Here's a repaste of something I put in "FAQ" yesterday. Yo, I forgot you can't "comment" here, so let's hear what you are hearing from the new presets. I'm especially interested in some of the new ones in this discussion. Here's the paste of what's in FAQ:

Presets 2.0: An informal discussion

Listening to our customers and noting our own reactions to using this system, we have upgraded the current presets and added some new ones too. I basically did the work of developing these, simply by listening and tweaking the sound to be “right”. I think we have a really improved set here. This is an overview of these from what was, for me, a really fascinating experience. I hope these make your artistic lives better and better.

First of all, here’s a complete list of the V2 presets for reference, lifted directly from our website:

Personalized Amplification System™ family of products
Presets 2.0

No Instrument Category
00 "Flat (for pre-recorded music, most instruments and mics, Line6 Pod XT, Line6 Variax Acoustic 700)" General
01 Handheld Microphones Vocal Microphones
02 Headworn Microphones Vocal Microphones
03 "Vocal Mic High Gain, Bright" Vocal Microphones
04 "Vocal Mic High Gain, Normal" Vocal Microphones
05 Audix OM-5 Vocal Microphones
06 Audix OM-6 Vocal Microphones
07 Beyer M88 Vocal Microphones
08 Crown CM-310 / CM-311 Vocal Microphones
09 EV N/D357 Vocal Microphones
10 EV N/D767 Vocal Microphones
11 EV N/D967 w/ highpass Vocal Microphones
12 Neumann KMS 105 Vocal Microphones
13 Shure SM57 Vocal Microphones
14 Shure SM58 Vocal Microphones
15 Shure Beta 57A Vocal Microphones
16 Shure Beta 58A Vocal Microphones
17 Shure Beta 87A Vocal Microphones
18 Sennheiser e855 Vocal Microphones
19 Sennheiser MD431-II Vocal Microphones
20 Sennheiser MD441 Vocal Microphones
25 Electric Guitar Direct Electric Guitars
26 "Miked Guitar Amp w/ SM57, ""Rumbly"" " Electric Guitars
27 "Miked Guitar Amp w/ SM57, ""Normal"" " Electric Guitars
28 Fender Stratocaster Electric Guitars
29 Fender Telecaster Electric Guitars
30 Gibson ES-335 / ES-345 Electric Guitars
31 Gibson ES-335 / ES-345 w/ split neck pickup Electric Guitars
32 Gibson Les Paul Classic gold-top Electric Guitars
33 Gretsch Country Gentleman Electric Guitars
34 Ibanez Artist Electric Guitars
35 Paul Reed Smith Custom 22 Electric Guitars
40 Acoustic guit w/ piezo Acoustic Guitars
41 Acoustic guit w/ dynamic mic Acoustic Guitars
42 Acoustic guit w/ condenser mic Acoustic Guitars
43 Guild D25 w/ Fishman Piezo Acoustic Guitars
44 Guild D25 w/ Fishman Piezo and sound hole notch Acoustic Guitars
45 Martin Backpack w/ pickup Acoustic Guitars
46 "Martin DC16, pickup only (no mic)" Acoustic Guitars
47 Martin D28 w/ piezo pickup Acoustic Guitars
48 Martin D45 w/ condenser mic Acoustic Guitars
49 Taylor 810 w/ Expression System pickup Acoustic Guitars
50 Electronic (keyboard/synth/digi piano/module/EWI) Keyboard
51 Fender-Rhodes 73 Keyboard
52 Hohner Clavinet D6 Keyboard
53 Wurlitzer 200 Keyboard
55 Accordion w/ LIMEX Micro Pro Special
56 AP 35 Pro Clip on for trumpet Special
57 Low Volume Pre-Recorded Music EQ Special
60 Upright 3/4 Bass w/ Fishman pickup Basses
61 Active Bass 1 Basses
62 Active Bass 2 Basses
63 Active Bass 3 Basses
64 Fender Active Jazz Bass Basses
65 Fender '66 Passive P Bass Basses
66 Fender '69 Passive J Bass Basses
70 Kick Drum Drums
71 "Kick drum, Audix D6" Drums
72 "Kick drum, AKG D112" Drums
73 "Kick drum, Sennheiser 601" Drums
74 "Kick drum, Shure Beta 52a" Drums
75 Generic Area/Overhead Drums
76 "Drum overhead, Differential SM57*" Drums
77 "Drum overhead, Differential Electret*" Drums
80 50 Hz High Pass Filter Utility
81 80 Hz High Pass Filter Utility
82 5 KHz Low Pass Filter Utility
83 50 Hz / 5 KHz Band Pass Utility
84 80 Hz / 5 KHz Band Pass Utility
85 "200 Hz, 1 oct, -6dB Notch" Utility
86 "500 Hz, 1 oct, -6dB Notch" Utility
87 "500 Hz, 1 oct, +6dB Boost" Utility
88 "Flat, -70dB Gate" Utility
89 "Flat, -80dB Gate" Utility
97 1kHz Bandpass (debug) Utility
99 Flat Utility

