Microphone Hi-Pass filter use

[Steve House]

Using the HPF in production is a good idea for dialog as it can help with wind and handling noise biut most sound "tailoring" should be done in post rather than in the field. It;'s very difficult to "un-equalize": if your master was recorded with it if you later change your mind while listening in the more relaxed environment of the editing suite. Your original field recordings should be as pristine and un-tampered with as you can make them. The HPF is to prevent recording problems, not give you a certain sound.

[Seth Bloombaum]

I'd generally agree with what Steve wrote above.

The question for these roll-offs applied at the time of recording is: Is there meaningful signal below 80 (or 160) Hz. If there isn't, take advantage of these filters on the mic and mixer. They're there because LF noise below the frequency range of dialog is commonly encountered.

But, no, James; the use of an LF rolloff for acoustic guitars has gotten a little intertwined with the discussion, and guitar should be treated differently than dialog during recording.

For guitar, I'd suggest:
If you're in an environment that has LF noise, find another place to shoot, and/or, turn off HVAC, refrigerators, other sources of noise. Or maybe shoot at another time that isn't so noisy.

Use a different mic if you can mic voice and guitar separately. The guitar mic should *not* be rolled off, not in the mic, not in the mixer channel.

If invisible micing is required, a boom mic, hypercardoid or short shotgun would usually be tried first for guitar. This could be supplemented with lav for voice, but most lav positions will get a lot of LF off the guitar.

A lot of this kind of work is done with a performer lip-syncing to a studio recording, or some other recording that was done with visible mics, because it's frequently hard to get the recording you'd like to have when invisible micing is required. Not an insurmountable obstacle in many (not all!) circumstances, but specialized mics, multichannel recording, installation of invisible pickups in guitars, lavs hidden in hair instead of on the chest, all these techniques and more can come out.

So... why is it that you're concerned about the female voice / guitar combo? What would the actual shooting circumstances be?

[James Kuhn]

Mr. Seth Bloombaum...nothing specific regarding 'the female voice / guitar combo', it was an example used during the discussion.

It interested me from the standpoint of a specific application for the use of the 160Hz HPF, i.e., female voices.

Neophytes, like me, are always interested in an example of when to use a particular 'adjustment/effect'.

Or, as in the case of the 'Guitar', when not to use an adjustment/effect.

I also realize these are 'guidelines', not hard and fast 'rules'. But, as I often say, you have to start somewhere. It also gives me another data point for my 'best practices' list in my head.

This thread will definitely be copied and pasted to my 'Audio File'. : )


Thank you.

J.

[Rick Reineke]

Originally Posted by James Kuhn

I don't currently have an audio S/W application, My NLE (Vegas Pro) has a rudimentary audio section, 'mixing board', certainly not sophisticated by any stretch.

I'm not familiar with the term "S/W"
VP's audio capabilities are as (or more) sophisticated and intuitive than many (audio only) DAWs. It supports both DX and VST plug-ins with automation of most parameters. In addition, the architecture was always 32bit floating point, since Vegas 1 (which was audio only) long before 'SloTools' adopted it. It ain't perfect though and lacks in some areas. (side-chaining for instance)

[Seth Bloombaum]

Hope this isn't too far off topic, but Rick started it!

I too have been a Vegas user since V1, when it was about the only multitrack non-destructive audio editor for windows (PT was mac-only at the time).

I've been teaching the Adobe CC suite... but I have to say that Vegas ranks right up there and in some ways superior to Audition and the audio side of Premiere.

Premiere does have a nice Merge Clips on audio feature, that on a project with few takes will easily auto-sync double-system sound (if you have *some* sound on the cam). But for a larger project with 10s or 100s of clips you'd still want Plural Eyes.

Audition does have a cool ADR sync-up, that I've never used.

But day in and day out Vegas is fast, accurate, good sounding, and supports any kind of workflow you could want. In particular, Audition separates into two interfaces, waveform (destructive) editing and multitrack. Certain of the filters, like NR, must be applied applied destructively even in the multitrack interface. Sony's stock filters are very good, better IMO than Audition. And they all work non-destructively, in a single interface, with excellent tweakability.

