|
Post by stormymondays on May 30, 2018 12:21:04 GMT -6
I use Console 1 with the stock SSL desk.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 30, 2018 12:28:21 GMT -6
Brads Chop Shop, api 215 with a SLL red dot!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 30, 2018 13:14:20 GMT -6
ITB I use the filters in the stock MOTU EQ, which give 6/12/18/24/30/36 dB slope options. OTB I have some Sallen-Key topology filters I designed which I'll use when tracking.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 30, 2018 13:16:21 GMT -6
I like to leave things full range usually, but then low pass on certain things that are annoying.. Like overly bright overheads, or crisp room mics.. I'll low pass at 10k +/- 5khz, often 7k is my go to. My theorey is getting rid of top end pushes things further away, boosting some top brings them closer. So I'll often do this instead of fader moves. For a certain mainstream drum thing I'll gate the close mics with boosted top to get attack, while overheads are pushed way back in level and rolled off so cymbals aren't stealing the mix. Then blend in some rolled off room mics for some depth. Reverbs and delays I almost always use low pass very agressively. I don't like much reverb in tweeters unless it's a production choice. Although surf new wave and post punk are some of my fav genres, so I break my own rules constantly.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 30, 2018 13:50:29 GMT -6
Generally speaking, I don't. I just EQ things the way I hear them. And I try to set mics for the sound I want.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on May 30, 2018 14:29:06 GMT -6
I don't know the answer, but have posited this question at times:
Is one of the reasons I like the sound of using all, or mostly, transformer balanced mic preamps on a project partly because the in out and output transformers are acting as gentle filters on all my audio?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 30, 2018 14:41:58 GMT -6
I don't know the answer, but have posited this question at times: Is one of the reasons I like the sound of using all, or mostly, transformer balanced mic preamps on a project partly because the in out and output transformers are acting as gentle filters on all my audio? The filtering is mostly out of band as far as direct frequency response effects, even with really ancient preamps but phase non-linearity may be much greater. Analog and simulated analog filters generate as much or more phase non-linearity.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on May 30, 2018 15:05:24 GMT -6
I don't know the answer, but have posited this question at times: Is one of the reasons I like the sound of using all, or mostly, transformer balanced mic preamps on a project partly because the in out and output transformers are acting as gentle filters on all my audio? The filtering is mostly out of band as far as direct frequency response effects, even with really ancient preamps but phase non-linearity may be much greater. Analog and simulated analog filters generate as much or more phase non-linearity. Interesting, thanks Doug. I have some OEP input transformers for an unfinished project somewhere that, as I recall, start rolling off around 40Hz, which is what got me thinking about this. I guess that's more exception than rule compared to, say, Lundahls and Jensens etc.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 30, 2018 16:33:52 GMT -6
I use low pass filtering on a ton of synth stuff, and occasionally for creative use on a bass or something (with a Filter Freak maybe). This is just a very rudimentary techniuque from analog synthesis.
Many times on a bass guitar you can use a Pultec and bring down the filter on the far right. On a Pultec style EQ, in general, this knob sometimes becomes useful, and it is right there.
Once in a while, on a mix, in small amounts.
More often than not, I will use a downward high shelf if I need to tame things on the top of something. Or the Oekworks Soothe plugin, I used that on the last mix/master I did, and it saved a couple of songs.
I've also been doing some filtering with the stock Cubase channel EQ lately. Low and high. It's built into the DAW so it's very convenient. Along with polarity, clip gain, etc.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 30, 2018 17:57:04 GMT -6
With HD, nearly never. With 44.1 "home grown" tracks? A LOT....no high end is better than "unnatural/wrong high end".
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 30, 2018 18:08:44 GMT -6
Popman, can you elaborate? What about 48K? So, 96k, no LPF for you?
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on May 31, 2018 3:03:48 GMT -6
I use it on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, bass, kick, snare....... etc. Anything I know does't occupy that space and I always LPF and HPF it within it's range of "speaking." Also you can find the corner freq and go a tad too much and then give a little boost if the eq does something nice in the high-end, I like doing that a lot. The Soundtoys Sie Q has a really nice top end, sometimes on the snare I'll cut a bit too far and after the LPF and crank the hell out of that Sie Q plugin, sounds great.
