Waves MaxxBass: freeware equivalent?

[sonicpowa]

^^^ Yea but something like WOK BassPlus is similar

"similar": maybe "the same": definitely not

I think it's close enough for me not to buy MB (and I don't buy anything with ilok).


Try this: Sens=0, Addbass=100, Addtone=0, Frequ=0

Leave Addtone/Frequ at 0 all times. Now turn up Sens to the level you want. There it is, instant MaxxBass!

EDIT: ah sorry that's not working as an insert effect, I was using it as send fx. Maybe it's only Addbass you want to turn up as an insert.

[bduffy]

^^^ Yea but something like WOK BassPlus is similar

"similar": maybe "the same": definitely not

I think it's close enough for me not to buy MB (and I don't buy anything with ilok).


Try this: Sens=0, Addbass=100, Addtone=0, Frequ=0

Leave Addtone/Frequ at 0 all times. Now turn up Sens to the level you want. There it is, instant MaxxBass!

EDIT: ah sorry that's not working as an insert effect, I was using it as send fx. Maybe it's only Addbass you want to turn up as an insert.

Honestly, I don't mean to be adversarial, but I just tried out WOK AddBass and find little to compare between these two plug-ins.

The WOK plugin is a nice little enhancer for sure, but not only did it drop the level of the input source (actually sounds like it might be changing the phase a bit), it clipped the main bus very easily, whereas MaxxBass prevents overs, even when its clip light is on. Not to mention all the extra control you get with MaxxBass. Then I tried RBass, and it reminded me why I love it so...

But that WOK is a good freeware option! Probably the best free bet I've heard. You could insert a limiter after and get some good results.

[loopdon]

After all this talk i feel very inclined to run very basic sounds (sines etc). into the demo of Maxbass and do phase inversions etc. I can't believe it is close to rocket-science. Most things aren't. If i am wrong, i will openly admit it.
I think trying toemulate the entire package/effect AT ONCE is bound to comeout to be a failure. I will try split the effects into different categories and in the end try to fit it all together. Now, if only i was better at maths

[bduffy]

After all this talk i feel very inclined to run very basic sounds (sines etc). into the demo of Maxbass and do phase inversions etc. I can't believe it is close to rocket-science. Most things aren't. If i am wrong, i will openly admit it.

I wouldn't say it's so much a case of "rocket-science" as much as simply getting it right.

[loopdon]

After all this talk i feel very inclined to run very basic sounds (sines etc). into the demo of Maxbass and do phase inversions etc. I can't believe it is close to rocket-science. Most things aren't. If i am wrong, i will openly admit it.

I wouldn't say it's so much a case of "rocket-science" as much as simply getting it right.

Bduffy, i didn't mean to be offensive and i am sure it could be pulled of in a collective effort. Think of it this way; we talk about stuff here on a regular basis that must have been "future technology" years ago. We all have something to contribute, if only we try. I think it's more about understanding than blatantly copying.

[bduffy]

After all this talk i feel very inclined to run very basic sounds (sines etc). into the demo of Maxbass and do phase inversions etc. I can't believe it is close to rocket-science. Most things aren't. If i am wrong, i will openly admit it.

I wouldn't say it's so much a case of "rocket-science" as much as simply getting it right.

Bduffy, i didn't mean to be offensive and i am sure it could be pulled of in a collective effort. Think of it this way; we talk about stuff here on a regular basis that must have been "future technology" years ago. We all have something to contribute, if only we try. I think it's more about understanding than blatantly copying.

Oh hey, I'm not offended! I guess my post sounds surly when it wasn't meant to be. I'm just saying: the MaxxBass technology seems relatively simple according to its schematics, and just sounds good. I'm not sure what you mean about "understanding" and "copying", though.

EDIT: I see you mean others copying Waves. Never mind.

[valhallasound]

I'm just saying: the MaxxBass technology seems relatively simple according to its schematics, and just sounds good.

This is probably why it is a technology worth patenting.

