High pass filter : frequency?

[Boneless]

Anyway, if we were to discuss speaker and amp design more in general, the use of ported bass guitar cabinets is slightly unfortunate, because of the fact that ported cabinets have no control over their speakers below their tuning frequency. A HPF can come in handy here, although the simple fact that rarely does bass have significant energy below 60Hz or so means that, essentially, you can get away with not using one (which is why so many marginal designs work). A more technically correct way to deal with bass amplification is to use bi-amping, with a (sealed? Or even ported, but tuned low, like in the mid-30s) woofer cabinet handling low frequencies and a midbass cabinet dealing with everything over 250Hz or so. Bi-amping was tried but it never took off. My 800RB has a provision for this, but I doubt the 100W power amp has ever been used.

 

[dave_anderson]

I mean, you are certainly welcome to reiterate your comments. And I have no doubt you are experienced; that's a lot of time spent in the field. But I'd humbly suggest there is quite a difference between stating your opinion, and providing objective facts. You are providing your findings. Others have provided their findings. This should be a place to discuss! Disagreement is critical to debate, but I'd also argue there's being constructive/helpful, and then there's being a bellend. Don't be a bellend.

"being a bellend" ? By disagreeing with a post that claims removing fundamentals from a note you're playing? I worked for 25 years as a Uni lecturer. Debate, disagreement and discussion are part of the academic process. Calling someone a bellend because they have disagreed with you is not.
facts? Which do you want proved? I stated what the fundamental frequencies were for a low e and low b. Both below the discussed HPF. What else do you want me to 'prove'? That information is freely available if you disagree with those figures feel free to do your own research.

Anyway;
As I said, removing fundamentals is a total mistake.
Without going into too much detail,
Every single sound you hear, are all made up of a selection of sine waves. A sine wave is the purest form of sound. If you use the light into a prism which creates a rainbow ( the components of light) as an example. If we did that with sound, put any sound into it and out would come a group of individual sine waves at different frequencies and amplitudes. Each at a different pitch (multiple) of the lowest one. (This is how the musical/harmonic series are created and why We hear harmonious and non Harmonious notes, research Pythagorian scales and equal Temperament, it genuinely is fascinating)
That collection of sine waves are divided into two categories.
The lowest and loudest (Not always the case but it's not relevant here) in an acoustically produced source is Called the fundamental.
The rest which occur at a higher frequency than the fundamental are called 'harmonics'.
Your brain interprets these two things as fundamental = pitch, ie we hear a note.
Harmonics = timbre or tonal colouring and why A piano sounds like a piano and a Bass sounds like a bass even when playing the same pitch as their harmonic series are different. The fundamental however is identical.

Removing the fundamental removes the definition of pitch from a signal. As mentioned by others who have disagreed, is not a stone wall limited filter but a 'roll off'. Usual roll offs are 6, 12, 24, 48db per octave. That means the fundamental wouldn't be inaudible but reduced and possibly lower than the harmonic series above it.
While I understand the issues people are discussing, it's not a valid solution to me. Isolate the cab with remedial solutions. Gramma Pads or treat a rehearsal space or home studio.
Absorption panels and bass traps are the answer. It's not the signal at fault. It is the room it is reflecting and interacting with that needs controlling. Home made absorption panels are incredibly cheap to make. Buy a bale of Rockwool RW3 or 4 (30 quid) glue some to plywood backing and cover With a fabric of your choice. Hang them on your wall You will be amazed at the results. Bass traps are a little more complex as they require calculation and analysis of the space to find the resonant frequencies and standing Waves but when done with do the job of the HPF without destroying the fundamental in a signal and just in the reflection.

 

[lomo]

Apparently, one man's "total mistake" is a "major league bonus" to the ears of many others.

 

[J.Wolf]

Well as long as there's one right answer and the rest are categorically wrong, despite the contentment of players and engineers everywhere, I'm sold

 

[dave_anderson]

Well as long as there's one right answer and the rest are categorically wrong, despite the contentment of players and engineers everywhere, I'm sold

That my friend is how science works. Fact, based on current proven theories, however it remains fluid enough to be superseded as technologies and research change or are updated. I'll stick to science rather than opinion thanks.

