umashankar wrote:
> before you vote for or against low frequency filtering, consider this.
>
> in many situations, the low frequencies are not intrusive when you
> are there, but they become so in the recording.
>
> this is almost always because we listen at much higher volume than =
> real life levels. the ear's sensitivity to low frequencies is very
> low at low levels. when you boost recorded levels (during the
> recording, during processing, or in playback) low frequencies you
> could not hear earlier become audible.
>
> it is up to you to decide which is more acceptable, a theoretically
> flat frequencies response, or a correction to accommodate the
> elevated playback.
I agree completely. I submit recordings to scientific archives
unfiltered. When producing for listening, I roll off the bass
appropriately. Try using gentle (6dB/octave) filters first, so the
sense of space that Rob speaks so eloquently about isn't lost.
BTW I recently thought of a good argument for elevated listening
levels. It's the same thing as the optical magnification we use to
look at pictures of birds. I hold up a bird book. Is this what a bird
looks like in the field? Not likely--the picture we want to look at is
probably 10x to 100x what we see in the field. Q.E.D.
Corollary: ever see a serious birder without binoculars? I didn't
think so. Crank it up!
-Dan Dugan
|