Subharmonics / Bass Singers (7,502 views)

[fox]

When it comes to notewatching low notes, do you factor in subharmonics at all?

Geoff Castelluci said he uses subharmonics to hit his lowest notes, which made me wonder if subharmonics are typically what would be used to do so, since even his speaking voice is clearly already a bass voice.

What is the cut-off point for bass singers, as far as which low notes they can normally hit without relying on subharmonics goes, and does using such an approach technically "count" as hitting the note itself?

Any insight is appreciated. My vocal break is only at A3, and the lowest note I can regularily/easily hit is B1 (I start to lose volume at A#1, and for now A-F1 are too questionable to count), so I'm embracing the low end and looking to better understand how it all works down here.

[Steingrim]

Jan 12, 2023 16:22:25 GMT fox said:

When it comes to notewatching low notes, do you factor in subharmonics at all?

Geoff Castelluci said he uses subharmonics to hit his lowest notes, which made me wonder if subharmonics are typically what would be used to do so, since even his speaking voice is clearly already a bass voice.

What is the cut-off point for bass singers, as far as which low notes they can normally hit without relying on subharmonics goes, and does using such an approach technically "count" as hitting the note itself?

Any insight is appreciated. My vocal break is only at A3, and the lowest note I can regularily/easily hit is B1 (I start to lose volume at A#1, and for now A-F1 are too questionable to count), so I'm embracing the low end and looking to better understand how it all works down here.

Castellucci has a G1 in chest voice, a C1 in vocal fry ("Way on down") and a B0 somewhere using subharmonics. Several low bass singers that I know of all have an F1 as their lowest chest note and some of them can take vocal fry much lower than C1 (then we might argue about where the resulting note starts to lose musicality). Subharmonics, I saw a Bb0 somewhere. Subharmonics is basically a chest note with an additional undertone one octave lower that's being produced by the false folds. So Castellucci's B0 has a B1 as its chest base. 

[Platypus]

TL;DR: if the singer is good at it, we generally count subharmonics

Subharmonics is a very niche bass singing technique generally used by a capella basses (and wannabe a capella basses) and russian oktavists. It's a result of vibrating your vocal cords at a specific ratio. In normal singing your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 1:1. In standard subharmonics your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 3:2.

This means that if you are singing A2, and you apply subharmonics to it, you are actually producing two tones at the same time. A2, which is the main frequency, and another tone a perfect fifth above A2. This creates an undertone an octave below the main frequency. You can observe this phenomenon using two sine generators. If you set one at 110 hz (A2) and another at 165 hz (E3-ish) and play them at the same time, you will get an undertone equivalent to 55 hz (A1).

If you've ever heard of terms like "second" or "third-order subharmonics", it's the same principle, but the ratio that your vocal cords vibrate at changes.

Having a thread with subharmonics in it is quite rare, but it's generally considered countable as long as the singer is able to demontrate decent musical control of the technique. Whether or not it "counts" as hitting the note is a matter of philosophy. If you're hitting an A1 in subharmonics, your vocal cords aren't actually vibrating at 55 hz. But your brain will perceive the note as an A1, and in a musical context, the fact that it isn't "technically" an A1 doesn't really matter.

[Homelander]

Jan 12, 2023 22:03:19 GMT Platypus said:

TL;DR: if the singer is good at it, we generally count subharmonics

Subharmonics is a very niche bass singing technique generally used by a capella basses (and wannabe a capella basses) and russian oktavists. It's a result of vibrating your vocal cords at a specific ratio. In normal singing your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 1:1. In standard subharmonics your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 3:2.

This means that if you are singing A2, and you apply subharmonics to it, you are actually producing two tones at the same time. A2, which is the main frequency, and another tone a perfect fifth above A2. This creates an undertone an octave below the main frquency. You can observe this phenomenon using two sine generators. If you set one at 110 hz (A2) and another at 165 hz (E3-ish) and play them at the same time, you will get an undertone equievelent to 55 hz (A1).

