Why all the bass on the dance floor?

Working a party last night and it hit me--Bass. Loads of it.

Music not bad, though as the night went on it got to be newer and newer stuff (IOW, it got worse IMHO) But the bass was just out of hand, as though the DJ was trying to use his speakers to knock down the building across the street. Why do DJs do this? Do or why do people want it this way-because they do not know better? Properly balanced music sounds better, no?

Personally, I'm a fan of applying levelers and multi-band compressors to music to equalize the various frequencies and make all parts of the song roughly the same volume... so I agree with you on the "balanced music sounds better" thing.

Top-40 dance music has recently been heavily influenced by genres such as dubstep and electro, which are styles that place a heavy emphasis on low-end frequencies (dubstep in particular). It's not the DJs, it's the style of music. Even with a totally flat EQ (DJs are usually working with a simple high/mid/low 3-band EQ), the music is going to be very bass-heavy.

I hung out with several bands in the 70's. Most bass players claim was the base somehow stimulated the genitals of the females making them friendlier. Gee and I was wasting all that money buying them drinks....

OK. Here's the response some of you were probably waiting for....


Most mobile DJs do not bother to use an equalizer. Or if they do, they simply set the levels in a "smile" shape and leave it that way, permanently. Some, have it in a "frown" shape!

To properly use an EQ requires setting up way ahead of time, and taking the time to use a pink noise generator and analyzer to correctly set the EQ. Most DJs do not even know what "pink noise" is.


Most DJs claim that people will "feel" the bass more, and this causes them to be more inclined to dance. This is supported by the fact that deaf people will dance to the music, when they can feel the bass. This "fact" is not a myth. I have had deaf clients, as well as clients who work with for deaf people, tell me to turn up the bass for this reason.


Bass "carries" better. I.E. The further you are from the speakers the more likely that you can't hear the higher end notes. Get even further and the mid-tones start to fade. The bass is the last to fade.


If you surf on any of the DJs forums, sooner or later, a newbie will come on board asking questions, and specify the equipment they use. More often than not, the responses are not aimed at the settings, but that there are no bass bins included on the list. Obviously, that bass bins make it sound better, is the belief being propagated.


For what it's worth, I've been in the business for 27 years and have never owned bass bins. Because I usually don't have the time to properly equalize the system for the room, I generally run my equalizer flat. In fact, when I replaced my mixer 7 years ago for one that had a 3 band EQ built in, I got rid of my 10 band EQ.

In the late 80's and early 90's I occasionally did work with a big sound company who would bring a box truck full of gear to events. Then again, he did events like large school gym dances for 3,000 kids, and catering facilities for 1,000 guests. Yeah, his gear included bass bins, but he also took the time to do the pink noise analysis. And his systems sounded SWEET!

I agree with Lonesome that a lot of it is just popular music. Dubstep is the new thing, and dubstep without bass is like bluegrass without a banjo.

But I also agree with AZ that dubstep notwithstanding, the bass is a little much. It's even more prevalent in the younger clubs, where every single song whether it's the newest dubstep song or a late night Al Green offering is bassed into a blur. From what I remember, we were usually too klobbered to care much about smoothness, and probably couldn't decipher the song anyway, so maybe it's a kind of braille. Too drunk to hear the song but we can still feel it, so the dancing goes on

DJ, if I ever resurrect the band, "pink noise analysis" is going into the pot as a possible band name. ;) Good pull.

Quote: ncfatcat

I hung out with several bands in the 70's. Most bass players claim was the base somehow stimulated the genitals of the females making them friendlier. Gee and I was wasting all that money buying them drinks....

No wonder the piccolo has failed to catch on.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Most DJs do not even know what "pink noise" is.

...

he also took the time to do the pink noise analysis

I'm no DJ but I am familiar with pink noise. However, I'm unfamiliar with using it for some sort of analysis -- how do you use pink noise to choose EQ settings?

