Do you put HP / LP filters on every masters?

[Farshad]

My weekend question for mastering heads:

Is putting LP (say 18000-20000 Hz) and HP (say 20-3 Hz) filters on every master by default a common practice to limit the frequencey range of the master if it will be going on the CD?

Thanks in advacne for your input

Peace

[Thor]

Now why would you want to do that by default?

That's like a chef telling you the secret to really great food is adding some chocolate sauce to everything you make

First listen. Then, before you touch any knobs (or mouse, if you work that way), listen again. After you tweak, listen. Remove the tweak, listen.

See a pattern emerging here...?



Cheers,
Thor

p.s. Enjoy your 4th of July!

[Farshad]

Originally Posted by Thor

Now why would you want to do that by default?

That's like a chef telling you the secret to really great food is adding some chocolate sauce to everything you make

First listen. Then, before you touch any knobs (or mouse, if you work that way), listen again. After you tweak, listen. Remove the tweak, listen.

See a pattern emerging here...?



Cheers,
Thor

p.s. Enjoy your 4th of July!

Thanks Thor. That's what I always do and am usually cautious. was just wondering if MEs usually have a common practice regarding the filters.

Cheers,

-Farshad

P.S. we actually celebrated the Canada day here a few days ago on July 1st

[wado1942]

I never do anything by habit. Some records need no compression, some need no EQ. Some projects needs lots of filtering, but that's why you do as Thor suggested.

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by Thor

the secret to really great masters is pouring some chocolate sauce on everything in your rack

Mwhuhahahaha.... I HAS YOUR SECRETS NOW!!!!

[Thor]

Hey, I've been quoted out of context!! Not fair....

(actually it's vanilla sauce these days, but whatever )

Farshad - yeah, sorry, I should have caught that, you're Canadian. Happy (belated) Canada day. Didn't the US annex you guys a few years back? No? Oh well.

Being cautious sounds good! Never do anything by default (i.e. processing; listening is always a good thing to do by default!)

Cheers,
Thor

[MASSIVE Master]

If I found myself compelled to cut *anything* by default, I'd rather find out why I felt compelled to do so. Something is probably wrong.

[PatrikT]

No, and certainly not LP.

And as with mastering in general, it is best to not listen for the obvious when testing stuff..............


Best Regards
Patrik

[Farshad]

Originally Posted by Thor

Hey, I've been quoted out of context!! Not fair....

(actually it's vanilla sauce these days, but whatever )

Farshad - yeah, sorry, I should have caught that, you're Canadian. Happy (belated) Canada day. Didn't the US annex you guys a few years back? No? Oh well.

Being cautious sounds good! Never do anything by default (i.e. processing; listening is always a good thing to do by default!)

Cheers,
Thor

Cheers

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

If I found myself compelled to cut *anything* by default, I'd rather find out why I felt compelled to do so. Something is probably wrong.

As Bob Olhssson so wisely said, "If you find yourself always applying the same form of equalization or the same process every time you master, chances are you are compensating for errors in your reproduction system, not in the program you are mastering."

Or the correlary, also cited recently by Mr. Olhsson, who claims to have gotten this quote from Bob Ludwig: "The vast majority of EQ that we do in mastering is to compensate for the errors in the mix engineer's playback system."

BK

[Farshad]

Thanks Bob for the great advice.

I actually use very little EQ during my (psudo) mastering tasks and most of the time go back to the mixing session for adjustments.

Cheers,

Farshad

[dietrich10]

I apply hp and lp everytime when i cut a lacquer master

Maybe that is where you hear a ME applying these every session.

[aivoryuk]

LP never had to, and HP only when necessary

[Virtalahde]

I think I've used LP once or twice in the last two years, and that was only in the M channel. HP I use pretty seldom too. If I need to reduce the rumble, it's usually digital shelves adjusted to taste..

[Bob Olhsson]

There's no greater thrill for most of the mastering engineers I know than pushing the play button and hearing something that sounds absolutely gorgeous with no signal processing at all.

It really isn't about formulas, just problem solving and not trying to "fix" a mix that isn't broken. A full range monitor that lets you hear if a HPF is needed is the best solution. These days I find myself selectively high-passing breath pops a lot more than throwing a filter on everything.

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by dietrich10

I apply hp and lp everytime when i cut a lacquer master

I don't think it's necessary but it probably doesn't hurt too much either. It's safer than not doing it and running into problems.

It took me a while to get a feel for what you can get away with. I find myself using them less these days along with EE's.

Over the last year or so I've been doing little experiments with laying off the EE. So far I haven't had anything come back with tracking problems. I don't think cutting refs tells the whole story in this case. It also has to track with a warped and/or dished record-because sometimes they are...

[Farshad]

Originally Posted by dietrich10

I apply hp and lp everytime when i cut a lacquer master

Maybe that is where you hear a ME applying these every session.

Thanks for the reply. But why vinyl still has a greater frequency response (than CD) according to this thread?

[Jesse Graffam]

Originally Posted by Farshad

Thanks for the reply. But why vinyl still has a greater frequency response (than CD) according to this thread?

use a phase linear filter to high-pass everything above 22050 Hz, and see if you can hear anything at all with normal playback levels.

while it is possible, i highly doubt it in the case of 99.9% of people.

And don't forget - you have to have a needle, pre-amp, amp, and speakers capable of playing it back. most people don't. most people are lucky to have a needle that can hit 18kHz with relative accuracy.

