| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Hi,
I'm batch processing about 120 old masters in WAVLAB, recorded years ago, before I knew anything about recording, at least relative to what I know now. It's been suggested that I should use the "Free Filter" to roll off everything below 50k, since it's inaudible, although it still adds to the overall volume. Fine. My question is concerning the highs. Where should I apply the roll off highs that won't affect the program material to the listener ? Or doesn't it matter with the highs as much as on the lowest frequencies. Is it okay to use the Free Filter on those also? Thanks, al |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:26:52 GMT, Alan Cassaro
wrote: Hi, I'm batch processing about 120 old masters in WAVLAB, recorded years ago, before I knew anything about recording, at least relative to what I know now. It's been suggested that I should use the "Free Filter" to roll off everything below 50k, since it's inaudible, although it still adds to the overall volume. Fine. My question is concerning the highs. Where should I apply the roll off highs that won't affect the program material to the listener ? Or doesn't it matter with the highs as much as on the lowest frequencies. Is it okay to use the Free Filter on those also? Thanks, al The stuff below 50Hz (not 50k) may or may not be audible (ok, it is all audible, but it may or may not contribute musically) so whether you can simply chop it is a matter of artistic choice, not just something you do. As to the top end - leave it alone; it is all important. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
On Oct 9, 4:26 pm, Alan Cassaro
wrote: Hi, I'm batch processing about 120 old masters in WAVLAB, recorded years ago, before I knew anything about recording, at least relative to what I know now. It's been suggested that I should use the "Free Filter" to roll off everything below 50k, since it's inaudible, although it still adds to the overall volume. Fine. Seems like you don't know what you're talking about, since rolling off everything below 50K will remove everything audible. My question is concerning the highs. Where should I apply the roll off highs that won't affect the program material to the listener ? About 16 KHz. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Arny Krueger wrote:
Seems like you don't know what you're talking about, since rolling off everything below 50K will remove everything audible. What? |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Arny Krueger wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:26 pm, Alan Cassaro wrote: ...snip... It's been suggested that I should use the "Free Filter" to roll off everything below 50k, since it's inaudible, although it still adds to the overall volume. Fine. Seems like you don't know what you're talking about, since rolling off everything below 50K will remove everything audible. My question is concerning the highs. Where should I apply the roll off highs that won't affect the program material to the listener ? About 16 KHz. Hmmmm, ever heard the term context? In reading the successive sentences it should be clear that "50k" was a typo or gaff. George may just be on the mark about you being too quick on the draw. Chill. To paraphrase a carpenter's adage: read twice, respond once. Later... Ron Capik -- |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
On Oct 9, 9:18 pm, Ron Capik wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: On Oct 9, 4:26 pm, Alan Cassaro wrote: ...snip... It's been suggested that I should use the "Free Filter" to roll off everything below 50k, since it's inaudible, although it still adds to the overall volume. Fine. Seems like you don't know what you're talking about, since rolling off everything below 50K will remove everything audible. My question is concerning the highs. Where should I apply the roll off highs that won't affect the program material to the listener ? About 16 KHz. Hmmmm, ever heard the term context? I No, never. ;-) In reading the successive sentences it should be clear that "50k" was a typo or gaff. My mind reading module is on the fritz today. George may just be on the mark about you being too quick on the draw. Chill. George badly needs to read his own posts, then. So you you, Ron. To paraphrase a carpenter's adage: read twice, respond once. Dr, Cure thyself. Later... Ron Capik -- |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Alan Cassaro wrote:
Hi, I'm batch processing about 120 old masters in WAVLAB, recorded years ago, before I knew anything about recording, at least relative to what I know now. It's been suggested that I should use the "Free Filter" to roll off everything below 50k, since it's inaudible, although it still adds to the overall volume. Fine. Why? What format were they recorded on where they would have anything above 50 KC to begin with? My question is concerning the highs. Where should I apply the roll off highs that won't affect the program material to the listener ? Or doesn't it matter with the highs as much as on the lowest frequencies. Is it okay to use the Free Filter on those also? Filters are not sharp. You will notice a difference in sound well below the turnover frequency of the filter. How much below depends on the order of the filter. Use your ears. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Thanks for the 16 KHz suggestion. Not sure what you mean concerning the lows.
