in Heaven". The intro is only guitar, but you will hear a low frequency "pounding". It may be someone simply tapping their foot on the floor, but whatever it is, I can't believe it was intended to be on the recording!

This happens all of the way through the album, however in most places there is instrumentation such as drums to help mask it.

My theory is the recording engineer did not use a sub and did not know the sound was there. Perhaps he forgot to apply a high-pass filter to block extraneous LF sounds. I can understand mixing without a subwoofer - I do not believe any of the instruments on this album would make use of a sub!

If someone who knows more about recording has additional comments, please share ...
and if you know of another album that suffers from problems with deep bass, please share!

Also, I cannot verify this youtube clip has the problem on my PC speakers which have no real sub, so if someone would verify that the clip has the bass "pounding", I'd appreciate it. I am assuming the recording is exactly the one from the album cover that shows as the video image.

Which version of the recording(s) are you referring to- original or remaster?

I know the foot tapping is audible, but it may have been an attempt by the engineer or producer to make it more engaging, considering it was played on acoustic instruments, regardless of the fact that most of the instruments had pickups mounted inside.

 

[highfigh]

Not a lot of takers on this thread, huh? I expect more folks would jump at the subwoofer candy idea. Then they can talk about how their sub rules the world. I certainly sympathize with your topic however.

But, I too have had frustrations with mostly older recordings that seemingly have no bottom, or, not what I remember. First that comes to mind is Santana. Most of the first 3 albums suffer from the missing kick drum off and on. Along with what seems like a missing kickdrum, the bassline just isn't up to snuff for a rock n roll band.
I would think, in my pea brain, that a band with as much percussion going on as they had, that there would be a decent kick drum.

I also want to say Deep Purple stuff suffers this way. Even iconic Smoke on the Water doesn't have the bottom on it I remember in my brain from back in the day. I'd have to go down to the music room and dial it up to be sure, but, I remember the last time I tried some of the old icons, including Deep Purple, they just didn't have the punch like I remember.

I know I have more examples, but I'd have to go and starting listening to some oldies and that would involve work, so, probably won't happen until later. Or, unless someone decides to attack my opinions of these songs .

Speakers from the early-late '70s didn't do well for bass, it was all mid-bass. Try listening to it on older equipment. Seriously.

 

[rojo]

It's been a while since I've listened to it, but I was thinking George Michael's performance of "Killer / Papa Was a Rolling Stone" was a prime example of a kicking performance ruined by overwhelming bass in the mix. Listening to it now, the bass isn't quite as obscene as I remember, although it is definitely overemphasized. It's giving me a headache.

Take 6's "He Is Christmas" album is probably a better example for this thread. Whoever mixed that album was completely irresponsible, and parts of it sound like vomit despite the prodigious talent.

 

[everettT]

I cant recall any that had been made worse with the addition of a sub. Is it possible that particular notes did play well in room?

 

[KEW]

Which version of the recording(s) are you referring to- original or remaster?

I know the foot tapping is audible, but it may have been an attempt by the engineer or producer to make it more engaging, considering it was played on acoustic instruments, regardless of the fact that most of the instruments had pickups mounted inside.

It is the original - I had it before my daughter was born.
Looks like the remaster occurred in 2013.
The remaster is definitely not free of it.
I agree that may have been the engineer's or producer's intent, but they did not give it the attention it needed.
It is very prominent at the start of "Running on Faith". Clapton is counting off the song here, so he is deliberately emphasizing the foot "pounding" (because I cannot call that a tap), but I doubt he intended it to be like that on the album, but I can handle that since it was before the music starts.
In one of the more rock 'n roll songs, it is passable, but in something like Tears in Heaven, it is a distraction (as a specific example, a fraction of a second before 4:04 in this song there is the "pounding" sound with nothing to mask it! If it was a light tap, it would not be such an issue, but it is a thud that has some resonance. Even a rock song like Layla suffers from it in the intro where it is only guitar for the first few seconds. It probably disappears (masked) into the other sounds for maybe 90% of the album, but on those places where thing are less busy and more delicate, it is pretty offensive.
I still suspect this was recorded/mixed without the benefit of monitors that provided the low bass content rather than someone deciding it was the right way to do it!

I cant recall any that had been made worse with the addition of a sub. Is it possible that particular notes did play well in room?

I listened to it using headphones (Sennheiser HD 598) to make sure room gain was not the issue. It was slightly better on the headphones, but not enough for me to change any statements I have made. But it was a good idea to check!

But on your overall statement, have you not even experienced an album where the bass was recorded hot?
What about the second link Rojo gives?
I would also give this as an example:

@rojo , I was not familiar with Take 6! Is there an album you can recommend without the exaggerated bass?

