Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
We had a very thought provoking discussion at NAMM with Henry Juszkiewicz, Gibson CEO about how much more important the lower frequencies were rather than the HF that people obsess about. He's really clued in to this stuff and approaches it from a perspective that factors in the physiology of the human ear.

I had to laugh since I threw this out way back in this thread someplace and it got trundled. Not only do the Fletcher–Munson curves show you need a pretty wild gain to perceive the high frequencies in the first place, but as people age they started getting "deafer than a fencepost" above 16kHz anyway (not to mention the added element of what something is played on).
 
On the flip side, I love this FabFilter Pro-Q video just because the narrator uses the term "low frequency rubbish" several times (the stuff people can and will hear readily, regardless of age).
 
It is amazing how people can argue the crap out of a part of a system, and totally ignore the part of the system that makes that debate carry weight (or not). Machines and science do not hear... the human ear hears!

SilkTone
Very few people would own speakers that can recreate subsonic frequencies to the extent that they can be "felt", so I wonder if it is even something worth worrying about at all?

I half typed out a post touching on that, but it's late, after a week of long days, and I've had a drink, so I don't think I can do it justice. But to give a rough outline... I think pragmatic mixing takes into account the human ear, of course, but it also takes into account real world playback systems.
 
In reality, almost no playback systems actually achieve "sub sonic", ie: "can't be heard by the ear". Maybe certain very big and very good live and club rigs. But not what we commonly call "sub-woofers", to any relevant degree.
 
 

mettelus
I had to laugh since I threw this out way back in this thread someplace and it got trundled. Not only do the Fletcher–Munson curves show you need a pretty wild gain to perceive the high frequencies in the first place, but as people age they started getting "deafer than a fencepost" above 16kHz anyway (not to mention the added element of what something is played on).

I do a test on this about once a year, and at the age of 41, I'm currently doing ok up to about 17.5k, which I gather makes me genuinely lucky and privileged.
 
Warming to the theme of practical mixing, really most of what's going on above 15k is pretty nasty. The old RIAA vinyl mastering standard was simply to cut above 15k, with a brutally steep filter. OH NOES, THAT MUST MEAN VINYL RECORDS SOUNDED DULL. Or maybe it tells us something else.

Bah - The Evil Clown Consortium Sez:
 
You don't need to record ultrasonics - just their products which lie in the audible range, which any 20-20K mic does, well, quite fine.
 
If you digitally produce 31K and 32K tones, just fake it with a 1 K tone at -145db.... 

I'm going to ramble a bit more on that high end point, feel free to ignore me.
 
One of the big A-HA! moments for novice mixers, I think, is when they realise that just brutally high-passing all of the mud out of most of your tracks makes your mixes instantly better. Certainly, this is one of the most commonly discussed Gearslutz Pro Tipz.
 
Then, they progress a bit, and get a bit more nuanced about that, of course. But still, it's a valid insight. Get rid of stuff that's not helping.
 
What's surprising to me is how rarely people seem to talk about low passing, or cutting the highs on given sounds. If everything is bright, then you're in for an ear-piercing 20-car-pileup horrorshow in the high end. Lots and lots of high end energy is aesthetically displeasing to almost everyone, and doesn't aid clarity; quite the opposite.
 
 
 
 

Soon, someone will want the speed of HDMI - 600MHz.
Handle 8 channels at least if not more, and really fly from the connection on your computer to your speakers or HDTV in this case.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
 Version of HDMI:
8 channel LPCM, 192 kHz, 24-bit audio capabilityYesYesYesYesYesYes
 
Ssssppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddd!
Nothing less will do!
 

If your camera doesn't capture gamma rays, your photographs are a joke.

John T
What's surprising to me is how rarely people seem to talk about low passing, or cutting the highs on given sounds. If everything is bright, then you're in for an ear-piercing 20-car-pileup horrorshow in the high end. Lots and lots of high end energy is aesthetically displeasing to almost everyone, and doesn't aid clarity; quite the opposite.

Absolutely. The "ear-piercing 20-car-pileup horrorshow in the high end" is a pretty accurate analogy! Craig had posted advice in his thread on using amp sims regarding that issue (low pass the signal around 5K or so before feeding it to them). As I get more hands-on experience with mixing, the "effective" frequency range of different instruments becomes very apparent (requiring filters on both ends).

An instructive exercise is to load up a final commercially released track, that you think sounds great, and stick a low  pass filter on it. Set it playing, and roll the filter up and down the frequency range. You'll hear a difference immediately, as soon as you're cutting anything, but stick with it and take your time. Roll it down to say 18k, and have a full listen through. Then roll it down to maybe 15k and have a full listen through. Give yourself time to really soak up what you're hearing.
 
I'm not suggesting that thoughtlessly cutting all the high stuff is a good methodology; it's not. But training your ears in how much of significance is up there is a worthwhile exercise.
 
It's also counter-intuitive. I often find myself cutting a lot of high end from the drum overheads (which you'd assume to keep the high end of), and letting the guitars (which you'd assume to be more mid range) run rampant, for example. We're not in the business of making things sound perfect in solo, we're in the business of creating a listenable and engaging mix.

See my forthcoming book "Mixing For Dogs".