 

[sunbeast]

"being a bellend" ? By disagreeing with a post that claims removing fundamentals from a note you're playing? I worked for 25 years as a Uni lecturer. Debate, disagreement and discussion are part of the academic process. Calling someone a bellend because they have disagreed with you is not.
facts? Which do you want proved? I stated what the fundamental frequencies were for a low e and low b. Both below the discussed HPF. What else do you want me to 'prove'? That information is freely available if you disagree with those figures feel free to do your own research.

Anyway;
As I said, removing fundamentals is a total mistake.
Without going into too much detail,
Every single sound you hear, are all made up of a selection of sine waves. A sine wave is the purest form of sound. If you use the light into a prism which creates a rainbow ( the components of light) as an example. If we did that with sound, put any sound into it and out would come a group of individual sine waves at different frequencies and amplitudes. Each at a different pitch (multiple) of the lowest one. (This is how the musical/harmonic series are created and why We hear harmonious and non Harmonious notes, research Pythagorian scales and equal Temperament, it genuinely is fascinating)
That collection of sine waves are divided into two categories.
The lowest and loudest (Not always the case but it's not relevant here) in an acoustically produced source is Called the fundamental.
The rest which occur at a higher frequency than the fundamental are called 'harmonics'.
Your brain interprets these two things as fundamental = pitch, ie we hear a note.
Harmonics = timbre or tonal colouring and why A piano sounds like a piano and a Bass sounds like a bass even when playing the same pitch as their harmonic series are different. The fundamental however is identical.

Removing the fundamental removes the definition of pitch from a signal. As mentioned by others who have disagreed, is not a stone wall limited filter but a 'roll off'. Usual roll offs are 6, 12, 24, 48db per octave. That means the fundamental wouldn't be inaudible but reduced and possibly lower than the harmonic series above it.
While I understand the issues people are discussing, it's not a valid solution to me. Isolate the cab with remedial solutions. Gramma Pads or treat a rehearsal space or home studio.
Absorption panels and bass traps are the answer. It's not the signal at fault. It is the room it is reflecting and interacting with that needs controlling. Home made absorption panels are incredibly cheap to make. Buy a bale of Rockwool RW3 or 4 (30 quid) glue some to plywood backing and cover With a fabric of your choice. Hang them on your wall You will be amazed at the results. Bass traps are a little more complex as they require calculation and analysis of the space to find the resonant frequencies and standing Waves but when done with do the job of the HPF without destroying the fundamental in a signal and just in the reflection.

Nobody here is talking about fully removing fundamental frequencies- just attenuating them to avoid issues with both reproduction and the mix (the latter being a subjective choice). Doing so doesn't make a bass sound remotely like a guitar or really sacrifice all that much of what makes a bass guitar sound like a bass guitar. In fact it wasn't til more recently that the bass speaker systems we had available to us for stage amps could even adequately project much volume in the sub-bass (and most of the boxes from the big manufacturers still lack in that capacity), so reproducing it at the amplifier is just wasted power and sending it to many speakers systems is potentially degrading to the quality of the sound and eventually the hardware itself. Now if you value those subharmonics at the sound board for live shows, the practice of taking a clean DI before the amp or pedalboard will retain them all to do with as you please while allowing me to control what I am hearing on stage.

Human perception has developed to be fairly good at taking a partial picture and filling in the gaps- in fact that's pretty much our main skill given our actual sensory organs aren't nearly as adept as specific ones of many other mammals. Part of this is an ability to perceive sound that isn't actually there- because of the limits of sound reproduction the fundamental harmonic of a lot of low bass is often mostly or completely missing from a lot of music we hear yet our brains can actually perceive that missing fundamental and still perceive the pitch of the note being played to differentiate it from different octaves because the harmonic series is unique to that pitch (a 40hz E will have harmonics at 40,80,120,160,200,240 etc while the 80hz of a guitar will have a very different series of 80, 160, 240, 320, 400, 480, etc). The guitar note pitched an octave up lacks all the odd-ordered harmonics of the bass pitch an octave down- and our brains can perceive and note that difference even without the fundamental (or even the first few harmonics) present and actually fill in that missing fundamental: Missing fundamental - Wikipedia
I'd guess a spectrum analyser on a lot of classic vinyl recordings for example would show pretty low levels of bass fundamental, even far less so through the typical speakers consumers were listening to them through up until the 80s/90s and the increasing prevalence of subwoofers in home stereo systems, yet people could still differentiate piano and bass on a record because that sub is not the main part of what a bass guitar signal is to our perception. Same today if I'm walking through a supermarket and music is playing- I can usually differentiate the different instruments with ease coming from tiny little speakers that are probably projecting very little below the low midrange.

