Recording

[furburger]

Don't use the built in bass roll off especially with small cardioid mics. You can do it later with software if it's needed.

not true, at all.

once you oversaturate, it's lost.


bass roll-offs are especially useful for the Slayer/Pantera ilk, and even "hard rock" music.


the key is in knowing when, and *how* to use them effectively.


think of it this way: if bass rolloffs weren't useful, ***they never would have been developed in the first place***.

[goodcooker]

Don't use the built in bass roll off especially with small cardioid mics. You can do it later with software if it's needed.

not true, at all.

once you oversaturate, it's lost.


bass roll-offs are especially useful for the Slayer/Pantera ilk, and even "hard rock" music.


the key is in knowing when, and *how* to use them effectively.


think of it this way: if bass rolloffs weren't useful, ***they never would have been developed in the first place***.

Using a bass roll effectively means doing it after the fact when you can listen to the program material with accuracy. This guy has mentioned using a quote"crappy car stereo" as his basis for judgement. Unless you are right next to a big subwoofer array and are getting overwhelmed with SPL so much that you are clipping your levels you are better served not using it. Small card mics have a natural roll off of the low frequencies by design. No need to throw away part of the spectrum up front when you can't accurately monitor what you are recording.

Quote " think of it this way: if bass rolloffs weren't useful, ***they never would have been developed in the first place***

They are useful but not the way you always want to say you are "doing it right" based on whatever criteria you pick this week. Bass reduction filters are better for omni mics close to the source - you didn't even know that the mics you fluff are omnis until I told they were - so I wouldn't take your advice if I was a new taper.

Welcome back to the axe grinding session....

[Gutbucket]

once you oversaturate, it's lost.

^
This is quite true.  The important thing is to avoid clipping (oversaturation).  To do so, one needs to reduce input level.  The question is how to go about reducing the input level.

Bass-rolloff (also called a high-pass filter) reduces input level in a frequency specific way.  It reduces the level of low-frequencies more than the level of the midrange and treble frequencies.  In that way it acts as an EQ adjustment in addition to reducing overall level, which tends to be dominated by low-frequency content.

Turning down the recorder's input gain reduces input level by the same amount across all frequencies. It reduces the bass, midrange and treble by the same amount.  It does not change the EQ balance.

Both can eliminate clipping or oversaturation in the recording.

If an recording will benefit from EQ adjustment which reduces bass content, then using bass-rolloff on the recorder is one way of achieving that EQ adjustment.  Another more-or-less equivalent method is switching in a high-pass filter elsewhere in the signal-chain before the recorder, such as at the microphone itself or in an external preamp if one is being used.  Switching these filters in also reduces overall recording level, but that's really secondary as that reduction in level can be made up for or not by using more or less input gain. And the shape of the filtering and the frequency point below which it begins to become active varies between devices, some cut more sharply but start at a lower frequency, some the opposite.  Some provide a few different low-pass filters to choose between.

The argument for not using high-pass filtering when recording is that one can achieve the same filtering after the recording has been made, or can better tailor the amount and shape of the low frequency reduction to appropriately suit the recording.  The key to doing that is recording with the input gain set low enough so that the low frequency content does not clip the recorder.  This approach allows for more nuanced control over the sound of the end-result, but requires doing that EQ work after the recording has been made.

An argument for using high-pass filtering is that it may reduce or eliminate the need to make an EQ adjustment afterwards.  It won't do so as accurately in a tune-able way because one is stuck with whatever shape of low-pass filtering the equipment manufacturer implements. The high-pass filtering on recorders and microphones is provided primarily as a method to reduce handling and wind noise in dialog recordings, or to reduce non-musical rumble and low-frequency bleed in isolated tracks which have no meaningful low frequency content themselves.  The shape of the high-pass filter in a small all-in-one recorder is designed with this in mind, and not specifically designed for reducing bass levels in an even and musical-sounding way for full-spectrum content.  However, these filters can and obviously are used that way with various degrees of success. It is certainly faster and easier to implement than filtering afterwards, and that aspect should not be disregarded.  But if highest quality is the more important goal, then filtering more-carefully adjusted by ear and applied afterward is more appropriate.