---

In case you're interested, here's the processing I use on the music I listen to (it may sound fancy, but it's just Winamp with some plugins that people smarter than myself wrote):

1. Apply an approximate equal loudness curve EQ (mostly a shallow frown shape), so that successive processes "hear" the music roughly the same way our ears do, then

2. Apply a leveler, aural exciter, and multi-band compressor, in that order, and then

3. Apply an inverse equal loudness curve EQ (mostly a shallow smile shape) to undo the effect of step 1

The result is heavily compressed music, like a radio station, but not as perfect as what their six-or-seven figure equipment can do. Here's a before and after clip (each WAV file is about 13.5MB) of a short, 78-second version of "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette (specifically chosen because of its dynamic range, particularly in the beginning and end) - I'd be interested in your opinion in particular, DJTeddyBear, on the differences between the two versions.

Interesting... there's more stuff going on in the after clip, which is both good and bad. The bass is much more noticeable, as is the top end. It sounds a bit too tinny for me, but I can hear there's a change.

I know one sound engineer who used "ironic" as his test for the set up (after switching from "Dignity" by Deacon Blue). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnWJjXcAkXg

I got fed up with hearing the Deacon Blue track after setting up my fourteenth University disco.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

OK. Here's the response some of you were probably waiting for....


Most mobile DJs do not bother to use an equalizer. Or if they do, they simply set the levels in a "smile" shape and leave it that way, permanently. Some, have it in a "frown" shape!

I can buy this as an explanation, but even the idea that deaf folks will dance it still amazes me both that people like this and as well how people will spend a fortune on sound equipment and never use it right. As far back as high school a buddy insisted I somehow hooked my radio op "wrong" because of the random sounds coming from different parts of the car. Guy didn't realize I knew how to use balance/fade and an equalizer for more than volume and bass. Different guy my brother works with really, really high-level sound guy (the guy used to work NFL Stadiums!) Guy says he can make music sound just great but he will never win one of those competitions because all they judge on is the BOOM-BOOM-BOOM of the bass. This show the other night, the only music not ruined by it was a few Sinatra tunes, and it may be impossible to ruin them with bass.

As a MAWG I am not the target market I am sure. Steve Wynn could comp me at his best club and I'd never even show up. But I just wonder if people would like it better if they actually heard a good product?

When I dance, my friends say I look like a flounder or a trout, so I guess it's only natural to throw some bass on the dance floor.

JB -
Sorry I didn't notice your post sooner.

Quote: JB

I'm no DJ but I am familiar with pink noise. However, I'm unfamiliar with using it for some sort of analysis -- how do you use pink noise to choose EQ settings?

Mind you, I didn't do this myself. Like most DJs doing simple setups, like for a wedding with 150 people, we just haul in the gear, set it up, and we're good to go in less than an hour after arrival.

The guy I'm talking about would take two guys two or three hours to unload and setup - and that's with being parked 20 feet from his setup area, and bringing no lights or other stuff, and not including the sound check and pink noise.

This is from 20 years ago, so my memory is fuzzy, but...

Basically, the analyzer used a special type of microphone placed in the middle of the otherwise empty room. The generator made a noise that sounded like static. It is played loudly, while the display on the analyzer is indicating the EQ adjustments needed.

The pink noise process alone took him upwards of 20 minutes.

Quote: JB

....I'd be interested in your opinion in particular, DJTeddyBear, on the differences between the two versions.

I'll give them a listen later, but, you may not like my responses. I kinda have a tin ear for that sort of thing.

I know a lot about the theory of this stuff, and know a lot about the stupid things DJs do. But which sounds better? Beats me.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

JB - Sorry I didn't notice your post sooner.

No problem.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Basically, the analyzer used a special type of microphone placed in the middle of the otherwise empty room. The generator made a noise that sounded like static. It is played loudly, while the display on the analyzer is indicating the EQ adjustments needed. The pink noise process alone took him upwards of 20 minutes.

Okay - thank you.

For those interested, here is a summary of the different types of noise (paraphrased from the help file of the digital audio editor I use):

- White noise has a spectral frequency of 1, meaning that all frequencies are present at equal volumes. Because the human ear is more susceptible to high frequencies, white noise sounds very "hissy."

