Personally, I tend to do a HPF that starts around 40Hz for most things. The main reason being, I don't want to swamp certain systems with more low-end than they can handle.

Mid 90's we mixed a rock project the conventional mid-90's way. 6 hands on an analog console as the tape (sorry ADATs not analog tape) rolled, the resulting stereo mix to DAT (again, my apol0gies to Kurt). The kick drum wasn't especially heavy, but the 6-string bass player had a very interesting percussive style, which we let fly. It sounded great on the radio, it played well on our studio monitors, it played well in everyone's car & home stereos - all was well with the world. A couple months after the disc was released we ran into a guitar player from another band who was very complimentary about the album, but accused us of trying to shake his house apart. It turns out he had a REALLY nice home stereo with some expensive Klipsch speakers capable of going seriously low - and for him, listening to the album meant changing the EQ on his stereo. Otherwise, he was afraid the windows were going to blow out, or all the dishes were going to dive off the shelves. He claims he didn't have that trouble with any other recordings.

From my observations, most rock / blues projects don't seem to suffer with the cut around 40Hz. Even if the end-user doesn't have speakers that will produce the octave below that, their system is still expending a lot of energy trying to.

My 2¢. I'll be curious to hear what others do.

I use higher hpf on everything with the least amount on the kick or bass, depending. I mix the same on Avatone's as I would on full range. I also use the spectral meter to see where freq are on everything. I also use sidechain filtering.

audiokid, post: 449667, member: 1 wrote: I use higher hpf on everything with the least amount on the kick or bass, depending. I mix the same on Avatone's as I would on full range. I also use the spectral meter to see where freq are on everything. I also use sidechain filtering.

Understood. I think most of us use some kind of spectral analysis, but where do you typically set the HP on your master bus?
Or do you handle that part on the second DAW capture computer?

audiokid
I think I misunderstood you Chris...and I think I just now understood what you were saying... :coffee:
That you use various HPFs at the track level so that you don't have to use a filter on the main 2 bus?

Well, if it goes to mastering, I won't put anything on the masterbuss. Of course I will use HP on some individual tracks like vocals and guitars etc.
If I'm mastering it myself (pseudo master, I don't pretend having the gear and skills...) I will cut at 30hz going down slow.
Thing is, I can't really justify it.. I just did it like that for many years including on live work...

I understand. I mentioned in my post that I had no real tangible reason for choosing the corner frequency and slope that I use, either.
I mean, of course I understand why we use HPFs or Shelving... But I don't really have a reason for where I implement the CF and Slope, other than old habits.
For me it's just kind of become a second nature thing based on what I was taught when I was starting out.
That's not a very good reason is it?

I think Dave's story about the hi-fi audiophile gives a good reason for anticipating LF problems in your mix that your room or monitoring system may be hiding from you.

dvdhawk
So then Dave...
Did this experience change the way you approach your 2 Bus?
Or did it just make you more aware of multi system translation?
Or... is this something that when you are working on a commercial release, that you let the M.E. take care of?

DonnyThompson, post: 449670, member: 46114 wrote: That you use various HPFs at the track level so that you don't have to use a filter on the main 2 bus?

Yes, except for the sub freq below 40 hz.

DonnyThompson, post: 449669, member: 46114 wrote: Or do you handle that part on the second DAW capture computer?

I always use a global hpf on the 2-bus at about 40hz. Which is DAW 2 and usually the sub of a kick, synth bass, analog ambience or whatever else that transfers over between analog to DAW2.

DAW2 is where the performance > virtual acoustics lives and comes together.

EDIT:

fwiw: DAW 1 sub groups are 2-bus stems which is the focus to hybrid mixing or mastering. A huge part of the hybrid mixing approach is all about 2-bus processing. Filters play a huge role.

The analog summing section is all about the 2-bus mixdown which is no different to hybrid mastering. Hybrid mixing with 2 DAW's has analog bandwidth added. So, we refine on DAW1 and finish on DAW2. Its all about optimizing signal paths and gluing it together more efficiently.

Not much different to using a hpf on a mic going into a comp. Or the comp in front or after the chain.
Comp reacts better if the sub freq aren't tripping up the mid range or visa versa.

imho.

Bear in mind, back in the mid-90's, any console I could afford didn't have anywhere near the surgical precision you can get from even the cheapest modern DAW. A one-size-fits-all HPF switch at 75Hz, and a Lo Shelving EQ at 80 kind of ties your hands. So had we been aware of the 'problem' I guess in theory we could have either put a good Klark graphic EQ inline before the DAT recorder, but that would have categorized under last resort, or we would have been more likely to insert a Klark parametric on the bass guitar channel, since it was the main culprit.

I don't assume my monitors are going as deep as the end-users' stereo any more. We took the guy's complaint seriously, but whether or not we would have reconfigured anything that would have potentially changed the sound, we'll never know. Out of about 2500 units sold, we had one person mention it. At some point, you have to figure that the person who buys Bag End ELF subs that go down to 8Hz, has brought a certain amount of that subsonic 'problem' on themselves.

Since making the transition to DAW I can get a boost in the lows that more systems will be able to achieve, and still put in a good steep HPF to shut the door on frequencies that will bog down the average system. I'm a little more aware of cutting the subsonics, and unnecessary lows. It taxes the speaker components and the amps with trying to do things they simply can't do. For better or worse, woofers will give their all (and sometimes their lives) trying to do frequencies below their spec. Once they start fluttering out of control, you know that's got to be causing all sorts of distortion throughout their entire freq. range.

The fact that I can apply a variable HPF to each output is something I really appreciate with digital mixers designed for live performance too.

I would let the mastering engineer do a final HPF on my mixes. That said, I often master my own stuff on my home system which has meaningful response down to 30Hz. If it's out of hand that low I'll fix it. It turns out that I do shelf down the lows on mixes I do at the two studios I work in, generally rolling off around 50-100Hz. Both studios have smaller monitors with 6" woofers and imperfect bass trapping.

On my PA system I would engage the 40Hz HPF on the crossover's LF output so the subs could be driven pretty hard without overexcursion. The subs could theoretically take 1000 watts each but I generally gave them 500 watts and engaged the amp's limiter. They got plenty loud and never had a problem.

Thanks to all for participating in my little survey.

Your comments have been interesting and insightful - and I think totally in-line ( no pun intended, LOL) with the general vibe of subjects that are covered here on RO. :)
That's not to say that this thread has to be "done". By all means, if you have further thoughts or suggestions, I encourage members to continue to post them.

:)