1. Mic presets: We (and you) all love the basic sound of the Shure 87a/Preset2 combination, so I started here as a reference. Of course, every microphone has its own character. These include how the mic responds to proximity, how its sound changes with close-vocal sound pressure, how its polar response integrates vocal sound, how high and low it goes spectrally and how it integrates feedback into its total sound. And so, you can turn the knobs all you want, but these qualities (and others) will still be there. That’s why you like that mic you’re using.

To start, preset 17 is the same as old preset 02. We added a lot of popular mics as you can see. The Crowns (“Differoid” mics) include the 310 handheld and the 311 “drummer’s mic”. Both sound great with their preset. The 310 has very high gain before feedback. About the only downside here is that you really have to be on the mic hard, more so than, say, the 87a. Try the new SM57 and Beta57. The 57 in particular is considered by some a “cheap mic” ($89 at Musican’s Friend), but give the SM57/Preset 13 a try. I’m really happy with this one, a very attractive vocal presentation. Also, many are happy with the new high-gain and high-gain bright presets (Hilmar’s work). He worked in some aggressive high-end filters for control of that little high squeak you might get playing loud, especially in close proximity to the system (like when the club owner backs your band up into the corner). This will help singers who are playing loud with the unusual HF extension of such mics as the Neumann 105. Developing these presets, I made sure a female singer sounded good on all these too.

2. New electric guitar stuff galore-a-rama here. Preset 25 is an averaged spectral response of 12” guitar speakers and is useful in many ways other than guitar. (Use your ears). Basically it bumps up around 2KHz and rolls off about 5KHz on the high end, 100 on the low end. 26 and 27 are very useful and Tony Sarno and I worked on this together, for use with amplifying a small amp with an sm57 pickup. Tube-and-cone freaks; rejoice!! Both presets have a slight “honk” (500 Hz octave) and the “rumbly” one is bumped in the deep bass, for anyone wanting that “stack” sound on full distortion. Tony said “yeah” when we were done. Erik Gustafson of the Brothers Groove liked 26 instantly, playing a Tele and miking his amp. Be careful of 27 because it will do a good job of reamplifying bass guitar and kick drum on a loud stage. The rest are standard from the first batch of presets.

3. We added new acoustic guitar presets, especially some nice Martins sent here for preset work from Nazareth PA. I personally love the pickup-fitted Backpack/Preset 45 combo. Small, inexpensive but big lovely sound. It’s like the sm57; listen with your ears, not with list price.

4. #57 is for prerecorded music at low level, for DJ’s and for break music at the gig. Sort of like the Fletcher-Munson (Tony Sarno calles it the “Herman Munster”) curve; bass and treble boost, just the right amount if you’re playing a 85 dB or so.

5. New basses! My fave is 66, developed with Bass Monster Wolf Ginandes. Wolf brought in the antique collection, his SVT head and a 2x10 bottom he has used as a standard for years. We used this as a reference on our big stage. You don’t want to lift the head, by the way. I think we got just the right amount of “unh” in and “quack” out for classic Fender basses. The hi-z preamp in our system does not load down the pickup. 65 is also very cool but many love 66. 60 for acoustic basses with Fishman on the bridge is still a fave, read “classic”.