You can call it wrong I guess, but there's only so much bandwidth and there's tons of stuff up there you can't really hear, or don't even listen for that is there. One of the big things in the female pop country thing now is just shitloads of air on the main vox..... So I'll usually put the T-Racks SSL channel plug on near about every track, then HPF/LPF, get the air happening on the vocals and then using that eq to carve because it's great at carving or notching as well. I've always loved the filters on an SSL and the T-Racks stuff is really good IMO. Of course, if you have the Harrison 32eq those filters are even better. The Fabfiler Pro Q has great filters, even the stock 1 band Digi EQ's LPF/HPF sounds good honestly.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on May 31, 2018 4:39:57 GMT -6
Its usually error correction for tracking mistakes, like cleaning up spill in Tom mics or getting rid of some hat on the snare mic.
For style reasons low passing electric guitar or bass can be cool if you want good guitar-cymbal separation. I did a Doom type record recently and we found this helped the drums feel more distinct from the blown out guitars.But on my bands own album I went for dark, ribbony drum sounds and Km184s on the guitar cabs cause we wanted them bright and jagged. It's really about *how* you want the bits to fit together.
It's also a good effect utility, low passing before hitting a distortion or low passing before/after a reverb or even on a drum parallel. I still use it much less than high pass filtering, which still isn't much.
Re: tapeyness. Meh, I doubt anyone making a record was delighted to hear back a project on an LP with the top and bottom cut.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 31, 2018 6:17:21 GMT -6
I use it on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, bass, kick, snare....... etc. Anything I know does't occupy that space and I always LPF and HPF it within it's range of "speaking." Also you can find the corner freq and go a tad too much and then give a little boost if the eq does something nice in the high-end, I like doing that a lot. The Soundtoys Sie Q has a really nice top end, sometimes on the snare I'll cut a bit too far and after the LPF and crank the hell out of that Sie Q plugin, sounds great. You can call it wrong I guess, but there's only so much bandwidth and there's tons of stuff up there you can't really hear, or don't even listen for that is there. One of the big things in the female pop country thing now is just shitloads of air on the main vox..... So I'll usually put the T-Racks SSL channel plug on near about every track, then HPF/LPF, get the air happening on the vocals and then using that eq to carve because it's great at carving or notching as well. I've always loved the filters on an SSL and the T-Racks stuff is really good IMO. Of course, if you have the Harrison 32eq those filters are even better. The Fabfiler Pro Q has great filters, even the stock 1 band Digi EQ's LPF/HPF sounds good honestly. JJP has said some of the same things you have mentioned above, and further stated that a lot of audio real estate can be occupied by sound that isn't even there, like in the form of hiss or rumble that contributes nothing but unwanted noise. Also overheard in a mastering lab: By HPing at 30hz and LPing at 18Khz, you can increase your overall headroom Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 31, 2018 6:17:40 GMT -6
Most folks here seem to only do filtering to fix an issue, or generally get noise out..
I almost never filter for those reasons, rather I do filtering to create space for other instruments. LPF on bass gives your guitars and cymbals and vocals room in the mix. LPF on guitars gives your cymbals and vocals room, etc. HPF on guitar gives bass and kick a place to live. HPF on anything in the background clears up mud, etc.