- Pink noise has a spectral frequency of 1/f and is found mostly in nature. By equalizing it, you can generate rainfall, waterfalls, wind, rushing river, and other natural sounds.

- Brown noise has a spectral frequency if 1/f². It resembles the sound of thunder and waterfalls.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'll give them a listen later, but, you may not like my responses. I kinda have a tin ear for that sort of thing.

I understand. Even if you think it sounds "tinny" you wouldn't be the first one to do so. thecesspit mentioned it earlier in this thread, and I've heard it before, too. I guess it all comes down to personal preference.

While the ear is the ultimate test, here are visual representations of the before and after versions (the top half of each image is the left channel; the bottom half is the right channel):

Before:



After:



Taller parts are louder; shorter parts are quieter. Note how, in the 'before' version, that the left channel (top half) is naturally louder than the right channel. That's another reason why I chose this song as a demo.

As you can see in the 'after' version, nearly everything is equally loud, as best as can be done without completely destroying or distorting the sound. It is no easy task trying to equalize loudness when you take into consideration all of the attack times, release times, compression ratios, thresholds, and so on. Fortunately for me, the plugins I use which turn the 'before' into the 'after' pretty much handle everything 'magically.'

Reading your definitions, makes me think that I got the terminology wrong (20+ years of fuzzy memory will do that).

I'd have to say he was doing white noise analysis.

---

Looking at your waveforms, it's kinda obvious what's going on. You're making the quieter portions of the music louder to more-or-less have the same volume throughout.

And now that I stop to think of the song you're doing this on, um, I'm not sure if it's such a smart idea or not.

While playing the softer passages more loudly may make it easier to hear, it then makes the transition to the loud sections lose some of thier emphasis.

When I play that song at events, yeah, I'll boost the volume on that soft passage, but then, when the loud stuff kicks in, I pull the volume back only a little, to allow it to have the emphasis it needs - but without blowing the roof off. Then I'll slowly bring the volume down to normal.

The result is similar, but retains the intent of the transition.

A lot of music today is over compressed (I should find the analysis a friend of mine either did or reported on), which means a lot of the defintion of loud/quiet is lost (in return for increasing some of the range of frequencies that are at the front).

The white/pink noise analysis sounds like something I once had to do by hand for a University project on acoustics (and psycho-acoustics). Much more accurate too, rather than doing the mathematical analysis based on assumptions about the room's materials. By creating a noise in the middle (pink would make some sense as it'd be more natural), we can analyse the response of the room, and adjust the equalizer to make any room sound better (if the walls are concrete, bass (I think) attenuates less, so you reduce the lower frequencies).

You can, if you have the right ear, do it partially with a CD track of your choosing, and a 10-band equalizer. See the Deacon Blue reference. The few times I was the guy setting up the DJ equipment (rather than using it), it was even more rough than that... and was just "oh that sounds okay and I can talk over it in the back".

Quote: thecesspit

A lot of music today is over compressed (I should find the analysis a friend of mine either did or reported on),.

It's been called "the loudness wars". Metallica became somewhat notorious for making the loudest album ever. The wave form kind of looks like a big oblong block, with little spikes (no dynamic range).

(Put metal trash can over the top half of your body and have a couple friends bang on it with hammers for 30 minutes -- similar effect)

Quote: rxwine

It's been called "the loudness wars". Metallica became somewhat notorious for making the loudest album ever. The wave form kind of looks like a big oblong block, with little spikes (no dynamic range).

(Put metal trash can over the top half of your body and have a couple friends bang on it with hammers for 30 minutes -- similar effect)

My opinion is this: I don't mind the loudness war between analog radio stations (they have to apply some processing anyway to prevent clipping, although that's a far cry from the heavy compression they end up using).

But I don't like the notion of releasing albums with heavily-compressed songs. I would prefer the albums to contain a "normal" or "natural" dynamic range. There are 96 decibels of range in the CD audio format; I don't think it's necessary to make everything fit into the top 6 dB and then amplify it a further 3dB to introduce clipping (distortion).