If you've ever heard of terms like "second" or "third-order subharmonics", it's the same principle, but the ratio that your vocal cords vibrate at changes.

Having a thread with subharmonics in it is quite rare, but it's generally considered countable as long as the singer is able to demontrate decent musical control of the technique. Wether or not it "counts" as hitting the note is a matter of philosophy. If you're hitting an A1 in subharmonics, your vocal cords aren't actually vibrating at 55 hz. But your brain will perceive the note as an A1, and in a musical context, the fact that it isn't "technically" an A1 doesn't really matter.

This is a very good explanation; complete, yet easy to understand. Platypus always seems to explain vocal techniques like this in the best way possible.

[fox]

Thanks for your replies, they were exactly what I was hoping to find out. Interesting how subharmonics work similarly to binaural beats. I definitely want access to the full first octave so I'll get to work on this and fry. :)

[Steingrim]

Jan 13, 2023 12:35:50 GMT fox said:

Thanks for your replies, they were exactly what I was hoping to find out. Interesting how subharmonics work similarly to binaural beats. I definitely want access to the full first octave so I'll get to work on this and fry. :)

If you can sing really well in your chest voice in octave 2, including a good low C, then that is a much greater asset.

[fox]

Definitely. Actually that's why I want to be able to gain reliable access to at least the top half of the first octave; I love singing in the second octave, and there are a good number of songs I could fully center in it, if I can put their lower Es, Fs, and Gs in the first. But for now reinforcing my B1 and C2 is the top priority (alongside overall singing ability of course).

I'll return after I get a microphone. :D

[Steingrim]

Jan 13, 2023 14:09:37 GMT fox said:

Definitely. Actually that's why I want to be able to gain reliable access to at least the top half of the first octave; I love singing in the second octave, and there are a good number of songs I could fully center in it, if I can put their lower Es, Fs, and Gs in the first. But for now reinforcing my B1 and C2 is the top priority (alongside overall singing ability of course).

I'll return after I get a microphone. :D

Subharmonics can be really hard to learn. I was able to get an F1 after a while but anything below C2 was likely to fail. Then I feel that I don't really need fry notes since I can actually sing down to D2. 

Here John Ames sings some really good octave 2 notes before he sings in octave 1 in fry mode. The latter may be spectacular, but the quality of the former notes are much more impressive to most people that appreciate actual singing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxMmme46dUY

His fry notes are pretty good all the way down to F1 but the C1 is bad. Note that John Ames has sung A1 in his chest voice in the opera, which requires more than a little bit of volume, so he is a very low singer in general.

[fox]

Jan 13, 2023 14:19:25 GMT Steingrim said:

His fry notes are pretty good all the way down to F1 but the C1 is bad. Note that John Ames has sung A1 in his chest voice in the opera, which requires more than a little bit of volume, so he is a very low singer in general.

Thanks, I noticed too on another video from that channel that almost all of the "lowest chest notes" were excerpts from vocalists doing them more for their own sake of novelty, rather than in actual pieces, so it does put into perspective what you're saying, how to regard these notes compared to those from the second octave.

I'll check out Ames's opera performances. Since I realized where my voice fits, I picked up the prerequisite sheet music for Non Piu Andrai and Ella Giammai M'amo and have been forming an interest in opera. :)

[Steingrim]

My favorite operatic bass is Kurt Moll. He was able to handle low Cs with ease. In general he didn't need an enormous vibrato to be heard and his pitch was typically spot on. Here's a good example of his voice, this piece has an F2 as its lowest note.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2lKLi0rJDA

[blazejecar2]

Jan 12, 2023 22:03:19 GMT Platypus said:

TL;DR: if the singer is good at it, we generally count subharmonics

Subharmonics is a very niche bass singing technique generally used by a capella basses (and wannabe a capella basses) and russian oktavists. It's a result of vibrating your vocal cords at a specific ratio. In normal singing your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 1:1. In standard subharmonics your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 3:2.

