Ufabulum, good, bad or meh?

guys, I don't think THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON like this album!

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:05 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:01 PM, mcbpete said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 5:57 PM, jefferoo said:

There is not enough bass. My test is I'm my car. I have the settings just right to shake the buhjeezus out of whatever I'm stopped next to when some bass madness drops.

Absolutely, thought this second time I listened to the album on my reference 'phones (the first time I attributed it to ear fatigue as it was late at night). The mids and top end are there fine but the bass (and sub bass) is virtually non-existent - It's like someone slipped and knocked the <100Hz eq slider when it was mastered.

 

Right!!?!? I know!

The sub-bass is missing, for sure.

There's a decent amount of mid-bass, some bass, as per mainstream iPod earbud brostep. [Not that it really sounds like that, but it seems to an obvious intentional reference in the sound design. I haven't decided how successful that element is, but it's not really any different from the re-contextualized trance synths on the album, which for some reason work for me right off the bat. ]

But I don't remember a ton of sub-bass. Only had 1.5 listens so far, though, and not on my best setup.

jefferoo, did you get the physical yet? Still waiting in my part of LA.

After giving this one listen, I will vote Yay. I liked it. None of the tracks bothered me at all. It's a fun album.

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:52 PM, Bewarethefriendlyfoil said:

guys, I don't think THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON like this album!

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:05 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:01 PM, mcbpete said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 5:57 PM, jefferoo said:

There is not enough bass. My test is I'm my car. I have the settings just right to shake the buhjeezus out of whatever I'm stopped next to when some bass madness drops.

Absolutely, thought this second time I listened to the album on my reference 'phones (the first time I attributed it to ear fatigue as it was late at night). The mids and top end are there fine but the bass (and sub bass) is virtually non-existent - It's like someone slipped and knocked the <100Hz eq slider when it was mastered.

 

Right!!?!? I know!

The sub-bass is missing, for sure.

If I may clear this up:

Using the graphic peak meter on Foobar2000, one can clearly see that there is plenty of action happening down to 50hz and presumably lower judging by the looks of the peaks. No headphones or speakers necessary - case closed.

If anything, the relative quantity of treble to bass is probably creating what is know as "masking", or the covering of one frequency or band of frequencies by another of greater amplitude (higher dB). So, rather than being bass shy, this album is actually merely heavy on treble creating a relative deficiency of perceived bass.

  On 5/16/2012 at 7:45 PM, catharsis said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:05 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:01 PM, mcbpete said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 5:57 PM, jefferoo said:

There is not enough bass. My test is I'm my car. I have the settings just right to shake the buhjeezus out of whatever I'm stopped next to when some bass madness drops.

Absolutely, thought this second time I listened to the album on my reference 'phones (the first time I attributed it to ear fatigue as it was late at night). The mids and top end are there fine but the bass (and sub bass) is virtually non-existent - It's like someone slipped and knocked the <100Hz eq slider when it was mastered.

 

Right!!?!? I know!

The sub-bass is missing, for sure.

 

If I may clear this up:

 

Using the graphic peak meter on Foobar2000, one can clearly see that there is plenty of action happening down to 50hz and presumably lower judging by the looks of the peaks. No headphones or speakers necessary - case closed.

 

If anything, the relative quantity of treble to bass is probably creating what is know as "masking", or the covering of one frequency or band of frequencies by another of greater amplitude (higher dB). So, rather than being bass shy, this album is actually merely heavy on treble creating a relative deficiency of perceived bass.

Funny, I was actually just stopping by to present my new theory, which is in accordance with what you say.

I listened to the whole album on headphones today and needed to listen to it really loud to feel the low end. In doing so, the high end gain proceeded to give me a headache.

I was going to say my new theory is that the high end gain is pushed so much that it overwhelms the low frequencies.

Re: Baph

After getting all pissy and bitching about it, I got it in mail late yesterday afternoon

Btw

The glossy packaging is quite nice.

goddamnit, where is mine.

  On 5/16/2012 at 7:58 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 7:45 PM, catharsis said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:05 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 6:01 PM, mcbpete said:

  On 5/16/2012 at 5:57 PM, jefferoo said:

There is not enough bass. My test is I'm my car. I have the settings just right to shake the buhjeezus out of whatever I'm stopped next to when some bass madness drops.

Absolutely, thought this second time I listened to the album on my reference 'phones (the first time I attributed it to ear fatigue as it was late at night). The mids and top end are there fine but the bass (and sub bass) is virtually non-existent - It's like someone slipped and knocked the <100Hz eq slider when it was mastered.

 

Right!!?!? I know!

The sub-bass is missing, for sure.

 

If I may clear this up:

 

Using the graphic peak meter on Foobar2000, one can clearly see that there is plenty of action happening down to 50hz and presumably lower judging by the looks of the peaks. No headphones or speakers necessary - case closed.

 

If anything, the relative quantity of treble to bass is probably creating what is know as "masking", or the covering of one frequency or band of frequencies by another of greater amplitude (higher dB). So, rather than being bass shy, this album is actually merely heavy on treble creating a relative deficiency of perceived bass.

In doing so, the high end gain proceeded to give me a headache.

 

 

 

I got this too... you guys must be right.

omg the science =0

In b4 Fletcher-Munson curves

After repeatedly listening to this at high volumes, I am no longer bothered by the highs... It is likely my ears are dying

there, BASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Anyone else think the pressing is quiet? Had to crank it up pretty loud to sound like some other records I have.

  On 5/16/2012 at 8:57 PM, CraniumXII said:

After repeatedly listening to this at high volumes, I am no longer bothered by the highs... It is likely my ears are dying

Frankly, alot of u-ziq distortion (and the DSP wankery on Bilous Paths in particular), is also terribly grating on the ears. That treble splits my brain wide-open.

My initial wave of enthusiasm seems to be ebbing away.....

Not sure if it's as good as I first thought. We shall see....

  On 5/16/2012 at 8:45 PM, baph said:

In b4 Fletcher-Munson curves

I looks like the 'everything is at the same level so the bass seems quiet in comparison' is definitely correct. I've just ran the frequency response of the opening track (4001) through Izotope Ozone and couldn't believe how flat the curve was -

So that's why on reference phones the album does indeed sound so flat, it looks like the album was mastered for systems that normally have their bass whacked up a bit.

yes for listening in SONY XPLOD MEGA ULTRA FAST RESPONSE BASS MONITOR SPEAKERS where the bass frequency response is actually faster than the rest of the spectrum...

last half of the album good, first half sounds like unintentional butt rock inspired mid 90s sega saturn video game soundtracks

i love it.

it's definitely better than hello world, just a souvenir and shobaleader one. and i liked two of those albums a lot.

  On 5/17/2012 at 12:22 PM, jenny said:

i love it.

 

it's definitely better than hello world, just a souvenir and shobaleader one. and i liked two of those albums a lot.

I like the review...... I think he's wrong on the negative stuff but very right on a lot of the positives.

  On 5/17/2012 at 9:59 PM, phudoshin said:

I like the review...... I think he's wrong on the negative stuff but very right on a lot of the positives.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUYWMOOUY08

I stopped watching as soon as he said "IDM"

I stopped watching as soon as I heard his voice.

  On 5/17/2012 at 11:19 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 5/17/2012 at 9:59 PM, phudoshin said:

I like the review...... I think he's wrong on the negative stuff but very right on a lot of the positives.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUYWMOOUY08

 

I stopped watching as soon as he said "IDM"

the album is just mesmerizing