I always roll off everything below 50KHz, and I don't notice any difference in the music or audible signal. That's using the "Free Filter" plugin. (on "log" setting). However, The last few days, I've been looking at a lot of audio graphs of wav files of CD tracks on Harmony Balancer, a nice little program which I use once in a while. For instance, right now I've got "THE LUCKY ONE" by Allison Krause loaded up, and looking at the graph of the audio, there's an immediate drop off at 13.6 KHz. It's not a smooth tapering roll off that gradually tapers off, but a straight line down; looks like a cliff. The record is my favorite song of hers, and it has a very nice sound. On the other hand, I've got another song loaded up by Merle Haggard ("Where's all the Freedom?"). His cut off looks exactly like the Allison Krause cutoff/cliff, except it's at 16.4 KHz. I suppose the fact that the Haggard track has drums on it, and that the Allison Krause track doesn't, may be the reason for extending the cutoff point on his track. Most of the older CD songs have gradual tapering roll offs on the highs, but I do notice that a lot of the newer tracks have those abrupt cutoffs. An engineer friend pointed out that if it's just a guitar and voice, you can probably do a roll off beginning at 12 to 13 KhZ. He said that in this "new" environment of MP3s, a lot of engineers are doing more radical cutoffs, just because the morons will all converting down to MP3s, or less, so they'll sound like mud on their Ipods. I find that appropriate, considering that most of the music they're listening to sounds like mud too. Albeit, perhaps, it's entertaining mud. Thanks again. But judging by the Haggard graph, maybe 16 is too soon a cutoff point guess I'll leave the highs alone for now, considering that they don't make as big an impression as those really low note around 50-60 KHz do. al cassaro Arny Krueger wrote: On Oct 9, 4:26 pm, Alan Cassaro wrote: Hi, I'm batch processing about 120 old masters in WAVLAB, recorded years ago, before I knew anything about recording, at least relative to what I know now. It's been suggested that I should use the "Free Filter" to roll off everything below 50k, since it's inaudible, although it still adds to the overall volume. Fine. Seems like you don't know what you're talking about, since rolling off everything below 50K will remove everything audible. My question is concerning the highs. Where should I apply the roll off highs that won't affect the program material to the listener ? About 16 KHz. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:52:51 GMT, Alan Cassaro
wrote: I always roll off everything below 50KHz, and I don't notice any difference in the music or audible signal. That's using the "Free Filter" plugin. (on "log" setting). I think you mean 50 Hz not Khz everything below 20 Khz is till you get down to 20 Hz or so is considered the audiable range for someone with good ears. If you took away every thing below 50 Khz you'd have nothing audible at all. I sometime boost a bit at 50Hz to give the kick some whomp in the gut. it's all a matter of musical style and taste as well as how well you captured the sound you were aiming for. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Alan Cassaro wrote:
...I always roll off everything below 50KHz, and I don't notice any difference in the music or audible signal... I tried rolling everything below 50kHz on all my works in progress. I agree. I can't notice any difference in any of the music or autible signal. Lumpy You were on CHiPs? Did you wear those sexy tight pants and high boots like Erik Estrada? No. Swimtrunks. www.LumpyMusic.net |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:52:51 GMT, Alan Cassaro wrote: I always roll off everything below 50KHz, and I don't notice any difference in the music or audible signal. That's using the "Free Filter" plugin. (on "log" setting). I think you mean 50 Hz not Khz everything below 20 Khz is till you get down to 20 Hz or so is considered the audiable range for someone with good ears. If you took away every thing below 50 Khz you'd have nothing audible at all. I sometime boost a bit at 50Hz to give the kick some whomp in the gut. it's all a matter of musical style and taste as well as how well you captured the sound you were aiming for. In a perfect world, everybody would have full-range monitors with good low end response, so you could hear down to 20 Hz and know whether you had useful signal down there or just noise. If you don't have decent monitoring and you can't really tell what the bottom end is doing, you can't make good decisions about the lower couple octaves, and you are better off just removing them than risking having junk in there. There are some tricks out there for estimating what is going on with the bottom end when using poor monitors; looking at the cone breakup on NS-10s visually is one of the classic ones. I find that kind of half-assed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