This means that if you are singing A2, and you apply subharmonics to it, you are actually producing two tones at the same time. A2, which is the main frequency, and another tone a perfect fifth above A2. This creates an undertone an octave below the main frequency. You can observe this phenomenon using two sine generators. If you set one at 110 hz (A2) and another at 165 hz (E3-ish) and play them at the same time, you will get an undertone equivalent to 55 hz (A1).

If you've ever heard of terms like "second" or "third-order subharmonics", it's the same principle, but the ratio that your vocal cords vibrate at changes.

Having a thread with subharmonics in it is quite rare, but it's generally considered countable as long as the singer is able to demontrate decent musical control of the technique. Whether or not it "counts" as hitting the note is a matter of philosophy. If you're hitting an A1 in subharmonics, your vocal cords aren't actually vibrating at 55 hz. But your brain will perceive the note as an A1, and in a musical context, the fact that it isn't "technically" an A1 doesn't really matter.

There was a discussion about this before, but what keeps overtones from getting the same treatment as undertones? I don't mean notes that sound higher due to recording quality, but notes that are a result of controlled and purposeful technique? Low notes get a pass on so many things, with subharmonics where the singer isn't singing anywhere near the undertone, with growls and strong vocal fry notes that also aren't "real", can't be projected and sound pathetic without mic amplification and EQ, yet they get their own color and are counted in many cases, especially for gospel/acapella basses... Low notes seem to get a lot of passes but a metal singer that consistently employs controlled overtones in their technique where even in HD recordings it sounds strongly like a 6th/7th octave note, we police it like crime. The pitch isn't specifically sung either, but in some cases it's definitely a stronger note than many vocal frys we count and is also much harder to do.

[Steingrim]

Jan 16, 2023 7:38:44 GMT blazejecar2 said:

Jan 12, 2023 22:03:19 GMT Platypus said:

TL;DR: if the singer is good at it, we generally count subharmonics

Subharmonics is a very niche bass singing technique generally used by a capella basses (and wannabe a capella basses) and russian oktavists. It's a result of vibrating your vocal cords at a specific ratio. In normal singing your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 1:1. In standard subharmonics your vocal cords vibrate at a ratio of 3:2.

This means that if you are singing A2, and you apply subharmonics to it, you are actually producing two tones at the same time. A2, which is the main frequency, and another tone a perfect fifth above A2. This creates an undertone an octave below the main frequency. You can observe this phenomenon using two sine generators. If you set one at 110 hz (A2) and another at 165 hz (E3-ish) and play them at the same time, you will get an undertone equivalent to 55 hz (A1).

If you've ever heard of terms like "second" or "third-order subharmonics", it's the same principle, but the ratio that your vocal cords vibrate at changes.

Having a thread with subharmonics in it is quite rare, but it's generally considered countable as long as the singer is able to demontrate decent musical control of the technique. Whether or not it "counts" as hitting the note is a matter of philosophy. If you're hitting an A1 in subharmonics, your vocal cords aren't actually vibrating at 55 hz. But your brain will perceive the note as an A1, and in a musical context, the fact that it isn't "technically" an A1 doesn't really matter.

There was a discussion about this before, but what keeps overtones from getting the same treatment as undertones? I don't mean notes that sound higher due to recording quality, but notes that are a result of controlled and purposeful technique? Low notes get a pass on so many things, with subharmonics where the singer isn't singing anywhere near the undertone, with growls and strong vocal fry notes that also aren't "real", can't be projected and sound pathetic without mic amplification and EQ, yet they get their own color and are counted in many cases, especially for gospel/acapella basses... Low notes seem to get a lot of passes but a metal singer that consistently employs controlled overtones in their technique where even in HD recordings it sounds strongly like a 6th/7th octave note, we police it like crime. The pitch isn't specifically sung either, but in some cases it's definitely a stronger note than many vocal frys we count and is also much harder to do.

Check out Michael Spyres' descent from C5 to C2 :

youtu.be/X5fn_NHoKFE?t=1764

That's without a microphone and although his low notes lose volume as he descends down to D2, the fry C2 at the end picks up volume again. It's not as resonant but he's projecting it as in amplifying it through his body. 

