Originally Posted by pitviper33
I see two questions there. The first is why content is filtered. The second is a proposed answer from him, formed as another question.
See the ""it" in the second sentence? It refers to the first sentence. It is not a new question.
I vote we let the question that started all this be done at this point.
Fine with me. You are the one who stepped in whist I was awaiting to hear back from the OP. No progress can be made on the OP's question until he clarifies it. That is exactly where we started.
Happen to remember where you posted that info? I've read a thread or two about it, but I don't know if I ever saw a nice conclusion.
See this post
and this one
Okay, it makes perfect sense why unintended infrasonic content should be removed. But why was unintended infrasonic content there in the first place?
Because mics have better hearing than people. They pick up stuff we do not notice.
Depending of course on the recording environment, shouldn't noise unrelated to the scene (infrasonic or otherwise) be pretty minimal?
People have gotten sick working in an office where the AC units shook the ceiling <10 Hz but no one knew why until spectral analysis was conducted. That same noise shows up in production sound.
Applying a blanket HPF to everything seems a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water doesn't it?
Aside from M&C, who said a blanket HPF is applied?
The impact (no pun intended) of infrasonic cues to the realism of the playback experience is quite obvious. I can't believe that those creating the recordings or mixes at any stage are unaware of it.
It depends on what constitutes cues and realism. Can you give an example where infrasonics made an obvious difference in realism?
I do not find most movie theaters using gear that can reproduce infrasonic bass. Most movie soundtracks are fabricated, not to document reality, but to create a convincing illusion when reality cannot be depicted.Edited by Roger Dressler - 11/17/12 at 4:42pm