6. For drums, we added the new D6 Audix, very nice, punchy. 76 and 77 are for a pair of 57’s and a pair of wideband electrets connected out of phase. These are placed on either side of the snare, below the cymbals but above the upper drum heads. This gives us a very good signal because of proximity and cancels long bass wavelengths like bass guitar, so they aren’t re-broadcast by the drum “overheads”. Want more hihat?; Move the mic towards the hihat (and so on). Like all good mic technique, the fewer, the better. This also allows a drummer to have a quick setup. It does require a Y-jack as follows: Male xlr into a pair of female xlr’s, one of which has pins 2 and 3 reversed. Try it out. Beats all the complication of 12 mics, submixer, ect. (ewwww). We have been using this setup in our Linemen shows since they started and havn’t wanted to change it.

7. We added some nice “utility” stuff. Preset 85 (-6dB at 200 Hz) is very useful for miking grand piano. When the gain goes up, so does 200 Hz. This makes a fine place to start with any mic setup. I used both a wideband condenser and some 57’s. Both profited from this. The main mic should go over the bass strings, which is where most of the instrument’s tone seems to come from. A second mic over the upper 2 octaves and near the keys can be used to bring up the definition of the upper register. Turn the bass off. The highpasses are always useful and we added a 50 Hz the old 80 Hz. The 50/5K and 80/5K bandpasses are also very useful, like for a noisy guitar amp. We included a few gates. Anyone use these?

8. Preset 97 (1KHz bandpass) is just for us. We get one, you get 98. You come first. On the other hand, this might be a good bongo drum preset, you never know.


Photos (1)
Original Post
Thank you for taking the time to prepare that comprehensive explanation Cliff.

We listen with our ears, but sometimes (as with the cocktail party effect) we comprehend better when we know what to listen for.

So far I've tried and really like
00 Flat
-- with McIntyre Bluesmaker II recording amp
-- with PodXT Pro
07 Beyer M88 Vocal Microphones
12 Neumann KMS 105 Vocal Microphones
-- brilliant with the Neumann
-- works with older Microtech Geffel and AKG C585 too
15 Shure Beta 57A Vocal Microphones
16 Shure Beta 58A Vocal Microphones

25 Electric Guitar Direct Electric Guitars
-- with Mesa Boogie V-Twin
30 Gibson ES-335 / ES-345 Electric Guitars
-- with Gibson L5, Howard Roberts, 335 Artisan (more like a 355 with active pickups)

32 Gibson Les Paul Classic gold-top Electric Guitars
-- with Les Paul Ultima (Harp Lady)
35 Paul Reed Smith Custom 22 Electric Guitars
-- with PRS Brazilian (custom 24)
40 Acoustic guit w/ piezo Acoustic Guitars
-- Morgan with piezo bridge pickup
64 Fender Active Jazz Bass Basses
-- with 70's Fender Jazz
65 Fender '66 Passive P Bass Basses
-- with 70's Musicman fretless

I'm going to be doing some more experimentation with the other acoustic guitar presets and will report back.

But in the meantime - thank you for all the work that must have gone into this, and to Kyle-at-Bose (and all the people behind him I'm sure) who made it easy to download and install these new presets.
Originally posted by sherwood:
We're looking to buy three systems soon. Should we expect the version 2.0 to be already installed ? Thanks, Sherwood

Hi Sherwood,
You won't see product with the new Presets 2.0 preloaded until sometime early next year. To answer your question, no. The upgrade is fairly easy as long as you have the right equipment to perform it.
Originally posted by Cliff-at-Bose:

we have upgraded the current presets and added some new ones too.


I have already stated my appreciation for the new presets, but another comment and question might be in order.

It just so happened that the preset upgrade and moving from the basement coincided, and with only one PAS it was not possible to do an A/B or before and after comparison, but it seemed to me that everything vocal is a little warmer and not as edgy in the mids.

Is this because of the room change? just a perception? or did you "retweak" everything just a little?

Regardless, I'm liking it better everyday.

Thanks Again, Oldghm
Mr Ol' Dghm

All mic stuff has been revisited and many were tweaked, should sound more natural. We left the SM87/Preset02 steady as she goes as a "magic" and I almost think lucky combo.

(Like when you mix to 2-track? : sometime you just get lucky and the thing sparkles. I think this is what happened to me with this combo. What's interesting is that the difference between magic and not is very slight. Think about this. My experience in voicing both studio, live music and large arena/stadium systems is that once you get close, smaller and smaller differences and things that need to be corrected pop up. When you're close, little things mean a lot. I've always been amazed and pleased to find that others who do this kind of work tell me exactly the same thing. I think that the more you use this system as a reference, the more you ("one") will get "normal sound" in your head and know it when you hear it.) Did you try the new sm57? I think this is a really fine bang-for-the-buck combo and one of the more improved upgrades, in my opinion.

