You really want to high pass ????

[donchilcott]

the link below raises a very valad point. Lots of people suggest high passing all tracks routinely, but at what cost??? phase issues? see the example below... whadaya think???
https://youtu.be/MslNaNafyr4

Update: I was hoping some of the very knowledgable members might look at the examples of the videos clear examples of how high passing creates phase anomalies and then comment ... I don't know what's worse.... Possible low end crap or the phase anomalies caused by high passing??? What do you do? Use a linear phase eq???

[karbomusic]

Haven't clicked the link. I'm just being consistent in each thread I see on this subject and saying I don't believe in blindly high passing a bunch of tracks 'just cuz', never have. It surely has become a bit of a bedroom fad for lack of a better term though.

Ah... clicked the link, I remember that one.

[bladerunner]

Originally Posted by donchilcott

the link below raises a very valad point. Lots of people suggest high passing all tracks routinely, but at what cost??? phase issues? see the example below... whadaya think???
https://youtu.be/MslNaNafyr4

PS this guy seems very knowledgeable, I've seen lots of his video's...

There's a simple way to assess this kind of thing. Find some mixes the guys done and listen to them. If they're super awesome and you like them and what he's saying is evident in his mixes then by all means grab your tv dinner and hit his channel hard If this is just another guy who has a mixing channel - talk, talk, talk - but with little actual work to show then move on.

[Sexan]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

There's a simple way to assess this kind of thing. Find some mixes the guys done and listen to them. If they're super awesome and you like them and what he's saying is evident in his mixes then by all means grab your tv dinner and hit his channel hard If this is just another guy who has a mixing channel - talk, talk, talk - but with little actual work to show then move on.

This is exactly what I was going to post

[karbomusic]

I'd hate to ignore a concept simply because they don't have f'ing awesome mixes to back it up, that's sort of unintentionally lame if you think about it. Half the technical audio concepts anyone here knows about is from people who couldn't actually mix their way out of a wet paper bag.

[bladerunner]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I'd hate to ignore a concept simply because they don't have f'ing awesome mixes to back it up, that's sort of unintentionally lame if you think about it.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - I'm not really sure. It makes sense in my head to only give time to people who have the results that count. But then I guess teachers often don't.. It's a tough one - maybe I'm being too harsh. It's just life is short and Youtube is kind of immense in its sheer amount of mixing/mastering/production videos by people you've never heard of.

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Half the technical audio concepts anyone here knows about is from people who couldn't actually mix their way out of a wet paper bag.

Very true..

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - I'm not really sure. It makes sense in my head to only give time to people who have the results that count.

Knowing the amount of terrible advice actually out there is high, I'm likely giving you a harder time about it than I should.

[vinnie2k]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I'd hate to ignore a concept simply because they don't have f'ing awesome mixes to back it up, that's sort of unintentionally lame if you think about it. Half the technical audio concepts anyone here knows about is from people who couldn't actually mix their way out of a wet paper bag.

Well said. That's the crap logic behind people citing "their" works mixing and producing famous bands and everyone thinks they know what they're talking about and are good teachers of their craft. That's just plain wrong. Read some of Owsinski's books for proof: half the people he interviews just give out tips and tricks which, taken out of context, are completely useless.

Doing is one (respectable) thing, teaching / giving advice is another.

[Bristol Posse]

I think phase issues, in many cases, are going to be secondary to the problem of a mix with a pathetic lack of low end.
and filter caused phase issues are a potential any time you add an EQ to anything anywhere in the mix

otherwise this seems to be one of those internet "truths" that is often bandied around as something that should always be done or always be a concern by folks with no real experience but they read it in a post where the guy sounded like he knew what he was doing so thy re post it over and over again. That way it becomes an Internet reality.
getting the low end right for each song is key but this seems arbitrary and applying (or not applying) fx based on what someone said on line is likely to make things worse at least as often as it makes them better.

then again, I only switched to doing this for an income a couple of years ago so what do I know.

YMMV

[EvilDragon]

Makes sense to me. Use it when absolutely necessary, but the best thing the guy in the video said is "don't do anything by default". That's exactly it.

[G-Sun]

Ok, can anybody produce a case-project,
that makes highpassing-issues as audibel as possible?
So we can determine for ourself.

Because, if this is just a theoretical or visual case,
then, I'll just continue my old habits

[Judders]

Originally Posted by G-Sun

Ok, can anybody produce a case-project,
that makes highpassing-issues as audibel as possible?
So we can determine for ourself.

Because, if this is just a theoretical or visual case,
then, I'll just continue my old habits

If you're happy with your old habits, why change them?

[Magicbuss]

Originally Posted by G-Sun

Ok, can anybody produce a case-project,
that makes highpassing-issues as audibel as possible?
So we can determine for ourself.

Because, if this is just a theoretical or visual case,
then, I'll just continue my old habits

Minimum phase EQ issues on multi mike instruments can audible which is why I usually use linear phase EQ on drums. Actually I use acon equalize which has a mixed phase mode. it has all the benefits of linear phase but minimizes pre-ring.

One place where minimum phase EQ can cause REAL world problems is during mastering. If you hipass a track that is near digital zero it can actually boost the signal into clipping due to phase distortion.

[Multibomber]

Well... I do record a full drumset in my bedroom with 11 mics: 2 kicks, each with an Audix D6 inside it and a homemade subkick outside of it, 5 toms, each with an internal mic, 1 snare with an internal mic, and one overhead pointed straight down... and I dont know anything about phase other than I understand what comb filtering is because I read an article about it yesterday. What kind of phase problems should I be looking for?

