| Author
|
FAT
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 04:57
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 05:03
|
i m not serious man just joking .
i will check more about pre ringing thanks to you and these talks. |
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 05:15
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-08 23:26, daark wrote:
yeah i know
its called latency ...i do use that one but only at the end.
the reason i ask that is because the monofilter have no latency or just a smart compensation...
anyway
just asked if anyone tried it out yet for that purpose 
as long as your bass doesn't dissapear i guess its cool. hehehe
|
|
was not talking about latency but timing in the sound itself, i dont remmeber exaclty but a 24db /octave filter at 50 hz could delay some freqs there by a few millisecond and we all know how few millisecond change everyhting between the kick /bassline relation. it can result in a less tight sound than when it s not highpassed.that a reason why some might use hp filter as part of the synthesis cause if you get the sound right without any hp,adding it can just make things less tight and worst sounding ,but when you use is as a part of "synthesis" you will compensate for what the hp filter do and in a way fix what dont sound right.a sound that is perfect wihtout any hp is the best solution .
(have no idea if i m right with this correct me if i m wrong but it s a bit what i hear) |
|
|
|
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 11:41
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-09 04:32, Speakafreaka wrote:
You want a filter that doesn't change the sound.
So far as I can tell, this is an oxymoron, as well I think you know. That is why I suggested your original question was retarded.
I apologise. It was needlessly harsh to frame it like that.
I am however genuinely curious as to the logic behind the thought - you're too good a producer to not know that looking for a filter that doesn't change the sound at all makes no kind of sense!
|
|
An oxymoron is you not understanding my question! I am not nitpicking on words and when I say "change the sound" I do not mean like something is doing something to something. Yes filters change sound, it is why we used them, but I am talking about filter than will do what I want in the most transparent way.
I want a filter that has a 48dB/8ve slope and gets rid of all the frequencies below the cut-off frequency, at the predetermined slope, yet does not induce the artifacts of such a process, i.e. no boosting around the cut-off point, no delay of frequencies around the cut-off point, without affecting transients at all, even when the cut-off frequency is well within the range of the "music" spectrum and not just to get rid of DC.
Yes you suggested something that does this and manages to do it in a musical way, which is what one would want for some purposes.
I also would like to know if there is something that does this, yet sounds transparent.
You know your stuff, but instead of saying that you know I think this is retarded and I am playing at something, you could have said, there is none yet.
Don't assume others are following every last thing in digital filter design, or whatever it is you do. Some people are genuinely interested to ask if there something that might seem like a retarded thing to you.
The way you come across does not do your work any justice. And maybe you don't care about how you come across, you're just here to say I know something better than the rest of you which also gives me the right to be obnoxious, in which case we can all call each other names and be done with it.
Peace out.
http://soundcloud.com/martianarts |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 13:47
|
give a try to psp neon hr ,for mac it might be one of the most complete eq, have no idea how it sound but it s praised by bob katz for his low end and how transparent it is, maybe it will sound fine for what you re looking for.
http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/equalizers/psp_neon_hr/
linear phase eq are not made to replace minimum phase ones ,i don t want to sound like this , but it s just a other tool that can be usefull . |
|
|
|
*eLliSDee*
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
671
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 14:30
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-08 17:04, disco hooligans wrote:
As to overwhelming bass, its not always down to not high cutting high enough. From experience I have found that a lot of times overwhelming bottom end comes from peaks in the 40 to 80Hz ranges, where a notch with not a high Q setting, as it it goes back to ringing, sorts the problematic resonance out. Then I am able to get a better idea whether there is actually too much subs, or not.
Peace out.
|
|
I do not know if this was mentioned again in the following pages.
I do have some proper room treatment in place and i'm still unsure that notching that little q at those frequencies is not just compensating for room resonance. its just making either bass or kick take dominance in that area.
Also I find that to HP so low on mediocre monitors is almost impossilbe not to mess up the tone. I'd really prefer to let a mastering engineer in good studio take care of that. BUT i still do it to for home use.. It just always sound sweeter without the HP. The nearfields do not reproduce that low anyway to notice considerable rumble. But we want that headroom i guess
|
|
|
|
dj chichke
Chichke
Started Topics :
83
Posts :
705
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 14:52
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 16:00
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-09 11:41, disco hooligans wrote:
An oxymoron is you not understanding my question! I understand and understood the question as you meant it. |
|
You don't understand the answer - let us try again and see if we can communicate a little clearer.
Quote:
|
I am not nitpicking on words and when I say "change the sound" I do not mean like something is doing something to something. Yes filters change sound, it is why we used them, but I am talking about filter than will do what I want in the most transparent way. |
|
But I was obviously doing exactly that, and for a reason outside of smartarsery. The point I'm driving towards is that the bits you don't like about filters are integral parts of how filters work. Let's go through it in more detail:
Quote:
|
I want a filter that has a 48dB/8ve slope and gets rid of all the frequencies below the cut-off frequency, at the predetermined slope
|
|
Right, problem one. A sloped filter 'gets rid' of precisely none of the frequencies below the cutoff. I'm sorry to be nitpicky, I know you don't like it, but what is going on here is important. I'm not trying to be an arse. The most that can happen is that the frequencies that exist are dropped below the noise floor of the system. But with a 48db filter at 30 hz ... you won't hit noise floor on a typical system with a typical signal until 30 ... 15 ... call it 7.5 at -144 dB ... so the signal you are trying to cut is still going to be there with any genuine 48dB filter.
