Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[craig boychuk]

I was wondering how many of you folks would remove low end so that you can get more level out of a track? I know many feel that MB comp changes things too much, so I assume some of you will have the same opinion on this. Do any of you do this as a matter of course, or just when necessary? Is it more acceptable to remove extreme low end - say 20Hz and lower - than 30 or 40Hz and lower? Is what you gain worth messing with the balance of the track?

Or, do you only remove LF to increase clairity?

I'm curious as to everyone's opinions / techniques / comments.

Thanks!

-Craig

[bblackwood]

Well, I think if you're at the point that you're doing any EQ just to get more level, you should re-evaluate how loud you're cutting. I personally only use filtering to get rid of extra LF info, but then I'm not trying to dethrone 'The Impaler' or Marc*ssen, either...

[craig boychuk]

Thanks Brad. I work with a lot of really heavy music, and I find that many recordings of this style of music are often lacking a fair bit in the LF department. I personally haven't really found much of a benifit (level wise) in doing crazy HPF work to a track, but so many people seem to do it that I thought I'd see what you folks think of it. Maybe they just like the sound of no LF...beats the hell out of me. I guess you can gain a certain amount of clarity by removing extreme low end, but I've listened to some records that sound like they've been rolled off at like 60Hz! Yikes.

[bobkatz]

It's possible to get another dB of level (apparent loudness) by rolling off the bottom end, but I try to avoid that approach like the plague unless the client is looking for extreme level. If it sounds too bright or is missing low frequency impact, it's wrong. Anyway, listen to Paul Simon's album "You're The One", mastered by Bob Ludwig. It's a fascinating example of bass response that goes down to the center of the earth, without sacrificing level. At least the level is more than adequate, that's as far as it should go, to avoid the loudness race. Clearly the sound would go downhill if it were pushed up more, or if Ludwig had rolled off the bass to make room for more level. Either way.

[Alécio Costa - Brazil]

Sometimes I receieve files that have "a mountain high" of 8-42Hz content and clipping as hell. Small surgeries clean up the house for sure!
Yes, a HPF would not certainly be the right remedy..
(hey, why am I saying this to my teachers on here?)

[craig boychuk]

Thanks again for the comments, folks. I'll make sure to check out that Paul Simon record...

[OTR-jkl]

I have found that by cleaning up the right freqs - usually a cut in the mud-range and/or upper lows - that the track actually sounds louder and more powerful w/o actually raising the level any...

[Eliott James]

At the mixing stage, for the sake of clarity (not increased volume) do any of you recommend cutting low freqs (say a smooth cut at starting at 45Hz) since most speakers for consumer playback don't go that low? I'm thinking of more acoustic music than anything else, with good dynamic range. From what I'm reading here it would seem that you would leave it alone, but I'm not sure.

Or you do just leave the bass alone and leave those decisions for mastering?

Thanks

[dcollins]

OTR-jkl wrote on Tue, 06 July 2004 08:17

I have found that by cleaning up the right freqs - usually a cut in the mud-range and/or upper lows - that the track actually sounds louder and more powerful w/o actually raising the level any...

This is a tricky one, as you have to consider whether _your_ monitor system may just be happier with the 40Hz (or whatever) HPF.

Hst, it's pretty common to get masters that have all kinds of subsonics that the mixer probably wasn't aware of.  And I'm not talking about stuff you see on an FFT at 4Hz, but pant-leg flappers.

My advice would to be judicious with the low-cut filter, although some guys have it practically normalled in....

DC

[TotalSonic]

The biggest need for a high pass filter to achieve volume is when cutting vinyl.  The trade off when trying to fit more minutes on a side is between average level vs. bass content - both work to create a wider groove so you can only have so much of each for a longer side.  Standard practice is to usually get rid of everything below 35Hz (and sometimes higher depending on the length of the program and the music itself).

For CD mastering I find sometimes content in the ultra lows (around 20-30Hz) can just cause unmusical rumble and that the bass end sounds a lot more focused just getting rid of it - but I've never done this just to get more level. After brick wall limiting ain't things loud enough?

