Yup, exactly. If this site alone is any indication of what's happening out there, then people are intentionally cutting and carving and compressing just because they think they're supposed to. "Oh god, cut out everything below 300hz so the low end isn't too boomy!". "We gotta carve out this range for the kick, and this range for the bass, and this range for the tambourine". Fucking dumb. It's monkey see monkey do because that kind of idiotic misinformation gets repeated ad nauseam on the internet. Or it's "I like this guy, and he does this, so I'm going to do it too". That kind of retardedness seems to happen a lot as well. No one seems to think it's a problem. People on internet message boards have buried the lead. What these people should be focusing on is just recording better tracks. Instead of spending more time on fixing garbage, spend more time on tracking better sounds. But I know that's not the sexy magic plug-in answer people want.
LPF/HPF on 'lectric geetars...
- Thread starter Armistice
- Start date
- Status
Yup, exactly. If this site alone is any indication of what's happening out there, then people are intentionally cutting and carving and compressing just because they think they're supposed to. "Oh god, cut out everything below 300hz so the low end isn't too boomy!". "We gotta carve out this range for the kick, and this range for the bass, and this range for the tambourine". Fucking dumb. It's monkey see monkey do because that kind of idiotic misinformation gets repeated ad nauseam on the internet. Or it's "I like this guy, and he does this, so I'm going to do it too". That kind of retardedness seems to happen a lot as well. No one seems to think it's a problem. People on internet message boards have buried the lead. What these people should be focusing on is just recording better tracks. Instead of spending more time on fixing garbage, spend more time on tracking better sounds. But I know that's not the sexy magic plug-in answer people want.
Like mentioned, you may want to watch out for phase issues ...
When I'm doing a lot of HPF in a session I'm using Waves Linear Phase EQ rather than say the Q10 or others, in order to keep things coherent.
I'll also use the Linear Phase EQ when I'm working with paired mics, like Top and Bottom Snare .... can be a real life saver
When I'm doing a lot of HPF in a session I'm using Waves Linear Phase EQ rather than say the Q10 or others, in order to keep things coherent.
I'll also use the Linear Phase EQ when I'm working with paired mics, like Top and Bottom Snare .... can be a real life saver
DM60
Well-known member
Greg you are so funny, but so right. Bass, Mid, and Treble are EQ settings at the amp source. I hate to always agree with him, but facts are facts! Room plays into it and sometimes you can't change that at the source.
The primary reason to use EQ, for a track, to get some of the room artifacts out of the source, fix minor issues, and to get everything to sit better together in the mix (master track). After that, it is putting lipstick on a pig (I'm not saying I don't use lipstick, but it still that).
The primary reason to use EQ, for a track, to get some of the room artifacts out of the source, fix minor issues, and to get everything to sit better together in the mix (master track). After that, it is putting lipstick on a pig (I'm not saying I don't use lipstick, but it still that).
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
Most of what gonzo actually wrote was some nonsense about phase and artifacts and that dreaded DAW math. My Soundcraft Ghost has an HPF on every channel, and I used them just as often as I use ReaEQ now. Analog filters have the same "phase problems" as their counterparts in the digital realm. Wasn't a problem in hardware, and it's not a problem in software.
Of course we should be shooting to actually capture exactly what we need for the mix, but there are all kinds of reasons - especially in a the varied environments that homerecordists inhabit - why that can't or won't happen, and there is no reason to be afraid of EQing to get what you need.
Have you ever noticed that the Bass knob on your overdriven amp has an impact on what you hear in the mids and highs? The overtones of the bass freqs extend up into the mids, but more importantly, the mids and highs kind of ride on top of the bass and get more distorted themselves. Maybe you hate that tone and would never do it on purpose, but what if it was exactly what you needed? Or rather, the mids and highs are doing exactly what you want, but there's way too much bass to actually fit where you need it. And unfortunately the right mic position for the mids and highs is right there up against the cone with a dynamic. Tried backing it off to get rid of proximity, swapping mics, whatever...doesn't sound right unless it's jammed up on the cone. So now what?
Sometimes it's just necessary, and there's no shame in that.
I've been hearing a lot more people advocating shelving over passing lately. I tend to be fiercely protective of both my subs and my tweeters. Those are VIP areas and we don't let any old riff-raff in there. I'm also unreasonably paranoid that subsonic frequencies are eating up my headroom. Those super low frequencies can come from a lot of sources - sub harmonics from power supply noise, modulation effects, elephants in the vicinty... You can't hear them, but they're sometimes just fucking huge! I am absolutely sure that I make it out to be a bigger deal than it is, but all I need is a high pass here and there (and my tinfoil hat) to feel better.
Sometimes shelving works, but sometimes there's no baby in the bath water, or it's an ugly little brat.
Of course we should be shooting to actually capture exactly what we need for the mix, but there are all kinds of reasons - especially in a the varied environments that homerecordists inhabit - why that can't or won't happen, and there is no reason to be afraid of EQing to get what you need.