[IIIrd]

where needed with me, except for vinyl,..the LP is mandtory and HP as required

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Farshad

My weekend question for mastering heads:

Is putting LP (say 18000-20000 Hz) and HP (say 20-3 Hz) filters on every master by default a common practice to limit the frequency range of the master if it will be going on the CD?

No way. All things for a reason only.

Out of interest I've checked the response of a few big name – and huge sounding – major release albums, from memory including some Bjork stuff, and you'd be surprised how much subsonic energy (and sometimes including tape machine 'head bumps') are present.

In the end, retaining this extra (meaningful) audio bandwidth works purely because it's in the interests of the sound (funnily enough). I shudder at the thought of filtering done by those purely with the goal of removing energy to obtain greater level *or because they can't hear it (& therefore work with it as need be).

This was a concern also in the mid 90's when the Sonic Solutions 'classic' system would default to a DC offset filter of, I think it was 10Hz or even 18Hz, and easily reached up into the lower musical octaves. A preference check & removal of this was always worthwhile, and welcomed by many producers.

[MattGray]

I think HPF's tend to be used by default for engineer's that don't have full range balanced monitoring, the room isn't set up right or they can't hear the affect of a HPF when inserted. Beyond that it could be just laziness or inexperience with evening out the low end properly so they insert a quick fix HPF. Other times it could be that the low end is using up too much headroom & is robbing the master from gaining hotter RMS levels so the bottom is thinned out to allow for this.

In my experience it's all about controlling the low end & helping it sit in the mix without anything sounding off balance. This can occasionally mean HPF but usually sounds best dealt with ducking a certain frequency range (out of balance bass note) with a parametric, low shelf or both. Don't be afraid to keep some low subs in there if it suits or fits in with the track. What I love about low subs is if they're clean or at least well controlled they can really add depth & space to a mix which can often be lost when a HPF is inserted (not all HPF's are created equally).

As for LPF's I don't think I've ever used one, preferring a dynamic EQ, de-esser, parametric or high shelf cut rather than completely rolling off the highs.

Matt

[krytikal1]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

There's no greater thrill for most of the mastering engineers I know than pushing the play button and hearing something that sounds absolutely gorgeous with no signal processing at all.

But I have so many other buttons to push........and..lights.....and.....knobs........and...........
must.....push.......buttons........must...........blink...more.....lights.........cannot....just
let it be.................ahhhhhhhhhhh!

[RScott]

I've been wondering similarly, but since I don't master CD's, I'm interested to know what those who do think.

I've heard that because the CD has a max sample rate of 44.1k, a LPF may be needed to soften the filtering that would result from just truncating at 44.1k with nothing above. Is there anything to this, and if so (or not,) could someone explain the reason?

Supposedly from what I heard, the aliasing from the sampling helped to produce some of the edginess or harshness of early CDs. Am I right in describing aliasing or is it a bitrate thing, or combo?

Regarding high frequency content, I heard several places that there is a lot of useful content above 20k, and systems that can fully preserve content up to 100k have returned positive results preferring 100k in double-blind tests. Also read that squares that have no harmonics below 20khz can still be recognized from sines.

So, I would guess that *if* 44.1k will create aliasing without a gentle roll-off, that aliasing could produce some very displeasing things when played back on a system that can also produce similar frequencies.

Anyhow, sorry to stir up more questions than answers, but I'm kind of interested to know and don't have a "listen and find out the facts" system for testing beyond 20khz.

[masteringhouse]

Sometimes I find a LP helpful in sweeting the high end when used with a high shelf, or to tailor the upper end of a parametric for example the Fearn VT-4 has the ability to cut from 28K down that when used with the high boost produces a balance that sounds better (to my ears) than a parametric or shelf alone in the same region. Similar results with the bottom and a low shelf with a HP and wide slope basically shifting the low end energy up a bit. Technically the upper and lower cuts on the VT-4 are shelving EQs but I've gotten similar results with digital EQs and HP/LP.

HPFs are also useful in the rare case where DC offset is present.

I never say always and never say never, oops just did ...

[Bob Olhsson]

Aliasing can take the form of a lack of transparency in the lower midrange.

My understanding from conversations with folks who were there is that the edginess of early CDs was some combination of too many analog tape generations, converters that weren't warmed up and producing anything approaching 16 bits and the total lack of dithering if any kind of DSP was being applied.

There is no evidence of anybody being able to hear anything above 24 kHz. and that's only some children. What we can hear are artifacts below 20kHz. that are caused by events up higher. Hence changing or filtering something above the audible range can sometimes make an audible difference. It doesn't mean we have bat hearing, just that lots of unlikely sounding things can matter.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

My understanding from conversations with folks who were there is that the edginess of early CDs was some combination of too many analog tape generations, converters that weren't warmed up and producing anything approaching 16 bits and the total lack of dithering if any kind of DSP was being applied.

I think especially true was many CDs not being from earliest generation tapes, and that last dsp aspect (out of poor design and/or ignorance). Also, edginess could often simply be attributable to the harshness of the Sony 1610/1630 systems' ADC stock filters. We always used far gentler ones, modified in-house. And although the 1630 system did dither correctly, you then had likely dsp post-16 bit dither.

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

There is no evidence of anybody being able to hear anything above 24 kHz. and that's only some children. What we can hear are artifacts below 20kHz that are caused by events up higher. Hence changing or filtering something above the audible range can sometimes make an audible difference. It doesn't mean we have bat hearing, just that lots of unlikely sounding things can matter.

Glad to see that latter part added & just wanted to re-emphasize this point. thumbsup

[Bob Olhsson]

The converter warm up problem I was told about was the very first Sony equipment that I understand was only rented by the day to the majors prior to the CD roll-out.