HPF (High-Pass Filter) on Mix Busses

[MarkPAman]

“So… would it be acceptable to loose LF and HF bands for this?”

It would be an acceptable option.

[KeithJ A&H]

Sorry @markpaman, you’re correct, I mean as a switchable option in the vein of dLive/Avantis.

[MarkPAman]

That’s OK then 🙂

[nottooloud]

The same processing PEQ block/brick is used by both input and mix channel processing,

Thank you for explaining. That seems an unfortunate decision. Uli’s designers kept them separate, so they could give their outputs 6 band parametric with 2 switchable. Being stuck with your architecture, perhaps it would be possible to add HPF to the PEQ, but disable and hide the redundant one on inputs. Another workaround would be to add LPF to the GEQ. My Yamaha GEQs have that. It’s very handy for monitors and front fills.

Does Avantis have the same architectural limitation?

So… would it be acceptable to loose LF and HF bands for this?

Like on my GLD? Certainly, if that’s the only way. Beats hell out of none. I’d rather have more filters, but we still have the GEQ to play with.

[advance]

Yes, a switchable opiton in the peq for LF and HF, with bell, shelf and filter would be great. I don’t mind loosing this bands for that.

If its the same block and we would also get that on the inputs, that would be fantastic. The Lowpass/Highcut Filter is something I miss there heavily too.
I admit, doing crossovers in matrices is not the preferred way to go technically. But working on tight budgets, this is a very important feature to have. (and it’s possible with almost all the competitors desk in that price range).

[soak]

i appreciate the explanation. For me the preferred option would be a 4 band + hpf/lpf. This permits the most flexibility for me the end user. As @nottooloud says I wouldn’t mind loosing an input channel if this work could be done behind the scenes as selectable option.

I know the mixer is not a speaker processor, but when the mixer can replace 90% of the functionality of the stand alone processor, on jobs with a tight budget it doesn’t make sense to use an external processor.

Having the option to having to substitute two of the bands is better than nothing.

[tomos]

@KeithJ A&H This would be great

3 – at the output stage for use in place of a dedicated speaker processor
[a console is not a speaker/system processor, there is a reason they exist! admittedly though, there are already many features in our digital consoles that allow you to shape the sound and perform some of the functions that a speaker processor is designed for, and maybe again an option ‘beyond’ shelf for LF and HF would achieve what most engineers are looking for here?]

It’s often needed, when you have active speakers ( for monitors, frontfills, delay line, even for main PA) and most of them, don’t have dedicated low cut button (75Hz or 80Hz).

So… would it be acceptable to loose LF and HF bands for this?

Yes, if it will be switchable, anytime , i don’t mind, still have three

It’s also good, to have HPF and LPF on FX send or FX return.

[advance]

I just got an sq survey mail. A lot of nice to have features are proposed to appear there. Mainly additional deep processing stuff. There was no way to point the hpf/lpf out there. Please don’t overlook that this time. It’s still essential to most of us.

[BradWalker]

Hi @keithjah – First-time poster, long-time A&H dealer and system designer…

3 – at the output stage for use in place of a dedicated speaker processor
[a console is not a speaker/system processor, there is a reason they exist! admittedly though, there are already many features in our digital consoles that allow you to shape the sound and perform some of the functions that a speaker processor is designed for, and maybe again an option ‘beyond’ shelf for LF and HF would achieve what most engineers are looking for here?]

So… would it be acceptable to loose LF and HF bands for this?

+1 for switchable HPF/LPF vs. PEQ on the LF and HF bands.

Certainly a large part of the market for the SQ will not need a dedicated speaker DSP, if I as designer can incorporate HPF/LPF on matrices and outputs. I would need selectable slope, however, and if I had to choose from a limited selection I’d really want to at least see Linwitz-Riley with 12, 24, and 48 dB/octave options. Butterworth and Bessel next in order of priority. Frankly, I would love to have these options on the channel HPF as well.

Everything else is there for the functions of a basic output speaker DSP. If I can keep it in the mixer, it makes a big difference with what we specify for the budget church or club – especially on a budget-friendly mixer that can run 96K with DEEP plugins, and very granular user rights control that makes a big difference in those settings.

I could also see this as a dedicated “Speaker DSP” DEEP plugin, as long as it isn’t as clunky to use as the Midas PRO series attempt at speaker DSP was 😯

BTW, I’m loving the new DynamicEQ and multi-band compressors. A little getting used to after the BSS 901 emulation in the Midas PRO series, but very workable once I figured out what was what.

Thanks for a great product!
Brad Walker

[Showtime]

The switchable option is ok for me.

I don’t want to use a mixing deks as a speaker processor. If i need a speaker processor, i buy one.

As a gld – qu – sq – dlive user the only thing i miss on the sq is hpf filter on the mix buses.

A small request lpf filter in the eq section.

Richard

[tomos]

Any news about this?

[harrisonhal266]

This is a must and if it can’t be done allow for HPF and LPF and 2 bands of parametric if you have to take away from the 4 bands of parametric.

[nottooloud]

They appear to be demonstrating a firmware at NAMM this weekend that does exactly that.

[Author]

Posts