GHm, thanks for you comments. It's really my pleasure to do this important work, for you, for all the cats and even for my own playing and singing. I appreciate the feedback and in particular your relentless and totally honest reviews of and suggestions for all our work, from day 1.

Cliff - you seem to be the preset expert, so I'll address this to you. Sort of a general question - Do the presets just affect tone of the microphone or are you notching out for feedback, also? Maybe its a dumb question, but I am wondering if we are just looking for the sound we like or are there other benefits to staying with the preset for any given mic. Thanks.
blu: Hey, good to hear. I'm usually the one asking dumb questions.

You're right. I'm responsible for most of this work, and it was mostly done by listening; an art project. To answer your question, most presets are tone-shaping equalization curves, very smooth ones to be exact, nothing too spikey. New presets 03 and 04 have agressive low-pass filters towards the top of the range, 03 being the least agressive (thus "bright"). We don't do any narrowband notch-filtering as we have found this to be not that musical (can cut individual notes out and is often not-musical sounding) and, mostly, because the kind of feedback that a notch filter takes out (individual feeback frequencies) varies greatly from situation to situation. They are normally determined by mic placement and orientation, speaker placement, reflecting surfaces, venue acoustics, crowd size and, most of all, gain. Best to play with mic placement and orientation, same with the system (lots written in this forum about all this) and maybe even adjust the ensemble's playing to favor the vocal (what a concept!). A tune-able notch could do this, but now we're into system redesign (more knobs and system formatting). You can buy these and patch in, but I'd recommend concentrating on fundamentals like system use and musical arrangement. I'll admit to favoring musical-sounding presentation to loudest-at-all-costs. I'll do this any day, for you, for all the cats and for me too. I want our work as musicians to serve our audiences better and better.

More soon for you, Tom Munch. Does a little tweak of the bass knob solve the problem? Is it a problem? what's with "brittle"? Please try to describe this better. Last, honestly, thanks for listening. Your criticism is welcome and appreciated. More soon.
Cliff, I didn't get back to posting Friday, but I've had three gigs since then to play around with the presets. New preset 17 now sounds fine with just a little bass added on the remote. I still don't think it sounds exactly like old preset 02, but I'm not going to say my old ears are that consistent. My 87A seems to have a little thinner response than a friend of mine's does, so it's probably spot on for the average 87A.
Cliff, I reread your post.

"What's with brittle?" I thought that would be obvious. It sounds thinner & more biting on the new preset 17 with the 87A. It seems to lack the nice low-end warmth that the old preset 02 had. Again, as I just posted, a little tweak of the bass knob on the remote does add this back in nicely.

Thanks for all the listening & tweaking on the new presets.
Last night I had the new preset 03 on a 57' vocal mic. Man....I cut a ton off the mids and my vocal sounded awsome. I usually kept it at 12 o'clock and last night I cut it to 9 o'clock. Anyone care to comment why this sounded so smooth. I stubled across it by not listening with my eyes! I can't be happier with this- the Martin was amazing sounding too.

Uh oh. You have brought up the tip of the iceberg of the Audio Tower of Babel. I will now begin my rant and rave: Our industries (sound reinforcement and professional music) are full of language that means something different to everyone. Thus, we have multiple languages in daily use and no communication.

Take for instance "nasal". What does this mean to you? To me it means "an excess of level in the 1000 Hz octave as a deviation from sound that is otherwise normal". Some I have met think it's the 500 or 2000 or 4000 Hz octaves, for a start. However, there are many other audio qualities that come to mind when "nasal" is mentioned to the odd bloke. Clear, normal-souding recording of voice is even thought of as nasal, simply if the singer has this quality in their normal singing voice. Or if this recording is played over a "nasal" speaker, whatever this is.