Different strokes for different folks.
In the end, all roads lead to Rome.
If it sounds good it is good.

[bonghitwillie]

it's always best to under record when close to loud sources. sometimes the meters do not reflect accurately. once you over record, it is hard to fix in post.

[furburger]

Don't use the built in bass roll off especially with small cardioid mics. You can do it later with software if it's needed.

not true, at all.

once you oversaturate, it's lost.


bass roll-offs are especially useful for the Slayer/Pantera ilk, and even "hard rock" music.


the key is in knowing when, and *how* to use them effectively.


think of it this way: if bass rolloffs weren't useful, ***they never would have been developed in the first place***.

Using a bass roll effectively means doing it after the fact when you can listen to the program material with accuracy. This guy has mentioned using a quote"crappy car stereo" as his basis for judgement. Unless you are right next to a big subwoofer array and are getting overwhelmed with SPL so much that you are clipping your levels you are better served not using it. Small card mics have a natural roll off of the low frequencies by design. No need to throw away part of the spectrum up front when you can't accurately monitor what you are recording.

Quote " think of it this way: if bass rolloffs weren't useful, ***they never would have been developed in the first place***

They are useful but not the way you always want to say you are "doing it right" based on whatever criteria you pick this week. Bass reduction filters are better for omni mics close to the source - you didn't even know that the mics you fluff are omnis until I told they were - so I wouldn't take your advice if I was a new taper.

Welcome back to the axe grinding session....

"this guy" also has 2 1400 watt Crown amps bridged mono going into a pair of 100lb. 18 inch Yamaha subs and a pair of 90lb. Cerwins with horns (MUCH more accurate mid reproduction than any home stereo speaker), and he plays back his shows on both systems,  in addition to his home stereo before settling on a mix.

bass-roll offs are a godsend, again, if one knows how to use them correctly.

it's kinda like the AC/DC test...AC/DC sounds great on "shitty car stereos", and even better on better systems.

trying to find that balance is key.


and, as mentioned in another thread, the soundman for TMS got accused of giving me a board patch...because my shitty mics used in conjunction with a rolloff made such a crappy recording that the band management *thought it sounded like a soundboard*.

so, yeah, I'll take statements and opinions of those who actually mix music for a living over those of people who merely record shows with fancy-schmancy stuff that is really unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

sorry, but that's just how it is.

[furburger]

once you oversaturate, it's lost.

^
This is quite true.  The important thing is to avoid clipping (oversaturation).  To do so, one needs to reduce input level.  The question is how to go about reducing the input level.

Bass-rolloff (also called a high-pass filter) reduces input level in a frequency specific way.  It reduces the level of low-frequencies more than the level of the midrange and treble frequencies.  In that way it acts as an EQ adjustment in addition to reducing overall level, which tends to be dominated by low-frequency content.

Turning down the recorder's input gain reduces input level by the same amount across all frequencies. It reduces the bass, midrange and treble by the same amount.  It does not change the EQ balance.

Both can eliminate clipping or oversaturation in the recording.

If an recording will benefit from EQ adjustment which reduces bass content, then using bass-rolloff on the recorder is one way of achieving that EQ adjustment.  Another more-or-less equivalent method is switching in a high-pass filter elsewhere in the signal-chain before the recorder, such as at the microphone itself or in an external preamp if one is being used.  Switching these filters in also reduces overall recording level, but that's really secondary as that reduction in level can be made up for or not by using more or less input gain. And the shape of the filtering and the frequency point below which it begins to become active varies between devices, some cut more sharply but start at a lower frequency, some the opposite.  Some provide a few different low-pass filters to choose between.

The argument for not using high-pass filtering when recording is that one can achieve the same filtering after the recording has been made, or can better tailor the amount and shape of the low frequency reduction to appropriately suit the recording.  The key to doing that is recording with the input gain set low enough so that the low frequency content does not clip the recorder.  This approach allows for more nuanced control over the sound of the end-result, but requires doing that EQ work after the recording has been made.