 

[highfigh]

It is the original - I had it before my daughter was born.
Looks like the remaster occurred in 2013.
The remaster is definitely not free of it.
I agree that may have been the engineer's or producer's intent, but they did not give it the attention it needed.
It is very prominent at the start of "Running on Faith". Clapton is counting off the song here, so he is deliberately emphasizing the foot "pounding" (because I cannot call that a tap), but I doubt he intended it to be like that on the album, but I can handle that since it was before the music starts.
In one of the more rock 'n roll songs, it is passable, but in something like Tears in Heaven, it is a distraction (as a specific example, a fraction of a second before 4:04 in this song there is the "pounding" sound with nothing to mask it! If it was a light tap, it would not be such an issue, but it is a thud that has some resonance. Even a rock song like Layla suffers from it in the intro where it is only guitar for the first few seconds. It probably disappears (masked) into the other sounds for maybe 90% of the album, but on those places where thing are less busy and more delicate, it is pretty offensive.

I still suspect this was recorded/mixed without the benefit of monitors that provided the low bass content rather than someone deciding it was the right way to do it!


I listened to it using headphones (Sennheiser HD 598) to make sure room gain was not the issue. It was slightly better on the headphones, but not enough for me to change any statements I have made. But it was a good idea to check!

But on your overall statement, have you not even experienced an album where the bass was recorded hot?

I think the fact that they were playing on a riser makes the difference- a stage floor is much more rigid and a riser just has plywood on top of a frame. I also think that it's possible that the mix was done on small monitors- if they were truly full-range, they would have heard it and might have fixed it. I'd be surprised if they didn't do something when it was remastered. Did you use a subwoofer when you got your copy of Clapton Unplugged? I think that would have a lot to do with the excess.

I don't think the bass was recorded hot as much as the foot thumps were allowed to enter the mics without them being isolated- OTOH, it was a live gig and that's far different from a studio recording.

How does it sound without your subwoofer? I bet they really recorded it for the masses and the masses at that time didn't use one (or more). I have heard recordings that had hot bass but not often on LP- that screws up the sound and limits the time per side and to be honest, I have been disappointed in the sound quality of the low end on digital media for a long time. In our systems, we often try to achieve a 'house curve' with a downward tilt as it goes from low to high frequencies- CDs and many recordings lack low end, IMO. One that was recorded hot is by Steve Hackett's 'Genesis Revisited'- it's not, but the original versions by the band were weak recordings, so it brings out some sounds that would have made the LP more impressive. I think the original Seconds Out LP sounds better than the remaster and the CD, both of which have a bit crisper highs, but the low end is weaker- if you're familiar with it, you know that their use of bass guitar, synths and bass pedals was integral to their music and compared to their live shows, the recordings really never impressed me until the 2007 DVD. They had stated, however, that the live show had their attention, not the recordings. Once Hugh Padgham became more involved, this changed.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I have Clapton's "Unplugged" and noticed the same thing. It's lovely music, so maybe the recording engineer was really trying to recreate an "unplugged sound". Or maybe the space was miced incorrectly.

Do you ever notice that when you're offset to an acoustic guitar's sound hole (which operates like a port on a bass reflex speaker) or listening from a distance, then bass drops off? Unplugged kind of sounds like that to me.

 

[highfigh]

I have Clapton's "Unplugged" and noticed the same thing. It's lovely music, so maybe the recording engineer was really trying to recreate an "unplugged sound". Or maybe the space was miced incorrectly.

Do you ever notice that when you're offset to an acoustic guitar's sound hole (which operates like a port on a bass reflex speaker) or listening from a distance, then bass drops off? Unplugged kind of sounds like that to me.

Look at the video again and notice the position of the mics used for the guitars- they're aimed downward, toward the face of the guitars and placed that way, they can't eliminate the sound from his feet. They mic'd the guitars for their sound and IMO, they do sound great, but they could have put a rug under his feet, or he could have worn rubber-soled shoes. That would have prevented him from being the time-keeper, though. They didn't use transducers in the guitars, just the mics- that means, you get the sound, warts and all.

 

[KEW]

I think the fact that they were playing on a riser makes the difference- a stage floor is much more rigid and a riser just has plywood on top of a frame. I also think that it's possible that the mix was done on small monitors- if they were truly full-range, they would have heard it and might have fixed it. I'd be surprised if they didn't do something when it was remastered. Did you use a subwoofer when you got your copy of Clapton Unplugged? I think that would have a lot to do with the excess.

I don't think the bass was recorded hot as much as the foot thumps were allowed to enter the mics without them being isolated- OTOH, it was a live gig and that's far different from a studio recording.

How does it sound without your subwoofer? I bet they really recorded it for the masses and the masses at that time didn't use one (or more). I have heard recordings that had hot bass but not often on LP- that screws up the sound and limits the time per side and to be honest, I have been disappointed in the sound quality of the low end on digital media for a long time. In our systems, we often try to achieve a 'house curve' with a downward tilt as it goes from low to high frequencies- CDs and many recordings lack low end, IMO. One that was recorded hot is by Steve Hackett's 'Genesis Revisited'- it's not, but the original versions by the band were weak recordings, so it brings out some sounds that would have made the LP more impressive. I think the original Seconds Out LP sounds better than the remaster and the CD, both of which have a bit crisper highs, but the low end is weaker- if you're familiar with it, you know that their use of bass guitar, synths and bass pedals was integral to their music and compared to their live shows, the recordings really never impressed me until the 2007 DVD. They had stated, however, that the live show had their attention, not the recordings. Once Hugh Padgham became more involved, this changed.