"Brittle" is another one. I thought you might have meant that there might be exaggerated HF level that brought out a normally hidden breakup behaviour of the mic's diaphragm, a resonance or distortion. You defined it as "thinner and more biting", which to me is a contradiction. "thinner" to me means less midrange and "biting" to me means is a quality resulting from too much upper midrange level. My point is that it is not obvious what you (or anyone else) means by "brittle" and that we have a giant audio vocabulary that means something different to pretty much everyone. That's why we can't communicate very well about this stuff. And please take no offense; this is not aimed at you personally. But just look at the differences just you and I have when we hear this word. Right now we have no agreement on what all these audio terms mean. Punchy, boxy, muffled, veiled, thin, serrated, on and on. It's an epidemic. What's the answer? Who'll solve this problem? (The Sierra Club? The Republicans? George Bush? Bruce Springsteen?)

I teach a listening course here at our company called "Spectral Identification". In this course, I teach (only) 10 words that mean very specific things, "nasal" (the example given herein) being one of them. This is not a lot of words to be totally useful in a conversation about qualities of sound gear, but at least it's a start. 10 words that mean something very specific to everyone is far better, in my opinion, that a whole mouthful of words that mean something different to everyone.
Cliff - Where do we sign up?

I teach a listening course here at our company called Spectral Identification.

It would be of great benefit for band members to learn the vocabulary we need to communicate with each other while we begin this new journey of learning to mix ourselves as a unit - especially when it's straight from the inventor. How about a complementary home study course - it would be even better than a free set of TriPort headphones (but you CAN'T have them back!).

And I'm afraid George Dubbya won't be able to help unless you teach a course on "The brittle-osity of nuke-you-ler audio-tivity and its flip flop effect on the evil doers"

Taking your course is probably not an option for me but I would love to see those ten terms and their definitions, and have the permission to share them wherever I go.

If not already included you might include how the terms Low, Low Mid, Mid, High Mid or "Upper" Mid, and High relate to your terms and the proper frequency range for each.

Way to lay into a guy, Cliff. You can't be critical if we all don't know your rules or verbage going in. I definitely know what you're talking about though. Just listen to a bunch of acoustic guitarists try to explain their holy grail tone. You'll hear the same mess of different terminology used to describe sometimes opposite ideas.

I know you weren't directing your criticism directly at me (Tony tells me what a great guy you are to hang with) but I really was trying to be fairly descriptive & thought I'd found a decent word to describe what I was hearing (brittle). It's one of my pet peeves when a person can't describe something well. I think it comes from commiserating with tech support people.

When I first listened to the new preset 17 with my 87A I thought there was some missing low end & a harshness in the upper end that sounded a little distorted. The word I thought described this the best was brittle. With a little bump on the low end the harshness seemed to go away, although I would have thought I would still hear the high end distortion. Since I don't know exactly what you're doing in each of the presets I can only trust my ears to judge the differences.

To your other points, I guess thinner would mean less midrange as I think about it, although I was thinking more of a lack of low end. Biting to me does mean some distorted quality that I associate with distorted levels or bad piezo speakers.

I really would encourage you to list your 10 words here with a description for each so that we can communicate without any argument over semantics. God knows we have better things to do than miscommunicate over a system we all enjoy so much. I vote for harmony & communication.

Lets jam!

Way to lay into a guy, Tom Munch.

Just kidding.

Well, as it appears to me, there are no rules for communicating about audio qualities right now, something that is essential for a functional language to work. We have a whole truck-load of words, all of which mean different things to everyone. Tower of Babel. A lot of these words have been invented, I think, by the audio press. Imagine making up language for what you think you heard over the differences in audio qualities between normal and "special" AC power cords or different wood that you laid your speaker cables next to. Honest. I have seen this and much more.

I'm going to post the 10-word vocabulary I have been teaching here at Bose. "your rules" hit me funny, like it's my ball and you have to play this way or forget it. It's not like this is the script carved on the holy tablets by God, or whatnot. It's just an attempt, a proposal, for any rule where there really aren't any. I think that if we can at least agree on 10 words, it's a start. Actually, these words are a "middle man" to what we really need to do: Hear, listen (the combined activity of taking in audio information, thinking and concluding) and identify in real engineering terms. Like, for instance, a "nasal" quality is heard, the thought process says "aha, too much level in the 1KHz octave" and then you can do something about it, like reach for the 1KHz part of an equalizer and make it sound normal. The words describe familiar qualities we are all familiar with, many having to do with our knowledge of how normal human speech sounds.

