|
Post by johneppstein on May 31, 2018 13:05:33 GMT -6
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! I genuinely feel sorry for people who have to make a living by doing remedial mixes of tracks by people who should never have been allowed near a recording device in the first place. And I find it bordering on tragic how profoundly this often (not always) affects their overall outlook on the art of recording and mixing.
Yes, I'm old and Grumpy. Where's Snow White?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on May 31, 2018 13:16:25 GMT -6
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! I genuinely feel sorry for people who have to make a living by doing remedial mixes of tracks by people who should never have been allowed near a recording device in the first place. And I find it bordering on tragic how profoundly this often (not always) affects their overall outlook on the art of recording and mixing.
Yes, I'm old and Grumpy. Where's Snow White?
Yes But at the time it paid quite well.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 31, 2018 13:45:53 GMT -6
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.
It comes down to the type of filter, and how it's executed. Elliptic LPF filters can have high group-delay and strange phase changes at cutoff points but exhibit the sharpest transition between passband and bandcut areas while butterworth LPF filters are generally benign for phase and group delay at the cutoff region but have relatively poor rolloff characteristics. Digital filters can be all over the map.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 31, 2018 14:03:45 GMT -6
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.
It comes down to the type of filter, and how it's executed. Elliptic LPF filters can have high group-delay and strange phase changes at cutoff points but exhibit the sharpest transition between passband and bandcut areas while butterworth LPF filters are generally benign for phase and group delay at the cutoff region but have relatively poor rolloff characteristics. Digital filters can be all over the map. Yep. Like my daddy used to say, "You pays yer money and you takes yer cherce!"*
The thing is, nearly all HPFs have some kind of detrimental effects somewhere in the passband.
* - Dunno who he was quoting, but I've reproduced his use of dialect...
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 31, 2018 14:16:01 GMT -6
It comes down to the type of filter, and how it's executed. Elliptic LPF filters can have high group-delay and strange phase changes at cutoff points but exhibit the sharpest transition between passband and bandcut areas while butterworth LPF filters are generally benign for phase and group delay at the cutoff region but have relatively poor rolloff characteristics. Digital filters can be all over the map. Yep. Like my daddy used to say, "You pays yer money and you takes yer cherce!"*
The thing is, nearly all HPFs have some kind of detrimental effects somewhere in the passband.
* - Dunno who he was quoting, but I've reproduced his use of dialect...
Pretty much any filter has some effect somewhere. The AC coupling of a cap has an inherent HPF effect too which can be used to advantage if accounted for. Variable filters are going to have to be butterworth due to the ease of the RC function in active circuits, but would have to be multiple orders which start to add phase anomalies.. But hey, EQ is just a variable phase add/subtract engine, so it's all wonky at some point. Turn knobs until it works is what I say.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 31, 2018 15:00:03 GMT -6
Yep. Like my daddy used to say, "You pays yer money and you takes yer cherce!"*
The thing is, nearly all HPFs have some kind of detrimental effects somewhere in the passband.
* - Dunno who he was quoting, but I've reproduced his use of dialect...
Pretty much any filter has some effect somewhere. The AC coupling of a cap has an inherent HPF effect too which can be used to advantage if accounted for. Variable filters are going to have to be butterworth due to the ease of the RC function in active circuits, but would have to be multiple orders which start to add phase anomalies.. But hey, EQ is just a variable phase add/subtract engine, so it's all wonky at some point. Turn knobs until it works is what I say. If you have to. It's better to track things to be able to keep the filters out of circuit.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 31, 2018 15:23:37 GMT -6
Funny you should say that John, I've noticed that I almost never EQ anything anymore, except for a little roll off of the low end. I didn't plan it that way, it just started happening. In a way, I get "EQ" from 2 bus plug-ins, UAD's ATR-102, Slate's VBC, Waves L2.
