Pet peeve: filter terminology

[cryophonik]

Well, maybe using terms like high-cut and low-cut are offensive to some people because they demean the frequencies that are being left out, as if they're not good enough, as if their parents failed miserably and now they'll never amount to anything and mommy doesn't even bother to answer when they call anymore, and.....

OK, sorry. I just think that high-pass and low-pass are nice ways to acknowledge the frequencies that are doing the job without putting a spotlight on the ones that didn't make the cut.

On the contrary I think we should acknowledge the marginalized frequencies instead of the privileged ones. It doesn't feel right to disappear them twice over.

But that's a pretty steep and slippery slope and what do you gain by trying to include the entire spectrum? The marginalized ones should just put their feelings on a shelf and band together, unless they're just going through a phase, in which case they could just go it solo and adopt an alias until things improve by a notch or two.

[Hink]

Well, maybe using terms like high-cut and low-cut are offensive to some people because they demean the frequencies that are being left out, as if they're not good enough, as if their parents failed miserably and now they'll never amount to anything and mommy doesn't even bother to answer when they call anymore, and.....

OK, sorry. I just think that high-pass and low-pass are nice ways to acknowledge the frequencies that are doing the job without putting a spotlight on the ones that didn't make the cut.

On the contrary I think we should acknowledge the marginalized frequencies instead of the privileged ones. It doesn't feel right to disappear them twice over.

But that's a pretty steep and slippery slope and what do you gain by trying to include the entire spectrum? The marginalized ones should just put their feelings on a shelf and band together, unless they're just going through a phase, in which case they could just go it solo and adopt an alias until things improve by a notch or two.

but you have to keep in mind the fact that those on the lower end of the spectrum will experience those feelings less frequently and those on the higher end of the spectrum experiences those feelings more frequently

[vurt]

i like my modular filters.
especially the wasp filters, they stop me getting stung by bastards.

[Erisian]

i like my modular filters.
especially the wasp filters, they stop me getting stung by bastards.

My coffee filters are my favourites. They assist the feeling of stimulation and wakefulness quite effectively.

[Unaspected]

Honestly, never. I haven’t loaded the wrong filter for what I want to do.

Same. Maybe it's easier for those who work with audio every day? Though the terminology makes perfect sense to me - also, that's just how it is: No room for doubt if you never question. So for those who do work with audio every day but still stumble over this from time to time, there might have been some questioning as to the terminology when it was first encountered.

Well, maybe using terms like high-cut and low-cut are offensive to some people because they demean the frequencies that are being left out, as if they're not good enough, as if their parents failed miserably and now they'll never amount to anything and mommy doesn't even bother to answer when they call anymore, and.....

OK, sorry. I just think that high-pass and low-pass are nice ways to acknowledge the frequencies that are doing the job without putting a spotlight on the ones that didn't make the cut.

On the contrary I think we should acknowledge the marginalized frequencies instead of the privileged ones. It doesn't feel right to disappear them twice over.

The frequencies being cut might be the lucky ones. They don't have to do as much work/use as much energy.

poles? where are the flags? cmon, this is 2021!!!

As far as I understand, the poles are related to the polynomial order of the filter's transfer function.

[pough]

Honestly, never. I haven’t loaded the wrong filter for what I want to do.

Same. Maybe it's easier for those who work with audio every day? Though the terminology makes perfect sense to me - also, that's just how it is: No room for doubt if you never question. So for those who do work with audio every day but still stumble over this from time to time, there might have been some questioning as to the terminology when it was first encountered.

I didn't say anything about stumbling or selecting the wrong plugin. I said the naming is about the section of audio you're not affecting rather than what you are affecting. It's like having not-hair soap for your body and not-body soap for your hair.

You can get used to pretty much anything, even terms that are incorrect (eg. tremolo bridges that do vibrato and vibrato effects that do tremolo, thank you very much, misters Fender and Wurlitzer.)

[Erisian]

Honestly, never. I haven’t loaded the wrong filter for what I want to do.

Same. Maybe it's easier for those who work with audio every day? Though the terminology makes perfect sense to me - also, that's just how it is: No room for doubt if you never question. So for those who do work with audio every day but still stumble over this from time to time, there might have been some questioning as to the terminology when it was first encountered.

I didn't say anything about stumbling or selecting the wrong plugin. I said the naming is about the section of audio you're not affecting rather than what you are affecting. It's like having not-hair soap for your body and not-body soap for your hair.

You can get used to pretty much anything, even terms that are incorrect (eg. tremolo bridges that do vibrato and vibrato effects that do tremolo, thank you very much, misters Fender and Wurlitzer.)

I noticed that about so-called tremolo arms as well!

[pough]

I noticed that about so-called tremolo arms as well!