There have been a lot of published papers about psychoacoustic bass enhancement over the last several decades. It is a simple enough idea: use a filter to focus on the bass frequencies, generate harmonics of these frequencies that will be in the audible range of the target system, mix back in with original signal. In the 1960's, this was accomplished by using tube guitar amps for the bass amplifier, so the bass guitar generated frequencies that could be heard on AM radios (Carol Kaye used a Fender Super Reverb).

Of course, the devil is in the details. I'm sure that there are ways of getting psychoacoustic bass boost that wouldn't step on Waves' patent, and there are probably ways of getting better results. The patent is getting on in years, and there are always ways of inventing better mousetraps. But I would guess that it will be hard to get the EXACT sound of Waves' technique without using Waves' patented technique. And since Waves makes a lot of money off this algorithm in the non-plugin space, they will probably defend their patent vigorously.

So, if someone really wants that exact sound, buying the Waves plugin is probably the cheapest way to get this sound.

Sean Costello

[bduffy]

I'm just saying: the MaxxBass technology seems relatively simple according to its schematics, and just sounds good.

This is probably why it is a technology worth patenting.

There have been a lot of published papers about psychoacoustic bass enhancement over the last several decades. It is a simple enough idea: use a filter to focus on the bass frequencies, generate harmonics of these frequencies that will be in the audible range of the target system, mix back in with original signal. In the 1960's, this was accomplished by using tube guitar amps for the bass amplifier, so the bass guitar generated frequencies that could be heard on AM radios (Carol Kaye used a Fender Super Reverb).

Of course, the devil is in the details. I'm sure that there are ways of getting psychoacoustic bass boost that wouldn't step on Waves' patent, and there are probably ways of getting better results. The patent is getting on in years, and there are always ways of inventing better mousetraps. But I would guess that it will be hard to get the EXACT sound of Waves' technique without using Waves' patented technique. And since Waves makes a lot of money off this algorithm in the non-plugin space, they will probably defend their patent vigorously.

So, if someone really wants that exact sound, buying the Waves plugin is probably the cheapest way to get this sound.

Sean Costello

That's what I would counsel, but hey...

[loopdon]

I am quite sure Sean could pull it off. We all know what you are capable off, man. I don't mean to encourage you by any means but just stating waht i believe to be the truth. I am just very very interested in prettymuch anything audio and love to get down to the nitty-gritty, that's all. Sure that might border on the unhealthy but coming here alone does as well
I shall now keep my big mouth shut and see if i can find out anything worthwile.

[bduffy]

I am quite sure Sean could pull it off. We all know what you are capable off, man. I don't mean to encourage you by any means but just stating waht i believe to be the truth. I am just very very interested in prettymuch anything audio and love to get down to the nitty-gritty, that's all. Sure that might border on the unhealthy but coming here alone does as well
I shall now keep my big mouth shut and see if i can find out anything worthwile.

I think you're in pretty good company. Continue to nitty-gritty, please.

[rockstar_not]

Having just skimmed through the patent, Waves do enough describing of what they claim they are doing that one should be able to mock this up in a modular host and some programming.

The tricky part is going to be the loudness matching of the generated harmonic sequence in a real-time fashion.

Someone back a page or so asked what the point was of Maxxbass - it's pretty clear from the introductory pages of text in the patent that the intention is to create phantom pitch of low frequencies, for playback on systems without low frequency playback capability in the frequency range of the phantom pitches.

This is not as simple as saturating a bass signal to generate harmonics, though that might get one in the range. The loudness matching aspect is where the difficulty lies.

Here's what I would try to see if it comes close with plugins that are on-hand freeware:

send bass signal to a saturation VST, perhaps TAL-Tube, then follow with Voxengo SPAN to ensure that you are generating harmonics (just send a lf sine through to start and see what happens.