I get a bass vibration feeling after singing a lot of notes below A2, including in my facial muscles. But I can get the same feeling from singing for instance an A1 in fry mode, even though that note is neither loud nor particularly good, for me.

[blazejecar2]

Jan 16, 2023 7:54:12 GMT Steingrim said:

Jan 16, 2023 7:38:44 GMT blazejecar2 said:

There was a discussion about this before, but what keeps overtones from getting the same treatment as undertones? I don't mean notes that sound higher due to recording quality, but notes that are a result of controlled and purposeful technique? Low notes get a pass on so many things, with subharmonics where the singer isn't singing anywhere near the undertone, with growls and strong vocal fry notes that also aren't "real", can't be projected and sound pathetic without mic amplification and EQ, yet they get their own color and are counted in many cases, especially for gospel/acapella basses... Low notes seem to get a lot of passes but a metal singer that consistently employs controlled overtones in their technique where even in HD recordings it sounds strongly like a 6th/7th octave note, we police it like crime. The pitch isn't specifically sung either, but in some cases it's definitely a stronger note than many vocal frys we count and is also much harder to do.

Check out Michael Spyres' descent from C5 to C2 :

youtu.be/X5fn_NHoKFE?t=1764

That's without a microphone and although his low notes lose volume as he descends down to D2, the fry C2 at the end picks up volume again. It's not as resonant but he's projecting it as in amplifying it through his body. 

I get a bass vibration feeling after singing a lot of notes below A2, including in my facial muscles. But I can get the same feeling from singing for instance an A1 in fry mode, even though that note is neither loud nor particularly good, for me.

Here is an example of doing what he himself calls overtone screams in a car, no mic. It's clearly extremely controlled, loud, purposeful and the 6th octave note is mega strong. It's things like this I'm talking about and many metal singers do things like this one way or another. If one can use fry to enhance low notes and it's countable, why can't fry be used to enhance overtones and it's also countable?

[Steingrim]

Jan 16, 2023 8:37:14 GMT blazejecar2 said:

Jan 16, 2023 7:54:12 GMT Steingrim said:

Check out Michael Spyres' descent from C5 to C2 :

youtu.be/X5fn_NHoKFE?t=1764

That's without a microphone and although his low notes lose volume as he descends down to D2, the fry C2 at the end picks up volume again. It's not as resonant but he's projecting it as in amplifying it through his body. 

I get a bass vibration feeling after singing a lot of notes below A2, including in my facial muscles. But I can get the same feeling from singing for instance an A1 in fry mode, even though that note is neither loud nor particularly good, for me.

Here is an example of doing what he himself calls overtone screams in a car, no mic. It's clearly extremely controlled, loud, purposeful and the 6th octave note is mega strong. It's things like this I'm talking about and many metal singers do things like this one way or another. If one can use fry to enhance low notes and it's countable, why can't fry be used to enhance overtones and it's also countable?

The quality of the note in question, obviously. The Tim Storms page has a B0 but he can go several octaves lower than that, and the spectrometer or whatever will come up with notes that are found one piano left of the piano. Anyone can take vocal fry down towards where it barely engages at all. Castellucci demonstrated that in a video with a C#0 that was barely a collection of clicking noises. So it's not really a crazy technique, it's just that vocal fry taken too low can no longer be considered to be musical. Regarding crazy techniques used to produce high pitches, I don't have a strong opinion. If it sounds really good then maybe it should be countable ?

[fox]

Jan 16, 2023 9:31:32 GMT Steingrim said:

...

Hi steingrim, I was wondering if you could recommend a pitch detector that's useful for the low end?

I tried running some test recordings on my phone through FL Studio's detect pitch regions, but it looks like overtones are making it say everything is one octave higher than it should. At least compared to what the guitar tuner says this range of notes usually is (hopefully it's the one that's correct). This morning the tuner was saying I'd hit G1 in chest and I wanted objective evidence.