The timbre of a bass guitar (and I believe most stringed instruments?) greatly favors the 2nd harmonic over the fundamental (illustrated nicely somewhere earlier in this thread), so that is the strongest harmonic in much of the sounds we are putting out when playing bass down low. That upper bass to lower mid region (80hz- 240hz- ish) is where much of the power of bass guitar really lives, every recording engineer I've worked with since I've been paying much attention has done some high-pass filtering to give me prominence in the upper bass region while cleaning up the sub-bass for the bass drum, and an HPF on a typical bass signal in a live environment is pretty well common practice too from the sound guys I know. Doing the same for my stage sound is certainly no mistake, and makes a world of difference for me in a busy mix.

 

[Fishheadjoe]

I have the Broughton on my board and find it to be invaluable in the dive bars we play, most of which have us standing on a plywood stage, two feet off the ground.
I run a Marshall VBA 400 into a Berg NV610 and the HPF gets adjusted every time we play. No idea what hz I am setting it at, but I can say that I adjust until it gets thin, then lower a bit. The HPF allows me to engage the Low Boost on the amp, without introducing mud, giving the sound the impression that it is full. it also allows for the kick drum to have it's space in the mix, without me trodding upon it.
We are vox on sticks, so I have to carry every room we play.
Best piece of outboard gear I have!
Fishheadjoe

 

[J.Wolf]

That my friend is how science works. Fact, based on current proven theories, however it remains fluid enough to be superseded as technologies and research change or are updated. I'll stick to science rather than opinion thanks.

You still havent addressed the following, Im not really going to engage you on anything else.

1. You're telling people to treat rooms they literally have no control over or influence upon. People play in bars, breweries and other less than ideal spaces where the owner AT BEST would ignore you for asking them to fix their crappy rooms
2. You've stated that removing the fundamental/use of HPF is an error and wrong. Engineers, amp designers and musicians have been doing this with very happy and successful results. Is everyone wrong? is @agedhorse wrong and somehow uneducated for designing Mesa amps with VHPF's, which should be noted, are some of their customers favorite and most well received features.

I'm certainly happy to have the benefit of someone with decades of experience on this forum, with information to share. I wish you could do it in a way that actually felt helpful.

 

[DrThumpenstein]

You still havent addressed the following, Im not really going to engage you on anything else.

1. You're telling people to treat rooms they literally have no control over or influence upon. People play in bars, breweries and other less than ideal spaces where the owner AT BEST would ignore you for asking them to fix their crappy rooms
2. You've stated that removing the fundamental/use of HPF is an error and wrong. Engineers, amp designers and musicians have been doing this with very happy and successful results. Is everyone wrong? is @agedhorse wrong and somehow uneducated for designing Mesa amps with VHPF's, which should be noted, are some of their customers favorite and most well received features.

I'm certainly happy to have the benefit of someone with decades of experience on this forum, with information to share. I wish you could do it in a way that actually felt helpful.

I only need my ears and my ability to dial in great bass tones in all the rooms we've played so far to see that the professor up there is wrong. And those posts come off as quite arrogant, so really, just some good old eye roll fodder is all I'm seeing there. But that can be entertaining.

I'll post another couple of additional comments about my personal use of HPFs: for any given bass, I pretty much have the bass, mid, and treble controls optimized and adjust those only occasionally. But I dial in the HPF to the cab and room every time. It's the primary adjustment that I make when going between my Subway cabs at my home practice space and gigs and that monstrous Ampeg 215 at our practice space. So of all the EQ controls on those amps, the HPFs are the ones that get the most use.

I think I'm up to about number six on my list of reasons that an HPF is so useful: when I'm playing my Subway cabs at volumes compatible with Mrs. Thumpenstein's tranquility, I can get a fuller low end by rolling down the HPF. One of the really nice features of those Mesa heads is the ability to get tube break up at low volume by pushing the gain and easing off on the master. It's one additional way to fatten up the tone at practice volumes. My other comments were geared primarily toward being in a mix for rehearsals and performances, but truthfully, I spend a lot more time at lower volumes with it rolled off some, especially when I'm only practicing through my 112. It directly addresses one of the differences between bedroom tone and sounding great in a mix, very different things of course.

 

[sloppy_phil]

@dave_anderson My comments had nowt to do with our opinions being different. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a debate, would it? It was, and continues to be, your choice of *how* to communicate that is unpalatable.

