# Do you use Hi Pass on low orchestral instruments?



## AR (Aug 18, 2014)

As asked above. Do you use a hi pass on let's say celli, contrabasses, lo brass, percussion, etc. at around 40Hz?


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 18, 2014)

If its just a layer and the low end is building up or if I don't need that particular frequency from that sample then yes - all the time! But not exactly at 40Hz...it can aby anywhere in the low end where there is a problem. A lot of times, I will just dip a certain band.


Tanuj.


----------



## Lex (Aug 18, 2014)

I do when I have synth bass or/and sub in the track, otherwise no.

alex


----------



## jimfurey (Aug 18, 2014)

It's generally a good practice to hi-pass each instrument, even if set as low as 20hz. Sub-bass frequencies will build up very quickly and that cumulative energy will wreak havoc with reverbs, compressors, or limiters as they still 'hear' those frequencies even if you can't.

For orchestral instruments I will find the lowest natural pitch playable by that instrument and then set the hi-pass for a frequency just below that.

Voxengo SPAN is a great free spectral analyzer for visually seeing where an instrument's (or track's) frequencies are. Then you can cut appropriately.

Cheers!
Jim


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 18, 2014)

jimfurey @ Mon Aug 18 said:


> It's generally a good practice to hi-pass each instrument, even if set as low as 20hz. Sub-bass frequencies will build up very quickly and that cumulative energy will wreak havoc with reverbs, compressors, or limiters as they still 'hear' those frequencies even if you can't.
> 
> For orchestral instruments I will find the lowest natural pitch playable by that instrument and then set the hi-pass for a frequency just below that.



This, mostly. 

But when it comes to a solo instrument or a special sound you are after, then experiment... .


----------



## AR (Aug 18, 2014)

Thanks for your insides.


----------



## Kejero (Aug 19, 2014)

jimfurey @ Mon Aug 18 said:


> For orchestral instruments I will find the lowest natural pitch playable by that instrument and then set the hi-pass for a frequency just below that.



I have found the "just below" part to be very important though. You have to be careful not to cut it too close to what you can hear, because you might lose some frequencies that you might not hear but still add something. It can be a delicate thing. Not made easier by the fact that often it's even perfectly fine to cut even audible frequencies from an instrument, which makes it sound like crap when soloed, but sounds better in the mix for it.


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 19, 2014)

jimfurey @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> It's generally a good practice to hi-pass each instrument, even if set as low as 20hz.



It is generally NOT a good practice to hi-pass each instrument. You don't want to take away each instrument's natural freq. range. It is what is it for a reason, and - assuming it was recorded properly - it was recorded a certain way for a reason. Of course if what you are doing is cutting NF without affecting the instrument itself, that can actually be very beneficial.

That said, you CAN wind up with too much low end build up. In which case, using some light compression alongside some proper EQ work might be beneficial. But if you need to cut some LFs, it's usually - tho not always - better to cut some freqs here and there. Some 35, some 60 (or whatever) as opposed to just wiping out all of the low end. Many times, you want to keep much of that low end in tact. Of course, a properly treated room with good monitors are crucial here.

Cheers.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 19, 2014)

Whenever anyone writes "I always", I blanche.


----------



## AR (Aug 19, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> jimfurey @ Tue Aug 19 said:
> 
> 
> > It's generally a good practice to hi-pass each instrument, even if set as low as 20hz.
> ...



with super chunk bass traps?


----------



## chibear (Aug 19, 2014)

> It's generally a good practice to hi-pass each instrument, even if set as low as 20hz. Sub-bass frequencies will build up very quickly and that cumulative energy will wreak havoc with reverbs, compressors, or limiters as they still 'hear' those frequencies even if you can't.
> 
> For orchestral instruments I will find the lowest natural pitch playable by that instrument and then set the hi-pass for a frequency just below that.



+1 Except I use EQ (which enables me to deal with any other issues at the same time) and do a very quick roll off. Depending on the sound I want in tam tam, large bass drum and timpani I might leave it off for those. I can't remember what book it's taken from, but "If you can't hear it you don't need it".


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 19, 2014)

Depends on the cue, but usually there's some high-passing on my busses.

Sometimes you need it, other times you can get away with just multi band compression on the busses instead to tame the lows before they hit your bus compressor/limiter/etc. without affecting their tonality as much.

Actually, using a MB compressor in M/S mode to squeeze all the low frequencies into the middle and tame them on the output does wonders anyway—directionality is lost in the low frequencies, and focusing them tends to give a much cleaner sound.


----------



## Cruciform (Aug 19, 2014)

AR @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> Thanks for your insides.