I was using this track to demo the Chandler REDD mic, so there's no EQ at all on anything, just a slight high pass on drums and bass, plus ATR-102 on the 2bus, maybe Waves L2. I should have de-essed or EQ'd the vocal a little because after mastering the vocal sounded more sibilant than it did pre- mastering.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/a-champagne-christmas-1
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on May 31, 2018 17:28:46 GMT -6
Funny you should say that John, I've noticed that I almost never EQ anything anymore, except for a little roll off of the low end. I didn't plan it that way, it just started happening. In a way, I get "EQ" from 2 bus plug-ins, UAD's ATR-102, Slate's VBC, Waves L2. I was using this track to demo the Chandler REDD mic, so there's no EQ at all on anything, just a slight low pass on drums and bass, plus ATR-102 on the 2bus, maybe Waves L2. I should have de-essed or EQ'd the vocal a little because after mastering the vocal sounded more sibilant than it did pre- mastering. https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/a-champagne-christmas-1Sounds great, Martin
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 31, 2018 21:04:49 GMT -6
Coming from you cowboycoalminer, that means a lot to me, thanks. I'm barely adequate on bass, but the Stam SA73 made even me sound tolerable on this track ;-)
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Jun 1, 2018 6:29:31 GMT -6
My main outboard eq is a Neve 8803. It has variable hi and low pass filters on it. Almost 100% of the time, just engaging the hi pass makes things tighter and cleaner. I rarely use the low pass unless I’m going for effect. I do like to low pass electric guitars sometimes. I recorded a band a few weeks ago where the guitar player’s recording amp was a 5 watt solid state Marshall practice amp. It required quite a bit of carving to sound right, and that included some low passing. But I’m with some of the other guys on the thread here. I just try to record as best as possible these days so I don’t have to use filters on the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Jun 1, 2018 8:39:50 GMT -6
There's a fair amount of talk about when and where to high pass in a number of threads, and I wouldn't discourage folks from including HP tips here as well, but I'm mostly interested in when, where, and how much folks use low pass when there's a moderate track count. In my case, it's often a band with drums (usually with 7 or 8 mics), bass, an acoustic and/or electric guitar, piano, lead singer, and some BVs. - but if there are instruments that you wish to add or have tricks for.. Some of my thoughts going in: For those who have dead quiet spaces, this is probably not so much an issue but it seems to me that if you don't LP a good amount of tracks, you're going to have quite the build-up of "air." Assuming you need to use LP to mitigate the problem - where do you go? What do you keep? Do any of you use a combination of LP and high frequency shelving, etc? I use LP quite a bit on individual drum tracks and I also like to pretty severely LP (and HP) my reverb busses, and found that to be helpful, but I'm not sure where else I should be using it. I feel like my mixes are still too dense up top, so I'm looking for additional solutions. Moderators: I'm not sure where to post this, so feel free to move it to a different board. This is a tough one, because it ends up being about the choices some people make during tracking, with a room that is very open sounding. My room is super dead, quiet and sometimes I feel it is "dank/dark" with all the wood. Its a small room, not super small, but its small IMO. This doesn't allow much air. And it doesn't allow much air because I am always using Tube Mics and Ribbon mics and Dynamic mics. I almost never reach for super airy mics or super bright sounds. But, lets say, a Female Vocal, with a Condenser mic, I sometimes LPF at 20K, but almost never less than that. Its either a 20K LP or a Notch-Peak Dip, to remove the harshness. I don't find myself having to deal with the build up of Air, since I use minimalist techniques. But, there are times when I need to roll off the air for sure. But only one or two things in a mix [wherever that happens] I actually have to fight pretty hard to keep things clear and open sometimes. But there is always a balance. Anyway, so I find myself doing this with Condensers on Bright sounds. But very slight. I often dislike the LP filtering and move it to Notch Peaks with insane cuts. That can sound better to me. For whatever reason. Maybe its the knee shape. I typically do this with ultra clean plug ins. I basically never LP on drums or male vocals. Almost always on Bass tracks. No need to have ANY extra energy on those tracks. So I scoot that LP way down towards the middle of the range. There is nothing but junk on it. So, wherever I feel like there is too much junk in the signal, I do it. Like Noisy distorted guitars. The hash fights cymbals and such...But, its WAYYY better to fix that problem at the source. If you can't, you can't...But its a battle to find the balance anyway. These days I feel like people are addicted to "air"...I'm not really into it that much. As long as I have clear, intelligible, focused and audible audio in the track. Im good with having it stay that way. I almost never use Shelfs anymore. The only ones I like are on Hardware Tube EQ's. I tend to stay with the Peak Dip-Bell curve to target the problems way more. Shelfs can work well sometimes for me. But its a rare event. Like I said, I don't like air too much. And even though Low Shelf's can be useful on lower octave material, like a kick that is wimpy, I find it creates more problems than its worth. Unless I have a Tube EQ with a Cut at the same point. So I stay using Peak Dip's with adjustable Q shape. It does less harm to the rest of the signal. Especially notching. Hope this reply helps!