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[bblackwood]

TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 07 July 2004 07:20

For CD mastering I find sometimes content in the ultra lows (around 20-30Hz) can just cause unmusical rumble and that the bass end sounds a lot more focused just getting rid of it - but I've never done this just to get more level. After brick wall limiting ain't things loud enough?

Besides sounding 'unmusical', a more important point for consideration is how those inaudible (on probably > 99% of all systems) low freqs eat up amplifier headroom...

[OTR-jkl]

dcollins wrote on Wed, 07 July 2004 00:55

OTR-jkl wrote on Tue, 06 July 2004 08:17 I have found that by cleaning up the right freqs - usually a cut in the mud-range and/or upper lows - that the track actually sounds louder and more powerful w/o actually raising the level any... This is a tricky one, as you have to consider whether _your_ monitor system may just be happier with the 40Hz (or whatever) HPF. DC

DC - With all due respect:
I'm not talking about a HPF at all here. I'm refering to cleaning up the freqs in the lower part of the spectrum. When you clear away the mud (which is quite common to the mixes that I receive) and tighten up the bottom, the track actually sounds louder & more powerful - it punches better.

Sometimes this does mean using a HPF as well (which I tend to start around the 30-35Hz-ish range).

I totally understand what you mean about how the monitors respond . Unfortunately, mine are not perfect so I have to really focus on the translation aspect - not just "Does it sound good in here?"...

[craig boychuk]

TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 07 July 2004 07:20

For CD mastering I find sometimes content in the ultra lows (around 20-30Hz) can just cause unmusical rumble and that the bass end sounds a lot more focused just getting rid of it - but I've never done this just to get more level. After brick wall limiting ain't things loud enough?

Yeah, I only remove LF if I feel that it's clouding things up...This thread originated (like most of the things I post) from me hearing "advice" from someone and thinking....that can't be true, can it? Guess I'll ask the internet... If I use an HPF, I like to keep it as low as possible, 25hz or lower usually. Just enough to clear things up a bit.

If it needs it.

In regards to vinyl, do you guys recommend making the LF cut to your taste, or leaving it up to the (vinyl)mastering engineer to decide what LF to remove? I guess there is also the option of just cutting the record at a lower volume...

[TotalSonic]

mid-fi wrote on Wed, 07 July 2004 18:27

In regards to vinyl, do you guys recommend making the LF cut to your taste, or leaving it up to the (vinyl)mastering engineer to decide what LF to remove? I guess there is also the option of just cutting the record at a lower volume...

Actually for 95% of the work here which is dance music destined for the club floor "lower volume" is not an option as there are "loudness wars" in vinyl too - where producers want their records to sound just as loud as everything else the DJ is playing.  Vinyl being a physical medium has much more restrictions on  what levels can be transferred than CD as it has to stay within certain parameters so that it is trackable and so that it doesn't distort.

My suggestion is to leave the hi pass filtering to the cutting engineer - these kinds of choices are exactly what making a good vinyl tranfer is all about and they are hard to evaluate until you actually know the side length and can see how the levels look after all other processing on the transfer consoles meters, and are aware of what types of low end peaks can lead to tracking problems.

If you're concerned with mixing for vinyl - I suggest placing the "body" for the kick drums' sound at a frequency that is over 40Hz, keep levels fairly even without squashing, de-ess any sibilance problems in the vocals, keep bass information mostly in the center, and avoid adding excess high end.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[bobkatz]

mid-fi wrote on Wed, 07 July 2004 13:27

In regards to vinyl, do you guys recommend making the LF cut to your taste, or leaving it up to the (vinyl)mastering engineer to decide what LF to remove? I guess there is also the option of just cutting the record at a lower volume...

Good question! I usually master for the best sound in the mastering room and let the experienced LP engineer make any adjustments in the bottom end necessary to produce a technically-acceptable LP. This includes the possibility of needing an elliptical filter if they feel it needs it.

However, I am conscious of the running time issues and I usually don't push the bass very far when I know the ultimate destination is vinyl only.