This thread contains a mountain of useful information, and will probably acquire more, so I for one am happy we are all here discussing it.

 

[agedhorse]

This is demonstrably untrue. Take any audio file, normalise it to near clipping, then apply a simple HPF at 20Hz, even critically damped. Unless there is significant energy at infrasonic frequencies and between 20 and 40Hz, the audio file will now clip. There is a reason why in mixing and mastering audio filtering tends to be done at the beginning of the chain, and anyway the last step is always the limiter. Also, we are insensitive to absolute phase everywhere *but* low frequencies (and we are never *very* sensitive anyway). AFAIK, people can pick a high passed bass (or kick drum) in a blind test quite reliably, even when it's far below the lowest frequency they generate.

You have helped identify WHY what you think is correct... when you normalize a signal close to clipping in the digital domain and then perform mathematical computations on the digital representation of that signal, the resultant value will grow as a result of the computations resulting in an overflow or saturation condition. This is why, in many applications such as digital mixing consoles, pre-conditioning may be part of the computation to prevent word overflow.

This is not the same thing as clipping of an analog signal that is being processed in the analog domain, though this TYPE of phenomenon occurs IF the gain-bandwidth product is not high enough to perform the differentiation because of the high amounts of global feedback necessary with most filters.

I stand by my experience that we are pathetically insensitive to absolute phase, the many lab tests that I have performed where the signal generation can in fact shift the phase relative to points in time, the difference is not even slightly audible. IMO, what you are hearing is due to something different, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally part of the hardware/software you are using.

Of course, it can't hurt. I myself apply a HPF on all my wedge monitors or 2-way PA speakers, since they are not really expected to produce bass. Still, pro speakers (which bass guitar speakers essentially are) should be able to take some abuse though. And also, the truth is, most bass amplifiers already include some high-passing anyway. Not to talk about bass effects.

HPF's are very commonly (as in I don't know of any powered subs or processing algorithms that don't) used on pro subs to protect them from abuse and to improve the in-band performance, are you suggesting that this is wrong too? Many bass amps do use HPF's because the industry discovered that they demonstratively improve the performance to players. I started incorporating them in the mid 1990's, but used them in pro audio products I designed earlier than that.

I'm not talking about grossly exceeding Xmax, or even constantly pushing the speaker around Xmax. If it's just on transients though the speakers *should* handle it gracefully (proved by the fact that so many old cabs are still working fine; HPFs on bass is a relatively new trend), with some compression that many musicians actually find pleasing (otherwise, again, there wouldn't be such a thing as "that cab need to be pushed to sing"). Of course, if a cab is grossly underdimensioned, it sounds choked because it will be distorting lots all the time.

HPF's on bass goes back over 25 years, when designers discovered that their speakers (that were much more limited at the time) sounded better and lasted longer.

I was never discussing high Q HPFs in general, that was just a side remark (although many HPFs used in mixing and mastering are relatively high Q, with maybe a 2-4dB peak around the cutoff frequency).

Since this is a bass guitar forum, equating mastering techniques doesn't really apply. For mixing consoles, most that I have measured are pretty close to critically damped with peaking under a dB.

Anyway, if we were to discuss speaker and amp design more in general, the use of ported bass guitar cabinets is slightly unfortunate, because of the fact that ported cabinets have no control over their speakers below their tuning frequency. A HPF can come in handy here, although the simple fact that rarely does bass have significant energy below 60Hz or so means that, essentially, you can get away with not using one (which is why so many marginal designs work). A more technically correct way to deal with bass amplification is to use bi-amping, with a (sealed? Or even ported, but tuned low, like in the mid-30s) woofer cabinet handling low frequencies and a midbass cabinet dealing with everything over 250Hz or so. Bi-amping was tried but it never took off. My 800RB has a provision for this, but I doubt the 100W power amp has ever been used.

A properly designed ported cabinet accounts for the unloading, but this occurs below the tuning frequency not at the tuning frequency. Bass most certainly can have significant energy below 60Hz, perhaps you are mixing your instruments up. A sealed cabinet reduces LF excursion but at a cost of reduced LF energy which resuolts in the need to turn the amp up which negates much of the benefit. Biamping wasn't successful because once LF drivers and cabinet design improved, it was more trouble than it was worth.

You still havent addressed the following, Im not really going to engage you on anything else.

