Tune the Kick to the Song ?

[camsr]

What do you think is the minimum ms duration acceptable to tune a kick ?

humans are supposed to require six cycles to identify the frequency of a signal.

if the kick operates at 50hz average (typical) that would require 120ms.

i think though that you only actually require six cycles after the first cycle or impulse in order for the brain to satisfy itself that the probability of failure in identifying the frequency is low enough. so you could tune an impulse, of course.

I was going to say 4 cycles, based on my experimenting with producing kick drums from nothing.

That's an interesting point. I would say given a sound with no frequency masking, it would be about 4 cycles. If there is a click or higher frequencies present along with the transient, give it about 100ms before the low tone stands out again.

Of course, one problem with the sound waiting too long to decay to the consonant note is a loosening of the beat. But this is not always bad in a mix and can add more depth and such if done right.

[Xenobt]

And I'll also agree with Jupiter8 that some kicks have an easily perceived note, (synth based or 808,909) and lots of rock and metal have MUCH less after the fundamental, and that using your ear works best. And if it works, DON"T FIX IT!

The 808 kick has a steady pitch but the 909 hasn't. It goes from a hi pitch to a low one and is never steady. Trying to tune that to the key of a song is like herding bees. Or cats. But bees seems harder, so bees it is.

Even pitches that fall start somewhere! So they DO have a pitch, a moving one, but still tunable at the initial attack... And if it's a sample, it won't change with every strike and can be adjusted without much bee keeping.

Some 808 kicks have a pitch decay at the front too, but the long sustain is stable enough to tune to.

I've used lots of 909 kicks as the top end for dance tracks and hip hop, and have tuned or eqed the fundamental out of them to clear up the low end WHEN NEEDED.

And cosmicdawn is right, I've also programmed kits from scratch with the old Simmons SDS analog drum brain, and SOME pitch decay is what makes kicks and toms sound most "natural" and read as a drum...

Interesting thread...

[Stomper]

Yes, the pitch has to start somewhere, it also has to end somewhere.
That does not mean the brain is able to interpret the sound to a specific pitch.

Some people here confuse frequency analyzer that shows the frequencies within the kick, with a scope which shows the cycles of the sounds.
if i beef up the 60hz and see it on a spectrum analyzer that does not mean i changed the fundamental or the pitch.
If you use a scope to watch the kick you'll see that the lenght of the cycles keeps changing, thus, there cannot be a specific pitch.
of course if you take an 808, which after the transient (pitch change) the amp is still decaying you will hear a specific pitch, there are even cycles at that point of the sound. but as said above, that part of the sound is used more as a bass than a kick.

[Xenobt]

Stomper, I'm not sure I understand your point about the scope and pitch, If I play a 909 sample over and over with the same velocity, it'll always be different on the scope?

I brought up the eq tip as a quick fix for kicks that fight the bass, and can't be easily retuned. I get the difference in pitch and eq.

I think we may be getting into the nature of sound tangent here, not about tuning drums to the track so much.

That being said, I think most things have a core pitch. If you sample nearly anything, it can be played chromatically up and down the keyboard, and melodies can be discerned. Including kick drums!

The ability to easily pick out that original fundamental varies by the individual, like perfect pitch.

I've worked with gifted musicians who could call out chords of a song at first listen, with their voicings, and be 100% on. I SURELY can't do that!

There's an old Johnny Carson story about how he and his long-time band leader Doc Severinson were eating in the NBC commissary and someone dropped a tray of dishes. Carson exclaimed "What the hell was that?!" Doc replied "Eb!"

[xxx4rcade]

If writing a form of electronic music: Would it make sense to "auto tune" the bass drum? Or any other part of the drum for the matter?

When I say "drum", I'm thinking "drum machine".

[Stomper]

I think we may be getting into the nature of sound tangent here, not about tuning drums to the track so much.

But thats the thing. the nature of sound is a proof that drums and percussions has no defined pitch.
By tuning a kick you can change its timbre and colour. like you would do with a band pass.
you make the the frequencies change (were talking hz, not scales or notes) and make it sit better in a mix by changing the frequencies it occupy in the overall mix to frequencies other instruments dont use.

[xxx4rcade]

Wouldn't things get a little muddy boosting frequencies that are in that area?

[aciddose]

we perceive pitch not based upon steady states, but based upon framed averages.

so in fact, every sound with a pitch at any slice of time has average pitch, and therefore is tunable.

stomper, you're just wrong about this.

if a 'kick' or any other sound has a decreasing frequency over time, the average will be lower than the initial frequency. often we'll take the mid-point or "release" of the envelope as the pitch rather than the attack/decay section if that section is too short.

(think about when you use a pitch decay at the beginning of a bass sound, like a slap bass, or a brass. the over-all pitch doesn't seem to be affected because the initial 'pressure' is perceived as an element of timbre rather than as the body of the sound when it becomes a small enough fraction of the over-all envelope)

tuning everything to everything (other than white-noise pulses) might be a good idea if you want to bother, but i don't think it would be particularly useful.