There are some tricks out there for estimating what is going on with the bottom end when using poor monitors; looking at the cone breakup on NS-10s visually is one of the classic ones. An RTA is another good trick for that. Mark |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Mark wrote:
There are some tricks out there for estimating what is going on with the bottom end when using poor monitors; looking at the cone breakup on NS-10s visually is one of the classic ones. An RTA is another good trick for that. It is, but it's hard to tell the difference between signal and noise on the RTA... you can see something is there but it's hard to tell what it is sometimes. If it's bouncing up and down with the bass guitar or the kick that can help, but not always. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In a perfect world, everybody would have full-range monitors with good low end response, so you could hear down to 20 Hz and know whether you had useful signal down there or just noise. If you don't have decent monitoring and you can't really tell what the bottom end is doing, you can't make good decisions about the lower couple octaves, and you are better off just removing them than risking having junk in there. There are some tricks out there for estimating what is going on with the bottom end when using poor monitors; looking at the cone breakup on NS-10s visually is one of the classic ones. I find that kind of half-assed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I presume Scott would define Decent Monitoring as not only the right equipment but a properly acousticly treated environment where one can actually hear what the equipment is producing without being masked by the sound the room is making in response to the equipment. One without the other is lacking. peace dawg |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
On 11 Oct 2007 09:31:17 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
There are some tricks out there for estimating what is going on with the bottom end when using poor monitors; looking at the cone breakup on NS-10s visually is one of the classic ones. I find that kind of half-assed. What do you mean? Cone breakup is something that happens at the top of the operating range, not the bottom. Below cutoff speakers are very competent pistons. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
I presume Scott would define Decent Monitoring as not only the right equipment but a properly acousticly treated environment where one can actually hear what the equipment is producing without being masked by the sound the room is making in response to the equipment. One without the other is lacking. Yes. I just spent a week in New York, where I could hear low frequency noise _everywhere_ no matter where I went. Put up a pair of speakers and how do you know if the noise is from the tape or from the subway passing by? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Don Pearce wrote:
On 11 Oct 2007 09:31:17 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: There are some tricks out there for estimating what is going on with the bottom end when using poor monitors; looking at the cone breakup on NS-10s visually is one of the classic ones. I find that kind of half-assed. What do you mean? Cone breakup is something that happens at the top of the operating range, not the bottom. Below cutoff speakers are very competent pistons. Try putting 20 Hz into a pair of NS-10s. You get a really nice pattern because the cone does _not_ act like a piston. Paper isn't completely rigid. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Songs don't usually have that much happening above 18k, at least not
level-wise, so there's little point in removing the top end. But if you boost the 20k band and take a listen to it, it might give you a really painful headache that lasts for hours, and you may also feel sick  |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Don Pearce wrote:
On 11 Oct 2007 10:28:10 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Try putting 20 Hz into a pair of NS-10s. You get a really nice pattern because the cone does _not_ act like a piston. Paper isn't completely rigid. Really, they do that? Just tried it with a pair of KEF Crestas, and the movement was perfectly pistonic. Same with a 15 inch Adire sub. Are you sure your NS10s aren't screwed? That really shouldn't happen. Of course they are screwed! They're ALL screwed. They aren't even designed to sound good. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where are the roll off points for EQ on the highest frequencies?
Alan Cassaro wrote:
I always roll off everything below 50KHz, and I don't notice any difference No, I'm pretty sure you don't... 50Hz yes... 50,000 Hz - are you a bat by any chance? ;-) Guy |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Cooledit pro. frequencies | Pro Audio | |||
| CoolEdit pro frequencies | General | |||
| Maybe the highest-fidelity CD ever (?) | High End Audio | |||
| Highest-fidelity CD ever (?) | Audio Opinions | |||
| Cue Points Don't Appear on CD | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