1. You're telling people to treat rooms they literally have no control over or influence upon. People play in bars, breweries and other less than ideal spaces where the owner AT BEST would ignore you for asking them to fix their crappy rooms
2. You've stated that removing the fundamental/use of HPF is an error and wrong. Engineers, amp designers and musicians have been doing this with very happy and successful results. Is everyone wrong? is @agedhorse wrong and somehow uneducated for designing Mesa amps with VHPF's, which should be noted, are some of their customers favorite and most well received features.

I'm certainly happy to have the benefit of someone with decades of experience on this forum, with information to share. I wish you could do it in a way that actually felt helpful.

Agreed, when the statements consistently go against many player's real world experiences, there's something that's not jiving with reality.

 

[Jazzdogg]

You wouldn't happen to know where the optimal HPF setting for an Eden D-210-XST is? The reason I ask is A PB has a predictable low end that gradually increases as the notes go lower. It blooms. But when I set the HPF on my Eden WD-800 at about 85 HZ, From A on down that bloom goes away. It get real flat. Is that my imagination?

The optimal setting for a variable high-pass filter depends upon the speaker cabinet AND the environment in which it is being used. There isn't one ideal frequency that sounds best under all conditions.

 

[Boneless]

You have helped identify WHY what you think is correct... when you normalize a signal close to clipping in the digital domain and then perform mathematical computations on the digital representation of that signal, the resultant value will grow as a result of the computations resulting in an overflow or saturation condition. This is why, in many applications such as digital mixing consoles, pre-conditioning may be part of the computation to prevent word overflow.

This is not the same thing as clipping of an analog signal that is being processed in the analog domain, though this TYPE of phenomenon occurs IF the gain-bandwidth product is not high enough to perform the differentiation because of the high amounts of global feedback necessary with most filters.

Fine, don't normalise. Just compare peak levels before and after. No, it's not because of loss of precision. Any competent DAW these days runs a 64-bit bus internally (or at least a floating point 32-bit). If it were such a thing, there would be a difference in the least significant bit (or close to it) between before and after filtering, which will never account for the usually 1-2dB difference between the two. This is a consequence of all minimum phase filtering, as opposed to linear phase filtering which is notable for preserving the waveshape (which is why linear phase filtering is preferable, for instance, in certain medical applications, eh. EKGs), unlike the former.

I stand by my experience that we are pathetically insensitive to absolute phase, the many lab tests that I have performed where the signal generation can in fact shift the phase relative to points in time, the difference is not even slightly audible. IMO, what you are hearing is due to something different, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally part of the hardware/software you are using.

Again, in the bass frequencies I think you are mistaken. I can't provide sources right now because I'm on my phone, but I will do my best to come up with one.

HPF's are very commonly (as in I don't know of any powered subs or processing algorithms that don't) used on pro subs to protect them from abuse and to improve the in-band performance, are you suggesting that this is wrong too? Many bass amps do use HPF's because the industry discovered that they demonstratively improve the performance to players. I started incorporating them in the mid 1990's, but used them in pro audio products I designed earlier than that.

Did I ever say that HPF can't be beneficial? Of course it is, it always is, mechanically. At least when critically damped and lower Qs. Also, filtering and/or other processing (multiband compression/limiting, for instance, or even multiband soft or outright hard clipping) does allow you to optimise a design (take IK Multimedia's tiny monitor speakers; while they can't really compare to a full fledged speaker, they are astonishing on relation to their footprint. Also, essentially all Bluetooth speakers on the market). What I question is the need to actually *add* an HPF (eg. in the form of a pedal or something to go in the FX loop) to what is supposed to be a properly designed bass amplifier. As you said, manufacturers know what their products can or can't do (or at least they should). Also, how is the user supposed to tune it? Just set it to their own liking? That's potentially a quick way to provide false security.

Let's take it up a notch: what's the point of separate heads and cabinets? Really, ideal amps should come as a pair. Or at least, with the power amp (and preprocessing) inside the cabinet like the old Acoustic cabs. Only that way can you properly design and optimise a cabinet, since you can process the signal to be amplified based on the characteristics of the cabinet itself. Still, essentially *all* combos, except possibly for some modeling amps, are essentially just a regular head bolted into their cabinets. Why, I say? Because, as I said, you can get away with not doing so (and it works well enough). Usually, what suffices is the head's "subsonic filter" (which is essentially a HPF tuned around 30Hz or so). An HPF is not going to protect the user from themselves. If the user *wants* extremely loud deep bass, they are going to set the HPF low enough not to make any real difference. So, all that is left is just either creative purposes ("I want a leaner bass, but the bass control on the amp takes away too much", and it's a perfectly valid reason!), room EQ purposes (as imperfect a solution it may be) or an actual knowledgeable tech working for their client.

