Both.

I think if I had to say where, maybe filters on the channel and possibly shelving on groups. Its very subjective. I use what works for that mix. Same goes for M/S processing and mastering. Could be one or the other. I had this discussion with others and some think HPF is too savage and can effect the harmonics. I tend to agree but still use what seems to sound better. Low end rumble, always hpf. Sometimes its just better to completely get rid of something all together and live with it.

To add, Filters on some EQ's are terrible.
example :The stock EQ HPF for Samplitude distorts below 80 hz. There is a code problem that they need to fix for 2 years now. I've complained, its been noted but still unresolved. Instead they switched it for the 116. I'm astonished that no one heard this but me. Its not subtle either, its horrendous.
The new EQ116 is much awesome but its a terrible EQ for the strip imo. Too bloated. I like simple and transparent for the strip.

I can only imagine what the freeware crap is doing.

I tend to use the 116 EQ exclusively on tracks, and often the Eisosis Air-Q ( using shelving ) on groups... but not because I've heard any distortion on the the stock channel EQ for Samplitude Pro X. I'm not doubting what you say to be true, I'm saying I've never encountered it personally.

As mentioned, it all depends on the track(s) but much of the time - not always but for the most part - I generally reach for a HPF as opposed to shelving... but I mostly use shelving on the upper end as opposed to LPF; preferring a more gentle and less abrupt roll off on the higher frequencies.

DonnyThompson, post: 430966, member: 46114 wrote: but not because I've heard any distortion on the the stock channel EQ for Samplitude Pro X. I'm not doubting what you say to be true, I'm saying I've never encountered it personally.

Its documented and has been slated to be fixed for 2 years. ;) it could be only on Sequoia.
http://support2.magix.net/boards/samplitude//index.php?showtopic=30060
I would suspect its on Sam as well. They are the same engine and plugs

It has the sound of an open gate that adds a hiss. Load a good bass file in (that actually has sub info in it) , activate the HPF at 80 hz and you will start hearing a hiss every time a note is played. As you lower the filter, the hiss gets louder. It renders the plug-in useless for anything needing low freq hpf.
It's easy to miss as it can sound like it's noise from gear or in a mix.

DonnyThompson, post: 430966, member: 46114 wrote: I generally reach for a HPF as opposed to shelving... but I mostly use shelving on the upper end as opposed to LPF; preferring a more gentle and less abrupt roll off on the higher frequencies.

This describes pretty well what I often do. But of course there are lots of exceptions.

On electric guitars I've been using LPFs deliberately steep to get that boost at the roll off frequency. Carefully set up it gets you a "treble" boost that also cuts the amp fizz.

I don't concider myself a recordist so obviously my opinion is bias to mixing and fixing but this may be interesting just the same.

I've experienced this first hand.
To my tests filters in general always make something sound smaller and possibly more congested if not down right weak sounding, especially if you hpf a lot of tracks as a rule.
I'm not saying I don't use them but they can dictate side effects (habit forming) that are hard to see it coming. The only way to resolve this for me is to start a mix over and avoid them if possible. I hear a lot of music that sounds like people use them way too much. Bass is hard to control, filters tend to be the easiest way to get around it but they are savage.

I'll try to explain.

I've noticed if I do the standard hpf (ITB) I will usually, unwillingly mix an entire mix smaller because I started out with a smaller than I should have bandwidth. And so it goes, one thing leads the other.
I would much rather hear something tracked as natural as possible which would allow / avoid as much ITB EQ , especially filters. but at the same time, I do use them, I just feel they are savage.

I've done comparison mixes where I used filters opposed to shelving. Shelving EQ is always bigger and more modern sounding to me. If I have a rumble, I will first try to pin it out, opposed to cutting the whole thing off.

Anyone else find this?

Live I use agressive pass filters, in the studio it's more shelving in general, and pass fitlering the very low and very high frequencies of the intsrument or voice, if I need the space.

I haven't found a pluggin based pass filter beside the built in one on the waves ssl strip pluggin, that don't have a thinning or phasing type artifact, the 'linear phase' eqs from waves, and t-racks being some of the worst offenders I've used.. I think this is because of current pcm based recording format not being able to 'fill in' or 'create' what isn't there, such as noises from tape or analog what have you, does. Lol I need a little more than a 60hz/hiss switch, which somehow is marketable and still left in plug-insa few years after that started.

hi /lo pass and shelving or peak /dip eq are two different tools. use them both according to what the need is. it's not either or, but which one to use (a different topic).

