Hi pass in the mic or the mix?

[b1j]

My shiny new sound absorption panels fall off in their Noise Reduction Coefficient below about 125 Hz. Should I switch on the 80 Hz hi pass (low cut) filter on my sE8 SDC mics when tracking acoustic guitar, or leave them wide open and subtract frequencies near there when mixing?

So far, my instinct has chosen the latter, thinking that the DAW’s EQ is more precise.

[DupleMeter]

Personally, I feel 80Hz is too high for a HPF. Because of that, I tend to rely on either the preamp HPF, or a plugin.

Remember, a HPF introduces phase shift (technically most EQs introduce phase shift), but the filters can often be the most noticeable.

[b1j]

Yes. With low E at 82 Hz, I also feel like that’s cutting it close.

Phase shift from EQ is news to me, though. It looks like I’ve dodged that bit of knowledge so far. I’ll need to look into that.

I have one very brief phrase in my song where the phase meter’s correlation (is that the word?) pops into the left side. I gather that means something is out of phase. I’ve tried but I can’t hear it.

One more question for the mastering engineer.

[Eastbound]

I high pass after recording, and I high pass to taste by listening. I dont ever limit myself to rule of, dont ever high pass above a certain frequency.

If there are two guitars, I only let one occupy the lowest frequencies and high pass the other above this. It gives clarity, separation, and gets rid off bass build up. At the same time, usually playing in different positions to separate the two. Incidentally, when mixing, I only ever let one instrument occupy the lowest frequencies

With that said, make a couple recordings and try the mic filter vs the DAW EQ and see which one you like better

Im typically using Reapers stock EQ but also I like the Oeksound soothe plug in on acoustic guitar, and use it after my EQ to smooth things out. It can really tighten up the bass on an acoustic guitar. Oeksound smooth is subtle, but effective

[KevWind]

I tend to leave the mic's unfiltered and uncut and use the DAW HP filter.
I usually set the HP at about 65 - 75 Hz and fairly steep roll off like 12 or even 18 db per octave

[TBman]

I don't use any mic's eq features. Everything I do is after recording.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by b1j

Yes. With low E at 82 Hz, I also feel like that’s cutting it close.

Phase shift from EQ is news to me, though. It looks like I’ve dodged that bit of knowledge so far. I’ll need to look into that.

I have one very brief phrase in my song where the phase meter’s correlation (is that the word?) pops into the left side. I gather that means something is out of phase. I’ve tried but I can’t hear it.

One more question for the mastering engineer.

EQs work through phase shift...so don't sweat it too much. The reason I call out the HPF, is that the phase shift often intrudes more than on a shelf or parametric...especially at the higher order (2nd & 3rd order filters).

Re: the correlation meter...beware of relying on metering too much, what you could be seeing is the lack of direct correlation in the mix (e.g. something happens in one speaker but not the other, such as a hard panned instrument). That is perfectly fine.

The best way to check for phase issues is to listen in mono & see if balance & sound changes drastically. That's the dead simple litmus test for phase issues.

[Bob Womack]

Nevuh say nevuh.

There are times when I know there is just nothing that I want going on down in the low end and I use either the mic's high pass switch or the variable high pass on a preamp on the way to "tape." Just read my signature to see why.

Bob

[min7b5]

I personally would do it in the DAW, and these days more likely just use a low shelf, reserving high-passing for when I'm after a problem like maybe an accidental foot stomp or something.

[Doug Young]

To me, the main thing I try to keep in mind with issues like this is that I never want to lock myself into something I can't undo. If you're in a pro studio with a sound engineer on the other side of the glass listening, they may be able to make good decisions at tracking time - EQ, compression, etc. But when you're home recording, wearing all hats - performer, engineer, producer, janitor, etc, it's really tough to make the right call during tracking - you want to delay as many decisions as possible until you're wearing your mixing or mastering engineer hat, when you can focus on those things instead of on your performance.

Mic choice and placement along with levels are the main things you can't avoid locking in during tracking, and that's more than enough things to go wrong without adding any more things that could be set wrong along the way.

So, no, I wouldn't use a high pass on a mic. If needed (it often is), I'd use a high pass when mixing. But on a separate note, I don't think the absorption coefficient frequencies of your panels are going to have much to do with this - you can't really EQ out room acoustics issues. That coeficient isn't really about reducing "noise" in the sense of extraneous sounds. In this use, it's about what frequencies are absorbed, preventing room modes and resonances.

[jim1960]

As a general rule, I think it's better to do as little on the way in as you can and leave decisions on things like roll-off for post-production. That way you can choose what frequency the roll-off begins rather than letting the mic choose.

Other than slight compression in situations where it's really necessary, I don't do much else of anything while tracking. The reason? If you make a mistake while tracking, you don't have a way to reverse that in post.

[j3ffr0]

I will high pass at the preamp or mic if I know for sure I won't be using the stuff below the filter.

Examples of where I high pass when tracking
Acoustic guitar in a mix with drums and bass
Female vocals
Mandolin
Electric guitar (depends)

Examples of where I don't high pass when tracking:
Solo fingerstyle acoustic guitar
Bass male vocals
Electric guitar (depends)
Acoustic piano in a classical setting

[Coler]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

To me, the main thing I try to keep in mind with issues like this is that I never want to lock myself into something I can't undo. If you're in a pro studio with a sound engineer on the other side of the glass listening, they may be able to make good decisions at tracking time - EQ, compression, etc. But when you're home recording, wearing all hats - performer, engineer, producer, janitor, etc, it's really tough to make the right call during tracking - you want to delay as many decisions as possible until you're wearing your mixing or mastering engineer hat, when you can focus on those things instead of on your performance.

Mic choice and placement along with levels are the main things you can't avoid locking in during tracking, and that's more than enough things to go wrong without adding any more things that could be set wrong along the way.

…

Very wise words. I find myself nodding along.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

TIf you're in a pro studio with a sound engineer on the other side of the glass listening, they may be able to make good decisions at tracking time - EQ, compression, etc. But when you're home recording, wearing all hats - performer, engineer, producer, janitor, etc, it's really tough to make the right call during tracking - you want to delay as many decisions as possible until you're wearing your mixing or mastering engineer hat, when you can focus on those things instead of on your performance.

Don't forget the pro's experience. They know, from lots of past trials, that for *this* source, with *this* mic, in *this* room, with *this* context, that they can do certain processing on the way in to get the result they want. Most of us don't have that background, so it's easier (and safer) to do most everything in post if we can.