[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com
On Mar 18, 2:08 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm as critical as anybody of the idea of equalizing out
the
nulls and peaks that are always there below 200 Hz. My
point is that in certain applications, broadband
equalization which is what this roll-off is, can make
some sense. It still might not be the best solution, but
it might be the most practical solution.

My thought was not to try to equalize the low end to
flatten it out, it was to just whack it off so that it
wouldn't distract him from making a good mix EXCEPT for
the low end. It would be like using speakers that don't
reproduce anything below, say, 100 Hz, but are nice and
smooth otherwise. He wouldn't know what was going on down
there, but chances are there's something useful but it
needs to be thinned out. That can be done by someone who
can hear what it sounds like, assuming that the mastering
engineer has good taste and is told that this is to be
part of his mastering job..

From what I can tell, a lot of the world of recording worked this way up
until the 80s or 90s. A lot of tracking and mixing was done with monitors
that really didn't have a lot of bass. If the mastering room was also
bass-challenged, stuff went out that sounds fine until you played it on a
system where you can hear the difference.

Given how intolerant vinyl is of too much bass, I'm wondering how the cutter
room boys defended themselves. Maybe they just listened carefully to their
lacquers, redid the ones that sounded bad, and trash-canned the ones that
needed high pass filtering.