Page 1 of 2

Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 04 Nov 2015
by Raveshaper
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason behind having so many LP and BP filter choices but very few HP choices in the rack? ECF-42 doesn't have one, for example. It just seems odd having to do something like route audio through filter 3 in Thor or whatever to get a HP unless it's on a mix channel.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 04 Nov 2015
by gak
Agree. There is one being developed. Tried to get on the beta but never did for whatever reason. Hope it's not too expensive when it comes out.

For now it's all about the SSL. And, that is mostly good enough. The exception is you might need to change the routing if you are using an amp sim for guitar. It's not huge though.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 04 Nov 2015
by Exowildebeest
I think your perception might be skewed by the ECF - that's always been a strange omission! I wish it had an 18db highpass as clean as the other modes.

Most other filter units do have a HP. Even the Stereo Imager can be a HP filter.

For mixing purposes, I think the 18db HP on the SSL is just wonderful.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 04 Nov 2015
by normen
What kind of sounds do you need a HP for? I suppose you mean one with resonance?

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 04 Nov 2015
by Emian
PMS-20 & Etch Red FTW :)

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 04 Nov 2015
by Raveshaper
A tertiary question related to this topic is whether or not using an EQ to isolate frequencies is a more precise filter than an official filter. I would imagine it would be more or less identical.

For clarification, I'm talking about splitting an audio signal into two channels, inverting phase of one, then placing an EQ with gain set to minimum across the other to isolate a specific range.

I think that approach is far more flexible because it can act like a low, band, or high pass filter based on settings of frequency. But it is a bit bulky to setup.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 04 Nov 2015
by selig
Raveshaper wrote:A tertiary question related to this topic is whether or not using an EQ to isolate frequencies is a more precise filter than an official filter. I would imagine it would be more or less identical.

For clarification, I'm talking about splitting an audio signal into two channels, inverting phase of one, then placing an EQ with gain set to minimum across the other to isolate a specific range.

I think that approach is far more flexible because it can act like a low, band, or high pass filter based on settings of frequency. But it is a bit bulky to setup.
A band pass filter would be a far simpler and more direct way to get what you describe above with the parametric EQ (or a Low Pass and High Pass if using a shelf EQ). Pulveriser can do this fine - and it's exactly as "precise" as using an EQ on a parallel channel for this - don't forget, an EQ uses a filter to create the effect, so what you're doing is a classic "going around the world to get across the street" type of scenario! ;)

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by CR68
I remember, there was a technique, where you can use any lp filter in combination with thor to create a hp filter? Selig, i think, can help? It woulb be very interesting how this can done.
Cheers

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by Gaja
Native Reason has five Hp filters that I am aware of. Thor, Stereo imager, Kong, Pulverizer, and the SSL. So far I've not desperately needed another one (and there are several REs that I can think of that have a HP).

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by selig
CR68 wrote:I remember, there was a technique, where you can use any lp filter in combination with thor to create a hp filter? Selig, i think, can help? It woulb be very interesting how this can done.
Cheers
Yes, thanks for reminding me! You add the dry signal to the LP signal inverting one of them - instant complimentary HP filter.

FWIW, many traditional analog synths don't have HP filters, most microphone preamps have HP filters only. It's all relative IMO.

The more accurate way to describe Reason would be to say there are more LP filters than HP filters, but there are far from "so few HP filters" in Reason. Really, and purely IMO, it's only the ECF-24 that really lacks a HP filter. Unless you're including Rack Extensions, in which case you'd have to ask those developers directly.
:)

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by Aquila
There's a handful of HP filter Rack Extensions in the shop though. Filter, Etch Red, PMS-20 and Digital Filter for example.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by selig
Gaja wrote:Native Reason has five Hp filters that I am aware of. Thor, Stereo imager, Kong, Pulverizer, and the SSL. So far I've not desperately needed another one (and there are several REs that I can think of that have a HP).
There's Alligator too, so six HP filters. FWIW, there's also a HP filter in the MClass EQ, though it's quite limited, for a "technical" total of 7 HP filters available in Reason. Even NN-19, NN-XT, and Dr Octarex all have HP filters, though you can't run live audio through them. Again, I have to question the assertion there are "so few HP filters in Reason" as there are only two native filter-capable devices that I'm aware of that don't have HP options…have I missed anything?
:)

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by Exowildebeest
selig wrote:
Gaja wrote:Native Reason has five Hp filters that I am aware of. Thor, Stereo imager, Kong, Pulverizer, and the SSL. So far I've not desperately needed another one (and there are several REs that I can think of that have a HP).
FWIW, there's also a HP filter in the MClass EQ, though it's quite limited,
That's actually the only thing I keep on my master insert and mix into. Just against rumble, might be placebo, but I like it, it feels safe ;)