Kurt Foster, post: 430993, member: 7836 wrote: hi /lo pass and shelving or peak /dip eq are two different tools. use them both according to what the need is. it's not either or, but which one to use (a different topic).

Any conventions at all for the two type over the years? you magic kick freq is 220? Or was it in the 3s? Lol

Sorry Kurt I think I quoted you while you were editing that's why there's a mis quote.

the "Foster bump" lol (thanks Donny) .... 220 a very narrow peak on the bass and a reciprocating notch on the kick make the bass come through on small speakers .... and i like to add a fat boost @ 80 to the kick as well as a tick boost @ 4 or 5 k. on NS10's, that makes the kick sound like someone hitting a side of beef with their fist. i don't usually use HP's unless it's to solve a problem like foot stomps, rumble or wind blasts and i almost never do a LP because i like high end. and that's probably why i lean to parametric EQ's over others. if i was working on an older Neve for instance, i might go to the HP /LP's to get a sound i want. more than one way to skin a cat.

audiokid, post: 430990, member: 1 wrote: I've noticed if I do the standard hpf (ITB) I will usually, unwillingly mix an entire mix smaller because I started out with a smaller than I should have bandwidth. And so it goes, one thing leads the other.
I would much rather hear something tracked as natural as possible which would allow / avoid as much ITB EQ , especially filters. but at the same time, I do use them, I just feel they are savage.

I've done comparison mixes where I used filters opposed to shelving. Shelving EQ is always bigger and more modern sounding to me. If I have a rumble, I will first try to pin it out, opposed to cutting the whole thing off.

{{Like}}

This has turned out to be a good - and interesting - thread. I'm learning things from others here whom I respect, that will likely help me to improve upon some things.

I'm guess that I'm one of those old dogs who can learn new tricks, and who also welcomes those opportunities to do so.

Woof. :)

Thanks for your input, guys. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 431005, member: 46114 wrote: This has turned out to be a good - and interesting - thread. I'm learning things from others here whom I respect, that will likely help me to improve upon some things.

I'm guess that I'm one of those old dogs who can learn new tricks, and who also welcomes those opportunities to do so.

Woof. :)

Thanks for your input, guys. ;)

Since you said that! I find it interesting that both you and Boulder use them. Something I noticed right away on both your work (I hope this isn't perceived as insult). Both your work is excellent! But both of you have the footprint of reduced bandwidth which sounds like savage hpf use to me. I noticed it right away but thought it could be your choice of gear too. I bet its that now.
Hope that really helps!

It's not like I use HPF on everything, usually just one or two tracks if I hear a problem. I don't just slap HPF on every track other than kick and bass (though I might do that mixing a live band). If you're hearing a sonic signature I'm betting it's the modest gear and/or the imperfect control room acoustics. How many mixes of mine have you heard? I've only posted two mixes of one song here.

Cool

It would be just on what I've heard which could be complely inaccurate. I thought it may be an interesting correlation, and hopfully helpful. Your mix and abilties are excellent.

Generally speaking through my own experience as well, people migrate to a sound they are comfortable with including, which includes a sonic signature they usually cannot expand if its not already there to begin with.

I don't hear a big modern sound in either of your guys mixes which hpf can create without knowing. It could also be gear and/or what you like. I love what you guys do, dont get me wrong!!!

We tend to get used to our room, choose monitors and mix thinking our mixes are actually different that they are translating or for that matter, being perceived by other generations.

As an example, someone that comes from the 60's would most likely never even go below 100 hz for impact.
They simply dont think with those freq in mind.
If you want to get that 60's sound you dont nessesarrily need tape, just roll the hell out if your tracks, add some noise and it will sound close enough.

Emulating the past generations is an interesting topic. It has a lot to do with bandwidth.

No, I don't mind some perspective. I've already decided that I mix like 70s and 80s FM rock radio to a significant degree so I may be predisposed to the sound of 15kHz low pass filtering.

what is "the modern sound"? i really don't like the phrase "modern sound".

did sound (the physics and the properties of audio) change somewhere along the way when i wasn't looking (listening)?

my take is the term "the modern sound" is an excuse for recordings being made these days not sounding like (i/e as good as) recordings made in the 80's and before "I meant to do that" .....it's not like modern equipment designs are significantly improved. we reached the peak of tech in the 60's and 70's. everything from then on is clones and replications or attempts to achieve results as good as previous designs.

somewhere some people decided that smoking crack was a good idea .... but it wasn't. i'm not suggesting we all go back to those times, that's not feasible. but let's at least call a duck a duck.

bouldersound, post: 431020, member: 38959 wrote: No, I don't mind some perspective. I've already decided that I mix like 70s and 80s FM rock radio to a significant degree so I may be predisposed to the sound of 15kHz low pass filtering.