In addition, I use the same guitar tones, plugins, EQ etc for my guitars HOWEVER the guitars are hard-panned L and R (so they're completely separated and they're harmonizing with each other 95% of the time. Do I get a free pass from phase issues with this approach?

[Time Waster]

Theorically, if you have a phasing issue due to using multiple mics, you could correct it to some extent using EQ, so it works both ways.

[insub]

Originally Posted by Multibomber

Well... I do record a full drumset in my bedroom with 11 mics: 2 kicks, each with an Audix D6 inside it and a homemade subkick outside of it, 5 toms, each with an internal mic, 1 snare with an internal mic, and one overhead pointed straight down... and I dont know anything about phase other than I understand what comb filtering is because I read an article about it yesterday. What kind of phase problems should I be looking for?

In addition, I use the same guitar tones, plugins, EQ etc for my guitars HOWEVER the guitars are hard-panned L and R (so they're completely separated and they're harmonizing with each other 95% of the time. Do I get a free pass from phase issues with this approach?

Multi, you have a complex situation with using such setup (not wrong). The simplest form of understanding phase with drums is Snare top and bottom mic. They are approximately 180° out of phase with each other because one is pointing straight down at the drum and one is pointing straight up, theoretically. So you activate the phase flip button typically on the bottom snare because the top snare mic is already pointing the same direction as the overhead mics. This explanation is way over-simplified because the reality is that the top snare skin and bottom skin don't vibrate in perfect synchronization and the overheads are farther away so they could land anywhere in the waveform depending on distance and per frequency. If this were not true then the bottom snare and top snare would completely cancel each other out leaving only the sound of the snare itself minus the drum which does not occur in reality.

Kick drums lay sideways in relation to overheads. And, once you use internal mics then the phase relation to overheads is different still vs mic'ing from outside the drum.

So, this begins to ask how are you using the overheads? Are they solely to capture the cymbols & hats, or are they the main drum sound with individual drum mics to round it out?

OH as Main sound: As you mix in each individual drum mic it will act similar to EQ. If your tom is 180° out of phase with the OH then as you bring the fader up you will actually reduce the volume of that tom. However, if it is perfectly in-phase then as you bring up the fader the tom will become louder which is what we want. But, any phase relation in-between will have differing effects on the sound. Of course, this is not what we actually experience because the distance is different and almost always the microphone is different and different frequencies will lose energy at different rates as they move through the air, etc.

You can check this out by doing this:
1. Solo only the one overhead mic and your internal snare mic.
2. Make a time selection covering one snare hit. Time synch the waveforms so they start at exactly the same time (remove the delay of the overhead).
3. Load ReaEQ on snare and activate one band with the type set to all-pass filter.
4. As you change the frequency you are rotating the phase of the snare mic. Pay most attention to the frequencies between 200-2000Hz

What does it do?
While rotating the phase the sound of the snare should become thinner or more full-bodied as the two become more in-phase with each other in the frequencies that matter (meaning the central frequency and the range surrounding it). Notice it never completely cancels each other out because even though you time-aligned them every fequency is changing phase by a different degree. You can tell this by activating the show phase check box in ReaEQ. See? The phase rotation shifts less logarithmically as you get further from the filter frequency and the 180° shift point is offset from the actual filter frequency. I do not know why it is offset.

You could do this using the JS effect JS: Phase Rotator as well and the result should be similar. I do not know how these two methods differ, but it sounds the same to me. The Phase Rotator rotates all frequencies by the same amount of degree which does not simulate the effect of using EQ or HPF.

So, see how little this phase relation makes a difference on the mic from an overhead several feet away vs the internal mic which is closest to the source. Now multiply this by how much you think the phase relation of one single close mic'd instrument compares to the multiple overheads of an entire live orchestra many feet away. I'm not trying to say that the effect is unimportant. Just that overthinking the phase situation is somewhat a waste of time unless you understand what you want to do with the sound. Maybe a thinner sound from the one mic is actually desirable in the context of the overall mix. Distance changes everything.

The phase relation of your two guitars playing different riffs or even the same riff recorded at a different time will have a negligible effect on each other. The simple fact that each note will not be played in perfect synchronization totally throws phase concerns out. As you rotate the phase of one guitar you will hear nothing. No change at all. Some notes may become more in-phase while others will become more out-of-phase. Overall, you will not be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, if you duplicate a guitar track and rotate the duplicate track using the JS: Phase Rotator the volume will diminish until you reach 180° at which point the guitar will be muted. This is exactly how EQ works. Only we choose which frequencies to rotate with EQ rather than rotate them all.

So, my conclusion is that concerns regarding the phase relationship using HPF is rubbish. Even in the situation of multi-mic'd drum kit using a minimal-phase EQ (like ReaEQ) to HPF the snare the effect on the other drum mics is unknown. Some frequencies that remain audible could become more in-phase while others will become more out-of-phase depending which which other mic you are referencing. Even between which overhead (left/right, close/room). Meanwhile the portion which is filtered out will be gone and have no effect on the other tracks whatsoever.

My guess is that even the transient alteration concern is minimal, and that if you think the transient is suffering you can use the phase rotator to get it back. Besides, in my recordings the snare transient is more than one cycle long. So, what sounds are you recording that have an important transient that is less than one cycle? And, can you even tell if that half-cycle transient is attenuated. Also, you can use a transient enhancer to increase all the transients if you wish.

These are just my observations. Perhaps a real engineer can enlighten us. We have not even touched on how your room reflections will interfere with the phase of each drum track (likely none at all for internal mics but certainly for the overheads).