An argument for using high-pass filtering is that it may reduce or eliminate the need to make an EQ adjustment afterwards.  It won't do so as accurately in a tune-able way because one is stuck with whatever shape of low-pass filtering the equipment manufacturer implements. The high-pass filtering on recorders and microphones is provided primarily as a method to reduce handling and wind noise in dialog recordings, or to reduce non-musical rumble and low-frequency bleed in isolated tracks which have no meaningful low frequency content themselves.  The shape of the high-pass filter in a small all-in-one recorder is designed with this in mind, and not specifically designed for reducing bass levels in an even and musical-sounding way for full-spectrum content.  However, these filters can and obviously are used that way with various degrees of success. It is certainly faster and easier to implement than filtering afterwards, and that aspect should not be disregarded.  But if highest quality is the more important goal, then filtering more-carefully adjusted by ear and applied afterward is more appropriate.

Different strokes for different folks.
In the end, all roads lead to Rome.
If it sounds good it is good.

I understand what you're saying, and the lo/medium/high gain on the DR-2D (100 levels of input x 3 gains = roughly 160 different settings, as I've found each setting does produce some overlap when it comes to equal input levels) really helps in that regard.

the Edirol R-09 had a mere 60 (low gain/high gain, and each could only be set 1-30 vs. 1-100), and that just didn't get the job done.

if you're taping regular rock music on back to mellow stuff,  a lo-cut is most likely not necessary, as the low-end at the show is not overbearing.

but to just discount low-cuts across the board out of the gate, to me, is a recipe for disaster.....I've even done shows with the low-cut that still came out like shit (VH '98 Anchorage and any time I taped the Crue except Vegas '97)...which to me was baffling, as the peak meter on the analog deck was barely tickling -6dB, (and that was with the use of the -20dB attentuator, which I assume was a fancy word for 'low gain'...it's been so long) yet they still came out like shit....and no amount of EQ could get rid of that burpy, distorted low-end.


someone like you I'm sure I could learn a *lot* from, as your posts are informative and well thought out...it's a shame that more here aren't like you.

[opsopcopolis]

once you oversaturate, it's lost.

^
This is quite true.  The important thing is to avoid clipping (oversaturation).  To do so, one needs to reduce input level.  The question is how to go about reducing the input level.

Bass-rolloff (also called a high-pass filter) reduces input level in a frequency specific way.  It reduces the level of low-frequencies more than the level of the midrange and treble frequencies.  In that way it acts as an EQ adjustment in addition to reducing overall level, which tends to be dominated by low-frequency content.

Turning down the recorder's input gain reduces input level by the same amount across all frequencies. It reduces the bass, midrange and treble by the same amount.  It does not change the EQ balance.

Both can eliminate clipping or oversaturation in the recording.

If an recording will benefit from EQ adjustment which reduces bass content, then using bass-rolloff on the recorder is one way of achieving that EQ adjustment.  Another more-or-less equivalent method is switching in a high-pass filter elsewhere in the signal-chain before the recorder, such as at the microphone itself or in an external preamp if one is being used.  Switching these filters in also reduces overall recording level, but that's really secondary as that reduction in level can be made up for or not by using more or less input gain. And the shape of the filtering and the frequency point below which it begins to become active varies between devices, some cut more sharply but start at a lower frequency, some the opposite.  Some provide a few different low-pass filters to choose between.

The argument for not using high-pass filtering when recording is that one can achieve the same filtering after the recording has been made, or can better tailor the amount and shape of the low frequency reduction to appropriately suit the recording.  The key to doing that is recording with the input gain set low enough so that the low frequency content does not clip the recorder.  This approach allows for more nuanced control over the sound of the end-result, but requires doing that EQ work after the recording has been made.

