plug-in eq - do i need linear phase? or stick with waves q10?

[acorneau]

Most professional ME's (myself included) do NOT default to linear-phase EQ, and in fact some of us never use a LP-EQ at all.

(The fact that many of us use analog EQ's the most is another kettle of fish best left for other discussions.)

[Strut78]

It really depends on the application, I generally use eqs that can be switched between linear and minimum phase for Mastering. The sonoris mastering eq is awesome as you can switch individual bands between mid/side or stereo operation and between linear or minimum phase.

[GJ999x]

Thanks both - coincidentally i was just checking out the sonoris as you replied. Expensive but nice.

I'm happy to stick with the waves q-10 unless anyway has a good technical case that a linear phase eq... does it really make no difference? There's a fabfilter tutorial on youtube where the sweep the freq. using non-linear phase and it sounds a little resonance-ey, so they switch to linear-phase mode.... is that just marketing / specific to the fabfilter product? I have trouble seeing why eq-phase would not be a concern on channels/tracks, but would be a concern on the mixbuss,.....?

[Waltz Mastering]

Pretty sure the Q10 was one of the first parametric EQ plugs to come out (1992?) although it must have been updated some. If you have the Waves Renaissance Eq (REQ 6) maybe give that one a try.

[MixBuss]

Although they all do the same function, equalizers have characters, just like us. Some time you are aiming for an aggressive character like the massive passive, other times you need something transparent like some GML units, the phase relation between the circuit's input and output is one of the main factors of a units transfer function. Just like frequency response, it defines the character. I believe this applies to digital domain plugins too, since most of them were programmed to emulate real units.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by MixBuss

Although they all do the same function, equalizers have characters, just like us. Some time you are aiming for an aggressive character like the massive passive, other times you need something transparent like some GML units, the phase relation between the circuit's input and output is one of the main factors of a units transfer function. Just like frequency response, it defines the character. I believe this applies to digital domain plugins too, since most of them were programmed to emulate real units.

I think the case is that the majority of plug-ins were not designed to emulate hardware. When I've looked at them technically most have absolutely zero distortion and noise - not like hardware. Now, some are made to simulate actual units, with non-ideal behavior, but they are the minority.

The phase-response thing is a popular misunderstanding. As far as analog EQ goes, if the frequency response is the same the phase response must be the same.

In digital the phase and frequency response may be separated (or turned into a pure delay as in linear-phase) but normally they are connected.


DC

[MixBuss]

I found some articles on the subject.

http://theproaudiofiles.com/linear-p...imum-phase-eq/

http://www.theproducerschoice.com/bl...-eq-explained#

Cheers

[Sotsirc]

Originally Posted by MixBuss

I found some articles on the subject.

http://theproaudiofiles.com/linear-p...imum-phase-eq/

http://www.theproducerschoice.com/bl...-eq-explained#

Cheers

So lp-EQ's smear transients? I've heard the opposite. Must give it a try.

[Alexey Lukin]

The amount of smear is about the same, but linear-phase EQs put more of the smear in front of the transient, where it often becomes more audible.

[GJ999x]

Originally Posted by MixBuss

I found some articles on the subject.

Linear Phase vs. Minimum Phase EQ

Linear Phase EQ Explained

Cheers

Awesome. thank you

I have the waves renaissance and really like them but they're not surgical, and I think they're somewhat coloured too... i'm looking for absolutely as clean as possible.

I also have the waves puigtech, they've sounded good on the mixbus now and then but they're still coloured?...

[JohnnyReverb]

Originally Posted by GJ999x

Awesome. thank you

I have the waves renaissance and really like them but they're not surgical, and I think they're somewhat coloured too... i'm looking for absolutely as clean as possible.

I also have the waves puigtech, they've sounded good on the mixbus now and then but they're still coloured?...

they are not known for being transparent too :P take a look at the Sonnox EQ with its 4(5) modes. for maximum versatility dont hesitate to try the DMGaudio eQuality

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Pretty sure the Q10 was one of the first parametric EQ plugs to come out (1991) although it must have been updated some. If you have the Waves Renaissance Eq (Ren 6) maybe give that one a try.

Yes!

If the OP is stuck with using Waves plugs,

then avoid the Q10 & the LPhase and go for the Renaissance.

Actually sounds pretty musical, and the GUI is easy.

It was a game changer for me back in the 90s.

Best, JT

p.s. My first choice these days for ITB EQ is the Flux Epure II.

[DanDan]

If the Eq plug in is being used in Parallel Processing, I guess LF would be an advantage.

DD

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin

The amount of smear is about the same, but linear-phase EQs put more of the smear in front of the transient, where it often becomes more audible.

Always more audible, as the ear masks sounds that follow a transient, not precede it.


DC

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by MixBuss

I found some articles on the subject.

Linear Phase vs. Minimum Phase EQ

The comments about that article have more useful information than the article itself.

Linear Phase EQ Explained

I still want to know where the mistaken notion that linear-phase is primarily used in mastering came from, as I've yet to meet or hear of anyone that uses it that way.


DC

[Alexey Lukin]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Always more audible, as the ear masks sounds that follow a transient, not precede it.

Ear masks both pre- and post-smearing, but post- is masked stronger. The least audibility of smearing is actually achieved by filters with an intermediate phase response, i.e. those "between" linear and minimum phase.

[GJ999x]

Thanks guys - will keep following this debate despite it being a tad beyond me!

Doesnt the renaissance add subtle distortion etc., stuff that I wouldnt want added to every mix? Its much more fun to use and i have more affection for it than Q10 (which I doubt does much that logic's channel eq doesnt).

Should i not fear it doing minor things that cheapen the mix that i might not initially notice (much like the transient issue you talk about - i wasnt even aware!)