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 1, 2018 15:13:08 GMT -6
Did I ever mention what an absolute JOY it is to be here? I'm seriously grateful to Johnkenn for starting this forum and giving us an alternative to the infighting at GS.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on Jun 1, 2018 20:26:11 GMT -6
Did I ever mention what an absolute JOY it is to be here? I'm seriously grateful to Johnkenn for starting this forum and giving us an alternative to the infighting at GS. True that, couldn’t have put it better.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 3, 2018 7:46:49 GMT -6
Thanks everyone who has participated. This has been a great discussion and really helpful for me. My takeaway(s) so far..
Certainly, and when it comes to EQing in general, "Old and Grumpy" johneppstein has the best advice, and I'd wager no one would disagree with him on this. Paraphrasing him, "Set the mics right in the first place." But there are so many subtle messages hidden in that little piece of advice. For starters, you need to have a strong idea of what the finished product is going to sound like long before you hit record. The instruments have to be in the right space, with the right mics and preamps. In short, you need to be highly skilled and work in a perfect environment. This may not be realistic for many of us mere mortals but still, it's solid advice that speaks volumes. The most important parts of the chain are the ones that come before you even set up the microphone ..the music, the performance, and the space.
Regardless, for many of us the spaces aren't perfect, the equipment chain might be limited or budgeted, and our skills at mic placement, etc may not be exemplary. We need to use the tool. Based on what I've been reading here, there are no "right" answers. In fact, there are even a few divergent philosophies. Some who are use to working in less than ideal rooms and/or recordings come at it from a problem-solving perspective. Some like to carve space - while for others carving space is anathema. When it comes to HP, most people seem to agree (within 10 or 20 hz) about where and how much, but when it comes to LP, the range of disagreement is astounding. I think some of it stems from the argument that there's more noise up there than music, but the whole "what can we hear" and "how do various technologies interpolate sound" debate comes into play.
I'm surprised that the effects of age haven't been discussed. Most of us are at an age where our ability to hear higher frequencies is deteriorating - and for many - it's dramatic. I don't know exactly when it happens, but I'm pretty sure it starts when we're in our early 20's.. I know one thing. If I play a 15k hz tone loud enough so I can reasonably hear it, 13 year old kids in the room freak out and grab their heads like an alien was sucking their brains out. So the whole relative baseline thing comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jun 3, 2018 9:07:11 GMT -6
The loss of high frequency hearing with age is called "presbycusis."
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 3, 2018 13:39:17 GMT -6
The loss of high frequency hearing with age is called "presbycusis." Those Presbyterians are always trying to get in on the audio-evangelists' action
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on Jun 3, 2018 14:36:24 GMT -6
The loss of high frequency hearing with age is called "presbycusis." Those Presbyterians are always trying to get in on the audio-evangelists' action Audio it’s the new religion.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jun 4, 2018 9:23:23 GMT -6
I use LPF for reverb sends. Otherwise, I'm a wideband guy. LPF emulate the hearing losses of those that abused their ears or have aged.
Mixing for the geezers?
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 4, 2018 9:48:23 GMT -6
I use LPF for reverb sends. Otherwise, I'm a wideband guy. LPF emulate the hearing losses of those that abused their ears or have aged. Mixing for the geezers? I'm thinking just the opposite, or am I misunderstanding you? You would think that geezers would be pumping up the air to make up for their hearing losses - not low passing.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 4, 2018 11:38:03 GMT -6
I use LPF for reverb sends. Otherwise, I'm a wideband guy. LPF emulate the hearing losses of those that abused their ears or have aged. Mixing for the geezers? Or for sources that you want to sound distant or back in the mix. Or for mics that are screachingly bright from the Chinese manufacturers. Or for those who want to place things in different spaces in the mix. Come on Jim. There's a hundred legit uses for LPF's even if you don't like em. Maybe NOT using LPF's if for guys who's hearing is gone? :-) Had your hearing checked lately? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Jun 19, 2018 22:57:53 GMT -6
I do LP filter from time to time. I've noticed that some of my favorite sounds on older records were ones where there were no extraneous frequencies happening. A bass for example, perfectly tucked in (whether by the instrument, gear naturally or by an engineer or both, I don't know) to it's range. No unnecessary highs there picking up hiss, no big subs for no good reason. Just a damn fine bass from low to upper mids. Same for guitars, drums... whatever. So I have had some success tucking in sounds. You can get a well defined mix that way. I love Doc's method. Whats the harm in low passing the way you high pass? I have tried in the past to do the Al Schmitt no EQ thing, and on certain mixes yea it works. But it's not a rule I stick to. Go ahead and high and low pass for starters. You might not need much else.
|
|