[Macca]

Mans just legit quote muted Steingrim

[Steingrim]

Feb 6, 2023 14:28:19 GMT fox said:

Jan 16, 2023 9:31:32 GMT Steingrim said:

...

Hi steingrim, I was wondering if you could recommend a pitch detector that's useful for the low end?

I tried running some test recordings on my phone through FL Studio's detect pitch regions, but it looks like overtones are making it say everything is one octave higher than it should. At least compared to what the guitar tuner says this range of notes usually is (hopefully it's the one that's correct). This morning the tuner was saying I'd hit G1 in chest and I wanted objective evidence.

I don't know. I saw Glenn Miller use one that detected his super low notes. The one I've tried liked my subharmonic notes better than it liked my chest notes at the same pitch. Quality and volume may have something to do with the result.

[fox]

Feb 6, 2023 15:07:06 GMT Steingrim said:

I don't know. I saw Glenn Miller use one that detected his super low notes. The one I've tried liked my subharmonic notes better than it liked my chest notes at the same pitch. Quality and volume may have something to do with the result.

Gotcha. I suppose a spectral analyzer might clear this up especially i re overtones but I'll have to search into ones that work (so far the only one that worked only showed ranges of kHz). Not to embarrass myself too much, but what do you think? My take is after I hold on Bb1 for a bit I shift down to see if I can find what it said to be G1 again, wavering between Bb1 and A1 before I find it for a moment, but can't hold it and waver back around Bb1 and A1 again. Nevermind quality 'cause I'm new and wasn't trying to manage how it sounded, just feeling around for that note. Just want to make sure I'm not deluding myself here.

sndup.net/v3mz

[Steingrim]

The G1 and thereafter is clearly fry. It's easy to get over into fry mode if you try to sing a low note that you cannot (at least at the moment) find in your chest voice.

[fox]

Feb 6, 2023 16:58:47 GMT Steingrim said:

The G1 and thereafter is clearly fry. It's easy to get over into fry mode if you try to sing a low note that you cannot (at least at the moment) find in your chest voice.

Ahh thanks, it came as a surprise to me anyhow since it was so much lower than I can usually go, so that makes sense it was just fry. For clarity, that first sustained Bb1 was chest?

[Steingrim]

Feb 6, 2023 17:35:45 GMT fox said:

Ahh thanks, it came as a surprise to me anyhow since it was so much lower than I can usually go, so that makes sense it was just fry. For clarity, that first sustained Bb1 was chest?

Probably. 

[fox]

Cool, I'm just relieved I'm in the right octave. lol I searched more and apparently it can be common for programs like FL to give more weight to the overtones (which are probably louder anyhow). Thanks! :)

[Steingrim]

Feb 6, 2023 18:20:08 GMT fox said:

Cool, I'm just relieved I'm in the right octave. lol I searched more and apparently it can be common for programs like FL to give more weight to the overtones (which are probably louder anyhow). Thanks! :)

If you try singing up a couple of octaves in a scale from your low note, you'll probably figure out which octave you were in, at some point.

[fox]

Feb 6, 2023 20:25:52 GMT Steingrim said:

Feb 6, 2023 18:20:08 GMT fox said:

Cool, I'm just relieved I'm in the right octave. lol I searched more and apparently it can be common for programs like FL to give more weight to the overtones (which are probably louder anyhow). Thanks! :)

If you try singing up a couple of octaves in a scale from your low note, you'll probably figure out which octave you were in, at some point.

Yep normally with the synth I'm in tune with everything, octave by octave, but that overtone thing with FL Studio made me paranoid I'd lost all sense of reality. When I first started I didn't realize I was singing everything one octave lower than the actual songs, so there is precedent. :D

[Steingrim]

Not the best Bb1 in chest voice that I've heard, but it may not be your rock bottom note either. Singing B1 frequently is probably too low for you. Singing mostly in a bass range like E2-E4 may work better - this is just a guess.