Quote:
|
yet does not induce the artifacts of such a process, i.e. no boosting around the cut-off point,
|
|
when you design a filter, you are pretty much confronted with a few choices. If you want the cutoff to actually be at the cutoff then you can't use a butterworth filter. Why should this matter - because butterworth filters display by far the least passband or stop rippling of the tradtional (and as far as is currently known read possible) filter models, but also are a bit loose around the cutoff. If you don't use a butterworth, you can get far tighter passband or far tighter stopband behaviour but at the expensive of ripples in one or the other. In other words, HP filters that do not attenuate the signal as expected in the stopband - we see this quite a lot in digital filters trying to be tight at the cutoff ... and then not cutting as wanted. So that leaves the butterworth. In an attempt to correct the 'slow turn' around the butterworth filter, some makers introduce res around the cutoff as it 'speeds up' the turn, and it is often musically useful to boost at the point of cut. Not doing this results in the filter response extending above the cutoff quite a way and attenuating far more than was intended.
So, to sum up, if you want a nice clean stopband, you have to accept that it might be neccesary to boost at the cutoff. If you don't want to boost at the cutoff but still have a tight turn, you have to accept that you are going to have an unclean stopband.
Quote:
|
no delay of frequencies around the cut-off point,
|
|
I am not going to go into the maths, it hurts my brain ... but take a look at a bode plot of a butterworth filter. 'No delay around the cutoff' is literally impossible to achieve in this way - or with a chebshev, or any other known traditional filter unless you go linear phase. BUT
Quote:
|
without affecting transients at all,
|
|
linear phase as shown above affects transients if anything worse than non-linear phase.
So, what you are asking for whilst making musical sense is actually literally impossible in filter design terms - in fact its quite often contradictory in filter design terms.
Quote:
|
You know your stuff, but instead of saying that you know I think this is retarded and I am playing at something, you could have said, there is none yet.
Don't assume others are following every last thing in digital filter design, or whatever it is you do. Some people are genuinely interested to ask if there something that might seem like a retarded thing to you.
|
|
fair enough. I've already apologised. I'm not going to suck you off as well.
Quote:
|
The way you come across does not do your work any justice. And maybe you don't care about how you come across, you're just here to say I know something better than the rest of you which also gives me the right to be obnoxious, in which case we can all call each other names and be done with it.
|
|
Every single time I try and post advice on this board I am on hyperdefensive. People simply refuse to talk things through sensibly on this board.
Now, objectively, I am a feisty person. I'll always back my corner - but I don't have these problems on other boards or in face to face communication. Only here. In fact I'm so supportive and unobnoxious at work my nickname is 'Mum' not bad for a 31 year old guy!
My posting pattern here is:
Don't post for months
See an interesting topic
Try and share what I know and correct inaccuracies in other's posts if I see them for the benefit of the community as a whole.
Get told I'm wrong when I'm right.
Don't post for months because it just isn't worth it.
You bring my 'work' into it. I've released everything I've ever made for free. I don't do it to feel better than other people, I do it to help people in their tunes - some of them are even designed to help people become better producers (psy-kick for example).
Could it be I post here to do the same thing? What do you think?
and to you. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 16:09
|
well i am going to try Red PEQ and see what it brings.
Anyway the most easy solution to me would be to synthesize the kick without reaching that low a simple fade out in volume would just kill that artifact.
As for the base sound just take care that the fundamental is where you want it to be.
That way just won't be needing to cut at all
If you still in need of cutting artifacts down out of leads and other more complex things that would be a problem .
So that brings that question again what is best EQ to do so?
And if exporting the sound and just cutting out this small bastard is a solution? or is this happening through all the lenght of the waveform and is not(less) visible ?
How to fix this issue?
Or just make sure to use the eq like that so you don't bring too much shit in the mix(which i am doing now)?
And for those golden replies "use your ears" (90% of posts here) -->
yeah yeah...Don't have anything smarter to say than save it .
Scientific and technical posts please hope i am making sense
http://soundcloud.com/magimix-1/chilling-forest-whispers
Wierd shit happens :) |
|
|
|
vipal
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
123
Posts :
1397
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 16:18
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-09 02:53, Speakafreaka wrote:
Aye, it is subtle.
Here is some photo evidence for you.
You may not think it looks like much to worry about ... and on one part you'd be right, but it really really adds up, and I find it definitely noticable, unpleasant and unwanted, especially when K & B are in isolation!
The cursor is over the problem area. The original sample goes straight in at the transient with silence before hand.
|
|
is this pre-ringing the only artefact? |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 16:22
|
AFAIK. As I say, it adds up the more you use it. I won't go near normal percussion parts with Linear Phase for example ... I just don't like what it does to the sound.
I'm not saying don't use linear phase - I'm saying be aware of the payoff and be aware that for very many solutions traditional EQ may well give better results, especially when the EQ is used in conjunction with patching the synth. As I tried to point out phase distortion may well be a desirable artifact on bass patches in particular.
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 18:47
|
What are the advantages of linear phase then over traditional EQ then???
From reading this thread I'm having a hard time seeing why you *would* use linear phase if it has this delay/artifact problem.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 19:54
|
|
from what I learned from my lecturers Linear Phase eqs are for mastering not for mixing because of phase issues of course,apart of other truths ,just to keep my statement here short.
https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 19:57
|
Mastering is where I'd use a linear phase EQ. I'm sure there are situations where I'd use them in mixing in preference over minimum phase EQs ... but they are not exactly springing to mind - and I am genuinely trying to think of situations in mixing where I would turn to them first off.
Maybe if I needed a really steep but transparent cut on a pad, or real stringed instrument ...
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Mar 9, 2011 20:15
|
|
