Whats the use of high-cut?

[sabin333]

So, I know that a low-cut filter is a great use in mixing for removing masking frequencies in the low end. Like I often get rid of everything below 80ish hz from backup vocals anything that's not a bass-heavy instrument. And I can "understand" that this gives me more volument to play with.

But I've never found a use for a high cut filter. Can anyone recommend some good uses for a high-cut filter in mixing?

[Neil Weir]

Among other things, I use them as front-to-back controls. Applying a 8k-12k low pass can do wonders to move something like a tambourine or a shaker deeper into the mix.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

yeah. anything that's overly spikey/painful/annoying. i go for a shelf more often but use a low pass on occasion.

drum machines/samples sometimes have stupid amounts of 10-20k, a low pass can make them much more listenable.

badly tracked overheads.

overly fizzy guitars.

some singers sound much better with a low pass at like 50.

[A.David.MacKinnon]

Among other things, I use them as front-to-back controls. Applying a 8k-12k low pass can do wonders to move something like a tambourine or a shaker deeper into the mix.

^^^^^^ This.
I also use it to shape bass tracks, get rid of hiss on guitar amps and on my sends to spring and plate reverbs. I also high cut crappy sounding digital digital reverbs.

[kslight]

I often back high end off of modern keyboards/other electronic noise toys, overly bright overheads, vocals, bass...

[dfuruta]

some singers sound much better with a low pass at like 50.

[chris harris]

HAHAHAHA!! MSE nailed it.

[Nick Sevilla]

I often back high end off of modern keyboards/other electronic noise toys, overly bright overheads, vocals, bass...

+1 on all of this.

Damn keyboard designers...

[The Scum]

some singers sound much better with a low pass at like 50.

Hey!

I resemble that remark.

[The Scum]

Whats the use of high-cut?

You mean lowpass?

Just about any worthwhile monosynth sound ever.

[ott0bot]

...sends to spring and plate reverbs. I also high cut crappy sounding digital digital reverbs.

^^this^^

I do this all the time. plus it helps cut out sibilance on the verb tracks.

that and all the other stuff mentioned.

[lightandmind]

Hi cut helps you to isolate the fundamental frequency of any given source, (assuming that the source isn't a cymbal or something), allowing it to not compete with things that actually benefit from things like air and sparkle.

[Jeff White]

I like to automate a low-pass filter to sweep down naturally with the decay of mic'd amps to naturally get rid of amp noise, pickup hiss, etc. Usually the cymbals mask this EQ sweep pretty well and it really works out well.

Also not to stry too far off topic, but...I find the lack of amp and single-coil pickup noise on albums from the 1960s and 1970s to be crazy. I understand that real studios had really nice filtered power, but I am not hearing any 50/60-cycle hum on an album, like, for instance, David Gilmour, where there are pretty much Strats and Teles everywhere. Any insight? Gates?

Jeff

[sabin333]

Okay, last part of my question- Is anyone afraid of losing any of the psychoacoustic content by removing some of that "air" range? Ie: the sounds that we don't necessarily hear, but that we definitly feel?

My science of music professor, Mark Ballora, always cited a study that was done where they played a recording to test subjects that had all of its 20 kHz content in tact, and then they played the recording again with all of the 20+ kHz data cut off. The test subjects were able to identify which one had more data even though all of the sound was above the human hearing level.

Anyway, even though psychoacoustics is kind of a debated area, I was always remiss to remove high end information. But since I've learned about frequency masking, I'm now more interested in removing whatever frequency ranges are competing.

So, if I were to phrase this again, which instruments do you think absolutely need that "air" and which ones do you think can often do without that high frequency range?

[vvv]

I usually leave it for drum and percussion tracks (altho' sometimes cutting the hats) and rooms and often on acoustic guitars (depends); after that, everything is fair game for low-pass.

And by doing that, there is hi-freq. content in the mix - I don't think there's any un-wanted "psychoacoustic" result.

FWIW, the idear, for me, of pass filters is less about getting the right sound (which I hopefully have done with instrument and mic-chain choice and placement) and more about getting rid of extraneous sounds and un-necessary frequencies on a by-the-instrument, and by-the-mix, basis.

For clarity, I interpret what you said above as, "remiss in removing high end information" and agree that cutting out, for example, amp noise, un-necessary ambience, keyboard and amp-emulator fizz, etc. can be a great help in "clarifying" a mix.

As far as "frequency masking", however, I think that's an issue most would say is dealt with by more directed EQ than pass-filtering (altho', I suppose, you could say that the low-end of the keys or kick is masking the bass, or the amp buzz is masking the cymbals ...)