NUGEN - Audio Monofilter What settings for MASTER? why is there HPF 20 Hz?

[Caine123]

im not wanting to sound arrogant, again im learning and trying to understand what is told in various sources. but maybe all this everything below 80hz +/- is all blabla and not reality done and has a negative impact? (of course if mixed before properly).

again i never expected analysing over 50 commercial tracks from VARIOUS genres that NONE and again NONE has a thin/narrow low end, not at all .

Just do what most producers do : Use an eq to filter out the sides below around 80 - 100 hz. Then your tracks will look exactly like in that Prodigy example.

Most ppl use Pro-Q3, or comparable. I'm using Equilibrium for this task, and the stereo image in Metric AB looks exactly like other commercial releases, and exactly like tracks by artists that i know to use Pro-Q3 for this task.

thx man, same result,

[dionenoid]

thx man, same result,

Let me guess, you slapped it on there after all the other processing ?

[Caine123]

thx man, same result,

Let me guess, you slapped it on there after all the other processing ?

thx from another forum i learned finally what you meant too i think?

here is the mixed forum beat
these 3 elements have low end so i just uploaded the quick EQ settings, with additional Side filtering

Kick


Pad


Bass


Master is off just Metric is on
Full beat looks like this at around 3dB showing on master Out


now i switch on Master Effects
Comp = about 3db GR
Inflator 25% (saturation)
Teote (balancer)
Limiter 3db GR



i now see what you mean that the whole master processes influence too the low end. EVEN if i MONO'ed them with Pro-q3 now.

ok now i got it, big thanks for being so patient.

to further understand, sure in the end i cannot know with a full released song if it got mono-ed in the mixing or not (on the master definitely now) but it seems with tracks where it is VERY spread in the low end that it was mono'ed or not as much cause comp, limiter etc. cannot spread it like crazy like some examples above correct?

btw would you say a 24db slope is ok to set a stereo/mono field? sure in the mixing i might get back to monofilter cause it got phase align function.

what still theoretically bothers me, or where i might think too much. lets say they used comps etc. LOSLESS formats.
and if they (i really doubt many care or check it especially more independent labels/producers) mono'ed in the mix the elements does the processing from the master make the phase in the low end not bad/worse where it might be then practical/recommended to then add at the end of the chain some mono-maker like monofilter for the lows just to have a full mono lowend back again after all processes?

[mystran]

btw would you say a 24db slope is ok to set a stereo/mono field? sure in the mixing i might get back to monofilter cause it got phase align function.

This is probably unnecessarily steep. With minimum-phase filters there is some phase-shift around and a couple of octaves above the cutoff and when this phase-shift is only applied to the side-channel because we're filtering side only, this can shift the stereo image at those frequencies slightly. Since steeper filters cause more phase-shift, steeper filters make this worse, although it is subtle enough that perhaps you can get away with 24dB/octave if there's not too strong stereo cues at those frequencies (probably not), but then we get back to the question of why would we need such a steep filter then?

and if they (i really doubt many care or check it especially more independent labels/producers) mono'ed in the mix the elements does the processing from the master make the phase in the low end not bad/worse where it might be then practical/recommended to then add at the end of the chain some mono-maker like monofilter for the lows just to have a full mono lowend back again after all processes?

Side-bands and IMD products. You'll probably never have "full mono" low end unless your mono-filtering is the last thing.. and then you need a limiter to control peaks, and then you need another mono-filter again, and then you need yet another limiter...

Just.. don't.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether or not the track is "full mono" at the low frequencies. What matter is that when we send the track to a PA with a mono sub, it should sound the same as with full range speakers and there should not be any obvious phase cancellations going on.. and then possibly if you want a loud mix, you don't want so much low-freq stereo stuff that it impact your headroom. In both cases, if there's some stuff at -30dB (or whatever; remember every 20dB means 10-times the amplitude) relative to the mid channel, then it's probably irrelevant.