The key is controlling the level of that output, based on signal level of the acutal lf signal. Thinking about how to do this would be to:

1. Bandpass the output of this send series of plugins , low frequency end of the band should be higher than the max fundamental of the control low frequency signal, and high end to try to limit to only 3 harmonics. Pitch to midi plugin, with midi control of band pass center frequency for the bandpass filter would be one possible solution. KT DrumTrigger might be useful in a banked fashion (because KTDT only outputs 3 or 4 midi notes based on setup), then you would have to follow the midi note output to CC remapping so that the midi notes corresponded to the center frequency of the bandpass filter. piz makes one that maps midi note to CC in his pizmidi collection here: http://www.thepiz.org/plugins/?p=pizmidi

2. use sidechain compression/and make-up gain where the original LF is the key into the sidechain compressor. Alternatively, you might be able to use something like Gatefish to follow the level of the original LF signal to control the output level of the bandpassed saturated generated harmonics from 1. Gatefish here: http://www.kvraudio.com/get/1912.html

This won't work exactly the same, but it might help you be on the way to something that works well enough.

I don't have Maxxbass to make a comparison, but this might get you going. Could do it in modular hosts like energyXT, Tracktion, others that I don't know of, relatively simply. Latency through the whole thing might be an issue!

-Scott

[tommy_d]

There is "prior art" in the form of research that was done on the perception of missing fundamentals from upper harmonics by many people from the 1800's on (check this link under Psychological Background for Modeling Pitch and Harmony). There's more info and links on the Missing Fundamental WIKI page. Waves basically packaged the theory into a working system and patented it. If someone developed an alternate way of doing the same thing, it could bypass Waves' patent and be eligible for a patent as well. After all, you can't patent a natural phenomena.

Interesting reading material - thank you

The bit that really caught my eye was this (from the Wikipedia page for "Missing fundamental"):

Research conducted at Heidelberg University, as described in the January 2006 issue of the German audiophile magazine AUDIO, indicates that the general population can be divided into those who perceive missing fundamentals, and those who primarily hear overtones. The magazine article states that the difference between the perceived pitches can be up to 4 octaves.

If that's true it's fascinating. And it means all this fancypants psychoacoustic trickery is more-or-less wasted on a section of the listening population; any "overtone hearers" wanna sue Waves for discriminating against them...?

[valhallasound]

The tricky part is going to be the loudness matching of the generated harmonic sequence in a real-time fashion.

Full-wave rectification generates even harmonics that match the amplitude of the input signal. And it is easy to do in the digital world:

Code: Select all

output = fabs(input);

You may want to do some sort of symmetrical clipping in parallel to get 3rd order harmonics. Or, compress the lowpass filtered signal, and then perform polynomial generation on that, so that the harmonics track the bass signal in amplitude. The antialiasing issues that most saturation functions have to worry about are less of a concern for psychoacoustic bass enhancers, as the harmonics of the bass frequencies will probably be below the level of perception at the frequencies that would alias.

If you are working at the DAW level, applying a bit of saturation/harmonic generation to your separate bass tracks (bass guitar/synth, bass drum, etc.) will provide cleaner results than any post-mix enhancer, which has to work on polyphonic signals. If you have a bass synth, open up the filter a little bit to let more signal through, or mix in a parallel synth track that has the lows filtered out and a bit more high frequency content.

Sean Costello

[tommy_d]

There's a test you can do to determine whether you're a "fundemental tone hearer" or an "overtone hearer". It's reproduced on the Hydrogenaudio forums here. (It's a short .flac file with 12 sets - each of which is repeated once - of two consecutive tones. For each set you have to say whether you think the pitch is increasing or decreasing).

According to the test I'm a "fundamental hearer". Apparently this means I favour the left side of my brain when listening to music (? Maybe? I guess? Who's to say...?) and prefer "higher instruments (piano, violin, flute)". Which is interesting, given that I'm a bass player

[highkoo]

There's a test you can do here.

Well that was weird.
I got the last half of the list all fundamental. But the first half was all over the place.
My ears are not warmed up, but is it weird that that was "hard", or thats the idea?