Dubstepforum.com

Whenever I show people my tracks, I tend to hear either "wow that track pounds" or I hear "where's the bass?"

I produce with a Subwoofer in my monitor setup, and I've realized that while it may sound amazing to me (and other people with subs), it can sound absolutely shite on your standard speaker setup. So i've been turning off my sub, trying to get it to sound OK on just my monitors (which theoretically don't even need a sub).

My Massive sub patch is a Square at -24, and a Sine at -12. Theres a LP filter set to 9 o'clock. I have some very light tube distortion on the patch. I have the Amp ADSR set to give it a little punch on trigger.

I can make the sub line show through better without the subwoofer by setting the LPF a bit higher, but I lose a lot of bottom end, and it starts to sound less like I want it to. The tune's root note is F. The bass is peaking at around 45hz. Is this just plain too low? Should I be using higher notes?

Am I going about this the wrong way? Should I care what my tracks sound like without a subwoofer? Any tips are much appreciated.

Here's a clip, if you want to hear what it sounds like.
Soundcloud

The levels are low right now, so turn it up.

Dreadfunk wrote:What is wrong with my Sub Bass?

My Massive sub patch is a Square at -24, and a Sine at -12.

1 osc only. low pass a square if you like, but a sine booms better.

also, massive is overkill for a sub. your daw's simplest synth should do the job.

what daw do you use?? if logic then just use the sine bass setting in ES2, does the job

Anyone can make a regular sine sub bass.

The issue with it not sounding so hot on regular speakers is what got me experimenting with adding more harmonics to my sub lines. Looking for more suggestions along those lines.

Dreadfunk wrote:Anyone can make a regular sine sub bass.

In my opinion a regular sine sub bass is the perfect sub bass

sin bass through a scream filter. reverb, dimension expander, eq: +low +boost.

in logic, eq your shit... send to two busses. use multipressor to split the frequencies into mid and low. even it out so the low is only audable through your sub and set the mid so its just noticeable through regular speakers.

when you do this right everyone looks like this --->

Try using a sine but busing out another version with plenty of tube and other types of distortion (i've been using camel crusher) to create the harmonics your after and high passing that so it sits on top of your sine sub, then gently combine and compress the two in a single channel to bring them together.

vertx wrote:Try using a sine but busing out another version with plenty of tube and other types of distortion (i've been using camel crusher) to create the harmonics your after and high passing that so it sits on top of your sine sub, then gently combine and compress the two in a single channel to bring them together.

I love you.

In Logic, the EXS24 sampler when you fire it up without a sample loaded is just pure sine, and perfect for sub.

Sub is literally for low, low freq's you are meant to feel it more than hear it (human hearing loses it around 30hz I think) to fill out the bottom end.

I was actually working on a rolling, deep bass last night (no idea how it sounds this morning, the green shifted my writers block but it doesn't always provide the best results audiably ) and I had one channel with the 'growl' with a load of effects lumped on, filtered and EQ'd to remove any 'mud' and the low end, and the EXS24's sine below, both routed to my bass bus and then compressed, touch of verb on it and a little more EQ. The result was a nice, solid, clean bass.

Massive is a bit overkill for sub, but it does the job. Personally I would use something less... sophisticated for such a simple task though.

Dreadfunk wrote:Anyone can make a regular sine sub bass.

The issue with it not sounding so hot on regular speakers is what got me experimenting with adding more harmonics to my sub lines. Looking for more suggestions along those lines.

Overdrive it. Introduces some harmonics but tbh, if you've done your midrange nicely you won't really need it - because shitty speakers aren't going to pick it up anyway (they -might- pick up the very top thanks to the overdrive).

That said - I quite often use a low-passwed square or sawtooth instead of a straight sub, for that exact reason. I only use a pure sine if it's layer with a heavy mid.

For me the simpler the better with subs. I always used to use a simple sine, but triangles are cool too. As for editing, there really isn't much you need to do - like I say, simpler the better. Maybe a low cut, compress a tad to drag in the odd booming F or G and maybe a maximiser and that's IT

bum robot wrote:

Dreadfunk wrote:Anyone can make a regular sine sub bass.

In my opinion a regular sine sub bass is the perfect sub bass

Same
In my opinion, nobody should attempt to fuck with that

watch this. download the sub bass sample for free. win.

vertx wrote:Try using a sine but busing out another version with plenty of tube and other types of distortion (i've been using camel crusher) to create the harmonics your after and high passing that so it sits on top of your sine sub, then gently combine and compress the two in a single channel to bring them together.

Great Idea, I'll have to try this. Thanks to all above as well.

I was wondering if I'm approaching this the right way:

Usually all my basses are mid-rangey, with very little bass content below say 100hz. I pretty much always do a second bass patch (like the one I described above) to fill in anything below that, which usually sits at around 35-65 hz. The thing I'm missing is that 65-100hz range, and that's probably why it's not translating as well to smaller speakers.

How do you guys write your midrange basslines? Would you suggest using a 3rd patch just to fill in that gap? Or should I just work on getting my mid range basses to have a bit more bass content?

Hmm are you using a frequency analyzer to visualize it? I've found when im running just a pure sine that it runs from 20 Hz up to the 100Hz range, so when i roll-off my midrange at 150 ish it'll sound quite full.

Good tips in here. Maybe add this to the bible?

I followed the High Ranking tutorial. Like what I'm hearing. Ill put it up later in the WIPs. Gonna try the more advanced stuff later.

Dreadfunk wrote:

vertx wrote:Try using a sine but busing out another version with plenty of tube and other types of distortion (i've been using camel crusher) to create the harmonics your after and high passing that so it sits on top of your sine sub, then gently combine and compress the two in a single channel to bring them together.

Great Idea, I'll have to try this. Thanks to all above as well.

I was wondering if I'm approaching this the right way:

Usually all my basses are mid-rangey, with very little bass content below say 100hz. I pretty much always do a second bass patch (like the one I described above) to fill in anything below that, which usually sits at around 35-65 hz. The thing I'm missing is that 65-100hz range, and that's probably why it's not translating as well to smaller speakers.

How do you guys write your midrange basslines? Would you suggest using a 3rd patch just to fill in that gap? Or should I just work on getting my mid range basses to have a bit more bass content?

you dont have to fill every frequency, leave some space for your track to breath and dont just fill up frequencys for the sake of it.

amphibian wrote:if you've done your midrange nicely you won't really need it

We're doing midrange now?

Macc says overlapping freq can be good.

true story

vertx wrote:Macc says overlapping freq can be good.

true story

every track is going to have overlapping frequencies...other wise the gain of each element could just be set to 0db.