Korg Forums

They are lacking, well, bass..

Does anyone else feel the same way?
I know HI was weird and particularly bassy at times, but for example 'Stein Bass' was one of my favourite sounds. The Kronos version uses STR1 and doesn't quite live up to the name.

Fortunately I do have a real Steinberger, although not fretless.

I find the basses to be good to excellent, of course you've got to play them like bass guitar and have a good sound system to realize the sound.

I have a Fender Jazz Bass.

I cant comment on the Bass for Kronos as Im in the process of ordering it (yay). However I would like to say that I do have a 4 String Washburn Status 1000 guitar think its 23 years old now and getting quite rare as its also a headless bass for that extra level of cool .

X-Trade wrote:They are lacking, well, bass..

Does anyone else feel the same way?
I know HI was weird and particularly bassy at times, but for example 'Stein Bass' was one of my favourite sounds. The Kronos version uses STR1 and doesn't quite live up to the name.

Fortunately I do have a real Steinberger, although not fretless.

Agreed!

But I don't think it's a fundamental 'lacking', rather a feature of the srting model - as in - accurately modelling strings (which on their own lack bass!). Think about it - Pianos, Basses, all stringed instruments - yes even the double bass- lack 'bass' by default, and only sound good when the body (cavity / resonator whatever you want to call it) is added to essentially build up / naturally amplify the bass fundamental. The Harp and Harpsichod - even the acoustic guitar - all lack bass.

I noticed this when spending some time programming STR-1 on the OASYS a few years ago but didn't have the time to solve this aspect of STR-1 programming.

You can find some STR-1 progrms of mine on

http://www.knect.ie/OASYS.html

...and while STR gives jaw-dropping richness, even into the most chimey Fender-Rodes teritory in the mid and upper range, I found it particularly difficult to achieve the same richness in such programs also on the bass end of the keyboard.

That's not to say that you can't recreate stunning basses on STR-1 (and there are some exquisite examples programmed by Korg).

I just didn't have the time to explore my programs to enhance the bass - this would be an excellent tutorial from Korg or someone else in the know - how to achieve programs in STR-1 that sound well over 7-octaves!

Kevin.

i'm guessing by the responses that just adding a little bass in the eq section won't do the trick?

Kevin Nolan wrote:

X-Trade wrote:They are lacking, well, bass..

Does anyone else feel the same way?
I know HI was weird and particularly bassy at times, but for example 'Stein Bass' was one of my favourite sounds. The Kronos version uses STR1 and doesn't quite live up to the name.

Fortunately I do have a real Steinberger, although not fretless.

Agreed!

But I don't think it's a fundamental 'lacking', rather a feature of the srting model - as in - accurately modelling strings (which on their own lack bass!). Think about it - Pianos, Basses, all stringed instruments - yes even the double bass- lack 'bass' by default, and only sound good when the body (cavity / resonator whatever you want to call it) is added to essentially build up / naturally amplify the bass fundamental. The Harp and Harpsichod - even the acoustic guitar - all lack bass.

Herein lies the difference between different cellos, for example, - the wooden box!

It is truly amazing for notes that are played at the same pitch, the difference in richness, 'bass-ness' that the 'resonator' makes. It is a quality lacking from all keyboards in my experience - being able to control that resonator - although it is possible to get close with the OASYS (I guess the K too) - but it takes time/work.

It is possible to use EQ I suppose but then it doesn't sound as real as it could. The richness and depth comes from the source not the sound, if you get my drift.

Using the EXi EQ is simply too crude. Perhaps a finer EQ as an insert effect might help. But in general we do not like / trust EQ to 'fix' a poor bass sound - we usually want a more capable bass sound to begin with - and surely rightly so because it's where most of the acoustic energy is and is so criticl to getting our piece sounding right. Cello your are of course correct in your comments on orchestral bass stringed instruments.


But make no bones about it - STR-1 is a VERY capable physical modelling synth engine. If voices we users create are lacking in bass it's largely because we do not understand the synth engine well enough. Not to be hard on ourselves though - it's a tricky synth engine to master and requires lots of time to know what we're doing.

A said it's a few years since I looked into STR-1 so I'm sketchy on it now, but a few pointers to consider in generating STR-1 bass programs include:

1. Firstly - become familiar with the STR-1 specific features (as distinct from the general EXi features).

2. Once you have a general feel for STR-1 key features, analyse a few of the Korg factory programs including basses if that's what you're after

3. STR-1 programs that sound good over 7-octaves progrably will require two STR-1 EXi's in the program that fade across the keyboard.

2. Some STR-1 features to consider towards good bass sounds:

- Choose the correct Pluck Model - crucial to the basic character of your sound (akin to choosing an oscillator in a subtractive synth)

- Consider also using a PCM sample to also 'pluck' the sound (and consider the PCM Oscillator Pitch and Excitation Mixer also)

- The String Main page is also vital, especially the parameters 'Position'; as are the Damping & Dispersion and String Pitch pages.