Thanks for your time here, soo good to come here and learn rather than bitch about ... all that stuff in the other threads. If i was aware of a much newer transparent eq for under £100/$150 i'd probably go for it tonight... i may end up spending more in any case...

[DanDan]

Way back Lupo made the point that the 'sound' of LP, i.e. the preringing was something that might be relatively inaudible on a casual listen. But once the ear/brain learned the sound, it was instantly recognisable.
Struck a chord with me, I have never been able to listen to LP without those words ringing in my ears since...LOL

I was initially seduced by the great clarity of one Eq when in LP mode.
However, now I use it in MP mode. Still a great Eq.

Another Eq came my way. Sonoris Mastering Eq, the name of which is a bit suggestive.....
The LP in this one seems simply better than the other attempts. I hear the LP clarity without sonic drawback. I often have to switch down to the MP versions (selectable per band) due to RTAS instability issues. Still sounds great at those settings, but I think I would use LP whenever ultimate transparency was my desire, if it was stable.
I have listened to a few others. Nothing else came close, so these comments are intended to have that unique context.

DD

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin

Ear masks both pre- and post-smearing, but post- is masked stronger. The least audibility of smearing is actually achieved by filters with an intermediate phase response, i.e. those "between" linear and minimum phase.

While louder sounds mask quieter ones, I've found that one of the major failings of pure linear-phase implementations is the audibility of the pre-ringing.

Once you hear it, you hear it everywhere LP is used.

Although I've never tried an intermediate response version.

It would be interesting to imagine a record made completely with LP processing. You'd have to leave a 5 second gap before the downbeat.



DC

[Huntley Miller]

Originally Posted by dcollins

The comments about that article have more useful information than the article itself.

DC

Which is often times the case on that site...

[Alexey Lukin]

Originally Posted by dcollins

While louder sounds mask quieter ones, I've found that one of the major failings of pure linear-phase implementations is the audibility of the pre-ringing. Once you hear it, you hear it everywhere LP is used.

I thought that pre-ringing would only be audible for very steep filters or at low frequencies. Do you hear it even for moderate filters? In Ozone 5's Mixed-phase EQ mode you can adjust the phase response of a filter while keeping all other things equal. It's a nice playground for listening to pre- and post-ringing.

[huejahfink]

I really like LP for mid/side work, and also for tonal shifts in the mid/tops.
Sometimes I want the more obvious "transient pushing" from a regular EQ, other times I prefer the slightly softer feel of the LP - great for 'air' for example.

I wouldn't want to work without having the option to be honest.

[Alécio Costa]

Frankly, I have not heard all these problems people mentioned.

I use PSP Neon HR in M-S mode and it sounds pretty good.

[ciro]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

I really like LP for mid/side work, and also for tonal shifts in the mid/tops.

Voxengo Marvel (LP) is my "go to" eq for Mid/side. It works better than MP for this purpose , imhe.

Ciro

[GJ999x]

Originally Posted by ciro

Voxengo Marvel (LP) is my "go to" eq for Mid/side. It works better than MP for this purpose , imhe.

Ciro

ummm... i was going to make a minor complaint about the gui... i then realised it's a free plugin?!? What are voxengo up to??

[huejahfink]

Originally Posted by ciro

Voxengo Marvel (LP) is my "go to" eq for Mid/side. It works better than MP for this purpose , imhe.

Ciro

I'm on the Algorithmix Red myself, but I will have a look at this Marvel for sure. The Red is stunning but it's a real OX on the processing and has a massive delay, so it rarely gets used in mixing situations.

Edit - ah, it's a fixed band graphic.... maybe not then...

[flatfinger]

from ;
http://www.digido.com/audio-faq.html

here's a summary: When you boost or cut a minimum phase equalizer band (standard equalizer, one that shifts phase), the instrument or instruments in that frequency range tend to move forward (or backward, respectively) in the soundstage at the same time you boost (or cut). The soundstage tends to "smear". This can either be very useful, or else very distracting. The phase change is a very subtle time shift proportional to the boost or cut. Thus, minimum phase (abbreviated MP) tends to sound "more aggressive and more strongly effective", perhaps also due to the phase distortion or other apparent distortion. Never underestimate the power of distortion to add a sense of clarity or even depth to the sound.

However, when you boost (or cut) a linear phase equalizer, the original depth is retained, nothing moves forward or backward in the soundstage, but the frequency range itself is emphasized or reduced. Linear phase tends to sound "smoother and rounder and subtler", perhaps also because of a reduction in transient response (which reduction does not occur to the same extent
for all models of LP (linear phase) equalizers). In other words, regardless which model of equalizer you use, there is always a tradeoff. The tradeoff with the LP equalizer is also time-related, but instead of a time shift, it produces a dispersion of the signal in time, producing a subtly audible loss of transient response due to the addition of very low level echoes (not audible as echos per se). This dispersion is worse with a bell curve than with a shelf because the time dispersion is on both sides of the bell and only on one side of the shelf. The steeper the curve (higher the Q) the more the time dispersion.

There is no right or wrong. Linear phase is more significant with already-mixed material, and less important during mixing. If you are equalizing an individual instrument in a mixing situation I don't think the differences or advantages/disadvantages of linear phase will be that obvious or even useful, but in mastering the differences are more obvious. Some people are entirely adverse to the linear phase and others like it a lot. It's CPU-intensive to make a good-sounding linear phase and there may only be one plugin that I find transparent enough to recommend, the Algorithmix Red.

Hope this helps,

Bob

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

from ;
Audio FAQ

I have to say some of that doesn't even make sense, let alone agree with the experience of many engineers.

The "There is no right or wrong." part I guess I'm ok with, though.


DC

[EVREST]

Simply linear phase eq is for gaining or reducing with transparency