I may not have properly stated what I meant, but I agree completely... that is, I believe they did not record it using monitors that properly revealed the resonance of the foot "pound" to the recording engineer. I suspect the engineer looked at the instrumentation and decided there was no reason to need reproduction of those lower pitches because none of the instruments used produce in that range. He did not consider that the riser might have resonance.
It is fine without my sub turned on!.
I'm sure some will listen to this album and think "What is KEW whining about!". The problem is this is an otherwise wonderful album - both the music and the quality of the recording are fantastic, which makes this flaw (which might not seem so atrocious on another album) stand-out!
But you are right, it is not necessarily that the bass is recorded hot as the foot "pounds" were unintentionally captured. Ideally, a high pass filter could have been applied to eliminate it (although a patch of carpet is a more direct solution)!

Also appreciate the comment on "Seconds Out". It is the first album I heard where the live version of a song sounded better than the studio version. My copy definitely pre-dates the remaster!

 

[GrimSurfer]

Yup, that would do it!

WRT the video KEW posted of Katy Perry, I suspect that mastering engineers are adding a few dB to bass etc so that the sound better on ear buds that don't operate as well as frequency drops. Kinda like the old Mastered for iTunes stuff that never did sound right for me/my system (compression and low bitrate aside).

I've reached a point where I avoid remasters other than Steve Wilson's.

 

[highfigh]

I may not have properly stated what I meant, but I agree completely... that is, I believe they did not record it using monitors that properly revealed the resonance of the foot "pound" to the recording engineer. I suspect the engineer looked at the instrumentation and decided there was no reason to need reproduction of those lower pitches because none of the instruments used produce in that range. He did not consider that the riser might have resonance.
It is fine without my sub turned on!.
I'm sure some will listen to this album and think "What is KEW whining about!". The problem is this is an otherwise wonderful album - both the music and the quality of the recording are fantastic, which makes this flaw (which might not seem so atrocious on another album) stand-out!
But you are right, it is not necessarily that the bass is recorded hot as the foot "pounds" were unintentionally captured. Ideally, a high pass filter could have been applied to eliminate it (although a patch of carpet is a more direct solution)!

Also appreciate the comment on "Seconds Out". It is the first album I heard where the live version of a song sounded better than the studio version. My copy definitely pre-dates the remaster!

I can't imagine not using larger monitors when mastering anything but they may really have missed the mark if they thought people didn't or wouldn't have a system that could reproduce the thump. Russ Teitelman produced it- maybe we could contact him to ask.

You mean the songs on Seconds Out sound better than the albums they came from? Definitely! Especially Squonk, Cinema Show, Supper's Ready, Los Endos/Dance On A Volcano and Firth of Fifth. It's hard to really capture some of those keyboard sounds with a stereo, unless it has big woofers that are similar to what is used live- stereo speakers just don't move enough air. They may be able to hit the frequencies, but the mid-bass doesn't hit you in the chest in the same way.

I auditioned for a band in about 1980 and one of the songs we did was Los Endos/Dance- when the synth started, it made everything (including us) vibrate and I thought 'Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!!!!!!!!!!!!".

 

[Trell]

I recently got the Tears for fears: Songs From The Big Chair (SHM-SACD, Catalog No. UIGY-15010, apparently a DSD remastering using the original UK master tapes) and was disappointed with the lack of just about any bass. I swear that a 3 inch woofer will not break a sweat with this SACD.

 

[snakeeyes]

I recently got the Tears for fears: Songs From The Big Chair (SHM-SACD, Catalog No. UIGY-15010, apparently a DSD remastering using the original UK master tapes) and was disappointed with the lack of just about any bass. I swear that a 3 inch woofer will not break a sweat with this SACD.

You can get the same album in Blu-ray Audio.

 

[Trell]

You can get the same album in Blu-ray Audio.

Yeah, that would be my first Blu-ray Audio disc, though. I've just stuck with CD and SACD as they are easy to just put into a player, and for the SACD I can select layer via remote control.

 

[snakeeyes]

Yeah, that would be my first Blu-ray Audio disc, though. I've just stuck with CD and SACD as they are easy to just put into a player, and for the SACD I can select layer via remote control.

Ya It’s hard to limit myself to just one format.

The Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon SACD is one of my favorite multichannel discs though. I ordered Wish You Were Here SACD and it will arrive any day now.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Wish You Were Here, especially the title track, is very well recorded... better than anything on DSOTM.

 

[Trell]

Ya It’s hard to limit myself to just one format.

The Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon SACD is one of my favorite multichannel discs though. I ordered Wish You Were Here SACD and it will arrive any day now.

I got the Wish You Where Here SACD this year (reprint) and it is great. The SACD comes in booklet form with cover art, pictures, and that reminds me a little of the decades ago when I bought LPs.

I also have the Dark Side of the Moon but I must admit that is not one of my favourite Pink Floyd albums, even though the surround is great.

Animals SACD is supposed to release this year, and that would be great.

 

[Phase 2]

Music from the 70' 80' to late 80,s had just about no bass at all. Lots of mid bass but no really low end bass.