[Stomper]

think about when you use a pitch decay at the beginning of a bass sound, like a slap bass, or a brass. the over-all pitch doesn't seem to be affected because the initial 'pressure' is perceived as an element of timbre rather than as the body of the sound when it becomes a small enough fraction of the over-all envelope

Sorry, but i am still not convinced i am wrong.
those pitch changes follows by a steady pitch, just like an 808 kick. i dont know how other do things, but when i use that pitch change with a bass, its usually with one of the osc and i lower its volume so the effect wont be obvious to the listener. therefor those frequencies ride the fundamental and do not change it.

With a kick (and im not talking about an 808 kick or any other one that has a tail) the change is just to drastic and too fast for the brain to perceive a specific pitch.

another experiment you can do, make a kick where the oscs will follow the keyboard (so you can play the kick in different with the keyboard instead of tuning it).
play in a specific scale. than play a different scale with a piano. it might not sound the best, but it will sound ok.
take the kick midi and put it on another piano or whatever instrument you like. everything will just sound wrong.

[Xenobt]

Wouldn't things get a little muddy boosting frequencies that are in that area?

Hey xxx4rcade,
Since no one else has answered your query, reinforcing the fundamental pitch thru tuning doesn't muddy it, it actually clears things up.

Even adding the exact same signal to itself only adds +/- 3db of volume, not doubling it as you might expect. I'm not certain of the science behind this, it's just my practical experience working in pro tools.

It's more about not having two tones fighting each other in the low end, making a "beating" or odd harmony of tones against each other that speakers (and our ears) have trouble resolving. These rob power from the bass spectrum and if you actually WATCH your woofer, you can see.

When the different bass signals are consonant, or matched, the woofer moves in a direct in/out with the beat and feels smoother and more powerful. You can actually feel the puffs of air in time with the beat. When the signals are dissonant, the woofer will vibrate but not pump in and out smoothly, and no air vibration.

That's the main reason for re-tuning bass elements in the first place, that dissonance.

[jupiter8]

Even adding the exact same signal to itself only adds +/- 3db of volume, not doubling it as you might expect. I'm not certain of the science behind this, it's just my practical experience working in pro tools.

That's not right is it ? Shouldn't that be 6 db (6.02 to be more precise) ? Two uncorrelated ones would average around 3 but two identical would yield 6 db.

[Xenobt]

Even adding the exact same signal to itself only adds +/- 3db of volume, not doubling it as you might expect. I'm not certain of the science behind this, it's just my practical experience working in pro tools.

That's not right is it ? Shouldn't that be 6 db (6.02 to be more precise) ? Two uncorrelated ones would average around 3 but two identical would yield 6 db.

I'll defer to you on this one Jupiter8, it added 3db at the STEREO master fader, so a doubled, unpanned mono track would WOULD average 6db of total gain in a mono setting, closer to 3db per side in stereo. D'oh! Thanks for the catch!

[jupiter8]

Even adding the exact same signal to itself only adds +/- 3db of volume, not doubling it as you might expect. I'm not certain of the science behind this, it's just my practical experience working in pro tools.

That's not right is it ? Shouldn't that be 6 db (6.02 to be more precise) ? Two uncorrelated ones would average around 3 but two identical would yield 6 db.

I'll defer to you on this one Jupiter8, it added 3db at the STEREO master fader, so a doubled, unpanned mono track would WOULD average 6db of total gain in a mono setting, closer to 3db per side in stereo. D'oh! Thanks for the catch!

That decibel scale is confusing as all hell. 3 db is double the power (i think) and 6 db is double ???? (i can't even remember) and i believe 10 db is double the loudness or something weird. A quick google only added to the confusion. However what i do know is that adding one bit is +6 db and adding two identical signals is the exact equivalent of that.

[contrary]

That decibel scale is confusing as all hell. 3 db is double the power (i think) and 6 db is double ???? (i can't even remember) and i believe 10 db is double the loudness or something weird. A quick google only added to the confusion. However what i do know is that adding one bit is +6 db and adding two identical signals is the exact equivalent of that.

http://emusician.com/tutorials/logarithms_music_auidio/



http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_d ... ed_part_2/


http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_d ... fied_part/

[jupiter8]

That decibel scale is confusing as all hell. 3 db is double the power (i think) and 6 db is double ???? (i can't even remember) and i believe 10 db is double the loudness or something weird. A quick google only added to the confusion. However what i do know is that adding one bit is +6 db and adding two identical signals is the exact equivalent of that.

http://emusician.com/tutorials/logarithms_music_auidio/



http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_d ... ed_part_2/

If you double the power of a signal, it increases by 3 dB: because 100.3 = 2 (approximately), 10 log10(2/1) = 10 × 0.3 = 3. However, since power increases by the square of the voltage, doubling the voltage yields an increase of 6 dB. The math for this depends on the simple fact that squaring a number multiplies its logarithm by 2. We therefore use 20 log10(2/1) = 20 × 0.3 = 6. To double the subjective loudness of a sound requires about ten times the power, so "twice as loud" means 10 dB higher: 10 log10(10/1) = 10 × 1 = 10.

Clear as mud now.Thanks.