So, I'm going to post all this as a separate topic in "technical". But, for this discussion, here are the 10 words, which describe a 1 octave excess level in the stated center of that octave (these are all "ISO standard center frequencies"). These can be used anywhere (Ghm, per your inquiry) but hopefully for better communication about qualities about our system, for better or for worse:

woofy (31Hz octave)
boomy (62 Hz octave)
punchy (125 Hz octave)
chesty (250 Hz octave)
honky (500 Hz octave)
nasal (1000 Hz octave)
quacky (2000 Hz octave)
Shrill (4000 Hz, the most annoying octave to be accented)
Spitty (8000 Hz octave)
Air (16,000 Hz octave)

Kyle is going to follow this up with some illustrative recordings on the "Spectral Identification" disc I made years ago. You're gonna love it.
Hey, Cliff, "your rules" is just showing you how much respect we all have here for you & your talents. I was just showing my affliction for you.

I would much rather describe sound in engineering terms too, but I thought part of the emphasis here on the forum was to use our ears & not look at specs on this system. Using my ears makes me wax poetic (when there is no wax in my ears) about springtime & youth & passion for this system. This makes me use flowery descriptive terms that have nothing to do with engineereing but everything to do with emotion & how this system makes me feel. Thus I come up with a term like "brittle" which would never be a passionate word except for wood or peanut candy.

I think we have to use the language of engineering more in order to be conversant in it. You guys at Bose use the language regularly & are better at it. I have a pocket spectral analyzer on my PalmPilot that I like to whip out at a gig & tell the band which frequencies are dominant at any time. This kind of shenanigan has helped a little. I'm still amazed at how many incorrect frequencies someone will guess are the offender when feedback arises on stage. Most folks guess too high. It would be beneficial for every musician to have a chart of relative frequencies on different instruments to refer to. I'll post one here now.

I still can't deny there are more components often than just the frequency response. Music after all has some magical qualities in it which cannot probably be described in pure engineering terms.

[edited for spelling]

All kidding aside (such a struggle); yeah, I'll agree that music is basically infinite. It amazes me, tho, that simple mathematical changes in, say, chord structure, make a listener (player too) feel different. Like, for instance, a minor chord typically makes anyone feel different from, say, a major chord. All you did is change one note relative to the others. Amazing.

My little 10-word vocab is, admittedly, a thimble-full of water from the ocean, but it's a start. Keep looking in "technical" for notice of Kyle's posting of the recordings.

Good chart, thanks for posting this. Readers please note that any musical note's spectrum starts, at least, with the fundamental (shown on Tom's chart), but the harmonics all extend to beyond 20KHz. If there were no harmonics associated with any note, you wouldn't be able to tell what instrument was playing. Some instruments even have harmonics below the fundamental of the note, but it's rare. The most common, I think, is full metal jacket distorted guitar.
guys, i skimmed through the previous posts, but didn't see this addressed:

what if you're using an external mixer? i use a mackie 3204 line mixer, because i do a single piano/guitar/midi act, and having just 4 channels don't cut it.

so, should i use a preset(besides 00) on channels 1/2, or should i use the channels 3/4, which have much less control?

signed, anxious
Hi Groucho,
Hmmm. You could go either way. My recommendation is to use channels 3 and 4 from a 1/4" TS connection from the Mackie 3204. If you find that you are having a noise problem then run 1/4" TRS to XLR connections to 20dB IMP PAD (or equivalent DI box with pad) then into Channels 1 and 2. Let us know if that works out for you.

Have you been working straight stereo? Do you want to continue with the same mixer setup?

You can do that with or without the presets, probably would need to do some experimentig to see what works for multiple instruments and what doesn't. If you set them to 00 they are flat but you still have control with the remote.

If you search through the forum you will find examples of folks using the PAS both ways.

You might find that you want to run some things direct and others thru the mixer.

It won't hurt anything to try the presets, see what sounds good to you.

There is a list of the new presets at the top of page one of this thread, along with a short commentary about them. That might help you decide where to experiment first.

Have fun, Oldghm
As promised, here are some cuts from Cliff's Spectral Identification disc. Personally, there have been a few key people here at Bose who have helped broaden my listening capabilities by teaching me how and what to listen to. Cliff is definitely one of those persons who have helped me tune my senses. I hope these tracks are as helpful to you as they were to me. In addition, also consider the audio ear training course from Dave Moulton called Golden Ears. Although it's much more catered to the intricacies of recording music, it's very helpful in general (BTW it’s a lengthy 8 discs I think). Here goes with Cliff’s recordings...