You can do a lot with filtering that allows you to use less EQ all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 31, 2018 6:28:19 GMT -6
I use it on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, bass, kick, snare....... etc. Anything I know does't occupy that space and I always LPF and HPF it within it's range of "speaking." Also you can find the corner freq and go a tad too much and then give a little boost if the eq does something nice in the high-end, I like doing that a lot. The Soundtoys Sie Q has a really nice top end, sometimes on the snare I'll cut a bit too far and after the LPF and crank the hell out of that Sie Q plugin, sounds great. You can call it wrong I guess, but there's only so much bandwidth and there's tons of stuff up there you can't really hear, or don't even listen for that is there. One of the big things in the female pop country thing now is just shitloads of air on the main vox..... So I'll usually put the T-Racks SSL channel plug on near about every track, then HPF/LPF, get the air happening on the vocals and then using that eq to carve because it's great at carving or notching as well. I've always loved the filters on an SSL and the T-Racks stuff is really good IMO. Of course, if you have the Harrison 32eq those filters are even better. The Fabfiler Pro Q has great filters, even the stock 1 band Digi EQ's LPF/HPF sounds good honestly. JJP has said some of the same things you have mentioned above, and further stated that a lot of audio real estate can be occupied by sound that isn't even there, like in the form of hiss or rumble that contributes nothing but unwanted noise. Also overheard in a mastering lab: By HPing at 30hz and LPing at 18Khz, you can increase your overall headroom Thoughts? the HPF for sure will add headroom. Headroom is frequency variable. Most amplifiers have a harder time reproducing low frequencies due to the amount of power needed. The lower the frequency, the harder the amp works. An amp that's working harder than average always has a harder time reproducing higher frequencies, thus reducing headroom as you increase in frequency. Cutting out the rumble will significantly ease the burden of the amps, while only minimally changing the audio. For the LPF, I'm not sure that it's saving headroom per se, but simply conserving bandwidth. *Some* people might be able to hear to 20K, but most can't hear above 15K, and most people aren't interested in anything above about 10K anyway. I'd read somewhere that some of the pros rarely concern themselves with anything above 10K, and focus on making things clear in the 7-10K region. Honestly in my experience, I'm starting to believe this pretty heavily. I've noticed that my rough mixes always end up with way more above 10-12K than the pro mixes I hear and I have to work to get things more in line. I've also found that instead of any boosting above 5K or so, if I have issues with intelligibility, then it's usually a case where I need to LPF something else to clear out the frequency range, rather than boost anything on the top end.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 31, 2018 7:48:58 GMT -6
JJP has said some of the same things you have mentioned above, and further stated that a lot of audio real estate can be occupied by sound that isn't even there, like in the form of hiss or rumble that contributes nothing but unwanted noise. Also overheard in a mastering lab: By HPing at 30hz and LPing at 18Khz, you can increase your overall headroom Thoughts? the HPF for sure will add headroom. Headroom is frequency variable. Most amplifiers have a harder time reproducing low frequencies due to the amount of power needed. The lower the frequency, the harder the amp works. An amp that's working harder than average always has a harder time reproducing higher frequencies, thus reducing headroom as you increase in frequency. Cutting out the rumble will significantly ease the burden of the amps, while only minimally changing the audio. For the LPF, I'm not sure that it's saving headroom per se, but simply conserving bandwidth. *Some* people might be able to hear to 20K, but most can't hear above 15K, and most people aren't interested in anything above about 10K anyway. I'd read somewhere that some of the pros rarely concern themselves with anything above 10K, and focus on making things clear in the 7-10K region. Honestly in my experience, I'm starting to believe this pretty heavily. I've noticed that my rough mixes always end up with way more above 10-12K than the pro mixes I hear and I have to work to get things more in line. I've also found that instead of any boosting above 5K or so, if I have issues with intelligibility, then it's usually a case where I need to LPF something else to clear out the frequency range, rather than boost anything on the top end. So much of the HF crap that eats headroom comes from less than ideal tracking spaces, and your right most don’t hear it, but it’s there. For instance I have figured out that in my new place the AC has a whistle at 17K. I noticed something than used a RTA and then recording the noise and pitching it down a couple of octaves. I’m still a believer in analog filters simply because during tracking once you print to digital or tape you can’t get the headroom back. One of the worst intermittent HF things to deal with is sirens, the Doppler effect can make it creep into an otherwise perfect take!