An argument for using high-pass filtering is that it may reduce or eliminate the need to make an EQ adjustment afterwards.  It won't do so as accurately in a tune-able way because one is stuck with whatever shape of low-pass filtering the equipment manufacturer implements. The high-pass filtering on recorders and microphones is provided primarily as a method to reduce handling and wind noise in dialog recordings, or to reduce non-musical rumble and low-frequency bleed in isolated tracks which have no meaningful low frequency content themselves.  The shape of the high-pass filter in a small all-in-one recorder is designed with this in mind, and not specifically designed for reducing bass levels in an even and musical-sounding way for full-spectrum content.  However, these filters can and obviously are used that way with various degrees of success. It is certainly faster and easier to implement than filtering afterwards, and that aspect should not be disregarded.  But if highest quality is the more important goal, then filtering more-carefully adjusted by ear and applied afterward is more appropriate.

Different strokes for different folks.
In the end, all roads lead to Rome.
If it sounds good it is good.

I understand what you're saying, and the lo/medium/high gain on the DR-2D (100 levels of input x 3 gains = roughly 160 different settings, as I've found each setting does produce some overlap when it comes to equal input levels) really helps in that regard.

the Edirol R-09 had a mere 60 (low gain/high gain, and each could only be set 1-30 vs. 1-100), and that just didn't get the job done.

if you're taping regular rock music on back to mellow stuff,  a lo-cut is most likely not necessary, as the low-end at the show is not overbearing.

but to just discount low-cuts across the board out of the gate, to me, is a recipe for disaster.....I've even done shows with the low-cut that still came out like shit (VH '98 Anchorage and any time I taped the Crue except Vegas '97)...which to me was baffling, as the peak meter on the analog deck was barely tickling -6dB, (and that was with the use of the -20dB attentuator, which I assume was a fancy word for 'low gain'...it's been so long) yet they still came out like shit....and no amount of EQ could get rid of that burpy, distorted low-end.


someone like you I'm sure I could learn a *lot* from, as your posts are informative and well thought out...it's a shame that more here aren't like you.

The point that everybody is trying to make is that the above bolded statement isn't how it works. If you set gain correctly, using an HPF is unnecessary and you can pull down the unwanted low frequencies after the fact. This will have the exact same effect as using the low cut on the recording device. The reason the shows you mention sounded like shit is probably because they sounded like shit in the room. If the low cut has a positive effect on the recording, you can have a more accurate positive effect using EQ in post processing. Always.

For example: I taped the Sword about 6 months ago. CA11 omnis > ugly battery box > Sony M10. The low freq content in the room was staggering. I could have put on the HPF on the M10, but then I would just lose that content. Instead, I elected to just pull down the overall input gain on the recorder, allowing me to safely record the show without clipping and give me the option of removing as much of the sub content as I wanted in post. If the show was going to distort at the mics, it would distort at the mics whether I use the HPF or not.

[furburger]

once you oversaturate, it's lost.

^
This is quite true.  The important thing is to avoid clipping (oversaturation).  To do so, one needs to reduce input level.  The question is how to go about reducing the input level.

Bass-rolloff (also called a high-pass filter) reduces input level in a frequency specific way.  It reduces the level of low-frequencies more than the level of the midrange and treble frequencies.  In that way it acts as an EQ adjustment in addition to reducing overall level, which tends to be dominated by low-frequency content.

Turning down the recorder's input gain reduces input level by the same amount across all frequencies. It reduces the bass, midrange and treble by the same amount.  It does not change the EQ balance.

Both can eliminate clipping or oversaturation in the recording.

If an recording will benefit from EQ adjustment which reduces bass content, then using bass-rolloff on the recorder is one way of achieving that EQ adjustment.  Another more-or-less equivalent method is switching in a high-pass filter elsewhere in the signal-chain before the recorder, such as at the microphone itself or in an external preamp if one is being used.  Switching these filters in also reduces overall recording level, but that's really secondary as that reduction in level can be made up for or not by using more or less input gain. And the shape of the filtering and the frequency point below which it begins to become active varies between devices, some cut more sharply but start at a lower frequency, some the opposite.  Some provide a few different low-pass filters to choose between.

