12KHz lo-pass filter

I've been doing mastering for 4 years with 12KHz lo-pass filter ALWAYS engaged and sometimes I use hpf around 40 to 80Hz to shape the bottom as well. And then doing apropriate taylor eq, compress, limit. de-ess, brickwall, and dithering process.

I'm curious if this lo-pass technique slowing down the whole process because I usually get the finished sound in about 2 hours for ONE song!

Does anyone use this limited hi-freq contents as normal routine procedure or do it sparingly?

Forgive me for my bad english...

8)

Indra Q
IQALA Mastering Indonesia
iqala_id@yahoo.com.au

 

I would call it a very rare occasion that I EVER put a 12kHz LPF across a mix... That's going to take all the "air" away quickly.

My only rule of thumb is that if a mix doesn't need it, I don't use it. Whatever "it" may be from track to track.

 

I've never find a use for lo-pass filtering.
But I'm using high pass when needed at the right freq.

Why do you use lo-pass filtering?
If it takes 2 hours to do one song then it might the whole process that takes this time? unless you use 1hour and 55 minutes for low pass and then 5 min. on the rest... :shock:

I also don't se anything wrong in using 2 hours at one song unless you use 2 hours on a perfect mix that just need some level.

Best Regards,

 

Thanks for the quick 'great' replies...

Somebody in the major label here told me that he always lpf their masters at 12k before they go to the cassette duplicator.

It's the whole process that took 2 hours, mostly in equalising.

I've read that Thomas W. Bethel do the whole tweaking for just 0.5 to 0.75 hour per song.

Well, I guess know I must use a much better eq approach to speed up the process... Thanks!

 

I think "ALWAYS" using any procesiing like a preset is a bad idea.

Thats like saying you ALWAYS get the same mix to work on........

Ed

 

You're right Ed, I 'WAS' always start eq-ing with my favourite initial preset : HPF@60 & LPF@12K.
Then trying to open the muds...

Now the preset shall be deleted

Thanks for the great responses

 

That would be a big no on my end. Of course there my be a song that it works. But to do it almost as a rule is deffinately the wrong way of starting. Iwould like to hear a mix you have unmastered and hear what it's like. I don't have time to read what everyone else wrote but if they already said this then sorry.

 

Hi Joe...

Thanks for your attention!

Unfortunately I use very slooow dial-up networking so it's almost impossible to upload the mix :-(

By the way, I'm new in the forum but I must admit this is the best forum I ever participate, with the nicest peoples...

Best wishes to you all !

 

IQ:
If you are taking that much time per song, then perhaps you should do some more listening to well recorded music in your room, learn how you can begin to approach those sounds with the new program that you are mastering & develop some confidence in your EQ /Compressor/etc. chain. Listen in your room and then again outside, on other systems. With better knowledge of what your moves are accomplishing, you might be able to do your work more efficiently & with fewer "second thoughts" & doubts about which direction to go in. You must be listening to each track many times. If you learn your room & equipment better things might go faster.

I almost never use that much filtering either.

 

If it is good material, well recorded, well mixed .5 to .75 hours per song works well for me and my clients. However if I have to do some "sonic surgery" it may take somewhat longer. I just finished a 10 song project that took 18 hours due to some problem with the direction of the whole project and the inability of the "team" ( the three people who were doing the recording and mixing and producing) to come to a unified approach. I think, depending on the quality of the incoming material, that two hours is a long time to spend on one song but it depends on sooooooo many things. If you are getting good results and your clients don't mind paying for the extra time then take as much time as you need.

As to the low pass filter at 12K. The only reason someone would use one is possibly for limited frequency response distribution materials. The person who told you this may have had problems in the past with high speed cassette duplication doing weird things so he or she is BAND LIMITING the material to "solve" the problems they think they are having. I would not use a 12K LP filter for modern replication/distribution. As someone already pointed out it takes most of the "air" away from the material.

Best of luck!

 

can someone explain how this cut might also apply to vinyl ?

what is a good cut for getting rid of Highs that won't transfer and what is a cut that will take away that "air"

Jeremy

 

Jeremy,
Years ago I had a studio owner tell me to pt a 16Khz LPF on every cut to "save the cutterhead". I found out through experimentation that that was not necessary. It did cut down on the air on the top end & was audible. What was REALLY important was to properly de-ess the program, watch out for ultrasonics that drew lots of amps/heat on the system & sounded distorted if they "hardened up" on the finished vinyl pressing.

After awhile, you can tell right away what kinds of sounds are going to cause cutting problems and deal with those areas. I do not use a filter on all cuts now at all.