Male voice, 12dB boost, all 10 octaves, rapid play (1,070 KB, MP3)
Male voice, 12dB boost, all 10 octaves, rapid play, general descriptors (354 KB, MP3)
Male voice, 12dB boost, all 10 octaves, rapid play, frequencies called out (375 KB, MP3)

Female voice comparison, original then 12dB boost, all 10 octaves (2,070 KB, MP3)
Female voice, 12dB boost, rapid play, all 10 octaves (521 KB, MP3)

Pop synth tune, 12dB boost, 10 octaves (3,231 KB, MP3)
Pop synth tune, 12dB boost, 10 octaves, rapid play (1,073 KB, MP3)

Orchestral, 12dB boost, 10 octaves (3,371 KB, MP3)
Orchestral, 12dB boost, 10 octaves, rapid play, 1st 4 measures (1,180 KB, MP3)

These are HQ VBR MP3 recordings. For PC I recommend Winamp for playback software.

edit - new location for downloaded files (note: no need to download again - just moved to a different server)

EDIT: the "new" server noted above (March 23, 2005) was retired.

You can hear these recordings in the wiki

Spectral Identification

If anyone has the last one (Orchestral, 12dB boost, 10 octaves, rapid play, 1st 4 measures (1,180 KB, MP3) please send me a private message. Thanks
Thanks for posting these, Kyle. And thanks to Cliff for the quick course in listening and terminology. Very educational and helpful both for future discussion purposes and problem solving. The "air" is beyond these old ears, at least through my new Triports, but I get the picture on everything else.

Thanks Cliff and Kyle, for the crash course. Thanks also to Tom for the chart - all very useful tools. As I was writing each of the ten words into their proper octave range (on Tom's handy chart that I printed out) it occured to me...not only will my band have a great basis for learning to communicate about the audio spectrum, but now we've got a darn good start on describing our headcold symptoms to each other as well.

The punchy, chesty, honky, nasal, spitty so you can rest medicine.
guys, i downloaded the new updates and followed the intructions to a T.

everything loaded in perfectly, and i tried out the new presets.

I particularly wanted to use #85, for miking an acoustic piano. I have a Kawai KG-3c 6'1" 1979 piano using a Shure beta 58.

i gotta say the difference was staggering. i can't wait to use another mic (Beta 58) in conjunction with the first one.

excellent presets. great job, guys-at-bose.
Hi Cliff!

I wanted to ask about this:

6. For drums, we added the new D6 Audix, very nice, punchy. 76 and 77 are for a pair of 57’s and a pair of wideband electrets connected out of phase. These are placed on either side of the snare, below the cymbals but above the upper drum heads. This gives us a very good signal because of proximity and cancels long bass wavelengths like bass guitar, so they aren’t re-broadcast by the drum “overheads”. Want more hihat?; Move the mic towards the hihat (and so on). Like all good mic technique, the fewer, the better. This also allows a drummer to have a quick setup. It does require a Y-jack as follows: Male xlr into a pair of female xlr’s, one of which has pins 2 and 3 reversed. Try it out. Beats all the complication of 12 mics, submixer, ect. (ewwww). We have been using this setup in our Linemen shows since they started and havn’t wanted to change it.

Any challenges with the special cable - "pins 2 and 3 reversed" when using condenser mics and phantom power?

Shrill (4000 Hz, the most annoying octave to be accented)

Cliff, I would have gotten more out of this if we could agree upon your usage of the word "annoying..." Smile

Seriously, I would pay for a DVD recording of one of your courses. This is something I am very interested in, and I would like to see just how much of this I am still able to distinguish. I have not a small amount of tinnitus in both ears from almost 20 years of very loud playing standing next to the drums in generally confined areas, namely small stages in clubs in the "Holiday Inn" circuit all over the country. That's one of the reasons I got into quieter "acoustic" music 15 years ago and the PAS this past year.

Thanks for all your work on the PAS and your willingness to share your knowledge here with us.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Having trouble signing in?

We recently updated our sign-in procedure and if you have old sign-in data cached, this can create a problem. Please:

  1. Clear your browser cache and cookies
  2. Then close the browser (not just the window)
  3. Open the browser and try again
Thank you

Please make sure that your profile is up to date