• 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

I was once told that "marketing" wasn't cool with any control or mention of something that cut lows in a bass amp - hence why most don't advertise their built-in fixed HPF's or allow their engineers to put in a variable HPF. Keep in mind that TBers are WAY more educated in such things than the majority of buyers...
 
I don’t exactly buy that. They could market it as a protective feature (which it is). And the PA guys don’t have a problem documenting the HPFs they have built into their mixers and amps.

I just read through the manual for my GK MB500. Not a word about an HPF. Grrrr...

It seems like maybe most amps have a fixed one designed in and they feel no need to mention it, while variable ones included do get a mention.

I do believe most sound engineers are a lot more interested in this than most musicians. Add in that you have everything running through FOH and the HPF is more appealing and needed MUCH more. That may play into the documentation and advertising.
 
I was once told that "marketing" wasn't cool with any control or mention of something that cut lows in a bass amp - hence why most don't advertise their built-in fixed HPF's or allow their engineers to put in a variable HPF. Keep in mind that TBers are WAY more educated in such things than the majority of buyers...
Some TBers, while others still grasp onto the “I’ve never had one before” mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Balog and Stumbo
One of my rehearsal rigs is a 30 watt Ashdown CTM-30 tube amp which I'm sure has no real HPF in it. I use a fDeck series one with it that significantly raises its SPL and tames the low end boominess. It also satisfies my tube-snob inspired reluctance to put any op amps or bipolar transistors in that signal path :thumbsup:. The cab I use there is a Peavey ported TVX 410 given to me due to its being stoopid heavy and having a blown tweeter :D.
 
I do believe most sound engineers are a lot more interested in this than most musicians.
If I can rephrase this a bit: "Most musicians that think like sound engineers are a lot more interested in this...."

...And I think that's a key point. It takes a certain type of player to think about stuff in these terms. Speaking for myself, since I do a lot of recording, I often have to high or low pass the bass (and other things) in order to achieve what I want in a mix, and that frame of mind follows me to the stage, so naturally, I end up building my rig to reflect that.

For example, lately - and tangentially-speaking for a moment, I've been thinking about replacing my compressor with a transient shaping tool because I think it might be more effective to achieve what I'm going for. I would never have even considered this if it weren't for my experience behind the mixing desk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaarn and Stumbo
If I can rephrase this a bit: "Most musicians that think like sound engineers are a lot more interested in this...."

...And I think that's a key point. It takes a certain type of player to think about stuff in these terms. Speaking for myself, since I do a lot of recording, I often have to high or low pass the bass (and other things) in order to achieve what I want in a mix, and that frame of mind follows me to the stage, so naturally, I end up building my rig to reflect that.

For example, lately - and tangentially-speaking for a moment, I've been thinking about replacing my compressor with a transient shaping tool because I think it might be more effective to achieve what I'm going for. I would never have even considered this if it weren't for my experience behind the mixing desk.

Very true. Add the segment of players who have never heard of a HPF with those who have heard of one but don’t know or care about the benefits and you surely have the majority of players in there.
 
IMO too much importance is given to the ultimate attenuation slope. By itself it gives no information about the slope in the region of cutoff down to -10 dB, which is in the region that matters and, IMO all the attenuation required for this purpose.
There are a lot of variables that affect the outcome, there's no HPF setup that works with all types of cabs.
As a rule of thumb, when setting up a HPF, I would aim for -3dB at a frequency 1/4th below that of the tuning frequency of the port. A 12db/oct slope will be adequate in most cases (where the port tuning is not to low) to get rid of the rumble.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks to Stumbo and others who have contributed to this thread.

I am still trying to come back from the old days, when I had a 60 watt Dynaco MKIII amp and two JBL D140F's in a sealed cabinet. I don't recall "boominess" from from then, nor did I have to replace any speakers. Maybe I was lucky or, just too naive to know the difference ;). I dunno...

But, I do appreciate the difference between then and now, with a Rumble 200 Combo with more power and a single, ported, 15" speaker. I have to spend much more time in the woodshed before I try the 200 Combo in a gigging situation. I am spending most of my time practicing with earphones through the Ampeg SCR-DI!

By then, I hope to read through more posts on here and have a better understanding of what HPF I may need.

Your contributions are appreciated...

I have found the fdeck HPF-3 to be very useful with my Rumble 200 Combo - I think you would, too...
 
It would be great to have a mixer style "low-cut" hpf toggle button on my DI.

I don't know if that's such a great idea - pretty much any mixer a DI will be connected to will already have a HPF on each channel, and having another on the DI creates an opportunity for it to be inadvertently switched on or off at an inopportune time for the soundman - and could cause some real problems with a FOH system...

I suppose it wouldn't be much different than having one on a pedalboard, but most players that care enough to do that are also probably conscious about how it affects things downstream...

Edited to add: I could see this as possibly being a good option only if it was implemented in a way the it couldn't be switched on or off by accident - like with a recessed switch...
 
Last edited:
I don't know if that's such a great idea - pretty much any mixer a DI will be connected to will already have a HPF on each channel, and having another on the DI creates an opportunity for it to be inadvertently switched on or off at an inopportune time for the soundman - and could cause some real problems with a FOH system...

I suppose it wouldn't be much different than having one on a pedalboard, but most players that care enough to do that are also probably conscious about how it affects things downstream...

Edited to add: I could see this as possibly being a good option only if it was implemented in a way the it couldn't be switched on or off by accident - like with a recessed switch...

Agree with the edit. I don't see a problem with someone sending a High-passed signal to the board. It would take quite a high setting to mess up a FOH mix. If someone sets it that high, chances are they are using it as more of an effect than a utility at that point. It could also be in error and provides a good learning experience for them.