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 31, 2018 9:08:08 GMT -6
Popman, can you elaborate? What about 48K? So, 96k, no LPF for you? No. I can't swear it's never happened, but as Svart pointed out, I use it as problem solving, the way my teachers would've used it a prophylactic (and destructively IMO/E) problem solver. I don't believe in "making space" with EQ. But, I get that it's a popular technique to use. I think though, that's come a lot in the era of reinventing what it means MIX a multitrack at all. That's changed now that musicians are recording themselves....and it's simply "the time when every production decision will be made". #GeritolShotWorthy
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on May 31, 2018 9:22:39 GMT -6
I use it on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, bass, kick, snare....... etc. Anything I know does't occupy that space and I always LPF and HPF it within it's range of "speaking." Also you can find the corner freq and go a tad too much and then give a little boost if the eq does something nice in the high-end, I like doing that a lot. The Soundtoys Sie Q has a really nice top end, sometimes on the snare I'll cut a bit too far and after the LPF and crank the hell out of that Sie Q plugin, sounds great. You can call it wrong I guess, but there's only so much bandwidth and there's tons of stuff up there you can't really hear, or don't even listen for that is there. One of the big things in the female pop country thing now is just shitloads of air on the main vox..... So I'll usually put the T-Racks SSL channel plug on near about every track, then HPF/LPF, get the air happening on the vocals and then using that eq to carve because it's great at carving or notching as well. I've always loved the filters on an SSL and the T-Racks stuff is really good IMO. Of course, if you have the Harrison 32eq those filters are even better. The Fabfiler Pro Q has great filters, even the stock 1 band Digi EQ's LPF/HPF sounds good honestly. JJP has said some of the same things you have mentioned above, and further stated that a lot of audio real estate can be occupied by sound that isn't even there, like in the form of hiss or rumble that contributes nothing but unwanted noise. Also overheard in a mastering lab: By HPing at 30hz and LPing at 18Khz, you can increase your overall headroom Thoughts? Yeah, for sure. All the mastering guys I know HP around there, it depends on the music, but I live in a world of Country, so it's always done. They also LP too..... It's best just to do it on the tracks..... It makes them sound better.... You can push a guitar harder if it's HPF/LPF and you're getting out of the way for things that need that space like rich verbs or cymbals. I filter more as an EQ. The tracks I get are so good and amazingly recorded HPF/LPF is usually all it takes. Maybe some cut/boost to clear or give authority but most these guys are tracking with such high end gear that it's all already done. I was telling Randy the other day it seems the more I climb the ladder in this business the easier it is to mix the damn things...
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 31, 2018 9:29:40 GMT -6
it seems the more I climb the ladder in this business the easier it is to mix the damn things... Ain't it the truth. Well done tracking can almost get a flat fader mix.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 31, 2018 9:31:58 GMT -6
Popman, can you elaborate? What about 48K? So, 96k, no LPF for you? No. I can't swear it's never happened, but as Svart pointed out, I use it as problem solving, the way my teachers would've used it a prophylactic (and destructively IMO/E) problem solver. I don't believe in "making space" with EQ. But, I get that it's a popular technique to use. I think though, that's come a lot in the era of reinventing what it means MIX a multitrack at all. That's changed now that musicians are recording themselves....and it's simply "the time when every production decision will be made". #GeritolShotWorthy Sometimes fixing an issue *is* creating space. I just did an audition mix for a client who wants something like 12 songs mixed, and another 6 recorded. They had struggled with their DIY mixing for months before deciding to shop the mixing around. The tracks I got sent were a mess. Total. Mess. Salvageable, but still a far cry from what a pro studio would have put out. Comb filtering was being created in the mix from the bleed between the instruments in the untreated room. Also a ton of muddy buildup. When I asked about the room, the reply was they "liked the liveliness", but I digress. The solution was to heavily filter everything. I trimmed everything with HP and LP to the bare minimum and that got rid of a lot of the bleed creating comb filtering and mud. Everything else was a ton of EQ cuts to fix various resonances. I shouldn't have had to do all this, but I'm happy I could produce something a lot better for them from the tracks, and since they tracked back-to-back songs, I can use the majority of my template for most of the mixes, and just automate things. I think they'll be a lot happier when we track their new songs and I won't have to resort to crazy filtering, but in this case the fixing with filters was the same as creating the space between instruments.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 31, 2018 9:33:55 GMT -6
it seems the more I climb the ladder in this business the easier it is to mix the damn things... Ain't it the truth. Well done tracking can almost get a flat fader mix. Agreed. I did some stuff that came from a pro tracking engineer and it was almost effortless. Too bad that most of the bands these days believe that they should track themselves and get someone else to mix it.. When it should be the other way around if anything at all..
|
|
|
Post by ulriggribbons on May 31, 2018 9:52:27 GMT -6
The first console I owned (Sony MXP-3020) had sweepable high pass/low pass on every channel, and I used those a lot more than the channel eq.
