[[email protected]]

Is the u87ai high pass filter, or high pass filter on any mic for that
matter, different than the high pass filters found on preamps? If they
are the same which would you rather use? I have a u87ai going to a
737sp.

also just curious. how do analog high pass filter compare with digital
high pass filters? and would a dsp based digital high pass filter
differ than a native plugin like by sonnox oxford?

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:
Is the u87ai high pass filter, or high pass filter on any mic for that
matter, different than the high pass filters found on preamps?

Maybe. The two characteristics of a filter are its specified frequency
(usually the frequency where attenuation reaches 3 dB) and the slope -
how many dB per octave attenuation you get. There's no single low pass
filter that's used everywhere. The mic's filter may have a different
frequency than the preamp's, or may be a different slope, or one mic may
be (and probably is) different from another mic. So like all simple
questions, this one doesn't have a simple answer.

If they
are the same which would you rather use? I have a u87ai going to a
737sp.

They probably won't be the same. Which one to use, if you have two, (you
might even use both) depends on what kind of noise you're trying to get
rid of, and how much low ferquency noise there is. If there's a lot of
low frequency noise, you might want to filter it at the microphne first.
If it's just a little rumble, it's easier to push a button on the
preamp. So the answer is to use the one that does the most good, or
alternatively, the least harm.

also just curious. how do analog high pass filter compare with digital
high pass filters? and would a dsp based digital high pass filter
differ than a native plugin like by sonnox oxford?

We could rant on about linear phase and no phase shift and FIR and so
on, but that's like asking how one micorphone is different from another,
or how chocolate ice cream is different from vanilla. The thing about
digital filters is that you can make them do about anything you want and
they're always the same. Analog filters are limited in their flexibility
by the available components, and they change over time. But of course
there's the fiddle factor to consider, too. If you have one filter with
one or two settings, you can listen, make a decision, and move on. If
you have four different filter types to choose from in your digital
plug-in, and you can set the cutorr frequency and slope, then you just
HAVE to try them all to decide which one is best.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

when I said "different" I ment if there is a category of filters for
mics made for compensating proximity effect

On Nov 26, 5:39*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
wrote:
Is the u87ai high pass filter, or high pass filter on any mic for that
matter, different than the high pass filters found on preamps?

Maybe. The two characteristics of a filter are its specified frequency
(usually the frequency where attenuation reaches 3 dB) and the slope -
how many dB per octave attenuation you get. There's no single low pass
filter that's used everywhere. The mic's filter may have a different
frequency than the preamp's, or may be a different slope, or one mic may
be (and probably is) different from another mic. So like all simple
questions, this one doesn't have a simple answer.

* If they

are the same which would you rather use? I have a u87ai going to a
737sp.

They probably won't be the same. Which one to use, if you have two, (you
might even use both) depends on what kind of noise you're trying to get
rid of, and how much low ferquency noise there is. If there's a lot of
low frequency noise, you might want to filter it at the microphne first.
If it's just a little rumble, it's easier to push a button on the
preamp. So the answer is to use the one that does the most good, or
alternatively, the least harm.

also just curious. how do analog high pass filter compare with digital
high pass filters? and would a dsp based digital high pass filter
differ than a native plugin like by sonnox oxford?

We could rant on about linear phase and no phase shift and FIR and so
on, but that's like asking how one micorphone is different from another,
or how chocolate ice cream is different from vanilla. The thing about
digital filters is that you can make them do about anything you want and
they're always the same. Analog filters are limited in their flexibility
by the available components, and they change over time. But of course
there's the fiddle factor to consider, too. If you have one filter with
one or two settings, you can listen, make a decision, and move on. If
you have four different filter types to choose from in your digital
plug-in, and you can set the cutorr frequency and slope, then you just
HAVE to try them all to decide which one is best.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
when I said "different" I ment if there is a category of filters for
mics made for compensating proximity effect

No, because proximity effect varies in intensity with the distance from
the microphone, and it varies in slope with the pattern of the microphone.
So no two instances will be quite the same.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

I guess its best to leave it off and apply a filter after recording if
needed. Thats what you guys do? oh btw I got the u87ai yesterday so
I'm still fiddling around with it. The mic I had before was a rode k2.
the 87ai was a huuuuge improvement. I love it :-)

[hank alrich]

wrote:

when I said "different" I ment if there is a category of filters for
mics made for compensating proximity effect

Go do some reading. Start with the FAQ.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
I guess its best to leave it off and apply a filter after recording if
needed. Thats what you guys do?

If possible, I'll change the microphone placement or change the microphone
rather than reaching for the EQ. I'll try and get as much of the sound as
possible during tracking, but it's just as easy to put the EQ off.

Often if I'm working with tape I'll tend to stick a low-cut in on tracking
just because the low end headroom on the tape machine isn't so great.

oh btw I got the u87ai yesterday so
I'm still fiddling around with it. The mic I had before was a rode k2.
the 87ai was a huuuuge improvement. I love it :-)

The U87 is a funny thing. The off-axis weirdness can be a pain, especially
in a bright room, but you can do some interesting things with it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:
I guess its best to leave it off and apply a filter after recording if
needed. Thats what you guys do?

Not necessarily. Why record something that doesn't sound right?
Recording straight in without a filter or any other EQ will let you play
with various settings and get a feeling for what they do. You gotta
learn somehow, right? There are no secret formulas that everybody but
you knows.

As far as a "proximity effect" filter, some mic manufacturers use that
as a potential application for a low cut filter when they write their
product literature. There is a bass boost due to close proximity to a
directional mic, and a low cut filter will reduce the low frequency
output of the mic. This may help to reduce the proximitiy effect, but it
doesn't "compensate" for it or make it disappear. There are too many
variables with proximity effect to be handled by a single fixed filter.



oh btw I got the u87ai yesterday so
I'm still fiddling around with it. The mic I had before was a rode k2.
the 87ai was a huuuuge improvement. I love it :-)


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)