[dionenoid]

to further understand, sure in the end i cannot know with a full released song if it got mono-ed in the mixing or not (on the master definitely now) but it seems with tracks where it is VERY spread in the low end that it was mono'ed or not as much cause comp, limiter etc. cannot spread it like crazy like some examples above correct?

btw would you say a 24db slope is ok to set a stereo/mono field? sure in the mixing i might get back to monofilter cause it got phase align function.

what still theoretically bothers me, or where i might think too much. lets say they used comps etc. LOSLESS formats.
and if they (i really doubt many care or check it especially more independent labels/producers) mono'ed in the mix the elements does the processing from the master make the phase in the low end not bad/worse where it might be then practical/recommended to then add at the end of the chain some mono-maker like monofilter for the lows just to have a full mono lowend back again after all processes?

Few tips :

a) Don't use monoizing on every channel.
b) Don't use such steep filters.
c) Don't overthink it

a) because you're doing double the work with pretty much the same end result but higher chance of phase issues. Just use Pro-Q3 as first insert on your mixbus/mastering doing some side filtering and you're good in most cases.
b) is perfectly explained by Mystran. In practice, using gentler slopes just sounds more natural.
c) speaks for itself...

It doesn't matter if there's some stereo information left in the low-end, all that matters is that it stays in balance with the rest of the track.

[MogwaiBoy]

Yes the HPF disables entirely when the slider is 20Hz - I had to check Plugin Doctor to confirm that too. NUGEN should have made it a bit more obvious... like when you pull the slider to 20Hz it says HPF: OFF and/or greys out.

Some good general advice above about not needing to mono every channel. You've examined commercial mixes and seen they often have a little sub information in the sides, and it's not a problem for them and in general it shouldn't be for you.

Gentle filtering will always sound more natural and transparent than aggressive filtering - though sometimes aggressive has its uses.

[Caine123]

small test if someone got some time for 2 small audio clips, which one do you prefer, low end focus wise

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jvweus1q ... ku43j&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r31an44y ... 4sjvc&dl=0

[plexuss]

Something I find works well for clearing up the bottom end is using Sound Radix Pi on channel mixing and Monofilter on the mix buss. I find Pi requires attention to detail in order to work best vs putting it on tracks and not thinking about it. It really depends on what tracks are grouped and how in Pi but with some work things get clear and tight in the low end.... usually. Sometimes it doesnt work well depending on the track audio.

[mystran]

small test if someone got some time for 2 small audio clips, which one do you prefer, low end focus wise

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jvweus1q ... ku43j&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r31an44y ... 4sjvc&dl=0

They seem both perfectly fine. If I had to pick I'd probably take B, but really ... idk.

[Caine123]

Something I find works well for clearing up the bottom end is using Sound Radix Pi on channel mixing and Monofilter on the mix buss. I find Pi requires attention to detail in order to work best vs putting it on tracks and not thinking about it. It really depends on what tracks are grouped and how in Pi but with some work things get clear and tight in the low end.... usually. Sometimes it doesnt work well depending on the track audio.

thanks a lot, yes i forgot about this one, i still got it but i remember it was not fun setting up?
i need to test again, wasnt it like that.

e.g. you got 4 low end parts, you need to add 4x pi (on each channel 1) + the master channel?

small test if someone got some time for 2 small audio clips, which one do you prefer, low end focus wise

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jvweus1q ... ku43j&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r31an44y ... 4sjvc&dl=0

They seem both perfectly fine. If I had to pick I'd probably take B, but really ... idk.

thx i will reveal later

[plexuss]

Something I find works well for clearing up the bottom end is using Sound Radix Pi on channel mixing and Monofilter on the mix buss. I find Pi requires attention to detail in order to work best vs putting it on tracks and not thinking about it. It really depends on what tracks are grouped and how in Pi but with some work things get clear and tight in the low end.... usually. Sometimes it doesnt work well depending on the track audio.

thanks a lot, yes i forgot about this one, i still got it but i remember it was not fun setting up?
i need to test again, wasnt it like that.

e.g. you got 4 low end parts, you need to add 4x pi (on each channel 1) + the master channel?

Your recollection of Pi acccurate. it really depends on the nature of the audio and how the tracks are used as to what modes in Pi are used. and it takes some listening and decision making as to what works best in terms of settings and over-all use. But it is effective. I may be worth looking for some good tutorials on Pi maybe on utube.