Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt  My own tests concluded that I can get most minimum phase EQs sounding equal down to around -80 dBFS something if I tweak to 0.01 decimals. |
The residual difference is undoubtedly due to variations in internal architecture, leading to different residual errors at the output. From the standpoint of user-accessible controls, both EQ's are probably attempting to do the same thing, but one is doing it more perfectly than the other. Still, the differences are very small, and probably only a mastering engineer would care. For day-to-day mixing, the EQ's are basically equivalent, and you should pick whichever one is more comfortable to use.
Now if you begin to use extreme settings, you may find that the two EQ's in question behave rather more differently. That's when internal architecture starts to matter, because some internal nodes may operate at considerably more gain than is seen at the output, and limitations on internal precision may become audible when Q and/or Gain are pushed to extremes.
Earlier you wrote:
Quote:
How about filtering ringing, which can differ even with minimum phase equalizers?
How can they sound the same if the filter ringing is so different?
|
In this case, you have two EQ's that aren't set the same, whatever the markings on the user controls say. An ideal EQ is a linear device, and if it is minimum phase then there is a one-to-one correspondence between impulse response and frequency response. So if you see that the impulse response is different, then so is the frequency response.
Why wasn't the difference audible in your case? Well, maybe the extra "hang-over" in the impulse response was masked by something else in the music. Or (if you were actually listening to the test signal), maybe the difference was simply below your psychoacoustic "just noticeable difference limen".
David L. Rick