• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

High Pass Filter (HPF) and Low Pass Filter (LPF) Mega Thread

Great to hear! :thumbsup:

Which rig are you using?

Getting your cab up off the stage a bit on a stand or with some foam will also help. Lots of TBrs use A stand with a tilt.

Looking forward to your future reports!

I have and love old Sunn gear, but lately I've been using a newer V3 Fender Rumble 500 head and 1 or 2 15" cabs. If I'm only using 1 cab, I take the back two casters off so it tilts back some. I've never been in love with the Rumble, but I often get stuck sharing equipment and space/weight have become an issue.
 
I read most of this thread, but really made mind up around page 30, so I jumped in. As a long time Gibson fan, the bane of my existence has been low volume tone vs. high volume tone. I know what sounds good in a band mix (to me anyway), and I can always get that at low volumes at home. But, when I get to our practice space or some 1 foot hollow stage venue at band volume, mud city. I've been playing a Rickenbacker for the last 2 years just so I can cut through, leaving my Gibsons at home. No more.

I went for the Broughton HPF/LPF and I can't believe how loud I can play with no mud. I've had this on my board for a few days now, and I don't imagine that I'd ever turn it off. Unfortunately, we're taking a bit of break right now due to vacations, etc. But, I'm dying to try this thing in a live setting. I've been a/bing it with my Ric and I'm thinking this pedal might be the best thing I've ever purchased.

I'll post my gig/practice results next week. I'm pretty optimistic about how things will sound.

I'm primarily a Fender player, but I have a couple nice Gibsons that I wanted to play more - but, they were too dark sounding for me.... I typically run nickle rounds on my Fenders, but they didn't work that great on my Gibsons(T-bird and SG Standard Bass) - stringing them with Pro Steels made a world of difference, FWIW...
 
I have and love old Sunn gear, but lately I've been using a newer V3 Fender Rumble 500 head and 1 or 2 15" cabs. If I'm only using 1 cab, I take the back two casters off so it tilts back some. I've never been in love with the Rumble, but I often get stuck sharing equipment and space/weight have become an issue.

Using a HPF made my Rumble much more usable - it actually gives me more usable volume...
 
  • Like
Reactions: stingray69
Using a HPF made my Rumble much more usable - it actually gives me more usable volume...

Yeah, I was really close to ditching it and going Quilter or some other small amp until I read this thread. It has some kind of baked in EQ that is counter productive to my needs. I'm really only sticking with it out of convenience. Again, I get stuck sharing often, and I'd be way less mad at someone blowing up my Rumble vs my old Sunn stuff with old JBLs.

That being said, the HPF really kills with my Concert and JBL loaded 118s. Makes my SG bass and EB2 sound like everything I've ever wanted at band volume. I'm really wanting another Sorado or 200 at this point, because I'm thinking the extra clarity I'm getting now would have given me just enough headroom.
 
Yeah, I was really close to ditching it and going Quilter or some other small amp until I read this thread. It has some kind of baked in EQ that is counter productive to my needs. I'm really only sticking with it out of convenience. Again, I get stuck sharing often, and I'd be way less mad at someone blowing up my Rumble vs my old Sunn stuff with old JBLs.

That being said, the HPF really kills with my Concert and JBL loaded 118s. Makes my SG bass and EB2 sound like everything I've ever wanted at band volume. I'm really wanting another Sorado or 200 at this point, because I'm thinking the extra clarity I'm getting now would have given me just enough headroom.

The Rumble 200 Combo is VERY convenient to gig with, as long as it has the volume capability for that particular gig... I've used mine quite a bit, and FWIW, I also have this:
Mesa Subway Full Stack(1).JPG


If the Rumble wasn't cutting it, I wouldn't use it, regardless of convenience...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoulReflection
The Rumble 200 Combo is VERY convenient to gig with, as long as it has the volume capability for that particular gig... I've used mine quite a bit, and FWIW, I also have this:View attachment 3095886

If the Rumble wasn't cutting it, I wouldn't use it, regardless of convenience...

Always good to have a back up plan :thumbsup::thumbsup:. And that is one of the best ;).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mesaplayer83
The Rumble 200 Combo is VERY convenient to gig with, as long as it has the volume capability for that particular gig... I've used mine quite a bit, and FWIW, I also have this:View attachment 3095886

If the Rumble wasn't cutting it, I wouldn't use it, regardless of convenience...


Mine was definitely cutting it volume wise, but I could never get it to sound like I wanted with any bass other than a Rickenbacker without the HPF. Also, nice rig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mesaplayer83
Or LCFs. Low Cut Filters might work.

As the owner of the current, standard acronym (LRF, or LROF)TM, I accept... but it isn't as fun to say.

Anyways, it looks like Low Cut Filter is already a thing, and is used pretty frequently, especially on more consumer facing gear - obviously because it's way more intuitive. For that reason I propose that we stick with HPF to show how pro we all are.

@Stumbo, you can change the title of the thread back from: "Low Roll-Off Filter (LRF) and High Roll-Off Filter (HRF) Mega Thread" now.

Edit: I see you already have. Nice work.
 