Have you ever noticed that the Bass knob on your overdriven amp has an impact on what you hear in the mids and highs? The overtones of the bass freqs extend up into the mids, but more importantly, the mids and highs kind of ride on top of the bass and get more distorted themselves. Maybe you hate that tone and would never do it on purpose, but what if it was exactly what you needed? Or rather, the mids and highs are doing exactly what you want, but there's way too much bass to actually fit where you need it. And unfortunately the right mic position for the mids and highs is right there up against the cone with a dynamic. Tried backing it off to get rid of proximity, swapping mics, whatever...doesn't sound right unless it's jammed up on the cone. So now what?
Sometimes it's just necessary, and there's no shame in that.
I've been hearing a lot more people advocating shelving over passing lately. I tend to be fiercely protective of both my subs and my tweeters. Those are VIP areas and we don't let any old riff-raff in there. I'm also unreasonably paranoid that subsonic frequencies are eating up my headroom. Those super low frequencies can come from a lot of sources - sub harmonics from power supply noise, modulation effects, elephants in the vicinty... You can't hear them, but they're sometimes just fucking huge! I am absolutely sure that I make it out to be a bigger deal than it is, but all I need is a high pass here and there (and my tinfoil hat) to feel better.
Sometimes shelving works, but sometimes there's no baby in the bath water, or it's an ugly little brat.
Brian Miller
New member
You'll find as many guys on one side of this argument as on the other. Plenty of world class engineers advocate HPF, and as many others don't use it at all. There is plenty of low end rumble that comes from recording with a mic, even when it's tracked properly and with the mix in mind. Many guys prefer to get rid of it and leave the low end (80-120hz and below) for the bass instruments to fill in. I prefer cleaner, tighter mixes where each instrument has properly their place, and one of the ways to do that is liberal use of HPF on non-bass instruments. The key is to use your ears to find the right spot. You want the guitars and the bass to have some crossover frequencies so that they interact, but not so much that they compete.
Others do it differently. This isn't about tracking properly or using HPF as a fix.
Brian Miller
New member
Before the era of massive digital compression, brickwall limiting, and the loudness war as we know it today, you could have more low end build up (older recordings sound darker by and large if you listen to the original, non re-mastered versions) because you didn't need to conserve energy for slamming stuff into compression and limiters.
If you're going to produce commercial releases today, you have to mix with the master in mind. And commercial loudness mastering is going to slam compressors and limiters. Low end energy eats it up fastest, a proven fact. So if you mix with this in mind, for better or for worse, you have to be protective of that low end.
I don't like how hot recordings are now. I don't like how bright they are. I hate that they all seems to have boosts in the harshness range to give even *more* perceived loudness. But that's the industry. If you're just mixing for yourself and your own releases, then do whatever. But if you're mixing for commercial release, this is something you have to consider.
Schwarzenyaeger
Formerly "Dog-In-Door"
But when they are, they are a problem, yes?
Clipping is also an artifact of turning up the gain and isn't a problem until it's a problem...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well...for the guys that don't use it at all...and they're "world class engineers"....that kinda makes my point, that it's not a necessity *by default*, which is how many people approach it these days...they just apply the filters....period.
I look at it this way (and I'm not talking about "mic rumble", stuff down in the 40Hz sub range)...I'm saying that if an instrument has something in a given range, and it extends down to the LFs....then I'm not going to just slash a chunk of it out, JUST to make room for another instrument in that same range.
Heck, there's people cutting all the stuff out at 250 and below....you take out all the balls out of a guitar has when you do that.
There my be a balancing done between them so the instruments better coexist, sure....but to simply HPF at given point across all my guitar tracks as a regular mixing approach.....naaaaa.
Brian Miller
New member
And I totally hear you. I'm not talking about slashing 200hz and below on the primary electric guitar tracks. If they're driving the entire song, that's not the place to cut. But if you've got electrics, acoustics, pianos, this, that, etc in a busy mix (I mix a lot of dense acoustic/alternative rock) then you've got to make room somewhere. A lot of those supporting electrics get HPF up from 150-250hz.
If I'm mixing a straight up rock tune with two overdrive guitars, bass, and drums, then it's a totally different story. It's all about the mix.
GONZO-X
Well-known member
shoot, i thought i made it perfectly clear!!
LOL, read it again.
what it all implies is getting it right from the source.
but this is beginner's knowledge, really.
why mic up mud?
why mic up harsh?
if you are eq'ing like crazy to fix bad source, and if you cannot hear the artifacts happening,
i would question your monitoring and setup.
i never throw 'red herrings', i'm only trying to help the OP.
other folks have other agendas with all the vitriol, in the end, i just want to hear your recordings, to see if you know what you are talking about.
it's one thing to argue a point, it's another to say 'heres an example of what i'm going for, does it work for you?"