Excellent, then keep up the great work!

Kurt Foster, post: 431021, member: 7836 wrote: what is "the modern sound"? i really don't like the phrase "modern sound".

did sound (the physics and the properties of audio) change somewhere along the way when i wasn't looking (listening)?

my take is the term "the modern sound" is an excuse for recordings being made these days not sounding like (i/e as good as) recordings made in the 80's and before .....it's not like modern equipment designs are significantly improved. we reached the peak of tech in the 60's and 70's. everything from then on is clones and replications or attempts to achieve results as good as previous designs.

somewhere some people decided that smoking crack was a good idea .... but it wasn't. i'm not suggesting we all go back to those times, that's not feasible. but let's at least call a duck a duck.

I'm surprised you read that as so negative and not see it as completely accurate but i understand your dislike for today's sound and music. I miss a lot of what I grew up with but I'm not blind to the sonic signatures that come along with technology. The past sounds like the gear we used which is no longer "modern".

Modern vs dated / vintage... is very obvious to me, as easy as it is to pin an old movie vs one made this year. I hear music no different. Modern is also in the eyes of the beholder. To you and me, a decade is still current . To my kids, 2 years ago is dated. Not modern to them at all.
We could have an interesting discussion some time pining down and discussing the signature sounds of past styles or generations. Discussions on emulating the sounds a style.

To drop a few of my own identifiable pop signatures.

• The 60's were really musical but washed together, dull monoish sounding, weak drums, full of harmonies. Sounded like everything was cut off from 100hz to 12k

• The 70's were a pretty even sounding with keys, mono synths B3 organs, Rhode, guitars, bass but in general, a pretty dull but exciting sound to me. Lots of grit and attitude. I loved the 70's. The 70's kick was pretty much buried. Sounded like everything was cut off from 100hz to 13k lol.
• The 80's were a lot or reverb, guitar and that 4k up front kick "tick". tone of guitar, drum machines and what I would call the greatest sonic years of tape and analog. Awesome sequencing. Sounded like everything was cut off from 80 hz to 16k
• 90's reminded me of the 70's but improved sound and the beginning of digital distortion, the last decade of guitar music.
• 2000, the beginning of the most horrible sounding music is history. Loud mixes, dominant vocals, auto correction insanity, very little guitar, big kick and boomy bass, programmed loops. vinyl emulation tones. Excessive editing and overdub. Very unconnected music.
• 2010, really broad sounding mixes. 20 to 20k . Great bass and drums, keys and loops, dryer than the 80's in a good way. Dance inspired. Vocal dominant solo artists. Less hihats and cymbals, little guitar, little if any solo's. Loud Programmed. Better separation.

I have hope for what's coming. I think we are in for a surprise of great sounding music which will be identifiable again..
Modern music sounds big and open to me. Bass is a big part of this generation, as it has always been.
The question, it wasn't possible to capture bass like we can today. Years going back, all we have to do is use hpf to get that tape sound which is a dated sound never the less.

Modern music has full sounding low freq kicks and bass. I love the sound of what we can get today. Its getting bigger and more open sounding because digital audio is improving. To get that sound, the first thing you do is avoid hpf and find the mix between the kick, bass and vocals.
Thats how I hear it.

With all the talk of shelf vs. high/low pass filters nobody's said anything about normal peak/dip filters. I use those fairly often instead of either shelf or pass filters at the high and low ends of the spectrum.

Me too, that would be the major EQing I use. however;

I think Donny is more interested in the broad spectrum of a mix though, not EQ in general. How we control the low and top freq's of a channel or mix. This thread is in relation to hybrid summing and how filters and converters react. Correct Donny? Did my comments on the BAX inspire this topic? Or what inspired this topic?

Chris wrote earlier in this that he want's as much of the audio spectrum naturally as possible.