HPF's on bass goes back over 25 years, when designers discovered that their speakers (that were much more limited at the time) sounded better and lasted longer.

HPFs have always been a part of amplifiers and you know it. AC coupling is done essentially with high pass filtering. And if you can avoid using electrolytic capacitors and high resistances, you generally do (makes for better reliability, usually, and lower noise respectively). This means that most of the time there will always be some part of the amplifier cutting somewhere, and that's repeated for how many stages you have in an amp (unless they are totally DC coupled, but it's rare).

Since this is a bass guitar forum, equating mastering techniques doesn't really apply. For mixing consoles, most that I have measured are pretty close to critically damped with peaking under a dB.

Mastering is not too dissimilar from mixing, in a sense, and what I said applies to mixing too. Having a peaky HPF is done purely for creative reasons, "because it feels fat". A plugin I use, TDR Slick EQ GE (billed as a track or bus EQ), provides two choices of HPF, one critically damped, the other underdamped (you can't even choose the Q - it's meant to be some sort of "analog emulation software"), because a common trick is to high-pass kick drums with a peaky HPF somewhere around 50-70Hz, and maybe saturate the result a bit.

A properly designed ported cabinet accounts for the unloading, but this occurs below the tuning frequency not at the tuning frequency. Bass most certainly can have significant energy below 60Hz, perhaps you are mixing your instruments up. A sealed cabinet reduces LF excursion but at a cost of reduced LF energy which resuolts in the need to turn the amp up which negates much of the benefit. Biamping wasn't successful because once LF drivers and cabinet design improved, it was more trouble than it was worth.

Did I say "at the tuning frequency"? If I did, I obviously meant below (and it really is immediately below, even just 4-5Hz away means exceeding Xmax abruptly). Anyway, guitar instruments are strongest in their second harmonic, which is proved by the fact that you can filter away the fundamental and it still sounds fine (which means that the fundamental isn't generally that strong to begin with). If it weren't so, the very idea of a HPF on bass set higher than 41Hz would be absurd except for some "old radio" kind of effect.

And finally, why would bi-amping be more trouble? Any PA system is at least tri-amped (subs, midbass, tweeters). The cheapest two-way speaker used at karaoke bars is bi-amped. Even with a separate head and cabinet, it would only mean having two cables instead of one (and it's not even necessarily so). It's not about trouble, it's about having the coloured response of an outdated technology such as that of a bass cabinet (or a guitar cabinet for that matter). What is done in MI amplification exists essentially nowhere else. Even just the 4x10" or 4x12" layout makes little sense, stack the 4 speakers vertically in two cabinets and you have much better dispersion (at least below 3kHz or so, without having midrange drivers) as well as having speakers at ear level or closer to this, being better able to judge your tone. On the other hand, many people actually like the fact that they're hearing a lowpassed version of their amplified sound by standing over their amp, or they like the fact that you can move one step sideways and bass/guitar disappears (so they have control on their own volume, which they can keep at ridiculous levels without causing too much inconvenience on the others).

 

[agedhorse]

You have little practical experience with what players want in an MI amp and how it relates to your world. I straddle both the pro audio and MI worlds, and I have to shift thinking between the two or I would not be successful designing MI products that are a creative tool for the player. It's a far cry from designing consoles or certainly speakers. That's the way it is and for good reason, players want to play what sounds and feels good to them on stage.

 

[dave_anderson]

You still havent addressed the following, Im not really going to engage you on anything else.

1. You're telling people to treat rooms they literally have no control over or influence upon. People play in bars, breweries and other less than ideal spaces where the owner AT BEST would ignore you for asking them to fix their crappy rooms
2. You've stated that removing the fundamental/use of HPF is an error and wrong. Engineers, amp designers and musicians have been doing this with very happy and successful results. Is everyone wrong? is @agedhorse wrong and somehow uneducated for designing Mesa amps with VHPF's, which should be noted, are some of their customers favorite and most well received features.