But if you have to play well with others, Adobe CC has largely taken over the indie/corporate market here.

[James Kuhn]

Mr. Rick Reineke...it's my abbreviation for 'Software'. Probably not correct.

J.

[Christian Hagelskjaer From]

Although you should always aim to "get it right" in production, there is nothing wrong with tweaking things a little in post. Really deep rumbles can overload some mics and mic inputs, so 80 hz is a good start, but I often play around in post to see if I should cut more low end (eg at maybe 100 hz) or notch something out higher up - although I would go to iZotope RX for more involved stuff.

BTW: In post, EQ always sounds more natural when cutting, rather than boosting frequencies.

[James Kuhn]

Mr. Rick Reineke and Mr. Seth Bloombaum ...As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I strive to obtain as clean an audio signal as possible 'up-front'.

To be fair to Vegas Pro (VP), I haven't delved very deeply into the 'audio features' within the software beyond adjusting overall levels up or down. My bad.

So, when I said the software's capability was 'rudimentary', that was a bad 'assumption' on my part.

My thinking was, a dedicated audio mixing software would be significantly more sophisticated than what came 'bundled' in VP. I'm sure that's true to a certain extent, but it doesn't diminish the capabilities of VP. I need to investigate and become more conversant in the use of the tools I have, rather than criticize.

The old adage, "A poor Craftsman blames his tools.", comes to mind. : )

The truth is, my audio skills are 'rudimentary', not the software application. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Best regards,

J.

[Seth Bloombaum]

No problem James.

As you develop your post audio skills, you'll find Vegas is very capable. And, as a single tool that combines audio and video editing, it's very efficient, you can do both without any export/import rigamarole where you have to keep track of intermediate files.

In Adobe CC there are THREE different interfaces to learn, och. The audio side of Premiere, the Waveform editor, and the Multitrack editor. With different shortcut keys for common tasks like zooming in/out on the timeline. (Hm, there's probably a setting to get them to be the same, but I have to teach the standard interface, I think)

Vegas has very good versions of all the basic audio tools, though I've been a little confused over the years about Noise Reduction. At times it's come with Sony's Sound Forge, other times in Vegas, other times as a standalone product. It's great and occasionally very needed. And to finish the suite of audio tools, a mastering package like Izotope Ozone is very handy for music production. But what Vegas is capable of natively is excellent for audio-for-video.

An editor who is finishing his/her own work should be learning the uses of (dynamic range) compressors and parametric equalization. Those skills alone, combined with good monitoring, will make most projects shine.

Vegas also allows you to cut audio down to the sample level, unlike other NLEs that only cut down to the frame level. There's a big difference between 1/30th of a second and 1/48,000th of a second precision when you're concerned about breathes, clicks, and syllables.

Again, playing well with others can dictate the software you have to work on, but if you know post-audio in Vegas you have a whole bunch of skills that are transferable to any other software.

[James Kuhn]

Thanks, Seth! I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Best regards,

J.

[Rick Reineke]

My thinking was, a dedicated audio mixing software would be significantly more sophisticated than what came 'bundled' in VP
> An external mix surface can be added to VP (same w/ PTs). The latest version of VP is bungled with over 35 mono / stereo / 5:1 plugins'. More if one also has Sound Forge Pro (recommended), OTOH, most pros have there own third-party favorites anyway (Waves for example). All things being equal, there would be no audible difference between PTs, Nuendo and VP.

[James Kuhn]

Thanks, Rick! I appreciate your insight. BTW, I'm using VP v. 11.0.

Best regards,

J.

[Christian Hagelskjaer From]

James, I know a guy who runs a recording studio based on a workstation running Vegas, so it's definitely capable enough. And yes, getting some chops with parametric eq and compression/limiting will serve you well. If you want to get fancy with regards to removal of unwanted sounds/noise, iZotope's RX4 is hard to beat. But it is a bit costly at around 350 list price, and takes some practicing to really master. Still, it has saved enough of my audio to make itself indispensable.

[James Kuhn]

Thanks, Christian! The journey continues...

J.