Last edited:
Anyways, it looks like Low Cut Filter is already a thing, and is used pretty frequently, especially on more consumer facing gear - obviously because it's way more intuitive. For that reason I propose that we stick with HPF to show how pro we all are.
Typical non-TB knuckle-dragging bass baboon won't buy a bass amp/pedal/whatever that "cuts lows".
 

@D.A.R.K.:
Agreed- I just see this automatic response of "high pass" all the time, without any real specifics. The Fdeck unit is well liked, but only a 12 db per octave cut with no alignment specified. It really is going to depend on what your port tuning is, coupled with what frequencies you will be feeding the cab and the amount of power you will be using. For sub tuned instruments you may want to go as far as a 48db per octave slope around the port tuning frequency. It takes some experimentation based on the specs to get it right, especially if you are using heavy handed eq to bring forth those sub tunings.

@agedhorse @fdeck @Passinwind @Azure Skies
@Duke Lejeune

A more robust explanation of the above would be helpful to less tech oriented TBrs. Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
12dB/octave can be useful (or even more useful) in combination for tonal applications. For driver protection, 24dB/oct is better imo.

Typically, I will combine 24dB/oct HPF for driver protection below ~30Hz with 12dB/oct above 30Hz for tonal control (where adjustable). IMO, this seems to work out best for most players practical applications.
 
12dB/octave can be useful (or even more useful) in combination for tonal applications. For driver protection, 24dB/oct is better imo.

Typically, I will combine 24dB/oct HPF for driver protection below ~30Hz with 12dB/oct above 30Hz for tonal control (where adjustable). IMO, this seems to work out best for most players practical applications.

I really like this approach.
 
@D.A.R.K.:

A more robust explanation of the above would be helpful to less tech oriented TBrs. Thank you in advance.

This would be a massive thread unto itself, and likely just confuse the less tech oriented folks.
For those who know, not really necessary.
But as you requested, I'll give it a shot, based on my personal experimentation with sub tunings and over 25 years of touring as a FOH mix engineer.
Disclaimer: I'm not a designer, I just use the stuff. Hopefully the more educated weigh in and correct any of my mistakes.
High pass filters reduce the audio frequency spectrum below the chosen frequency point.
The db per octave setting (usually found in increments of 6 db in most audio gear) is the gradient amount of roll off that occurs from the chosen frequency. The higher the db per octave, the more frequency is removed.
Ported cabs: The tuning frequency for the port is for low end extension of frequency response. This is good for getting extended range response. However, this design also has the increased potential of frequencies below the port tuning frequency to cause over-excursion of the drivers.
Utilizing a high pass filter set at or below the port tuning frequency will remove or minimize the frequencies that are likely to cause over-excursion which can damage drivers. The amount needed (db per octave) can depend on variables which include source frequency response, equalization which may enhance frequencies below the port tuning, and the amount of power being used to increase volume of the frequencies below the port tuning.
Ideally, the use of a high pass filter will save amplifier headroom (fundamental frequencies take lots of power to amplify, we generally hear the 2nd harmonic on bass and psychoacoustics fill in the rest in our heads, which a whole other discussion), and allow speaker cabinets to function towards a more maximum efficiency while reducing risk of damage to drivers.
I'm a fan of the more extreme use (48db per octave) to maximize efficiency and minimize damage. As mentioned earlier, a more minimal slope is great for tonal applications, but I personally approach that as a different part of the process, using high pass filters in a more mechanical way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RandM and Stumbo
12dB/octave can be useful (or even more useful) in combination for tonal applications. For driver protection, 24dB/oct is better imo.

Typically, I will combine 24dB/oct HPF for driver protection below ~30Hz with 12dB/oct above 30Hz for tonal control (where adjustable). IMO, this seems to work out best for most players practical applications.

When looking at most manufacturer recommendations for setup, this is what I have seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stumbo
I am generally not a fan of very steep slopes (eg. 48dB/octave) because (at least in the analog world of multiple feedback filters) the component tolerances tend to skew the results farther and farther away from the ideal. There are also possible problems with filter ringing (CCV filters) and under some filter topologies, instability.

I have found that in general, the point of diminishing returns is 24dB/octave. When you calculate power loss below the knee frequency, the squared factor works in your favor.
 
Agreed- I just see this automatic response of "high pass" all the time, without any real specifics. The Fdeck unit is well liked, but only a 12 db per octave cut with no alignment specified.
I can shed a bit more light on this. I have two circuit designs. Series 1, 2, and 2M all have the same basic filter circuit, which is 12 dB/oct with the knob controlling the -3 dB point. It's intended to be "Butterworth" aligned, meaning that it's as flat as it can be above the corner frequency, without having a "hump" in the curve.

The Series 3 circuit is actually two 12 dB/oct filters chained together. One of the two filters is variable, and the other is fixed. When the knob is set to the lowest frequencies, the two filters function together as a 24 dB/oct filter with "Butterworth" response. When you turn the knob, the first filter starts moving up in frequency, and the second filter stays put. So a portion of its curve is 12 dB/oct, and then it transitions to 24 dB/oct around 35 Hz.