- Many of the critical parameters are allocated to knobs and faders on the Tone Adjust page - as well as to the Vector Joystick - so it is worth knowing what those parameters do and which ones are available to you as modifying even one parameter by a small amount can have a significant effect.

but the point being - you can experiment mindlessly for sure but only when you know what the parameters are and what they do can you direct them. The exquisite acoustic basses programmed by Korg are an indicator that if you know what you're doing then you have the best chance of achieving what you’re after.

But the caveat being - it's a trick y synth engine and strings on their own tend not to be bass rich so you'll probably have to use clever programming with the string, PCM Osc., noise and excitation filter to get what you're after, and as said, perhaps combine two EXi’s in the one program.

STR-1 and MOD-7 EXi's work well together IMO because neither is sample based so you can achieve instruments with far greater natural dynamic and expressive range than with any sample based system no matter how well sampled.

Kevin.

Dude with a work station you can layer so much, so just layer it with something that is FAT on the low end and filter out the top end on that sound. This is a work station, its made for this.

...

In his posts above, Kevin has nailed a ton of key points about STR-1, including programming techniques. In some respects he's right about it being a bit of a tricky synth model, in part because it's such a different method of generating sound than the subtractive synth model that many of you are probably familiar with, and which is the basis of (easily) 80% of all synths and romplers on the market. It's easy to adjust cutoff frequency on a synth to alter the tone, or turn up the attack time to turn even a piano into a pad-like sound. But with STR-1, you're talking about controlling the properties of a simulated plucked string, and that's a very different ballgame.

Still, familiarity is everything. Once you spend enough time with STR-1 you will begin to instinctively approach specific controls to alter the sound as readily as you might reach for a sound-altering parameter on a more familiar analog-style synth or rompler.

The "string" in STR-1 isn't designed to be a bass string specifically. But with the right processing, you can create satisfying bass sounds that have a fair bit of bottom. Suggest using a parametric EQ and stereo compressor as the first two effects in your IFX chain. Use the EQ to add bottom and other tonal characteristics, and the compressor to give the sound "oomph". Whether the EQ or the compressor is first in the chain is a matter of choice.

Another IFX perhaps worth experimenting with is the multi-band compressor. You don't have to use all bands ; just use one or two to isolate the frequency bands you want to boost and compress them to enhance the bassier aspects of the sound.

Kevin wrote:

but the point being - you can experiment mindlessly for sure but only when you know what the parameters are and what they do can you direct them.

Couldn't have said it better! The manual does a really good job of detailing what each parameter does. And even though I programmed many of the original STR-1 sounds, I still refer to it from time to time when I'm doing STR-1 programming. Definitely worth a read. But getting back to "the bass in the bass", don't be afraid to try using IFX to get more bottom/body.

Hexfix93 wrote:Dude with a work station you can layer so much, so just layer it with something that is FAT on the low end and filter out the top end on that sound. This is a work station, its made for this.

While I see what you're saying, the problem is - if everyone said that then they're be no innovation, no advanced synth engines, and we'd be all using the Tyros or other home keyboard.

Someone has to produce the synth engines and program them. That something 'fat' just doesn't come out of thin air. Why can't it be you who bothers to learn the synth engine and deliver something new and unique to the world? Isn't that why the original point to this thread was posed and we're talking on a music technology / synthesizer forum about a synth engine what's complex in nature? Aren't we interested in new things?

Yeah the str-1 is not FAT.

Neither are real stringed instruments, bass guitar is only because of the amps and eqs on the guitars themselves.

I don't particularly like layering just to 'fatten' a sound because it is very techcnically inefficient on resources. It's different if I intend to layer two different sounds or parts of a sound for artistic reasons, but I don't like adding another layer (particularly if it has to be in a combi and not in the same self-contained program), because it costs too much in polyphony and other headaches for something that should be quite simple.
Okay I'm struggling with my reasons there but particularly if you are no longer working within the same single Prog, and have to go over to Combi mode for your single 'sound' then I'd no longer be happy to publish that sound because it's difficult for people to use outside of that context.
I know what I'm trying to say..


I'll give the EQ a try. I think there is also a 'resonator' IFX that may be suitable for physical modelling.
I know a lot of other modelling engines (and they are still fairly rare) usually implement a resonator. Definitely when I studied Physical Modelling synthesis at university we always talked about the 'model PM synth' having exciter, pitched resonator, and (sometimes multiple) unhitched body resonators. I'm not sure that an EQ is the same thing because it by definition shouldn't be too resonant.

Thanks Kevin and of course Peter, for your valuable input. You've just inspired me to sit in front of the OASYS and starting to program a new STR-1 sound! I have to admit, I didn' program on the STR-1 engine for quite a while now...what a shame!

-

The resonator IFX is definitely worth a try. It will create a fixed formant with one or two bands. But FWIW, EQ's are indeed resonators, and there's no rule saying that an EQ can't (or shouldn't) be resonant. If that were the case, EQ's wouldn't have a bandwidth control and the ability to set high amounts of cut or boost.

[EDIT] @ Dany,

Don't be dissuaded if you don't get results right away. STR-1 is one of those models where you have to be tenacious until you achieve that "a-ha!" moment.