I'm certainly happy to have the benefit of someone with decades of experience on this forum, with information to share. I wish you could do it in a way that actually felt helpful.

1: Playing in bars or venues, it's the engineer who will deal with your signal. Why would you send the FOH a sh1t bass and fundamental light signal?? I also talked about treating your own home studios or rehearsal spaces.

2: Amp manufacturers have been putting gimmicks on equipment since the industry began. Some are usable and some Are not. I'm sure there's hundreds of examples. Many people rush to buy because of them and that's why they're there, market appeal. Bass players are suckers for gimmicks and I include myself in that. One of the worst in my opinion is onboard compression with a signal control knob. Almost as silly as an HPF on a bass amp.
HPF on desks are there not to remove fundamentals on a bass channel but things on signals that are unwanted like plosives, bass or kick spill etc on a vocal channel. A VHPF is more 'usable' but again in my experience and opinion is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It's a cheap way of solving one issue while creating another. A parametric EQ would be far better solution or a sweepable notch filter which would enable you to remove rogue frequencies without taking everything else out below it. This is why FOH still use graphics in racks or now across a mix bus in a digital situation to tune their room.
I also mentioned Gramma pads. These require absolutely no modification to any space but help isolate a cab or amp from the structure. Not 100% solution but they can help greatly.

 

[djmay]

Domain experience (knowledge) almost always beats number crunching. I think Albert Einstein said something like "I never discovered anything with my rational mind."

 

[dave_anderson]

@dave_anderson My comments had nowt to do with our opinions being different. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a debate, would it? It was, and continues to be, your choice of *how* to communicate that is unpalatable.

This thread contains a mountain of useful information, and will probably acquire more, so I for one am happy we are all here discussing it.

Did I call you or anyone else a 'bellend' ?
No? Then there was absolutely no reason for you to do so. It says an awful lot about you mate.

 

[Boneless]

You have little practical experience with what players want in an MI amp and how it relates to your world. I straddle both the pro audio and MI worlds, and I have to shift thinking between the two or I would not be successful designing MI products that are a creative tool for the player. It's a far cry from designing consoles or certainly speakers. That's the way it is and for good reason, players want to play what sounds and feels good to them on stage.

I am a musician myself and I certainly do know what I want. Also, what my band members want. And what lots of musicians want. Also, how lots of musicians don't know what they're doing, when it comes to setting amplifiers :lol: The fact that I don't work as a MI or pro audio equipment designer is tangential to the issue. Again, I'm not saying that a HPF is a stupid idea, it isn't. Still, I also believe, thanks to my experience, that musicians on average are not very technically knowledgeable and telling them to do things to protect their own equipment can easily backfire (since they don't really know what they're doing). Take for instance somebody sticking an HPF "around 60Hz" because "it protects speakers from overexcursion". Then he/she finds the sound to be too thin and he boosts the bass from his amp, more than they might need without an HPF because "they're protected". That's why I said, musicians should focus on using HPFs for their tone and not as a protection.

 

[lomo]

......Take for instance somebody sticking an HPF "around 60Hz" because "it protects speakers from overexcursion". Then he/she finds the sound to be too thin and he boosts the bass from his amp, more than they might need without an HPF because "they're protected". That's why I said, musicians should focus on using HPFs for their tone and not as a protection.

Just for the record, my own use of an HPF has nothing to do with protecting my cabs. Setting my HPF around 55-60Hz and boosting bass on my head simply sounds better, a lot better. I'm an amateur player......I never have a sound engineer.....when I play I'm almost never in the PA. Boom & mud are my enemies, and the HPF has proven to me time after time that it's a highly effective and practical tool that allows me to cut mud without losing the low end I crave. I am one of many, many players who have found this to be the case. That is why these little things have made believers out of many and sold in healthy numbers.

 

[Boneless]

Just for the record, my own use of an HPF has nothing to do with protecting my cabs. Setting my HPF around 55-60Hz and boosting bass on my head simply sounds better, a lot better. I'm an amateur player......I never have a sound engineer.....when I play I'm almost never in the PA. Boom & mud are my enemies, and the HPF has proven to me time after time that it's a highly effective and practical tool that allows me to cut mud without losing the low end I crave. I am one of many, many players who have found this to be the case. That is why these little things have made believers out of many and sold in healthy numbers.

And that's perfectly fine. One could also make the argument that shelving filters have no place on bass and should be replaced by bell filters (set around 80Hz, about two octaves wide).