Is Pulsar light on bass response ?

musurgio · Post by **musurgio** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:16 am

After some good years using RME 9652 I switched to pulsar.
The advatadges are enormous, sound is deep 3D dimensional, crisp and defined.
What I think though is lacking is a good bass response.
While bass is still defined I detect that there must be somekind of highpass filtering algorithm in Pulsar.
No matter how much you add bass frequencies the system does not let you put much.
I compare commercial mixes with mixes done on pulsar and there is a lack in the low mids (250 hz) and the bass under 100hz.
I would like to hear any thoughts about this.
Dimitrios

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:23 am

Yes I've always found it hasn't much bass power but questioned my monitoring seeing that my spectrum anaylser showed Pulsar delivered the low ferequencies.They are there.

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:32 am

Which particular I/O flavour do you use?

I've got the 'Pro' pack (by accident incidentaly!) and often need to apply judicious amounts of low-cut filtering on various tracks (between 30-60 Hz) to thin out the low end.

Lots of low frequencies there for me!

Royston

p.s. haven't done much with sub-bass sounds yet though.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Counterparts on 2004-02-17 06:34 ]</font>

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:43 am

it's got to be in the AD converter (IO box, or whatever) you're using. The mixing and sound generation stuff, or anything else that happens within Pulsar is just fine. Again, spectrum analysis shows it's there, all the way down to the 20s.

A trick I found lately is that if you can't get enough bass, overdrive it. Sometimes the sound is too focused in a certain range, and overdriving it seems to distribute it, thus giving you more headroom. Of course, overdoing it will give you that "overdriven" sound. Trick is to use very little of it. Like a boost of 1 to 2 units. (on the CW overdrive)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-02-17 08:46 ]</font>

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:45 am

It could be your mixes too ...

Try and record one of your reference comercial tracks from your waw player into SFP out of your analog out, and in your analog in.

That should give you a good base for comparing (remember to normalize both tracks to the same level).

jabney · Post by **jabney** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:15 pm

Hi Dimitrios,

I'm going to respond using an assumption here (correct me if I'm wrong) and that is that the commercial releases you reference are *not* classical, folk, singer-songwriter, or oldies

The reason so many current popular releases seem to have so much bass is simple: they cheat. It's been going on for years, in fact it may have begun on stage with the Ampeg SVT bass cabinet.

The reason bass players haul around those massive boxes with eight 10" speakers in them is *not* for the low bass fundamental. It's the harmonic that makes the bass seem so profound - not the fundamental.

In fact 15" speakers are not as effective on stage because they actually do produce the fundamental for some - but not the lowest - of the bass strings. As a result, a single 15" which may be producing more energy at the bottom, may sound weaker there than two 10".

The Creamware environment lets you take advantage of this quirk of physics/human hearing through plug-ins. I have Celmo's X-Box (www.celmo.com) which includes a bass enhancer, but he also offers stand-alone bass enhancing plug-ins. You can download his items on a trial basis and see if that fixes your "problem."

Celmo's aren't the only ways to enhance your bass, either (though I do like his creations). Check the Devices section here at planetZ.

To summarize: adding more *real* bass is not going to make your mixes sound like the latest ground-pounder hip-hop hit

You'll have to cheat a little.

john

Post by **garyb** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:20 pm

my mixes tend to be overly bass heavy.(i like bass)
lots of bass here.(too much!)

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:21 pm

I can't asure if the is a reason for it to be deficient in bass response, but I can't see any difference with other good sounding systems. It is perhaps your speakers or your converters... I don't know. I can have as much bottom bass as a want in my mixes.

musurgio · Post by **musurgio** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:05 am

My system sounds fine, I have even a subwoofer system.
I hear the low end on stuff like Michael Jackson latest album and other commercial hiphop and dance releases.
While I hear the bass response on these releases that indicated that my system is alright.
It is the big mixers that contribute to this loss of the low end (what I believe).
It reminds me of the great big analog consoles of the past that had this clear midrange sound and where you would just push the eq knobs to get enouph bass and high end.
High end is perfectly alright with pulsar.
I believe this has to do with the great sound pulsar mixers can achieve.
When you have all that brightness and sparkle depth of image then somewhere there should be a catch.
I still believe that creamware people use algorithms that define the frequency spectrum.
I believe that there are not enouph 250 hz (where the warm factor is ) and not too much 100 hz and lower.
When I had the rme stuff along with cubase native mixer , all my sound were heavy on bass and low mids.
Thats why I always had to clean each sound with high pass filtering at least.
Some folks here are saying that they have enouph bass , maybe they mix native in Cubase or other daw and not thru Pulsar consoles.
Anyone sharing similar results ?
Iwould like to get deep into this.
Regards to all
Dimitrios

Post by **garyb** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:04 am

phase issues?

valis · Post by **valis** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:16 am

I was thinking phase problems myself as well. I don't think that CW is implementing any filtering in their designs apart from the a/d converters (ie, not in the mixers).

For phase issues:

There's a little button on top of all new mixers called "PhaseComp" (3.1c at least, I think they might have been implemented earlier) use it! It won't prevent phase problems on inserts but it will insure that both l&r channels for a mixer are in phase throughout the mixer's path.

Also, the man who created this device:
http://www.planetz.com/Pulsar/files/dev ... aseFix.zip
taught me to use all my pulgins externally (modular routing in SFP) rather than the large mixers that I used to try to use. Its much easier to detect phase errors when they occur, you can find a description of that process in this thread:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... orum=16&11

Here's an example of how I *used* to mix, and my mixes were riddled with phase problems:
http://www.kief.net/studio/PulsarRouting.jpg
http://www.kief.net/studio/PulsarMixing.jpg

Notice the use of inserts and the fact that I've not bothered to even enable "phasecomp". And I thought here I was already ahead of the game since I was using the 'Dynamixer' instead of the larger mixers that I used to use.

