VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

[Foog]

I find myself with three different options for adding an HPF to my audio. It's an embarrassment of riches to have so many choices! But each choice seems to have a downside. I could do it in my DAW as I edit, but I worry inordinately* about processing, and want to avoid that photocopying of a photocopy deterioration effect on my audio. Then again, the mic switch and the HPF of my interface are not ideal either. Here is each option and its drawback(s) as I see 'em...


1. Mic switch.
Bob Stevens mentioned in another thread that he's not a fan of this one, and I've been worrying about whether it is a good choice or not since switching to this version a few weeks ago.

2. Interface.
Unfortunately, the HPF on the id22 is at 100Hz and I prefer to cut around 80, so I've never bothered even trying this one.

3. DAW
This is what I used to do as a matter of course, but I switched over to the microphone version to give myself one less processing step in the "raw" audio I send out.


I'm curious as to what you folks prefer to use, and why.



*I worry inordinately about everything. I spent 2 whole minutes worrying about whether I should put this bit in brackets or as a footnote with an asterisk!
_________________
Andrew Fogarasi

[Bob Stevens]

If it is a raw read I generally use a Jim Williams modded Aphex Expander as a HPF. If I am cleaning it up myself I may use several different plugins in post and depending on the mic I may or may not use the expander when recording.

I am pretty sure the ID22 has a real time eq, not the switch, that you can use.
_________________
"Dialog is the painting on a canvas of silence"

[Jason Huggins]

I like a HPF IF the room has enough low frequency noise to cause issues with editing. By "issues" I mean that zero crossings are not very close together, resulting in the possible audible pop when editing NOT at a zero crossing. I had this issue with my previous mic, so I used a HPF at 80hz on my DBX 286a for live sessions that were recorded by another studio and in software if I was editing my own stuff. I have also found that a lot of mics that have HPFs don't really attenuate enough to make them worth using when a lot of noise is present, and if you don't have much noise present...you really don't need the HPF to begin with. Some mics only reduce the low frequencies by like 4dB...when I do it in software I reduce by 60dB. That's a pretty substantial difference.

I will also say that using a HPF on a mic and then doing it again in software if necessary is not anywhere close to the copy of a copy analogy. Basically, the HPF just lowers the level below a certain frequency. If you do it again, you just lower it a little more. That is not degrading the audio really...more like lowering the volume a bit...and then a bit more.

The real question is: Why do you need a HPF?

My preference is to NOT use a HPF unless I am doing a live session with another studio recording (i.e. Source Connect or ISDN) AND I have substantial enough low frequency noise that I don't want to send out audio without addressing it. If I am editing my own audio and then sending it, no HPF via hardware and then just remove ONLY the frequencies that are an issue. For me, it was only below about 65hz, and I just had that process set up as a hotkey that I just hit as soon as I finished recording. My new mic rejects those frequencies that were an issue so I don't use a HPF anymore.

[Foog]

Alas, the lovely booth I built (i.e., my uncle built while I dropped things and hit my thumb with a hammer) last year is tiny, and boomy even when stuffed with bass traps. So I am afraid that one way or another, I need some sort of HPF.

I may not have been clear Jason, but my fear isn't that doing an HPF using the switch on the mic would add to the "photocopy" effect in any way, it's strictly that doing the HPF at all in software does. My apologies for not remembering who and when, but I think it was someone on the vo-bb who pointed out to me that each run of a process you do in your DAW can be akin to a new photocopy being treated as a master. I don't profess to understand precisely when I need to worry about this and when I don't. That is, I dunno what processes "degrade" the original and which ones don't. (several repeated normalizing passes and non-clipping gain bumps and reductions, for example, do not seem to degrade the signal in any way). But repeated HPF sure does some whacky stuff!

For kicks and as a demonstration, I just recorded a sample with no HPF, followed by the same track with one kinda heavy HPF pass in Pro Tools (97 Hz, 12dB/oct), and then with a dozen (identical) passes in Pro Tools. I loaded it up onto soundcloud since the difference is striking even with their awful compression or whatever it is they do to files...

https://soundcloud.com/andrew-fogarasi/12hpfpasses

The last one is right messed up, innit! And that's the reason why I've recently become reluctant to use the DAW's filter when given other options. OF course, I'll be more than happy to have that reluctance put at ease if it ends up being the best of my options.

Edited to add: Bob, far as I know the id22 only has the switch. "Far as I know" is one helluva red flag though. I readily admit my own inexperience with it since I've only had it a few months and once I figured out a way to patch in live direction, I haven't done much exploring.
_________________
Andrew Fogarasi

[Frank F]

I wont go into the when , or why, just facts. Use a HPF in post. Never use an on mic version as they are not accurate or usable as there are many, many, many variables to work with.

What one person uses is simply a guide for your room and needs.

the more foam or traps you use the more boomy or boxy your sound will become. Add some spice to your life with a bi of reflection distraction. Live things up a bit, take some traps out and create a "sound space" not a dead space and/or a dying space.

Bright and clean is "in". Boomy, bassy, and bummed is "out".

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

[vkuehn]

[Lee Gordon]

[Foog]

[Lance Blair]

HPF in post, unless you have a HPF on the pre that can be dialed in to 70 Hz or lower and isn't cutting anything above 80 Hz. Never on the mic unless you're recording in a hotel room.

I loved this old preamp I had for this feature:

http://www.speck.com/mp50/images/SPECK%20MicPre%205%20front%20rework.gif

Really wish I had it back for my CAD.
_________________
Skype: globalvoiceover
and now, http://lanceblairvo.com the blog is there now too!

[vkuehn]