The argument for not using high-pass filtering when recording is that one can achieve the same filtering after the recording has been made, or can better tailor the amount and shape of the low frequency reduction to appropriately suit the recording.  The key to doing that is recording with the input gain set low enough so that the low frequency content does not clip the recorder.  This approach allows for more nuanced control over the sound of the end-result, but requires doing that EQ work after the recording has been made.

An argument for using high-pass filtering is that it may reduce or eliminate the need to make an EQ adjustment afterwards.  It won't do so as accurately in a tune-able way because one is stuck with whatever shape of low-pass filtering the equipment manufacturer implements. The high-pass filtering on recorders and microphones is provided primarily as a method to reduce handling and wind noise in dialog recordings, or to reduce non-musical rumble and low-frequency bleed in isolated tracks which have no meaningful low frequency content themselves.  The shape of the high-pass filter in a small all-in-one recorder is designed with this in mind, and not specifically designed for reducing bass levels in an even and musical-sounding way for full-spectrum content.  However, these filters can and obviously are used that way with various degrees of success. It is certainly faster and easier to implement than filtering afterwards, and that aspect should not be disregarded.  But if highest quality is the more important goal, then filtering more-carefully adjusted by ear and applied afterward is more appropriate.

Different strokes for different folks.
In the end, all roads lead to Rome.
If it sounds good it is good.

I understand what you're saying, and the lo/medium/high gain on the DR-2D (100 levels of input x 3 gains = roughly 160 different settings, as I've found each setting does produce some overlap when it comes to equal input levels) really helps in that regard.

the Edirol R-09 had a mere 60 (low gain/high gain, and each could only be set 1-30 vs. 1-100), and that just didn't get the job done.

if you're taping regular rock music on back to mellow stuff,  a lo-cut is most likely not necessary, as the low-end at the show is not overbearing.

but to just discount low-cuts across the board out of the gate, to me, is a recipe for disaster.....I've even done shows with the low-cut that still came out like shit (VH '98 Anchorage and any time I taped the Crue except Vegas '97)...which to me was baffling, as the peak meter on the analog deck was barely tickling -6dB, (and that was with the use of the -20dB attentuator, which I assume was a fancy word for 'low gain'...it's been so long) yet they still came out like shit....and no amount of EQ could get rid of that burpy, distorted low-end.


someone like you I'm sure I could learn a *lot* from, as your posts are informative and well thought out...it's a shame that more here aren't like you.

The point that everybody is trying to make is that the above bolded statement isn't how it works. If you set gain correctly, using an HPF is unnecessary and you can pull down the unwanted low frequencies after the fact. This will have the exact same effect as using the low cut on the recording device. The reason the shows you mention sounded like shit is probably because they sounded like shit in the room. If the low cut has a positive effect on the recording, you can have a more accurate positive effect using EQ in post processing. Always.

For example: I taped the Sword about 6 months ago. CA11 omnis > ugly battery box > Sony M10. The low freq content in the room was staggering. I could have put on the HPF on the M10, but then I would just lose that content. Instead, I elected to just pull down the overall input gain on the recorder, allowing me to safely record the show without clipping and give me the option of removing as much of the sub content as I wanted in post. If the show was going to distort at the mics, it would distort at the mics whether I use the HPF or not.

this is what i remember, from when I initially got the Sonics (before NYE '93, taped Satriani in San Jose) thru taping Metallica on the summer shed tour and Woodstock '94


---my bass levels were *horrid*

---I explained this to Leonard (Lombardo, who build the mics), and he explained to me in great detail the 3-way lo-cut he developed

---I decided to hold off initially, as I thought it could get worked out

---after the 4 Metallica shows in CA of July that year...the bass was just too much. whether it was the fault of the D6, or how he built the mics, I've no idea, but I shelled out $150+ for the 3 way lo-cut (vs. the cheaper single-pass filter he built).