Now I use nothing but micromixers with 'phasecomp' enabled and all my plugins are in the SFP's routing page. Occasionally I'll use a plugin stacker or channel to allow midi control of a plugin that has no midi input, but I always make sure I check for phase. There's only a few devices that constantly exhibit phase issues and I've just grown accustomed to doing phase checking before doing a mixdown (I worry about it less while working, only on kick/snare and sub).

Here's a pic of a recent routing:
http://www.kief.net/studio/ThornPulsar.jpg

Notice the phasecomp buried in there. In theory I have 10 dsps and 2 boards and so could have 10-11 places for a phase error, and yet only 1 device wound up overlapping.

If phase problems are *not* the issue then it may be the fact that you're used to cubase's integrated channel eq? It has its own blend of phase problems, not the stereo kind but the usual phase probs. where eq bands overlap. I find that it tends to pull the mid out when I work over at my friend's Nuendo setup (compared to logic) and rely more on waves & digitalfishfones etc. when working there.

Also beware that commercial productions are going to use a LOT of engineering to get things to sound loud & flat in the mix. Up to & including limiting the final mix. Often they'll limit sub. freqs in hiphop & pop rnb during mixing as well. Keeps them up front & proud (I often do it for more energetic dnb tracks myself).

Personally I only 'submix' or 'busmix' in SFP before heading out my adat & analog i/o to my mixing board. I still do a fair amount of mixing in Logic as well.

Hope my ramblings help!

EarlyFirst · Post by **EarlyFirst** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:41 am

When you think you have too much bass or not enough
run it through this

http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpage ... ass99.html
then this:
http://www.summitaudio.com/p-dcl200.html
or one of these:
http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpage ... ering.html

then you'll see

Jngaelin · Post by **Jngaelin** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 5:55 am

I sertainly have all the base i need.
Ass garyb said - "too mutch"

-------

On 2004-02-18 03:41, EarlyFirst wrote:
When you think you have too much bass or not enough
run it through this
http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpage ... ass99.html
then this:
http://www.summitaudio.com/p-dcl200.html
or one of these:
http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpage ... ering.html

then you'll see

Yummy !!!

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 5:59 am

wow!

better start buying lottery tickets!

the link to manley slam has an interesting link to gearslutz - anagram sharc convertors on that thing!

Ricardo · Post by **Ricardo** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:57 am

Alternatively, run your mix through the Finaliza and adjust the bass gain. Also adjust your crossover according to your mix.
BTW don't forget that a 100Hz sound wave is several metres long, so don't sit too close to your monitors.
Not a great help probably, but that's my little contribution.

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:01 am

I don't think it is an issue being too close.
But I realy encourage you to try and record one of your reference commercial tracks out of Pulsar and back again.
Then you will know (not just guess), what your converterchain (the sum of your d/a and a/d) sounds like.
I think it would be interesting to hear your results.

musurgio · Post by **musurgio** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:25 am

Thanks all for your time getting into that deep !!
I am aware of phase issues and as a matter of fact I always use 4896 mixer phase compensated.
What I did not though paid attention to was the inserts effects.
I only use effects as inserts and that might cause some problem...
What I want to point out is that from the time I changed my system to Pulsar my sound changed !
And it changed for the better...
Everyone is commenting for my new better sound.
I assume that every developer is striving to make a sound of his own.
Thus the Pulsar is known at least for its superb sounding synths.
It is not only the synth algorithms but also the sound algorithm the board has.
In order to have such a crisp and detailed sound you need good programming of course but also some frequency tweaks.
It reminds me of Akai versus Roland sound.
Roland has a tweak that substracts the 1khz area, thats why all Roland machines sound alike. They wanted to have a sound of their own so noone could make similar sounding devices.
Thus I believe Pulsar is doing something similar.
I guess they clean up the sound somewhere at around 250-300 hz and around 4khz.
Thats only an estimate not any tests.
What I also like to comment is that computer recording is missing some of the attack of the sound.
The attack that Creamware synths have is missing from computer recording.
I think that even "vintage" ADAT machines had some of this attack.
Maybe all this routing, from the AD's to the card to the ASIO routing then to the DAW algorithm then the mix bus there, the ASIO routing the the card again and last the DA.
Don't you think that there might be some things lost all this way ....
Regards,
Dimitrios

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:59 am

Don't you think that there might be some things lost all this way ....

I don't think things get lost on board of the card. I think it's just maths, it doesnt live like an analog synth or tube amp. DSP don't care if you send DC to a mixer to mix control signals. A DSP mixer is built of adders and VCA's. If it changes the spectrum, IMO it only does that when it's ment to do so: when you apply EQ, as an artifact of compression, etc.

JG · Post by JG » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:50 am

Dimitrios,
As you say, with RME you use Cubase, and with pulsar you use SFP mix. So I think you hear difference between cubase mix and SFP mix. And I found too, that cubase mix (especially SX1) sound different from SFP mix.

Juozas.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:28 am

I'm curious about the comercial mixes done on a Pulsar. On a Pulsar alone or they used a Pulsar in a studio? I think you will find that when mixing in a studio it will sound much better. They have very nice hardware and experienced engineers, also comercial mixes usually are sent to a mastering plant. That makes a very big difference.