Leo Fender is a frickin' genius in every other respect so I guess we all just let it slide. He can call it whatever he likes. He's Leo Fender. I wonder if his employees gave him that blank look that you see on the faces at ILM when George Lucas was describing his ideas for the Phantom Menace. "Jar Jar is the key to all this..." *blank faces*

[Unaspected]

Honestly, never. I haven’t loaded the wrong filter for what I want to do.

Same. Maybe it's easier for those who work with audio every day? Though the terminology makes perfect sense to me - also, that's just how it is: No room for doubt if you never question. So for those who do work with audio every day but still stumble over this from time to time, there might have been some questioning as to the terminology when it was first encountered.

I didn't say anything about stumbling or selecting the wrong plugin. I said the naming is about the section of audio you're not affecting rather than what you are affecting. It's like having not-hair soap for your body and not-body soap for your hair.

You can get used to pretty much anything, even terms that are incorrect (eg. tremolo bridges that do vibrato and vibrato effects that do tremolo, thank you very much, misters Fender and Wurlitzer.)

The guitar tremolo/whammy bar/vibrato thing, I will agree with: Is odd and misleading. I know plenty of people who have issue with filter naming conventions. It's probably not helped when some tools choose to name the same filters by what is being cut (I think this is done in Pro Q) - that's when I get a little thrown.

[vurt]

Honestly, never. I haven’t loaded the wrong filter for what I want to do.

Same. Maybe it's easier for those who work with audio every day? Though the terminology makes perfect sense to me - also, that's just how it is: No room for doubt if you never question. So for those who do work with audio every day but still stumble over this from time to time, there might have been some questioning as to the terminology when it was first encountered.

Well, maybe using terms like high-cut and low-cut are offensive to some people because they demean the frequencies that are being left out, as if they're not good enough, as if their parents failed miserably and now they'll never amount to anything and mommy doesn't even bother to answer when they call anymore, and.....

OK, sorry. I just think that high-pass and low-pass are nice ways to acknowledge the frequencies that are doing the job without putting a spotlight on the ones that didn't make the cut.

On the contrary I think we should acknowledge the marginalized frequencies instead of the privileged ones. It doesn't feel right to disappear them twice over.

The frequencies being cut might be the lucky ones. They don't have to do as much work/use as much energy.

poles? where are the flags? cmon, this is 2021!!!

As far as I understand, the poles are related to the polynomial order of the filter's transfer function.

then call them frickin polynomials

get this shit sorted, or i will report you to the league!

[vurt]

I noticed that about so-called tremolo arms as well!

Leo Fender is a frickin' genius in every other respect so I guess we all just let it slide. He can call it whatever he likes. He's Leo Fender. I wonder if his employees gave him that blank look that you see on the faces at ILM when George Lucas was describing his ideas for the Phantom Menace. "Jar Jar is the key to all this..." *blank faces*

you talking about the "make it go out of tune stick"?

[pough]

you talking about the "make it go out of tune stick"?

The "make her warble stick"? No, that's called a Whammy.

[Unaspected]

Honestly, never. I haven’t loaded the wrong filter for what I want to do.

Same. Maybe it's easier for those who work with audio every day? Though the terminology makes perfect sense to me - also, that's just how it is: No room for doubt if you never question. So for those who do work with audio every day but still stumble over this from time to time, there might have been some questioning as to the terminology when it was first encountered.

Well, maybe using terms like high-cut and low-cut are offensive to some people because they demean the frequencies that are being left out, as if they're not good enough, as if their parents failed miserably and now they'll never amount to anything and mommy doesn't even bother to answer when they call anymore, and.....

OK, sorry. I just think that high-pass and low-pass are nice ways to acknowledge the frequencies that are doing the job without putting a spotlight on the ones that didn't make the cut.

On the contrary I think we should acknowledge the marginalized frequencies instead of the privileged ones. It doesn't feel right to disappear them twice over.

The frequencies being cut might be the lucky ones. They don't have to do as much work/use as much energy.

poles? where are the flags? cmon, this is 2021!!!

As far as I understand, the poles are related to the polynomial order of the filter's transfer function.

then call them frickin polynomials

get this shit sorted, or i will report you to the league!

Well no. They are poles within the polynomials - from which the order is derived. The polynomial describes the transfer function of the filter.

Though "polynomial" is fun and pleasing to say. Many engineers refer simply to the rolloff per octave of the filter instead, which probably has a more obvious musical use.

But yeah, it's mathematics that you need to aim your fury at in this case. Though the term "poles" make sense when you visualise them - then, "zeros" might make less sense.

[cryophonik]

Getting a little back on topic, the one thing that's always been a little curious to me is the term "filter" or "filtering" when referring to EQs. To me, filtering implies removing something, in this case, audio frequencies. Well, what if we use a band to boost frequencies, how is that filtering? That's the equivalent of saying "let's dig a mountain" or something. Makes no sense and I think we should find the person who first used that terminology and give him a sweeping high-cut upside the noggin.