and, magically, other than the previously mentioned VH and Crue shows, that problem disappeared *entirely*, even when I switched to flash-card recorders (in '08)

now, of course, there really was no 'gain' switch on a D6, but there was the 20dB attentuator (which I assume is the same thing), and that was always "on" as well...as it seemed to desensitize the signal going to the deck



I've never had luck removing the bass on a show recorded without a lo-cut in post, as once oversaturation is reached, regardless of what you do, the bass sounds 'funky'.


the '99 Sabbath show I upped (with over 400 snatches on a *reseed* on dime alone, mind you, this wasn't a never-before-heard '72 show), you can just lock your ears onto Geezer for the entire show, as the bass is *that clear*.

ridiculously good sound.

that would NEVER have happened if I'd not used the lo-cut (7th row and 4th row for the 2 shows)

now perhaps taper positioning would help in that regard (not using a lo-cut), but I don't care for that limitation....or, you *feel* bass and hear treble, so the further you are from the stage, the less the bass has a chance of distorting an otherwise good recording.

[opsopcopolis]

If the low cut is something that's built into the mics then that's a different story. As I said, if the low end is distorting at the microphone that's an entirely different situation.

[Gutbucket]

The point that everybody is trying to make is that the above bolded statement isn't how it works. If you set gain correctly, using an HPF is unnecessary and you can pull down the unwanted low frequencies after the fact. This will have the exact same effect as using the low cut on the recording device. The reason the shows you mention sounded like shit is probably because they sounded like shit in the room. If the low cut has a positive effect on the recording, you can have a more accurate positive effect using EQ in post processing. Always.

For example: I taped the Sword about 6 months ago. CA11 omnis > ugly battery box > Sony M10. The low freq content in the room was staggering. I could have put on the HPF on the M10, but then I would just lose that content. Instead, I elected to just pull down the overall input gain on the recorder, allowing me to safely record the show without clipping and give me the option of removing as much of the sub content as I wanted in post. If the show was going to distort at the mics, it would distort at the mics whether I use the HPF or not.

If the low cut is something that's built into the mics then that's a different story.

^
Not always, but most of the time.

A HPF will not eliminate all low frequency content, instead it attenuates low frequency content in a linear and predictable way. The important attributes of the filter are it's slope, which is constant across frequency (often -6dB, -12dB, or -18db per octave), and the -3dB point which defines the frequency below which the filtering takes effect.  As long as those two specifications are known one can compensate for the filtering afterwards, restoring low frequency content which has been attenuated but is still there at reduced level.. within the dynamic range and the noise-floor limits of of the recording in that low frequency region.  In that way a HPF is similar to the low frequency roll off of a directional microphone used outside the proximity-effect region, and how that can be compensated for.. within similar limits.

This might seem counterintuitive, partly because discussion of high-pass filtering on either the microphone or recorder tends to resolve toward three points of view here at TS- use of no filtering or EQ whatsoever; use of a built-in HPF when recording; or application of EQ afterward.  What I describe above - use of HPF along with the subsequent use of EQ to undo the effect of the HPF afterwards - doesn't fit directly into one of the 3 camps.

Why would anyone want to do such a thing?

A good reason to engage a HPF filter is to enable sufficient mid and high frequency signal level to the recording medium.  This is (was) more important to do this when recording to analog tape which has far less dynamic range than digital recording, as well as a less-linear response across other frequencies as the tape becomes oversaturated prior to clipping. If the recording medium could capture the full range of all frequencies at any level, we would not need recording gain controls nor high-pass filters to make recordings which aimed to accurately reflect the frequency balance and and loudness of the live event.*  This may bring to mind similar discussions about recording level and recording 16 or 24 bits.  As it is, digital recording currently allows us to get away with not needing to engage a high pass filters most of the time in order to get good usable full-spectrum signal recorded, yet we still for the most part tweak the recording gain depending on what we are recording.

