High Freq in mastering

[Hal]

Hello,
Usually do you take out high frequency in mastering process?

If yes
- from which freq?
- which type of eq? Shelf, Low pass Filter or bell?
- which attenuation?

Ok I know that there are no rules but probably some starting point? Of course for the mixes that need it!!

Thanks

[MASSIVE Master]

No -- No starting point.

If yes
- from which freq?
- which type of eq? Shelf, Low pass Filter or bell?
- which attenuation?

- The frequency that needs it
- The type of filter it needs
- However much is necessary

That's for one mix. The next one might be completely different, along with the next.

[finetuner]

Are you by any chance referring to the video in this thread ? : Robert Babicz video on mastering (and other stuff)

In this video, Robert mentions that he usually cuts off everything above 17 or 18 kHz.


I found this a bit odd and it's not considered common practice in mastering, not by default at least.


From the times i decide to take out some high frequencies, i may use a bell (any Q), a shelve or any combination. Very seldom a hi cut-off gets used over here, or it must be to feed a compressor side-chain to make it work on the lows for a change

Peter van't Riet
FineTune Mastering

[Lagerfeldt]

I think I know why Rob does this, although as he frequents this board he can answer himself I suppose.

Of course it depends on the slope of your LPF, too steep and it'll ring, too gentle and it'll roll off too much.

Many purely digital songs (entirely produced and mixed ITB) have excessive high freq material all the way up.

There are several ways to fix that but one could be a filter.

I rarely apply a filter like that during mastering though. However, I frequently low cut at somewhere between 20 and 30 Hz.

[PatrikT]

Originally Posted by Hal

Hello,
Usually do you take out high frequency in mastering process?

Only if the "real range" (say 80-5000 Hz or so...) asks for that.

Same thing with the other end of the spectum.


BR
Patrik

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by PatrikT

Only if the "real range" (say 80-5000 Hz or so...) asks for that.
Same thing with the other end of the spectrum.

Cutting high-end is one of the hardest things to do, imo.


DC

[Hal]

Originally Posted by finetuner

Are you by any chance referring to the video in this thread ? : Robert Babicz video on mastering (and other stuff)

In this video, Robert mentions that he usually cuts off everything above 17 or 18 kHz.

Not in particular, I sometimes use some shelf eq when needed and I'd like to know from which freq usually do you start if you use that.

About the video I agree that total cut above 17 khz can be too much (of course it depends on!!) but on some cd above all rock some drastic cuts seem to be present sometimes if you check with some analyzer.

[Halexx]

If i understand well from the video, he is specialized in mastering music that plays in dance clubs, where i doubt the few people who are able to hear at those frequencys will notice the lack of them in the crowd noise.

He also mention them as something like:'unnefective energy' if i'm right. May have something to do with limiter/compressor usage technique.

Nice informative interview by the way.

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Halexx

If i understand well from the video, he is specialized in mastering music that plays in dance clubs, where i doubt the few people who are able to hear at those frequencys will notice the lack of them in the crowd noise.

He also mention them as something like:'unnefective energy' if i'm right. May have something to do with limiter/compressor usage technique.

Nice informative interview by the way.

Our Alpha Dynacord system with the JBL tweeters where x-over at 16K
and you sure as hell noticed if they where turned off.

I wouldn't be surprised if more rockers are deaf from racket of guitar noise than some of the new generation at clubs. Ipod generation is another story though.

[studioland]

A few days after watching the video I had to master a very metallic harsh sounding hip hop tune. I cut at 17khz and it helped a lot. I guess it's certainly not a rule to follow but a trick that can sometimes be useful.

[PatrikT]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Cutting high-end is one of the hardest things to do, imo.


DC

To leave both ends alone might be even harder.


Best Regards
Patrik

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by PatrikT

To leave both ends alone might be even harder.

What's the best plug-in for cutting it flat?

DC

[Kadden Heart]

it seems to me that the high end is always a lot easier to pick out (or at least "feel") so if it's VERY harsh, i might use like a 6db/octave rollof at like 16K just to even it out.

otherwise my highs stay where they are.

what i'd be interested to know is how many ME out there hi-pass the lows?
i can't seem to hear (or feel) the extreme lows enough in most cases and would rather free up some headroom by rolling off pretty low.

is anyone else rolling off their extreme lows?

[finetuner]

Originally Posted by Kadden Heart

.. is anyone else rolling off their extreme lows?

Not by default either, but a hi-pass at 20 Hz approx. gets used every now and then.

I'm doing quite some metal stuff and especially those double bassdrum sections sound tighter with a little roll off. Sometimes even higher than 20 Hz.

Originally Posted by Kadden Heart

...
i can't seem to hear (or feel) the extreme lows enough in most cases and would rather free up some headroom by rolling off pretty low...

I hope that your monitor and acoustics are sufficient to make these judgements properly.

Peter van't Riet
FineTune Mastering

[Chaellus]

i use lowpass at as low as 16k to around 17k frequently in the daw when i get mixes that are overly bright...sometimes i check mixes to see if there still good at 14k or what ever i do not commit at 14k but if it does sound good even with a quite bit of roll off then it tells me that the material will be good somewhat but for overly bright mixes cutting at 16k or 17 is good in some cases

[Virtalahde]

If there's too much high end, why cut it all out? Just sweep your EQ to the annoying stuff and cut to the taste.