Not having those filters(when I sold the console) is what led to the design of the Guillotine EQ (the design is totally different, but the function was what I was after).
So I used them more along the lines of svart, clearing space to keep tracks from fighting with each other.
$.02
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 31, 2018 10:09:45 GMT -6
JJP has said some of the same things you have mentioned above, and further stated that a lot of audio real estate can be occupied by sound that isn't even there, like in the form of hiss or rumble that contributes nothing but unwanted noise. Also overheard in a mastering lab: By HPing at 30hz and LPing at 18Khz, you can increase your overall headroom Thoughts? Yeah, for sure. All the mastering guys I know HP around there, it depends on the music, but I live in a world of Country, so it's always done. They also LP too..... It's best just to do it on the tracks..... It makes them sound better.... You can push a guitar harder if it's HPF/LPF and you're getting out of the way for things that need that space like rich verbs or cymbals. I filter more as an EQ. The tracks I get are so good and amazingly recorded HPF/LPF is usually all it takes. Maybe some cut/boost to clear or give authority but most these guys are tracking with such high end gear that it's all already done. I was telling Randy the other day it seems the more I climb the ladder in this business the easier it is to mix the damn things... Yeah when I was specializing in saving projects by guys who had dived in the deep end of home recording and finding they were over their heads it was some of the hardest work I have ever done! Even just working with truly talented singers and players on simple projects is just so much easier and more fun!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 31, 2018 12:59:09 GMT -6
JJP has said some of the same things you have mentioned above, and further stated that a lot of audio real estate can be occupied by sound that isn't even there, like in the form of hiss or rumble that contributes nothing but unwanted noise. Also overheard in a mastering lab: By HPing at 30hz and LPing at 18Khz, you can increase your overall headroom Thoughts? the HPF for sure will add headroom. Headroom is frequency variable. Most amplifiers have a harder time reproducing low frequencies due to the amount of power needed. The lower the frequency, the harder the amp works. An amp that's working harder than average always has a harder time reproducing higher frequencies, thus reducing headroom as you increase in frequency. Cutting out the rumble will significantly ease the burden of the amps, while only minimally changing the audio. For the LPF, I'm not sure that it's saving headroom per se, but simply conserving bandwidth. *Some* people might be able to hear to 20K, but most can't hear above 15K, and most people aren't interested in anything above about 10K anyway. I'd read somewhere that some of the pros rarely concern themselves with anything above 10K, and focus on making things clear in the 7-10K region. Honestly in my experience, I'm starting to believe this pretty heavily. I've noticed that my rough mixes always end up with way more above 10-12K than the pro mixes I hear and I have to work to get things more in line. I've also found that instead of any boosting above 5K or so, if I have issues with intelligibility, then it's usually a case where I need to LPF something else to clear out the frequency range, rather than boost anything on the top end. Using a HPF to remove rumble and other subsonics is definitely beneficial when needed - it can take considerable strain off both the amp and the speakers and increase overall headroom. However I think that a lot of people overdo it but HPFing when it's not needed, often not understanding that a filter generally has measureable and noticeable effects significantly beyond its stated cutoff, which is generally the -3dB point.
I'm skeptical about the reverrse, the use of routine low-pass filtering. Even if a listener can't consciously hear above a given frequency, say 15k, inmformation abover that point has an effect on waveforms with significantly lower fundamentals and those effects - some call them artifacts, which I don't entirely agree with - are perceptible, if not as pitches then as subtle differences in tone quality/timbre as well as in psychoacoustic cueing which contributes to perceived spatial effects.
A somewhat unsubtle example of this is the widely observed fact that the Nyquest filtering on many early CD releases made cymbals sound funny.
I also don't think it's entirely valid to talk about what people "care about", bandwidth-wise; most people don't think in those terms, and even if they do they're not sufficiently sophisticated to fully understand what's going on.
|
|