^I look forward to the day I don't need to adjust input gain at all with regard to the content I'm recording, needing only to select a microphone and recorder combination that are capable of handling full range of whatever I choose to record, and initially set the input sensitivity of the recorder to that of the microphone.  We're close to that already.  Some "on-talent" wireless transmitters incorporate proprietary automatic gain-ranging strategies which extend the dynamic range of the system without user intervention.  The "dual record" feature on a number of recorders tapers are using which makes a backup safety recording at a lower level is similar, although most will not automatically stitch the two recordings together afterwards to form one with a greater range than either alone.  And, mostly out of necessity, many stealth tapers learn initially what gain setting works for the types of music they record and the venues they typically record in, then leave the input-level controls untouched until eventually switching gear, then find a new good middle-way setting.  The dynamic range of the microphone>recorder combination just needs to be sufficiently large enough to accommodate the signal level variation between the limits of noise-floor at the bottom of the dynamic range and clipping at the top of the range. 

A combination of pre-filtering + post-compensation filtering to help fit the signal to the recording/reproduction medium is much more common than many realize.  All tape recordings and playback works this way!  All vinyl playback works this way!

As tapers we are not usually carefully constructing our own pre/post emphasis filters that compensate for each other.  But we might use a HPF in combination with post EQ to  manipulate the attenuated low frequency region- perhaps restoring some of what was attenuated while cutting  other parts of it more.  Essentially reshaping the low frequency response to the shape we want.  This is not relying on the HPF itself to be the correct final filter shape on its own, but using it as one stage of filtering and working with that.


*Most of the time we don't actually want to reproduce direct the frequency balance and full dynamic range of the event, even when people think that's what they want.  What we actually want is something that sounds good through the systems we are using for reproduction.  We want a credible illusion rather than a true recreation.

[Gutbucket]

If the low cut is something that's built into the mics then that's a different story. As I said, if the low end is distorting at the microphone that's an entirely different situation.

Depends on the microphone.  Some HPF's on the microphone amplifier body will increase the max SPL limit of the microphone such that it will distort less at very high SPLs.  Others will only attenuate the output from the microphone.  The latter can keep downstream components from overloading if that's a problem, but will not keep the microphone itself from distorting.

[opsopcopolis]

Fair enough. My general point still stands. Our recording medium doesn't really warrant use of pre/post filters in that way though. Some people may prefer that process (whether from using it in the past or for lending sense of security) but for recording single sources in the age of recording to digital mediums where space is not an issue and we have the luxury of nitpicking over input gain it's not really necessary.

I've spent hours and hours working on pre-filtering and parallel EQs in order to drive certain components (whether a pre-amp, compressor, EQ, or whatever) in a certain frequency range before reaching 'tape,' but in the modern audience concert recording world that strikes me as wholly unnecessary.

ETA: when I discuss recording techniques on this forum I am basically always discussing in the context of audience concert recording. If we want to discuss different scenarios that's fine. But it's mostly irrelevant to recording a PA from the back of a room with a pair of microphones

[Gutbucket]

FWIW, I agree with you.  I don't use a HPF for concert taping and don't recommend use of one for most tapers.  Yet, the filters are provided for good reason, and some folks even  make productive use of them for concert taping.  That said, I agree there are almost always an alternate prefered way to go about managing excessive low frequency content.

Apologies for swimming too far from the boat into the waters outside of concert taping, I mostly wanted to explain the foundational aspects to those who are not as familiar with them as you are.

[goodcooker]

Apologies for swimming too far from the boat into the waters outside of concert taping

You are in the boating business...right?

[opsopcopolis]

FWIW, I agree with you.  I don't use a HPF for concert taping and don't recommend use of one for most tapers.  Yet, the filters are provided for good reason, and some folks even  make productive use of them for concert taping.  That said, I agree there are almost always an alternate prefered way to go about managing excessive low frequency content.

Apologies for swimming too far from the boat into the waters outside of concert taping, I mostly wanted to explain the foundational aspects to those who are not as familiar with them as you are.

All good! I enjoy reading your posts. Just wanted to clarify