I recall doing a low pass only once, and that was in the side channel of a pretty skewed mix. High passing I do sometimes, but not at all by default. Usually a simple cut at the booming stuff helps.

[PatrikT]

Originally Posted by dcollins

What's the best plug-in for cutting it flat?

DC

I guess it has to be:

1. Expensive (so you know it is "sounding good"...)

2. Malfunctioning (nothing happens when klicking and turning).

3. #2 could be a case of common plug-in "functioning" when I come to think of it.


Anyone knows if it is "coming soon"?


Best Regards
Patrik

[PatrikT]

Originally Posted by Kadden Heart

it seems to me that the high end is always a lot easier to pick out (or at least "feel") so if it's VERY harsh, i might use like a 6db/octave rollof at like 16K just to even it out.

I stop "feeling" music around 6000 Hz.

If anything is annoying me very badly up high it is rarely ever above 10 kHz, more likely those things are situated around 1000-5000 Hz or so.

I never lowpass.


Best Regards
Patrik

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by PatrikT

I guess it has to be:

1. Expensive (so you know it is "sounding good"...)

2. Malfunctioning (nothing happens when klicking and turning).

3. #2 could be a case of common plug-in "functioning" when I come to think of it.

Anyone knows if it is "coming soon"?

But does it have a Great Dither?

It's easy to cut low end convincingly, but cutting highs always seems to compromise something else. Fortunately it's rare to have to do it.

Actually an application for 3dB/oct, imo.


DC

[PatrikT]

Originally Posted by dcollins

But does it have a Great Dither?

It's easy to cut low end convincingly, but cutting highs always seems to compromise something else. Fortunately it's rare to have to do it.

Actually an application for 3dB/oct, imo.

Wasn't there this GOD OF DITHER around somewhere? It must be that one. Shape up the noiseshape!

Cutting low end more or less always brings me with an additional shelf or bell "down somewhere" doing a boost, something that doesn't work that easily for the high end.

If someone is usually or always cutting at 17-or-whatever kHz, it must be some kind of constant compenstaion for something that's not really in the music itself but more in the local processing chain...or in the monitoring.


Cheers
Patrik

[Ntchi]

Which plugin (yes I know hardware mastering EQ are 100 times better) you guys would you use if you had to low pass or high pass a final mix?

URS? Sonalksis? Waves?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Ntchi

Which plugin (yes I know hardware mastering EQ are 100 times better) you guys would you use if you had to low pass or high pass a final mix?

URS? Sonalksis? Waves?

For plugs - Algorithmix first, and then probably Sonalksis. But as you say, I'm more likely to reach for hardware, even in the digital world. The Weiss is excellent, which is to be expected, as is the Massenburg (GML) option in the t.c. 6000, and I've even been known to use the standard high pass in the MD4 program on the 6000 as well.

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by Ntchi

Which plugin (yes I know hardware mastering EQ are 100 times better) you guys would you use if you had to low pass or high pass a final mix?

URS? Sonalksis? Waves?

You'll be hard pressed to find a hardware eq thats 100 times more transparent than the very best plugs now, of which algorithmix red and refined audiometrics plpareq are right up there at the top.

[Ntchi]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

For plugs - Algorithmix first, and then probably Sonalksis. But as you say, I'm more likely to reach for hardware, even in the digital world. The Weiss is excellent, which is to be expected, as is the Massenburg (GML) option in the t.c. 6000, and I've even been known to use the standard high pass in the MD4 program on the 6000 as well.

Whats the difference between the algorithmix Red, Orange and Blue?

[macc]

I don't know the algorithmix, but *personally* I'd take PSP Neon over Sonalksis for anything mastering related every time. I find Sonalksis is a great track eq, but I wouldn't use it in mastering personally when Neon is available.

All IMHO, YMMV etc :)

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by macc

I don't know the algorithmix, but *personally* I'd take PSP Neon over Sonalksis for anything mastering related every time. I find Sonalksis is a great track eq, but I wouldn't use it in mastering personally when Neon is available.

All IMHO, YMMV etc :)

Sonalksis Dynamic EQ or regular? The few times I've actually the plug for something mastering related, it was their dynamic EQ, even if not using the dynamic feature. Don't know enough about what's under the hood to know how different they really are, but it worked just fine. It sure sounded better than the other more common stuff on the system. PSP has some good stuff too, but I don't think I've used neon, at least not recently, and not in mastering.

Still, Algorithmix are the ones to beat for mastering if you want to stay in the box. As an addendum, Sonic EQ is also available as a VST plug now, and it's clean in a mastering context too. I haven't actually tried the VST version, but I have no reason to think it won't sound just as good as the native.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Ntchi

Whats the difference between the algorithmix Red, Orange and Blue?

Red and orange are linear phase, blue is minimum phase. Orange is more analytical according to their description, red smoother, blue more analog-like.

[macc]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Sonalksis Dynamic EQ or regular? The few times I've actually the plug for something mastering related, it was their dynamic EQ, even if not using the dynamic feature. Don't know enough about what's under the hood to know how different they really are, but it worked just fine. It sure sounded better than the other more common stuff on the system. PSP has some good stuff too, but I don't think I've used neon, at least not recently, and not in mastering.

Oh right - the DQ-1 :) Great plug that one.

Neon sounds great and has got Bob Katz in the list of beta testers, so it is good enough for me... and it's a tenth of the price of algorithmix