I guess that gets to the guts of the issue. 8)


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 19, 2014)

Mathazzar @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> Actually, using a MB compressor in M/S mode to squeeze all the low frequencies into the middle and tame them on the output does wonders anyway—directionality is lost in the low frequencies, and focusing them tends to give a much cleaner sound.


Does that then affect the panning (basses to the right, etc.)?


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 19, 2014)

jamwerks @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> Does that then affect the panning (basses to the right, etc.)?


Sort of...but that's the beauty of multi band processing: you aren't actually centring the whole signal, you're only centring the lowest frequencies. 

Our brains use mostly higher-frequency sounds to interpret positioning, so the basses still sound like they're panned stage left (because they are) but the low-end is contributing its full punch in a balanced manner right down the middle, where it should be, and you can control the low energy independently.


----------



## TimJohnson (Aug 19, 2014)

Cruciform @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> AR @ Tue Aug 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your insides.
> ...



Certainly got straight to the heart of the matter. o-[][]-o


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 19, 2014)

Mathazzar @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> so the basses still sound like they're panned stage left (because they are) but the low-end is contributing its full punch in a balanced manner right down the middle, where it should be, and you can control the low energy independently.


Cool, I'll give that a try!


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 19, 2014)

Listen to this: https://app.box.com/shared/uu0bnsr7l6 and have a look to your VU meters... .


----------



## Mahlon (Aug 19, 2014)

TimJohnson @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> Cruciform @ Tue Aug 19 said:
> 
> 
> > AR @ Tue Aug 19 said:
> ...



You guys stop it. I can't stomach your humor. o-[][]-o o-[][]-o 

Mahlon


----------



## Ethos (Aug 23, 2014)

Mathazzar @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> Depends on the cue, but usually there's some high-passing on my busses.
> 
> Sometimes you need it, other times you can get away with just multi band compression on the busses instead to tame the lows before they hit your bus compressor/limiter/etc. without affecting their tonality as much.
> 
> Actually, using a MB compressor in M/S mode to squeeze all the low frequencies into the middle and tame them on the output does wonders anyway—directionality is lost in the low frequencies, and focusing them tends to give a much cleaner sound.



Could you elaborate a little more on that. I'm curious how a multi band comp in m/s mode would move a band to the center. I could never figure out the proper use of m/s in Ozone, for example.


----------



## vrocko (Aug 23, 2014)

Here is a very good breakdown of M/S functionality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NilfCElGJ2c


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 24, 2014)

I usually highpass reverb sends rather than instruments. But solo low instruments often want EQ-ing, especially cello.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 24, 2014)

Thanks, Vrocko, that video should answer Logicology's question pretty succinctly.

The short answer is that you shouldn't think of it as "moving" a band to the centre—it's more a matter of collapsing a stereo signal to mono such that it falls into the centre, but instead of doing it to the entire signal, you only collapse the lowest frequencies and thus don't lose the sense of positioning.

Also keep in mind that it's almost never necessary to go 100% with this kind of thing...just a gentle squeeze will do the trick in most cases.

+1 to Nick's suggestion of high-passing reverb sends, by the way. Super helpful on lush reverb tails to keep the mud from building up, and again—since we don't get much positioning information from the low frequencies, their absence in the reverb tail doesn't make things sound drier/closer if properly applied.


----------



## KEnK (Aug 24, 2014)

Mathazzar @ Sun Aug 24 said:


> +1 to Nick's suggestion of high-passing reverb sends, by the way.


I invariably do this on the returns.
Is there a difference in using the send or return for this purpose?

I think I got in the habit of doing it this way because of the way my DAW worked.

k


----------



## re-peat (Aug 24, 2014)

KEnK @ Sun Aug 24 said:


> (...) Is there a difference in using the send or return for this purpose? (...)


Probably better to do it before the reverb, K. (In other words: on the send rather than on the return.) Because the boomyness of the reverbed low-end will inevitably spill over in the midrange of the reverb as well, which means that if you wait with high-passing until after the reverb, you'll still have that 'swollen' midrange ― heavier than it should be due to the spill ―, to deal with. 
If, on the other hand, you remove the low-end before the signal enters the reverb, you won't have that potentialy problematic situation.

_


----------



## milesito (Aug 24, 2014)

Does hi passing the send basically mean putting the filter onto the instrument track? Or does it mean pitting the filter plug in on the aux channel containing the reverb?


----------



## Patrick_Gill (Aug 24, 2014)

It depends on a few factors. The recording of the instrument, samples, how it sounds in the hall, the instrument itself, playing dynamic etc. 