Brian Miller
New member
We're not talking about miking up mud, or harsh. Or even "EQing like crazy to fix bad source." We're talking about fitting all the instruments cleanly, in the digital age (like it or not that's where we are), in the mix. Particularly in a busy or dense mix. There's nothing wrong with low frequencies, but you can only have so much of them before the entire low end of the song gets bogged down. So you can HPF the supporting electrics (and other instruments) that don't need it to make more room for clear, powerful bass and lower end of the song's primary instruments. It's a tool for mixing, not fixing. Hey that's rhymes!
Schwarzenyaeger
Formerly "Dog-In-Door"
Hey you know what? Record appropriate sounds and they fit together no problem. Even in "the digital age"! There's no need to fit them together like an EQ jigsaw puzzle.
kindafishy
Member
Couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately, the "digital age" also appear to be the "rampant misinformation age", which means that sometimes it takes a long time to get to the point of making that realization. What should have been a sound principle from day 1 becomes a discovery sometimes years into the journey. I speak from experience.
The sooner this epiphany hits someone, the better.
I learned a lot very quickly by following advice I found all over the internet. Unfortunately, as I gained experience, I had to unlearn a lot of it because it was misinformation delivered by well meaning, but ultimately misrepresented people who really should not have been giving advice as if it was authoritative.
To echo and rephrase some great advice I am seeing in this thread, don't do anything by default. However, don't go to the other extreme either. Try to get it at the source. If you didn't, but you have the opportunity, try again. If for whatever reason, you cannot, then there are tools there to help improve the way a track works in the mix. Do not to reach for any tool, be it an EQ or a compressor or anything else as an automatic response to seeing a track with no inserts, and don't do anything because it is the way it is "supposed" to be done.
Listen, evaluate, react.
Armistice
Son of Yoda
I get what you're saying fishy, but where's the line between doing something from experience and doing it by default?
Lots of people here do pretty much everything by default up until it hits the DAW, because they know what works, and how to get the sounds they need and I'm betting there's a few gain / EQ knobs on amps that don't get much rotation these days...
If you're mixing other people's stuff, then clearly you don't immediately go "default" - but if you've created the sounds yourself, there's a chance that you might "by default"/ by experience know how to treat them at mixdown...
Lots of people here do pretty much everything by default up until it hits the DAW, because they know what works, and how to get the sounds they need and I'm betting there's a few gain / EQ knobs on amps that don't get much rotation these days...
If you're mixing other people's stuff, then clearly you don't immediately go "default" - but if you've created the sounds yourself, there's a chance that you might "by default"/ by experience know how to treat them at mixdown...
Schwarzenyaeger
Formerly "Dog-In-Door"
That's a good point.
Most people have a default setting for recording something such as a drumset they set up once and never touch again in their life. The default just shifts from the mixing to the recording.
Experience can tell you that there is nothing good going at the 50Hz range on a standard tuned guitar. You might as well HPF it just go rid of any rumble.
Most people have a default setting for recording something such as a drumset they set up once and never touch again in their life. The default just shifts from the mixing to the recording.
Experience can tell you that there is nothing good going at the 50Hz range on a standard tuned guitar. You might as well HPF it just go rid of any rumble.
kindafishy
Member
I get what you're saying fishy, but where's the line between doing something from experience and doing it by default?
Lots of people here do pretty much everything by default up until it hits the DAW, because they know what works, and how to get the sounds they need and I'm betting there's a few gain / EQ knobs on amps that don't get much rotation these days...
If you're mixing other people's stuff, then clearly you don't immediately go "default" - but if you've created the sounds yourself, there's a chance that you might "by default"/ by experience know how to treat them at mixdown...
Well, I think that is applying the word default to two different concepts, one being doing something because other people said so and doing it because your own experience tells you to do it. I think there is a difference between "default because I have learned how it works" and "default because the recording evolution blogger guy said so". It is a matter of deriving a position of knowledge or even self-perceived authority on a subject by practical understanding vs. theoretical understanding.
I don't use Channel 1 on my amp because I have learned that I prefer the tone of Channel 2. I did not learn this from watching youtube.
I applied HP to the bass on my latest track because it was recorded DI and too much low end signal was captured (as can be typical with DI). I did not do this because I read on the DUC forum that I was supposed to.
My funky guitar tracks got no HP because I liked what was down there. I didn't avoid doing it because an engineer who posts at The Womb scoffs at people who HP.
So, default is not bad, depending on how you arrived at the default behaviour. That is the key.
What I don't do, is put a HP on a track because "I don't hear anything down there so it won't hurt to put it there". Dozens of tiny moves always add up to differences in a mix. I don't want to inadvertently take away good stuff from the bottom of a mix and then wonder why my mix doesn't have as much power as my "faders up" recording session did. That's not to say that I won't HP. I will! I will only do it if I am listening to the whole mix and I come to the conclusion that certain tracks need HP to clean up the bottom of my mix, and only then, will I apply it.
That's just my approach, so I'm not suggesting that it is right for anyone else but me. That's just what I do (or don't do, as it were).
Edit: Yeah, Greg just said what I just said, but he did so in one sentence.
- Status