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by normen
Exowildebeest wrote:That's actually the only thing I keep on my master insert and mix into. Just against rumble, might be placebo, but I like it, it feels safe ;)
Good idea especially if you don't have monitors that go all the way down there. Just remember to always put limiters behind the low cut as a low cut can - quite unintuitively - actually increase the level of audio.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by selig
normen wrote:
Exowildebeest wrote:That's actually the only thing I keep on my master insert and mix into. Just against rumble, might be placebo, but I like it, it feels safe ;)
Good idea especially if you don't have monitors that go all the way down there. Just remember to always put limiters behind the low cut as a low cut can - quite unintuitively - actually increase the level of audio.
Somewhere there's a great explanation for this by Paul Frindle IIRC. Here's a simplified version from SOS:
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec10/ ... 1210-5.htm

FWIW, I measured 1 dB increase using the MClass Low Cut on white noise (a decent test for this effect).
:)

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by Exowildebeest
That's interesting! And yes, I don't have monitors that go that deep down or a sub (neighbours below me :(). Also yes, it's always placed before any limiting (I only add limiters etc. when mastering).

The 1db peak increase and/or phase change as such doesn't really bother me on the master channel, because I mix into it.

I'm aware though that when used on single channels, e.g. kick and bass separately, phase change due to highpass filters can be tricky. I've had cases where I felt I had to compromise between the rolloff I wanted and the phase change and interaction with the mix.

It's small details though, mosquito-fucking as we say in Dutch. Mountains, molehills.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 05 Nov 2015
by Exowildebeest
What did I just say? I meant ant-fucking of course. The other is mosquito-sifting :D

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 06 Nov 2015
by sdst
Image

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 06 Nov 2015
by gak
That reminds me: Synchronous: Y U NO have swing?

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 07 Nov 2015
by Gaja
gak wrote:That reminds me: Synchronous: Y U NO have swing?
It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing!

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 07 Nov 2015
by Raveshaper
My original question was with regard to dedicated filter devices not including HP as an option, such as ECF-42.
Basically, why should I pass audio through Thor to get an HP when it should be on the ECF.

Also, why is it that I would need to get FuzzMeasure and run diagnostics on the output just to be able to understand what's happening when I adjust settings? That is what visual displays are for. Use your ears not your eyes, duly noted. But I prefer correlating information from both to make my decisions. Information from my ears to hear what sounds "right", and information from my eyes to either fact check my assertions or work with more precision quicker than doing it by ear alone. There's a motivation behind providing detailed visual information along with audio results in every other host.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 07 Nov 2015
by dioxide
Oh but the R1 devices are perfect as they are and should never be changed! Not really, they've been due updates for 15 years now, thank goodness Redrum got a little TLC at long last.

Yes the ECF-42 should have more modes. Or should have 12 years ago. I think for some time the only way to do a HPF in Reason was with some clever but shonky workaround using the vocoder. Pulveriser might have been the first PH rack device with a resonant HPF, and Pulveriser is relatively new so you can see how long it takes for useful features to reach the Rack. Or how long it did, as happily we have Rack Extensions to save the day. Although I still think some of these things are so basic they should be built into the Reason stock devices.

On a side note, how about a DDL Delay that doesn't raise the volume when set to 100% Wet?

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 08 Nov 2015
by JiggeryPokery
dioxide wrote:
On a side note, how about a DDL Delay that doesn't raise the volume when set to 100% Wet?
Someone really does need to do that!

https://shop.propellerheads.se/product/ ... elay-line/

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 08 Nov 2015
by dioxide
JiggeryPokery wrote:
dioxide wrote:
On a side note, how about a DDL Delay that doesn't raise the volume when set to 100% Wet?
Someone really does need to do that!

https://shop.propellerheads.se/product/ ... elay-line/
Some of these things are so basic they should be built into the software though. The DDL is a useful and simple utility and just changing this one thing would make it perfect at what it does.

On a side note I'd like a two channel version of Titus or similar as I use a lot of pairs of DDLs for ping pong like effects.

Re: Why are there so few HP filters?

Posted: 08 Nov 2015
by selig
Raveshaper wrote:My original question was with regard to dedicated filter devices not including HP as an option, such as ECF-42.
Basically, why should I pass audio through Thor to get an HP when it should be on the ECF.

Also, why is it that I would need to get FuzzMeasure and run diagnostics on the output just to be able to understand what's happening when I adjust settings? That is what visual displays are for. Use your ears not your eyes, duly noted. But I prefer correlating information from both to make my decisions. Information from my ears to hear what sounds "right", and information from my eyes to either fact check my assertions or work with more precision quicker than doing it by ear alone. There's a motivation behind providing detailed visual information along with audio results in every other host.
Sorry I misunderstood, but you gotta say your thread title and first post implies there are far more than one RE that lacks a HP filter! And like that device, you're forgetting that most every other similar device provides the features you describe above as lacking, so maybe it's time to move on from the old ECF-42 and work with some of the other options out there? And if I'm again misunderstanding you, please help me to understand what's going on here.
:)