bass reconstruction processors

I'm very curious about these devices. Any experts to comment on them. Are they versatile? Can they offer subtle/tasteful bass reconstruction as well as drastic differences? Anything they truly sound bad with?

Don't use them. Ever. No. VERY rarely, and when they do, it's not great in any case. Everything. They're effectively nothing more than a crossover with one band, quasi-parametric EQ, with line-driver built-in. They offer GREAT options when looking to mildly overdrive your amplifier's inputs, all they way to straight-up clipping the CRAP out of 'em. Distortion additions that I know *I* have never ever liked the sound of. I've never used them, I've never recommended them, either. If you ask around here about them, chances are you'll get very similar responses from all of the more knowledgeable members.It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

Ditto.Support the12volt.com

i third thatBAD Boy Emergency Vehicle Lighting

I'm noticing a common trend here. ;) Lol As far as what they actually are, I've read they use an algorithm to register detectable harmonic overtones and fill in lower fundamental notes. This is in reply to haemphyst, is it possible that the units that seemed to be more of the line-driver, quasi-parametric eq deal were inferior? Just wondering, not trying to insinuate anything. The reason I was curious about the units at all to begin with is because I have quite a few recordings, like classic rock and other older music, that is missing a lot of the fundamental bass notes almost entirely. Also, even some modern recordings where the fundamental bass is inconsistent (missing more in some bass notes than others). I'm familiar with how an actual bass guitar sounds, so I know you can get "deeper" sounding notes several frets up versus open strings in some cases, but the issue seems rather drastic in some recordings. Then again, there is another part of me that likes to preserve the integrity of the original audio, even if it is flawed. I guess my ideal scenario would be to compensate about halfway (hence why I asked if bass reconstruction could be used in a subtle context). However, I also see another issue. Sometimes the fundamentals should be less present due to timbre of a particular instrument or how it's used. I'm afraid using bass reconstruction could result in very poor, one dimensional depth in regards to musical texture. Sorry for the long-winded post. I think you guys would to relieved to know I'm leaning toward not using them though. ;) Any other thoughts or comments? I'm all ears.

gandalf91 wrote: ... they use an algorithm to register detectable harmonic overtones and fill in lower fundamental notes.

How do they know the tones are NOT the fundamental? (IE - they assume. They'd probably give you 30Hz from a 60Hz supply.) (Reminds my of guitarists that use octave droppers to act as bass guitars - though that is planned & intentional.) That's quite different to boosting existing bass.

oldspark wrote: gandalf91 wrote: ... they use an algorithm to register detectable harmonic overtones and fill in lower fundamental notes. How do they know the tones are NOT the fundamental? (IE - they assume. They'd probably give you 30Hz from a 60Hz supply.) (Reminds my of guitarists that use octave droppers to act as bass guitars - though that is planned & intentional.) That's quite different to boosting existing bass.

By ratios resulting from the overtone series...it's really not all that fantastic as it seems. It's not assumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28music%29

gandalf91 wrote: The reason I was curious about the units at all to begin with is because I have quite a few recordings, like classic rock and other older music, that is missing a lot of the fundamental bass notes almost entirely. Also, even some modern recordings where the fundamental bass is inconsistent (missing more in some bass notes than others). I'm familiar with how an actual bass guitar sounds, so I know you can get "deeper" sounding notes several frets up versus open strings in some cases, but the issue seems rather drastic in some recordings..

if you are noticing loss of bass in recordings then you most likely suffer from recordings or cd rips with a low bit rate. this it typical when you download audio or when you rip a cd without paying attention to the settings or your program you use to rip cds. for instance, if you rip a store bought cd into iTunes without changing any stock settings then the audio will get compressed to 192kbps. that is way too low to ever sound good on a half decent car audio system although you wont notice the difference with ear buds. this is a downfall with medium to high end systems is that they will audibly bring out the flaws in a poor audio rip. the bass will sound lower than normal and undetailed and the highs will sound like there is a constant "shimmer" (this is the best i can describe it) in the background. go on your computer and find the songs that you say sound bad in your car and pull up the properties of the song, it will tell you the bit rate and if its lower than 320kbps then this is more than likely your problem. even if it says it is 320 it could still be the problem because it could be a song that was previously ripped in a low bitrate and then ripped again in 320. its exactly like making copies on a copy machine. if you copy a picture with a low quality copier first and then take that copy and copy it again with a high end copier it will still only look as good as what you got from the first low end copy machine.

I always go 256kbps or 320kbps. I know the shimmer you describe though. I've noticed it very blatantly in anything less than 128kbps *shutters*. I've actually heard some 160kbps songs with decent bass...I'm pretty sure lack of bass in some cases is just the old recording itself. As for inconsistent fundamentals, if worst comes to worst, I could just run some parametric EQ touch up on the particular songs in question. Most songs in my collection sound pretty excellent on my system though. ^_^

well, like i said, just because it says 320 doesnt mean it actually is. its only going to display the bit rate that it was last compressed to. i have some songs that are supposedly 320 and they sound horrible, with no detail and it sounds like im listening to the song through a pillow or something but other songs in the same cd or file sound great. this is the only explanation i can come up with that fits the symptoms. and once again, anything that was recorded in the pre cd era and was not ripped off of a remastered disc or possibly was converted directly from a vinyl record, 8 track, etc, straight to some random dudes computer and then was seeded for download might say 320 on the label but it will never sound like a professionally remastered disc.