Generally, cello low frequencies fundamentally should finish around 40hz-60hz. I normally take my hi-pass and sweep to find the starting point. Once that's there I'll cut and boost depending if any other instruments are clashing. If the cello is playing much higher in the register I'll alter the EQ slightly.


----------



## KEnK (Aug 24, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Aug 24 said:


> KEnK @ Sun Aug 24 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Is there a difference in using the send or return for this purpose? (...)
> ...


Thanks Peat

I'll run some tests.
I have been in the habit of cutting mid freqs on the return as well,
and also altering the mid/side balance as needed-
But probably just eqing the send is an easier fix.

I'll find out

k


----------



## KEnK (Aug 24, 2014)

milesito @ Sun Aug 24 said:


> Does hi passing the send basically mean putting the filter onto the instrument track? Or does it mean pitting the filter plug in on the aux channel containing the reverb?


Neither of those approaches will do it
I think it depends on the DAW you use.

In Logic you'd put the filter on the bus channel,
then route that to the Aux which has the reverb plug.

As I've said, I haven't been doing it that way-
but that seems like the way it works in Logic.

Also possible to put the filter before the reverb,
but then if you send more than 1 inst to that particular reverb,
you're confined to just one eq cut, 
as opposed to the send buses, where each inst can be treated differently

k


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 24, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Aug 24 said:


> KEnK @ Sun Aug 24 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Is there a difference in using the send or return for this purpose? (...)
> ...



+1


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 24, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 19 said:


> Whenever anyone writes "I always", I blanche.




Rife with irony. :D


----------



## Ethos (Aug 25, 2014)

Mathazzar @ Sun Aug 24 said:


> Thanks, Vrocko, that video should answer Logicology's question pretty succinctly.
> 
> The short answer is that you shouldn't think of it as "moving" a band to the centre—it's more a matter of collapsing a stereo signal to mono such that it falls into the centre, but instead of doing it to the entire signal, you only collapse the lowest frequencies and thus don't lose the sense of positioning.
> 
> ...



Thanks very much for that video. So are you saying you would gently compress the side signal to "squeeze" the bottom end to the middle? I'm doing some experiments here, and I'm having difficulty dialing in anything that doesn't completely lose the bottom or makes the bottom too resonant.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 25, 2014)

Sort of, but you've taken it a step further than what I was talking about...

The goal is to tidy up the low frequencies, right? So what we do with M/S processing is first isolate those low frequencies, then *remove* all their stereo information so that the lowest frequencies of the sound become mono.

The stereo information for the rest of the signal (everything above that low band) remains untouched.

Pay special attention to Dan Worrall (from the video) at around 2:20 where he shows the exact process I'm talking about.

Compression is an entirely separate step—once we have a mono low end and the untouched upper frequencies, then you can start compressing that low band (or expanding, or EQing it out, or distorting it...) to achieve whatever effect you're after. Dan shows this kind of thing around 2:35 in the Pro-MB video: http://youtu.be/LNkaGACWuhs


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 25, 2014)

MichaelL @ Sun Aug 24 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever anyone writes "I always", I blanche.
> ...



People tend to want to codify things that are not codify-able.


----------



## Ethos (Aug 25, 2014)

Mathazzar @ Mon Aug 25 said:


> Sort of, but you've taken it a step further than what I was talking about...
> 
> The goal is to tidy up the low frequencies, right? So what we do with M/S processing is first isolate those low frequencies, then *remove* all their stereo information so that the lowest frequencies of the sound become mono.
> 
> ...



Ok wow, it looks like the FabFilter Pro-MB makes it a A LOT easier than the old copy of Ozone I'm experimenting with. Thanks for pointing out that video to me, I think I understand a little better how to accomplish that!


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 25, 2014)

You're very welcome—and you're right, Pro-MB was basically designed for this kind of thing and it's a very versatile plugin.

If you're ever considering buying FabFilter plugins, remember that any existing user is able to offer you a 10% discount on your purchase, so if you're contemplating Pro-MB then you may as well save some money in the process. I'm sure if you send a message to myself or any other user you know, they'll be happy to give you their referral link.

Feel free to follow up with more thoughts as you experiment. If need be I'll toss a screencast together just walking through the process as I approach it.


----------



## AR (Aug 25, 2014)

That would be great cause this FabFilter plugin caught my attention


----------



## Ethos (Aug 27, 2014)

Looks like I'm actually eligible for the educator's discount through Fab Filter. That makes it too hard to pass up! I'll probably buy that next week and start getting my feet wet. I'll post back here with any more questions at that point.


----------