I agree. My tracking is limited to what the mics in conjunction with the pre can accomplish. It makes it SO much easier to have a big mix when all you are doing is moving things out of the way of other things with volume and panning moves.

That being said, I use EQ at mix and sometimes its to massage something forward and other times its ruthless control. Like Kurt said and I paraphrase...use whats needed where and when.

Choice of what sort of EQ/filters/tone controllers is dependent purely on taste IMHO. I try like hell not to use things that induce phase....there are some.....I have a few favorites which seem to do what I ask without leaving a nasty footprint that I would then have to work at to repair. Since I have such a large library it gets confusing sometimes when you're looking for that special little lift or that hammer of compliance. I tend to like retro types of 4 bands, Abbey Road stuff based on the Redd 17,37 and 51 consoles are sorta filters with a simple high/low aspect...I really like the Helios 69 filter set from UAD....The Pro Q by Fab Filter is an awesome tool...API's are still great to work with,also a UAD.....Any EQ or filter that has depth to it and a chance of taking up a lot of dsp will come from the UAD card. I have the Harrison, a Massive Passive, and the Helios as well as the SSL strips in my card. The Nomad EQ's are nice as are ALL the McDSP stuff.

But that doesn't really address the OP. I HPF and LPF most lead guitars. The range is fairly limited anyway. Why not make it easier to get to? I use a filter to access some harmonic content in a source when it needs to either get out of the way or bowling ball through a dense mix.I like active EQs with a high-low shelf.

Since I've been mixing all day I gotta sleep......obviously

audiokid, post: 431030, member: 1 wrote: Me too, that would be the major EQing I use. however;

I think Donny is more interested in the broad spectrum of a mix though, not EQ in general. How we control the low and top freq's of a channel or mix. This thread is in relation to hybrid summing and how filters and converters react. Correct Donny? Did my comments on the BAX inspire this topic? Or what inspired this topic?

It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I tend to use HP/LP far more than I do shelving, which is actually contrary to the way I was originally taught when I learned on consoles. Perhaps it's because DAW's have given us the ability to do it this way, in some cases even to a forensic level and pin-point accuracy, I've become accustomed to using those filters over time... But that doesn't necessarily mean that this method is the right method, or that it's "musical", or that it results in a way that benefits the song... and I'm willing to admit that me using this EQ'ing process - pretty much exclusively - has been a mistake on my part; because you're right, Chris... when you think about it, it really is a "savage" form of EQ; it's very aggressive - and I hadn't ever considered it to actually be that, until you mentioned it.

Anybody eqing the master bus? I'm fairly clueless doing this, and it doesn't usually work on mixes, and on 'masters' I'm still not that good. Also, on eqs that didn't have shelving, or for effect, I've used extremely Wide bandwiths on parametrics to fake shelf.

Ps. Fwiw, I didn't use notch filters until a few years ago, they do wonders, when not overused.

do you know how to "sweep" eq?

Lol yeah I learn that on my porta studio. Didn't know it was a thing called 'sweeping' until 5 years ago. I was self taught thru manuals and books, right as the AOL was coming to light..

sweep, pin it and notch is pretty much my go to for everything in a mix. For particular area's, this combined with sidechaining is very effective as well. Awesome for kick and bass. Vocals and bass etc.
I starting sweeping and ringing out a PA for live work years back.
Digital EQ's/ parametric's are ideal for this. Essential for mixing imho. Love it. The sweep and what I listen for is something you learn.

I mix into the master (2 DAW process) I alway use the master bus EQ in combination with a M/S process . The entire EQ process is a give and take process between preparing my mix on DAW 1 for DAW 2. I keep my eye on phase, make sure my vocals are always in focus early on in the mix.
I sweep and notch everything to fit into the mix. I couldn't live without this method.

audiokid, post: 431050, member: 1 wrote: sweep, pin it and notch is pretty much my go to for everything in a mix.

(y) that's the ticket! after the resonant peak(s) have been dealt with, then eq for effect.

DonnyThompson, post: 430937, member: 46114 wrote: do you find yourself generally using more of one than the other in terms of "average" daily mixing?

From a purely statistical usage point of view, HPF/LPF definitely gets employed more. I've done sessions where I never even had to touch a shelving EQ on any track...but it's rare for me to do a mix or tracking session where I don't hi-pass practically everything.

I feel like they are pretty different in application. If I am eliminating something I'll go for a filter as opposed to a boosting of frequencies I'll use a shelving filter.